Download MP3 · RSS · Subscribe via iTunes · Discuss

Digg · Facebook · del.icio.us · reddit · StumbleUpon

Ok… I just have to get this off my chest…

I was there when they interviewed him… Well, so were a lot of other people…

But less than one hour later I was also eating dinner with him in an Irish pub. Ha.

Anyway, yeah…

Somebody got their wish, eramusinfinity :grin:

Airing this now is great timing for PoI. This episode is definitely going to be a hit.

I have to listen from the PoI web site, it’s not downloading on my iTunes.

If it’s not downloading simply go to the POI site, click on XML FEED in the yellow bar below the episode blurb. On the page it leads you to right click the mp3 file to download (if you just click it it will open and play).

They have the interview posted on RichardDawkins.net.

I bet we have more presents coming from the AAI conference. 

Excellent interview, Richard is eloquent and communicates science probably better then anyone I am aware. Personally I hope Richard returns to putting science front and center now that so many people are really paying attention to him.

What I would like to understand a bit better is his thoughts on vegetarianism. If I am hearing him correctly he is saying that yes there is a certain moral argument to be made to become vegetarian which is based on current understandings of animals. Yet, he appears to then say what it will take for him to become a non-meat eater is a consensus since he already fully understands the moral arguments and agrees with them. It’s a slightly odd position that I find myself in also. But, clearly the choice is mine to eat meat knowing full well the arguments that Richard highlights. These ideas are not new by any means and I find it difficult to fully accept this idea that what would change my behavior is for me to convince others of the moral argument so there becomes a tipping point of people who will accept the argument and change their behavior which will then finally allow me to convince myself.

Welcome to the century of the moral arguments. Why not go all the way and stop eating DNA altogether? You can always munch on viruses, dirt, and red blood cells.

Welcome to the century of the moral arguments. Why not go all the way and stop eating DNA altogether? You can always munch on viruses, dirt, and red blood cells.

It’s strange in a way because I keep coming back to this “is-ought” problem when talking about morals, ethics. Ever since I heard Sam Harris say that not only is the is-ought problem a myth but we can apply oughts to “happiness” (contentment etc.) I can’t help but think this issue is more spongy then just making the claim as fact. Looking at the moral argument for vegetarianism as an evolutionary understanding we are faced with an “ought”. I ought not eat meat because I recognize the moral dilemma of killing and eating other animals. So, as human animals we ought not eat meat.

Ok… I just have to get this off my chest…

I was there when they interviewed him… Well, so were a lot of other people…

But less than one hour later I was also eating dinner with him in an Irish pub. Ha.

Anyway, yeah…

1. What did you have to eat? 
2. Any comments on the response of other attendees?

Excellent interview, Richard is eloquent and communicates science probably better then anyone I am aware. Personally I hope Richard returns to putting science front and center now that so many people are really paying attention to him.

What I would like to understand a bit better is his thoughts on vegetarianism.....

I agree with Zarcus—thanks to D.J. for getting this interview and keeping us up to date on Dawkins.
I will have to play the interview again, but I have these points in mind:
1. D.J. I think the God Delusion was perfectly fine without needing an additional section on what to do with your life once you realize that there isn’t a God—how will you make moral decisions, how will you fill the void, etc.  I think this is baloney and I’m sorry Dawkins didn’t say so. It’s like Dorothy and Ruby Slippers—you always had the power and the responsibility yourself.

2. I think ending with this vegetarian stuff is NOT the way to close out the interview. It leaves people thinking about that and not whatever Dawkins was really saying through most of the interview.  I thought his response was confusing (I basically agree with Zarcus) and I think the thought experiment that “imagine if all the missing links that ever exist were here—would we behave differently” is a false analogy. Completely false. For me though I started thinking “wow! I wonder why the missing links ARE missing—why is that? why does that always happen?” and this sort of distracted me.
I wrote more and then erased it because I think just discussing vegetarianism is a digression.

Lawrence Krauss had a nice op-ed in the Wall St. Journal on Thursday
http://genesis1.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/dec6opedwsj.html
and noted that a 2006 NSF survey found 25% of Americans didn’t know that the Earth went around the Sun :ohoh: .  Let’s get some of this easy stuff taken care of first.

Well said, Jackson.

I agree with you almost completely, but I may add (though I am sure this is pretty well understood) that Peter Singer has been working on creating a discussion on “animal liberation” for almost 30 years. For the most part these discussions break down quickly in the freethought community, but keeping the conversation alive has been one of his primary goals. Often I do notice a kind of waffling amongst many of my meaty brethren which at times creates fruitful dialogue. Here I am thinking about the debates over animal rights. Recently Peter has argued, in Free Inquiry, that a starting point for ethical treatment of non-human animals (consciousness raising terminology) is to go for organic meats and stay away from buying meats that are gotten from “farm factories” which treat their animals sometimes very poorly. (Is saying non-human animals a form of political correctness? I mean why not just say animals, we already don’t eat each other, well not in the bad way)

we already don’t eat each other, well not in the bad way)

hehehe… You’re a cunning linguist!

Welcome to the century of the moral arguments. Why not go all the way and stop eating DNA altogether? You can always munch on viruses, dirt, and red blood cells.

Ah, but do DNA, Viruses, dirt, and red blood cells suffer?

All due respect for freedom of choice with regards to the various ways that individuals choose to deal with their animal nature.  I do not claim to be any less animal.  But, let’s at least allow ourselves to distinguish between foods that are needed in order to nourish our health and foods that we eat entirely for the purpose of indulging our sensual temptations.  As humans we do need to eat, but we don’t need to eat meat.

Somebody got their wish, eramusinfinity :grin:

I suppose that I should thank the lord. 

Actually, I was more impressed with DJs choice of questions than I was particularly with Richard’s answers.  DJ did a great job of confronting Richard, in a constructive third party manner, with some of the criticisms that have been directed toward Richard about the direction that he is steering the humanist movement.  While I am a strong supporter of Dawkins arguments in a broad sense, I will confess that I don’t feel that he answered all of the criticisms that DJ posed very well head on.

You are right zarcus, that there are certain issues of tactic that have humanists divided, and I think that we all need to work toward resolving them via discussion and constructive argument.  If we truly stand for reason, then this ought to be at the forefront of our activities.  I would like to see more dialog between Richard Dawkins and his non-religious detractors over issues of disagreement.  “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

but we don’t need to eat meat.

Of course, I agree, eramusinfinity. One thing that comes to mind is there would need to be a concerted effort needed by everyone to change their behavior in ways they may not realize at first. In the case of fish I think lessening intake quickly would not cause a disruption and they would be able to live in their natural environment with less disruption. With animals for which we already control their populations we would have the immediate problem of having an unprofitable market so retaining certain animals, such as cows, would quickly decline. Cows for the most part in North America would find it very difficult to survive in a more ‘natural’ environment. In essence cows would become either pet like or placed in zoos.  Then their is the more wild variety of animal, such as dear, where human activity also puts controls on their population. Since they are wild, population control becomes an issue, such as seen with ‘suburban sprawl’, where the natural environment for dear is eroded. Killing other animals to control their populations is common and we would be left with killing but not eating, unless a radically altered approach was taken by humans.

Edit: change “dear” to deer, dear folks. 

One thing that comes to mind is there would need to be a concerted effort needed by everyone to change their behavior in ways they may not realize at first.

Kind of like trying to convince people to abandon their religious faith, huh?

We need a good strategy. 

I think that I’m gonna right a book and call it The Meat Eaters Delusion.   

In response to Jackson’s question, and the question of Dawkins’ views of becoming vegetarian…

I had a bacon & cheese hamburger with french fries (that didn’t taste all that good) and while we were helping him pick what to eat (yes, I was sitting across from him and we were helping him pick his dinner) he mentioned something about maybe trying to become a vegetarian and ended up ordering fish served with rice, peas, and carrots…

Haven’t mustered the ability to turn away from meat entirely myself yet…

Well said, Jackson.

I agree with you almost completely, but I may add (though I am sure this is pretty well understood) that Peter Singer has been working on creating a discussion on “animal liberation” for almost 30 years. For the most part these discussions break down quickly in the freethought community, but keeping the conversation alive has been one of his primary goals. Often I do notice a kind of waffling amongst many of my meaty brethren which at times creates fruitful dialogue. Here I am thinking about the debates over animal rights. Recently Peter has argued, in Free Inquiry, that a starting point for ethical treatment of non-human animals (consciousness raising terminology) is to go for organic meats and stay away from buying meats that are gotten from “farm factories” which treat their animals sometimes very poorly. (Is saying non-human animals a form of political correctness? I mean why not just say animals, we already don’t eat each other, well not in the bad way)

I don’t get the relevance of ‘organic’, as ‘organic’ benefits the eater, not the animal. ‘Organic’ meats are free of certain chemicals. Are the living conditions of the animals included under the ‘organic’ label? From veterinarians I have spoken to, the sick ‘organic’ animals they treat suffer more since treating them with antibiotics would re-classify them as less valuable non-organic meat.

The question by Singer was a great question considering Singer’s talk earlier that same day (I was also an attendee).

The point I got from the Singer presentation and Dawkins’ answer to the question is that our consumption of certain foods is causing suffering. The idea that the cows would die in the wild is irrelevant, since we breed the animals beyond what their natural populations would be anyway. The point would be why breed them to suffer. Let them go extinct if that is what would happen. What would be the problem? A cow that never existed can’t suffer.

Singer seemed to be OK will the actual killing of animals. He seemed focused on the evidence that we have that seems to indicate that the animals are feeling pain as we would and questioned our double standard that allows us to feel fine with causing animal suffering. From my perspective, if we can breed cows and provide them happy lives, as I’m sure many farmers do, than what is the problem so long as they have a quick and relatively painless death? Apart from that, I guess we could should also consider the feelings of their kin who might miss them, if they are a species that feels such emotions.

On the anti-Singer side, it seemed like his slide show was outdated. I talked to a veterinarian and she told me the farms she visits are nothing like what Singer showed for the mammals, though the horrible conditions of chickens and turkeys were spot on.

Well said, Jackson.

I agree with you almost completely, but I may add (though I am sure this is pretty well understood) that Peter Singer has been working on creating a discussion on “animal liberation” for almost 30 years. For the most part these discussions break down quickly in the freethought community, but keeping the conversation alive has been one of his primary goals. Often I do notice a kind of waffling amongst many of my meaty brethren which at times creates fruitful dialogue. Here I am thinking about the debates over animal rights. Recently Peter has argued, in Free Inquiry, that a starting point for ethical treatment of non-human animals (consciousness raising terminology) is to go for organic meats and stay away from buying meats that are gotten from “farm factories” which treat their animals sometimes very poorly. (Is saying non-human animals a form of political correctness? I mean why not just say animals, we already don’t eat each other, well not in the bad way)

I don’t get the relevance of ‘organic’, as ‘organic’ benefits the eater, not the animal. ‘Organic’ meats are free of certain chemicals. Are the living conditions of the animals included under the ‘organic’ label? From veterinarians I have spoken to, the sick ‘organic’ animals they treat suffer more since treating them with antibiotics would re-classify them as less valuable non-organic meat.

I was thinking of organic farming. With that I had in mind such things as free range. As far as the antibiotics, its more of the over indulgent use, same goes for growth hormones.

The point I got from the Singer presentation and Dawkins’ answer to the question is that our consumption of certain foods is causing suffering. The idea that the cows would die in the wild is irrelevant, since we breed the animals beyond what their natural populations would be anyway. The point would be why breed them to suffer. Let them go extinct if that is what would happen. What would be the problem? A cow that never existed can’t suffer.

I understand what you’re saying here and there would also be a market for dairy. It’s not completely irrelevant that cows would die in the wild. My idea here was that cows would not be able to exist in the wild here in North America for the most part. It would need to be considered. There could be a replacement (relocation) of the animal and this may also include other farm animals as well if the market bottomed out. A slow trimming down of the herds would happened of course, but after that the population would plummet. It’s quite likely you just wouldn’t see cows in North America, or many other regions of the U.S. anymore. If there were populations that found themselves trying to survive on their own, you would indeed see suffering unless there was a plan in place. Which is mainly my point, behaviors would need to change more then most people realize.

I would love to see people stop needlessly hurting animals for luxury goods such as food, fur, leather, etc. just as I would love to see people stop hurting each other.  I also agree with you, zarcus, that free range eggs are far less cruel than conventionally produced ones.  The overuse of growth hormones with animals is just gratuitously cruel.

Of course, ethical considerations with regards to dairy are far more complex and less straight forward than they are with meat.  There would be, theoretically, no ethical problem with dairy products provided that cows were treated well before, during, and after their lives spent producing milk for human consumption.  However, in order for a “dairy cow” to begin lactating they must become pregnant and this requires the involvement of male cows who are typically processed after their helpful deeds for meat.  Similarly, new born calves are then sent away for meat or future dairy production.  And then there is the issue of animal rennet in cheese.  And there is gelatin.  And eisenglass and oxblood in some wine…

For everyone to adopt a non-animal diet would most certainly be ethically best, but the next best thing would be for slaughtered animals to be treated as well as possible leading up to and through the course of their slaughter.

I think that I’m gonna right a book and call it The Meat Eaters Delusion.   

I think you’re going to need an editor.

Ooh Morgan.  Snap yo! 

I isn’t gonna need none of that editorializationing or nothing.  I think it was just “write\” exactly how it was. 

I find it interesting that attempts at rational discussions of the ethical issues involved in vegetarianism seem to stimulate a lot of hostility among skeptics.  Perhaps it’s the guilt by association phenomenon, as vegetarians not infrequently hold a lot of woo woo ideas about health in addition to their concerns about meat. Or perhaps it’s the implication that by arguing it might be unethical to eat meat, vegetarians are telling people what to do, and we freethinkers hate that. Anyway, despite George’s flip and shallow comment on the subject, I’m encouraged that rigorously rational people like Dawkins and others on this site are willing to take the question seriously and not fear being tainted by association with wackos.

FWIW (which isn’t much), I tend to agree with the position that killing for food isn’t necessarily wrong, but that the infliction of unecesary pain and suffering or environmental damage for convenience or economic efficiency is. I am a pretty lax vegetarian myself [free-range eggs, dairy, though I haven’t found a particularly “ethical” source for that yet, and am not passionate enough about it to give it up in the meantime] and fish from sources the fisheries folks say are stable/well-managed populations). As a veterinarian, I still find the industrial system for producing meat/poultry/eggs in the U.S. egregiously, unecessarily cruel despite some improvements over the last few decades. And good arguments can be made about the lesser environmental damage of plant food production and the health benefits of little to no animal products in the diet, though these are not simple, slam dunk issues by any means. I’m certainly not militant (I’ve made no effort to change my wife or daughter’s eating habits), but I think the ethical questions are real and can be approached rationally. And I don’t think it’s a shame that irt came up during Dawkins’ interview, since there’s no reason for the subject of rational ethics informed by science to be off limits. It’s refreshing to hear him talk about something other than religion, especially since, as others have pointed out, he’s an eloquent spokesperson for science.

Why is my comment shallow, Brennen? I simply extended Dawkins’s thought experiment with the missing links by additional 3 billion years.

George,
I may owe you an apology, since I believed the comment was your own rather than an extension of what Dawkins said. I haven’t actually gotten to that part of the podcast, so I was just responding to the discussion here. It sounded like your comment was a version of the old sarcastic response to vegetarianism that extends any argument against eating animals to the illogical extreme of not eating anything living at all, and ignores the salient moral issues (capacity for and infliction of suffering) in favor of the irrelevant faux issue of ingestion the substance of another living thing. The difference between eating a chicken that has been cruelly treated and eating a plant or even, possibly, a chicken that has not been forced to suffer to make production of its tissue cheaper, is obvious, and you seem to be deliberately missing it in order to make a snide point about vegetarianism. But again, if I misunderstood since I haven’t heard what Dawkins actually said, then I’m sorry.

Dawkins wonders if all the extinct species between us and the chimps were alive, which ones would be okay to eat. An interesting idea. And I don’t know the answer to it. I see a problem with not eating the suffering animals, though. How do we decide which animals suffer and which ones don’t? Based on what? Our idea of suffering? Nobody wants to die — not even the fish from the stable/well-managed populations. I don’t eat meat. Not because I feel sorry for the animals (which I do), but because meat simply disgusts me. I also feel sorry for kids dying in Africa every day, and I still buy overpriced German cars and hundred dollar shirts, instead of sending all that money to the ones in need. I feel sorry for many. I am just not sure I am ready to act upon it…

Well George, do you think that it is ethically acceptable to eat chimpanzees?  What about eating Curious George? 

Well, I think Singer does a good job of talking intelligently about suffering and how to identify it. I think it’s less arbitrary and whimsical to define than you suggest, but certainly it’s not simple. Defining “species” or “alive” isn’t all that simple either (are viruses alive?), but we need some working definitions to be able to function, so we try to reason out the best ones we can. I don’t expect to solve the injustices of the universe, which is part of why I’m not a very strict vegetarian and I don’t prosyletize, but I don’t think it’s in the spirit of science, reason, inquiry and all that stuff I care about to avoid asking and trying to answer the questions as well as I can. Personally, I love bacon, corned beef on St. Patrick’s Day, and so on, but I just find that ultimately my admittedly powerful capacity to rationalize no longer suffices to let me keep eating them. Not rigorous ethical decision making, I admit, but the best I can do.

$100 shirts, eh? Wow, I’m in the wrong line of work!

Well George, do you think that it is ethically acceptable to eat chimpanzees?  What about eating Curious George? 

I would eat my neighbour if I had to.

Well, I think Singer does a good job of talking intelligently about suffering and how to identify it.

I’ve never read anything by Singer. Can you recommned something?

And even though I can afford to buy expensive shirts, I will never be able to buy an IQ chip for my brain that would allow me to study medicine and become a doctor: a job that would make me happy beyond my wildest imagination. I envy you (in a nice way ) being a scientist, Brennen.

Well George, do you think that it is ethically acceptable to eat chimpanzees?  What about eating Curious George? 

I would eat my neighbour if I had to.

I suppose that I probably would too.  I’m glad that I haven’t had to make such a choice.

I recently finished Singer’s One World.  He’s great.  The classic Singer starter is Animal Liberation.  That book is probably even more well known amongst vegetarian granola types than Peter Singer is amongst philosophers.  Animal liberation is just one topic that he deals with though.

I envy both of you George and mckenzie, in a good way.

I especially enjoyed Singer’s contributions to The Great Ape Project, a collection of essays investigating (albeit from a pre-convinced point of view) the definitions of personhood and how these might be applied beyond the strict species level (i.e. humans and nothing else) that is traditional.

As for envy, every time I am moved by a musician, an actor, or an artist of some other kind I think how amazing it would be to have the ability to evoke feelings and to crystallize elements of the human experience so succinctly and beautifully as artists can. So back at ya!

The classic Singer starter is Animal Liberation.

I’ll have a look at it. Thanks.

I especially enjoyed Singer’s contributions to The Great Ape Project

Okay. Thanks, Brennen.

I highly recommend the book Created From Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism by the late philosopher James Rachels. Rachels makes explicit, through careful and clearly constructed philosophical argument, what Singer and Dawkins were trying to get at the end of the podcast.

I find it interesting that attempts at rational discussions of the ethical issues involved in vegetarianism seem to stimulate a lot of hostility among skeptics. 

The discussion of these ethical issues is probably a good thing, although I still think it sort of pulls the focus off of ‘atheism’. 
I don’t see why one can’t be a theist of some flavor and a also vegan, right…

Sure.  Seventh Day Adventists.  Rastafarians.  Hindus.  Buddhists.  Etc.  I’m OK with pulling the focus a bit away from atheism though.

Sorry for more peanut gallery, but I can’t resist this one.  The real question…

Should Animals Be Doing More For The Animal Rights Movement?

... a la The Onion.

Sorry for more peanut gallery, but I can’t resist this one.  The real question…

Should Animals Be Doing More For The Animal Rights Movement?

… a la The Onion.

Thanks for this link to ONN headline news…

For me, I have no problem with people eating whatever they can afford when they don’t have the income to do otherwise.

For those of us with the sufficient income, I feel we shouldn’t subsidized the institutionalized mistreatment of animals with a sufficient nervous system to feel pain. Grouping animals won’t be trivial in certain areas, but the most common farm animals clearly do react to pain much like how we do, which seems to indicate that it is just as unpleasant to them as it is to us.

Another issue is the feelings related mammals have for their kin. How long does a pig lament when her mother or her child is taken away or slain in her sight? That would help us evaluate the ethics, but I don’t know what data we have on that. I suspect evidence points to this factor being a complete non-issue with fish and birds.

Considering I am usually too lazy too cook regularly, I am pretty much too lazy to put my money where my mouth is on this issue for more than a week at a time. Nevertheless, I am not willing to ignore the problems with the traditional way we eat.

I also find it interesting how we allow hunting of various species to control population growth, but almost all find it unethical to euthanize homo sapiens to control overpopulation.

Hello!

I’m new here (I’ll try to get a post up introducing myself soon).

I just listened to the podcast (I’ve been listening for some time now, and I’m a big fan of the both the show and Dawkins) and I’m was a bit amazed that I was really disturbed my some of the points Dawkins made.

When the discussion came up on how The God Delusion offer very little “sugar” on the meaning of our lives, Dawkins (after a while) says something about how we should be grateful to be alive and that being bored is an insult to everyone not born.

I was a bit offended by that statement since it shares so many common lines with the pro-life movement.

I feel that anything not being “born” (i.e. not existing) can’t have rights and hence, there is no one to actually offend or respect. In the same way you argue where to draw the line of existence (1 cell? 2? 4? a million?). What offended me really is that I think it is the wrong question to ask really. Being atheist I find that there is so much else to be grateful for that this kind of statements makes us no better than theists since we are supposed to be grateful / respectful / thankful to something that is non-existent.

This is my first post, so if this was the wrong part of the forum I sincerely apologize and I’d hate to flame in some way.

And to the makers of the show: thank you for something fantastic!

Regards,

J

When the discussion came up on how The God Delusion offer very little “sugar” on the meaning of our lives, Dawkins (after a while) says something about how we should be grateful to be alive and that being bored is an insult to everyone not born.

I was a bit offended by that statement since it shares so many common lines with the pro-life movement.

I feel that anything not being “born” (i.e. not existing) can’t have rights and hence, there is no one to actually offend or respect. In the same way you argue where to draw the line of existence (1 cell? 2? 4? a million?). What offended me really is that I think it is the wrong question to ask really. Being atheist I find that there is so much else to be grateful for that this kind of statements makes us no better than theists since we are supposed to be grateful / respectful / thankful to something that is non-existent.

Welcome to the forum, J!

FWIW, I was at the conference and heard his talk. You highlight a point Dawkins has made in other places; I see it as basically a rhetorical move on his part without real content. And you’ve nailed the reason why what he’s saying makes no real sense when you think about it. You can’t insult something nonexistent. It’s not like there are these souls-without-bodies floating around in some liminal space, waiting to be born.

To be fair to Dawkins, I think he would agree with what we’re saying. He’s just trying to make the point that there are many genetically possible human beings (= possible shufflings of DNA) that will never in fact be born. But really it’s sort of a banal point.

I dont see the point as banal at all, unless you misunderstand it—I take Dawkins to (merely?) be saying how rare it is that we are alive, and to be calling for gratitude at our existence. Obviously, he isnt talking about the “rights” of the nonexistent not to be insulted. Instead, he is saying what Sagan and others have said—it is amazingly improbable that we should exist at all and so we should be grateful and live life fully, etc. I found the text he paraphrases from Unweaving the Rainbow to be very moving and inspiring, and see it as something of a guiding principle in my life.

Of course, Marcus Aurelius and others have made the similar point in the history of the western intellectual tradition, and I find it as inspiring when they do as well. Dawkins just says it more beautifully.

… it is amazingly improbable that we should exist at all ...

But in what sense is that true? Are you identifying yourself with your DNA? Yes, it’s a low probability that precisely that genetic pattern turned up. (That is what I take Dawkins to mean; he’s said as much). But you aren’t identical to your DNA anyway, so the analogy doesn’t go through. And the low probability of a particular genetic pattern is banal.

In what other sense is this true—the sense that doesn’t make it banal?

I understand that one might say: “I am more than just my DNA, I’m a person with that DNA and this history.” And the probability of someone being born with just your DNA and your history is even lower. OK. So what?

The thought experiment as I see it is to say, basically, (and as I recall Dawkins has done), “Think of all those poor people who never get born, and how unlucky they are compared to you!”

But that’s just nonsense talk. Something nonexistent can’t be lucky or unlucky.

I thought it was a very good interview. Reference the ‘animal rights’ side of things. Looking back, i became vegetarian at a similar age to when i identified myself as an atheist. I do not know if they were related in a functional way, but i do find it difficult to make a distinction between humans and (non-human) animals in a moral sense.

This does lead me to some strange moral positions. As an example, i was thinking of joining the british army (medical issues have so-far stopped me). I was trying to decide if i could bring myself to kill in the right circumstanses. I found that i would have more of a problem with the prospect of killing an animal for food, than I would for killing an enemy! The distiction being, that the enemy has CHOSEN to put himself in the situation he is in, where the animal simply is, and is not threat to me. I do not know what that says about me, although I would like to think i am a very moral person.

I am not special,
I am not a beautiful and unique snowflake.....

Ski.

… it is amazingly improbable that we should exist at all ...

But in what sense is that true? Are you identifying yourself with your DNA? Yes, it’s a low probability that precisely that genetic pattern turned up. (That is what I take Dawkins to mean; he’s said as much). But you aren’t identical to your DNA anyway, so the analogy doesn’t go through. And the low probability of a particular genetic pattern is banal.

In what other sense is this true—the sense that doesn’t make it banal?

I understand that one might say: “I am more than just my DNA, I’m a person with that DNA and this history.” And the probability of someone being born with just your DNA and your history is even lower. OK. So what?

The thought experiment as I see it is to say, basically, (and as I recall Dawkins has done), “Think of all those poor people who never get born, and how unlucky they are compared to you!”

But that’s just nonsense talk. Something nonexistent can’t be lucky or unlucky.

Doug, of course he isnt saying literally that nonexistent entities are unlucky, any more than a nihilist saying it is luckier to never have been born in the first place would mean the never-existing would be literally lucky (a line supposedly from Asclepius if I remember).

Dawkins’ is obviously a more poetical point, and I take it as having great meaning. To be a literalist with Dawkins in the way you seem to be seems especially ungenerous and contrarian.

Look, we are exceedingly rare (on many counts) as far as we know. Dawkins is saying what Paul Kurtz, Sagan and others have said movingly: that in our rarity there is preciousness, and building on that, we should suck life dry for all its worth, be grateful, and not be bored with this fleeting life.

This is PK’s “exuberance” and Sagan’s “preciousness” of life. Thoreau, Marcus Aurelius and so many others also make this anti-nihilist point, and I find Dawkins’s flourish the best of the bunch.

To dismiss this kind of appreciation of the brute facticity of our existence as being “banal” because you are asking in what literal sense we’re “lucky” to be alive when those who have never been born are “unlucky” is to miss the point impressively—to imagine Dawkins saying things he clearly didnt say (that we are just our DNA, that nonexistent being have rights not to be insulted by our ingratitude at our actually living etc) misses the opportunity at the wonder and awe at our life that he, Sagan and others advocate.

I certainly agree that life is precious, both in the sense that our own life does not last long, and that the lives of those we love does not last long. We should enjoy life, accept it exuberantly as Kurtz says so eloquently, etc.

And I have time and again been an enthusiastic supporter of Sagan, Druyan and Tyson’s overtly “spiritualist” view of the universe, looking at it with wonder and awe!

So I think we’re probably talking past one another here, DJ. What can I say? Maybe I have a tin ear for the poetry when it comes to this point of Dawkins, but I think honestly it’s the philosopher in me. The point that he’s making is incoherent in that instance, as J noted.

Looking back, i became vegetarian at a similar age to when i identified myself as an atheist. I do not know if they were related in a functional way, but i do find it difficult to make a distinction between humans and (non-human) animals in a moral sense.

I agree with your point about being related to animals in a “moral sense.” I very much appreciate your point about getting into vegetarianism as simultaneously to your identification as an atheist.  I have been non-religious much longer than I have been a vegetarian, but I do find there to be remarkable parallels between the thinking that led me to stop eating animals and the thinking that led me into the world of humanist thought (which happened much later than my abandonment of “god” ideas).  Clearly, the removal of a single arbiter of moral authority, or god, also means unraveling much of the stratification of moral value that stems down through clerics to common folk to the rest of the animal kingdom, which is placed at bottom.  It is in the exploration of myself as being responsible for my own moral choices, and the weighing of my actions in relation to others and to nature, that I made the decision that I didn’t want to hurt others.  It was a rather simple next step to include other species in the “as others” category.

I am not special,
I am not a beautiful and unique snowflake.....

I think that you are special, beautiful and unique.  Indeed.

Nod. But I took J’s post to be an understandable misunderstanding (conflating) of “those who have never lived” with “the unborn”—one means all the class of people or almost-people who were conceived but aborted and the other means those who havent even been conceived. What got J’s hackles up was how similar he took Dawkins point to be wit the right-to-lifers. So in that sense we may be talking past one another.

But your back and forth with me wasnt about abortion rights but about the poetical use of the term “lucky to be alive.” And based on what you just said, we agree there—we are “lucky” to be alive and should live life fully etc.. You seem to mostly just object to Dawkins’ rhetorical point about luck, and when it comes to poetry as in most other forms of art, de gustubus non disputandem est..

I still find that introductory passage one of the most moving summations of life’s rarity and preciousness and found it moving when I read it in the 90s and still do today. Unweaving the Rainbow is my favorite book that came at a great time for me personally, so I am biased.

For me, I have no problem with people eating whatever they can afford when they don’t have the income to do otherwise.

I don’t either dmoreau.  Which people in the “third world” are you referring to?  Or do you think that there are Americans who can not afford to be vegetarians?

Right, DJ, only I wouldn’t call J’s point a misunderstanding. I mean, s/he is aware that Dawkins is not a pro-lifer. What s/he is saying is that Dawkins is playing the same sort of nonsensical metaphysical game that some pro-lifers do; he’s serving the ball up in their court, as it were.

Just to be clear, I am a big fan of Dawkins’s style generally, and also loved his book Unweaving the Rainbow. But I do recall when reading that book before that the same issue came up for me in the back of my mind. It just rang false for me. He says:

Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born.

To be a philosophical pedant for a moment, this is either trivial (banal) or false. Trivially, however you count possibility, there are many possible persons who will not be actual. But we have no moral obligation towards nonexistent entities.

And of course it’s false to think of these nonexistent “people” as existing somewhere, longing to be born. But it seems to me that one has to be thinking as if there were such unhappy folks out there somewhere in order to make Dawkins’s point gripping.

De gustibus non disputandem est, yes, or chacon a son gôut.

I am not special,
I am not a beautiful and unique snowflake.....

I think that you are special, beautiful and unique.  Indeed.

EI,

It is a quote from the film “fight club”. It was intended to juxtapose with my comments about looking for understanding on a personal level.

Hey, I’m dyslexic, I do try and “rite goood” but it is not easy!

Ski.

edited to fix formatting

For me, I have no problem with people eating whatever they can afford when they don’t have the income to do otherwise.

I don’t either dmoreau.  Which people in the “third world” are you referring to?  Or do you think that there are Americans who can not afford to be vegetarians?

As a vege, i too have little problem with people eating meat if the need to. It is interesting that we (as a society) may need to dramatically cut down on our consumption of meat, both from the perspective of land use and greenhouse gas emissions.

Ski.

For me, I have no problem with people eating whatever they can afford when they don’t have the income to do otherwise.

I don’t either dmoreau.  Which people in the “third world” are you referring to?  Or do you think that there are Americans who can not afford to be vegetarians?

As a vege, i too have little problem with people eating meat if the need to. It is interesting that we (as a society) may need to dramatically cut down on our consumption of meat, both from the perspective of land use and greenhouse gas emissions.

Ski.

As a vegan/skeptic/atheist of many years, I have little problem with people eating meat--including other Homo sapiens--if need be. I’m not speciesist when it comes to meat eating. However, the fact is that very few people in Western industrialized nations need to eat meat for anything other than the satiation of their palates. There are many compelling and rational arguments for moving towards a plant- rather than meat-based diet, not the least of which is the enormous contribution of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (a.k.a, factory farms) to the production of greenhouse gases. See, for example, this article from the October 2007 Los Angeles Times, or this article from the February BBC online, or have a look at Peter Singer/James Mason’s recent book The Way We Eat.

And as I mentioned in an earlier post, I highly recommend having a look at James Rachels’ Created From Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism for an extended, sustained, and powerful argument of the form that Singer and Dawkins were getting at in the last few minutes of the podcast.

For me, I have no problem with people eating whatever they can afford when they don’t have the income to do otherwise.

I don’t either dmoreau.  Which people in the “third world” are you referring to?  Or do you think that there are Americans who can not afford to be vegetarians?

As a vege, i too have little problem with people eating meat if the need to. It is interesting that we (as a society) may need to dramatically cut down on our consumption of meat, both from the perspective of land use and greenhouse gas emissions.

Ski.

As a vegan/skeptic/atheist of many years, I have little problem with people eating meat--including other Homo sapiens--if need be. I’m not speciesist when it comes to meat eating. The fact is that very few people in Western industrialized nations need to eat meat for anything other than the satiation of their palates. There are many compelling and rational arguments for moving towards a plant- rather than meat-based diet, not the least of which is the enormous contribution of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (a.k.a, factory farms) to the production of greenhouse gases.

I would suggest that eating humans should only be considered if you are going to die otherwise. There are HUGE desiese risks associated with any animal eating members of its own species. examples include, BSE (cows being fed cows), kuru (or however it is spelt) wiped out an indonesian tribe who practiced canibalism, Aids (from eating a related species)....

Ski.

For me, I have no problem with people eating whatever they can afford when they don’t have the income to do otherwise.

I don’t either dmoreau.  Which people in the “third world” are you referring to?  Or do you think that there are Americans who can not afford to be vegetarians?

As a vege, i too have little problem with people eating meat if the need to. It is interesting that we (as a society) may need to dramatically cut down on our consumption of meat, both from the perspective of land use and greenhouse gas emissions.

Ski.

As a vegan/skeptic/atheist of many years, I have little problem with people eating meat--including other Homo sapiens--if need be. I’m not speciesist when it comes to meat eating. The fact is that very few people in Western industrialized nations need to eat meat for anything other than the satiation of their palates. There are many compelling and rational arguments for moving towards a plant- rather than meat-based diet, not the least of which is the enormous contribution of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (a.k.a, factory farms) to the production of greenhouse gases.

I would suggest that eating humans should only be considered if you are going to die otherwise. There are HUGE desiese risks associated with any animal eating members of its own species. examples include, BSE (cows being fed cows), kuru (or however it is spelt) wiped out an indonesian tribe who practiced canibalism, Aids (from eating a related species)....

Ski.

Agreed, Ski, but on pragmatic not ethical grounds.

I dont see the point as banal at all, unless you misunderstand it—I take Dawkins to (merely?) be saying how rare it is that we are alive, and to be calling for gratitude at our existence. Obviously, he isnt talking about the “rights” of the nonexistent not to be insulted. Instead, he is saying what Sagan and others have said—it is amazingly improbable that we should exist at all and so we should be grateful and live life fully, etc. I found the text he paraphrases from Unweaving the Rainbow to be very moving and inspiring, and see it as something of a guiding principle in my life.

Of course, Marcus Aurelius and others have made the similar point in the history of the western intellectual tradition, and I find it as inspiring when they do as well. Dawkins just says it more beautifully.

I agree with D.J. and I think Doug is making an ad hominem argument with a circular flavor (calling things banal is itself banal?)
I also think Dawkin’s point was clearly that we don’t need a God to appreciate life.

I agree with D.J. and I think Doug is making an ad hominem argument with a circular flavor (calling things banal is itself banal?)
I also think Dawkin’s point was clearly that we don’t need a God to appreciate life.

Ad hominem? Do you know what that means? Neither I nor J was talking at all about Dawkins the person ... (And in fact I respect him very much!)

And I certainly agree with the point that we don’t need a God to appreciate life. I’m happy to argue on the merits, but I’m not convinced you’ve read what we had to say.

I would suggest that eating humans should only be considered if you are going to die otherwise. There are HUGE desiese risks associated with any animal eating members of its own species. examples include, BSE (cows being fed cows), kuru (or however it is spelt) wiped out an indonesian tribe who practiced canibalism, Aids (from eating a related species)....

Yes, there are also enormous health risks involved in people eating other species of animals, particularly mammals.  Diseases, coronary, liver, kidney, stomach and intestinal issues, etc.  And as with humans, of course, its not very nice to be killed, chopped up, cooked and eaten (and in many cases tortured gruelingly for the whole of one’s life).  So I think that it would be tough to rationally argue that it could be ethical in some way.

Say, since we’re on the topic, have any of you all seen the film Earthlings?  If you are a meat eater and can stomach watching it, you’ll never eat meat again.

I agree with D.J. and I think Doug is making an ad hominem argument with a circular flavor (calling things banal is itself banal?)
I also think Dawkin’s point was clearly that we don’t need a God to appreciate life.

Ad hominem? Do you know what that means?

Sorry to ruffle feathers.
I realize you are a fan of Dawkins and are just trying with best intentions to explain your point of view. 

I think these sections of Dawkins books lend themselves to individual interpretations (I think that’s a point you & D.J. made too). When Dawkins said “Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born”, I personally didn’t think he was pointing at obligations to the unborn.  I thought he was trying to emphasize in a slightly different way the appreciation for life and its opportunities, and that somewhat paradoxically the fact that our lives are finite makes them more precious. 

I do appreciate the thoughtful comments on this forum; they’ve been helpful to me.

I dont see the point as banal at all, unless you misunderstand it—I take Dawkins to (merely?) be saying how rare it is that we are alive, and to be calling for gratitude at our existence. Obviously, he isnt talking about the “rights” of the nonexistent not to be insulted. Instead, he is saying what Sagan and others have said—it is amazingly improbable that we should exist at all and so we should be grateful and live life fully, etc. I found the text he paraphrases from Unweaving the Rainbow to be very moving and inspiring, and see it as something of a guiding principle in my life.

Of course, Marcus Aurelius and others have made the similar point in the history of the western intellectual tradition, and I find it as inspiring when they do as well. Dawkins just says it more beautifully.

Hi DJ,

I’ve been thinking about the connection I see between what Dawkins said about this and vegetarianism. Most animals we eat are farmed animals and would not exist if we did not eat them.

Assuming Dawkins is right then it seems to follow that to think it is wrong to eat farmed animals, we need to think it would be better if they didn’t exist and that they are not lucky to have the life they have.

If they are kept in bad conditions and suffer a great deal at the end of their life perhaps that’s true but then we would have to concede that many humans are not lucky to exist either.

Stephen

I would suggest that eating humans should only be considered if you are going to die otherwise. There are HUGE desiese risks associated with any animal eating members of its own species. examples include, BSE (cows being fed cows), kuru (or however it is spelt) wiped out an indonesian tribe who practiced canibalism, Aids (from eating a related species)....

Yes, there are also enormous health risks involved in people eating other species of animals, particularly mammals.  Diseases, coronary, liver, kidney, stomach and intestinal issues, etc.  And as with humans, of course, its not very nice to be killed, chopped up, cooked and eaten (and in many cases tortured gruelingly for the whole of one’s life).  So I think that it would be tough to rationally argue that it could be ethical in some way.

Say, since we’re on the topic, have any of you all seen the film Earthlings?  If you are a meat eater and can stomach watching it, you’ll never eat meat again.

Thanks for the reference to Earthlings, erasmusinfinity. It’s interesting to note that the text used in the opening voice over is taken, word-for-word, from chapter 3 of Singer’s Practical Ethics and also from Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights.

I dont see the point as banal at all, unless you misunderstand it—I take Dawkins to (merely?) be saying how rare it is that we are alive, and to be calling for gratitude at our existence. Obviously, he isnt talking about the “rights” of the nonexistent not to be insulted. Instead, he is saying what Sagan and others have said—it is amazingly improbable that we should exist at all and so we should be grateful and live life fully, etc. I found the text he paraphrases from Unweaving the Rainbow to be very moving and inspiring, and see it as something of a guiding principle in my life.

Of course, Marcus Aurelius and others have made the similar point in the history of the western intellectual tradition, and I find it as inspiring when they do as well. Dawkins just says it more beautifully.

Hi DJ,

I’ve been thinking about the connection I see between what Dawkins said about this and vegetarianism. Most animals we eat are farmed animals and would not exist if we did not eat them.

Assuming Dawkins is right then it seems to follow that to think it is wrong to eat farmed animals, we need to think it would be better if they didn’t exist and that they are not lucky to have the life they have.

If they are kept in bad conditions and suffer a great deal at the end of their life perhaps that’s true but then we would have to concede that many humans are not lucky to exist either.

Stephen

Hi Stephen,

I think you raise an interesting question here: Does it follow from the the fact a sentient being (including a human being) has come into existence (despite the extremely low probability of its coming into existence) that the being should feel gratitude for being alive? I don’t see how the answer must be Yes. I think DJ gets it right when he writes above that “we should be grateful and live life fully”. However, I can see no reason to be grateful to be alive if one were, say, born into a life of horror and misery as a slave. Or as a factory farmed nonhuman mammal. Singer (as a utilitarian) argues that it would, in fact, be better for many factory farmed nonhuman animals not to exist. And I think he’s right. I don’t think that Dawkins’ sentiment can hold true for all sentient beings (including humans). But I do agree with DJ that if you have the luxury of living life fully, you should feel quite fortunate to have won the cosmic lottery.

-rcj

Here is Richard from this episode of PoI. I notice a conversation had started concerning what he says here, so I thought I would type it out to gather the full picture.

Unweaving the Rainbow is sort of my testament, on that aspect, on the spiritual quality of life that you get from science. That you get from contemplating your situation in the universe with clear open eyes, the eyes that have been opened by science. Facing up to reality, not so much facing, but rejoicing in the astonishing good fortune that you have in being alive. It’s an astonishing unlikely contingency that you should be here, that any of use should be here.

I don’t have a copy of Unweaving the Rainbow on me. But, the opening words are something like; ‘We are going to die and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they’re never going to be born. The number of possible people that could be standing here in my place, but who will never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. We know this because the set of possible combinations of DNA so massively outnumber the actual people.’

So we are fantastically lucky to be alive and as I said this morning; nobody should ever complain of being bored. It’s a kind of an insult to the gazillions of people who will never be born, to complain of being bored. It’s an insult to them to complain that our time in the sun is limited to some decades, we’re just fantastically lucky to have those decades at all. It is an insult to them to whimper and whine at the prospect of its coming to an end. We owe it to them and to ourselves to make the most of the time that we have on the planet.

...

But, I’d like to think that all my books about expounding evolutionary science contribute to the same feeling of ‘spiritual’, I don’t mind using the word, spiritual welfare.

It appears to me, and I trust this is so, that people understand what Richard is saying. In a way I find it rather frustrating that where there is honest dialogue concerning something like this that people find it necessary to have to frame their criticism with saying how much they appreciate Richard, or the wonderment of it all. I say that only because there is no great mystery here and I trust we can understand each other without feared accusations that ‘you just don’t get it’. But, I understand the need people feel to do such and in fact the reason I am frustrated is because of how easy it is for people to misunderstand a point then to carry that over as a criticism of an entire understanding.

Last year in a forum I was in rather heavy debate with a few people over different aspects of the “New Atheist” etc. It was inevitable that Richard kept coming up and with each issue I would criticize if I felt the need. What I didn’t do was expect that I would be accused of “hating Richard Dawkins.” Which I was, and in more ways then one. When this was said about me in a fairly heavily used forum a few people chimed in adding to what felt to me was an insult, but was believed by them. What didn’t happen was a single person step forward and say; hey, look that’s bullshit, he’s said this and this, and they’re all favorable, he’s talking about specific points.

As to Richard’s quote. It is poetic and scientific, that’s part of the point. These types of ideas sometimes help to ground us and act as a kind of aid in staying in the here and now while offering an insight as to why this time we have is precious. But, I also completely understand what Doug and J are saying and in large measure I agree.

Right, DJ, only I wouldn’t call J’s point a misunderstanding. I mean, s/he is aware that Dawkins is not a pro-lifer. What s/he is saying is that Dawkins is playing the same sort of nonsensical metaphysical game that some pro-lifers do; he’s serving the ball up in their court, as it were.

Just to be clear, I am a big fan of Dawkins’s style generally, and also loved his book Unweaving the Rainbow. But I do recall when reading that book before that the same issue came up for me in the back of my mind. It just rang false for me. He says:

Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born.

To be a philosophical pedant for a moment, this is either trivial (banal) or false. Trivially, however you count possibility, there are many possible persons who will not be actual. But we have no moral obligation towards nonexistent entities.

And of course it’s false to think of these nonexistent “people” as existing somewhere, longing to be born. But it seems to me that one has to be thinking as if there were such unhappy folks out there somewhere in order to make Dawkins’s point gripping.

De gustibus non disputandem est, yes, or chacon a son gôut.

Hi Doug,

Okay, now I’m going to put on my philosophical pedant hat for a moment. You state that “we have no moral obligation towards nonexistent entities”. Though this seems obvious in the case of characters like Santa Claus and Oliver Twist,