ah, the all right, that's all for now, but coming up next is doc film with the great wheat debate, looking at how different humans really are from the animals we eat. and if remember, if you want more news, you can always go to our website. that's d, w dot com. and of course you can also visit all of our social media channels where our handle and the handle you need is after you news. i'm here until cumberland. thanks for watching. ah ah, every jenny is full of surprises. we've gone all out. you've used them one day and in the foot of the rigby home. i'm in your northern most count,

please. ah, brain one still very much alive, dw channel, your guy to the special with recognizes where exactly. it was fun. i've learned a lot our culture history, all their d. w. travel extremely worth a visit. ah, imagine intelligent aliens, discover earth were incomplete all at the elegance of their language, their art, technology, and their wisdom. but shortly after they arrive, the aliens begin to put us in the cramped stalls. they forced females to breed.

take their babies away and drink their milk. they force us to eat from morning tonight so that we're so fat that even as children we can't stand on our own. finally, as teenagers were cornered off to factories to be slaughtered on a simply lines, we protest, but the aliens don't understand our outrage. they're far too intellectually superior, and they like the way we taste. of course, we wouldn't agree with the aliens behavior, but would it be morally wrong? ah,

when we get into the heavens, we might sometimes wonder how our actions will be perceived throughout eternity. some people would think that the question of what is right or wrong is entirely subjective. that it's up to me. what i think is right or wrong is what concent. you might have some completely different view and we just exchanging preferences. just like maybe you like indian food and i prefer chinese food. i don't believe that that's true. peter, singer at princeton university is one of the most influential philosophers today in i believe that there is scope for reason, an argument in discussing ethics. and at the very least that there are people, many people who hold positions that they haven't thought of that haven't reflected on. and that when they do reflect on it, they find that many of their beliefs not really consistent me. peter singers,

world view centers on the doctrine of utilitarianism. it is trying to why the net balance of pleasure versus pain, or happiness versus suffering and to maximize that. so the right action for utilitarian is the action that has the best consequences for all of those affected and best consequences here means promoting the greatest amount of well being for all of those effect. oh, if we took a utilitarian perspective and had to decide between several possible actions, we would have to consider how each will affect the happiness of all those involved . let's say we're expecting 10 guests for dinner. 3 of them like roast beef 7 like chicken. what should we cook. ringback as a doctor, should we give friends to other doctors in

a disaster so that we can work together to save more people? whoa, should we hope the tobacco lobbyist who asks for directions to the german parliament, even if he is likely to cause great social hon? would the extra office time he gains? by getting there quickly? as utilitarians, we calculate what each possible action would contribute to the total happiness in the universe. then we choose the one that maximizes sick i. we direct the lobbyist to the woods, prioritize the other doctor, and naturally we'd make chicken. oh, that's the way you to lou terry in his works. but peter singer has taken it a step further. he asks, what about the interests of the chicken candour, the line between the species? because i don't believe that species is itself

a morally relevant criterion. if we look back in time, we can see how the concept of a species has no clear boundary. imagine you take your mother by the hand and she takes her mother's hand and her mother takes her mother's hand back through the family tree. you follow it down for thousands and millions of years and there's a chimpanzee somewhere in africa doing the same thing. he takes his mother's hand and the mother takes her mother's hand back him to the past and to you, find a common mother. the chain of human beings and primates would be about 1000 kilometers long. you and the chimpanzee, or distant cousins, reaching out to each other across the ages. if species were a moral boundary, then at some point there would be a mother and a child. one would be human and the other animal. one would be our moral equivalent and the other, not at all. ah,

we humans are far closer to a chimpanzee vantage. and pansy is it even to a dog let alone to an oyster or something that's not even a veteran. but our legal system traditionally recognizes only one distinction in the animal kingdom, homo sapiens, and everyone else. here are choices. i could sit here in the witness blocks and the metaphor is that i'm a witness testifying for animals, gary francy own is professor of law and philosophy or i could sit here in the jury box. i'm one of the jurors, or he pioneered teaching animal rights in the 1980s. i could sit up here where the judges sit. these closely examined the history of the relationship between animals and the law. your choice. in the west,

before the 900 century animals were largely excluded from the moral and legal community altogether, they were regard this things. today. many countries have animal protection laws. they forbid causing animals unnecessary suffering. the thing is, is that because animals are property, our moral thinking is tremendously skewed in a very bizarre, weird directions. jerry french own, explains what he sees as a contradiction in animal protection law. knowing that the laws that provide for the protection of animals are interpreted in a way that reflect their proper, their status is channel property. it, it means in essence that the laws can't really apply to them in a meaningful way because the laws don't permit us to look at use. 2 the concept of property means that the owner is able to use it,

but they can't without violence. if a person wants to keep livestock, the animals must be confined and those who want to eat animals must kill them. oh. then the only question becomes, is the treatment necessary given uses that may not be necessary because the reality is we don't need to eat animals by declaring animals as property. the law puts economic interests in competition with animal interest. that's why we accept that female pigs can be left in narrow cages for weeks. and that 23 hands can live in one square meter and turkeys who are so over fed. they can't stand up. we cut off the pigs tails, and turkey's beaks. we separate newborn camps from their mothers and simply accept that pigs in stock yards scream for their lives before their slaughtered weep,

cept it all because we have to in order to use animals effectively. so what does it mean to say we should inflict unnecessary suffering on food animals? what does that mean? it means that we shouldn't inflict unnecessary unnecessary suffering on animals. we shouldn't inflict gratuitous suffering on animals. the laws assume that institutionalized exploitation is a legitimate exercise of property rights. so what you end up with are cases where kids are lighting dogs on fire cats and microwave ovens those of death. that's what you have for an animal cruelty. i have a safe week, every body. frenzy own says there's only one way to end the routine torture of livestock animals need rights. i subscribe to a right position. that is, i'm not

a utilitarian. and i believe that all sentient beings have the right not to be regarded as property. me. he believes in alter the rights and responsibilities that always apply in d and tom g. the ethics of duty and obligation, there is no wing the good and bad consequences of an action. instead, there are universal laws that all reasonable beings in the universe can agree on. that shall francy only differs from peter singer and his utilitarianism. people who think that humans have rights and also those you think that animals have, i'd say there are some things that you must never do to a human no matter what the consequences. so a difference in the kinds of humans might be supposed that a terrorist had he put a nuclear bomb in the center of new york. and the only way you could find the bomb in time to disarm it would be to torture the terrorist? well, i really strict human rights advocate would say torture is wrong. we never have

a ride to torture. it's all, it's always a violation of human. right? utilitarian would say, if you've tried everything else, and this is the only way to stop the nuclear bomb going off in the center of new york, you would be justified in torturing the terrorist. oh, hugely, cherry and his him in d on tom, a g r to the most important schools of font with an ethical philosophy. often they result in opposite conclusions. someone basing their choice on the ethics of responsibility would treat and injured dr. first, even if that meant you'd say fewer people, deonte ologist would show the tobacco lobby is the way to parliament. because telling people that truth is a fixed rule. but when it comes to eating animals, both schools of thought have come to the same conclusion. the only real instance in which we'd have a debate would be about the use of animals in biomedical research to cure serious

human illnesses where there is a real conflict. that's the only situation in which there is a plausible conflict that would justify using and killing animals. and so in a sense, we engage in what we suffer from. what i call moral skits freeney. and i'm using that literally. i'm saying it's, it's sort of like a moral version of classical delusional. thinking on one hand, we all except that animals matter morally, no doubt about that. we accepted the matter morally and we have moral obligations that we owe directly to them to treat them humanely into not inflict anesur suffering. but yet we all engage are most of us engage in behaviors which are inconsistent with that. so you'll have a situation where tonight, so many people will be watching this documentary. and who believe that they believe that it's wrong when flicked unnecessary, suffering on animals. and while they're watching your documentary, they're going to be eating, they're meet and their fish and their chicken, and in

a drinking their milk and eating their eggs. which is bizarre when you think about it, they don't need to be doing that. and if they really believed what they say, they believe they wouldn't be doing any of that. does more reflection inevitably lead to the conclusion that we must do without animal products entirely? the common starting premise is that animals like us are 17th. but what do we actually know about the inner life of animals, which many of us eat every day? ah, for 5 weeks are extremely clever. they can learn all sorts of things. university researcher, sarah windsor, is analyzing the emotions of livestock in vienna, lima. as you see, they have funding all sorts of things, especially getting into miss you. she wants to understand their inner live sas of a think. and most important thing is that we ask questions in a way that can be understood in

a picky way. so until i religous find the death function in the experiment, the pigs ring bells open doors and push buttons point with i think we're trying to draw conclusions about the animals emotions from their behavior, physiology, and cognition of the pig solve complex problems. they're able to learn what happens behind each door and differentiate between long and short sounds. yes. oh, thank. good. thank cushion, seeking one to some very alice fine. and these are actually pigs that relate to be fat and slaughtered and the meat sold. all that also quite relevant for us. you also see that these animals have such a rich repertoire of behaviors they can learn and we see what types of personalities they have her on that no peak is like another. another does kind family does and that you can tell them apart from their character. don't worry

about the animals have names, harmon, the doctor, the doctoral candidates work with him every day and they really know them on and that's not easy. and we talk about it a lot to read now surf it are we were and it works for me personally, for example, as because we are hoping to generate data and knowledge that will actually help a very large group of animals all the lesser until of his me and it's not just peaks or surprisingly like us, many farm animals have astonishingly complex in her lives. chickens are able to add up to 5. sheep can distinguish between photographs of different people. researchers have even been able to demonstrate that cows actually experience joy when they learned something new. the basic hypothesis of animal ethics that animals have feelings and interests can hardly be rationally denied.

but where do we draw the line to mushrooms, maybe have mines or bacteria or plants if the organism or an entity has it, then it is something, it's like to be that entity. evolutionary biologist, john mallet, is focused precisely on the distinction between the sentiment and non santian world . the function of consciousness is to take many types of sensory information from all our senses and assembling that into a map picture of the world. sort of a simulated theater of the mind. john mallet has examined countless brains. from this he developed his theory of the formation of consciousness. he says that anyone who wants to understand why feeling came into the world, needs to take a trip back in time to our plan,

its ancient history to the early cambrian period. the story starts out a little over a half a 1000000000 years ago with c. scott, potion floor, it's called a microbial mac. these microbial mats are made up of bacteria and algae, a layer of one celled organisms like a giant green carpet of, on the seafloor. it was maybe this thick on all the shalysea floors on earth interest, a tremendous nutrient source, a tremendous food source. the 1st animals existed at this time, but we wouldn't recognize them as animals today. some of them were really bizarre, anchored to the mat and then they were like sheep like leaves. but the ones we're most interested in here is worms. there were so many different kinds of worms, as we see by their warm trails. it was even called a warm world. there's

a big difference between this world world and today's animal kingdom. there apparently was no predation at all. it was a world without claws and teeth and the worms as the most active animals at the time to seem perfectly happy and satisfied with their rich buffet of their food source of the microbial mat. and then everything changed. the 1st worms began to eat one another. it was probably just as simple as one species of worm, starting with scavenging, finding a half rotten piece of worm in finding that is a really rich nutrient source. and then to specialize, odd eating other living worms of other species. that's how these worms, more or less by accident became the world's 1st meat eaters. and with that,

it's set off a huge competition, a huge competitive cambrian arms raised at dynamic speeds. it took a few 1000000 years. the hunted animals developed diverse strategies to protect themselves from predators. shellfish came into existence. worms learned to bury themselves in the sand, but the most interesting counter strategy against predation was fast escape. up to this point, life on earth followed a slow rhythm of growth just as plants do today. but if you wanted to respond to threaten real time, then you had to be able to accurately perceive the world around you. that led to the evolution of camera image forming highs, where they could see the predators coming real sensitive skin where they could feel vibrations from predators coming or for a really great sense of smell. so they could smell that in predators in the area

and could be, could becoming the most decisive factor for successful escape was knowing that predators could still be there even when sensors didn't perceive them. at that moment, the inner stage was born, and with it consciousness, the predators were evolving in the same way. in order to catch the pray and pray that had well or pray that moved away fast. the predators also had evolved image forming camera eyes. so they could see their whole environment just like the pray could. they could build this theater stage of the mind that i told you about. and along with consciousness, came feelings, giving significance to the impressions on the enter stage. if there's a big, big, dangerous predator coming suddenly, that gets assigned lapse and lives of a poor importance in the report and ranking of all the things on our theater stage . from an evolutionary standpoint, feelings exist primarily to save us from being eaten animals talented and

perceiving pain and fear prevail. the tax on that was best at escaping the predators was our own ancestors. the 1st vertebrates, the, the 1st fish ah, all of the vertebrates of today descended from these 1st flight animals, fish and vivian's reptiles, birds, and mammals. and the 1st the predators turned into the answer prod, since a followup odds of to day insect spiders. crabs and octopuses had the 1st predators as their ancestors. and we're linked to all of them by the magical capability of feeling. but that would mean for, for all the other organisms, the lights are out, there's nothing, it's like to be them. so a line can actually be drawn, there is life without consciousness, plants, and funky and perhaps worms, muscles or jelly fish,

their movements or just reflexes because they're unable to feel any. think what we do to them doesn't matter to them. and there are animals that can suffer animals like us and the ones we eat. if we want to avoid inflicting suffering, that it makes an enormous difference. which beings we choose to eat for nourishment . doesn't that say it all from a moral standpoint? ah. oh, visitors to new orleans, louisiana, and observe an extremely rare species dance. she har is a philosopher who argues in favor of eating meat. it's so easy to make bad arguments here, like you've heard bad arguments and there at the tip of your tongue. you know,

this is tasty, so therefore i should eat it. and that's not a good argument. we need to, to take this a lot more seriously. if we're going to formulate a genuine defense of this practice that most people engage and every day his argument starts at the supermarket, the hidden one. i think that might be our winner. i'm sure. for him, there's a difference between buying a pork shoulder to barbecue with neighbors, and being responsible for the conditions in which an animals kept and killed a how the impact of one sale is so small. it hardly makes a difference. a grocer can't afford to make their decisions about what items to stock in a way that would be sensitive to whether or not one person decides to have you know, toefl for dinner tonight or pork chops. he sees vegetarianism as

a type of activism but he says the vegetarian behavior will only have an effect when many people take it up. but even if you think that individuals don't make a really tangible difference, it's surely the case that the vegetarian movement overall is making that kind of impact. we should celebrate them. we should applaud them. to the extent i disagree with vegetarians, it is mainly because better parents often think that it's wrong not to be a vegetarian. and that's the thing i don't think is right. there are a tremendous number of really important problems in the world that are crying out for people to tackle them. and my view is just that, it's okay for people to focus on some of them and, you know, except that they're not going to tackle every problems. that's the central point of

shars argument. one person alone can not be active in all social movements at the same time. that's why no one is obligated to take part in a certain movement just as we don't need everybody to be hospital nurses. just as we don't need everybody to be farmers right. we don't need everybody to be the same kind of active. what we need are activists of many kinds tackling many different kinds of problems and collectively working to make the world a better place. shars theses sound convincing a single purchase makes no difference. and not all people should commit to the same things. but what if we take those thoughts further? how would we answer pet of files who could make the very same argument that downloading a single image makes no difference at all. and then instead of supporting the rights of children, we should commit to another good cause can something that is morally wrong, really be so easily rationalized. eliminate,

plate hand may make it happen. what remains is more likely our admission that doing without animal products is harder for us than we wish it to be. but what would happen if you take taste out of the equation? researchers all over the world have long been looking for alternate ways for us to satisfy our appetite for, meet the a ah with

so india, you're just reducing the amount of water that sitting around and not reduce those amount of methane that's being produced in the field. a food staple in a climate killer,

asian rice farmers are conducting experiments with more environmentally friendly agricultural methods. the go in 15 minutes on d w. the only way i can be on the top is to create my own empire. discover stories with just to click away. majority of the destination with find out this documentary with a can entry. so i was just rescuing conduct from a farm. this one this body go with. i found it like this and i couldn't just leave it there. should meet ah, this is such a great burden. it was so dirty that cleaning it,

turn the entire bathroom into a matt. this is the water birds 1st as well. one of the most beautiful moments i've ever experienced a truth with a dock you series about our complex relationship with animals. well, i think i will live long enough to witness the end of factory farming. the great eat debate this week on d. w or ah . oh i'm an androgynous with

.