# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It can feel wrong, or simply impossible, to focus on anything other than getting through this most challenging moment. It is reasonable to argue that since lessons will not reduce our immediate suffering, we should learn them once we're through this. But the vulnerability that makes the present so painful is exactly why some discussions cannot wait. The suffering we stand to reduce or increase by the threads of action that we begin to unwind now could be magnitudes of what we're currently experiencing.

Imagine that while your country practised social distancing, your neighbouring country responded to Covid-19 by packing citizens into gymnasiums by the tens of thousands. Imagine if, in addition, they instituted genetic and pharmaceutical interventions that helped their citizens maintain productivity under such adverse conditions, even though this had the unfortunate side effect of devastating their immune systems. And to complete this dystopian vision, imagine if your neighbours simultaneously reduced their number of doctors tenfold. Such actions would radically increase death rates not only within their country, but yours. Pathogens do not respect national boundaries. They are not Spanish or Chinese.

Pathogens do not respect species boundaries, either. Influenza and coronaviruses move fluidly between human and animal populations, just as they move fluidly between nations. When it comes to pandemics, there is not animal health and human health - not any more than there is Korean health and French health. Social distancing works only when everyone practises it, and "everyone" includes animals.

The meat that we eat today overwhelmingly comes from genetically uniform, immunocompromised, and regularly drugged animals lodged by the tens of thousands into buildings or stacked cages - no matter how the meat is labelled. We know this, and most of us would strongly prefer it be otherwise. But we would prefer a lot of things in the world that aren't so and, for most of us, the future of animal farming is low on our list of priorities, especially now. It is understandable to be most concerned with oneself. The problem is, we aren't doing a good job of being selfish.

We don't yet know the full history of the emergence of Covid-19, the particular strain of coronavirus that now threatens us. But with recent pandemic virus threats from influenza viruses such as H1N1 (swine flu) or H5N1 (bird flu) there is no ambiguity: those viruses evolved on chicken and pig factory farms. Genetic analyses have shown that crucial components of H1N1 emerged from a virus circulating in North American pigs. But it is commercial poultry operations that appear to be the Silicon Valley of viral development.

It is on chicken factory farms that we have most frequently found viruses that have mutated from a form found only in animals into a form that harms humans (what scientists call "antigenic shift"). It is these "novel" viruses that our immune systems are unfamiliar with and that can prove most deadly.

Of 16 strains of novel influenza viruses currently identified by the CDC as "of special concern," including H5N1, 11 come from viruses of the H5 or H7 type. In 2018 a group of scientists analysed the 39 antigenic shifts, also called "conversion events," that we know played a key role in the emergence of these particularly dangerous strains. Their results prove that "all but two of these events were reported in commercial poultry production systems".

Imagine if our military leaders told us that almost every terrorist in recent memory had spent time in the same training camp, but no politician would call for an investigation of the training camp. Imagine if we knew that those terrorists were developing weapons more destructive than any that has been used, or tested, in human history. This is our situation when it comes to pandemics and farming.

The United States CDC is the abbreviation for an agency whose name is actually the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We drop prevention from the acronym, which is innocent enough. But we also tend to drop serious discussion of prevention in favour of tactics for responding once pandemics hit. This is understandable - especially in the midst of a pandemic - but recklessly dangerous. We are preoccupied with the production of face masks, but we appear unconcerned with the farms that are producing pandemics. The world is burning and we are reaching for more fire extinguishers while gasoline soaks through the tinder at our feet.

To reduce risk of pandemics for ourselves, our gaze needs to turn to the health of animals. In the case of wild animal populations, such as the bats that scientists have theorised as a probable origination point for Covid-19, the best solution seems to be to limit and regulate human interaction. Much has rightly been written on this and, slowly and unevenly, policies seem to be moving in the right direction. As it became established that a number of people contracted the virus after visiting a wet market in Wuhan, where the virus likely passed through humans from bats via an intermediate host, China shut down 19,000 wildlife-farming operations and banned meat from wild animals at wet markets.

In the case of farmed animals, though, the lack of public understanding has allowed unscrupulous corporations to move policy in exactly the wrong direction. Across the globe, corporations have succeeded in creating policies that use public resources to promote industrial farming. One study suggests that the public is providing $1m per minute in global farm subsidies, overwhelmingly used to prop up and expand the current broken model. The same $1m a minute that promotes factory farming also increases pandemic risk.

In the US, the death rate for Covid-19 has been less than 2%, but had this been, say, H5N1 the death rate would be far higher - the CDC reports a 60% death rate. After a spike of H5N1 deaths in 2017, the virus's spread subsided for reasons that remain unclear. Should we be relieved? Nancy Cox, who led CDC's influenza operations for more than two decades, has emphasised: "We don't know how the story's going to end." H5N1's failure to reach pandemic proportions simply means we have a terrorist kicking around who is just one small viral mutation away from obtaining the equivalent of a nuclear arsenal.

The implications of a 1-2% death rate are all around us: half of the world is living under stay-at-home orders, children don't go to school, hospitals are running out of life-saving equipment, we are facing a generational financial depression, and the funeral services that have traditionally allowed us at least to mourn together are being (rightfully) banned. Can we extrapolate the implications of a 60% death rate in our imaginations? That would be a 30-fold increase over our current situation. What if the next pandemic didn't spare children? The death rate for children infected with H5N1 approaches 50%. How does it feel if you imagine one person you love a coin toss away from a horrible death? Try imagining if half of everyone you know who had the flu last year was now dying. If you have children, how many of them had the flu last year? Force yourself to imagine these things then ask yourself: how much would it be worth sacrificing now to avoid that happening?
Industrial-sized pig and chicken farming continuing to rise in UK
This leads to the most pertinent question: What can we do? The link between factory farming and increasing pandemic risk is well established scientifically, but the political will to curtail that risk has, in the past, been absent. Now is the time to build that will. It really does matter if we talk about this, share our concerns with our friends, explain these issues to our children, wonder together about how we should eat differently, call on our political leaders, and support advocacy organisations fighting factory farming. Leaders are listening. Changing the most powerful industrial complex in the world - the factory farm - could not possibly be easy, but in this moment with these stakes it is, maybe for the first time in our lifetimes, possible.

The fact that we know our food system is partly to blame can empower us. We know how to strike at the single greatest risk factor for pandemics. We know how to make ourselves and our families safer. The very uncertainty that unsettles us also reminds us that everything can change for the better, too. Thankfully Covid-19 seems to attack our children extremely rarely, and if we respond with sufficient wisdom, this time that is so marked by death will perhaps also be remembered by them as a turning point, a time of reckoning, quiet heroism and, as the months pass, renewal.

Jonathan Safran Foer is an author. His most recent book is We Are the Weather: Saving the Planet Begins at Breakfast

Aaron S Gross is the founder of Farm Forward and an associate professor at the University of San Diego

Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
We have to wake up: factory farms are breeding grounds for pandemics | Jonathan Safran Foer and Aaron S Gross

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It can feel wrong, or simply impossible, to focus on anything other than getting through this most challenging moment. It is reasonable to argue that since lessons will not reduce our immediate suffering, we should learn them once we're through this. But the vulnerability that makes the present so painful is exactly why some discussions cannot wait.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"I have written and directed a film about veganism. I'm sorry." This isn't what you might expect Simon Amstell to say about his first feature-length film. Released on BBC iPlayer on 19 March, Carnage: Swallowing the Past is a mockumentary set in a future Britain, where meat, eggs and dairy are outlawed. In this brave new age world, animals roam free, and there is no such thing as veganism, only "carnism".

Amstell apologising for Carnage may be surprising given he is vegan, wrote and directed the film, and originally conceived of it as a manifesto. But if this proves anything, it's that the vegan cause needs more self aware people like him. Carnage is an almost perfect example of how to push a worthwhile message without being preachy. And in what must be a world-first for vegan activism, it even takes the piss out of vegans.

I'm not a vegan, but after watching Carnage, I'm even more certain that I should be. It's completely unsustainable and cruel to eat meat and dairy, and more people need to realise this. But so far, many feel alienated by the vegan movement. Carnage works because it's very funny, entertaining but also shows how society can be made to change its mind. It's not about shaming anyone, or bombarding them with stats. Instead, the film asks a simple question: how will we look back on our treatment of animals in 50 years?

Download the new Independent Premium app

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

The film opens with young, polyamorous Brits frolicking in nature, popping nuts in their mouths and chatting about plant-based foods. It's 2067, and the idea of eating animals is unfathomable to them. For some, the idea brings them close to tears. "Why would anyone eat a baby?" one sensitive young man (played by Alex Lawther) asks. "It's just a baby. A little baby lamb."

Meanwhile, Britain's elderly citizens are undergoing therapy to help them deal with the guilt of their carnist pasts. Dr Yasmin Vondenburgen (Linda Bassett) runs sessions for in which they are hugged and forgiven. At one point, they take turns naming the various types of cheese they've eaten. Some have their faces pixelated because of the social stigma. Others can't handle the shame, and run out of the room.

In such a divided world, Carnage attempts to bridge this generational gap, and teach young people how eating meat wasn't their parents and grandparents' fault; like us, they simply knew no better.

Having been "made" in its own fictional future, Amstell's narration provides a amusingly revisionist version of the past. When we first go back to 1944 for example, he reminds us of the most important event of that year: the founding of the first vegan society.

This distancing is funny, but it's also hard to resist its political motive. Throughout Carnage distressing images from inside the meat industry, showing chicks being gassed and cows shot in the head, are cut alongside footage of extreme eating challenges and fast food adverts. Spliced with animal suffering, they take on a strange and haunting quality. At the press screening, the audience even gasped as a beaming Nigella Lawson was shown crunching the back of a chicken with her bare hands, in a real archived clip from her show.

As well as making non-vegans question their dietary decisions, Carnage is a fascinating exploration of how ideas spread. From 1944 to 2067, we see how they trickle down through time, popping up in performance art works and protests, musicals and memes, until their message eventually solidifies in the public consciousness.

In its version of history, Carnage highlights artists who helped bring veganism into the mainstream. Sketches showing their works are dotted throughout, forming a sort of vegan variety performance. We see a woman dressed as a cow singing about her enslavement in the style of Les Miserables, a viral video showing the horrors of chicken farming via puppets, and a scene from a hard-hitting drama in which an elderly woman (Eileen Atkins) forgets why we kill animals for meat. Sitting opposite her son (Martin Freeman), she stares at him in horror as he refers to the chicken on her plate as "it".

The main narrative of Carnage follows two activists as they campaign for animal rights. Troye King Jones and Freddy Jayashanka are the Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr of veganism. Jones, donning X's semi-rimmed specs, favours direct action "by any means necessary", while Jayashanka, Britain's first celebrity vegan chef, converts the meat-eating masses with love and compassion.

The only snag in this political movement, and where Carnage slightly stumbles, is how male it is. Women are currently leading some of the biggest protests around the world, whether it's the Women's March in America, Sisters Uncut in the UK, or India's campaigns against sexual violence. This isn't to say that Carnage lacks strong female characters. But with its bright optimism for the future, it seems amiss not to play out this trend within the protest movement, or provide some balance between two such central characters.

Like Brass Eye, much of Carnage's humour comes from its blend of its authority and absurdity. It documents the eccentricities of the vegan movement with the straight face of a news report, even when its campaigners are killed and eaten by members of the "Great British Meat League". Clearly referencing the murder of Jo Cox, such real-life parallels are deployed throughout, and can sometimes be unsettling. But they do help make Carnage's strange version of the future appear more feasible. If the last year teaches us anything, it's how much reality and absurdity can be the same thing.

Making veganism funny is no mean feat. In fact, it may be unprecedented. But Carnage isn't just funny. It's often said, when looking back on mistakes, that hindsight is 20/20. And this is Carnage's gift to us: a hilarious but meaningful hindsight from the future. It may not turn out to be 20/20 but, if current trends are anything to go by, it's close enough .

Meat consumption is already on the decline in the UK, and a consensus is beginning to form: if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change, we've got to stop harvesting animals for food. For it won't be long until carnism and survival become mutually exclusive.

For meat-lovers who also care about the future of the planet, Carnage offers a way out, and urges us to take it without shaming anyone. What it shows us is that veganism may seem unattractive, but it's nothing compared to what happens if we ignore it. And if a comedy can help us realise this now, then why wait until 2067?
Carnage: Swallowing the Past will be available to watch on BBC iPlayer from 9pm on Sunday 19 March

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Simon Amstell has made the world's first pro-vegan comedy that's actually funny

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"I have written and directed a film about veganism. I'm sorry." This isn't what you might expect Simon Amstell to say about his first feature-length film. Released on BBC iPlayer on 19 March, Carnage: Swallowing the Past is a mockumentary set in a future Britain, where meat, eggs and dairy are outlawed.

# data[].attributes.headline
Very interesting links to the current pandemic ... 

# data[].attributes.subject
Very interesting links to the current pandemic ... 

# data[].attributes.body
(promise I'm not pushing Vegan propaganda! Just raising some interesting debates!)
The issues raised here are also dealt with in Simon Amstell's Carnage which I thoroughly recommend if you are interested in this sort of thing ;)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
'Ending the exploitation of animals is one of the biggest actions humankind can take to protect itself against future pandemics.'

# data[].attributes.body
This is much simpler and straightforward and gives you an overview of the main arguments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC - Ethics - Animal ethics: Eating animals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you accept that animals have rights, raising and killing animals for food is morally wrong.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What is Peter Singer's position on non-human animals and what does he mean by speciesism?
2. What are the problems with arguments based on intelligence (animals are less intelligent than humans) or arguments from tradition (that's the way it's always been) or arguments of need (we only use animals out of necessity)?
3. How does Carl Cohen argue against Singer? Do you agree?
4. What do Bentham and Singer agree on?
BIG QUESTIONS:
1. Does the suffering of human starvation outweigh the suffering of animals killed for food?
2. Are all meat eaters guilty of speciesism? Is this a problem?
3. Can eating meat be philosophically justified?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Non-Human Animals: Crash Course Philosophy #42

# data[].attributes.headline
What philosophers have to say about eating meat ... 

# data[].attributes.subject
What philosophers have to say about eating meat ... 

# data[].attributes.body
This article might help you with the BIG questions. It is definitely pro-vegetarianism/veganism, but feel free to try to counter this position! ;)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WeWork, a co-working and office space company, made a company policy last year not to serve or reimburse meals that include meat.

WeWork's co-founder and chief culture officer, Miguel McKelvey, said in an email that it was the company's attempt at reducing its carbon footprint. His moral arguments are based on the devastating environmental effects of meat consumption. Research has shown that meat and dairy production are among the worst culprits when it comes to the production of greenhouse gases and the loss of biodiversity. WeWork estimates the policy will save 445.1 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions by 2023, 16.6 billion gallons of water and 15,507,103 animals.

Indeed, for centuries philosophers have argued against consuming animals.

Why hurting animals is immoral

Ancient Greek philosophers made their arguments based on the moral status of animals themselves. Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras made the case against eating animals on grounds of their having souls like humans.

Philosopher Plato, in Book 2 of the "The Republic," thought of meat as a luxury that would lead to an unsustainable society, filled with strife and inequality, requiring more land and wars to acquire it.

Two thousand years later, in 1789, Jeremy Bentham, father of the theory of utilitarianism, pointed to the animal suffering as morally concerning and therefore implicated meat consumption.

He asked,

"The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being? ... The time will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes ... "

The doctrine of utilitarianism states that actions that bring about the most good and reduce the suffering in the world are the right ones. Utilitarians focus on reducing suffering and maximizing pleasure or happiness.

Mercy For Animals MFA, CC BY

Modern-day utilitarian Peter Singer thus asks whether we are justified in considering our pleasure and pain as more important than that of animals. In being willing to subject animals to the suffering of industrial farming for meat production, he questions whether we are just being "speciesists." Much like racists, he argues, speciesists favor the interest of their own species.

Other philosophers reject the attention to just the suffering of animals and argue that it is simply wrong to treat animals as our resources whether or not it involves suffering. Just as it would be wrong to treat humans as resources for harvesting organs, it is immoral to raise animals for meat.

Animal rights philosopher Tom Regan, for example, argued that animals are "the subject of a life," just as humans are. What he meant was that they too - like humans - are beings who have rights, with their own preferences, wants and expectations.

Making factory farming more humane misses the point of immorality and injustice of the use of animals as resources.

Human exceptionalism

Indeed, there are those philosophers who believed that animals do not have moral status equal to humans.

Human exceptionalism is based on the premise that humans have superior abilities compared to other animals. For example, humans can have social relationships, in particular family relationships; they also have the ability to use language; they can reason and feel pain.

Sixteenth-century French philosopher Rene Descartes, known for his dictum, "I think, therefore, I am," thought that animals were not conscious, did not have minds and, consequently, did not experience pain. They were, according to Descartes, "automata," just complex machines. Indeed, his views were later used to justify the practice of vivisection on animals for many centuries.

German philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that it was personhood that distinguished humans from animals. For Kant, humans set their own moral rules based on reason and act upon them. This is something that animals cannot do.

The moral case against meat

More astute observations and scientific studies, however, have shown that animals do experience pain analogous to humans and have feelings. For example, elephants have complex emotional lives, including grieving for loved ones, and complex social and family relationships.

Animals can reason, communicate with one another, possibly use language in some cases and behave morally.

Thus, excluding animals from moral consideration and eating animals cannot be justified because they lack these characteristics.

Even Kant's idea that it is the rational autonomy of humans that makes them superior does not work. Infants, Alzheimer's patients, the developmentally disabled and some others might also be considered lacking in rational autonomy. And personhood, in any case, is not the defining criterion for being treated as an object of moral consideration. In my view, the question to be considered is whether Kant is just being a speciesist, as Singer has charged.

Finally, there are those philosophers who object to eating meat not based on whether animals have rights or whether their suffering should be included in the calculus for assessing moral actions. They focus on the virtues or vices of eating meat.

Virtue theorist Rosalind Hursthouse argues that eating meat shows one to be "greedy," "selfish," "childish." Other virtue theorists argue that the virtuous person would refrain from eating meat or too much meat out of compassion and caring for animals' welfare.

Can Pac Swire, CC BY-NC

As a moral philosopher, I too believe the suffering of animals in the production of meat, particularly modern industrial meat production, cannot be morally justified.

Thus, in my view, WeWork's position has a moral basis and powerful philosophical allies.
Editor's note: This piece is part of our series on ethical questions arising from everyday life. We would welcome your suggestions. Please email us at ethical.questions@theconversation.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What philosophers have to say about eating meat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WeWork, a co-working and office space company, made a company policy last year not to serve or reimburse meals that include meat. WeWork's co-founder and chief culture officer, Miguel McKelvey, said in an email that it was the company's attempt at reducing its carbon footprint.

# data[].attributes.body
Just getting some resources together on the moral implications of eating meat (might use the topic as a taster for future students). And thought some of you might be interested in some of it.

This mockumentary is definitely worth a watch! It's set in a future world where we have all become vegans and older generations who ate meat in the past are trying to come to terms with their crimes. Very funny and thought provoking at the same time!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Comedy doc, set in 2067, where Simon Amstell looks back at Britain's animal eating past.

# data[].attributes.body
There's a bunch of really useful clips from Dr Todd May , one of the Philosophers who worked on the Good Place, on YouTube. These are really useful in going over the basic ethical theories we learnt in first year and some extra ideas like Existentialism which we only touch on. The full box set of the Good Place is available on Netflix to binge watch too! I want to know what you guys think of the ending and which philosophical ideas it links to!! :)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mother Forkin' Morals with Dr. Todd May - Part 2: Utilitarianism - The Good Place (Exclusive)

# data[].attributes.headline
Documentaries, TV shows and video clips 

# data[].attributes.subject
Documentaries, TV shows and video clips 

# data[].attributes.body
Who would agree with this?

# data[].attributes.body
Who would support this claim?

# data[].attributes.headline
Essay question: ‘The good is not a natural quality’ Discuss [40 marks]

# data[].attributes.subject
Essay question: ‘The good is not a natural quality’ Discuss [40 marks]

# data[].attributes.body
Naturalists would argue that the good IS a natural quality that we can observe or understand through the world. However Intuitionists would argue that this is committing the 'naturalistic fallacy' and that instead the good is something we know intuitively. Emotivists on the other would argue that there is no such thing as the 'good'. Add arguments for and against the claim using the ideas from different scholars ...

# data[].attributes.body
Might help with the essay ;)

# data[].attributes.body
This will be a space to discuss what we have been looking at. I will add video clips/articles extra things that I find. Feel free to comment, debate and add your own resources and web links :)