You are listening to The Vegan Report. My name
is Ryan and 32 years have passed since the release
of the first Jurassic Park movie, now a cinema
classic. For today's episode, we are revisiting
their original franchise through an animal rights
perspective. As the multi -billion dollar biotech
firm Colossal is seriously considering opening
its own Jurassic Park, let's examine closely
the impact and legacy of those 90s era movies.
To discuss this topic, I have with me Alex Ventimiglia
Sanchez, a professor of the English and Film
Studies Department of the University of Alberta.
He is also part of the team behind the amazing
egg -truth .com initiative. Among other things,
I asked Alex Why does our sense of wonderment
towards animals makes us want to abuse them?
Do vegans deceptively make animals appear like
children? Do we exploit animals because of our
conditioning or human nature? Visit the episode's
notes and connect with Alex and the egg -truth
.com project. Also, a friendly reminder to share
this episode with your people. Subscribe or follow
the show if you haven't. Leave a good review.
Your support of this independent podcast means
the world to me. Thank you. It's really fun to
have a pretext to talk about dinosaurs and Jurassic
Park. I'm feeling nostalgic. This was a big theme
of my childhood. Dinosaurs, I loved them. I collected
figurines of dinosaurs and I watched Jurassic
Park maybe a hundred times. I loved that movie
so much and I'm talking about the original version
with the puppet dinosaurs, not the CGI versions.
Do we share the same passion for dinosaurs? Yeah,
yeah, absolutely. I think so first off, I agree
any any opportunity to talk about dinosaurs in
general, but but Jurassic Park in particular,
I think is something that I treasure. I have
lots of memories that revolve around dinosaurs.
It was like, as you said, it was an obsession
of mine when I was a kid. And actually, I didn't
quite outgrow it until until recently, I think.
And that's only because life has thrown so many
things at me that I don't really have much time
to indulge in that. But when I was a kid, one
of my first memories is actually watching, not
Jurassic Park, not originally, The Land Before
Time, over and over and over again. It was a
bit of an obsession of mine. There was a time
when I got an eye injury and I was supposed to
be mostly in bed for a couple of months. And
then my parents got me that movie and I just
ended up watching it over and over again. I think
that's where my obsession came from. And then
when Jurassic Park came out, I was a little kid,
but I begged my parents to let me go watch it
in the theater. And so they took me and now it's
a bit of a tradition of mine now to watch it
at least once a year. It's a movie that I keep
coming back to and in many ways it informs what
I do now. Maybe not in a very direct way, but
I think it became sort of my inspiration for
a lot of ideas that I think about and with even
today in my research. I believe that we have
not yet assimilated the fact that dinosaurs exist,
have existed into our culture and cognition as
a culture. And I think there should have been
something like a philosophical reckoning with
the first skeletons of dinosaurs, but nothing
did not make people question core beliefs that
we have created as a species. Let me just add,
I feel the same way about Darwin. I feel like
when he came up with theory of evolution and
talked about how the difference between humanity
and the rest of the animal kingdom is a difference
of degrees and not of nature, this should have
caused an earthquake philosophically for the
entire species, but nothing, not even a ripple.
Yeah, you know, I would qualify that claim because
I think that in many ways it did, but perhaps
not to the degree that you would expect. Because
I think part of what you're referencing right
now is this popular understanding of the human
species as unique still. This human exceptionalism
that most people still subscribe to, even if
on the surface they might say, well, actually
people are just animals at the end of the day.
They might say that on the surface, but I think
subconsciously or perhaps ideologically, they
still subscribe to this idea of humanity as being
exceptional in some ways. So I think that's sort
of what you're referencing. But I think once
you start digging a little deeper, you see that
actually both the theory and evolution and dinosaurs
in particular, prehistory have actually shaped
pockets of society to an incredible extent. So
just to give you an example, right? One of the
courses that I'm teaching, well, there's a course
that I'm teaching right now. One of the texts
that I asked my students to read is Heart of
Darkness by Joseph Conrad, right? And there are...
many references in that book to the theory of
evolution. And the references are always made
with an eye to how it informed scientific racism,
right? So not all of the impact was good, obviously,
right? I think people took Darwin's ideas and
drew some conclusions that are misinformed. But
it did shape a number of things or a number of
historical developments to some extent, for example,
colonialism, right? But it also shaped other
things. So for instance, the way in which concepts
from prehistory, paleontology, and particularly
the concept of mass extinction. right? Which
comes from deep time, which comes from paleontology,
from our understanding of the earth now, as opposed
to like 300 years ago when we still thought that
maybe it was just a few thousand years old, right?
So our understanding of deep time and the many
prehistoric developments that led up to the origin
of humankind and all that, I think that is something
that again, perhaps only subconsciously and perhaps
only a few people are actively talking about
this, but it informs our understanding of today,
right? So now today we talk a lot about things
like global warming, for example, climate change,
right? And part of that conversation is the concept
of the sixth mass extinction, which is kind of
the focus of my research in some ways. And, you
know, mass extinctions are not, like that concept
is not very old. It was first proposed in the
70s. And for a couple of decades, it was essentially
thought of as ridiculous. Because one of the
things that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution
proposed was that changes were gradual. They
were slow. There were no catastrophes. And then
suddenly come the Alvarez's. So Walter Alvarez
and Luis Alvarez, based in California, they were
the ones who first identified or the first proposed
the theory of mass extinction, or rather the
first explained the extinction of the dinosaurs
as possibly being the result of this asteroid
colliding. And they went around the world looking
for evidence and they found it. And so I think
with that comes this realization of just how
even the most powerful species or the most powerful
creatures on earth are vulnerable to extinction,
right? And I think that sort of fear haunts society
today because we're seeing catastrophic changes
around the world. And I think subconsciously
perhaps, right? We're thinking, well, if it happened
to the dinosaurs, it could happen to us. And
that fear, that specific way of thinking about
humanity and our destiny is part of Jurassic
Park, right? You might recall this scene. They're
in the car, right? They're in the car and they're
waiting for the T -Rex to show up. And they kind
of jokingly talk about how God creates dinosaur,
God kills dinosaurs, God creates people, people
kill God. What is it? People create dinosaurs
and then dinosaurs eat people, right? So they're
making explicit what is sort of implicit in the
movie and also in... in evolutionary biology,
which is if it happened to the dinosaurs, it
can happen to us, right? So I think in that sense,
it did make a fairly big splash, but it's not
perhaps the place or the credit that should be
given to biological sciences, evolutionary sciences,
and paleontology is not given, right? And that's
why perhaps you have this impression of it not
being all that prominent. But I think it's there.
It's just It's kind of sneaky, right? But it's
there, I think. Before getting into the movie
itself and the topic of dinosaurs, I just want
to address the question of their appearance.
So as a kid, I always imagined them as being
reptilian. And of course, I came across the articles
talking about how, no, actually, T -rex might
have had feathers and might have been those big
chicken birds, you know. So what is your opinion
on that? Or where is the science on that? I haven't,
you know, checked. Did dinosaurs have feathers
or not? Oh, yeah, I think the evidence has definitely
piled up on the side of dinosaurs being essentially
birds. One of them, one of the One of the moments
that I remember most, I've been on earth since
I was a kid, right? And so I collected National
Geographic magazines from the time I was like
10. I had a huge collection. I don't have it
anymore, but at some point I had like volume
for volume of National Geographic. And one of
my favorite volumes was the one that announced
the first discovery of a fossilized dinosaur
that was so well preserved that you could see
the traces of feathers on its body, right? And
how people were, scientists were debating, are
these actually feathers or is it maybe like some
other structure on their skin or perhaps underneath
their skin that kind of looks like feathers,
right? But then after that original discovery,
but now paleontology works in a rather funny
way, right? You have to know where to look, but
you can't know that in advance. So it was only
once they realized where they could look for
fossils that preserved what you call integument,
right? The external structures of the animal.
Once they knew where to look, they started looking
there, right? And they started digging all over
the place. And by now, I think the last time
I checked was a couple of years ago, so I'm sure
this is outdated, right? But at least 25 different
species, many of them are known from many skeletons,
not just one, right? Show distinct marks of feathers.
And what's interesting is that these species
are not all that closely related, right? Some
of them are essentially just like little... chicken
-looking thingies, right? And then there are
some really big ones that are actually very closely
related to T. rex, for example, right? And some
that are even related to Triceratops. So now
the question is not whether they had feathers,
but rather how feathered were they depending
on the species, right? So for example, the one
that looks more like Triceratops, it only really
has a few quails on its tail. So it might be
that it only had feathers in certain parts of
its body, right? But there were others that were
essentially fully covered in feathers with like
these incredible looking wings that are indistinguishable
from the ones that birds have today, except that
you can still see their fingers poking out, right?
So, yeah, I mean, our perspective of them has
changed. And with that, again, our understanding
of what killed them, right? Or if something indeed
could be said to have eliminated all dinosaurs,
because if we understand that birds are dinosaurs,
then perhaps the story shouldn't be about how
they went extinct, but rather how they had to
adapt, right? And I think in that, there is a
lesson for us, right? Because we've been doing
things a certain way for the better part of 500
years, and I don't think it's working, right?
So perhaps we shouldn't be striving to get ever
bigger and greater and we shouldn't have this
idea of like progress meaning bigger and grander
things, but rather finding a way to persevere
despite a changing landscape, right? I don't
like the idea that dinosaurs had feathers. I
really don't like that. It's the same. Can I
ask you a question though? Because I think sometimes
that is more the result of of people not liking
birds in general. Something that I've learned
is that a lot of people are afraid of birds.
Would you say that that applies to you? Do they
make you uncomfortable? No, I have a couple of
birds, budgies that I take care of at home. I
see their personality and how smart they are,
and I have no difficulty imagining them being
dinosaurs. They could have been part of that
Jurassic Park franchise. They're just villains.
They really are. But yeah, it's weird how it
becomes distasteful for us to imagine those dinosaurs
as having feathers. It's like the Greek statues
having colors. Yeah, that's a good analogy. I
think you get used to a certain mode of representation.
And then when it changes, you don't like it.
It's kind of like when people, as people get
older, they find contemporary music less and
less likable, right? Because it no longer resembles
what you experienced as a child. And I think
that's perhaps a part of it. I was resistant
too. Like the first time that these discoveries
kind of like became... the subject of popular
culture, like through National Geographic, for
example, or the first documentaries to show these
CGI documentaries that show dinosaurs, right?
I don't know if we're allowed to say brands,
but there's a new one that came out, and they're
covered in feathers. And I also thought, that
doesn't feel right. So I know where you're coming
from, but I do think that I prefer the other
perspective that you offered, right? Looking
at your birds, for example, your budgies and
thinking, huh, that's something dinosaurs might
have done, right? Here in Edmonton, recently
there was a vote to choose the city's official
bird, right? And everybody just kind of agreed
that it had to be the magpie. There are magpies
everywhere. This is magpie country. And they
are vicious. They are some of the most vicious
birds I've ever seen. And I've seen all kinds
of birds in the wild. I once had the fortune
of seeing an osprey diving into, I think it was
a river, and actually catching a fish and flying
off with it. And that was incredible. But there
is something about a gang of magpies piling up
on a rabbit that really feels prehistoric, right?
I immediately picture Velociraptors on a Triceratops
or something, right? And it's crazy, because
MacPies are not that big, right? And the Jackrabbits
here, they're pretty big. They don't care. They
gang up on them. Alright, they pick them. I'm
not sure they actually hunt them. I don't know
why they harass them So but they do and they're
fearless, right? They actually gang up on my
cat You would think a cat would you know would
drive him away, but no they they they get together
They form these little packs And I swear it's
just like that scene in Jurassic Park at the
end, right? When the kids and the two paleontologists
are together and the raptors are approaching,
right? That's my cat's experience on an everyday
basis. He's surrounded by magpies and he has
nowhere to run. And he doesn't have a T -rex
to save him. Yes, they're completely fearless.
And there's also the fact that birds with their
feathers I associate that with like grace and
there's something very artistic very you know
it's something that civilized that's something
very you know it's the um it's what you see on
the um you know hats of nobles from you know
the middle ages that kind of thing so the idea
of a bloodthirsty creature with feathers, you
know, it's, it doesn't have that primitive trait
that reptiles to, you know, you look at reptiles
and you think, yeah, this is from another era.
Yeah, yeah, that is true. And I think, again,
right, I think that's where a lot of that resistance
comes from, because because I think there is
something primeval about leathery scaly skin.
At least we perceive it that way. And you're
right, feathers were traditionally associated
with the aristocracy, for example. But again,
I think it sort of depends on what your perception
of birds is and how well -informed it is. And
again, I remember this scene in Jurassic Park
when Alan Grant, the paleontologist, is trying
to explain to this kid how vicious raptors were,
when he scares the crap out of that kid. And
it all starts because the kid says, well, it
doesn't look very scary. It's just like a turkey,
right? And now when I go back and watch that
scene, I think, well, that kid has never met
a turkey because turkeys are vicious animals,
right? We think of them. Unfortunately, we associate
them with things like Thanksgiving dinner, right?
Because we've commodified them and we've exploited
them. And in that process, we've made them very
tame. The more, the wilder turkeys, right? Not
even necessarily just like wild turkeys, but
varieties of turkeys that have not been so thoroughly
domesticated. They're vicious animals and they're
big, right? They're very big birds that because
they're ground dwelling, they have to come up
with other kinds of defenses, right? They can't
just stay cuff and fly. They do fly, but that's
a last resort, right? Their first resort is to
be intimidating. And so they puff up, they puff
their feathers, they start making all these really
weird noises, and they'll charge at you. So again,
it sort of depends on how you look at birds and
how you look at animals in general. There are
things that we associate with animals that are
not necessarily true. And I think one of them
is unfortunately because of them. long -standing
commodification of certain body parts, certain
animal parts. We think of feathers as aristocratic
and fanciful, but in reality, you know, they
have a distinct evolutionary purpose, actually
multiple purposes, and one of them can be intimidation,
right? And I think there's something very scary
about a bird that puffs up and starts making
all these weird noises, right? Sometimes they
hiss, right? Here we have like Canadian goose.
or Canada goose, I think is the right term, right?
Canada goose are scary birds, right? And you
look at it and it's like, it looks kind of cute.
It's just like a big duck, but they're vicious,
right? They're vicious animals. And I think,
you know, getting over some of those misconceptions
might help you accept feathered dinosaurs, although
maybe not, right? Yes. And that brings me to
an iconic scene in Jurassic Park, which is the
raptors hunting those children. brother and sister
in the kitchen. And what is the most frightening
in that scene is not so much their appearance,
which is frightening, but their intelligence.
That's what the scene tells us. Those killing
machines, those really scary looking beasts are
intelligent. They understand that you're trying
to run away and they can visualize and project
and make plans to catch you. And that is the
most, the scariest part. What do you make of
that? First of all, is it even accurate that
they had that degree of intelligence? And then
what do you make of how they highlight the intelligence
as being the scary part? Yeah, you know, that's
a really good question. It's something that I
hoped that we could discuss today because I think,
I cannot speak to the accuracy of it because
I'm also, first off, I'm not a paleontologist,
right? I study these things from a cultural perspective.
I know that in terms of how paleontologists gauge
the intelligence of an animal, usually they go,
or the traditional method was not all that different
from what zoologists have traditionally done,
which is they look at a skull, they look at the
brain cavity in that skull, and they say, well,
you know, this one's bigger than the other, presumably
this animal is smarter than the other, right?
Has more cognitive abilities in some ways. And
so when that scene was made and I've actually
spoken to Jack Horner, who was the paleontological
advisor for Jurassic Park. So when they made
that scene, what they wanted to emphasize is
that, because these animals are big, some of
these Drameosaurus, the raptors, some of the
raptors were as big as the ones portrayed in
Jurassic Park, they had big brains. Like Drameosaurus
as a whole family was, they generally had big
brain cavities in their skulls, and so people
or paleontologists assumed that they were smarter
than most dinosaurs, and this particular species
that was as big as a human did have a fairly
big brain, right? So the assumption was, well,
okay, so if it has a brain as big as that of
a chimp, then perhaps it's as smart as a chimp,
right? Now, there was a lot of pushback against
that from the paleontological community saying
that, well, you know, these are not... Chimps
these are not apes these are not mammals these
are at the time right they were still seen as
primarily reptilian even though already there
are some hints of the fact that they are birds
in Jurassic Park right. So they thought well
it might have had a big brain but so do turtles
like some leatherback turtles have fairly big
brains and they're not particularly smart right.
Alright so now that our understanding of them
has changed and now we see them more as birds
I think. the trajectory has sort of shifted,
right? In the sense that, well, recognizing that
there are birds and perhaps puts them, you know,
you can look at a raptor skull and then perhaps
a bird that's of similar size, like say, I don't
know, an ostrich maybe, right? Although I think
ostriches have fairly small heads. And you can
think, well, perhaps it was as smart as an ostrich,
right? Or perhaps a little smarter than that.
But even that is changing now because now we
know that when it comes to avian birds or the
birds of brains, size doesn't matter as much
as we used to think, right? You have budgies,
so you have essentially parrots, right? Parrots
as a whole don't have particularly big brains,
but they're insanely smart. Some species more
than others, traditionally experiments on avian
intelligence have been done with African gray
parrots, which are like these fairly big sized
gray parrots from Central Africa, right? And
I mean, they're incredibly smart, right? They
can figure out puzzles, they can... some studies
suggest that they do actually understand human
speech. Like they understand the correlation
between sound and meaning, right? And so you
can teach them basic grammatical constructs to
communicate and they seem to do a very good job
at it, right? So if a bird that's the size of
a crow, right, is potentially that smart with
a brain that's not that big, how smart could
dinosaurs have been? Who knows, right? Because
again, other other birds that perhaps behave
more like a raptor would, like magpies, crows,
ravens, right? Corvids are now understood as
perhaps even smarter than parrots. And again,
brains that are not that big, and still they
have cognitive abilities that we now think are
at least as powerful as those of great apes,
right? And there is a big difference between
a chimp, which is the size of a person, essentially,
and a raven, which is no bigger than a cat with
a brain that's no bigger than a cat's, but that
seems to be as intelligent as great apes. So
brain size, that is to say, doesn't really seem
to matter when it comes to birds. It's more about
the wiring of the brain and how densely packed
their neurons are. So it is entirely possible.
Not to say that that is accurate, but I think
it is entirely possible that large predatory
dinosaurs in that family, the Dromaeosaurs, the
Trudonids, the Raptors, may have been as intelligent
as they are depicted. Of course, this is all
conjecture and it's impossible to figure out,
but I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility.
Because if we now understand that birds like
parrots and crows and ravens are as smart as
a five -year -old, but... but with predatory
instincts, who knows what they could have accomplished,
right? I mean, I don't know if you've been around
a lot of kids in your life, like if you have
nephews or kids or whatever, right? But five
-year -olds are smart and they don't have a moral
compass, so they're quite predatory. So imagine
a pack of creatures that are as big as a human,
but with predatory instincts. no not necessarily
a moral compass and you know and and as intelligent
as that and I think you know what what you see
in that scene right uh coordinated behavior um
you know a theory of mind right because I think
that's perhaps one of the main things that I
identify in those depictions of the raptors that
they have a theory of mind that they understand
what others are thinking right we know that birds
can do that to some extent now so Is it possible
i think it's entirely possible do we know no
and we can't find out right but but i think it's
fun to think about. But why is it scary because
we're used to being top dog right i think and
again i return to that scene with the kid and
actually later scenes. That sort of suggest how
uncomfortable we are with we are with them. with
predation once the tables are turned. I think,
unfortunately, we have become accustomed to this
idea of us being the undisputed top of the food
chain or however you want to understand it. And
that's, again, that's also where the assumption
that we can treat animals the way that we do
in Western societies comes from, right? If we're
a tough dog, we can do whatever we want because
we want the evolutionary race or whatever, right?
But in scenes like those in Jurassic Park, there
are two things going on. So one is that these
were actual animals that at some point existed,
right? And that we're at some point as dominant
as we are today. And the other is that when you
put us face to face without all of our technological
barriers, we would lose. We would be the prey.
And that makes us deeply uncomfortable because
that is not something we've experienced for 10
,000 years now. So I think that's part of it.
That's a big part of it, if you ask me. And later
in the movie there, there are some references
to how that turning of the tables makes you reconsider
some choices. I go back to the scene that happens
right after right after they witness how they
feed the raptors. I don't know if you remember,
they have this big cow, right? And they lower
it into the pen and then they don't even show
it, you just hear it, right? And you see their
facial expressions and the scene then cuts to
them having lunch and they get served fish, I
believe, or some sort of meat. right? And they
can't stomach it anymore, right? Because they
realize what, well, I think my understanding
of that scene is not only that they realize that
they're essentially doing the same thing as they're
after us, but also I think if there is perhaps
a bit of empathy on their faces for the cow,
right? How is what they're doing any different,
right? And then how is what the dinosaurs do
to them later on any different? So I think there
are some There are instances in the film where
it does kind of challenge some philosophical
assumptions that we make on an everyday basis
about our position within the natural world and
also our treatment of other species. In the movie
where they rescue the boy from that dinosaur
island, there's this scene where they're stuck
in that cage for flying dinosaurs. And in that
scene, it is highlighted how flying dinosaurs
are just those scary creatures, truly. But then
at the end of the movie, they are in a plane
or a helicopter, I don't remember, leaving for
good the island. And then they see a pack of
those flying dinosaurs in the horizon. And the
whole scene is made to symbolize hope around
those flying dinosaurs, flying in the horizon.
And it feels like a moment of hope or dreamy
moment. And I kept thinking, they should have
been panicking from looking at that pack of flying
dinosaurs escaping the island. What do you make
of that scene? Why did they coded the scene as,
you know, something hopeful? Yeah. So the first
thing that I would say is the third movie is
full of questionable decisions, right? So perhaps
perhaps part of it is just the fact that that
movie was not that well thought out. But, you
know, let's give them the benefit of the doubt
and assume that they were trying to suggest something,
right? Which is often the case in films, right?
There's some sort of message. There's a point
to everything that happens. And I think one way
of understanding that may have to do with the
question of captivity, right? Which is also implicit
in the first movie. So, and actually much more
implicit in the book, but let us not speak of
the book. So one of my favorite books, and I
read it only recently, so it's titled Fear of
the Animal Planet by Jason Prible. I don't know
if you've ever heard of it. So Fear of the Animal
Planet is this attempt to bring out this hidden
history of animal resistance, right? And what
he means by that is that There are many instances
throughout history where either individual animals
or packs of animals or groups of animals seem
to have come to this sort of breaking point,
right? Where they push back against what could
be characterized as some form of oppression,
right? To give you an example, you might recall
the film Blackfish. about Tillicum, about the
orca that was in captivity for so many years
in horrible conditions. And it became murderous.
I think that's the way it is described in the
documentary. And the implication there is that
that sort of behavior was a consequence of the
way that it was treated. Now, if you look at
Jurassic Park and its portrayal of some of the
animals, admittedly not all of them, and I think,
again, this has something to do with the fact
that at the end of the day, it is a Hollywood
movie, so it has to just be entertaining. But
let's focus on the scene that you brought up.
I mean, the animals in that scene, the flying
pterosaurs, they... They are amongst the last
creatures in captivity on that island, right?
They're still in that cage. And animals that
are incarcerated like that are usually fiercely
territorial, right? Because, well, their territory
is tiny. They don't have a lot. And so they're
not going to tolerate any other creature that
might compete with them for the very limited
space and resources that they already have. At
the end of the movie, they escaped partly because
the people that went through there left the gate
open, I think is what happens, right? And so
they escape and they fly off. I think it would
be fairly safe to assume, right? That just like
a rehabilitated tiger, right? Maybe highly aggressive
in the cage, but won't necessarily go out and
try to kill people when it's released back into
the wild, right? An animal like this, a pterosaur.
regardless of how big it is, right? If it has
a certain innate behavior, like pterosaurs who
are most likely fish eaters, at least that the
species depicted there are most likely fed on
fish or carcasses, right? And it's no longer
in this situation in which it has to be highly
aggressive. Then I think perhaps you can assume
that it's not going to be that aggressive once
it's released back into the wild, right? That
it will hopefully I think that's perhaps where
the hope comes from, that it will revert back
to its more quote unquote natural behavior, which
is not as aggressive as it is in a cage, right?
That's something that I've, I think a lot of
people have experienced this to some degree in
zoos, right? When they go to the aviaries, like
the one depicted in Jurassic Park 3 and in the
book, you go to an aviary and the birds there,
are all over you, right? They flutter all around
you, and that is just a consequence of their
very limited space, right? Birds in the wild
generally don't fly at you, generally. There
are exceptions, but generally speaking, birds
are not going to fly at you in the wild, but
when they're in a confined space competing for
resources on an everyday basis, and they don't
get to engage in the sort of behavior they would
when they're free, then I think that's kind of
what happens, right? So yeah, that's perhaps
the way that I would read it. And this is something
I used to teach Jurassic Park as part of my introductory
courses to critical analysis. And one thing that
I always brought up is the fact that at the end
of the day, right, Jurassic Park is a zoo. And
so I think a lot of what happens in that film
can be thought of as commentary to the way that
The kind of behavior that that that people that
the industrialists and the capitalists and that
film engage in which is the commodification of
life forms and such it's a direct critique of
Zoos, right? Um, so that's perhaps one way to
think about it that perhaps the hope is not,
you know People hope but hope for the animals
to find a better life, right? That's an interesting
point you're bringing up and I want to get back
to it. But first, since starting this conversation,
we have been pretty, I guess the word is direct
and honest about animal behaviors. Something
I don't see very often with, you know, communication
around animals and veganism and the type of stuff
activists say to the public so for instance they
will highlight how chickens are incredibly smart
they're so smart they can do this and that and
they're also very cute and but of course if you
ever had chickens you know that it's not the
whole story and there's this tendency for activists
to just exaggerate reality to make animals into
a cuter, smarter version than what they really
are. What do you make of that manipulation of
how we see animals? Yeah, that's a really good
question. I think with most of the conversations
that go around or that have really on any topic,
but in regards to animals, animal liberation,
animal rights, and just our understanding of
our relationship with animals, I think there
are multiple sides to the story. The ones that
come to mind are... Well, there's... What I would
understand is two sides of a spectrum, right?
So on the one hand, it's the... the utilitarian
activist perspective of this, which is we understand
what people find appealing. We've known this
for a while. If for now the reason that we see
it in the domestication of certain animals, we
seem to find certain features and certain characteristics
quite endearing. Amongst them, of course, is
intelligence. We do value intelligence above
all else because of, you may call it narcissism.
But it's because that's what we have. We as a
species became this hegemonic, this prominent,
because of our intelligence, not because we're
faster or stronger or whatever. We use that different
kind of scale. And so we value when we recognize
that skill in other creatures. And so from an
activist perspective, it's just a matter of efficiency.
If we know that people respond to certain characteristics,
like intelligence and cuteness, then anthropomorphizing
animals in a way that makes them resemble us
more is a viable, a very viable strategy, right?
And I think it works really well in that regard
because, yeah, I mean, again, it's just what
people seem to respond to. Now, the other side
of that perspective or, you know, the counterpoint
is that philosophically speaking and in terms
of you know, if you're playing the long game
kind of thing, the ongoing prioritization of
certain characteristics that we associate with
ourselves, right, is not a long -term solution
because what it does is it continues, it perpetuates
the hierarchy that exists. It just kind of extends
it, right? So... Whereas before we used to think
that perhaps only people should have rights,
then we kind of expand that circle like Peter
Singer puts it, right? We expand that circle
and now chimps and whales and animals that think
like us can fit in there, right? But then we're
like, well, actually, you know, we see that some
of those characteristics are also in chickens
and cows and such. So we expand that circle a
little bit more. But I think the problem with
that sort of approach is that there are always
going to be life forms that are excluded from
that circle, right? And I think you don't even
necessarily need to look at other species. One
of my favorite philosophers is Kerry Wolf, who's
written on philosophical understandings of animality
and such, right? And one sort of like thought
experiment that he proposes is that, okay, so
like, if you decide that to grant rights to a
life form, it must fulfill certain cognitive
capacities, right? It must demonstrate that it
has certain cognitive capacities, that its intelligence
levels are at a certain threshold, right? You
can easily look and find people who, because
of disabilities, or genetic conditions or whatever
are not going to meet that threshold, right?
So it kind of shows you the limits of that approach,
right? And likewise with animals, I think, anthropomorphizing
chickens or pigs like in the movie, babe, right?
It can be a very effective method of getting
people to think about how we're actually not
that different, right? And that perhaps we should
give them... more consideration, that we should
think more about the way that we relate to other
creatures and other species. But I do think there
are limits to that approach. So, you know, it's...
I can't tell you whether I think it's... Or rather,
I can tell you that I don't think it's the most
effective way to go about this in the long run,
right? That I think true animal liberation calls
for a complete reconceptualization of what we
value, right? And so focusing on cuteness or
intelligence is not the long -term solution,
but I think I do see the benefit of making gains
wherever we can, right? Because I also understand
the situation is dire. So, yeah, I guess I kind
of oscillate between those two positions. I mean,
not only that, but there are other people speaking
to the general public, people who are pro, let's
say people who are anti -vegan, pro -hunting,
pro -this, pro -that, and they say, hey, those
vegans don't know what you're talking about.
Those vegans are city people who have never had
a chicken, who have never met a goose or something.
Um, and what they're talking about is, it's just
bullshit. You know, let me show you a few videos
of, uh, chickens hunting a mouse. Um, and look
at how cute they really are. So no, you know,
don't trust them. And so we've put ourselves
in that position, my, I guess, in a way, lying
to people. Yeah. Yeah. I think you're right.
By the way, one of, um, You just reminded me
that there is this really short, I think it's
one of those TikTok videos, right, that I really
appreciated, which was, it was a chicken, I believe
hunting a mouse or some small rodent, right?
But it was over, like the video played over the
Jurassic Park soundtrack, which I thought was
brilliant, right? Because yeah, I mean, that's
essentially what you're watching. Yeah, you're
right. I think that's something that I overlooked
just now, but it's a perfectly valid point, which
is that it also kind of makes some of these arguments
less convincing to the people who perhaps do
spend time with these animals, perhaps not under
the most ethical conditions, but who understand
their behavior perhaps a little bit better, or
at least they understand it well enough to see
that some of the anthropomorphizing that goes
on in these campaigns is just flawed, right?
It has no basis on reality. You're absolutely
right. And I think that's a perfectly valid point
to make. Although I would also counter that perhaps
there is very little you can say to a hunter
in my experience that will sway them, right?
Because perhaps they're also the ones that are
going to be hardest to convince because their
relationship with animals It's long standing,
usually people having hunting for years or since
they were little, right? So they become desensitized
to it. And so perhaps they're the last people
you should be worried about because they're the
last ones you're going to convince of anything
at all, right? Recently, I was following this
conversation around the Calgary Stampede, which
is one of the biggest rodeos in North America,
right? And there were people protesting in Calgary.
And they were protesting the exploitation of
animals in the rodeo, and rodeos in general,
but specifically at the Calgary Stampede. And
some of the cowboys, I guess you would call them,
the actual people participating in the rodeo,
released a number of statements or went on YouTube
and TikTok and such to try to clarify some things.
But there was this one particular video that
stuck with me, which was, again, one of these
cowboys. talking about how they were justified
in their treatment of animals. First off, because
otherwise most of these horses would be slaughtered
since they have no use. And second, because this
is just their culture, right? This is the culture
of the place and that people who come to this
place should, and I believe the phrasing was
verbatim. They should learn to enjoy it like
everyone else. And I thought it was very telling
because that's exactly what happened to that
person and everyone else, right? They learned
to enjoy it because since they were little, they
were indoctrinated into thinking that this is
actually something that they're justified in
doing, right? And so they learned that this is
a valid form of entertainment, right? On learning
that, it's complicated, right? So so I don't
think that people who are deeply entrenched in
a certain subculture That has a particular relationship
to animals like hunter and prey or cowboy and
cow, right? I do not think they're the first
people we should go after because frankly, right
they are the people that are the least open to
these arguments and second They are in some ways
a minority, right? Most people today don't hunt
most people today don't ride horses for fun or,
you know, engage in all these rodeo practices
for fun. I think that's safe to say that most
people don't do that, right? What most people
do is they go to the supermarket and buy meat,
right? They go to the supermarket and buy chicken
wings and steaks and eggs and such. And I think
those are the people that we should be thinking
about because they're the ones who have not been
indoctrinated like that, right, to that particular
relationship with animality, but rather they
are blind to the fact that these are animals.
There is no direct relationship between the animal
and their everyday life because that has been,
well, cut off through the processes of modernization
and consumerism and what have you. They don't
have a direct relationship with the animal. So
in that case, I think establishing that direct
relationship is important. And then perhaps,
again, that's when you can think of anthropomorphizing
as a somewhat valid way or a fairly valid device
through which you can kind of start developing
a more direct relationship with an animal that
is not based on consumerism. Yes, you're you're
very right about that. You remind me this morning,
I was reading an article from Big Ang. It was
titled debunking anti meat lies or something
like that. And it started with Do you remember
every Sunday the barbecue in summer, you know,
the family and it was just, you know, building
the foundations of the pados, the, you know,
the nostalgia, because that's all they have,
you know, they don't have concrete arguments
to present. So they have to rely on the conditioning
of people. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, so let's get back
to Jurassic Park. And you mentioned a few moments
ago how it was a critique of Zoo. And I agree
with that. At the same time, I think this movie
franchise has prepared the ground for a new market,
which is the market of resuscitating animals
that have been extinct for some time centuries.
And I'm talking here about Colossal, the biotech
company that has, you know, created those, what
would they call them? Mice, mammoth mice, something
like that. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, that was
Yeah, I remember that. I thought you were talking
about the dire wolves. But yeah, before that
came the mammoth mouse. Yes, the mammoth mouse.
I don't know what they called it. But the dire
wolves, they also resuscitated the dire wolves
and they want to do the same with mammoths and
woolly mammoths. And at some point, they hope
to do it with dinosaurs. So recreate basically
Jurassic Park. Yeah. What do you make of that?
Yeah. Well, first off, I would go back to this
other podcast that I used to listen to. And I
remember that it was structured around problems
and solutions, right? Like social problems and
solutions to those problems. And this one time,
one of the podcasters brought up genetic engineering
as a solution, right? And those two were always
bickering and that was the format of the podcast.
So the other person went out and found a counter
argument to genetic engineering. And this stuck
with me because I thought it was, well, I found
it hilarious first off, but also it's so on point,
right? So he starts reading this FAQ. section
from a company that genetically engineered a
certain kind of salmon to grow faster and produce
more meat and supposedly lower its environmental
impact. And he's reading the answer to one of
the FAQs. And the question was, how do you make
sure that these salmon do not contaminate the
genetic diversity of wild salmon? And the answer
was all of our salmon have been genetically engineered
to precisely with this in mind. So they're all
female and kind of reproduced in the wild. And
the guy on the podcast, he says, man, this is
the plot to Jurassic Park, right? Like, how did
they, someone on ironically wrote this and did
not realize that they're essentially making the
same mistakes they make in Jurassic Park, right?
And I think that that is so telling because you
can have films, right? And one of the reasons
why I love narratives, right? Why I love stories
is because of the fact that, and everybody knows
this, right? They have a message, they have a
moral, right? And I think in regards to Jurassic
Park, there are a number of messages, there are
a number of critiques and questions of morality,
right? And one of them is precisely like what
happens when you, temper with the very fabric
of life, right? And I think that's not a new
question. It's in many ways a re -imagination
of Frankenstein, for example, right? Prometheus
in some ways is also kind of related to those
questions, right? But what's interesting to me
is that we have these cultural texts that tell
us perhaps we shouldn't play God, right? We shouldn't
be messing around with things that we do not
really understand. We shouldn't just like...
as Malcolm puts it, right? We should ask whether
we should before we ask whether we can. And I
think unfortunately now we see it, like the technology
has gotten to the point where some of the sciences
in Jurassic Park are now potentially a reality,
right? And we have companies like Colossal that
do it not with the explicit purpose of of making
a product, at least not yet. They're not unlike
this salmon corporation. They did not have mammoth
fillets or whatever mammoth steaks in mind. They
were not making a product they would sell for
people's consumption just yet. But I think we
can assume that is the goal. At some point, people
who are working on the Pleistocene Park, for
example, in Siberia. They have explicitly talked
about the possibility of opening up hunting within
this reserve as a way of generating revenue,
because otherwise they cannot perpetually rely
on grants, for example. So I do think that at
the end of the day, because all these corporations
are corporations that operate within a capitalist
system, whether the explicit purpose of it is
to generate revenue or not, they have to, right?
They're in a position where they have no choice
and so ultimately what this will result in is
the further commodification of life forms that,
you know, have essentially no rights because
as they say in Jurassic Park, a genetically engineered
form of life that was created has no rights.
It's property, right? It's intellectual property
according to the law and so it'll be understood
that way and it's only going to perpetuate the
system in which we do not give any ethical consideration
to creatures that are not us because of whatever
excuse we can think of, one of them being, well,
we created it, so, you know, we own it. Now,
having said that, I think colossal is particularly
insidious, right? Because not only does it do
this, but in addition to that, they lie about
it, right? As you might know, the dire wolf is
not a different kind of wolf. It's just a regular
old gray wolf. which is an endangered species
in some jurisdictions that was genetically modified.
I don't understand to what extent, but I know
that the purpose of that modification was to
make it resemble a dire wolf. You have to question
whether there's any scientific merit to that.
Again, the only real reason I see to do this
is to to show that you can, there is no real
merit in it because you're not bringing back
an extinct species. Not really. This isn't the
extinction. It's genetic modification of a species
that is in many places protected by law. And
we can talk about the merits of conservation
and all that stuff, but at the end of the day,
it's just experimentation. It's experimentation
on a creature that is intelligent, that is sentient,
that I think we should value for purposes that
are not just entertainment or almost whimsical,
right? How can you do this? Oh, yes, we can.
Look at this. Here it is. But so what, right?
It doesn't accomplish anything. Now they're thinking
about all their, they've talked about all their
species, right? There's a Tasmanian tiger, which
I think if they manage to clone something like
a Tasmanian tiger, I think... then the conversation
becomes a little more serious, right? Because
that is a highly distinct species that you can't
just take another marsupial and modify it into
resembling a Tasmanian tiger, right? You can't
do that to a Tasmanian devil or whatever. You
have to actually recreate the entire organism.
And, you know, the ecology of places like Tasmania
and southern Australia where these animals used
to live has been severely degraded as a result
of their extinction, right? So perhaps you can
think of the merits of introducing a species
or recreating a species that is sorely missing
in its native environment. That's a different
conversation. But what Colossal is doing is not
that yet. And again, I think that because it's
ultimately a corporation, it'll trend towards
making a product that they can sell. At the end
of the day, that's what it's going to be. That's
what I fear and and they're making Sorry for
my language put a shit ton of revenue. I think
that the the CEO and founder has just been Added
to Forbes list of billionaires, so he's a billionaire
now and That reminds me of my first contact with
this new science of resuscitating or creating
those kinds of mutants that resemble extinct
species. And that was back in high school, believe
it or not, from reading Science Magazine. And
they had an article that started, you wake up
in the morning and you feel there's something
weird. um you can quite you know point you know
what's weird and then you continue reading and
um the the you realize the protagonist realizes
that uh he's in a zoo and that an alien species
um has you know cloned him and um brought him
back from uh who knows what uh era So humanity
has been extinct, and we've been brought back,
which is the plot of a horror movie of the, you
know, alien kind. So, you know, are they going
to go as far as resuscitate hominids? Do you
think that they will cross that line at some
point? Yeah, I think that's the kind of stuff
that I mean if I were I'm not a business person,
right? But I can imagine that Well, you know
they say that Bad publicity is still publicity,
right? There's no such thing as bad publicity
so perhaps this is an ill -informed take but
but I wonder you know if Attempting something
like that wouldn't be hugely detrimental to their
perception in the public sphere, right? Because
I'm thinking that wolves, as much as people do
like wolves, I think most people have some sort
of admiration for this particular species, right?
It's still considered wholly other, right? It's
still not people. And so it's okay to put them
in zoos in most people's eyes. It's okay to,
you know. occasionally seek them out in the wild,
maybe domesticate them, some people hunt them,
right? So I think that's one thing. Another thing
altogether is to attempt to bring back a species
that's essentially us with an asterisk, right?
I don't know. I can imagine there would be lots
of resistance to that. And I think perhaps that's
the point to just kind of stir the conversation
a little bit, right? To see how far they can
push people and still um you know have a a favorable
kind of public perception um what i could one
one thing that perhaps is worth thinking about
in relation to this is um i don't know if you
remember it's not that long ago maybe two three
years ago there were claims that a human being
had been cloned in China, right? And before that,
way before that in the early 2000s, when cloning
first became the talk of the scientific community,
the question of whether human cloning should
be allowed was a more public conversation that
was being had at that time, right? And as I remember,
people were largely opposed to this idea. Right?
So I think that they would also, I would hope
that people would be opposed to the idea of bringing
back a creature that would be so like us and
yet not really. and thus open to exploitation,
right? I don't see that happening, but that's
the thing with, and again, right? That's what
Jurassic Park tells us. That's the thing with
scientific technologies like that, with genetic
engineering and the fact that all of this is
being done by private corporations now, is that
you never know, right? industries are so deregulated
right now and there are so many ways in which
they can conduct research that's highly questionable,
right? And not be in any way confronted by the
public because the public just straight up doesn't
know what's going on behind closed doors, right?
They don't know what's going on in those labs.
It's entirely possible they would attempt something
like this, right? So who knows? I would like
to believe that people wouldn't stand for it,
but people stand for all kinds of things. There's
something funny about the idea that there might
be a clone of Albert Einstein in a Chinese lab
right now. Yeah. Yeah. And it's funny you mentioned
that because I think as an alternative to this,
right, could be I'm not an advocate of AI technologies,
but I recently saw this thing where this kid
made an AI version of his grandpa so that his
grandma, who was now widowed, could talk to him
again. If this technology exists, and I think
its ethical quandaries are not as dire as human
cloning or the cloning of species that are human
-like, then perhaps we should favor that over
cloning over Einstein. Isn't it just possible
to create an AI version of it? Although, of course,
there are philosophers of AI who would perhaps
debate whether that artificial intelligence would
then be entitled to certain rights and considerations,
but that's beyond my understanding. I can't say
that I know much about that. Last question about
Jurassic Park. A theme throughout the movie,
at least in the beginning, in the first movie
is the wonderment of the paleontologist looking
at those dinosaurs and being able to touch them.
and to look at them, you know, closely. And I
guess this kind of wonderment, we all share it
for nature. And it's that very reason why they
created that park, because they knew people would
travel to go and look at those creatures. So
how do you explain how this movie resonates so
differently with different people. For me, it
is a reason to be kinder to animals. And it is
a critique of zoos. And for others, it is a motivation
to create the very thing that the movie is denouncing.
So what do you make of that diverse response
to Jurassic Park? Yeah, that's an excellent question.
And I think it's one that's difficult to answer.
But I'm going to try by referencing something
that we talked about earlier today, which was
the place of paleontology, dinosaurs and evolutionary
theory and society's understanding of the self.
I think you're absolutely right in pointing out
that there is an almost instinctive sense of
wonder that we feel in the presence of nature,
right? Whatever you want to call nature. But
I think that that instinct or perhaps some, you
know, feeling that we all have deep inside, I
think it can be shaped. Right so. When when people
stand in the face of these. Wonderful creatures
that we share the world with that affect that
feeling right will then be sort of channel depending
or through your worldview through the ideologies
excuse me for the ideas and ideologies have a
ship that have shaped you excuse me so. Once
that affect kind of surfaces within the body,
right? The mind, my understanding of it is that
our understanding of the world, like our cognitive
understanding of the world, which is always going
to be shaped by the society that we live in,
it's going to warp that sense of wonder and it's
going to transform it, right? It's going to channel
it in a particular direction. And so even though
we all share that sense of wonder, the way in
which we project it back out into the world is
going to be different from person to person,
right? Although there are some trends, I think
a lot of people feel the urge to be close to
this natural world, right? And I think that's
where the drive to own pets, for example, comes
from. I've met a couple of vegans who used to
own exotic pets, right? And I think even though
most hardcore vegans would describe that as a
contradiction, I think while it might be a contradiction,
I think it's also a manifestation of this deep
-seated love and admiration that we feel for
the natural world, right? And then later as you
learn more about for example, the exotic pet
industry, you realize that that's not the right
way to channel that affect, right? But that's
not often the case. Most often, the way in which
that emotion, that feeling will be channeled
is, again, right shaped by your society. And
if your society is one that understands animals
as objects to be owned, for example, you go and
get a pet. especially after watching Jurassic
Park, you go and get a pet that resembles a dinosaur,
right? Or conversely, you watch Jurassic Park
and see them, quite frankly, the majesty of predators,
right? And perhaps that affect is then channeled
into an urge to go hunting because that's what
you know, right? So I think that's partly why
we can all agree on the fact that most people,
I think, even people who otherwise care very
little for the environment, we can all agree
that there is something about nature that attracts
us, right? That something about it that allures
us into wanting some sort of relationship with
it. So I think that's partly where it comes from,
right? And I think it's also why why biodiversity,
animal conservation, wildlife conservation, has
been such a pivotal piece of the environmental
movement. Because I think it's one aspect of
nature that most people respond to in some ways.
And so it becomes an easy way to generate donations,
for example, or sign people up to volunteer or
whatnot. Which is why I study. representations
of conservation and extinction and things that
have to do with biodiversity because I think
that it's one of the few things that really seem
to generate some sort of consensus about the
need to protect the environment or nature or
whatever. Now, having said all this, I think
that thinking of this feeling as a sense of wonder,
right, I think that is the right way, or sorry,
I shouldn't say the right way, but I think that
is the way in which I would encourage all of
us to channel that affect, right? There's this
line, it's the last few lines of Charles Darwin's
On the Origin of Species. And I can recite it
almost verbatim because it came to... It urged
me to reshape the way in which I understand my
relationship with nature because I used to be
one of these people, right? I used to be one
of those kids who would watch an animal documentary
and want to get one of those animals as a pet,
right? And I had countless... I'm sorry to say
countless exotic pets when I was a kid. Pets
that I did not know how to take care of. And
that unfortunately most of them died because
I was just a kid. I didn't know. But there were
no limits to it, right? So I would ask my parents
for a turtle and they would give me a turtle.
I would ask them for like a lizard and they got
me a lizard or a snake or what have you, right?
But then reading this passage really made me
kind of like rethink how to understand that feeling,
right? And it goes something along the lines
of how there is grandeur in this view of life
that from so simple at beginnings, endless forms,
most beautiful and most wonderful have been and
are being evolved. And what I like about that
passage or one of the things that I hang onto
is the concept of the view of it, right? Because
I think that That sense of wonder you're talking
about that we experience when i want to ask park
or wildlife documentary on the other just now
you send me to your national park or whatever
right. It doesn't need to be anything other than
an affect it doesn't need to be anything other
than a view of the world right it doesn't have
to be more than just this sublime experience.
Perhaps learning to just think of it as a way
of seeing the world as opposed to. as a way of
owning it or claiming it or even like visiting
it, right? Because our impact to the places that
we visit is huge, right? And we shouldn't be
in some of these places, right? So I think that
learning that, learning to just feel that and
not... do something about it. I think that's
the way that I think we should strive to be.
Obviously, it's difficult. And again, I don't
blame people for doing things a certain way.
I think we're all the product of ideologies.
There's very little point in blaming people for
doing certain things. I think it's more about
perhaps encouraging them to rethink some of those.
Yeah, some of their impulses. Is it ideology?
Or are we just a predatory species? Yeah, good
follow up. I think a lot of it is ideology. Look,
one of the conversations that I have a lot when
people when people ask about my veganism, or,
or, or veganism in general, right? It's like,
okay, but like, what about and then, you know,
fill in the blank with some sort of society that
is not yet fully Western, right? Like, well,
what about like, I don't know, like the nomads
of the Kalahari or the Inuit in Northern Canada
and such and such and such, right? I think that
evidently we're a predatory species in the sense
that our evolution was shaped by... this transition
that you see in the fossil record towards the
consumption of meat, right? How that meat was
procured, by the way, is not entirely understood.
It's possible that hunting was not what drove
that transition, but rather scavenging, right?
I mean, you do have to remember that the few
apes that inhabit the African savanna today,
or primates, no apes, primates, right? Like the
olive baboons, they're carnivorous, but they
hardly ever hunt. they mostly scavenge and that's
because other animals have taken those apex predatory
positions, right? But anyway, the point being
that I think that, yeah, like it's in our instinct
in some way, right? But I think it's also true
that in that sense of wonder and in that recognition
of the grandeur of nature and furthermore, you
know, the fact that we just, most of us right
here in Western societies do not need to do it,
right? I think that challenges the extent of
that predatory behavior, right? I think most
people would hesitate to kill the animals that
they consume on an everyday basis, right? Like
even somebody who really loves chicken wings
would be hesitant to kill enough chickens to
then have a platter of chicken wings, right?
I think there are limits to that predatory instinct.
And I think that again, our understanding of
that consumer -based relationship to animals
today is mostly, maybe ideological is not the
right term, but I think it's the product of external
forces, right? I think in no part of our genetic
code is there a line that says, go to the supermarket
and get a steak, right? I think there's a difference
there. And yeah, I don't know. These are the
tougher questions to answer, I think. Entire
volumes have been written about that. But personally,
I think that perhaps that's one way in which
we can think of ourselves as different from most
animals, right? And even then, I would question
it. But we're not entirely driven by instinct,
right? We acknowledge that on an everyday basis.
Otherwise, society, as we know it, would not
be possible. Why stop at not killing somebody
who makes us angry, right? Why stop at not harassing
people that disagree with us? Why not extend
that control over our instincts to our fellow
animals? Yes, it's an interesting question. I
think you're right. If people are interested
in learning more about this and exploring this
topic, I actually interviewed Dr. Ahidu who led
one of the first research showing that our ancestors
were mostly plant based in their diet. So yeah,
go look that up. I think it's episode 68 of the
show. So yeah, yeah, absolutely. I will I will
look it up because, um, you know, again, right,
I teach critical analysis. And so I am always
I'm all about like, Paying attention to the details
of any utterance of any statement, right? Is
that when I hear arguments like our ancestors
were carnivorous or hunters or plant -based,
right? I always ask which ancestors, right? Because
human evolution is long, right? If you date back
to, if you're talking about our ancestors as
in like primates in general, right? And even
primates in our family tree that were basal,
they were overwhelmingly plant -based, right?
Very few primates in the wild are otherwise,
right? You do have some tribes of chimpanzees
that hunt, but for the most part, they're plant
-based, right? So when I say that like some of
our ancestors do seem to exhibit some trans towards
carnivory, right? That occurs at a very particular
time in human evolution, right? And it's also...
within the great scope of human evolution, it's
a fraction of it, a tiny fraction of it, right?
Not enough, for example, to give us a gut that
can actually process meat, right? Which is why
we have to cook it, right? Very few people struggle
eating a raw banana, but most people will struggle
to digest a raw piece of meat, right? So that
transition that I was mentioning before, I should
qualify that, right? It's not like the defining
moment of human history. It's one of several
moments, right? And I think it's the blink of
an eye in evolutionary terms, right? And it's
not long enough to have shaped us entirely. So
we may have predatory instincts, but they're
not the same kind of predatory instincts that
drive my cat, for example, right? Who cannot
survive without meat. So, yeah. Yes. Don't feed
your cat a plant -based diet. I know I might
get, you know... A bit of strong reactions from
from that comment, but I stand by it And yeah,
I wish I was more, you know pushing back on some
of the claims, you know Observed and reported
on in that in his study, but there was a language
barrier Anyway, I got the scoop on interviewing
him on that study. I knew it was you know a viral
online when he published it at the beginning
of the year. But yeah, I was happy to sit down
with him. So Alex, do you want to add something
before we stop the recording? No, just, you know,
again, my name is Alex Ventimella. I'm a PhD
candidate at the University of Alberta in the
English and Film Department. I mostly research
environmental documentaries that have to do with
conservation, extinction, and environmental justice
as well. And I guess I would encourage people
to learn more about the many ways in which environmental
issues interconnect. I think the conversation
has been hung up on climate change. for quite
a while without truly understanding what drives
it, for example, without truly understanding
the ways in which it connects to other issues
that are longstanding, right? I would encourage
people to go watch the new David Attenborough
documentaries, which I hope to discuss with you
at some point, because those are something that
I'm very interested in. David Attenborough, for
example, yeah, I think most people know him,
right? He was for... the bulk of his career,
he was apolitical, right? Because that was the
tradition of the BBC, specifically the BBC's
natural history unit to produce apolitical documentaries,
right? And that the situation is now so dire
that there has been a marked transition, a very
marked transition in the way Adam Borough communicates
his environmental message to the public. He is
now embracing the you know, the concept of a
plant -based diet. I think he doesn't use the
term veganism because unfortunately has a lot
of negative connotations, but he's spoken about,
you know, how crucial it is to change our relationship
to the natural world beginning with what we put
in our bodies, right? And a big part of that
is, yeah, letting go of that carnivory that has
added very little to us as a society, but has
been so hugely detrimental to the world, to nature,
and to the lives of billions of creatures that
are sentient and vulnerable and that can't speak
and thus are easy to ignore. by most people.
So yeah, definitely check that out, you know,
inform yourselves, learn about the ways in which
all these issues sort of interconnect, how they
all intersect. And you know, if you care about
pandas, if you care about tigers, if you care
about all of these beautiful animals out there,
right, a good place to start is always with your
own bodies, right? And letting go of those things
that we consume that put those other creatures
that we do admire and that we do love in jeopardy
as well. nicely said. Alex, I love your takes
on all of those topics and questions. This was
such a pleasant conversation. Yeah, it was. Thank
you. Thank you so much. And please come back.
Absolutely. If you ever need like a last minute
guest or whatever, I'm always happy to join you.
Oh, not even, you know, I want to have your take
on the movie, babe. And I also want to comment
that documentary and documentaries in general,
I think, you know, there's a lot to be said about
them. Yeah, for sure. For sure. Yeah, yeah. So
for instance, like the last one that came out
out of that that new school of documentaries
by by Adam or Ocean, right? Ocean now with that
markedly political message, anti trolling. anti
-fisheries, right? It was so, so sorely lacking
for all of last century, but it's gotten to the
point where people who care about the environment
like David Attenborough can no longer pretend
that these are not issues, right? So which is
why he stepped away from the BBC, or at least
he's now in partnership with Netflix as well.
Disney, corporations that are more open to political
messaging. Surprisingly enough, Disney being
one of them, right? But yeah, no, absolutely.
Let's talk about that. Let's talk about whatever
you want. But but I'm always happy to discuss
films because I do think that that there's a
certain power to the moving image and that encourages
us to to to to to reconceive our understanding
of the world. Right. So yeah, let's talk about
all that. Definitely. See you soon. Thank you,
everyone, for listening. I kindly invite you
to share this podcast with the vegans you know.
Let's encourage more people to take action. Again,
thank you so much for caring and I will see you
next Tuesday for a new episode.