View Full Version : Peter Singer

Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Oct 2nd, 2004, 02:06 PM
For those in Australia:

Professor Peter Singer will be interviewed on the ABC TV program 'Enough Rope' at 9:30pm on Monday 4th October.

Oct 6th, 2004, 10:36 AM
I thought that it was a great interview and covered a lot of ground. I couldn't fault anything Singer said.
I'm going to try and get my book club to read one of his books.

May 27th, 2006, 02:12 PM
I thought we had a thread about a recent tv interview, but the search button didn't find it.

On Thursday last, Philip Adams interviewed Peter Singer for a full hour on his radio national Late Night Live program, and it was damned good. While enjoying their conversation I just wished everyone could have listened in - though I must say that last week there were 47,000 downloads to ipods or mp3s of Late Night Live - get the download here - http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/

The interview started off about Singer's latest book as he is at the Writers' Festival now, but he spoke about veganism mainly, and about the benefit to the planet of a vegan diet, etc.

poppy seed
May 27th, 2006, 03:10 PM
I'm reading his new book right now - it's very well written. He is very convincing in a calm, reasonable way. And, wow, he really zeros in on what meat production is doing to the environment- shocking!

May 27th, 2006, 03:15 PM
I've just come back from the Sydney Writer's festival talk/interview with Peter Singer. It was excellent. Unfortunately I did not have enough money on me to purchase his book and get it signed. :(
Singer seems like such an amazing, passionate man and I am keen to read his latest book as well as get my hands on his older books.

May 27th, 2006, 05:50 PM
This is a better place for this article, rather than 'The Guardian' thread:

'Great apes deserve life, liberty and the prohibition of torture

Misunderstandings and moral failings lie behind opposition to the extension of basic rights to man's closest relatives

Peter Singer
Saturday May 27, 2006
The Guardian

In his History of European Morals, published in 1869, the Irish historian and philosopher WEH Lecky wrote: "At one time the benevolent affections embrace merely the family, soon the circle expanding includes first a class, then a nation, then a coalition of nations, then all humanity and finally, its influence is felt in the dealings of man with the animal world ... " [...]'


May 28th, 2006, 09:15 AM
Too bad he's not a vegan...

May 28th, 2006, 10:50 AM
It interesting that his isn't considering how many vegans he has influenced along the vegan pathway as a result of his work.

May 28th, 2006, 11:20 AM
Peter Singer: I don’t eat meat. I’ve been a vegetarian since 1971. I’ve gradually become increasingly vegan. I am largely vegan but I’m a flexible vegan. I don’t go to the supermarket and buy non-vegan stuff for myself. But when I’m traveling or going to other people’s places I will be quite happy to eat vegetarian rather than vegan.

Mother Jones interview with Peter Singer


May 29th, 2006, 08:10 AM
Too bad he's not a vegan...
Yes, it is a pity he's not a vegan, especially as he often has the media in his thrall, and influences people. I notice in the current issue of ALV (Animal Liberation Victoria), Patty Mark says: "... Singer is letting many animals down and turning a blind eye to their brutal slaughter, rubber-stamping their death by cautiously trying to keep the status-quo happy." The point is that he advises readers on what "meat is the most humane to eat" (farmed or wild fish, etc.)

Patty quotes Francione who clearly states: "Veganism is the one truly abolitionist goal that we can all achieve - and we can achieve it immediately, starting with our next meal."

May 29th, 2006, 08:36 AM
It's surprising that - based on his views on factory farming, milk production etc - he says that he's happy to eat vegetarian ( = lacto-vegetarian) rather than vegan when he is traveling (I heard that he is traveling a lot) or ao other people's places). It was after I saw the interview above that I started this (http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=188420#post188420) thread. He is some kind of authority - at least for some people in the AR movement - so he is in the position to influenced people ie. to ask for vegan meals when they eat at restaurants, but instead I guess he has the opposite effect on his followers...

May 29th, 2006, 09:02 AM
He's a "flexible vegan"

Is that out of convenience? Surely it's not a lack of conviction? Perhaps a lack of commitment?


May 30th, 2006, 02:54 AM
It's surprising that - based on his views on factory farming, milk production etc - he says that he's happy to eat vegetarian ( = lacto-vegetarian) rather than vegan when he is traveling (I heard that he is traveling a lot) or ao other people's places). It was after I saw the interview above that I started this (http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=188420#post188420) thread. He is some kind of authority - at least for some people in the AR movement - so he is in the position to influenced people ie. to ask for vegan meals when they eat at restaurants, but instead I guess he has the opposite effect on his followers...

You sure do offer up a lot of condescension for the man just because you disagree with him about how strict a vegan should be when in public situations. As far as I'm concerned, Peter Singer is a god among humans when it comes to contributions to the AR movement, and given that he probably spends well over 2/3 of the year traveling, I wouldn't dare fault him for not being too picky when eating out, especially when being exacting would be painfully bland in 95% of the cities in the US (don't know about Australia). Besides, he's a utilitarian, so he would never take the sort of moral absolutist approach you seem to be advocating...

May 31st, 2006, 06:01 AM
When I heard him interviewed he stated "I am predominatly vegan but will resort to a vegetarian diet if there are no other options such as if I'm on an aeroplane and have no choice of vegan food". Well I can't count the number of times ive found myself in a situation with nothin to eat, so I can see where he's coming from. I think he's saying he makes as many vegan choices as he can which is all most of us can do.

Nov 21st, 2006, 06:46 PM
Documentaryhttp://www.radiotimes.com/images/key/key_c_cream.gifhttp://www.radiotimes.com/images/spacer.gifMonkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing
Monday 27th November 2006
http://www.radiotimes.com/images/spacer.gif9:00pm - 10:20pmhttp://www.radiotimes.com/images/spacer.gifBBC2http://www.radiotimes.com/images/spacer.gifhttp://www.radiotimes.com/images/spacer.gifhttp://www.radiotimes.com/images/spacer.gifhttp://www.radiotimes.com/images/spacer.gifVIDEO Plus+: 1847640
Subtitles, widescreen
http://www.radiotimes.com/images/spacer.gifhttp://www.radiotimes.com/images/spacer.gifhttp://www.radiotimes.com/images/spacer.gifhttp://www.radiotimes.com/images/spacer.gifhttp://www.radiotimes.com/images/spacer.gifIs it right to experiment on animals if you believe it will benefit a patient in the future? Does the harm done to animals in the name of research justify the tactics of the animal rights campaigners? This riveting documentary, in an attempt to be even-handed, talks to both sides of this controversial subject: Mel Broughton, a committed activist who's trying to stop Oxford University from building a new animal research laboratory, and Professor Tipu Aziz, one of the few scientists who's prepared to speak out in favour of such research. And we're introduced to Sean, a youngster whose condition could be helped as the result of animal research. But it's not all talking heads. There are scenes that will distress, no matter which side of the fence you sit, and a considerable amount of strong language.

RT reviewer - Jane Rackham

Nov 26th, 2006, 11:38 AM
THE father of the modern animal rights movement has endorsed the use of monkeys in research by an Oxford professor at the centre of anti-vivisection protests.

Read more here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2471990,00.html)

Nov 26th, 2006, 12:31 PM
"provided ... that there was no other way of discovering this knowledge."

That clause, at least, negates a lot of animal experiments - probably these ones as well. Another way of discovering the knowledge, would, for example be to experiment on people with Parkinsons.

He has done the whole area of animal rights a huge disservice there, though.:mad:

Nov 26th, 2006, 01:08 PM
Peter singer is also known to be affiliated with the Rockfeller drug empire


the truth is coming out

Nov 26th, 2006, 03:36 PM
I haven't read Animal Liberation. But I don't see how these experiments differ from any that Peter Singer has previously used to construct his anti-vivisection arguments around. So why is one set of experiments causing him to change his mind? I don't understand. :confused:

Nov 26th, 2006, 03:43 PM
fiamma, he has never been for the abolition of vivisection

Nov 26th, 2006, 04:15 PM
Alright so maybe not against vivisection as such (I haven't read any of his works as I said). But surely the core message remains the same - not doing harm to animals? I just don't see how one set of experiments can have changed his mindset.

Nov 26th, 2006, 04:37 PM
he's against most vivisection but he find that in some cases vivisection can be helpful.
The problem with him is that he's not what he appears to be. He and other peoples are collaborating with the farmaceutical industry to "sedate" the animal right's movement. Here in switzerland it happened the same, one of the the most respected and important member of the anti-vivisectionist movement was actually paid by the farmaceutical industry to act secretely against this movement.
Fiamma, if you have time watch what happened and is happening to the LIMAV (lega internazionale di medicci per l'abolizione della vivisezione), to the CIVIS, to Hans Ruesch (the author of Naked empress (Imperatrice nuda), the best and most documented book against vivisection) and to some of the most importants anti-vivisectionists in europe and in italy.
Our enemy is within our movement.

Nov 26th, 2006, 04:40 PM
Thanks for the info Tray, I'll certainly check those out.

Nov 26th, 2006, 07:43 PM
It's strange that Singer would endorse a specific (or any) primate experiment simply based on a verbal claim made by a scientist in a conversation. It seems like either he is losing it or he was misquoted/edited manipulatively.

Nov 26th, 2006, 11:31 PM
I don't think at all that he has been misquoted or edited because he never stated he was against vivisection, he only said that he was against most vivisection and that's all. Then it's a matter of fact that he's paid by the rockfeller foundation (one of the major responsible for vivisection). He also took in tribunal the anti-vivisection writer Hans Ruesch because he claimed that Singer was a "big phoney". So 1+1=2, For the farmaceutical industry is better to have someone like Singer in a debate than an anti-vivisectionist doctor because he's only able to talk about ethics and the vivsectionist can claim that a cost of some animal lifes you can save human lives, statement than is completely wrong if you watch the history of medecine and what vivisectionist did to it. Vivisection is not science, it only slows down the real medical progress, as it has been demonstrated by many anti-vivisectionist medics and authors. Peter Singer is only a puppet in the hand of the farmaceutical industry.