This is a transcript of an episode of the Knowing Animals podcast which was released on 13/8/17. You can listen to the audio version here:
My very sincere thanks to Arnav who transcribed this episode!
Happy reading!
Episode 9: Liberating Animals with Peter Singer
13/08/2017
SO: Hey guys! Welcome to Knowing Animals, a podcast where we talk to an animal studies scholar about a piece of their work. I’m Siobhan O’Sullivan and I do like knowing animals.
Today we’ll be discussing Peter Singer’s work “Animal Liberation” which was first published by Harper Collins in 1975. It’s now in it’s fourth edition. Welcome to the podcast Peter Singer!
PS: Thank you Siobhan, great to be with you. Just a tiny correction, Harper Collins only came into this quite late. The paperback edition was originally published by the New York review of books in New York and then later on got into paperback first with Avon, and now with Harper Collins.
SO: Ah well, I’ll have to write to the people at Wikipedia. PS: Oh yes, you’d better go online and correct it – edit it.
SO: Exactly. Well thank you so much for joining us Peter, it’s a great honour to have you here and as we’re going to see at the end of the podcast I always ask my guests five quick questions one of which is what was the first piece of work you read and you’re the most cited author so to have the source here is absolutely wonderful.
So let me start by asking you what inspired you to write the book “Animal Liberation?”
PS: I wanted to write animal liberation because I became aware of the way animals
are treated and I just thought that there’s something going on here that most people don’t know about. People like me, I was already in my 20’s, I was a graduate student at Oxford university, I considered my self reasonably well informed on what you might call broadly issues of social justice – I was active opposing the Vietnam War, of course
My very sincere thanks to Arnav who transcribed this episode!
Happy reading!
Episode 9: Liberating Animals with Peter Singer
13/08/2017
SO: Hey guys! Welcome to Knowing Animals, a podcast where we talk to an animal studies scholar about a piece of their work. I’m Siobhan O’Sullivan and I do like knowing animals.
Today we’ll be discussing Peter Singer’s work “Animal Liberation” which was first published by Harper Collins in 1975. It’s now in it’s fourth edition. Welcome to the podcast Peter Singer!
PS: Thank you Siobhan, great to be with you. Just a tiny correction, Harper Collins only came into this quite late. The paperback edition was originally published by the New York review of books in New York and then later on got into paperback first with Avon, and now with Harper Collins.
SO: Ah well, I’ll have to write to the people at Wikipedia. PS: Oh yes, you’d better go online and correct it – edit it.
SO: Exactly. Well thank you so much for joining us Peter, it’s a great honour to have you here and as we’re going to see at the end of the podcast I always ask my guests five quick questions one of which is what was the first piece of work you read and you’re the most cited author so to have the source here is absolutely wonderful.
So let me start by asking you what inspired you to write the book “Animal Liberation?”
PS: I wanted to write animal liberation because I became aware of the way animals
are treated and I just thought that there’s something going on here that most people don’t know about. People like me, I was already in my 20’s, I was a graduate student at Oxford university, I considered my self reasonably well informed on what you might call broadly issues of social justice – I was active opposing the Vietnam War, of course
I opposed racial discrimination and so on. Women’s rights movement, but nobody talked
about animals and what we were doing to animals and I thought this is something
going on beneath the surface that needs to be exposed and not just exposed in terms
of here’s a catalogue of horrible cruelties that we do but actually put in a systematic
framework that shows that this is an important issue alongside all of those other issues
that I just mentioned.
SO: Do you think it still is one of the lesser known issues or do you think that has changed?
PS: Oh I think that has changed dramatically. Its very often in the media and attitudes have changed to a small extent, practices have changed, but not nearly enough but people are aware, you know, you say animal rights to someone now and they don’t look at you as if to say “What’s that animals don’t have rights,” whereas nobody put animals and rights together in the 1970’s, early 70’s.
SO: Well certainly your book was a large part of that concept becoming known, so the idea of animal rights. Thinking about animals rights and your book “Animal Liberation,” is there something you’re most proud of or something that you’re most proud of?
PS: Look I’m really pleased that I wrote it and I’m really pleased it’s influenced a lot of people. Every time somebody comes up to me after a talk and says “I read Animal Liberation” x years ago and I’ve been vegetarian or vegan since. Yeah, I’m proud that and I’m proud that I’ve written a book that’s been able to change something as fundamental as what people eat and the attitudes that go along with that.
SO: So, its an iconic book and of course it’s often cited, it’s used by scholars but its also used by as you noted very accessible and people in the community are reading it – are there any particular principles or themes that people misunderstood or misrepresent when they talk about your work?
PS: The most misinterpretation of the work is the idea that animals and humans being equal, and to some extent I suppose I am responsible for that because the first chapter is called all animals are equal, and in that chapter I try and describe in what sense I mean that because of course there’s all sorts of things you can make when you say
SO: Do you think it still is one of the lesser known issues or do you think that has changed?
PS: Oh I think that has changed dramatically. Its very often in the media and attitudes have changed to a small extent, practices have changed, but not nearly enough but people are aware, you know, you say animal rights to someone now and they don’t look at you as if to say “What’s that animals don’t have rights,” whereas nobody put animals and rights together in the 1970’s, early 70’s.
SO: Well certainly your book was a large part of that concept becoming known, so the idea of animal rights. Thinking about animals rights and your book “Animal Liberation,” is there something you’re most proud of or something that you’re most proud of?
PS: Look I’m really pleased that I wrote it and I’m really pleased it’s influenced a lot of people. Every time somebody comes up to me after a talk and says “I read Animal Liberation” x years ago and I’ve been vegetarian or vegan since. Yeah, I’m proud that and I’m proud that I’ve written a book that’s been able to change something as fundamental as what people eat and the attitudes that go along with that.
SO: So, its an iconic book and of course it’s often cited, it’s used by scholars but its also used by as you noted very accessible and people in the community are reading it – are there any particular principles or themes that people misunderstood or misrepresent when they talk about your work?
PS: The most misinterpretation of the work is the idea that animals and humans being equal, and to some extent I suppose I am responsible for that because the first chapter is called all animals are equal, and in that chapter I try and describe in what sense I mean that because of course there’s all sorts of things you can make when you say
two things are equal. And I’m pretty clear that I don’t mean to say for instance that
it’s just as bad to kill a non human animal as it is to kill a normal human being, and
I say what I do mean is that the pain or suffering of an animal ought to count just as
much as the similar pain or suffering of a human being, that we shouldn’t say because
one of them is homosapien, it’s pain matters more and if the other one is, whatever it
might be that it’s pain doesn’t count or doesn’t count as much.
So many people, particularly opponents that haven’t really read the book I think just assume that I’m saying its just as bad to kill a rat than it would be to kill any human being and I’m pretty clear that that’s no what I’m saying.
SO: Right, well that brings me to the next question I had – so, correct me if im wrong, I’m sure you will, we’ve had conversations in the past where you’ve suggested this issue of death and what death might mean for non human animals is maybe something that is perhaps worthy of revision or other people presented arguments that you thought were compelling. Is there something in the book animal liberation that you think you didn’t get right or that you wish you had presented in a different way or framed in a different way?
PS: Ahh, so the issue about when or why killing animals is wrong is an issue I’ve struggled with. I did change slightly what I wrote in the first edition when I came to do the second edition and particularly when people use the argument that if animals have good lives, and of course this is a tiny minority of the animals that are produced for food, but if animals are produced for food and given good lives, and if that can only happen if the farmer is permitted to kill the animals to sell them for meat, then is it really wrong to kill them given that otherwise they wouldn’t have existed at all and given the assumption that their lives are good. So that’s always struck me as one of the more difficult philosophical questions in this area. And it still strikes me that way, and I wouldn’t say that that I’m satisfied with any particular answer on that and it’s good to see that there is ongoing philosophical discussion, there the book Tatjana Visak wrote called Killing Happy Animals and Tatjana and Robert Garner have edited a book with essays on that topic, so I think I welcome the fact that there is ongoing discussion to deal with that problem.
SO: Hmm, so that’s really the issue that you see as perhaps in need of further thought? The issue of where to draw the line, is that something that’s occupied your mind in the years since you wrote Animal Liberation or...?
So many people, particularly opponents that haven’t really read the book I think just assume that I’m saying its just as bad to kill a rat than it would be to kill any human being and I’m pretty clear that that’s no what I’m saying.
SO: Right, well that brings me to the next question I had – so, correct me if im wrong, I’m sure you will, we’ve had conversations in the past where you’ve suggested this issue of death and what death might mean for non human animals is maybe something that is perhaps worthy of revision or other people presented arguments that you thought were compelling. Is there something in the book animal liberation that you think you didn’t get right or that you wish you had presented in a different way or framed in a different way?
PS: Ahh, so the issue about when or why killing animals is wrong is an issue I’ve struggled with. I did change slightly what I wrote in the first edition when I came to do the second edition and particularly when people use the argument that if animals have good lives, and of course this is a tiny minority of the animals that are produced for food, but if animals are produced for food and given good lives, and if that can only happen if the farmer is permitted to kill the animals to sell them for meat, then is it really wrong to kill them given that otherwise they wouldn’t have existed at all and given the assumption that their lives are good. So that’s always struck me as one of the more difficult philosophical questions in this area. And it still strikes me that way, and I wouldn’t say that that I’m satisfied with any particular answer on that and it’s good to see that there is ongoing philosophical discussion, there the book Tatjana Visak wrote called Killing Happy Animals and Tatjana and Robert Garner have edited a book with essays on that topic, so I think I welcome the fact that there is ongoing discussion to deal with that problem.
SO: Hmm, so that’s really the issue that you see as perhaps in need of further thought? The issue of where to draw the line, is that something that’s occupied your mind in the years since you wrote Animal Liberation or...?
PS: There are certainly issues about what kinds of beings are sentient or conscious, I
mean that’s the sort of, that’s in a way a factual question, I mean it’s obviously got
philosophical overtones in terms of what we regard as consciousness and what’s
evidence of consciousness, but I mean in one sense I know where to draw the line –
you draw the line where there’s sentience, where there’s a consciousness, where
there’s a capacity to feel pain or pleasure. So philosophically I have a clear answer to
that but if somebody then says “Well, what about insects?” you know can an ant feel
pain, it’s very hard I think to know the answer to that question so yes I still... it’s not
a question I struggle with philosophically as much I do with questions about killing but
it’s still a question I’m still really interested in seeing what kind of evidence can be
produced and can our knowledge advance to the extent that we could have good
grounds to answering questions about various kinds of animals who are quite unlike us
in many respects.
SO: Hmm, well I was at a conference a while ago, a political philosophy conference and there was this special panel on animals and a particular topic was being discussed and I said “Ah well no, for me there’s no sentience implication so the action is fine,” and they all said “Oh you’re such a Singerite, blah blah blah blah blah,” then this was not meant as a compliment I think. Are you still confident sentience is the issue?
PS: Yeah, absolutely and I’m not sure what people think might be the issue or why they would think that if it’s not going to be sentience. I mean once you abandon sentience why are we concerned with animals rather than plants? Seems to me that the fact that perhaps not all but many animals are sentient and in my view there’s no evidence that any plants are sentient, no good evidence, is a reason for why we talk about animals liberation and not the liberation of all living beings, all living things.
SO: And so the issue of the kind of framework that you use versus kind of rights discourse which is so powerful, have you ever been swayed or have you ever thought that maybe a rights framework could useful or you’re very committed to your framework and the rights discourse.
PS: Look I think a rights framework is useful in terms of political discussions and I’ve never denied that as for humans it is to say that somebody has a right to something is a clear shorthand way of saying that we should not be doing something to someone or we should do something that will help them achieve their rights and the same is true for animals – if someone wants to say that animals have rights not to be experimented
SO: Hmm, well I was at a conference a while ago, a political philosophy conference and there was this special panel on animals and a particular topic was being discussed and I said “Ah well no, for me there’s no sentience implication so the action is fine,” and they all said “Oh you’re such a Singerite, blah blah blah blah blah,” then this was not meant as a compliment I think. Are you still confident sentience is the issue?
PS: Yeah, absolutely and I’m not sure what people think might be the issue or why they would think that if it’s not going to be sentience. I mean once you abandon sentience why are we concerned with animals rather than plants? Seems to me that the fact that perhaps not all but many animals are sentient and in my view there’s no evidence that any plants are sentient, no good evidence, is a reason for why we talk about animals liberation and not the liberation of all living beings, all living things.
SO: And so the issue of the kind of framework that you use versus kind of rights discourse which is so powerful, have you ever been swayed or have you ever thought that maybe a rights framework could useful or you’re very committed to your framework and the rights discourse.
PS: Look I think a rights framework is useful in terms of political discussions and I’ve never denied that as for humans it is to say that somebody has a right to something is a clear shorthand way of saying that we should not be doing something to someone or we should do something that will help them achieve their rights and the same is true for animals – if someone wants to say that animals have rights not to be experimented
on, not to have cosmetics in they’re eyes or not to be packed up in factory farms,
that’s clear and understandable, and I don’t have any objection to that. If you then say
well what’s the basis for this claim, I think the basis for the claim can’t just be “They
have rights” in other words can’t just be repeating this is if it’s a sort of obvious
observable fact because it isn’t. it has to be something like they have interests or
they’re interests are being harmed in this way, recognising either n terms of social
practice or in terms of the law that it’s a violation of they’re rights to treat them this is
likely to stop that treatment so let’s recognise that they have rights. I don’t have any
philosophical problems with putting it that way.
SO: So you will have been exposed to many counter arguments – now I’m not talking about from within animal protection scholarship but from people who are opposed to that kind of scholarship or who believe its ill founded, it’s incorrect. I’ve heard you say previously that you’ve heard very little that you think is a compelling argument against what you put forward in animal liberation – is that still the case?
PS: Yeah, I think I’ve heard very little that is fundamentally against the idea of speciesism as I understand it – as we were saying earlier that there had been some criticisms that missed the mark because they’re not attacking what I’m saying and there have certainly been some criticisms on these what I would say issues around the edge of what I’m saying which are issues about killing and issues about how we should think about insects or about other invertebrates. Now those are important issues but I haven’t really seen a good argument for saying the fact that a being is not a member of our species is a reason for giving less consideration to its interests.
SO: So do you know why in that case, and I agree, I find your argument very compelling and I’m yet to hear anything that has swayed me in that view. Why do we not have 100% take up with such an argument?
PS: Well obviously that argument challenges the way we act with regard to animals and it challenges practices that most people are complicit in. If they’re not vegan, they are complicit in practices that harm the interests of animals, let me say if they’re not vegan and they’re not extremely selective about finding you know farms that really treat animals well and only eating those animal products then its clear that they are complicit in speciesism, and so they have an interest in resisting that argument and unfortunately that kind of consideration partly habit partly how they perceive they’re self interest, I don’t think it’s really in their self interest to continue to eat meat but how they see it,
SO: So you will have been exposed to many counter arguments – now I’m not talking about from within animal protection scholarship but from people who are opposed to that kind of scholarship or who believe its ill founded, it’s incorrect. I’ve heard you say previously that you’ve heard very little that you think is a compelling argument against what you put forward in animal liberation – is that still the case?
PS: Yeah, I think I’ve heard very little that is fundamentally against the idea of speciesism as I understand it – as we were saying earlier that there had been some criticisms that missed the mark because they’re not attacking what I’m saying and there have certainly been some criticisms on these what I would say issues around the edge of what I’m saying which are issues about killing and issues about how we should think about insects or about other invertebrates. Now those are important issues but I haven’t really seen a good argument for saying the fact that a being is not a member of our species is a reason for giving less consideration to its interests.
SO: So do you know why in that case, and I agree, I find your argument very compelling and I’m yet to hear anything that has swayed me in that view. Why do we not have 100% take up with such an argument?
PS: Well obviously that argument challenges the way we act with regard to animals and it challenges practices that most people are complicit in. If they’re not vegan, they are complicit in practices that harm the interests of animals, let me say if they’re not vegan and they’re not extremely selective about finding you know farms that really treat animals well and only eating those animal products then its clear that they are complicit in speciesism, and so they have an interest in resisting that argument and unfortunately that kind of consideration partly habit partly how they perceive they’re self interest, I don’t think it’s really in their self interest to continue to eat meat but how they see it,
but I think that’s a powerful obstacle, its very difficult to convince people when they see
what they regard as central interests or central parts of their way of living as being
threatened by the argument.
SO: Hmm, so self interest trumping logic.
PS: Yeah unfortunately it does that in lots of areas, not only this one.
SO: Okay well thank you very much Peter. Now I ask all my guests to answer 5 quick questions at the end of the podcast, now I’d be particularly interested in what you have to say. So first up, can you recall the first piece of pro animal scholarship you ever read?
PS: Umm, it would’ve been work for the book “Animals: Men and Morals” that was edited by Stanley and Gozlam Godovich and John Harris. Perhaps it was Rod Golovich’s paper because I’d met her in Oxford and she was certainly one of the people who opened my eyes to what was happening to animals.
PO: So can you recall the first piece of animal scholarship that you ever wrote?
PS: Yes, the first thing that I wrote was a review of that book that I just mentioned by Animals: Men and Morals which I reviewed for the New York review for books in April 1973, and I should say it was my suggestion to the editor of the New York review Robert Silvers that they should cover the book because otherwise there’s no way in the world they would have because as I said animal issues were off the radar and that book was published in England basically sank without a trace it wasn’t reviewed in any of the major papers or magazines or anything like that which is why I was so keen that it should be reviewed in the us when the us version came out.
SO: and so that’s amazing you hadn’t written any papers throughout your time as a student – the first thing was this iconic review that then...
SO: Hmm, so self interest trumping logic.
PS: Yeah unfortunately it does that in lots of areas, not only this one.
SO: Okay well thank you very much Peter. Now I ask all my guests to answer 5 quick questions at the end of the podcast, now I’d be particularly interested in what you have to say. So first up, can you recall the first piece of pro animal scholarship you ever read?
PS: Umm, it would’ve been work for the book “Animals: Men and Morals” that was edited by Stanley and Gozlam Godovich and John Harris. Perhaps it was Rod Golovich’s paper because I’d met her in Oxford and she was certainly one of the people who opened my eyes to what was happening to animals.
PO: So can you recall the first piece of animal scholarship that you ever wrote?
PS: Yes, the first thing that I wrote was a review of that book that I just mentioned by Animals: Men and Morals which I reviewed for the New York review for books in April 1973, and I should say it was my suggestion to the editor of the New York review Robert Silvers that they should cover the book because otherwise there’s no way in the world they would have because as I said animal issues were off the radar and that book was published in England basically sank without a trace it wasn’t reviewed in any of the major papers or magazines or anything like that which is why I was so keen that it should be reviewed in the us when the us version came out.
SO: and so that’s amazing you hadn’t written any papers throughout your time as a student – the first thing was this iconic review that then...
PS: That’s right, because the first I ever thought about this issue was coming into
contact with some of the people involved in Animals: Men and Morals who were in
Oxford and then I thought this is fine, they’re writing these essays, they’re editing this
book of essays so there’s nothing for me to say here because they’re already doing
this. Now as I said when the book came out in England nobody seemed to notice it –
it wasn’t discussed at all and that’s when I thought this book really deserves more
attention and my views were not identical with those of the Gulovich’s or the
contributors to that book but they at least broadly in the same ballpark so I tried to put
the arguments of a number of different contributors (because it’s a collection of
essays) into an overarching framework and I used the heading Animal Liberation for
that. And that was the first thing that I did.
SO: And do you know why this particular issue spoke to you? When you said earlier that you were passionate about quite a range of social justice issues but animal issues has obviously also been particularly important to you, do you know why this spoke to you?
PS: You know I think I had been brought up with some sensitivity to animal suffering, my father certainly had sensitivity to animal suffering, not that he would talk about it a great deal. I can remember for instance that we would go for walks in the country and there would be somebody fishing in the beach or in the river and very often they would just haul the fish up and leave them in a basket flapping around while they suffocated and he would point that at me and say “I cant imagine how anybody could think it’s an enjoyable afternoon to sit on a riverbank while fish are slowly dying next to you,”
so that kind of I guess made me think about those things and then when I started to realise that this kind of suffering is also involved in meat production, you know we always ate meat, couldn’t really imagine family not having meat for dinner, then I started to think, yeah, this really does apply you know and it’s a much bigger issue than the stray angler, letting fish die slowly.
SO: Hmm, interesting. Okay the next question is if you had to name one animal study scholar who’s had a big impact on you, who would it be, and you’re going to be tempted to name me and I work but you must avoid that temptation.
PS: Its not easy because there has been a lot of good scholars but it’s not easy for me to say who has had the biggest influence but I think I would have to go back as I did to those beginnings, and talk probably about, so the first person who actually made
SO: And do you know why this particular issue spoke to you? When you said earlier that you were passionate about quite a range of social justice issues but animal issues has obviously also been particularly important to you, do you know why this spoke to you?
PS: You know I think I had been brought up with some sensitivity to animal suffering, my father certainly had sensitivity to animal suffering, not that he would talk about it a great deal. I can remember for instance that we would go for walks in the country and there would be somebody fishing in the beach or in the river and very often they would just haul the fish up and leave them in a basket flapping around while they suffocated and he would point that at me and say “I cant imagine how anybody could think it’s an enjoyable afternoon to sit on a riverbank while fish are slowly dying next to you,”
so that kind of I guess made me think about those things and then when I started to realise that this kind of suffering is also involved in meat production, you know we always ate meat, couldn’t really imagine family not having meat for dinner, then I started to think, yeah, this really does apply you know and it’s a much bigger issue than the stray angler, letting fish die slowly.
SO: Hmm, interesting. Okay the next question is if you had to name one animal study scholar who’s had a big impact on you, who would it be, and you’re going to be tempted to name me and I work but you must avoid that temptation.
PS: Its not easy because there has been a lot of good scholars but it’s not easy for me to say who has had the biggest influence but I think I would have to go back as I did to those beginnings, and talk probably about, so the first person who actually made
me think about this was Richard Keshin who’s a Canadian philosopher who hasn’t really
written much about animals, but he did become a vegetarian but he was in turn
influenced by Rosyn Godlovich who were also Canadians, all of this group was at
Oxford when I was, and he did put me under them and Ross did write about animals
as I say in an essay and co-edited that collection and so she was probably the
biggest influence on me.
SO: OK, so what’s the most important thing academics can do for animals?
PS: Academics have a big role in making sure that people are aware of this as an ethical issue so obviously most academics teach and it should be prominent in their courses and I particularly think it’s important to teach it alongside other issues so I for example have never taught a course only about animals but I teach courses in which there are issues like global poverty, maybe war, maybe the bioethical questions about life and death and a range of other issues and I always have animals there as one among a number of important moral issues, I think it’s important that people see this as something that if it’s something that you’re concerned about poverty and social justice and war and so on you should be concerned about animals as well.
SO: Interesting. SO if you had the power to change one thing about the human-non animal relationship what would that be?
PS: It would be the fact that we consume animals flesh and other products because I think that’s the cause of more animal suffering than anything else we do.
SO: OK, that’s a popular answer, so it’s a volume issue, so what are you working on next Peter?
PS: I’m revising another book called One World – a book about ethics and globalisation which came out in 2002 and which has been pretty well used in a lot of courses about global issues and international relations but all the facts have got very dated so
it needs an update so that’s what I’ve been up to.
biggest influence on me.
SO: OK, so what’s the most important thing academics can do for animals?
PS: Academics have a big role in making sure that people are aware of this as an ethical issue so obviously most academics teach and it should be prominent in their courses and I particularly think it’s important to teach it alongside other issues so I for example have never taught a course only about animals but I teach courses in which there are issues like global poverty, maybe war, maybe the bioethical questions about life and death and a range of other issues and I always have animals there as one among a number of important moral issues, I think it’s important that people see this as something that if it’s something that you’re concerned about poverty and social justice and war and so on you should be concerned about animals as well.
SO: Interesting. SO if you had the power to change one thing about the human-non animal relationship what would that be?
PS: It would be the fact that we consume animals flesh and other products because I think that’s the cause of more animal suffering than anything else we do.
SO: OK, that’s a popular answer, so it’s a volume issue, so what are you working on next Peter?
PS: I’m revising another book called One World – a book about ethics and globalisation which came out in 2002 and which has been pretty well used in a lot of courses about global issues and international relations but all the facts have got very dated so
it needs an update so that’s what I’ve been up to.
SO: Oh, lovely. So where can people find out more about your work?
PS: There’s a website, you can google me and you can find a lot. So the website is a Princeton University website so https://uchv.princeton.edu/people/peter-singer, but if you google me you’ll find it and depending on what the nature of the work is you can google animal liberation and you can read about that, if you’re interested in my work on global poverty, there’s an organisation I’m involved with called The Life You Can Save, at thelifeyoucansave.org is the place to go.
SO: Wonderful. So thank you Peter and thank you to our listeners for joining us on Knowing Animals, the podcast where we talk to animal study scholars about their work. Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter at knowing_animals or Facebook at Knowing Animals. Also don’t forget to tell others about us and review the podcast on iTunes. Reviews make it easier for others to find us. I’m Siobhan O’Sullivan and I do like knowing animals. See ya!
PS: There’s a website, you can google me and you can find a lot. So the website is a Princeton University website so https://uchv.princeton.edu/people/peter-singer, but if you google me you’ll find it and depending on what the nature of the work is you can google animal liberation and you can read about that, if you’re interested in my work on global poverty, there’s an organisation I’m involved with called The Life You Can Save, at thelifeyoucansave.org is the place to go.
SO: Wonderful. So thank you Peter and thank you to our listeners for joining us on Knowing Animals, the podcast where we talk to animal study scholars about their work. Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter at knowing_animals or Facebook at Knowing Animals. Also don’t forget to tell others about us and review the podcast on iTunes. Reviews make it easier for others to find us. I’m Siobhan O’Sullivan and I do like knowing animals. See ya!
No comments:
Post a Comment