Psience Quest Interview No. 1: Titus Rivas

Titus, another set of related question for you if you're still around:

What's your position on the abolitionist versus welfarist controversy? And should we publicly praise companies that switch from cage eggs to free-range eggs? If not, what should our response to such a decision be?

I'm an abolitionist regarding animal exploitation, which means I can support steps on the way to abolition as long as they would not imply the prolongation of that exploitation. For instance, I applaud the development of technologies that could replace specific types of animal experimentation.
However, I don't support companies that produce any product which involves killing. I don't support the myth of humane meat or eggs, as there is no such thing as the humane killing of a healthy animal.

[Laird]

Excellent. And if you'll continue indulging me: what is your view on "laboratory meat"?

Excellent. And if you'll continue indulging me: what is your view on "laboratory meat"?

In principe, I have nothing against it, as long as they don't do any lethal animal experiments to test its safety or kill animals to obtain cells.

However, I do have mixed feelings, because as omnivores, we don't need meat, and the continuation of eating meat could, in theory, lead to emergency situations in which lab meat would temporarily not be available and they would start killing animals again.

Nonetheless, laboratory meat would doubtlessly be a huge improvement.

[Laird]

Thank you.

On a related note, I read in one of your articles that you don't think that veganism is necessarily healthier than the default diet. Do you think that those who promote veganism on the basis of health are doing the ethical cause a disservice?

And following on from that question: benefits to the environment are often cited as a reason to go vegan - do you support this sort of advocacy, or do you think that it (too?) is doing harm to ethical veganism?

Please let me know if you have had enough of being questioned - I don't really know what level of engagement you are up for.

Thank you.

On a related note, I read in one of your articles that you don't think that veganism is necessarily healthier than the default diet. Do you think that those who promote veganism on the basis of health are doing the ethical cause a disservice?

And following on from that question: benefits to the environment are often cited as a reason to go vegan - do you support this sort of advocacy, or do you think that it (too?) is doing harm to ethical veganism?

Please let me know if you have had enough of being questioned - I don't really know what level of engagement you are up for.

Interesting questions, Laird. I think I will respond to anything that I find relevant and interesting enough. 

I don't believe that all health vegans are doing the ethical cause a disservice. However, health veganism may sometimes be limited to nutrition, in which case it should not be called veganism. Also, some health vegans may spread disinformation about mainstream non-vegan nutrition being always very unhealthy, which might give veganism in general a bad, "unscientific" reputation. But apart from that, health veganism is not about ethical reasons for becoming a vegan, and as long as health vegans are real vegans (in practice, including clothing etc.) they are a positive phenomenon. 

Something similar can be said about ecological veganism. I do care about the environment, but I don't think veganism is indispensable to save it. It's simply a matter of reducing our ecological foot print, and in itself this could be compatible with low scale meat, eggs, or dairy production, especially if we limit or reduce the human population through birth control. But again, ecologically motivated veganism is not about the ethical treatment of animals. 

I do find it negative if all these reasons are lumped together, as if veganism were some kind of panacea, both for animal ethics, and for health, the environment, and world hunger. It obviously is not, and ethical veganism should be based on ethical reasons only (in the context of animal ethics).

[Laird]

I tend to agree that veganism should not be promoted as a panacea: that, to the random person on the street, is only going to provoke a skeptical response. Personally, I think that advocacy for veganism for health and environmental reasons is OK so long as it is clear that the ethical reasons for veganism are primary and that these are simply fortuitous ancillary reasons. But this interview isn't about me.

I will take this as a challenge: "I think I will respond to anything that I find relevant and interesting enough".

Emily from Bite-Sized Vegan once interviewed Gary Yourofsky, and one of the questions she asked him was: "What is the best argument against veganism?" His response? (paraphrased) "There is no such thing. None of the arguments against veganism have any legs at all".

I'd like to suggest that perhaps Gary was a little over-confident there, although, to be clear, I don't think that the argument I'm going to present makes any dent on the philosophical basis of veganism, only on the typical vegan diet.

Here's the argument: the cultivation and production of those foods on which veganism is based in our modern agricultural system entail animal deaths anyway, such that in pursuing that diet, vegans are not innocent of cruelty. Some of the ways in which plant agriculture kills animals are:

• "Pest" animals are poisoned to protect crops. This is particularly a problem in certain areas of Australia in which mice plagues occur on a semi-regular basis.
  
• Small animals, especially rodents, are killed in the course of harvesting certain crops, particularly grains.
  
• Pesticides are used to kill animals, especially insects.
  
• The manure of farmed animals is often used to fertilise crops.
  

What is your general (and specific, if you like) response to this argument?

I tend to agree that veganism should not be promoted as a panacea: that, to the random person on the street, is only going to provoke a skeptical response. Personally, I think that advocacy for veganism for health and environmental reasons is OK so long as it is clear that the ethical reasons for veganism are primary and that these are simply fortuitous ancillary reasons. But this interview isn't about me.

I will take this as a challenge: "I think I will respond to anything that I find relevant and interesting enough".

Emily from Bite-Sized Vegan once interviewed Gary Yourofsky, and one of the questions she asked him was: "What is the best argument against veganism?" His response? (paraphrased) "There is no such thing. None of the arguments against veganism have any legs at all".

I'd like to suggest that perhaps Gary was a little over-confident there, although, to be clear, I don't think that the argument I'm going to present makes any dent on the philosophical basis of veganism, only on the typical vegan diet.

Here's the argument: the cultivation and production of those foods on which veganism is based in our modern agricultural system entail animal deaths anyway, such that in pursuing that diet, vegans are not innocent of cruelty. Some of the ways in which plant agriculture kills animals are:

• "Pest" animals are poisoned to protect crops. This is particularly a problem in certain areas of Australia in which mice plagues occur on a semi-regular basis.
  
• Small animals, especially rodents, are killed in the course of harvesting certain crops, particularly grains.
  
• Pesticides are used to kill animals, especially insects.
  
• The manure of farmed animals is often used to fertilise crops.
  

What is your general (and specific, if you like) response to this argument?

Well, first of all, veganism is about the rejection of killing animals whenever we can avoid it. We can't avoid killing some insects that happen to fly into our mouths, for instance. And even I kill the fleas on my pets' fur, because they are harmful parasites. 
The physical world is not a perfect, ideal world, and this means we can't be perfect either. Ethical veganism is not about obsessive perfectionism (a few vegans may be obsessive, but not because they're vegans), but about abolishing the exploitation of animals.

As long as there can be alternatives for pesticides that would not kill but only deter animals, we should use or develop them.
Also, we should try to chase the small animals away before we harvest crops.
Finally, in vegan(ic) agriculture, they would not use manure of farmed animals anymore. See: https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2...rming.html

So, there is room for improvement, even though this doesn't mean all accidental killing can be eliminated. It still remains this imperfect physical reality. 

Anyway, this is not a serious argument against veganism, unless one wishes to abstain from eating food altogether  Not being a vegan would only involve more deaths and suffering of animals.

It's like arguing that precision 'bombing will often cause collateral damage so that we should simply bomb military targets and civilians indiscriminately. In certain situations, refraining from bombing altogether, is not a realistic option (obvious examples being WWII and ISIL/ISIS), and then we need to limit civilian casualties as much as we can. (The notion of an imperfect physical world for me also implies that strict pacificism is not a realistic option.)

[Laird]

You are being very generous with your time, Titus, so thank you for continuing to engage.

I'd like to bring the interview back to the primary topic of this forum: psi.

I wonder what you think of the notion that animals communicate with one another through telepathy, and that humans can communicate with animals in this way too. In particular, I am thinking of the work and claims of Anna Breytenbach, who became famous (at least in part) through this short clip released (or, at least, pirated, but I see with the later permission of the copyright holder) from the full-length video about her activities:

The incredible story of how leopard Diabolo became Spirit - Anna Breytenbach, "animal communicator".



P.S. If you haven't seen this video yet, keep a box of tissues handy.

You are being very generous with your time, Titus, so thank you for continuing to engage.

I'd like to bring the interview back to the primary topic of this forum: psi.

I wonder what you think of the notion that animals communicate with one another through telepathy, and that humans can communicate with animals in this way too. In particular, I am thinking of the work and claims of Anna Breytenbach, who became famous (at least in part) through this short clip released (or, at least, pirated, but I see with the later permission of the copyright holder) from the full-length video about her activities:

The incredible story of how leopard Diabolo became Spirit - Anna Breytenbach, "animal communicator".



P.S. If you haven't seen this video yet, keep a box of tissues handy.

Thanks for the video, which I hadn't seen yet. Really moving indeed. 

My position on animal telepathy is as follows: 

All sentient animals (including ourselves) are individual spiritual beings temporarily incarnated in physical organisms. In  the spiritual realm, where we come from, telepathy is the natural means of communication. For most or even all animals, some of this natural communication, remains available during physical life, albeit to lesser extent than over there. 

Apart from telepathy, there are species specific communication systems that make use of the sensory and motor apparatus of the physical body. 
I don't believe that animals ONLY communicate through telepathy, because that would mean their species specific communication systems would be entirely superfluous. 
I think it will be part telepathy and part communication via the body. 

Now, I do think that psi here on earth is to a large extent "blocked" by a general frame of reference or world view that does not include psi. This is probably one of the reasons why most adults aren't psychics. Human children and animals will usually be less motivated to ignore their psi experiences or explain them away. So I expect animals to make more use of telepathy than adult humans would.

For me, sentience is all or nothing. This is related to my definition of sentience, namely the presence of an inner life of subjective experiences. There can be all kinds of subjective experiences, but there either is such an inner life in a particular being, or there is not. If an animal is sentient, it may have periods of dreamless sleep, but it is impossible for it to have no subjectieve experiences at all.
So either a flea is sentient or it is not. They deserve the benefit of the doubt anyway.

My only problem with this, is that some people think sentience goes a very long way down - even to the level of a single cell:

http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehler/FRAME.HTM

The evidence on that website resonated with me, because I have wondered for a long time if cells need some sort of intelligence (implying consciousness) just to exist. I mean as a former chemist, I find it extraordinary that so many reactive chemicals can exist close together and not  produce immense quantities of bi-products.  I mean for comparison, in a typical multi-step organic synthesis, the required intermediate has to be isolated and purified at every step. Now even if the enzymes work perfectly, all those reactive intermediates are still knocking around in a little bag of fluid, with plenty of scope for mistakes!

I mean, put another way, where exactly does the magic of life start?

I don't mean to discuss this in terms of the morality of eating sentient cells - more in terms of what life really is.

David