Maximizing the Good We Can Do: A Conversation with Peter Singer

Peter Singer: [00:00:00] People look back on and say, why did they live in a world that was so unfair where the country that you were born in had such a difference, made such a difference to your prospects of living a a long and healthy life? That's, I think, something people will puzzle about in future, future

Paul Shapiro: generations.

Welcome to The Business for Good podcast to show where we spotlight companies making money by making the world a better place. I'm your host, Paul Shapiro, and if you share a passion for using commerce to solve many of the world's most pressing problems, then this is the show for you. Hello, friends, and welcome to episode 62 of the Business for Good Podcast.

Typically, in these interviews, we showcase entrepreneurs and business titans, the lake, who are using the power of commerce to try to solve serious social problems. Occasionally, we've held on non-profit leaders. In fact, our episode with Isha DeTar from New Harvest was a particularly popular one, and a lot of people also enjoyed the interview with Lori Deer Wester from Goodwill too.

And in this [00:01:00] episode, we've again got a very special guest who also is not a grinding entre. But this guest is someone who's inspired many mission-oriented entrepreneurs, myself included, along with millions of others, trying to do good in the world because of him. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it is hard to think of many people on the planet who've led a more impactful wife than this episode's guest.

Peter Singer is an author and ethicist, and as routinely been called the most influential philosopher alive. He's widely credited with Kickstarting, the Modern Animal Protection Movement with his 1975 Mega Bestseller, animal Liberation, and with popularizing what's now called the Effective Altruism Movement through his early writings on poverty, and more recently with his 2009 book.

Called the life you can Save. Many of the business leaders we feature on this show, especially those in the animal free protein space, are motivated by philosophical underpinnings to their work that are likely related to or even directly stemming from Peter Singer's writings. I first met Peter in 1996 when he signed a copy of Animal Liberation.

I'd [00:02:00] read a few years earlier and had a transformative impact on me. In fact, my wife Tony jokes that while I don't care about most material possessions, that book that Peter signed to me 25 years ago is one of the few possessions I've actually kept throughout my life and might even risk my wife to try to save in a fire.

She one time even asked me, which I'd save first in a fire, that singer signed book, or our framed marriage license for the sake of domestic harmony. I won't reveal my answer except to say that. One of those two items is replaceable. Over the years, I've had the honor of getting to work with Peter a number of times, including jointly publishing two op-eds together in 2006 and in 2012 respectively about the cage confinement of animals on factory farms.

I've organized TOXs given I've spoken at events. He's organized and more. He was also kind and and helpful in editing my book, queen Meat. In short, suffice it to say I am a big fan of his. In this interview. Peter does not disappoint, nor does he shy away from tough subjects. We discuss a wide range of topics, including his views on the role that technology and entrepreneurship play in [00:03:00] helping animals.

Along with the role that charities play too, we get into whether he has any regrets over publicly taking certain views in his 50 year career. We discuss whether he thinks animals are better off today than when he first wrote animal liberation in 1975. Peter offers his views on the ethics of eating oysters on adopting children versus procreating on colonizing other planets and more.

Now that he's in his mid seventies, he also talks about what he hopes his obituaries will say, which hopefully will not be written for a long time. Whether you agree with Peter on a particular issue or not, there's no doubt you will come away from this interview with a great appreciation for his commitment to doing the most good he can do in the world.

I now bring you author, philosopher, philanthropist, and as you'll soon hear, Alpro food tech investor, Peter Singer. Peter, welcome to the Business for Good podcast. Thank you, Paul.

Peter Singer: It's great to be with you.

Paul Shapiro: Uh, it's really great to be back with you. I, I saw that you said that, um, you and Renata just celebrated 50 years of vegetarianism.

You and your wife just celebrated 50 years of vegetarianism. Congratulations. [00:04:00] That's awesome. Thank you. Yes,

Peter Singer: it is quite a long period actually, and I, you know, when I remembered the date when we had become vegetarian, I thought, wow, we sh we should do something about that. So we did have a few friends, friends over to a vegetarian meal.

And, uh, uh, you know, I, I wrote a piece about it for, um, well, actually I tweeted about it, and then the main Melbourne newspaper, the age sort of saw the tweet and asked me to write something for them. So. Nice. I've written about it as well.

Paul Shapiro: And you had friends over during the pandemic to celebrate this, huh?

Peter Singer: Uh, yes. This was a, a period when, uh, we were not in, in lockdown. Uh, and we were able to have up to 15 friends in our home, I think. So we just sort of scraped under that number. .

Paul Shapiro: Very nice. Well, that's cool. Well, I, I guess that leads me, if this was 50 years ago, I, I think you were in your early twenties when you became vegetarian, is that right?

That's right. I was 24. All right. So you're now 74 then, and you're having people over. Please tell me, have you been vaccinated yet?

Peter Singer: Uh, no, almost. I, look, [00:05:00] I, I need to say for your listeners, I'm in Melbourne, Australia. Um, we have had still ha still have not had, uh, 1000 deaths. Mm-hmm. for the entire pandemic.

Right? Yeah. Um, you know, so, and, and our population is about the 15, uh, 15th of the United States. So by comparison, uh, would be like the United States having so far had 15,000 deaths instead of half a million. Mm-hmm. . Um, why, why,

Paul Shapiro: why do you think that is? Why is, why, why do we see other, uh, former British colonies like, uh, South Africa and the US and Britain, uh, and excuse me, in Britain, which is not a colony, but was the colonizer, why do they have such higher, higher rates of covid than Australia?

Peter Singer: It's, it's not clear. I mean, I think the fact that we're an island and we're able to cut off, um, incoming travelers, uh, is, has certainly been part of it. And, and that's still the case. Anybody who wants to come to Australia has to quarantine for two weeks in a government run hotel or government secured hotel, uh, at their own expense.[00:06:00]

So, um, we don't get, uh, tourists coming into the country. Uh, um, also the governments, uh, have treated this in a nonpartisan way. Uh, for example, here in Victoria, we have a state labor government. Uh, but federally Australia has a conservative government. Um, but they've been working well together. They've not been sniping and criticizing each other for handling it in different ways.

Uh, and that's probably cuz they're both following the science. Mm-hmm. , um, they're both listening to their chief medical officers or their chief scientists. On what's the best thing to do?

Paul Shapiro: What a novel concept of the politicians listening to the scientists. That sounds pretty interesting. I'll have to tough to look into that and see, see how that's possible.

Um, but I will, I will say, Peter, you know, even if it's a low risk, you are a, a highly valuable person, , and I'll just say, if you get a chance to get the vaccine, you know, your life is probably only about 75% over. You got another quarter century hopefully left in you. So, uh, I, I really would encourage you to think about getting [00:07:00] this vaccine.

If you get a.

Peter Singer: Oh, I, I, I will get the vaccine as soon as it's my turn, but, um, we've only recently started vaccinating and obviously the, uh, quarantine hotel workers and the frontline health workers are getting it at this stage. Um, when they've done them, they'll move on to people, uh, related to their age group and yes, I will get one when my turn comes.

Paul Shapiro: Okay, good. Well, I, I can't wait to see the photo on, on Twitter of you getting vaccinated. That'll make no, make me sleep easier at night. Um, . Alright, so, you know, one time you told me that you have written more than 40 books, but. That you think animal liberation has sold more copies than the other 40 combined.

So, you know, of course in more recent times, you become also well known for your book, the Life You Can Save and all of your advocacy for effective altruism and your support for giving more money to charities to help the global poor. But for folks who maybe less familiar with your body of work, maybe they've heard of animal liberation, maybe they [00:08:00] know a little bit about effective altruism.

Is there any other work of yours aside from those two books that you consider perhaps really at the top of the list of books that you hope people will read of yours?

Peter Singer: Uh, well, certainly those two Animal Liberation in the Life. You can say, if I would put it at the very top, um, I wrote a, a follow up book on effective altruism called The Most Good You Can Do.

Um, I hope some of your listeners will look at that. Um, I have a, uh, book that's really aimed for use in classroom use called Practical Ethics, which, uh, gives the, a range of my views. On, uh, a whole lot of different ethical issues including the treatment of animals in global poverty, but a lot of others as well.

Climate change, for example, and bioethical issues like end of life decisions. Um, that's probably the second best selling book of mine. It's gone through three editions since 1979. It's never been out of print since, since then. Um, so it probably would've sold a couple of hundred thousand, um, but, uh, that's [00:09:00] still not nearly as much as animal liberation.

That's true. Uh, and, and while we're talking about my books, I'm gonna put in a plug for the the next one, which we add soon after this podcast, which actually I have to say is not a book that I've written. Um, it's a book that I've edited, uh, and I'm curious actually, Paul, whether you've heard of this. Um, it's a book called The Golden Ass by a writer called Alek.

Have, have you ever heard of that?

Paul Shapiro: It's not ringing a bell, but I'm eager to hear

Peter Singer: more. Good. Um, I think it, that will be most people's reaction. They will say, what is this? Um, it's actually a, a Roman novel, a a novel written in Latin in the second century ad, um, or I should say, uh, Christian era as we say nowadays.

Um, and you know, most people dunno that it existed. If you ask them what was the first novel, they might say Gull's travels or if they know about the Tale of Genji, the Japanese 13th century novel, they might say that. But this is, you know, hundreds of years earlier. [00:10:00] Um, and it's aero in good tale. And the inter, the reason that I actually am interested in it is it's a tale told from the point of view of a.

And so we get a lot of information about how donkeys were treated in Roman times. Um, you won't be surprised to learn that typically they're not treated very well. Um, but, but there's a great deal of empathy with, with the donkey coming through this. And apart from that, it's actually good fun. There's lots of adventures.

It's kind of like, you know, adventure genre sort of novels. Um, uh, the donkey nearly dies on various occasions. Um, there's some sex in it. Uh, there's a whole range of, you know, amusing things. So I think it ought to be better known. Um, I hope it. Will be widely read when it comes out. Um, it's coming out with Norton in, uh, April, uh, and I hope it'll also encourage more people to think about things from an animal's point of view.

Paul Shapiro: Wow, that's really cool. Well, I, I look forward to reading that. It reminds me a little bit, um, of, I don't know if you're familiar with the story in the book [00:11:00] of numbers and the Bible about the, uh, beams donkey. Have you, are you familiar with that? Right? Yeah. Right where, where the, the angel, uh, comes down and basically spares this donkey from being abused by beam and, and strikes down beam for not, uh, being as, as pious as his donkey is apparently.

Um, but yeah, well, pretty interesting. I, I, I have, uh, regularly commented that while donkeys may not be the most numerous of the animals who humanity is exploiting, they are really among the most abused in terms of their, their pitiful wat in life. And, um, it's interesting that that has been the case for a long time.

I'm glad your next book is gonna be on that topic. I can't wait to read it.

Peter Singer: Yeah, it's, it's, as I say, I, I just edited it. I pruned away a lot of things that were digressions that I think maybe is one of the reasons why people didn't find it so entertaining to read. But, but the core

Paul Shapiro: story, great story. Well, uh, I can attest that you're a great editor, in fact, cuz when I asked you if you would write a blurb for my book, clean Meat, you not only were kind in offering a blurb, which is on the back cover of [00:12:00] the book, but you actually read the whole book, edited it, and gave me not only macro suggestions, but also told me about expressions that I used too often.

Words that were missing in certain paragraphs. Uh, it was really, uh, an intense edit that you provided. I was shocked that you were doing that, but I was grateful for it. So, uh, I can only imagine if you're editing a book on which your name is gonna be on the front cover, uh, how much better road we be. So, uh, word of the why is Peter Singer, not only a good author, but also a good editor.

Peter Singer: Yeah. You know, send me your manuscripts. Everybody

Paul Shapiro: add this please. . Yeah. He's willing to, he's willing to do it for everybody. Um, no, you know, actually, you know, speaking of novels, it was pretty interesting. I was reading, um, the Three Body Problem, um, which is a, a very popular Chinese novel, though of course, I was reading it in English, sadly I can't read Mandarin, but one of the main characters has animal liberation on his shelf.

It was pretty, uh, fascinating to see how the book is penetrated into even Chinese sci-fi literature of the 21st century. And it was a, actually a, you know, pretty substantial portion of the book was about that topic.

Peter Singer: Yeah, [00:13:00] I'm, I'm aware of that. And I was also intrigued that, uh, that this, this was apparently a really big seller in China.

Um, and it was, you know, quite well known. So it's helped to make animal liberation Yes. Known in China as well. And there is a Chinese translation of it, of animal liberation, by the way. That's, that's doing okay too.

Paul Shapiro: Oh, very cool. Well, that's great. Uh, that's really great. Um, well, so speaking of animal liberation, Peter, you've commented that when you wrote it, the first edition in 1975, that you thought that just telling people about what happens to animals and making the case for why animals, um, should matter, and why we should take their interests seriously, that that would be sufficient to change people's behavior.

You know, there's a lot of animal advocates, including myself in the past, who have operated under this assumption only to be really disabused of that fantasy when we've seen meat consumption just rise and rise. So, you know, you fast forward 45 years since you first heard the book today. , and you know, I don't wanna be a downer, but your wishes have not exactly come true.

You know, meat consumption has never been higher. The number of animals we're raising for food has never been higher. Why do you think [00:14:00] that is? Uh, why do you think it is that awareness about factory farming ever being higher and yet again, we're raising more animals for food than ever before? Yeah.

Peter Singer: Um, you're, you're right.

Uh, that is a Dana. But we have to face the reality. Uh, of course, one of the reasons we're raising more animals than ever before is that there are countries that couldn't afford to eat a lot of meat. China is best example here, um, that have become more prosperous. Um, and that's a good thing. In general, the countries become more prosperous, but it does have this downside when countries like China, then people wanna eat more meat.

Uh, the country produces a lot more meat, largely produced in factory farms. It's disastrous for the environment as well as for the animals. Uh, so that's, you know, that's a significant factor. Um, But it's true that even in Western countries, um, although there's a been a big upsurge in plant-based foods and vegan eating, [00:15:00] uh, but still the amount of meat eaten is very large.

And in so far as it's changed, it's, I guess people eat less beef and more chickens, which is probably also, again, worse for animal suffering because there's just so many more chickens. So, um, I have to recognize that, uh, a large majority of the population out there, um, at least specifically when it comes to their choice of what to eat, are not really being influenced by the arguments that iron and many others have been put putting forward.

Uh,

Paul Shapiro: yeah, and I mean, it's, it's not, I agree with you that places like China and India, which have, you know, had a, a increase in the middle class, have seen much, uh, really staggering increases in meat consumption. But you're right, like even in the US. Per capita meat consumption, not just on a population basis, but per capita meat consumption has never been higher than it is today.

And arguably, there's never been more awareness about factory farming than there is today from animal welfare and environmental and public health. [00:16:00] And it just seems like, you know, what if more arguments just aren't getting it done? Um, I mean, I, I guess I should ask you like, do you think that animals today are better or worse off in general than when you wrote animal liberation?

Like, in other words, do you think humans are inflicting more suffering or less suffering on animals today than in 1970?

Peter Singer: Well, again, if we ask that as a kind of per capita where the capitas are, the animals basis, I think I could say less, but because there are a lot more animals, the total amount, uh, of animal suffering I think has clearly increased.

In the world. Mm-hmm. , um, I say less on the per capita basis because some, some regions have passed laws illuminating the very worst forms of factory farm confinement. I'm thinking here, particularly of the European Union, uh, which has banned the standard battery cage, um, has banned individual, uh, stalls for veal.

Calves has banned individual stalls for, [00:17:00] for breeding sas. Um, and a, a number of other, you know, somewhat more minor, but still significant reforms in animal handling. Um, I also think when it comes to the use of animals in research, uh, you know, if you look at the first edition of animal liberation, basically reporting experiments that were done in the 1960s and early 1970s, um, there are a lot of horrific experiments that.

To the best of my knowledge, I'm not being performed in the same way. I'm thinking about, uh, experiments in learned helplessness where uh, animals were just shocked into a state of depression by continuous inescapable electric shock on the floor of their cage. Um, you know, that was done and published quite openly in the United States Journals in the sixties.

Um, and I don't think you'd. You'd get anybody doing it quite that level. I'm not saying that people aren't doing horrible things to animals in labs. I think they still are, but [00:18:00] I think the, the le the extreme level of inflicting suffering on animals in labs, in countries like the United States, in the European Union, uh, in Australia where I am, um, uk, Canada, I think that's been reduced.

Um, and that to me is certainly a significant benefit.

Paul Shapiro: Certainly a significant benefit. I agree. And I, I also think that's probably right, at least as far as animals like, uh, monkeys and dogs are concerned as far as rats and mice are concerned. I'm, I'm not so sure that that's so uncommon to do learned helplessness experiments, but I'm not sure.

I'm not,

Peter Singer: it still does happen. I'm, I'm actually currently looking at these things because I'm planning to bring out a new addition of animal liberation within the next year or two. And there are, unfortunately, um, I was disturbed to find, still learned helplessness experiments going on, but I'd say you, you're right, that they're not being done on dogs and they wear being done and on, on dogs and, and similar things on monkeys.

Um, And now they are more like to use rats and mice for also sentient beings, of course. And we ought to be [00:19:00] concerned about their suffering just as we're concerned about the suffering of dogs and monkeys. Um, but I think probably it's still slightly less extreme. Um, mm-hmm. , Stephen Pinker in his book, the Better Angels of Our Nature, uh, talks about what he says is the worst, perhaps the worst thing he's ever done, which was, uh, an experiment he did on rats when he was a graduate student, um, at Harvard.

I think he was. Um, uh, and essentially he says, I tortured a rat to death, you know, under the guidance of his professor. This wasn't something that he, as a young sadist was doing. It was what, you know, was part of the science that he was doing for the PhD. But he says, he says, anyway, um, that nobody would do that kind of research now.

Um, I hope he's right.

Paul Shapiro: I certainly hope he's right. I was very moved when I read that myself. And, uh, of course it brings to mind like the Stanley Milgram experiments, um, on, on, uh, obedience to authority and what people are willing to do when someone in an authoritative position instructs 'em to do it. Um, but yeah.[00:20:00]

Yeah, I, I would agree with your overall assessment. Uh, I, I think in, in general that, um, numerous types of abuses of animals have been, uh, either outlawed or at least defacto phased out. Um, whereas the total number of animals, uh, being used by humanity seems to have only skyrocketed. In fact, I remember when, uh, we, you and I first met, uh, which was in 1996, uh, you gave a speech, um, and, uh, noted that there were 6 billion animals used for food in the United States back then, or at least land animals.

And of course today that number is, you know, closer to 10 billion land animals, um, and untold nu numbers of aquatic animals as well. So it's, uh, it's hard to swallow. It's hard to swallow. So, uh, let's turn it to something a little bit more positive though, and I want to ask you. Sure. You know, you mentioned some of the things that you, that you have been encouraged by, right?

So the European Union banning certain types of extreme confinement. So just give a quick list feeder of what are the things that today are happening [00:21:00] for animals that you think are the most exciting things for animals happening right now?

Peter Singer: Yeah, well, um, certainly that European Union breakthrough, it was a few years ago, but that was very positive and it was good to see, uh, somewhat similar laws coming into some states in the United States, including, you know, California, clearly the most significant of them.

Uh, and that came in through a citizens initiated. Referendum, um, uh, the, there'd been a couple of them, but the, the, the, the first big breakthrough was in 2008, the year that Obama was elected. And it was significant that that referendum actually had a larger majority in California than Obama did. Um, and of course, a, you know, California was a, uh, a late on mazzer for, for Obama.

He didn't really have to campaign. It was obvious all along it was gonna vote for him, but, but the, uh, the referendum got even more support, which shows that when you put these issues about the confinement of factory farm animals to the American public, um, in, in a vote, and they get some information about what's going on, uh, they [00:22:00] are at least prepared to vote against it, even if they're not prepared to stop buying it.

or majority of them are not. Um, and that is spread to, um, you're probably better informed on this than I am, but it's spread to a few other states in the us. Um, but there's a lot of other states, of course, that still don't have these, these, uh, laws.

Paul Shapiro: Yes, that's right. And, uh, you know, I, I devoted, uh, much of my life to passing that law in, in 2008 as part of group of many people who did that and, and moved to California for it.

And, you know, what was so interesting was not only did more Californians vote to ban battery cages than voted for Obama, but that same election, a majority of Californians voted to ban gay marriage. Now, the courts eventually overturned that, but that just goes to show that there are a number of people who voted to ban gay marriage, who also voted to ban battery cages.

And of course, uh, you know, I, I don't think that is good, but it is to show that what a widespread view throughout American society. The, uh, better treatment of farm animals is that [00:23:00] it's not just something that people on one side of the political spectrum believed in. And in fact, when you look at the other states that have passed similar laws, many of them are outright red states, states like Arizona, where, you know, um, you o Obama didn't win at all.

And yet still, uh, nearly two thirds of Arizona voters voted to ban gestation crates and fuel crate. Um, and in swing states like Florida, you still had double dig digit victories to ban, uh, gestation crate. And so I think you're right. People act very differently as citizens than they do as consumers because these same people who are voting to ban inhumane factory farming systems are also at the same time purchasing the products of those very systems they're seeking to criminalize.

Uh, which is a, a good suggestion of why we have to codify social norms into public policies and not just leave it solely up to the market. So that's, uh, a good few examples, Peter, of, uh, some of the things that have happened that are most exciting, are there other ones that you think are also particularly encouraging that you wanna mention?

Just to [00:24:00] keep us on this good news train for. Yeah.

Peter Singer: The other thing that I, uh, really like, um, is happening is that people are being more concerned about fish now. Um, you know, even when I wrote animal liberation, I was a little hesitant to talk much about fish because I just thought it's so hard to get people to have any kind of empathy or concern for chickens, for example.

Um, how are you gonna get them to have concern for a fish who can't, you know, vocalize or coldblooded and so on. Um, but, but animal organizations are starting to take up that issue and it's, it's such a vast issue. You know, you mentioned the 10 billion animals almost, uh, killed for food in the United States and maybe worldwide.

It's what, 70 billion or something like that? Sure. Um, but uh, but if you look at the numbers of fish, It's by estimates I've seen it, it it's around a trillion or maybe over a trillion. Um, so a thousand, over a thousand billion. Um, and yet the, you know, these are, um, sentient beings. These are beings who can feel pain and [00:25:00] overwhelmingly they're not.

There's no humane killing for them. There's some, you know, little bit of humane killing in some, uh, aquaculture, but mostly not. And, and, uh, and for wild caught fish, there's pretty, pretty much none. So, uh, that's, that's also a, a vast amount of suffering that we're inflicting on, on beings that we don't really need to.

Paul Shapiro: So let me ask you, Peter, um, you know, most people currently believe that pigs and chickens and cows are sentient and they feel pain, and yet it, it does little to deter them from eating them. What will that do then if people accept that fish feel pain?

Peter Singer: Well, you're right that I suppose the implication is that the majority of people will continue to eat them.

Um, and. That's, that's a problem. Um, I think that it's, it's good that organizations are making more people aware of that. I think there are some people who will stop eating them. Um, and maybe in the long term there will be a change of culture, um, a change of, [00:26:00] of attitude to this. But, uh, I know where you are leading to.

Um, and that is that we are much more likely to get some success if we provide people with something that tastes like fish to them, that, uh, has this nutritional value of fish. Um, but that doesn't come from a sentient being who suffered.

Paul Shapiro: Yeah. I mean, I, I think your supposition is correct. Um, I, it's not that I think it's, uh, a bad thing to do to persuade people that phish can feel pain, quite the opposite.

I think it's really important to do it, and I too am grateful that more people are taking the interests of Phish seriously, uh, after having been ignored for so long. So, uh, I, I welcome it. My, I just think that, We have to do not only what is right, but also what's both right and effective, and it, it doesn't seem to me.

That persuading people that an animal can suffer, necessarily deters them from eating them. Um, I'm not really seeing that evidence considering what we were just saying. And I, I do wonder, so if [00:27:00] you think about, you know, I'll give you an example. If you think about the founding of the American Animal Movement back in the late 1860s, these are folks who largely were concerned about the savage treatment of horses in the streets.

They were concerned about how these carriage horses were being treated, and they campaigned for all types of reforms. They wanted, uh, mandatory resting hours for them, watering stations, for the horses. They wanted Sabbath days where the horses had to be rested so they couldn't work one day a week. And then Henry Ford comes along and essentially liberates horses doing more for them than the animal advocates were even trying to do for them.

They were simply trying to get them better working conditions. And Henry Ford rendered their exploitation obsolete. And the number of those types of stories is large. The reason we stopped exploding carrier pigeons isn't cuz people cared about the pigeons. It's because the telegraph was invented. The reason we stopped wailing wasn't because people cared about whales, it's because kerosene was invented and the list goes on and on and on.

We, you know, we stopped live plucking geese for their quills, for their pens. Not cuz people cared about geese, but because fountain [00:28:00] pens were invented. Whereas it's very difficult to think of any category of animal exploitation that was ended primarily because of humane sentiment. Um, it's very easy to think of ways that technology has rendered categories of animal exploitation obsolete.

But it's pretty hard to think of that many categories where humane sentiment was the driving factor. So what do you think about that? Like, do you, I mean, I know that you are encouraged by the, uh, ex, the explosion of interest in plant-based meats and queen meat and so on. But as far as those examples go, like, uh, does that give you more reason to think that we ought to be focusing more on technological innovation to help advance the goals of animals?

Peter Singer: I'm very happy that technological innovation is, is happening and is is making these things easier. Um, I think there's a bit more nuance in some of those issues than you mentioned. For example, whaling didn't stop with the replacement of whale oil for lamps, right. A Australia was still wailing into the [00:29:00] 1970s.

We were still killing, and of course the Japanese were killing whales to eat them and still are. Um, but certainly the, the, uh, Australian whaling was stopped by, uh, combination of humane concern for the whales and environmental concern about endangered species and preserving the oceans. Uh, so I think there are, there, there are cases, and as I've said, certainly, um, the European Union changes were brought about by humane concerns.

And, uh, while they didn't stop people eating these animals, they reduced the suffering of those animals. And that's significant. And also, of course, The reason that these things didn't happen on their own without a humane movement is because the cruel method. Turned out to be cheaper or they produced a cheaper product.

So if you don't have them, the product becomes more expensive. Um, and therefore, I think you will find that it's easier for these alternative [00:30:00] products to compete with them because obviously prices are gonna be consideration when people come to choose between, uh, plant-based or a cellular grown meat and meat from sentient.

Paul Shapiro: Right. Yeah, I certainly agree with you though that price is, is gonna be paramount here. And, and I of course also agree that there are plenty of examples where're wailing persist to this day. But, you know, we also still have some horse-drawn carriage use, some people still use quail pens and so on. So I, I think overall though, you know, the, the reason why these industries were decimated, if not entirely eradicated yet, uh, largely was because of technological displacement.

Now, I agree that you did have humane sentiment, uh, ending the, uh, wailing issue in certain countries, but it's, it's kind of like. You know, if you think about why the northern states in the United States were able to legislate against slavery was the, the southern states were, you know, were willing to go to war, to preserve.

It was cuz the northern states had largely industrialized. And so they could, [00:31:00] it was easier for them to ban slavery and accept the, the moral, uh, high ground there because they were no longer so economically dependent on slavery in the same way that all the nations that were pressuring the laggard nations on wailing had abandoned it already.

Uh, largely for, cuz they didn't need whales anymore, for the most part. And I, I wonder then if it is the case that rather than people having a moral awakening and then seeking to legislate against these practices, if it may be that first, reducing our reliance on the exploitative practice can help lead to an easier moral awakening because there's less cognitive dissonance in the first place.

What do you think?

Peter Singer: I'm sure you're right about that. I'm sure that, um, you are more likely to get the moral awakening if you reduce the dependence on the practice. Um, I'll just mention one other example. Since you brought slavery in, um, the movement to abolish the slave trade in, in Britain, um, in about, in the [00:32:00] very early 18 hundreds, um, I don't think had that kind of economic advantage.

In other words, there were still, there were people making money out of the slave trade. Mm-hmm. slaves were still being sold in British colonies. Um, Jamaica, for example, uh, and does seem to me from looking at that movement that it was a morally based music movement, which did stop, um, a moral atrocity.

Yeah.

Paul Shapiro: Yeah. I, I think that the William Wilber forces of that era were particularly effective in making the moral argument and, and, uh, frankly, shaming people who were still, uh, complicit in, in the, uh, in the slave trade. So, I, I agree. I'm not, I, I don't seek to make a, a case that moral arguments are totally inert.

Uh, I, oh, my case really is that. Technological innovations can help to hasten the acceptance of them in a very rapid way. Uh, whereas it takes much longer. And so, and this isn't just for animals, but even if you think about, uh, you know, [00:33:00] actually you mentioned Steven Pinker, uh, how he talks about how the invention of the washing machine, uh, helped to liberate women and to give them much more free time to engage in other, uh, pursuits that weren't just domestic or, you know, Susan B.

Anthony actually commented that she thought that bicycling had done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world because the invention of the bicycle enabled women to basically get outta the house where they weren't allowed to drive and they didn't have any way to get around. And now they could go and actually engage in business.

And so it could be that the acceptance of women in the workplace was actually really hasten by the invention of the bicycle, which was Susan b Anthony's, uh, case that she made.

Peter Singer: Sure. I think we're, we're really in agreement on the fact that technological advances can be extremely important in making moral

Paul Shapiro: changes possible.

Yes. Yeah. So, okay then let me get down to, uh, I'd say, let's say a controversial thing that you and I were talking about a little bit before we started recording. Uh, if you had a certain amount of money, [00:34:00] let's say you had a hundred thousand dollars and you had to decide what to do with it, and you and I were talking about whether or not it would be good, let's say to advance some type of a technological innovation to help animals, or would you think donating it to a charity that's working to get animals better living conditions or maybe to a charity that's working to advance technological innovation like the Good Food Institute or something.

Now, of course, I know you're gonna say all of these are worthy, but if you had a hundred thousand dollars, you could only expend that much. What would Peter Singer do?

Peter Singer: Yeah, that's actually not, not a hypothetical situation. That's an actual situation that I, I face pretty much every year when I make my donations.

Um, and it is a very difficult decision. Um, so I donate to all three of those areas that you mentioned that is, I donate to organizations recommended as highly effective by the life you can save. Um, people can go to the life you can save.org, and they can find [00:35:00] the organizations that are independently audited and verified as being highly effective in, in helping people in extreme poverty, in saving lives in.

Restoring site for people who are blind in helping people to start small businesses, to work their way out of poverty. All of these kinds of things. Um, I also give to, uh, animal charities like the main league, um, and I, charity again, people can look for charities recommended by animal charity evaluators to see independently evaluated charities that, uh, that do good.

And, uh, the Good Food Institute, which you mentioned, which is working to bring about facilitate, uh, technological changes and alternatives to the use of animals for food, um, is one of animal charity evaluators recommended top charities. And it is one that I donate to. So, uh, I'm doing all three, but of course you could push the question a little bit harder and say, well, [00:36:00] If it all had to go to one, which one would've go through right

Yes. And that I would, I would find that very tough to answer. I

Paul Shapiro: have to say. Um, I, I, I'll let you off the hook since if you're giving away six figures already, you know, so there's a, there's some moral license that you have there to hedge, hedge the bed a bit. But I, I will push the question a little bit harder in a different way then and ask you.

Um, you know, you, uh, tweeted recently about how you were so impressed by the company Eat just in China, uh, worked with a major fast food company there to replace all of the egg sandwiches on its menu with their plant-based just egg, uh, with their, um, egg scramble there and how this was in your words, the largest substitution at a restaurant of a factory farm product with a plant-based product ever.

And it, it's hard to imagine, you know, something realistic occurring that would reduce more suffering than taking battery cage eggs off of a fast food company's menu and replacing them entirely with plant-based eggs. So in that particular case, you know, if that is a potential outcome [00:37:00] in addition to donating to charity, what is your view then on investing in startups that could achieve those type of outcomes?

Peter Singer: That's fine, but you, you need to know what the odds are that the startup will, will actually succeed.

Paul Shapiro: Um, not high if you look at just the statist, just the statistics. .

Peter Singer: Yeah. Yeah. Actually, I, I, I have a, a, I was invited to be a kind of founding, uh, investor in, uh, a company called Gourmet in, in France. I'm not sure if you're familiar with them.

Yeah,

Paul Shapiro: yeah. They do, they do. Cultivated far gra

Peter Singer: That's right. Um, and, and, uh, you know, so I, I have a very modest investment in, uh, in, in that, um, because it did seem to me that this for far gra is, is particularly cruel area of production. Of course. Um, and it's also a very expensive product. So the, the issue that we just touched on briefly before about, um, alternatives, having to compete in price, which, um, you know, is quite difficult if you're trying to compete with, with chicken or, or burgers.

Really [00:38:00] quite inexpensive. Um, but competing with fry grass seems to me to be, um, more plausible on price. So I thought that was worth a little punt, but, but you know, you're, you are much more the expert on that, right? How, how do we know if somebody says, come and invest in the startup, how do we know how likely it is to actually be one of these, uh, you know, like, like just that is succeeding in, in replacing animal.

Paul Shapiro: Yeah, it's so hard to say, especially because the mortality rate for these startups is very high, especially the infant mortality rate of them. And so, uh, you know, you look at a company like just that, you know, it's been in existence for, um, about a decade now, and they've raised about 300 million. Uh, they've, and you know, now of course they've done a lot more than just this one thing in China.

And hopefully they'll do a lot more, uh, in the future. But it's hard to know, not only. You know, which jockey to bet on, so to speak, to use an animal unfriendly expression, . Um, but, you know, which, you know, um, so it's, it's hard to know. Um, but yeah, I mean, that's [00:39:00] what, you know, venture capitalists do, is they essentially, uh, try to pick one of the most promising ones.

And then there's a whole host of these investors who are animal motivated, who are trying to seed the space with funding. Now, of course, they wanna return on their investment, but I think they're also pretty high-minded in that, knowing that a lot of that money would be going to philanthropy anyway. So they're, you know, maybe have a, a little bit different of a point of view when they're investing.

Um, but yeah, I, I, I'm one of the people who thinks that, um, it's a good idea to seed companies with, with money now because of the success of Beyond Meat, there's a lot more capital coming into the space. And so I do, I, I do find it pretty compelling. Um, You know, if you look at a company like just that's raised a few hundred million dollars and you look at Impossible Foods, which is raised half a billion dollars, um, you know, these are types of dollars that the, you know, nonprofit organizations just aren't gonna have access to.

And so the question is, you know, what will happen if you don't invest? So I think the more money that comes in from conventional [00:40:00] investors, uh, makes it less compelling for philanthropists to put their money in that type of a way, just because of the, how, how much money there is in the space, right?

Peter Singer: Yes.

That's, yeah, I have that feeling too, that, that if, if we're talking about people putting in tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, then um, the amount that I could put in. May not be making any difference, whereas it may be making a small difference if I donated to the Humane League and their campaigns, let's say, to, uh, get supermarket chains or other food chains to stop serving some of the worst factory found products or to, you know, get their eggs from cage free hens.

Um, maybe I'm doing a small amount of good there, uh, which I wouldn't be doing else.

Paul Shapiro: Yeah, it's totally possible. I think the, the, the counter example to that would be an early stage startup that might not have access to those tens of millions of dollars and need somebody to help them get off the ground.

That might be a, a more compelling case where, you know, $50,000 could really make or break them at that [00:41:00] point. Um, so it's a, it is an interesting thing. Um, sadly, I, I am, uh, not in the position of giving away a hundred thousand dollars a year, but I, I hope one day to be, and in that point I'll have to consult with you and, and figure out what to do here.

But, um, let me ask you then, Peter, you know, we're talking about like, some of your, I would say more mainstream points of views here in terms of, you know, uh, being an altruist donating money. Now, of course, it's not mainstream to suggest giving away 20% of your income, but it's still something that most people would say is, is laudable.

You've taken a lot of positions on a lot of hot button issues, and I'm wondering a, after, you know, a half a century here of philosophizing on all types of hot button issues, is there anything that you look back on now and think, ah, you know, I, I don't think I was right about that and I changed my mind about it.

Now

Peter Singer: I've changed my mind on, on some, um, Underlying philosophical issues, um, such as, well, a very significant one [00:42:00] is, I guess I've, I've changed my mind o over this, you know, going back this 50 year period that we're talking about, uh, that I've been a vegetarian. And that is also coincided with essentially me moving from being a graduate student in philosophy to being a professor.

Um, I've changed my mind on the objectivity of ethics and the basis for that. That's a pretty fundamental question in ethics. But, but it's not something where I could say, you know, well, I, I advocated doing X and now I think it would be wrong to do X and we should instead do y mm-hmm. . Um, it's, it's something, something more basic than that.

Uh, and there's a couple of other things, you know, in, in that same area like that Yeah. That I've changed that, but I'm, I'm, I'd be struggling to say, what did I advocate as in terms, in practical terms that I now. wish I hadn't, or that I now think would be wrong. Mm-hmm. ,

Paul Shapiro: are there any things that you think that you were right about but you think, uh, maybe it wasn't effective to talk about them?

Or do you think that, you know, it was that, you know, just seeking the truth on everything is, is the right thing to do

Peter Singer: no matter what? [00:43:00] So the example that would, you know, makes me think about, maybe it would've been better to talk about it, was my views about, uh, suggesting that parents should be able to choose euthanasia for their severely disabled newborn infants.

Um, and I still hold that view. I haven't changed it, but, um, you know, that's probably the, the most controversial view that I've held in terms of arousing the most opposition, leading, uh, me in some cases to be blocked from speaking in Germany in the 19, uh, nineties, for example. And occasionally I still get protests, uh, about that.

And, you know, sometimes, I think well, would I have been able to have more influence on areas like, uh, the better treatment of animals or, um, assisting people in extreme poverty if I hadn't written about that. Um, but you know, you can't, you can't. [00:44:00] Go back and, and run the experiment again. So we don't really know.

Um, I think I don't really know the answer to that. Certainly it, it brought me a lot of hostility. But Yeah. You

Paul Shapiro: were, you were, uh, you were one of the examples of cancel culture before anybody was calling it cancel culture.

Peter Singer: So That's right. Yes, that's true. Um, and it did make me actually a strong advocate for, uh, freedom of thought and discussion.

Um, and, and so it's had, it's had that impact and maybe that's a good impact. Uh, together with a couple of colleagues, I've now, uh, I'm now founding a journal called The Journal of Controversial Ideas, which is intended to promote freedom of thought and discussion and allow people to publish things that are controversial.

Um, both in the sense that they'll be supported by the journal. A journal won't yield to outcry and pressure to retract articles that have been accepted by peer review, but also in that we're allowing people to publish, uh, anonymously or under pseudonym if they're worried about being harassed or they're worried about [00:45:00] their controversial ideas, uh, hindering their academic career if they're academics.

So, That's, I, I think that that's a, a helpful thing. And, um, it's gonna be an open access journal, so anybody will be able to read it. We're hoping to publish the first issue in mid-April. Um, so people might like to go to the Journal of Controversial Ideas, uh, and, and have a look at what's going on and, and perhaps support this effort to make sure that, uh, ideas can get out there that despite efforts to cancel people, um, or to threaten them, um, There is still a place where controversial ideas can be published.

Paul Shapiro: Sounds fun. Uh, I will certainly be one of those readers and, uh, I can't wait. So, uh, in terms of controversial views, then, you know, one of your, uh, most famous quotes is about how it's really easy for us to criticize our grandparents' generation for their biases and their moral failings. And I that a wa it's a lot harder for us to see our own moral failures.

And obviously, [00:46:00] uh, the treatment of animals is one of them that you and, and, and others have. Persuasively, in my view, argued that future generations are gonna be repulsed by what we did to animals when they learnt how we treated animals. When they pick up a copy of animal liberation and they read it and they're gonna think, how could anyone have ever allowed these types of cruelties to occur?

Independent of animals though? Are there other things that you think that we're doing today that future generations are going to find revolting? I morally speaking, like, do you think, aside from animals, what else do you predict 50 years from now? People are gonna look back and say, geez, that was barbaric.

Peter Singer: Well, I think the fact that, uh, there are people dying from poverty related causes, um, including, you know, ones that I've mentioned, um, like malaria, like, uh, diarrhea from having poor sanitation, uh, like malnutrition. Uh, there are people going blind from not getting enough vitamin A or not being treated for tcom and easily preventable cause of [00:47:00] blindness.

Um, that that is happening in a world in which there are more than a billion people living in at a level of affluence that simply didn't exist, uh, a hundred or so years ago, or existed only on a tiny, tiny scale. Um, I think people will look back on that and say, well, you know, why didn't they help them? Um, you know, they knew about it.

It's not as if it was like, you know, in an era when people living in Europe or the United States had no idea what was going on in, in other parts of the world, nor is it an era when they lack the ability to. To travel and to, and to do things to assist them. Um, and yet, uh, they didn't and, and we're not, or we're, we're not doing it on a sufficiently adequate scale.

Uh, so I think that may well be something that people look back on and say, you know, why did they live in a world that was so unfair? Um, where the country that you were born in had such a difference, made such a difference to your prospects of living a, a long and healthy life. [00:48:00] Uh, that's, that's I think something people will puzzle about in future, future generations.

Paul Shapiro: Yeah, certainly, uh, troubling to puzzle about it even now, just listening to you talk about it. So, uh, you know, you've talked though, Peter. Even in, in our conversation right now about the numbers of animals who are enduring suffering, that is just so extreme. It's so unmitigated. It's just tens of billions if not trillions of animals.

So, uh, far greater than the number of human beings even alive, whether in affluence or in poverty, um, at any given point. And so I'm wondering how you weigh all of that astronomical quantity of suffering that animals are enduring when you think about where to spend your resources, whether donating or your time or your writings.

Like how do you weigh, obviously the universe of animal suffering is unparalleled by anything. And so what do you think about when, of course, human suffering is, is, is horrible and we want to alleviate it, but when you weigh [00:49:00] those, where do you come out?

Peter Singer: Yeah, I mean, I think it's very likely that what we are doing to animals is causing more suffering than anything else that's, that's happening on the planet.

Um, it's, it's not, I, when I say it's very likely, I, you know, the difficulty here is comparing the, the sufferings of different beings. Um, I had once a student at Princeton who, uh, wrote a thesis on that, but in the end, I, I couldn't say that he cracked the problem. He said some interesting things about it.

It was a very good thesis, but, uh, we can't really put ourselves inside the mind of a, of a cow or a chicken or, or a fish. Um, and so it's not easy to say, uh, you know, Think of a, think of a, a shared raising, 20,000 chickens, uh, extremely crowded indoors. Um, uh, certainly they're, they're stressed in in a whole lot of ways.

[00:50:00] Um, they're bred to grow extremely fast so that, uh, the experts who look at it say that they're actually in, in pain for the last two weeks cuz they're bodies have grown so fast that their leg bones don't really support it and they've compared it to somebody, uh, who's forced to stand all day on their feet, although they've got painful arthritis in their legs.

Um, so, you know, yes. You know, maybe it's like that, maybe it's just as bad for a chicken as it is for a, a human there. But then maybe the human has a different awareness of what's going on and thinks about it in different ways. Feels the unfairness of it more. Um, it's, it's not easy to make those comparisons.

Um, I think. You know, certainly we, we far too readily dismiss the suffering of animals and we say, oh, human suffering is what really matters. I don't think we have any basis for saying that just being a member of the species, homo sapien makes your suffering worse or more significant. But it's, it's [00:51:00] past, you know, the, the cognitive capacities that most humans have and that most non-human animals don't have is relevant to that question.

um, it, it's relevant,

Paul Shapiro: difficult. I agree. It's difficult, and I do agree that that cognitive difference is relevant. It is just the numbers are, you know, exponential in their difference. Um, yeah, and that's actually

Peter Singer: what, what, what my student sort of actually came out, ended up saying. He, he looked at the numbers and he said, well, you would have to say, The suffering of a human being like this is, uh, hundreds of times worse than the suffering of, of an animal.

Um, and there doesn't seem much basis for saying that. So therefore he did conclude that the suffering of animals in factory farms in particular he was looking at, is worse than, you know, a whole range of things that we otherwise normally regard as terrible things that are being done to people. And they are terrible, but, but because the numbers are smaller, there is still, I think, plausibly less suffering.

Paul Shapiro: Yeah, I, I, I think that seems [00:52:00] plausible. Um, but it is hard to tell, but I, I understand where your students coming from there. Um, alright, Peter, I wanna ask you a couple rapid fire questions that some listeners of the show who I queried wanted to know of you. So I'm gonna ask you real quick. These first one, uh, comes from two very important listeners.

Uh, they listen to every episode because they are, uh, genetically related to me each by 50% of their genes, aka my parents. So, uh, they, uh, they are vegetarians except they use what they call the Peter Singer Principle and they still eat oysters and clams. What do you have to say to them? Are they still in the green on eating oysters and clams because there's no real evidence that they're sentient or should they reconsider their.

Peter Singer: No, I think they're okay. Um, I, I think this, I haven't changed my views on that. I still don't think there's real evidence that, uh, Bial specifically mm-hmm. oysters, cla muscles, scallops, um, uh, sentient beings. Okay.

Paul Shapiro: Uh, question number two. If somebody were considering raising a child and they had their choice between [00:53:00] procreating or adopting, do you think one is preferable?

Peter Singer: Well, um, there's, yeah. If, if they're, if they're happy to adopt and then they feel that there's no problem in, in loving an adopted child, um, as their own, uh, and, um, you know, they're our, they're our children in need of adoption, because I do think we need to look somewhat critically at some of the, uh, overseas in intercountry adoption facilities that, um, are these bonafide.

Orphans or are they children who've been solicited by agencies from parents, um, to be adopted? Uh, and what are the consequences of that? So, um, but if, but if you have a ch, if you have a, a undoubtedly needy child, um, uh, then I think, uh, adoption is, is preferable if, if you feel that you're willing and able to do it.

Paul Shapiro: Okay. Um, humans colonizing other planets, good or bad idea. [00:54:00]

Peter Singer: Good idea. I think if we can do it, um, because it does provide a kind of a backup if we destroy this planet. Uh, you know, if we have some catastrophe. Uh, well, it could be just a a, it could be a pandemic, which also actually could come out of factory farms too.

There're been described as an ideal breeding place for new viruses. Um, or it could be bioterrorism or it could be still nuclear war is still possible. So if we do, then I think it would be a good thing if our species continues and if it exists on another planet, um, in a self-sustaining way on another planet, uh, that would be a backup.

Paul Shapiro: Well, let me ask a follow up question to that then. Have we proven our ability to be, um, worthy of populating another planet after what we've done on this planet?

Peter Singer: Uh, you know, we have potential for good and bad and, and what hap happens on this planet may turn out to be good and may turn out to be bad.

We've, um, done a lot of bad things so far, but, um, I suppose I'm, I'm an optimist, [00:55:00] uh, in the general trend of thinking that the longer we survive, the more we will be able to, um, improve conditions for humans and for other animals. And that, uh, you know, as you were talking about, our technology will enable us to do without exploiting animals in the way that we have been.

Um, and so I think in the long run, if we survive as a species, we will be. Producing, uh, as beings who are, are worthy of continuing to live. All

Paul Shapiro: right. All right. Well, you heard it here, Peter Singer, uh, pro-human. The, the man who often gets derided as a misanthrope is actually pro-human colonization of other planets because he believes in humanity.

So, alright, Peter,

Peter Singer: I asked you, let me just say, I'm assuming that these other planets don't have other sandy Indian beings on them at the moment, though, you know, they're talking about planets in our solar system as far as we know. I mean, if we're talking about colonizing a planet that already has flourishing, intelligent life on it.

Yeah. Um, no, uh, we've been there

Paul Shapiro: [00:56:00] before too. Interesting. Yes. Uh, you know, I do presume that, uh, at least, um, planets like Mars probably don't have any sentient life on them. I, I presume that although who, who knows, um, one listener of our show, Brian is actually, uh, at NASA and is playing a big role in looking for life on Mars right now.

And he thinks there might be microbes, but probably not in anything more if there, if there were. So we'll see. Um, but I, I don't think it's that outrageous to think that, um, certain moons like Cetus or um, Europa might actually contain sentient life in their, in their liquid oceans. They, they do have liquid water oceans right now.

Um, so I'd be a little bit more nervous about going there myself. Okay, all, I'll go along with that. All right, very good. Uh, so Peter, you know a lot of folks who listen to the show, they're really interested in business, especially startups that are doing things to make the world a better place. Are there any companies that you wish [00:57:00] existed that don't yet exist?

So you are invested in a fog alternative company. Are there other companies out there that you think, ah, the world would be a better place if somebody could just crack this?

Peter Singer: Oh, um, well how about fusion energy for a start? . Okay. But I know Princeton has a, has a lab that's, that's working in that and has been for some years and gets, uh, is well government funded and it, it hasn't cracked it.

So I'm not about to invest in the startup that's, uh, ambitious of doing

Paul Shapiro: that. , I think Bill Getz has, I think he came, might have a little bit more expendable income than you, but, um, just for , but, uh, but I'm pretty sure he, he has invested in, in, uh, what would be like NextGen nuclear, uh, energy. Cool. What other ideas or if any other that, that you would hope would come into existence, Peter?

Peter Singer: Uh, well, I just dunno that anything else's coming to me right off, off the top of my head. Um, okay. I'm sure there's a lot of good things. Yeah. Think of.

Paul Shapiro: I'm sure there are too. You can go back and [00:58:00] listen to some past episodes of this podcast and you'll hear some really cool ideas . So, alright. In addition, Peter, to the 40 plus books that you have written, are there any other books that you think that you would recommend to people who are interested in either awaiting a more ethical life who might be interested in using entrepreneurship, um, to do good in the world?

Are there any things that you would say, Hey, check this out. Oh, right.

Peter Singer: Um, so I think another interesting book about, about ethics, uh, written by a professor of psychology, but when I actually first got a PhD in, in philosophy, uh, at Princeton, who I, uh, worked with is, uh, Joshua Green's book, moral Tribes. Um, I think it's got an interesting take on, on ethics and morality.

Um, other books we've talked about, Stephen Pinker's, uh, better Angels of Our Nature. It's come under, come up for a certain amount of flack about some of the claims, but I still think it's a really interesting and generally optimistic take on, uh, [00:59:00] species and where we're going. Um hmm. Uh,

Paul Shapiro: I, I too found moral.

I too found moral tribes to be quite compelling.

Peter Singer: Yeah. Good. And let me just mention, um, I don't, again, don't agree with everything but Toby Odds book Precipice, which is about existential risk, about, um, the risk of us, uh, become becoming extinct. Um, and various reasons why that would be a bad thing and some of the things that we can do about it, um, is also definitely worth.

Paul Shapiro: Okay, cool. Uh, that's great, Peter. Well, I do recommend reading many of your books to listeners, especially, um, not only the most popular ones, but one of the books that had the biggest impact on me was the, um, was your book, how are We to Live Ethics in an Age of Self-Interest? And that had a, a very compelling, uh, impact on me and what I decided to do with my life and with my career.

And so I will highly plug that book in addition to your [01:00:00] other books that we have,

Peter Singer: uh, talked about. Thanks very much, Paul. That probably also is due for a, a revised edition at some point, but, uh, I'm doing animal liberation first. .

Paul Shapiro: All right, very good. Well, Peter, you've led a very impactful wife. Um, if you, you know, you're often described as the most influential living philosopher.

I think after you pass away, many will just change that to say one of the most influential philosophers. Um, although you have had, uh, the benefit of coming in, uh, of having an, an era of mass media and able to get your word out, and it's been very influential to a lot of people. And like I said, hopefully, you know, you have an another couple decades left in you of, uh, doing good in the world, but.

Whenever that time comes that you do pass on, there will be a lot of obituaries written about. You'll be a lot of people giving you wies for you. What do you hope they'll say? Like, if you had to boil down what you, oh,

Peter Singer: lemme just say, I, I hope they won't say that I've passed on because I won't be passing onto anywhere.

I'll just be dead . I hope they'll say [01:01:00] that. I, they'll

Paul Shapiro: say, Peter, Peter Singer is now decomposing, and then they'll say something else. What's the other thing they're gonna say? What's

Peter Singer: the other thing you hope? Um, okay, so I hope they'll say that I, um, I did have an impact, a positive impact on the world. Um, and that I, I hope they'll say that.

Um, I've encouraged many people as like you Paul, um, you're shining example. But, um, there are certainly oth many others, I hope, who I've influenced in a positive direction to, uh, try to think ab, think hard about how we can do the most good, how we can reduce suffering the most. Um, and, uh, I, I, I hope that's what I'll

Paul Shapiro: be remembered for.

That's great. Well, I, I can surely, um, attest that you've had a, a huge impact on my life. I hope that you have an impact on the wives of people who will learn about your work from listening to this interview. And I hope that those obituaries are not written for a long time because there still is a lot more work to do.

And I think you're gonna have to do a lot to prove humanity [01:02:00] worthy of our continued, uh, exploration of other planets here before, uh, we meet that test to, uh, to deserve it. So I hope that you stick around for a long time, Peter. I'm grateful to everything that you've done and continue to do to make the world a better place.

Thanks a lot,

Peter Singer: Phil. Been good to talk to you.

Paul Shapiro: Thanks for listening. We hope you found use in this episode. If so, don't keep it to yourself. Please leave us a five star rating on iTunes or wherever you get your podcast. And as always, we hope you will be in the business of doing good.