Singer at IC

Last week, Amanda and I went to see Peter Singer speak at IC. Singer is most famously known for his book Animal Liberation which still acts a major touchstone for the animal rights movement. If you have ever taken an Introduction to Ethics course sometime in the past three decades then you have probably read something by him. Most likely the essay, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, which charges everyone living in financial security to do everything they can to help those who lack the stability. I.E., if you can donate half our your paycheck to UNICEF and not endanger your own life, then you are morally responsible to do such. Feel free to discuss, class.

He introduced the term "speciesism," which meant discrimintating against something because it was another species. If it was OK kick the dog because it's just a dog then that is speciesism. He also has block-rocking* views about abortion and euthanasia. The right to lifers do not like him and neither do several advocacy groups for senior citizens and the mentally/physically disabled.

His talk focused on food and our ethical connections to food. While it was great to actually see Pete Singer in person (He really does exist, outside of the textbook that the bookstore won't freaking take back!), we both left the talk dissapointed. We both wanted to hear something new, but Singer focused his talk on a public presentation about how our food is produced and the conditions of factory farming. Coming out of the environmental studies program and living in Ithaca for six years, most of what he said was old hat.

There were little bits of gold during the talk. I always imagined Singer as a very crunchy-professor type who would fit in as well at Greenstar Cooperative Market as Princeton University. However, we both listened to a practical, intelligent man who used logic and reason to argue his points. Even if you don't agree with Singer, his stlye proved refreshing amongst all the rhetoric we hear. He focused almost entirely on farm animals saying that dogs and cats have it much easier then the animals we do interact with the most--livestock.

Most appreciated was his stance on local foods. Actually, stance is a bad word for what Singer said. More of a cavaet on local foods. For the most part, local foods are better for the welfare of the environment, the people on the farm, and the animals. Shipping food from only a hundred miles away uses less fossil fuels than something from 1,500 miles away. Local farms tend to be smaller operations that cannot use their size to intimadate workers. Neither can they afford to lose profits and capital by scamming clients. Finally, local farms tends to steward the land, instead of exploit it, because they cannot just pikc up and move to new pastures.

Still, these are all generalities. Local doesn't necessarily mean better, just that it is local. Technically, I could get local tomatoes in December if I went to a hothouse up a Cornell. Is the energy use there any worse then the energy expended to ship a non hot house tomato flown up from Florida? Singer also advised that people need to educate themselves about local farms and their practics. Yes, local famrs and businesses are much likelier to be caring and kind, but it is not a guarantee. The beauty of local structures is that you can go see them for yourself! He concluded by saying that if you wanted to eat local then you had to combine that with seasonal, which was an additional commitment. He also added cavaeat to the "organic" label, pointing out that you can have 100% organic beef and milk from equally horrible factory farming conditions.

I appreciated Singer's characterization of vegetarianism and veganism. When asked by an audience member if he was vegan he answered yes, but added that he considered such diets more of an ethical stance then something about personal piety. It is not that eating meat, cheese, and eggs is bad. Instead the issue rests in the fact that most of the meat and dairy produced in this country comes from factory famrs that do not reflect the true cost of that product at the butcher's block.

Singer ended the talk by saying "I have given you a lot of information, but not many answers." I suspect he wanted most of the talk to center around the Q & A discussion. Ethicists prove their muster when faced with questions. If not you are just an empty essayist or, worse yet, a blogger**! Organizers only allowed for a few questions because of time constraints. I remember planning events at IC with my cohorts in the environmental society and trying to balance the wrap-up time. It's difficult considering that everyone does need to get back to their lives (Earth Week always fell on the week right before the last day of class. Mothafucker.) and still want that extra knowledge. A lot of people stuck around for the Q & A and considering that everyone I spoke to aftwerwards was dissapointed by the talk, I feel I am not alone in my thoughts.

As a quick aside, Amanda and I have begun to make official airs of leaving Ithaca for good come late spring/early summer. Nothing concrete as of now. We are not giving away our cache of trash tags and Ithaca Hours just yet! But who knows. Expect some big blog posts about that later, but I will miss the speakers that come through the town. For how much heat the colleges get (and deserve!), you could have seen the Dalai Lama, John Ashcroft, and Pete Singer all withing the same two month stretch.

Peace!

* Chemical Brothers can go with anything. Even ethics! I purposefully did not summarize Singer's views because both he, and the introduction at the talk, mentioned that his long essays and books are often warped and condensed to scintillationg talking points. Reading my one setence about speciesims does not do any service to Singer or his critics. Feel free to read for yourself on-line.

** I kid! I kid! Blogging, citizen journalism, and user generated media is the wave of the future. But we can still have fun, no?