Jonathan Balcombe: "Second Nature"
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-03-16/jonathan-balcombe-second-nature
Author Jonathan Balcombe
Courtesy of the author
Humans aren't the only beings who communicate, feel emotions and have self-awareness. Drawing on the latest research, an animal behaviorist explains why people need to change the way they treat other living creatures.
Guests
Jonathan Balcombe
author of "Pleasurable Kingdom"
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Jonathon, I loved your first book and look forward to reading this one. And to think it had its beginnings with the farm and little Clementine back in the 70's. I'm very proud of you and follow your career eagerly. Carol Voigts (from Albion then).
Lisa Johnstone- Kensington MD
Enjoying your show, We have a very friendly fox who appears to like our pet cat - Truffles & appears nightly- crying for him if he's not outside. The first few times he appeard & they werw within 10 feet of each other- I was worried that the fox wanted to attack my cat- however after googling I found out that the fox is a very social animal & feels safe in our yard thus why he continues to return! The only threat the fox poses is encroaching upon my cat's hunting territory - since they both now vie for the smae moles, voles & other prey.
Appreciate and respect Mr Balcombe's views, and his commendable efforts to live his life in accordance with his beliefs.
Also agree that animals can have sentience. But this really isn't the critical point. The real question is - should we eat them anyway?
Veganism is essentially a moral cop-out. and offers no answers for the vast majority of humans on this planet. While Mr. Balcombe, as an affluent north american, can afford to only eat veggies - most humans do NOT have this choice. They must eat what they can in order to survive. Is it really helpful to offer a moral or ethical alternative only available to the priviledged few?
Also, studies indicate that human babies, and children in the critical growth years, cannot get adequate nutrition from vegetable matter alone. They would die of malnutrition, or suffer other severe mental and physical effects if they attempted the 'vegan' diet.
So while this issue has challenged the human mind since we became sentient, ethically, and morally, I choose to continue what we've done for millions of years: feed my children the flesh of other animals so that they will grow up healthy.
This is really revealing. Humans ARE animals you passive _____. Only the strong survive ______. That's why you are here. Your ancestors KILLED and ate everything they came across in order to survive. I'm wasting my time I know .... you will simply be eaten and that will be that ... everything organic is here because IT ate something else organic that got here because IT ate something organic. This program is really a waste. Your a bunch of children .... and children taste really good when boiled with potatoes. Numbskull ... growup
best-o-luck to ya, your gon-na needit
I agree with jwnola6611. Humans are omnivores. Period. We have been hunters since our very beginning. Babies need animal protein for body development. You would have to eat lot of beans to live without animal protein.
Your interviewee implied that altruism is a deliberate choice. Altruism is not unselfish--it arises because it makes the giver feel good and aids in social evolution animal species.
Your interviewee takes vegetarianism into realm of religion.
I was disappointed that Mr. Balcombe did not answer the question one of the callers asked regarding hunting as a form of deer (and presumably other animals) population control. He redirected the question to human population control (undoubtedly also an issue) but completely skirted the caller's question. Since I was interested in how he would address this I was quite disappointed and hope that if he reads these comments he will take a moment to answer.
Thank you for this great research backed findings of what some of us have known forever just by observing the animals with whom we live! I currently have 10 adult and 15 baby rats!! so of course I was completely engaged when Jonathan spoke about rats!!! and your non-doctrinaire stance on being as completely vegan as possible is totally refreshing. I have a brother who is also wonderfully accepting of other people's practices! and even allows meat to be cooked in his kitchen.
On cat diets: I've been told that it can harm cats to NOT feed them meat .. is this true?? I do eat chicken and fish and am thankful that they have given their lives so I am nourished.
;thank you so much
jwnola6611, you're incorrect.
first, meat is significantly more expensive than veggies and grains in most of the rest of the world. factory farming is part of what makes it less expensive here, and also a large part of the ethical problem with eating meat--for me, at least. (and yes, i'm vegan, primarily because of these kinds of inhumane practices.) i don't have a problem with one person or family hunting and subsisting off of the meat of one animal for months, because that's not wasteful and tends to be exponentially more humane than factory farming, but the argument that meat is easier for most of the world to eat than plants is simply not true, for many reasons, including land use for animals vs. agriculture--you can grow more plants on a plot of land than animals, and thus feed more people.
second, there is a substantial amount of research--but also real-life vegan children--that disproves your idea that vegan children would 'die.' this kind of statement and idea is indicative of the general ignorance in our society of the various ways we can get all the nutrients we need from a plant-based diet. protein is available in many forms in nature, not exclusively in animal products. unfortunately, because so much of our society is brainwashed to think that we can ONLY get protein from animal sources AND to eat so much refined and processed food, most don't realize that whole grains are a fantastic source of plant-based protein. and, eaten with some sort of legume (beans, lentils, nuts), you also get all your essential amino acids.
i've only been vegan for two years now, and i had the same questions and erroneous assumptions before i made the change. but i've taken the time to educate myself about how to eat as a vegan, and there is substantial literature that indicates that vegans who eat balanced diets and pay attention to make sure they get all the nutrients they need are, in fact, much healthier and less prone to diseases such as heart disease and diabetes than meat-eaters.
Mr. Balcombe is the reason I will not contribute to public radio. Diane Rehm and most all reporters on NPR give these "book salesmen" interviews as facts to to the uninlightened. I am a farmer. The distorted views that these people repeat after each other has no relationship with the agriculture I know.
Scaring people with their health has been a ploy since time began. Ponce De Leone sought the fountain of youth; elixiors were sold by snake oil purveyors, Al Gore and people like Mr. Balcombe are all of the same ilk. They make money from our quest for eternal life.
Why does public radio imbrace these same type people constantly without anyone who is in the main line the food industry having a chance to respond?
I'm 71 years old. Farming was much less healthy when I was a boy. Diseased animals were much more common. Not only that they were often sold when sick. As a teenager I worked for a veterinarian and I saw this first hand. Today we have as good a food sources as we have ever had. No! I am not a factory farmer. I raise mainly grain because I'm too old to invest the couple million dollars necessary to raise the animals that the grocer will buy and the consumer expects to see on their grocery shelves.
In agriculture today we produce more with less inputs per unit than ever in our history and anywhere else in the world. In reality the consumer drives what is produced.
Turn off your radios and go to the country and find out the truth. If you find turkeys with their toes cut off as Balcombe stated you will go far. Turkeys can't walk without toes and they can't get to a feeder without walking. Get A life.
He, like many of the others I've heard are really only condemning the growth of the human population. They think if they attack food production they will shut it down enought to stave off population growth through starvation. Listen to what he said in regards to deer population control. His response was relative to human control.
These people can't come out and say what they really are promoting; Gutless, I guess.
How interresting that we are still arguing the "Cain & Able" argument. I cannot help but wonder about evalution and the impact this would have(Vaganism) on generations of children. Obviously we do not need to hunt now, but would the children become more passive over generations?
Also we dont need to hunt to control deer populations now we can do that with sterilazations right? But still we should have the right to hunt for substanance if need be, and yes I'm a hunter it's part of my heritage.
If I may I'd like to take this comment in another related direction.
I love to laught at the "Static enviromentals" conservationist. When they deplore the release of Pytons into the everglades (I see this as evalutionary pressure on that enviroment) and yet want to teach Evolution in schools.
Diane,
This guy scares me. Not because he loves animals and has decided, out of deep personal conviction, to become an ethical vegan. But because he, like many other vegans (as well as many of what I call the "radical, green fundamentalists"), are trying to legistlate their own ethical/moral agendas. Back in the 1970's and 80's Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority attenmpted to impose religiously derived ethical convictions onto the culture through the legistlative process. The outcry of many liberals was that "you can't legistlate morality." However, now many of these same people believe we should legistlate the new "green morality," and begin controlling every aspect of peoples' lives (from how they shop and what they can buy to what they can eat and how they spend their time and money), in the name of (not God) but the "Environment." Its always been bad news to mix theology and politics, and its still is a bad idea today, even if it is a secular religion, cloaked in pseudo-science...The Christian Right should move aside because here comes the NEW MORAL MAJORITY.
Farmer Meyer, Farmer Balliett here.
I'm pleased that Jonathan Balcombe has taken the time to write a book the emphasizes and explains some of the previously undocumented behavior I've seen in livestock and wild animals on our organic farm.
Turkeys without toes? Don't know about that, but it's all but impossible to buy hens without chopped beaks in this area and the dairy down the road from us here in Shepherdstown, WV has chopped the tails off from all of their cows.
What really worries me, Farmer Meyer is that I know from observation and from a few scientific papers I've run across that one day in the not too distant future people like Jonathan Balcombe will be telling us how smart and sentient PLANTS (and even seeds!!) are, then, if we accept his argument to spare sentient beings from our diet, we are going to have BIG PROBLEMS!
I bet you, too, have noticed how crows or magpies know when you do and when you don't have your gun with you. Nice to hear scientific verification (and more) of this observation, which, of course, is contrary to our common thoughts about the intelligence of birds.
Farmer Allan
Fresh and Local CSA
Shepherdstown, WV
What a wonderful topic! Dr. Balcombe's arguments speak to the heart of many of us who, out of instinct or intellect, understand that animals have lives and minds of their own that deserve to be respected. Just because we are brainwashed as children to think of some animals as "good" or "bad" and others as "useful" or "expendable" doesn't mean we have the right to breed or use them for our own selfish purposes. I hope his book helps others rethink their relationships with animals and see them in a different light, and do more to help them in our daily lives. Kindness should always be our second nature!
I see ethical problems or hypocrisy with owning cats:
http://noslogans.blogspot.com/
I wanted to ask Jonathan if he feels abortion is also unethical? Why? Because according to his definition of sentient being, any animal that has a nervous system and can register pain is a sentient being and is therefore entitled to the same rights as all human beings. The scientific data are quite clear that babies in the womb can register pain relatively early development and can even begin learning when they enter the third trimester. Yet, our culture still believes its okay to kill these babies but protect the rights of mice in my basement.
where do you get this "rights" language as if you have some direct connection with God and that your views about what is right and wrong should be imposed onto others. you sound like a Christian Fundamentalist telling everyone what they should and should not do. Its fine for you to practice your own morality but don't impose it on others as "should's, musts, and ought too." If you think its okay to do that, then you should be open to radical religious leaders, from Christians to Muslimsm, to impose religious laws onto culture. Perhaps we should adopt the Jewish laws about what is permissable to eat and when. Why should we accept your laws and not theirs? Again, the secular, radical green fundamentalists and their new moral majority want to tell everyone what is right and wrong and to ultimately turn it into law--a secular theocracy!
The conversation was so interesting - I just recently began eating vegitarian and am trying to keep dairy to a minimum, but have not been able to make the full transition to vegan and I'm not sure I ever will - I'm too fond of cheese! The meat I don't miss.
Won't buy this book!! A so-called animal behaviorist who implies he wishes he didn't own cats because they eat meat? This attitude does not impress me as either being in touch with animals, or appreciating nature. Sounds more like a misguided vegan agenda to me.
Thank you Hugh Elliott. Well said.
I heard Jonathan Balcombe today. What a breathe of fresh air!
Yet I read some of these posts and find myself feeling so saddened. So many of the opposing viewers are so vicious in their responses.
My whole draw to Dr. Balcombe was the balanced and reasonable approach he took the whole subject. He does not rail against meat eaters nor even claim to occupy some pure moral space. He freely admits the incredible complexity of the issues here but wants scientific FACTS to have a play, not habit and emotion. Many of those who commented seem to have made points against him that he never remotely upheld. Just goes to show you what is at stake here...
Thank you to all who listened to the show today, and thank you for taking the time to share your comments. I just now read them (all of them). I have mixed feelings about some of these comments, for sure, but they show that I struck some chords, tweaked some nerves and generally got people thinking into some uncomfortable territory. For that I am grateful. Also, I’m sorry I didn’t respond to all the questions that came through. A one hour media interview goes incredibly fast and there’s a premium on time for both guest and host. I don’t assume to be the authority on these complex matters (thanks, Lori, for your comment on that) or to have all the answers. I do feel very strongly, however, that our current relationship with animals represents what the Hope Indians would call koyaanisqatsi: life out of balance. There is an enormous disconnect between what we now know of animals’ experiences of their lives, and how we treat them as a whole (most notably as in factory farms and commercial fishing—which consume some 75 billion sentient creatures yearly). That disconnect badly needs fixing. A key element to fixing it is information. Putting the information out there is the core aim of this book.
I have long been fascinated by what goes on in the heads of animals, particularly mammals and especially the social aspects or interaction with others. What I have gradually learned over time is that there is a lot more going on than we give them credit for, due to lack of recognition. As foreigners we just don't speak the same language or relate to the different motivating factors. I posted a brief write-up of one of my big ah-ha moments at the following URL:
http://www.rattlesnakeridgeranch.com/the_matriarch.htm
Jonathan,
I appreciate your polite comments on this comment page, and your correct attempt at building discussion and consensus on these topics.
I'm here to mix it up. I'm fed up with people who know nothing about nutrition spouting pseudo-facts about things they know nothing about. Here are some facts that those who commented above need to know:
1. We live in a society where heart disease, diabetes, cancer & obesity are out of control, unlike many other countries. Most rational people would look at that and think that may be something we are doing is wrong (and that thing would be what we eat).
2. Omnivores in nature are capable of eating & digesting raw and rancid meat withou dying from it. Humans can only consume meat if it is cooked first, therefore by definition humans ARE NOT OMNIVORES.
3. Meat is cheaper than fruits & vegetables because the government gives billions of dollars in subsidy from your taxes to the beef & dairy industry so to keep meat and dairy prices low. Fruit and vegetable farms get little if anything.
4. Meat is an incredibly inefficient source of protein. Meat production in America uses 60% of all fresh water resources and turns enough grain and vegetable matter to feed 16 people into enough meat to feed one. If we stopped producing meat today, the billion starving people on the planet would immediately have enough to eat, in fact we would need to dramatically scale back grain production.
5. Without exception people who adopt a vegan diet report a dramatic increase in health & stamina. This is why hundreds of top tier athletes have turned to vegan diets in the last year to improve their game.
6. The value of the DR show is that it allows people with different opinions to put forward their case. Through that process the truth emerges which is what we should all be seeking. Anybody who does not support PBS because they don't like hearing other peoples opinions is clearly not interested in getting to the truth. This is very sad.
The vegetarian community is growing by 1 million every year in the US. Many of these people do this because the treatment of animals by agriculture industry is appalling. But all continue because they find their new diet healthful, natural and entirely fulfilling.
To bking56;
The problem with you and others like you is that you attack other bloggers points of view with phrases like "fed up with people who know nothing" and assuming that somehow others don't know anything and that YOUR view is the only correct one. Excuse me? These boards are not for attacking others points of view - they are for commenting on the show.
Also, BTW, here is the definition for ominvore: from Latin: omni all, everything; vorare(infinitive) to devour) are species that eat both plants and animals as their primary food source. They are opportunistic, general feeders not specifically adapted to eat and digest either meat or plant material exclusively. Pigs are one well-known example of an omnivore.[1] Crows are another example of an omnivore that many people see every day.[2] Humans are also well-known omnivores.[3][4
Just thought "you needed to know' this fact. Please get off your high horse (and get your facts straight) if you want anyone to take you seriously.
There are many glaring facts in favor of the position that it is morally wrong to eat meat, (and more evidence is being gathered everyday by ethologists) The most obvious reason to turn Vegan is that animals suffer in slaughterhouses, unnecessarily. Chickens, for instance, whose beaks are severed, have nerve endings in those beaks, so it is reasonable to assume this experience is excruciating. In addition to the plethora of scientific evidence in support that animals suffer, it is also common sense that dogs and cats have feelings, as well as cows, chickens, and other beasts we eat.
However, I don't think the claim that animals suffer is controversial. The real reason many people continue to harm animals both in farming and diets, are a number of weak justifications. Here is the implication of these arguments next to arguments themselves:
We've always eaten meat, so we should continue to eat meat. We have always had slavery so we should continue to have slavery. Animals eat other animals so it is okay to eat other animals. Humans kill each other so it is okay to kill other humans. Animals do not reciprocate our rights, therefore we do not have to give them their rights. Mentally disabled humans do not reciprocate our rights, therefore we do not have to give them their rights. In essence, many of these arguments take out morality, which is key to the ethical Vegan arguments, usually because it seems too impractical, or demanding. An ethical stance, on any issue takes courage.
Here is a quote from John Stuart Mill, "Every great movement must experience three stages, ridicule, discussion, adoption."
This was a fascinating interview--thank you Diane, and thank you Jonathan. I had no idea anyone was even doing research like this, and I'm looking forward to learning more.
I've just read the comments, and find myself extremely disappointed. IIRC, Balcombe was quite clear about how his interest in the study of animal behavior developed, and how it led him to to become a vegan. I think he didn't mention his diet until asked about it, and even then spelled out the ethical considerations before explaining why this was the right decision for *him.* Unless I missed something, there was no religiosity or proselytizing, and the ideology (ethics) was pretty clearly spelled out. And yet, about half the comments I've read seem to indicate that the listener became immediately defensive and then criticized Balcombe for things he never even said. I appreciate that not everyone will be interested in Balcombe's work or will agree with his views, but I'd suggest that, if this show really makes you that unhappy, turn the radio off instead of slinging irrelevant mud.
@bking5625 - You made several excellent points, thank you for stating what more people should already know but for some reason don't. Our society is in a sad state of health and ethical standards, both towards ourselves and other non-human animals.
It is also sad that some people who do not want to hear the truth will accuse others of being on a high horse. I don't think your post had that tone at all, it was a simple statement of your opinion (being sick of ignorance) followed up by a list of several easily verifiable facts. Humans were not made to eat meat, otherwise as you stated we would be able to eat it raw, and we would have altogether different intestinal and jaw structures.
Keep on speaking the truth. There are those who WILL listen!
Who came up with the hairbrained idea that humans can't eat meat without it being cooked? Tell that to the Eskimos. They've subsisted solely on raw flesh and quite well, thank you.
The only advantage of cooking meat is to sterilize the outer layer that has picked up all sorts of bacteriological contaminants from the environment, formally from not being fresh (e.g., scavenged in the wild), to today where the source animals are fed an unnatural diet producing harmful e. coli.
The reason that Eskimos can live on only flesh is that it is raw and they eat just about everything, not just "steaks". Cooking degrades much of the nutritional value.
Thank you Jonathan for sharing your wisdom on this important topic. It's happening! - We humans are slowly awakening from the programming we've been forced to endure growing up in this culture. We are relizing that animals are deserving of respect and kindness. This is fantastic and cause for celebration! Thank you Diane for this guest!
Until we "get" this, our attempts at creating a society of peace, equality, freedom, & sustainability will always fail - our violence toward animals always boomerangs -- The World Peace Diet book goes into this very well, and we humans are not designed for animal flesh, and certainly not for cows' milk - The China Study book covers this very well - reading and contemplating and observing are the keys to awakening.
Eskimos, by the way, may eat raw meat, but they also have the worst osteoporosis in the world from the extreme acidification this causes in their bodies.
"The only advantage of cooking meat is to sterilize the outer layer..."
Actually this supports my point. TRUE carnivores do not have to cook meat at all in any way in order to safely digest it. Their digestive systems have evolved to handle bacteria from raw meat (not to mention all of the other physiological differences between humans and "natural meat eaters"). Humans have not. You've just supported the argument against meat.