July 25, 2023 • 50 mins
While the the concept of a court system is an entirely human invention, it turns out non-human animals have been in some sort of court not once, but countless times across the span of history. In the first part of this two-part series, Ben, Noel and Max explore the strange way in which early court cases against animals led to animal rights.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Ridiculous History is a production of iHeartRadio. Welcome back to
(00:27):
the show, Ridiculous Historians. Thank you, as always so much
for tuning in. Let's hear it for our guest super producer,
a superstar in his own right, mister Paul. Mission control decands.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Right. Sorry, sorry, I had I had something in my throat.
Now that was the sound of uproarious applause for Paul
and Ben. I have to say, this is a kangaroo court.
It's a travesty. This is justice is not being done
today on Ridiculous History.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
And uh and uh they call me Bed. You're Noel Brown,
and we are now we are not gonna take it anymore.
It's time to talk about something that's been on our
minds as well as on the mind of our amazing
research associate, doctor Z. What a great setup, nol. We
have been encountering the legal system a bit unexpectedly. That's
(01:24):
a true story actually on the show, and part of it. Yeah,
Max isn't here right right, And let's oh we should
just leave it there. We'll let Max explain himself. He'll
he'll provide his own facts on that one. Anyway, long
story short, folks, fellow ridiculous historians. Recent events got nol
(01:45):
and doctor Z and Max and Paul and I thinking
about court, and not just about court, but about how
court can turn some people to animals.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
Well that's true, literally and f and then you know,
kangaroo court nothing to do with kangaroos. They don't put
a little wig in the in the give a little
gabbl to them the whole in their little pause. I
picture also having a little miniature version of that inside
the pouch, you know, kangaroo litigators. The best I can figure,
the etymology just refers to like a kind of jumping
(02:22):
around in terms of like you know, cutting corners, you know,
a court that does not follow the prescribed rule of law.
But it was real bummed to find out that I
had nothing to do with kangaroos in any way, shape
or form. But today, while we're not necessarily talking about kangaroos,
we are talking about animals in court in one way
or another.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
Boom boom boom boom boom boom boom. Yes, it turns
out that over the past few decades there have been
some really exciting breakthroughs in the world of animal cognition.
Human beings are changing their understanding of what is considered
in intelligence in other species. You know, we talked about
(03:04):
this on stuff they don't want you to know. We
did an earlier episode on legal personhood and what we've Yeah,
what we found there was that researchers seemed to be
consistently discovering non human species emotions, their intelligence, their empathy,
their behavior, all this stuff that was once thought to
(03:25):
be solely the realm of humankind.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
Yeah, it turns out when you boil a lobster or
a crab alive, they feel that real bad to do,
for sure, And goldfish.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
Remembers stuff for longer than you think, and an octopus
can dream.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
That's right. Elephants of course, the famous you know elephant
never forgets some truth to that as well. But I
was particularly taken aback by the crab revelation. There was
an episode of one of the Gordon Ramsey cooking shows,
I think it was Hell's Kitchen, where there was a
contestant who was of Hindu faith and in this mystery
box challenge to crab, and she started freaking out because
(04:03):
it was a live crab. And she admitted on TV.
You know, of course she's like, no cut the cameras away,
but of course they still find a way to film
out of course that's what they do. And she said
she never killed a living thing in her life, and
so I thought it was really odd because Gordon Ramsey,
he's very he's pretty kind. But ultimately the goal is
to get her to kill the crab. And once she
kills the crab, she's like, I'm so proud of myself,
(04:23):
and me and my girlfriend were like, for going against
the tenets of your faith on national television kind of
felt bad, But yeah, I mean, and it's so interesting
that we are so I mean, obviously human race, human civilization,
very human centric. It's a little hard for us to
get our heads around the idea that something of another
species could experience the world in the same way as
(04:47):
we do. And that's what today's episode's all about, is
the idea of animal personhood and some very intense fights
for that right, you know, to party.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Yeah, the law is in general going to treat subjects
as one of two things, people or property. Right now,
there's no third category, and the idea of legal personhood
argues that a certain level of intelligence or sapiens should
(05:20):
guarantee a life form certain rights. Property doesn't have those rights.
Domesticated animals are treated as economic assets. So the law
for quite some time has always regarded people as people
and everything else, including animals, as property.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Well, let's also not forget the incredibly embarrassing and brutal,
brutal time in American history where many people were considered property.
So we know that these laws can change, or there
are ways to re contextualize, you know, our thinking around
these kinds of things. And thankfully that particular one did change.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Yes, thankfully. And you know there are lawyers, there are
animal rights advocates and in geos who say the time
has come to fully implement concepts of legal personhood for
so many smart animals. We're both huge fans of all
kinds of animals. I mean, I think you even based
(06:19):
on our friendship, I think you've given corvids a pass
in the bird anathema thing.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Well, as long as they don't come at me, as
long as they don't come at me toom, well, I
don't know, man, if they had a beef with me,
but I'm doing everything I can to stay away from
corven beefs. But yeah, there's a really great article in
the Economists that we're pulling some info from called gradualoiusly nervously,
courts are granting rights to animals. A little bit of
a teaser there for what's to come. But it's true
(06:48):
this is happening slowly but surely, based on certain tests,
right that, Like, the courts have decided that okay, if
we're going to determine whether something is property or you know,
a person, it has to meet certain criteria, you know.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
Yeah, And this is something that was incredibly surprising to me.
Animals have been in court throughout history all the time.
There's this great book doctor Z found called The Criminal
Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals by an author named
Edmund P. Evans, and Evans points out, it's so nuts.
(07:28):
All sorts of animals went to court, They got excommunicated,
they got penalties up and up to and including the
death penalty, capital punishment like insects, reptiles, it larger animals
of course, dogs, cats and so on.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
Whatever happened to that murderous Edgar Allan Poe ape sorry
spoiler alert for a one hundred year old plus, Yeah,
it was it was the ape that did it, That
did those murders in that titular morgue. But yeah, I
mean joking, But obviously this is true. This stuff does
date back much farther than one might think. I think
in addition to what did you mention insects? Ben's yeah,
(08:09):
crazy crazy, Let's maybe we start there. Yeah, Memoirs of
the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Paris published by Buria
Saint Prix, and it's well done. I hope Casey would
be proud. But yeah, there are multiple missives in this
(08:32):
publication outlining some very strange cases, quite a few, in fact,
ninety three cases beginning at the start of the twelfth
century into the middle of the eighteenth century.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
Yeah, this stuff includes hundreds, hundreds of prosecutions resulting in
excommunication or even execution, and it's still admittedly not a
complete record. Who went down? Who got popped in court? Well, caterpillars, flies, locusts, leeches, snales, slugs, worms, weavils, rats, mikes, moles, nkes, cocks,
(09:13):
Oh yeah, yeah, yeah yeah, dogs, cocks, and astes.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
The parlance of the time we are in the book
were in the book. I love a weavil, you know,
I mean cotton didn't like them. Now they decimated crops.
And you gotta wonder if some of these were getting
accused of crimes against humanity, you know, for like infestations
and things like.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
Sure, if it was a sort of theatrical or kangaroo
court turtle doves, goats, mules, turtle dove ever, did anybody
they know what they did? That's fair, that's very unfair
to turtle doves, I'd argue. So the prosecution of these
various insects occurs in all sorts of places. They are
(10:01):
prosecuting fifteen nineteen, in seventeen eleven, in seventeen thirteen, in
the eighteen hundreds, in as far as like eighteen sixty
six in Slavonia, And to your point about the idea
of prosecuting animals for unfortunate events. In Posega in Slavonia
(10:26):
in eighteen sixty six, a large locust was seized and
put to death by being thrown into the water as
a representative of the entire species after a particularly unfortunate
swarm of locusts eight the entirety of the crops, like
(10:48):
years earlier, I guess it got held up in paperwork.
And then but several years later they were like, all right, well,
kill the big one.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
I have to ask, though, Ben, like aren't these just
cases for extermination? Like, isn't it pretty progressive thinking for
this period in history to even have a semblance of
a notion of personhood for these types of creatures. I mean,
we know that people in the old days killed willy nilly,
(11:18):
usually without asking questions like why are these animals being
put on trial?
Speaker 1 (11:29):
It's true, and it's a good question because we have
to remember this is at a period in history where
church and state were relatively inseparable, So there is some
symbolism to it. There's this idea power right right, We're
showing the authority of God by symbolically punishing this one
(11:53):
representative of these terrible, terrible locusts.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
That makes sense. A similar situation in eighteen sixty for
at the UH. I'm gonna do a silent pe on
this one. The letter Nika in UH in Slavonia involved
a pig being tried and executed for having bitten the ears.
I'm sorry, that's a horrible, horrible thing to have happened,
to be disfigured in this way. Bitten the ears off
(12:18):
of a baby? Not well, yeah, both ears off of
a one year old I guess that's not that's still
a baby toddler press. Yeah, man, that's I mean, I'm
sorry now I really feel bad about laughing. And basis,
that must have been terrifying experience for the child that
probably will you know, carry trauma along with them for
their entire life, not to mention the lack of ears.
(12:39):
The flesh of the the condemned pig was was thrown
to the dogs, and the the basically the man who
owned the offending pig was was essentially forced to pay
some you know, let's call it a They call it
a dowry here, which is interesting because that's such an
antiquated and I guess you know, that is the kind
(13:02):
of thing you start paying into early in a child's life,
you know, in a female child's life. It's almost like
a you know, saving for college or something, right, because
isn't it isn't it essentially like this raises the stock
of the individual by saying you have this big old
fat dowry you're gonna get if you marry this one.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
Right, Yeah, it's like a yeah, it it commodified romance
and romance as as we understand it in the modern
West today. Wasn't so much a thing back in this time.
You know, marriage is very much a social contract. And yeah,
the court was doing their best. They said, look, you
(13:44):
own this pig. This pig mutilated this child, and our
concern is the court, is that it might get in
the way of her being married later. So you've got
to put some money in it, because what else you
gonna do, right, that's what I Yeah, well what are
we are? We gonna let her be an engineer? Not
(14:04):
in Slomonia?
Speaker 2 (14:05):
They said they did. They did say that. It's quoted
in the piece. So that's an example of a big
who definitely did a bad thing being squashed under the
iron fist of the law.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
Right. Yes, the meat grinder of justice.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
Yes, usually grinds pretty slowly, but in this case it
seemed to we're in a pretty steady clip, a little reactionary.
Speaker 1 (14:30):
But also, you know, you can't grow back ears, not yet.
So okay, we know that during the the term dark
Ages isn't the most accurate term, but during some let's
say nadiers or low periods in the Middle Ages, courts
had a lot of problems. They still have a lot
of problems. Obviously, we live in the United States. The
(14:54):
courts of the time in the Middle Ages in Europe
were pretty spotty, with the record pretty fast and loose
with things. It's tough to know how often these courts
convicted animals of some sort of perceived crime, and will
probably never know the weirdest punishments that were given to
(15:16):
them as a result of this, but we do have
for the historical record a small percent a sneak peek
on some specific cases of animals on trial.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
Ah, yes, many of which were assembled by I'm sorry
I ever did at that time, but sorry, still trying
to make Casey proud of me and some others you know,
who did investigate some of these cases throughout history and collected,
you know, some accounts. So there were often examples of
animals being condemned to be burned alive, which we also
(15:51):
know happened to people.
Speaker 1 (15:52):
And which is also known as cooking.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
That's right, that's correct. That well for yeah, exactly. The
terminology is difference, doesn't it, you know? With an animal, Well,
I mean it's usually eat slaughter an animal before you burn it,
but not in a lobster or a crab though you
have to boil that thing alive. It's the only way
to do it. My kid was like, we're watching it.
Is there no other way? Dad? Is there no other way?
Can't you kill it humanely? I mean, I guess you
(16:16):
can't because of the nature of the shell. I would
think you could like stab it with an ice pick
or something, then that would mess up the shell, and
the shell's part of the presentation.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
Yeah, there are all right. Your your mileage may vary,
but as far as I know, like in my own
personal experience, the most humane way to kill the lobster
is to place the tip of the knife behind the
lobster's eyes, right right around where the claws meet the body.
(16:47):
Interesting halfway halfway to was it the first joint?
Speaker 2 (16:53):
They don't even mention that on the Gordon Ramsey Show.
Shame on them, because yeah, I mean, you know, you
don't want your seafood to have been dead for these
certain kinds, like muscles and stuff to have been dead
for too long, because then that's bad. Like muscles, if
they're closed, I believe that means they're dead and they
can be really bad for you they have like rotted
or whatever. But if you kill it immediately and then
(17:14):
boil it, what's the harm in that? Sorry, I'm on
this whole crab and lobster humanitarian kick here. Ben.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
The thing is, they're delicious, though, they are really really are,
really really good.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
So during some of what is being referred to in
this account as the darkest periods of the Middle Ages, yeah,
that's when we have some of these discrepancies in records.
So we have beasts being burned alive. We have that
taking place kind of in the back half of the
seventeenth century, which is actually, you know, as many of
(17:47):
you may know, where people start to get a little
more enlightened, people start to exhibit a little bit more empathy,
so it's a little unusual to kind of have such
a cruel treatment of animals, which obviously, you know, as
time progressed and people started getting a little smarter, animals
were looked at with much more empathy and treated with
(18:09):
much more kindness. You know, the whole idea of like
the spit turning dog and all of that sort of
went out the window, right.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
Yeah, And look, they were always burned alive. Sometimes they
would be slightly singed, like toasted a little and then
asphyxiated before they were thrown to the flames. Because dying
by fire is just a terrible death. And then sometimes
they were even buried alive, which seems part of the
(18:38):
dark pun incredibly inhumane. In fourteen seventy four, in a
magistrate crew sentenced a rooster to be burned at the
steak for quote the heinous and unnatural crime of laine
and egg. I'm sorry, yeah, it's just the rooster was
(19:00):
caught with an egg, and so they said the rear legs.
They don't it was just around the egg. And they said,
this is not God's work. I see, I see, And
I get the feeling. I'd love to hear your thoughts
on this, folks, get I get the feeling here that
a lot of these trials are show trials, meant for
(19:22):
the community right for them to say, Okay, someone is
doing something.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
Yeah, I mean, you know, a little less brutal, but
something along the lines of the Spanish Inquisition, you know,
where it's meant to make an to make an example
out of certain individuals in there. But it's weird, though,
because you know this, this implies a lot of sentience
on the part of the animals. It's like, look here,
other dogs, see what we've done to your to your littermates.
(19:52):
You know who wronged us. Now you go behave yourself.
Now at that for this example that we've made, will
teach you to eat children's ears. Yeah, well you hang
around eggs, you cock. I'm sorry, I'm never gonna know.
But it's it's a little weird, like what were they
what were they thinking? I mean, you did make the
great point bend that it is also sort of the
(20:13):
exercising of a sort of spiritual power. Perhaps that maybe
they're they're expressing some kind of intent that will then
in their minds carry over to the other animals. But
to the point of the kind of community affair, like
who are they demonstrating this for the owners of other animals,
lest they, you know, harbor satanic impulses in their chickens.
Speaker 1 (20:40):
I think it comes from humanity's great need to have
bureaucracies look like they're doing something about our problem. So
it's a big show in town. In the case of
this poor rooster, the whole town shows up, the poor people,
the wealthy people, they show up, and the executioner who
(21:02):
is killing this rooster apparently finds three more eggs inside it.
This obviously is apocryphal. This is probably a legend. A
lot of these things are legend, but there are so
many stories about animals being put on trial and executed
in previous centuries leading up to the nineteenth century that
(21:28):
it's it's virtually certain a couple of these silly, weirdly
disturbing things did occur in real life, and it's something
that the animal rights movement was aware of. If we
fast forward hundreds and hundreds of years to the nineteen seventies,
then we hit the modern animal rights movement, which I
(21:51):
think puts a lot of gas in the fire for
the concept of legal personhood.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
And it's interesting that these early examples of animal trials
are not to the benefit of the animals at all.
They're animals being used and abused publicly some sort of
misguided attempt at making a statement, you know what I mean.
They're not like really like the chicken was never going
to get off, you know what I mean, Like that
(22:18):
it was always it was always going to be curtains
for the pig, that the baby's ears as it should
have been, that was a menace. That pig was a menace.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
Pn Do they get to testify though, Do they get
to oint through their side of the story, the character, right,
do they have someone show up like a babe and
say it's that's that'll do?
Speaker 2 (22:40):
That was some pig, that was Charlotte's web. Yeah, they're
very similar.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
They're a little the common out.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
They sure do U delightful film and delightful book and
delightful animated film. But we digress. So now we're entering. Yeah,
during the nineteen the twentieth centuries, we don't see much
of this at all, understandably, but then once you start
getting into to your point, ben, the idea of animal liberation,
you have books like The Jungle, you know, that come
out that really get people thinking about the inhumane conditions
(23:11):
and the frankly you know, disgusting conditions in slaughterhouses and
commercial you know, meat packing facilities and whatever they might be.
Peter Singer comes out with a book in nineteen seventy
five called Animal Liberation, and he kind of lays out
this really interesting timeline of human kind or humanity's relationships
(23:33):
to animals, you know, showing that they really are valuable companions.
You know, the idea of amount you know, you know,
a steed, whatever it might be, or like the way
we've interacted with animals for just thousands of years.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
Yeah, and this brings a paradigm shift for a lot
of people. Now, of course, the human experience is vast
and it contains multitude, dudes, And we do want to
shout out the multiple communities throughout history that have always
refused to consume animal flesh. Right, there were precedents for
(24:11):
this millennia and millennia back. Peter Singer argues that a
lot of the justification for the way animals are treated
today comes from speciism. It's a term he credits to
a guy named Richard Ryder. Specism is basically humans having
main character energy, Right, the prejudice is that we as
(24:36):
humans are inherently better or more deserving of things than
other non human life forms, which honestly is the way
it goes, right, Like, it's not unfamiliar as a concept
to many people. And Singer compares this speciism to fundamentally
(24:59):
un clean things like racism and sexism, And he says,
you know, if possessing a high degree of intelligence does
not entitle a person to use another person for their
own nefarious ends, then why doesn't that apply to humans?
Speaker 2 (25:18):
Right?
Speaker 1 (25:19):
Like, if you elephants are intelligent. Cetaceans are intelligent, the
cephalopods intelligent. The more we learn about animals, the smarter
they appear to be. There was also speaking of bees,
a recent study I read that indicates the humble bumblebee phrase.
I love the humble bumblebee has dreams and goals in
(25:45):
a primitive form of consciousness.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
He made a whole movie about him, you know, with
Jerry sein voiced by Jerry Seinfeld. You don't get voiced
by Jerry Seinfeld for nothing, you know, unless you got
a real story to tell.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
Wasn't there another film around the same time about an
Well there was Ants.
Speaker 3 (26:01):
Oh oh, nailed it, and then they're out there, Well
there there was a bugs life, and Ants was like
basically identical to a bugs life and in a similar
way that Charlotte's Webb and Babe have a lot in common,
you know, it probably more parallel thinking than anything.
Speaker 2 (26:14):
I think they actually came out almost at the same time,
so I'm thinking, yeah, but yeah, apparently there there is
a if you're into internet, Shenani Green, you can't find
a gift of the b movie. That's the whole movie
sped up to like five thousand percent and and and
it's contained within a single gift, which I thought was clever.
Is it?
Speaker 1 (26:34):
Is it watchable? You like?
Speaker 2 (26:36):
No? It makes your friend, it makes your brain, all right,
And you don't get the delightful voice stylings of Jerry Seinfeld.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
Oh well, if they're not doing it with a sounding, yeah,
it's a gift.
Speaker 2 (26:48):
That's crazy.
Speaker 1 (26:50):
So nineteen eighty three, this guy named Tom Reggie comes
out with a book, The Case for Animal Rights, and
argues along similar direction right that have been put out
by Singer earlier. And so he delves into philosophical axioms
and implications for this, and he says, let's think about
(27:12):
Kant and the categorical imperative, which means a person is
not simply a means to an end, but an end
unto themselves, Like your presence is a present, and so
you have equal rights as a life form in comparison
to anybody else, be the pauper or be they prince.
(27:34):
And this is interesting because the way that Reagan is
writing about this, he's using cause as a foundational piece
of his argument. Button the Kart and other Enlightenment philosophers
they didn't give a penny farthy about animals they did
(27:56):
not care.
Speaker 2 (27:56):
No, they certainly were more of the proponents of the
idea of animals being lower, you know. But it's interesting
because you can, you know, this idea of personhood and
this you know, this idea of being a means to
an end, and like what is the value of life?
You know? Is the question here? And obviously we know
that within the you know, the great game of nature,
(28:19):
there are very brutal things that happen to animals of
all kinds. There are very brutal things that happen to humans.
We have evolved into doing it. It's a little bit
more diplomatically and the things that we do to hurt
each other, you know, rather than like animals literally feeding
on each other, you know, for sustenance. But it is
still all a question of like what is life and
which life form is more valuable like in the eyes
(28:42):
of some creator deity, Like where where does the question
really originate? You know?
Speaker 1 (28:47):
Right? And who deserves to answer that question? Right? Who?
And for whom are they speaking for? College us?
Speaker 2 (28:54):
Because we're people, because we're the best ones.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Right in the language that we made, you know. But
I bet whales when they decode whale song, they're gonna
We're gonna learn so much about epic trash talk.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
Dude, they're so pissed. I mean, look at them now
and you. They're attacking boats and stuff, and like, I mean,
I know that you mentioned having a contact with I
believe Noah or one of the you know, the weather
kind of services. But like the way the oceans are
heating up right now, it's bad because of human involvement.
Let's just be real, Uh, it's really really bad for
(29:30):
animals and for the ecosystem of the ocean. So you're right, Ben,
if you could decode whale song and dolphin clicks, it'd
be a lot of middle finger talk, a lot of
f's and jeffs toward you know, guys like us.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
A lot of diss tracks guys like us meaning humans.
And if you are listening and you happen to be
an artificially created intelligence, well sorry, Bud, you're probably gonna
get lumped in with us land lubbers as well count
(30:05):
Descartes and other contemporaries of theirs, folks like Hobbes. They
all said basically like you said, no, humans have no
duty to animals, and content at some point says, well,
you know, our treatment of other non human creatures. It
might in some way inform the way we treat our
(30:26):
fellow humans. And Descartes said, look forget it. You guys
are crazy. You guys are bonkers and bananas. This is
a kangaroo court. Animals don't have souls, they ain't got
no souls, and they're automata, you know, So why are
we talking this way?
Speaker 2 (30:43):
Well, A lot of stuff's from the Bible bend, I mean,
the idea of the beasts of the field and all that,
and the idea of that animals were put there for
us to like, enjoy and to use, you know, I mean,
I think, I mean, it has to to me. A
lot of this stuff comes from descriptions in the Bible
of you know, the order in which God created life,
(31:04):
and there is a hierarchy, a very clear hierarchy laid
out in Biblical you know, creation myths. I will call
them no offense. That's just my take on it. I
think I'm allowed to have that, and it reads like
a myth. Whether you believe it to be accurate or not,
you can still see it as something that fits into
that type of story.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
One hundred percent Man, one hundred percent. And you know,
these philosophers and these animal rights activists, they do have
a lot of similar DNA and they definitely all have
good intentions. If we look at Singer and Reagan along
with other activists, we see that their investment in the
(31:47):
idea that non human life forms deserve, you know, not
to be terrified all the time. That idea, that exercise
of empathy comes from an understanding that these creatures can suffer,
they can experience pain, and if one can avoid inflicting
(32:07):
pain on another living thing, why wouldn't you avoid it.
It's it's weird because like that sounds all well and good,
and a lot of us listening today we are omnovores,
you know what I mean? Yeah, I get it. Factory
farming is terrible, terrible, terrible. I do love a bacon cheeseburger.
Speaker 2 (32:29):
Though, It's true. And and you know, props to certain individuals
like in the farm to table community or in the
you know, culinary community, even like Gordon ramsay, you can
come off it's a bit of a jerk sometimes, like
in that episode with the crab that I was mentioned,
even though he was he did try to talk her through.
It was nice to her there is an episode of
one another. He has so many shows, he's been on
(32:49):
the air for so long, where he has his he
he creates a turkey pen in his backyard and teaches
his kids about turkeys for slaughter. You know, I mean
it is an understanding from the start that they will
be raised to be slaughter for Christmas dinner. So at
the very least, it's teaching them where food comes from.
And then not like it's some sort of magical thing
(33:11):
that just appears, you know, shrink wrapped for you in
the grocery store. So at the very least, like certain
cultures that you know, it's very important for them to
use every part of an animal that they kill, I
think it's important to know where food comes from and
at the very least to have respect for the creature
that you're consuming killing. Not to get all peeda on anybody.
Speaker 1 (33:33):
Check out check out our earlier episodes on stuff they want,
you know, because I think we are one hundred percent
on the same page, or at least the same cattle pin.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
Here.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
The idea that the idea of legal personhood. It might
sound wackado if you've never heard this concept before, because
you would say, well, if it's not a person. How
can it have personhood? We'll get to that. The best
way to approach it is to realize that. Surprisingly, a
(34:04):
number of court cases have tested this concept. They have
expanded the legal standing of animals both as property and
as thinking individuals, which is fascinating. You know, there's no
shortage of people attempting to improve the lives of non
human animals through things like animal welfare laws. Right, let's
(34:29):
make things a little less horrifying for these creatures before
they are executed and you know, cut into pieces and
shipped off to the grocery store.
Speaker 2 (34:39):
That's right. And you know the charge for these types
of efforts is usually led from places that you might expect,
like California, where a lot of these progressive sort of
ideas start. In this case, a ballot initiative also known
as a referendum, was held that would require larger spaces
(34:59):
for farm animals, you know, larger spaces for caged farm
animals such as chicken, and even places such as the
European Union, Taiwan, in India, some parts of Brazil and
California have also banned cosmetic testing on animals. And I
(35:20):
believe there are certain places as well ben that have
cracked down on circuses using elephants. Yes, because of you know,
those small kind of you know, the type conditions in
which they're held when they're traveling, you know, on those
kind of caravanning type vehicles, and just the fact that
again to your point earlier been elephants know what's up,
(35:41):
you know, they know, and they can be sad.
Speaker 1 (35:44):
Yes, they can be sad. They can also elephants do
a lot of things that humans would fundamentally recognize. Elephants
can become just like primates. Elephants can become acclimated to
fermented drinks, they can get into booze and then they
(36:07):
just run around and party whatever human settlement they have.
They can get frustrated. They do remember, they remember across decades,
very very smart animals. And so we see a lot
of we see a lot of conversation regarding things like
not just factory farming or the livestock trade, but we
(36:30):
also see arguments that zoos are essentially a super max
prison for animals, right, and are we helping or hurting
when we keep some of these creatures away from the wild. Personally,
and this is just my opinion personally, I believe that
zoos and conservation efforts do a huge, irreplaceable and incredibly
(36:56):
important job preserving biodiversity on this planet. And and there
you know, the tiger, of course is not happy in
a cage, But there are more tigers in Texas right
now than there are in the entirety of the wild.
Speaker 2 (37:13):
Well, if I'm not mistaken, I know for a fact,
like the Atlanta Aquarium and in the Atlanta Zoo, a
lot of the animals that are in there, like couldn't
survive in the wild because they've been injured in some way,
or I think some of the beluga whales at Atlanta
Aquarium were actually rescued from some like kind of weird
Mexican Mexican amusement park. They were like held in some
(37:35):
sort of weird, nasty tank under a roller coaster and
they were from there. So to your point, I think
that's it's easy to have that misconception, I think, And
it can vary certainly depending on where where you're talking about.
But there are definitely zoos and the zoo keepers who
are there to do like a real service, you know,
towards these animals and to have them have a quality
(37:56):
of life. They wouldn't be able to have in the
wild because they would probably either be like cast out
of their group for having some you know, the disability
let's just call it, I guess, or wouldn't make it
because they don't have the you know, the ability to survive.
Speaker 1 (38:10):
Right Like how a man eating tiger or a man
eating lion is usually going to be a creature that
has somehow maybe injured its teeth due to old age
or something. It resorts to hunting humans because it has to.
It is handicapped in some way. And you know, there
(38:32):
there's really weird legal precedents here. Let's go to Iowa,
the Animal Legal Defense Fund suit a private zoo for
infringing on the Endangered Species Act that's supposed to protect
wild animals in the United States, the ALDF one, and
so the US Department of Agriculture took away the zoo's license,
(38:55):
they revoked the zoo's ability to operate. And then the
same organization, Animal Legal Defense Fund, went over to Oregon
and they said, look, Oregon law lets victims of violence
sue for compensation, sue for redress. So we are going
to file a lawsuit on behalf of not an eight
(39:16):
year old human, but an eight year old racehorse named
Justice because Justice was found frostbitten and malnourished and their
owner should be convicted of neglect. Now that court case
didn't go through immediately, but it became the subject of
an appeal. And if we look at the legal records,
(39:38):
we see more and more places, like I was talking
about this on stuff they want you to know in Germany, right,
more and more places are legislating this idea. They're saying
animals are sentient beings.
Speaker 2 (39:51):
That's right. And there have been laws crafted around that,
referred to as sentience laws, which unfortunately have not had
a whole heck of a lot of impact. In the EU,
for example, something called the Lisbon Treaty, and also in
New Zealand that would qualify as these kind of sentience laws,
(40:12):
and again that they've had mixed results and largely not
a whole heck of a lot of traction has been
gained from them. For example, there have been zero cases
that have come to court in New Zealand. But New
Zealand did amend its Animal Welfare Act to give this
sentient status to animals as recently as twenty seventeen, and
(40:34):
in the United States, there are pet custody laws, which
you know, govern I guess the idea of animal cruelty
or just you know, because I mean there is a
thing called animal cruelty, isn't there?
Speaker 1 (40:50):
Yeah, yeah, definitely, And it's something that goes past the
idea of health codes. Right, So you can get in
trouble if you're killing animals and unhygienic way such that
it might harm other human beings. And you could also
get in trouble if it's clear that you are just
being willfully cruel or you are you know, God forbid
(41:12):
torturing an animal for some reason. And to a lot
of animal rights advocates, many of whom are in the
crowd today expanding these existing welfare laws writing new laws,
it doesn't go far enough, you know what I mean, Like,
it doesn't it's not quite there. We have so many precedents.
(41:37):
I'm thinking of that divorce law too, Like what was
it the animal custody laws. Divorce is never a happy thing,
and one of the things you have to deal with
is figuring out who gets what when you separate.
Speaker 2 (41:51):
So why did you just let the dog like run
to whichever parent that they prefer heartbreaking. And at that point,
come on, boy, come on boy, you know you love you?
Who loves you? You love your daddy, You love your daddy,
Come on boy.
Speaker 1 (42:03):
I hope no one has ever been of this.
Speaker 2 (42:05):
I mean, it's silly sounding, but you're right. It's also
sad because, yeah, an animal that's purchased jointly is ultimately
a you could consider it a piece of property. But
in this situation, it is taking into account the animal's
uh preference, which honestly, I mean, I'm not trying to
be a jerk and safety well, yes, of course that's
(42:27):
that's its own thing. But how can you really determine
the animal's preference? Yeah, a lean that we can't speak dog.
Speaker 1 (42:35):
You know, it depends on the animal, right, And also
what are you gonna Also what are you going to
do in that hypothetical situation where you say, here, boy,
come to the wood you like the best. If it's
a cat, it doesn't matter because the cat's not going
to run at you.
Speaker 2 (42:50):
Yeah, cat will eat all of our eyes when we die,
I mean, sure, the.
Speaker 1 (42:54):
Or if you sleep too long, and I say, I
got two cats right now, doctor Venkman. I don't like
the way you're looking at. But the the other idea
here that that you're getting, that that I really appreciate
is you know, some animals don't express a preference. Are
you gonna say, ooh, the the beta fish likes me
(43:15):
more or we all know that Roderick, our hermit crab,
loves me, not you. That's why we're breaking up.
Speaker 2 (43:25):
Well, yeah, exactly, that's the one thing you did this,
Roger the gold fish. You broke our home in pieces
with your obstinate ways. But like again, you know, it
goes into the whole idea of what is sentience and
what at what level does is something considered to be sentient?
Speaker 1 (43:44):
You know?
Speaker 2 (43:44):
And and and is it exclusively tied to feeling physical pain?
Or is it about things like metacognition you know the idea, yeah,
or to be able to acknowledge yourself as a self
or get to in a minute. But isn't there a
thing like like a mirror test the mirror comes into play.
Speaker 1 (44:02):
Yeah, sure, the mirror tests. The video test is another
version of that. And there's this idea. There's also the
huge problem at the heart of the issue, which is
that you know, humans still don't have a good definition
of intelligence nor a good definition of consciousness. The more
we learn about the bring, the more we realize that
(44:24):
people have no idea what's going on up there.
Speaker 2 (44:27):
So I mean not really not in a real surface
level understanding. But like even when we started getting the
questions of like what is the soul? You know, we
talked recently on stuff that I don't want you to
know video about a book about DMT called I Believe
the God Molecule where that posits that, like the pituitary
gland is the seat of the soul. But even that
(44:48):
is just like conjecture. You get to this point where
science and kind of philosophy sort of intersect, but there's
there's never really like a hard answer to what is
a soul? But we do know that, like we have
things in us that allow us to think about things,
think about thinking, like to your point, Ben and to
you know, have a sense of self in the sense
(45:09):
of empathy, and what is that? Is that just a
higher level brain function or is that something that you
might call a soul? And if it is, do animals
have that? And if they do, what makes them any
different than us?
Speaker 1 (45:22):
Right? So it starts with philosophy, it goes into the
legal system, and then it also enters the realm of
scientific inquiry. You know, if you are an animal advocate,
as we are on this show in full transparency, you're
going to argue that a lot of these laws, well
intentioned and narrow as they may be, a lot of
(45:45):
them fail at the main mission. They don't protect animals
from cruel treatment, they don't protect them from captivity, and
some very highly intelligent species think of the great apes,
think of elephants, the octopus, et cetera. They shouldn't be
treated as property at all, but as fundamentally beings with rights. Again, know,
(46:09):
it sounds a little crazy, but it's not as nuts
as you might it might appear on first blush. A
legal person does not have to be human. It's so
weird and confusing, but think about it. Think about like
citizens United. We've already done this with corporations. Companies have
(46:29):
been legal persons for some time. I mean, I think
it was what not just companies, but other like places
like Fiddler's Green and Neil Gaiman's The Sandman.
Speaker 2 (46:41):
Absolute.
Speaker 1 (46:42):
Yeah. Twenty seventeen, New Zealand again granted legal personhood to
a river, and this was a move to boost power
of the local community that was trying to protect it
and preserve the ecosystem. It also reminds me of that, Oh,
what's the tree itself? Yeah, that always comes to your callback.
Speaker 2 (47:05):
Yeah, I love the tree that owns itself. But Ben,
you mentioned the Wanganui River being granted personhood in order
to allow you know, indigenous tribes the ability to protect it. Right,
That's usually not what we think of when we think
of like, you know, it's giving personhood to like corporation
(47:26):
that's for the for their own protection, for their ability
to a nefarious things. I like the idea of granting
personhood to a body of water or perhaps a tree,
to give the ability of others to you know, safeguarded
against harm. In this very same year as the Wanganui
River case, the High Court of Uttarakhand in India. Forgive
(47:50):
me for not being native speaker and probably portraying that pronunciation,
but they gave legal personhood to the Ganges River. You
may have heard, very very famous and sacred river, you know,
and the Hindu faith and the Yamuna River in that territory.
But India's Supreme Court actually reversed that decision.
Speaker 1 (48:13):
Interestingly, and as we're going to see. There are many
back and forths in this continuing conversation, from the ancient
days of ceremonially butchering the biggest locust all the way
to the modern day of does this elephant know it's
an elephant? There's a lot more to explore. So we're
(48:36):
gonna call this part one of our continuing series on
animals on trial.
Speaker 2 (48:40):
Yeah, continuing at very at least for one more episode,
but who knows. You know, we've been known to bring
back these series willy nilly, you know, at our own discretion.
Speaker 1 (48:50):
If we find a good trial, oh yeah, you know,
like next year.
Speaker 2 (48:53):
Then if we finally get that kangaroo trial we've been
screaming about for this whole episode, we'll be there for it,
you will. But in the means, I'm huge thanks to
doctor Z for pulling research together for this epic two parter.
Huge thanks to Max the freight train madman, maniac killo
Kangaroo Court participant. Perhaps we don't know. We'll have him
(49:17):
explain himself when he returns. Williams not to mention his
brother Alex Williams, who composed this theme.
Speaker 1 (49:24):
And huge huge thanks to the Man the myth legend
guest super producer Pull Mission Control Decans big thanks to
Christopher Hasiotis Eve's Jeffcoat. Oh, Gabe Lucier.
Speaker 2 (49:37):
I can't forget about Gabe. Check him out over on
this Day in History class. And Ben, thank you to
you for being my co counsel on this litigious journey.
Speaker 1 (49:48):
Objection Sustain sustained Kangar record.
Speaker 2 (49:52):
We'll see you next time, Pooks. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio,
visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
to your favorite shows.
Ridiculous History is a production of iHeartRadio. Welcome back to
(00:27):
the show, Ridiculous Historians. Thank you, as always so much
for tuning in. Let's hear it for our guest super producer,
a superstar in his own right, mister Paul. Mission control decands.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
Right. Sorry, sorry, I had I had something in my throat.
Now that was the sound of uproarious applause for Paul
and Ben. I have to say, this is a kangaroo court.
It's a travesty. This is justice is not being done
today on Ridiculous History.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
And uh and uh they call me Bed. You're Noel Brown,
and we are now we are not gonna take it anymore.
It's time to talk about something that's been on our
minds as well as on the mind of our amazing
research associate, doctor Z. What a great setup, nol. We
have been encountering the legal system a bit unexpectedly. That's
(01:24):
a true story actually on the show, and part of it. Yeah,
Max isn't here right right, And let's oh we should
just leave it there. We'll let Max explain himself. He'll
he'll provide his own facts on that one. Anyway, long
story short, folks, fellow ridiculous historians. Recent events got nol
(01:45):
and doctor Z and Max and Paul and I thinking
about court, and not just about court, but about how
court can turn some people to animals.
Speaker 2 (01:58):
Well that's true, literally and f and then you know,
kangaroo court nothing to do with kangaroos. They don't put
a little wig in the in the give a little
gabbl to them the whole in their little pause. I
picture also having a little miniature version of that inside
the pouch, you know, kangaroo litigators. The best I can figure,
the etymology just refers to like a kind of jumping
(02:22):
around in terms of like you know, cutting corners, you know,
a court that does not follow the prescribed rule of law.
But it was real bummed to find out that I
had nothing to do with kangaroos in any way, shape
or form. But today, while we're not necessarily talking about kangaroos,
we are talking about animals in court in one way
or another.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
Boom boom boom boom boom boom boom. Yes, it turns
out that over the past few decades there have been
some really exciting breakthroughs in the world of animal cognition.
Human beings are changing their understanding of what is considered
in intelligence in other species. You know, we talked about
(03:04):
this on stuff they don't want you to know. We
did an earlier episode on legal personhood and what we've Yeah,
what we found there was that researchers seemed to be
consistently discovering non human species emotions, their intelligence, their empathy,
their behavior, all this stuff that was once thought to
(03:25):
be solely the realm of humankind.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
Yeah, it turns out when you boil a lobster or
a crab alive, they feel that real bad to do,
for sure, And goldfish.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
Remembers stuff for longer than you think, and an octopus
can dream.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
That's right. Elephants of course, the famous you know elephant
never forgets some truth to that as well. But I
was particularly taken aback by the crab revelation. There was
an episode of one of the Gordon Ramsey cooking shows,
I think it was Hell's Kitchen, where there was a
contestant who was of Hindu faith and in this mystery
box challenge to crab, and she started freaking out because
(04:03):
it was a live crab. And she admitted on TV.
You know, of course she's like, no cut the cameras away,
but of course they still find a way to film
out of course that's what they do. And she said
she never killed a living thing in her life, and
so I thought it was really odd because Gordon Ramsey,
he's very he's pretty kind. But ultimately the goal is
to get her to kill the crab. And once she
kills the crab, she's like, I'm so proud of myself,
(04:23):
and me and my girlfriend were like, for going against
the tenets of your faith on national television kind of
felt bad, But yeah, I mean, and it's so interesting
that we are so I mean, obviously human race, human civilization,
very human centric. It's a little hard for us to
get our heads around the idea that something of another
species could experience the world in the same way as
(04:47):
we do. And that's what today's episode's all about, is
the idea of animal personhood and some very intense fights
for that right, you know, to party.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Yeah, the law is in general going to treat subjects
as one of two things, people or property. Right now,
there's no third category, and the idea of legal personhood
argues that a certain level of intelligence or sapiens should
(05:20):
guarantee a life form certain rights. Property doesn't have those rights.
Domesticated animals are treated as economic assets. So the law
for quite some time has always regarded people as people
and everything else, including animals, as property.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Well, let's also not forget the incredibly embarrassing and brutal,
brutal time in American history where many people were considered property.
So we know that these laws can change, or there
are ways to re contextualize, you know, our thinking around
these kinds of things. And thankfully that particular one did change.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
Yes, thankfully. And you know there are lawyers, there are
animal rights advocates and in geos who say the time
has come to fully implement concepts of legal personhood for
so many smart animals. We're both huge fans of all
kinds of animals. I mean, I think you even based
(06:19):
on our friendship, I think you've given corvids a pass
in the bird anathema thing.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Well, as long as they don't come at me, as
long as they don't come at me toom, well, I
don't know, man, if they had a beef with me,
but I'm doing everything I can to stay away from
corven beefs. But yeah, there's a really great article in
the Economists that we're pulling some info from called gradualoiusly nervously,
courts are granting rights to animals. A little bit of
a teaser there for what's to come. But it's true
(06:48):
this is happening slowly but surely, based on certain tests,
right that, Like, the courts have decided that okay, if
we're going to determine whether something is property or you know,
a person, it has to meet certain criteria, you know.
Speaker 1 (07:04):
Yeah, And this is something that was incredibly surprising to me.
Animals have been in court throughout history all the time.
There's this great book doctor Z found called The Criminal
Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals by an author named
Edmund P. Evans, and Evans points out, it's so nuts.
(07:28):
All sorts of animals went to court, They got excommunicated,
they got penalties up and up to and including the
death penalty, capital punishment like insects, reptiles, it larger animals
of course, dogs, cats and so on.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
Whatever happened to that murderous Edgar Allan Poe ape sorry
spoiler alert for a one hundred year old plus, Yeah,
it was it was the ape that did it, That
did those murders in that titular morgue. But yeah, I
mean joking, But obviously this is true. This stuff does
date back much farther than one might think. I think
in addition to what did you mention insects? Ben's yeah,
(08:09):
crazy crazy, Let's maybe we start there. Yeah, Memoirs of
the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Paris published by Buria
Saint Prix, and it's well done. I hope Casey would
be proud. But yeah, there are multiple missives in this
(08:32):
publication outlining some very strange cases, quite a few, in fact,
ninety three cases beginning at the start of the twelfth
century into the middle of the eighteenth century.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
Yeah, this stuff includes hundreds, hundreds of prosecutions resulting in
excommunication or even execution, and it's still admittedly not a
complete record. Who went down? Who got popped in court? Well, caterpillars, flies, locusts, leeches, snales, slugs, worms, weavils, rats, mikes, moles, nkes, cocks,
(09:13):
Oh yeah, yeah, yeah yeah, dogs, cocks, and astes.
Speaker 2 (09:18):
The parlance of the time we are in the book
were in the book. I love a weavil, you know,
I mean cotton didn't like them. Now they decimated crops.
And you gotta wonder if some of these were getting
accused of crimes against humanity, you know, for like infestations
and things like.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
Sure, if it was a sort of theatrical or kangaroo
court turtle doves, goats, mules, turtle dove ever, did anybody
they know what they did? That's fair, that's very unfair
to turtle doves, I'd argue. So the prosecution of these
various insects occurs in all sorts of places. They are
(10:01):
prosecuting fifteen nineteen, in seventeen eleven, in seventeen thirteen, in
the eighteen hundreds, in as far as like eighteen sixty
six in Slavonia, And to your point about the idea
of prosecuting animals for unfortunate events. In Posega in Slavonia
(10:26):
in eighteen sixty six, a large locust was seized and
put to death by being thrown into the water as
a representative of the entire species after a particularly unfortunate
swarm of locusts eight the entirety of the crops, like
(10:48):
years earlier, I guess it got held up in paperwork.
And then but several years later they were like, all right, well,
kill the big one.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
I have to ask, though, Ben, like aren't these just
cases for extermination? Like, isn't it pretty progressive thinking for
this period in history to even have a semblance of
a notion of personhood for these types of creatures. I mean,
we know that people in the old days killed willy nilly,
(11:18):
usually without asking questions like why are these animals being
put on trial?
Speaker 1 (11:29):
It's true, and it's a good question because we have
to remember this is at a period in history where
church and state were relatively inseparable, So there is some
symbolism to it. There's this idea power right right, We're
showing the authority of God by symbolically punishing this one
(11:53):
representative of these terrible, terrible locusts.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
That makes sense. A similar situation in eighteen sixty for
at the UH. I'm gonna do a silent pe on
this one. The letter Nika in UH in Slavonia involved
a pig being tried and executed for having bitten the ears.
I'm sorry, that's a horrible, horrible thing to have happened,
to be disfigured in this way. Bitten the ears off
(12:18):
of a baby? Not well, yeah, both ears off of
a one year old I guess that's not that's still
a baby toddler press. Yeah, man, that's I mean, I'm
sorry now I really feel bad about laughing. And basis,
that must have been terrifying experience for the child that
probably will you know, carry trauma along with them for
their entire life, not to mention the lack of ears.
(12:39):
The flesh of the the condemned pig was was thrown
to the dogs, and the the basically the man who
owned the offending pig was was essentially forced to pay
some you know, let's call it a They call it
a dowry here, which is interesting because that's such an
antiquated and I guess you know, that is the kind
(13:02):
of thing you start paying into early in a child's life,
you know, in a female child's life. It's almost like
a you know, saving for college or something, right, because
isn't it isn't it essentially like this raises the stock
of the individual by saying you have this big old
fat dowry you're gonna get if you marry this one.
Speaker 1 (13:21):
Right, Yeah, it's like a yeah, it it commodified romance
and romance as as we understand it in the modern
West today. Wasn't so much a thing back in this time.
You know, marriage is very much a social contract. And yeah,
the court was doing their best. They said, look, you
(13:44):
own this pig. This pig mutilated this child, and our
concern is the court, is that it might get in
the way of her being married later. So you've got
to put some money in it, because what else you
gonna do, right, that's what I Yeah, well what are
we are? We gonna let her be an engineer? Not
(14:04):
in Slomonia?
Speaker 2 (14:05):
They said they did. They did say that. It's quoted
in the piece. So that's an example of a big
who definitely did a bad thing being squashed under the
iron fist of the law.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
Right. Yes, the meat grinder of justice.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
Yes, usually grinds pretty slowly, but in this case it
seemed to we're in a pretty steady clip, a little reactionary.
Speaker 1 (14:30):
But also, you know, you can't grow back ears, not yet.
So okay, we know that during the the term dark
Ages isn't the most accurate term, but during some let's
say nadiers or low periods in the Middle Ages, courts
had a lot of problems. They still have a lot
of problems. Obviously, we live in the United States. The
(14:54):
courts of the time in the Middle Ages in Europe
were pretty spotty, with the record pretty fast and loose
with things. It's tough to know how often these courts
convicted animals of some sort of perceived crime, and will
probably never know the weirdest punishments that were given to
(15:16):
them as a result of this, but we do have
for the historical record a small percent a sneak peek
on some specific cases of animals on trial.
Speaker 2 (15:28):
Ah, yes, many of which were assembled by I'm sorry
I ever did at that time, but sorry, still trying
to make Casey proud of me and some others you know,
who did investigate some of these cases throughout history and collected,
you know, some accounts. So there were often examples of
animals being condemned to be burned alive, which we also
(15:51):
know happened to people.
Speaker 1 (15:52):
And which is also known as cooking.
Speaker 2 (15:55):
That's right, that's correct. That well for yeah, exactly. The
terminology is difference, doesn't it, you know? With an animal, Well,
I mean it's usually eat slaughter an animal before you burn it,
but not in a lobster or a crab though you
have to boil that thing alive. It's the only way
to do it. My kid was like, we're watching it.
Is there no other way? Dad? Is there no other way?
Can't you kill it humanely? I mean, I guess you
(16:16):
can't because of the nature of the shell. I would
think you could like stab it with an ice pick
or something, then that would mess up the shell, and
the shell's part of the presentation.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
Yeah, there are all right. Your your mileage may vary,
but as far as I know, like in my own
personal experience, the most humane way to kill the lobster
is to place the tip of the knife behind the
lobster's eyes, right right around where the claws meet the body.
(16:47):
Interesting halfway halfway to was it the first joint?
Speaker 2 (16:53):
They don't even mention that on the Gordon Ramsey Show.
Shame on them, because yeah, I mean, you know, you
don't want your seafood to have been dead for these
certain kinds, like muscles and stuff to have been dead
for too long, because then that's bad. Like muscles, if
they're closed, I believe that means they're dead and they
can be really bad for you they have like rotted
or whatever. But if you kill it immediately and then
(17:14):
boil it, what's the harm in that? Sorry, I'm on
this whole crab and lobster humanitarian kick here. Ben.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
The thing is, they're delicious, though, they are really really are,
really really good.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
So during some of what is being referred to in
this account as the darkest periods of the Middle Ages, yeah,
that's when we have some of these discrepancies in records.
So we have beasts being burned alive. We have that
taking place kind of in the back half of the
seventeenth century, which is actually, you know, as many of
(17:47):
you may know, where people start to get a little
more enlightened, people start to exhibit a little bit more empathy,
so it's a little unusual to kind of have such
a cruel treatment of animals, which obviously, you know, as
time progressed and people started getting a little smarter, animals
were looked at with much more empathy and treated with
(18:09):
much more kindness. You know, the whole idea of like
the spit turning dog and all of that sort of
went out the window, right.
Speaker 1 (18:15):
Yeah, And look, they were always burned alive. Sometimes they
would be slightly singed, like toasted a little and then
asphyxiated before they were thrown to the flames. Because dying
by fire is just a terrible death. And then sometimes
they were even buried alive, which seems part of the
(18:38):
dark pun incredibly inhumane. In fourteen seventy four, in a
magistrate crew sentenced a rooster to be burned at the
steak for quote the heinous and unnatural crime of laine
and egg. I'm sorry, yeah, it's just the rooster was
(19:00):
caught with an egg, and so they said the rear legs.
They don't it was just around the egg. And they said,
this is not God's work. I see, I see, And
I get the feeling. I'd love to hear your thoughts
on this, folks, get I get the feeling here that
a lot of these trials are show trials, meant for
(19:22):
the community right for them to say, Okay, someone is
doing something.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
Yeah, I mean, you know, a little less brutal, but
something along the lines of the Spanish Inquisition, you know,
where it's meant to make an to make an example
out of certain individuals in there. But it's weird, though,
because you know this, this implies a lot of sentience
on the part of the animals. It's like, look here,
other dogs, see what we've done to your to your littermates.
(19:52):
You know who wronged us. Now you go behave yourself.
Now at that for this example that we've made, will
teach you to eat children's ears. Yeah, well you hang
around eggs, you cock. I'm sorry, I'm never gonna know.
But it's it's a little weird, like what were they
what were they thinking? I mean, you did make the
great point bend that it is also sort of the
(20:13):
exercising of a sort of spiritual power. Perhaps that maybe
they're they're expressing some kind of intent that will then
in their minds carry over to the other animals. But
to the point of the kind of community affair, like
who are they demonstrating this for the owners of other animals,
lest they, you know, harbor satanic impulses in their chickens.
Speaker 1 (20:40):
I think it comes from humanity's great need to have
bureaucracies look like they're doing something about our problem. So
it's a big show in town. In the case of
this poor rooster, the whole town shows up, the poor people,
the wealthy people, they show up, and the executioner who
(21:02):
is killing this rooster apparently finds three more eggs inside it.
This obviously is apocryphal. This is probably a legend. A
lot of these things are legend, but there are so
many stories about animals being put on trial and executed
in previous centuries leading up to the nineteenth century that
(21:28):
it's it's virtually certain a couple of these silly, weirdly
disturbing things did occur in real life, and it's something
that the animal rights movement was aware of. If we
fast forward hundreds and hundreds of years to the nineteen seventies,
then we hit the modern animal rights movement, which I
(21:51):
think puts a lot of gas in the fire for
the concept of legal personhood.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
And it's interesting that these early examples of animal trials
are not to the benefit of the animals at all.
They're animals being used and abused publicly some sort of
misguided attempt at making a statement, you know what I mean.
They're not like really like the chicken was never going
to get off, you know what I mean, Like that
(22:18):
it was always it was always going to be curtains
for the pig, that the baby's ears as it should
have been, that was a menace. That pig was a menace.
Speaker 1 (22:26):
Pn Do they get to testify though, Do they get
to oint through their side of the story, the character, right,
do they have someone show up like a babe and
say it's that's that'll do?
Speaker 2 (22:40):
That was some pig, that was Charlotte's web. Yeah, they're
very similar.
Speaker 1 (22:44):
They're a little the common out.
Speaker 2 (22:47):
They sure do U delightful film and delightful book and
delightful animated film. But we digress. So now we're entering. Yeah,
during the nineteen the twentieth centuries, we don't see much
of this at all, understandably, but then once you start
getting into to your point, ben, the idea of animal liberation,
you have books like The Jungle, you know, that come
out that really get people thinking about the inhumane conditions
(23:11):
and the frankly you know, disgusting conditions in slaughterhouses and
commercial you know, meat packing facilities and whatever they might be.
Peter Singer comes out with a book in nineteen seventy
five called Animal Liberation, and he kind of lays out
this really interesting timeline of human kind or humanity's relationships
(23:33):
to animals, you know, showing that they really are valuable companions.
You know, the idea of amount you know, you know,
a steed, whatever it might be, or like the way
we've interacted with animals for just thousands of years.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
Yeah, and this brings a paradigm shift for a lot
of people. Now, of course, the human experience is vast
and it contains multitude, dudes, And we do want to
shout out the multiple communities throughout history that have always
refused to consume animal flesh. Right, there were precedents for
(24:11):
this millennia and millennia back. Peter Singer argues that a
lot of the justification for the way animals are treated
today comes from speciism. It's a term he credits to
a guy named Richard Ryder. Specism is basically humans having
main character energy, Right, the prejudice is that we as
(24:36):
humans are inherently better or more deserving of things than
other non human life forms, which honestly is the way
it goes, right, Like, it's not unfamiliar as a concept
to many people. And Singer compares this speciism to fundamentally
(24:59):
un clean things like racism and sexism, And he says,
you know, if possessing a high degree of intelligence does
not entitle a person to use another person for their
own nefarious ends, then why doesn't that apply to humans?
Speaker 2 (25:18):
Right?
Speaker 1 (25:19):
Like, if you elephants are intelligent. Cetaceans are intelligent, the
cephalopods intelligent. The more we learn about animals, the smarter
they appear to be. There was also speaking of bees,
a recent study I read that indicates the humble bumblebee phrase.
I love the humble bumblebee has dreams and goals in
(25:45):
a primitive form of consciousness.
Speaker 2 (25:47):
He made a whole movie about him, you know, with
Jerry sein voiced by Jerry Seinfeld. You don't get voiced
by Jerry Seinfeld for nothing, you know, unless you got
a real story to tell.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
Wasn't there another film around the same time about an
Well there was Ants.
Speaker 3 (26:01):
Oh oh, nailed it, and then they're out there, Well
there there was a bugs life, and Ants was like
basically identical to a bugs life and in a similar
way that Charlotte's Webb and Babe have a lot in common,
you know, it probably more parallel thinking than anything.
Speaker 2 (26:14):
I think they actually came out almost at the same time,
so I'm thinking, yeah, but yeah, apparently there there is
a if you're into internet, Shenani Green, you can't find
a gift of the b movie. That's the whole movie
sped up to like five thousand percent and and and
it's contained within a single gift, which I thought was clever.
Is it?
Speaker 1 (26:34):
Is it watchable? You like?
Speaker 2 (26:36):
No? It makes your friend, it makes your brain, all right,
And you don't get the delightful voice stylings of Jerry Seinfeld.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
Oh well, if they're not doing it with a sounding, yeah,
it's a gift.
Speaker 2 (26:48):
That's crazy.
Speaker 1 (26:50):
So nineteen eighty three, this guy named Tom Reggie comes
out with a book, The Case for Animal Rights, and
argues along similar direction right that have been put out
by Singer earlier. And so he delves into philosophical axioms
and implications for this, and he says, let's think about
(27:12):
Kant and the categorical imperative, which means a person is
not simply a means to an end, but an end
unto themselves, Like your presence is a present, and so
you have equal rights as a life form in comparison
to anybody else, be the pauper or be they prince.
(27:34):
And this is interesting because the way that Reagan is
writing about this, he's using cause as a foundational piece
of his argument. Button the Kart and other Enlightenment philosophers
they didn't give a penny farthy about animals they did
(27:56):
not care.
Speaker 2 (27:56):
No, they certainly were more of the proponents of the
idea of animals being lower, you know. But it's interesting
because you can, you know, this idea of personhood and
this you know, this idea of being a means to
an end, and like what is the value of life?
You know? Is the question here? And obviously we know
that within the you know, the great game of nature,
(28:19):
there are very brutal things that happen to animals of
all kinds. There are very brutal things that happen to humans.
We have evolved into doing it. It's a little bit
more diplomatically and the things that we do to hurt
each other, you know, rather than like animals literally feeding
on each other, you know, for sustenance. But it is
still all a question of like what is life and
which life form is more valuable like in the eyes
(28:42):
of some creator deity, Like where where does the question
really originate? You know?
Speaker 1 (28:47):
Right? And who deserves to answer that question? Right? Who?
And for whom are they speaking for? College us?
Speaker 2 (28:54):
Because we're people, because we're the best ones.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Right in the language that we made, you know. But
I bet whales when they decode whale song, they're gonna
We're gonna learn so much about epic trash talk.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
Dude, they're so pissed. I mean, look at them now
and you. They're attacking boats and stuff, and like, I mean,
I know that you mentioned having a contact with I
believe Noah or one of the you know, the weather
kind of services. But like the way the oceans are
heating up right now, it's bad because of human involvement.
Let's just be real, Uh, it's really really bad for
(29:30):
animals and for the ecosystem of the ocean. So you're right, Ben,
if you could decode whale song and dolphin clicks, it'd
be a lot of middle finger talk, a lot of
f's and jeffs toward you know, guys like us.
Speaker 1 (29:43):
A lot of diss tracks guys like us meaning humans.
And if you are listening and you happen to be
an artificially created intelligence, well sorry, Bud, you're probably gonna
get lumped in with us land lubbers as well count
(30:05):
Descartes and other contemporaries of theirs, folks like Hobbes. They
all said basically like you said, no, humans have no
duty to animals, and content at some point says, well,
you know, our treatment of other non human creatures. It
might in some way inform the way we treat our
(30:26):
fellow humans. And Descartes said, look forget it. You guys
are crazy. You guys are bonkers and bananas. This is
a kangaroo court. Animals don't have souls, they ain't got
no souls, and they're automata, you know, So why are
we talking this way?
Speaker 2 (30:43):
Well, A lot of stuff's from the Bible bend, I mean,
the idea of the beasts of the field and all that,
and the idea of that animals were put there for
us to like, enjoy and to use, you know, I mean,
I think, I mean, it has to to me. A
lot of this stuff comes from descriptions in the Bible
of you know, the order in which God created life,
(31:04):
and there is a hierarchy, a very clear hierarchy laid
out in Biblical you know, creation myths. I will call
them no offense. That's just my take on it. I
think I'm allowed to have that, and it reads like
a myth. Whether you believe it to be accurate or not,
you can still see it as something that fits into
that type of story.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
One hundred percent Man, one hundred percent. And you know,
these philosophers and these animal rights activists, they do have
a lot of similar DNA and they definitely all have
good intentions. If we look at Singer and Reagan along
with other activists, we see that their investment in the
(31:47):
idea that non human life forms deserve, you know, not
to be terrified all the time. That idea, that exercise
of empathy comes from an understanding that these creatures can suffer,
they can experience pain, and if one can avoid inflicting
(32:07):
pain on another living thing, why wouldn't you avoid it.
It's it's weird because like that sounds all well and good,
and a lot of us listening today we are omnovores,
you know what I mean? Yeah, I get it. Factory
farming is terrible, terrible, terrible. I do love a bacon cheeseburger.
Speaker 2 (32:29):
Though, It's true. And and you know, props to certain individuals
like in the farm to table community or in the
you know, culinary community, even like Gordon ramsay, you can
come off it's a bit of a jerk sometimes, like
in that episode with the crab that I was mentioned,
even though he was he did try to talk her through.
It was nice to her there is an episode of
one another. He has so many shows, he's been on
(32:49):
the air for so long, where he has his he
he creates a turkey pen in his backyard and teaches
his kids about turkeys for slaughter. You know, I mean
it is an understanding from the start that they will
be raised to be slaughter for Christmas dinner. So at
the very least, it's teaching them where food comes from.
And then not like it's some sort of magical thing
(33:11):
that just appears, you know, shrink wrapped for you in
the grocery store. So at the very least, like certain
cultures that you know, it's very important for them to
use every part of an animal that they kill, I
think it's important to know where food comes from and
at the very least to have respect for the creature
that you're consuming killing. Not to get all peeda on anybody.
Speaker 1 (33:33):
Check out check out our earlier episodes on stuff they want,
you know, because I think we are one hundred percent
on the same page, or at least the same cattle pin.
Speaker 2 (33:43):
Here.
Speaker 1 (33:44):
The idea that the idea of legal personhood. It might
sound wackado if you've never heard this concept before, because
you would say, well, if it's not a person. How
can it have personhood? We'll get to that. The best
way to approach it is to realize that. Surprisingly, a
(34:04):
number of court cases have tested this concept. They have
expanded the legal standing of animals both as property and
as thinking individuals, which is fascinating. You know, there's no
shortage of people attempting to improve the lives of non
human animals through things like animal welfare laws. Right, let's
(34:29):
make things a little less horrifying for these creatures before
they are executed and you know, cut into pieces and
shipped off to the grocery store.
Speaker 2 (34:39):
That's right. And you know the charge for these types
of efforts is usually led from places that you might expect,
like California, where a lot of these progressive sort of
ideas start. In this case, a ballot initiative also known
as a referendum, was held that would require larger spaces
(34:59):
for farm animals, you know, larger spaces for caged farm
animals such as chicken, and even places such as the
European Union, Taiwan, in India, some parts of Brazil and
California have also banned cosmetic testing on animals. And I
(35:20):
believe there are certain places as well ben that have
cracked down on circuses using elephants. Yes, because of you know,
those small kind of you know, the type conditions in
which they're held when they're traveling, you know, on those
kind of caravanning type vehicles, and just the fact that
again to your point earlier been elephants know what's up,
(35:41):
you know, they know, and they can be sad.
Speaker 1 (35:44):
Yes, they can be sad. They can also elephants do
a lot of things that humans would fundamentally recognize. Elephants
can become just like primates. Elephants can become acclimated to
fermented drinks, they can get into booze and then they
(36:07):
just run around and party whatever human settlement they have.
They can get frustrated. They do remember, they remember across decades,
very very smart animals. And so we see a lot
of we see a lot of conversation regarding things like
not just factory farming or the livestock trade, but we
(36:30):
also see arguments that zoos are essentially a super max
prison for animals, right, and are we helping or hurting
when we keep some of these creatures away from the wild. Personally,
and this is just my opinion personally, I believe that
zoos and conservation efforts do a huge, irreplaceable and incredibly
(36:56):
important job preserving biodiversity on this planet. And and there
you know, the tiger, of course is not happy in
a cage, But there are more tigers in Texas right
now than there are in the entirety of the wild.
Speaker 2 (37:13):
Well, if I'm not mistaken, I know for a fact,
like the Atlanta Aquarium and in the Atlanta Zoo, a
lot of the animals that are in there, like couldn't
survive in the wild because they've been injured in some way,
or I think some of the beluga whales at Atlanta
Aquarium were actually rescued from some like kind of weird
Mexican Mexican amusement park. They were like held in some
(37:35):
sort of weird, nasty tank under a roller coaster and
they were from there. So to your point, I think
that's it's easy to have that misconception, I think, And
it can vary certainly depending on where where you're talking about.
But there are definitely zoos and the zoo keepers who
are there to do like a real service, you know,
towards these animals and to have them have a quality
(37:56):
of life. They wouldn't be able to have in the
wild because they would probably either be like cast out
of their group for having some you know, the disability
let's just call it, I guess, or wouldn't make it
because they don't have the you know, the ability to survive.
Speaker 1 (38:10):
Right Like how a man eating tiger or a man
eating lion is usually going to be a creature that
has somehow maybe injured its teeth due to old age
or something. It resorts to hunting humans because it has to.
It is handicapped in some way. And you know, there
(38:32):
there's really weird legal precedents here. Let's go to Iowa,
the Animal Legal Defense Fund suit a private zoo for
infringing on the Endangered Species Act that's supposed to protect
wild animals in the United States, the ALDF one, and
so the US Department of Agriculture took away the zoo's license,
(38:55):
they revoked the zoo's ability to operate. And then the
same organization, Animal Legal Defense Fund, went over to Oregon
and they said, look, Oregon law lets victims of violence
sue for compensation, sue for redress. So we are going
to file a lawsuit on behalf of not an eight
(39:16):
year old human, but an eight year old racehorse named
Justice because Justice was found frostbitten and malnourished and their
owner should be convicted of neglect. Now that court case
didn't go through immediately, but it became the subject of
an appeal. And if we look at the legal records,
(39:38):
we see more and more places, like I was talking
about this on stuff they want you to know in Germany, right,
more and more places are legislating this idea. They're saying
animals are sentient beings.
Speaker 2 (39:51):
That's right. And there have been laws crafted around that,
referred to as sentience laws, which unfortunately have not had
a whole heck of a lot of impact. In the EU,
for example, something called the Lisbon Treaty, and also in
New Zealand that would qualify as these kind of sentience laws,
(40:12):
and again that they've had mixed results and largely not
a whole heck of a lot of traction has been
gained from them. For example, there have been zero cases
that have come to court in New Zealand. But New
Zealand did amend its Animal Welfare Act to give this
sentient status to animals as recently as twenty seventeen, and
(40:34):
in the United States, there are pet custody laws, which
you know, govern I guess the idea of animal cruelty
or just you know, because I mean there is a
thing called animal cruelty, isn't there?
Speaker 1 (40:50):
Yeah, yeah, definitely, And it's something that goes past the
idea of health codes. Right, So you can get in
trouble if you're killing animals and unhygienic way such that
it might harm other human beings. And you could also
get in trouble if it's clear that you are just
being willfully cruel or you are you know, God forbid
(41:12):
torturing an animal for some reason. And to a lot
of animal rights advocates, many of whom are in the
crowd today expanding these existing welfare laws writing new laws,
it doesn't go far enough, you know what I mean, Like,
it doesn't it's not quite there. We have so many precedents.
(41:37):
I'm thinking of that divorce law too, Like what was
it the animal custody laws. Divorce is never a happy thing,
and one of the things you have to deal with
is figuring out who gets what when you separate.
Speaker 2 (41:51):
So why did you just let the dog like run
to whichever parent that they prefer heartbreaking. And at that point,
come on, boy, come on boy, you know you love you?
Who loves you? You love your daddy, You love your daddy,
Come on boy.
Speaker 1 (42:03):
I hope no one has ever been of this.
Speaker 2 (42:05):
I mean, it's silly sounding, but you're right. It's also
sad because, yeah, an animal that's purchased jointly is ultimately
a you could consider it a piece of property. But
in this situation, it is taking into account the animal's
uh preference, which honestly, I mean, I'm not trying to
be a jerk and safety well, yes, of course that's
(42:27):
that's its own thing. But how can you really determine
the animal's preference? Yeah, a lean that we can't speak dog.
Speaker 1 (42:35):
You know, it depends on the animal, right, And also
what are you gonna Also what are you going to
do in that hypothetical situation where you say, here, boy,
come to the wood you like the best. If it's
a cat, it doesn't matter because the cat's not going
to run at you.
Speaker 2 (42:50):
Yeah, cat will eat all of our eyes when we die,
I mean, sure, the.
Speaker 1 (42:54):
Or if you sleep too long, and I say, I
got two cats right now, doctor Venkman. I don't like
the way you're looking at. But the the other idea
here that that you're getting, that that I really appreciate
is you know, some animals don't express a preference. Are
you gonna say, ooh, the the beta fish likes me
(43:15):
more or we all know that Roderick, our hermit crab,
loves me, not you. That's why we're breaking up.
Speaker 2 (43:25):
Well, yeah, exactly, that's the one thing you did this,
Roger the gold fish. You broke our home in pieces
with your obstinate ways. But like again, you know, it
goes into the whole idea of what is sentience and
what at what level does is something considered to be sentient?
Speaker 1 (43:44):
You know?
Speaker 2 (43:44):
And and and is it exclusively tied to feeling physical pain?
Or is it about things like metacognition you know the idea, yeah,
or to be able to acknowledge yourself as a self
or get to in a minute. But isn't there a
thing like like a mirror test the mirror comes into play.
Speaker 1 (44:02):
Yeah, sure, the mirror tests. The video test is another
version of that. And there's this idea. There's also the
huge problem at the heart of the issue, which is
that you know, humans still don't have a good definition
of intelligence nor a good definition of consciousness. The more
we learn about the bring, the more we realize that
(44:24):
people have no idea what's going on up there.
Speaker 2 (44:27):
So I mean not really not in a real surface
level understanding. But like even when we started getting the
questions of like what is the soul? You know, we
talked recently on stuff that I don't want you to
know video about a book about DMT called I Believe
the God Molecule where that posits that, like the pituitary
gland is the seat of the soul. But even that
(44:48):
is just like conjecture. You get to this point where
science and kind of philosophy sort of intersect, but there's
there's never really like a hard answer to what is
a soul? But we do know that, like we have
things in us that allow us to think about things,
think about thinking, like to your point, Ben and to
you know, have a sense of self in the sense
(45:09):
of empathy, and what is that? Is that just a
higher level brain function or is that something that you
might call a soul? And if it is, do animals
have that? And if they do, what makes them any
different than us?
Speaker 1 (45:22):
Right? So it starts with philosophy, it goes into the
legal system, and then it also enters the realm of
scientific inquiry. You know, if you are an animal advocate,
as we are on this show in full transparency, you're
going to argue that a lot of these laws, well
intentioned and narrow as they may be, a lot of
(45:45):
them fail at the main mission. They don't protect animals
from cruel treatment, they don't protect them from captivity, and
some very highly intelligent species think of the great apes,
think of elephants, the octopus, et cetera. They shouldn't be
treated as property at all, but as fundamentally beings with rights. Again, know,
(46:09):
it sounds a little crazy, but it's not as nuts
as you might it might appear on first blush. A
legal person does not have to be human. It's so
weird and confusing, but think about it. Think about like
citizens United. We've already done this with corporations. Companies have
(46:29):
been legal persons for some time. I mean, I think
it was what not just companies, but other like places
like Fiddler's Green and Neil Gaiman's The Sandman.
Speaker 2 (46:41):
Absolute.
Speaker 1 (46:42):
Yeah. Twenty seventeen, New Zealand again granted legal personhood to
a river, and this was a move to boost power
of the local community that was trying to protect it
and preserve the ecosystem. It also reminds me of that, Oh,
what's the tree itself? Yeah, that always comes to your callback.
Speaker 2 (47:05):
Yeah, I love the tree that owns itself. But Ben,
you mentioned the Wanganui River being granted personhood in order
to allow you know, indigenous tribes the ability to protect it. Right,
That's usually not what we think of when we think
of like, you know, it's giving personhood to like corporation
(47:26):
that's for the for their own protection, for their ability
to a nefarious things. I like the idea of granting
personhood to a body of water or perhaps a tree,
to give the ability of others to you know, safeguarded
against harm. In this very same year as the Wanganui
River case, the High Court of Uttarakhand in India. Forgive
(47:50):
me for not being native speaker and probably portraying that pronunciation,
but they gave legal personhood to the Ganges River. You
may have heard, very very famous and sacred river, you know,
and the Hindu faith and the Yamuna River in that territory.
But India's Supreme Court actually reversed that decision.
Speaker 1 (48:13):
Interestingly, and as we're going to see. There are many
back and forths in this continuing conversation, from the ancient
days of ceremonially butchering the biggest locust all the way
to the modern day of does this elephant know it's
an elephant? There's a lot more to explore. So we're
(48:36):
gonna call this part one of our continuing series on
animals on trial.
Speaker 2 (48:40):
Yeah, continuing at very at least for one more episode,
but who knows. You know, we've been known to bring
back these series willy nilly, you know, at our own discretion.
Speaker 1 (48:50):
If we find a good trial, oh yeah, you know,
like next year.
Speaker 2 (48:53):
Then if we finally get that kangaroo trial we've been
screaming about for this whole episode, we'll be there for it,
you will. But in the means, I'm huge thanks to
doctor Z for pulling research together for this epic two parter.
Huge thanks to Max the freight train madman, maniac killo
Kangaroo Court participant. Perhaps we don't know. We'll have him
(49:17):
explain himself when he returns. Williams not to mention his
brother Alex Williams, who composed this theme.
Speaker 1 (49:24):
And huge huge thanks to the Man the myth legend
guest super producer Pull Mission Control Decans big thanks to
Christopher Hasiotis Eve's Jeffcoat. Oh, Gabe Lucier.
Speaker 2 (49:37):
I can't forget about Gabe. Check him out over on
this Day in History class. And Ben, thank you to
you for being my co counsel on this litigious journey.
Speaker 1 (49:48):
Objection Sustain sustained Kangar record.
Speaker 2 (49:52):
We'll see you next time, Pooks. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio,
visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen
to your favorite shows.
Ridiculous History News
Hosts And Creators
Ben Bowlin
Noel Brown
Popular Podcasts
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.