The elephant in the room: a look at animal rights | Sandris Ādminis | TEDxRiga

They are present in countless areas of our lives – from our daily dose of lolcats to state-of-the-art pig organ donors, and even considered our distant relatives according to Darwin and scientific discoveries. Their wellbeing is a topic that has been taken up at the political and humanitarian level, and mentioned in the end titles of movies and on the backs of shampoo bottles. With this in mind, to what extent should we challenge our traditional practices that treat animals as things to be used for human benefit?

Sandris Ādminis is a social activist and producer of the Zootehnikums broadcast on the NABA radio station, a show that reports on human-animal relations. Sandris is interested in the possibilities of increasing the visibility of animal‑related issues. He is a member of an animal advocacy social movement in Latvia, has contributed to Wikipedia, participated in public debates, given talks to school students and co‑founded the Dzīvnieku brīvība [Animal Freedom] animal rights organization. Sandris is passionate about ideas, music, unknown places, and unresolvable questions.

This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at https://www.ted.com/tedx

I've been told that it's a bad taste

to start a TED talk
by introducing oneself,

and yet, my name is Sandris Ādminis
and there is something weird about it.

Firstly, Google doesn't let me
register an account with such a name.

I've tried several times,
and they just would not allow it.

And I guess the reason

is that part of my last name
consists of the English word "admin,"

so probably, it's just for safety,
so that I don't start scamming people

as if I was one of
the administrators of Google.

But there is something else.

"Ādminis" is a Latvian word
meaning "tanner,"

and tanner is a person
that works with animal skins.

So probably,

one of my great-great-great-great
grandfathers was a tanner

and that's how I got this surname.

A while ago, I found
a book about forgotten crafts,

and there was a chapter about tanners,
so, of course, I was intrigued to read it.

And what struck me there was a tip
from a professional tanner

who said that if you want to make
a high-quality leather bag,

you should buy skins
from meat cows, from beef cows,

and you should never buy skins
from milk cows, from dairy cows

because they have been
pregnant several times,

their skin is stretched,
not as flexible anymore,

so it's not a good quality.

That's quite a practical tip, right?

But for me, it was rather awkward.

And why so?

Because you are not very likely to find me

buying somebody's skin
or taking somebody's skin.

You are much more likely to see me
advocating against killing animals.

Here I am in a silent protest
against fur farming;

interviewing people at a circus protest
against exploiting animals in circus.

I'm also doing a radio show

about animal rights and veganism,
and science discoveries.

And I enjoy doing school talks for kids.

And here are some Latvian activists

bringing the petition
to ban fur farming to the Parliament.

Coming back to my last name, "tanner,"

I guess if there was such a thing
as an intergenerational karma,

I might be the living proof of it.

Yeah, in those years,
basically for 10 years,

I've been involved in animal advocacy

and working with people
who know a lot about animals,

and in this time,
one of the main things I've noticed

is that our understanding about them
is incomplete and superficial, even wrong.

And even in cases when
we consider them, the animals,

the focus tends to be
on the benefit for humans, right,

because humans are the most
significant entities in the universe.

Everything is regarded in terms
of human values and human experiences.

But is such an exclusively
human-centered perspective justified?

Did you know that sheep
can remember many faces?

Or that apes can remember hundreds
of hand signs and communicate with them?

Or, did you know
that pigs are so similar to us

that their internal organs
could be used, like, for donation,

for transplants?

Speaking of pigs, all pigs are equal,
but some pigs are much more equal.

And what I mean by that
is that depending on the context,

they are treated
very differently by humans.

Have you heard about Esther,
the Wonder Pig?

Because you should,

she's the most famous pig
in the world at the moment.

She even has her own [TEDx] talk.

She was adopted as a mini-pig,

so the family took her in thinking
that she will grow to the size of a cat.

But they were wrong.

(Laughter)

Now she's huge and she weighs more
than the rest of her family together.

And what would you do

with a family member
that keeps on growing?

I hope it's not selling them.

Yeah, you make more space for it.

(Laughter)

Or, should I say, for her.

She is a part of that family,
just like that cat and that dog is.

They eat together,
play together, sleep together,

they have distinct personalities.

And is there a morally relevant difference

between a cat and a pig,
or a dog and a pig?

If not, why should pigs
be treated worse than they?

Isn't it a form of racism,
I mean, speciesism?

But unfortunately, this is not
a typical life story of a pig.

This is a typical modern farm

where typical pigs
spend their typical lives

without enjoying sunshine
or grass under their feet,

never digging for tasty roots
or never rolling in the mud.

And to me, the mind-itching question is:

why?

Why do we treat some animals
as individuals and even as our friends

while at the same time, we treat others
as replaceable units, and even things?

What do you see in this picture?

It's lots of pigs, right?
It's a successful business.

But what if you knew
that one of them was Esther,

a curious being
that once lived in a family,

was close friends with the dog Ruben
and the cat Finnegan?

Would you perceive
this photo the same way?

What I'm saying is that seeing
or imagining animals, or humans,

as a part of a faceless crowd

makes it easy to normalize all kinds
of bad things, atrocities done to them,

things that we wouldn't accept otherwise.

We could also eliminate all the traces

that lead us to perceive them
as individuals:

no face, no name, no skin,
no context at all,

just a product with a date
of expiration and a price.

It makes it easy, right?

When I was in high school,
I was staying with my grandma,

and one night, I was really hungry.

I went to the fridge,
there was a piece of bacon,

I cut a slice of it, enjoyed it,
wanted to have some more,

but then I noticed
that there was a nipple on it,

just like in this photo.

Can you eat something that has a nipple?

I managed to swallow
that bite that I already had,

but that was
a life-transforming experience.

So, the way we treat animals

depends on how we see them
and what we know about them.

Over time, humanity has also changed
its perception of animals.

For example, I still can't believe

that the superstar
of the Western philosophy,

one of the brightest minds,
René Descartes,

once argued that animals
are merely biological machines,

not thinking, not being conscious,
not even feeling.

Or Aristotle, the ancient
Greek philosopher.

He saw nature organized
in a clear hierarchy,

humans being the most
perfect ones on the top,

then mammals far below,
birds, reptiles, and so on,

and each of the levels on the lower side

were supposedly meant
for the upper levels.

And by the way, according to Aristotle,
he thought that also women were below men

and at least a little higher than slaves
who were also a natural part of the world,

at least in his times.

The biblical view was pretty similar:

man had God's given rights to rule
over everything else, everyone else.

It's only since Charles Darwin
published his influential book

"On the Origin of Species,"

only since then,

we are starting to accept our connection
with other beings, other species.

So modern biology doesn't see nature
as a simple hierarchy,

as Aristotle or the Bible did.

To the contrary, it's rather organized

in an incredibly complex way,
but still a unified way.

Even illustrations like this one,
made by the Tree of Life Web Project,

are a simplification
of the complexity of earthlings,

the family network
of life forms on our planet.

Almost every day, scientists
uncover new data on animals,

and there is an awkward amount
of new knowledge.

In the recent century alone,
we have developed so many things,

technology that helps us
understand them better, animals,

both for scientists and for us.

We have been learning about life
under water, deep in the oceans.

Millions of people recently watched

a live-stream video
about a giraffe baby being born.

I imagine that at least some
of you in this audience

enjoy spying on birds
via video streams from their nests;

these videos are very popular in Latvia.

We have also learned
that there are many other humanoids,

not just Homo sapiens.

And genetics as a science
is opening our eyes

about the relatedness
on a stunning micro level.

So, inevitably, new data and discoveries

are pushing us to rethink
our place in the universe

and also our relation to other animals.

It's a part of an already existing trend
of dethroning, of decrowning ourselves

and getting rid of the sweet illusion
of being the center of everything.

Major scientific breakthroughs

again and again have pushed us
to humble self-perception.

Like, once we believed
that we were created,

that our planet was
the center of the universe,

and now we know we aren't.

We thought that at least we are
in the center of the solar system

and everything is circling around us,

but that's also not true.

Also, there was no doubt that we are
fundamentally different from those beasts,

that we are rather
godlike creatures, right?

But now, there is more and more evidence

that Homo sapiens, humans,
are just one of the many species,

sharing all kinds of traits
and capabilities that we value highly

with other animals who have those too.

And humanity has already started
to take this message on-board.

Animals are more and more
taking space in our imagination,

on the political agenda;

and environmental awareness
and animal protection standards

are higher than ever.

There are more and more alternatives
for animal products,

and their well-being is mentioned

even in the credits of movies
and on shampoo bottles.

In other words, animals are entering
the human-centered world

in unprecedented ways.

But where do we go from here?

Should we envision times

when the golden rule of ethics to treat
others as you would wish to be treated

applies not just to humans,
but also to at least some other species?

We might even go much further,
envisioning times

when the wolf and the lamb
would peacefully dwell together

like in the biblical scene of paradise.

Our imagination is boundless,
and it can bring us quite far.

Did you know that once, at least once,
humans even tried animals in courts?

In 1457, a pig and her piglets
were accused of a murder of a child.

The mother pig was found guilty,
but her babies innocent.

It really happened, a serious court case.

Or, consider the story
sometimes told to children,

especially when they ask
too many questions

about our treatment of animals.

They are told that in exchange
for food, safety and shelter,

cows agree to give us their milk,
chickens agree to give us their eggs,

and pigs agree to give us
their flesh and their babies, and so on.

Even as adults,

we keep saying sometimes that animals
are giving us all those things,

although it's clear that we are
the ones who make those choices.

So, surely, this story should be
in the same book of historic curiosities

as the story about the pig in the court.

But on the other hand, we have
also been, historically, really successful

at denying animal emotions
and animal sentience, mental skills,

so we need to find a balance
between those extremes

with the best new evidence that we have.

Of course, there will be serious dilemmas.

Suppose that a driverless car

is programmed to estimate
various risks of collisions.

It is driving, and suddenly,
a piglet is crossing the road:

What should the car's programming
be in such a case?

Should it try not to hit
the piglet at any cost,

even to the humans in the car,

or should it run over the piglet
only as a last resort to save humans?

Or should this piglet be sacrificed
even if the car is empty

to avoid the damage costs?

What is the value of a pig's life?

Actually, such decisions are made
every day already now.

Because it's not animals who make
those choices and decisions, it's us;

it's not them who rule the world,
we kind of do,

and we decide which animals exist
and in what conditions.

So I guess with such great power
also comes great responsibility.

I believe in humanity, I believe
in humankind, in human kindness.

I believe that we can exercise
this great power that we have

in an intelligent and kind way.

Otherwise, I wouldn't come
and stand up here.

Many animal-related issues

are already becoming
less and less controversial.

They are based upon
the simple value of kindness,

the simple idea
of not harming unnecessarily.

And I see human kind already mobilizing.

Like, we know that we will not die of cold
just because we are not wearing fur coats,

so the fur farms are slowly closing down.

We found ways of making safe cosmetics,

so there is no need
to test them on animals.

We learned that we can enjoy circus shows
without exploiting and caging animals,

so the circus is changing
right in front of our eyes, right?

But still, there is a huge problem,
the biggest problem,

the elephant in the room,
or should we say, the pig in the room.

Why are we still treating animals -
cows, pigs, chickens and so many others -

as if they were not individuals,
but things for consumption?

They are sentient beings who can feel joy,
feel fear, pain and many other things.

If we know all that,

why are we still sticking forks
in their bodies?

Is it still a matter of survival for us
in the 21st century?

I think there are already
ways to live well

with nothing taken away from animals,

and in less than a hundred years,

eating animals might be
just as unimaginable

as cannibalism or slavery
or witch burning is right now.

Even today,

I believe if humanity, each one of us,
would notice and accept

that each animal is someone,
not something,

we would stop making excuses.

And knowing how kindly many of us
treat cats and dogs,

it's obvious that we already
have it inside of us.

So let's allow kindness,
this essence of being a human,

to guide us,

let's embrace it fully

without discriminating
dogs, cats, pigs, cows.

Kindness will lead us away

from causing suffering
and causing pain and harm,

and not just to humans,
but also to other animals.

Thank you.

(Applause)