【豆腐国际】Vol.01 Oscar Horta（西班牙道德哲学家）| 全英（含播客全文🌟）

简介

《有点豆腐》将开启一个全新的国际嘉宾访谈系列！作为该系列的第一期我们邀请到了西班牙著名的道德哲学家、国际组织「动物伦理」（animal-ethics.org）的联合创始人——奥斯卡·奥尔塔（Oscar Horta）。奥斯卡在今年八月结束了他在中国为期两周的紧凑学术之旅，他将与我们分享此行中的见解与思考。

对话从奥斯卡的个人经历开始，他讲述了童年的海边生活如何塑造了他 veganism 观念，并使他认为动物倡导将是此生最重要的事业——这是一条他自九十年代以来已坚持数十年的道路。接着，我们聊了聊他的中国行，分享了他与国内动保行动者交流的感受，以及他对中国动物倡导现状的观察。奥斯卡分享了全球性动物倡议的共同挑战，也为我们提供了宝贵的跨文化视角。

我们的讨论还扩展到了当代动物伦理学中一些最具挑战性和前瞻性的话题。奥斯卡剖析了野生动物的痛苦、保护个体动物与保护整个生态系统之间的张力，消除「物种歧视」的重要性，以及人工智能、外星环境「地球化」等新兴技术所带来的对动物的深刻伦理影响。他还谈了谈对《动物社群》的看法，并对野生动物的自治「主权」框架提出质疑。最后，奥斯卡分享了他对抗「二阶歧视」（即社会对道德素食者的歧视）的策略。对于任何关心全球动物权利运动和动物伦理未来的听众来说，这会是一期不容错过的对话。

In this special episode of Slightly Tofu, we embark on a new series featuring international guests, with our first conversation conducted entirely in English. We are excited to have Oscar Horta, a distinguished Spanish animal ethicist and co-founder of the influential organization animal-ethics.org. Fresh off a nearly month-long, intensive academic tour across China, Oscar shares his unique insights and reflections with us.

The conversation begins on a personal note, as Oscar recounts his formative childhood experiences that sparked his journey toward veganism and a lifelong dedication to animal advocacy—a path he has followed for decades since the 1990s. We then delve into his recent trip, exploring his most memorable moments connecting with Chinese scholars and activists, and his observations on the current state of animal advocacy in China. Oscar compares the common challenges and cultural nuances he witnessed, offering a valuable cross-cultural perspective.

The discussion broadens to address some of the most challenging and forward-thinking topics in contemporary animal ethics. Oscar unpacks the complexities of wild animal suffering, the tension between protecting individual animals versus entire ecosystems, and the profound ethical implications of emerging technologies like artificial intelligence. He also provides a thoughtful critique of political theories like “Zoopolis,” questioning the framework of wild animal sovereignty. Finally, for advocates everywhere, Oscar shares his strategies for staying resilient, coping with the emotional toll of the work, and combating the “second-order discrimination” faced by those who speak up for animals. This episode is a must-listen for anyone interested in the global animal rights movement and the future of animal ethics.

音频

小宇宙：豆腐国际Vol.01: Oscar Horta（西班牙道德哲学家）

时间轴

• 01:45 From Fishing to Moral Philosophy: An Unlikely Path to Veganism
  • 从见证水生动物的挣扎到道德哲学：奥斯卡通往 veganism 的旅程
• 07:45 Beyond Borders: AI, Wild Animals, and the Future of Ethics
  • 跨越国界：人工智能、野生动物与伦理学的未来
• 15:25 East Meets West: A Strategic Blueprint for Animal Advocacy in China
  • 东西交汇：中国动物倡导的策略蓝图
• 29:08 The Individual vs. The Ecosystem: Navigating Human-Wildlife Conflicts
  • 个体 vs. 生态系统：如何看待人与野生动物的冲突
• 39:08 Are Animals Citizens? Questioning the “Zoopolis” Model
  • 动物是公民吗？对《动物社群》模型的反思
• 49:13 The Advocate’s Marathon: Staying Resilient & Resources for the Long Haul
  • 倡导者的马拉松：如何保持韧性，为长跑积蓄力量

播客全文🌟

Q：Welcome back to the latest episode of Slightly Tofu, Youdian Doufu. This is Q, and joining me today as always is my co-host Jojo. And for those of you tuning in for the first time, Slightly Tofu is probably the only vegan podcast in mainland China. This is a podcast where we talk about veganism, animal rights, abolitionism, and mix it all with social commentary.

欢迎回到最新一期的《Slightly Tofu, 有点豆腐》。我是Q，今天和我一起的依然是我的搭档Jojo。对于第一次收听我们节目的朋友们，《Slightly Tofu》可能是中国大陆唯一一个 vegan播客。在这个播客里，我们会讨论维根主义（veganism）、动物权利、动物废除主义，并结合社会评论。

For today’s episode, we’re starting something new. In fact, I think it’s the beginning of a new series. Whether we have that commitment or not, I guess we’ll find out. So in this series, we will be talking with international guests, and the conversations will be in English. But to make things easier for everyone, we’ll have both Chinese and English transcriptions available on our website.

在今天的节目里，我们要尝试一些新的东西。事实上，我认为这会是一个新系列的开始。至于我们是否能坚持下去，我想时间会告诉我们答案。在这个系列中，我们将与国际嘉宾进行对话，并且对话将以英语进行。但为了方便大家，我们会在网站上提供中英双语的文字稿。

Our guest today is Oscar Horta. He’s a Spanish animal ethicist and co-founder of Animal-Ethics.org. He has been a committed vegan for decades and is perhaps best known for his works on a topic that many people, even within the animal movement, find deeply challenging: the ethics of wild animal suffering.

我们今天的嘉宾是Oscar Horta。他是一位西班牙动物伦理学家，也是Animal-Ethics.org网站的联合创始人。几十年来，他一直是一位坚定的维根主义者，他最为人熟知的研究领域，可能是一个即使在动物运动内部也让许多人感到极具挑战性的话题——野生动物的苦难伦理。

Oscar has just spent almost half a month in China on a very intense trip, giving lectures on animal ethics, meeting with students and advocates, and debating issues like speciesism and wild animal suffering with Chinese scholars. So today we’ll hear about his experiences in China. And along the way, we will explore some of the bigger questions he’s been working on.

Oscar刚刚在中国度过了将近半个月的紧张行程，他举办了关于动物伦理的讲座，与学生和倡导者会面，并与中国学者就物种歧视和野生动物苦难等问题进行了辩论。所以今天，我们将听听他在中国的经历，并在此过程中探讨一些他一直在研究的更深层次的问题。

(01:45) Oscar, before we dive into your China trip, let’s start on a personal note. What first brought you into veganism and animal ethics? And maybe if you still recall, do you remember your first meaningful interaction with a non-human animal?

Oscar，在我们深入聊你的中国之行前，我们先从个人经历开始吧。最初是什么让你接触到维根主义和动物伦理学的？如果还记得的话，你还记得第一次与非人类动物进行有意义的互动是怎样的吗？

Oscar Horta：Okay. So the thing is, when I was a kid, I remember… I mean, I grew up in a place by the sea. And I remember it was very usual for people to go fishing there. And when I was very, very young, I don’t know how old I was, I was going fishing and catching crustaceans. There are lots of shrimp and animals like crabs and so on. And I remember how after going there, I saw one day how they were cooking them. And they boiled them alive. It’s horrible. And you can hear the sound of the animals trying to get free. And that was something horrible. I was horrified by that. And I said, “I’m never going to go fishing again.” Well, not fishing, because I never fished for fish. I only caught these animals. But I said, “I’ll never do this again. And I don’t want to ever eat these animals again.”

好的。是这样的，我记得我小时候……我是在一个海边的地方长大的。我记得那里的人们很常去钓鱼。在我非常非常小的时候，我不知道自己多大，我会去钓鱼和抓甲壳类动物。那里有很多像虾、螃蟹之类的动物。我记得有一次，我看到他们如何烹饪这些动物。他们把它们活活煮了。那太可怕了。你能听到那些动物想要挣脱的声音。那真是太可怕了，我被吓坏了。我说：“我再也不去钓鱼了。”嗯，也不是钓鱼，因为我从没钓过鱼，我只抓过这些甲壳类动物。但我说：“我再也不做这种事了，也再也不想吃这些动物了。”

But, you know, I was very young and I never made the connection. Also, where I live, we didn’t eat rabbits. But once my parents told us, “Yeah, we’re going to be eating rabbit,” I was like, “What the hell? I’m not eating a rabbit.” You know, no way I’m eating a rabbit. I mean, rabbits are cool. But again, I didn’t make the connection. So, life went on. And then when I was much older, when I was a teenager, I was involved in social issues. I wanted the world to be a better place and a fairer place for everyone. And some of my friends were into not eating animals out of concern for them.

但是，你知道，我当时还很小，并没有把这和其他事情联系起来。而且，在我住的地方，我们不吃兔子。但有一次，我父母说：“我们要吃兔子了。”我当时就想：“搞什么鬼？我才不吃兔子。”你知道，我绝不可能吃兔子。我觉得兔子很酷。但同样，我没有把这和别的动物联系起来。所以，生活继续。后来我长大了，十几岁的时候，我开始关心社会问题。我希望世界能变得更美好、更公平。我的一些朋友出于对动物的关心而不吃肉。

And at the beginning, I tried to resist that because I liked eating animals. But at some point, I found out that I didn’t have any arguments against it. So eventually I thought, “Well, I guess I won’t have the willpower to go vegan.” Or, well, I wasn’t thinking of going vegan then because I didn’t know anyone who was vegan. I just thought about not eating animals. So I thought, “I won’t have the willpower to do this, but I’ll try to reduce the number of animals that I eat.” So maybe I won’t eat animals when I prepare my own meal, but when other people prepare them, I’ll eat them. And I did that. And then I went, “Well, if I go out and need to order food, I will only order food without animals.” So it was a gradual thing.

一开始我试图抗拒，因为我喜欢吃肉。但到某个时候，我发现自己没有任何反驳的理由。所以最终我想：“好吧，我可能没有意志力成为一个 vegan。” 哦，当时我还没想过成为一个 vegan，因为我不认识任何 vegan。我只是想不吃动物。所以我想：“我可能没有意志力做到这一点，但我会试着减少我吃的动物数量。”也许我自己做饭的时候就不吃动物，但别人做好的，我还是会吃。我就这么做了。然后，我又想：“如果我出去吃饭点餐，我就只点不含动物的菜。”这是一个循序渐进的过程。

And eventually, after a couple of months or something like that, I found out that I was not eating animals. So I thought, “Well, I’ll give it a try. Let’s see for how long I could last without eating animals.” And it lasted for a long time. This was probably, I don’t know, maybe 1993 or something like that. And then the year afterwards, I had learned more about veganism and I decided to go vegan. But where I lived, I didn’t know anyone who was vegan, really. So, yeah, it was pretty much something that I did in a very exploratory way.

最终，大概几个月后，我发现自己已经不吃动物了。所以我想：“好吧，我来试试看。看看我能坚持多久不吃动物。” 结果我坚持了很长时间。这大概是，我不知道，可能是1993年左右的事。之后的一年，我了解了更多关于维根主义的知识，并决定成为一个 vegan。但在我住的地方，我真的不认识任何 vegan。所以，这很大程度上是我自己摸索着做的。

And then afterwards, once I was vegan already, I learned about speciesism. And that’s what really changed my mind. Because the concept and the whole idea behind this—that this is a very bad thing, this notion that is terrible, that it’s harming more individuals than any injustice against humans is harming. So that’s when I decided, “Okay, this is the most important thing that I can do with my life, which is to defend animals.” And that’s what I’ve been trying to do ever since.

再后来，在我已经成为一个 vegan 之后，我了解到了“物种歧视”（speciesism）这个概念。这才是真正改变我思想的东西。因为这个概念以及它背后的整个理念——认为这是一种非常糟糕的事情，这个可怕的观念，它对个体造成的伤害比任何针对人类的不公正行为造成的伤害都要多。所以那时我决定：“好吧，这是我一生中最重要的事情，就是为动物辩护。”从那以后，我一直在努力这样做。

Q：I wonder when you were the only vegan that you know, especially like back in the 90s, how does that make you feel? Are your parents supportive? Were they supportive? Were your friends? Like how do they perceive this identity of yours at that time?

我想知道，当你还是你所认识的唯一一个 vegan 时，尤其是在90年代，那是一种什么感觉？你的父母支持吗？你的朋友们呢？他们当时是如何看待你这个身份的？

Oscar Horta：Well, I mean, I wasn’t, it’s not that I was the only vegan that I knew. I knew other vegans, but not where I was living. So back in the day in Spain, maybe there were a handful of vegans. I don’t know how many. Maybe there were 20 or 30 vegans at that time. I don’t know. Maybe there were a bit more. But I could maybe know at the time, maybe like five or six vegans, maybe, in other places. I live in this place, it’s called Galicia, and there I didn’t know anyone. And in my hometown, I didn’t know anyone, and I still don’t know anyone who was vegan at the time. So, yeah, no one was supportive, really. I mean, only this very small group of people that I maybe met once or twice per year or something like that.

嗯，我并不是我认识的唯一一个vegan。我认识其他vegan，但 ta 们不住在我生活的地方。那时在西班牙，可能只有少数几个vegan。我不知道有多少，也许当时有二三十个吧，也可能多一点。但我当时可能认识五六个vegan，在其他地方。我住在一个叫加利西亚（Galicia）的地方，在那里我不认识任何人。在我的家乡，我也不认识任何人，至今也不知道当时有谁是vegan。所以，真的，没有人支持我。只有那个我可能一年见一两次的、非常小的群体支持我。

Q：But how did that make you feel? You were not bothered by it?

但那让你感觉如何？你没有因此感到困扰吗？

Oscar Horta：No, not really. I was thinking of the animals.

不，没有。我当时心里想的是动物。

Q：That’s great. Well, as vegans, we do tend to feel quite isolated. But anyway, it’s very good.

那很棒。作为vegan，我们确实常常感到相当孤立。但无论如何，这都很好。

It’s always good to hear where the story starts. Now, I should mention that you and Jojo actually spent a very intense week, maybe more than a week, in China together in Shandong University and also later in Beijing, diving into lectures, making arguments for animals, meeting other animal advocates, and enjoy lots of Chinese food. So basically living the academic rock and roll lifestyle. So it only makes sense to bring her in here. Jojo, I know you’ve got a few questions you’ve wanted to ask?

听到故事的开端总是很好的。现在，我得提一下，你和Jojo其实一起在中国度过了非常紧张的一周，可能不止一周，先是在山东大学，后来在北京（和上海）。你们忙于讲座、为动物发声、会见其他动物倡导者，还品尝了很多中国美食。基本上就是过着学术摇滚明星般的生活。所以我也理所应当把话筒给到 Jojo，我知道你有一些想问的问题？

Jojo：(07:45) So maybe we can start with a very easy question and we can let this conversation begin with it. So during your trip to China, maybe for the whole China trip, was there a moment or were there a few moments from your China trip that really stayed with you, even now even in the future, was there such a moment that will last in your memories?

那么，也许我们可以从一个很简单的问题开始。在你的中国之行中，是否有那么一个或几个瞬间，让你至今记忆犹新，甚至在未来也会一直留在你的记忆里？

Oscar Horta：Well, yeah. I mean, you may think, “Oh, maybe when I was eating nice food or visiting nice places.” But it was… I mean, of course, I’ll remember those things, but the most important thing is the interaction with activists. So that was the best. I mean, meeting you, actually, and meeting other great people there. That was the best. That’s what I’m not going to forget. Yeah, I guess that’s it, really.

嗯，是的。你可能会想：“哦，也许是吃美食或游览美景的时候。”当然，我也会记得那些事，但最重要的事情当然是和行动者们的互动。那是最棒的。我的意思是，遇见你，以及遇见其他优秀的人。那是最棒的，是我永远不会忘记的。是的，我想就是这样。

Jojo：So a question that’s related to it is that during the trip, what stood out to you about the way animal issues are discussed or approached there? Maybe within the discussion with those animal advocates and also within the discussion with other people that do not know a lot about the animal issues, so how do you feel about those conversations and discussions?

一个相关的问题是，在这次旅程中，关于动物议题的讨论或处理方式，有什么让你印象特别深刻的吗？无论是在与动物倡导者的讨论中，还是与其他可能不太了解动物议题的人的讨论中。你对这些对话和讨论有什么感受？

Oscar Horta： Yeah, so that’s an interesting one. First of all, there are things that animal advocates say everywhere, like, “Oh, yeah, you know, maybe in other places things are like this and that. But here in [fill in whatever country], things are different because of this and that.” So people everywhere—if you go to China, but then if you go to, I don’t know, say Mexico, or if you go to Portugal—people will say exactly the same thing and then say, “Oh, but, you know, here in Portugal or here in China, things are like this.” And they’re telling you exactly the same thing, right? That happens so often. “Oh, but people here, you know, they have this tradition,” as if this was specific to China and this doesn’t happen everywhere, and it happens, you know, all around the world. So that’s one thing. In one respect, many of the things that people were saying were… really… things that you are used to hearing if you travel around the world.

嗯，这是个有趣的问题。首先，有些话是全世界的动物倡导者都会说的，比如：“哦，你知道，在其他地方情况可能是这样那样的。但在这里……[填上任何国家的名字]，情况是不同的，因为这样那样的原因。”所以，无论你去中国，还是去墨西哥，或者葡萄牙，人们都会说完全一样的话，然后说：“哦，但是，你知道，在葡萄牙或在中国，情况是这样的。”他们告诉你的其实是完全一样的事情，对吧？这种情况经常发生。“哦，但是这里的人们，你知道，他们有这种传统，”就好像这只是中国特有的，而不是全世界都有的情况，但实际上全世界都有。所以这是一点。从某种程度上说，很多人说的话，如果你周游世界，都会习以为常。

Then, as for particular debates and things that activists or advocates talk about, in some respects, you could see the commonalities with other places. In some other respects, you could see that there is more isolation in China than in other places. For instance, debates about animals and the future, animals in the long term, debates about invertebrate exploitation, and debates about wild animals, AI and animals. So most activists around the world are not familiar with these issues. But a growing number of advocates are, and I know some people from China who are very well aware of these topics. But in my interactions with many activists, I could see that to a large extent, those very frontier topics in animal advocacy were not really that discussed. And that’s a pity. And yeah, I guess that maybe in other places, activists are better connected with what other people from other places around the world are doing. That’s not what happens in China.

然后，关于具体的辩论和行动者或倡导者谈论的话题，在某些方面，你可以看到与其他地方的共同点。但在另一些方面，你可以看到中国比其他地方更加孤立。比如，关于动物与未来、动物的长远福祉、无脊椎动物的剥削、野生动物、人工智能与动物等议题的辩论。世界上大多数行动者对这些议题并不熟悉。但是，越来越多的倡导者开始了解，而且我知道一些来自中国的朋友对这些话题非常了解。但在我与许多行动者的互动中，我发现，在很大程度上，那些动物倡导领域非常前沿的话题并没有得到充分的讨论。这很可惜。是的，我猜想，也许在其他地方，行动者们与其他国家的人的联系更紧密一些。而这在中国并没有发生。

Q：I have a follow up question. So when it comes to frontier discussions, could you elaborate a little bit more? Like aside from, say, for example, AI and animal ethics, what are the other issues that you think that people should pay more attention to? Could you give us a few examples, maybe?

我想接着问一下。关于前沿讨论，你能否再详细说明一下？比如，除了人工智能和动物伦理，你认为还有哪些议题是人们应该更加关注的？能举几个例子吗？

Oscar Horta：Yeah, so I think those examples really are the most representative of the things that weren’t discussed maybe 15 years ago and are discussed now. AI may be the hottest one, the one that is receiving growing attention now, and more and more people are becoming aware that it’s going to be dramatically changing the game for animals, as for everything else, really. And especially with timelines for transformative AI becoming shorter and shorter, an increasing number of animal advocates are taking this very seriously because this can mean that many more animals will be exploited, and that they may be exploited in worse ways. For wild animals, it also presents some challenges and opportunities.

是的，我认为这些例子确实最能代表那些15年前没被讨论而现在正在讨论的事情。人工智能可能是最热门的一个，现在正获得越来越多的关注，越来越多的人意识到，它将极大地改变动物的处境，就像它会改变其他一切一样。特别是随着变革性人工智能（transformative AI）的时间线越来越短，越来越多的动物倡导者非常认真地对待这个问题。因为这可能意味着更多动物将被剥削，而且剥削方式可能更糟。对于野生动物，它也带来了一些挑战和机遇。

And there is also the issue of what happens when AI systems have the capacity to lock in attitudes or ways of behaving toward animals in general. So maybe right now there is still a window of opportunity to try to make the case that AI doesn’t inherit, so to speak, the institutionalized speciesist attitudes that we find today. So, yeah, this would be the clearest example. But as I mentioned before, there are other long-term concerns for animals, like new trends in animal exploitation, the creation of new animals using, for instance, synthetic biology or gene drive techniques. Also, when it comes to wild animal suffering, things like exporting animals off Earth by bringing them to space.

还有一个问题是，当人工智能系统拥有固化对动物的态度或行为方式的能力时，会发生什么。也许现在还有一个机会窗口，去努力确保人工智能不会继承我们今天所见的、制度化的物种歧视态度。所以，是的，这可能是最明显的例子。但正如我之前提到的，还有其他关于动物长远福祉的担忧，比如动物剥削的新趋势，利用合成生物学、基因驱动技术创造新动物等。还有，当谈到野生动物苦难时，比如将动物送出地球，带到太空中。

I mean, this is something that most animal advocates are unaware of, but there have been animals in space already for experimentation. And there are already discussions and research on expanding animal farming to space as well. Different space agencies around the world are researching this. And maybe we can stop it now, but it will be hard to stop in the future. So, to someone who has never heard about this, all these things may sound crazy. Totally crazy. But as I say, that’s probably because you aren’t familiar with them. So these are examples of things that are being discussed at the frontier.

我的意思是，这可能是大多数动物倡导者都不知道的，但已经有动物为了实验而被送入太空了。而且已经有关于将动物养殖扩展到太空的讨论和研究。世界各地的不同航天机构都在研究这个问题。也许我们现在可以阻止它，但未来会很难。所以，这些事情对一个从未听说过的人来说，可能听起来很疯狂。完全是疯了。但就像我说的，这可能只是因为你对它们不熟悉。这些都是在前沿领域被讨论的例子。

Then there are other discussions, of course, like discussions that have to do with strategies. But it’s not that those discussions are around, “Oh, is it good to, I don’t know, to push for welfare reforms or not?” Maybe the discussion should be more nuanced about what is more cost-effective here and there. Well, yeah, I guess this can be a quick overview. Maybe I’m leaving something behind, but this is what comes to my mind.

当然，还有其他的讨论，比如关于策略的讨论。但这些讨论并不仅仅是围绕着：“哦，推动福利改革是好是坏？”这类问题。也许讨论应该更细致，比如在不同情况下，什么是更具成本效益的。嗯，是的，我想这可以算是一个快速的概述。也许我遗漏了什么，但这些是我能想到的。

Jojo：(15:25) So maybe my next question is about your feeling or overall impression of the animal ethics and advocacy in China. So during your trip to China, what’s your overall impression of maybe the whole situation in China, about the situation that animals are facing and also the animal advocacies.

那么我的下一个问题是关于你对中国动物伦理和倡导的整体印象或感受。在你的中国之行中，你对中国的整体情况，包括动物面临的状况和动物倡导的现状，有什么总体印象？

Oscar Horta：Yeah, so as for animal advocates, I mean, I met not a whole bunch of them, but I still met a few of them, actually, in different places. And my impression of them is great. I really like animal advocates in China. I mean, they are extremely, the people I knew at least, they were extremely committed people who really took it very seriously, who wanted to do work in a way that is pro, but who at the same time really see it as part of their life. So it’s not that they want to just like have a job in animal advocacy, not at all. It’s that they live it and they want to make a difference with all they have. And then the only problem is that, you know, there are not so many animal advocates in China, especially when you consider the whole population. Right.

嗯，关于动物倡导者，我遇到的虽然不是非常多，但在不同地方也见了一些。我对他们的印象非常好。我真的很喜欢中国的动物倡导者。至少我认识的那些人，他们都非常投入，非常认真地对待这件事，希望以一种专业的方式工作，但同时又真正将其视为生活的一部分。他们不只是想在动物倡导领域找份工作，完全不是。他们是为之而活，并希望用自己的一切去改变现状。唯一的问题是，中国的动物倡导者数量不多，特别是考虑到总人口的话。

Yeah. But you can see that. I mean, that’s no news from my end. I mean, both things really may be connected. And I can speak here considering what I’ve seen in other places, like where I’m from. So if you compare like the average advocate 20 years ago with the average advocate right now, 20 years ago, they were much more committed because only committed people were into this. Right. So as the movement grows, you start to get more and more people and you reach, you know, wider sociological spectrum, so to speak. And then you start to get an average lower level of commitment. Right. Reasonably enough, you know. And also you start to have people who, for instance, when they start to work on this in a pro way, in a professionalized way, they see it as a job. So, you know, it’s not that they live it and that they give their lives to this, right? So that doesn’t happen yet in China. And that is great. Although it is better if you grow and you still maintain this core group of people who are really committed, but you manage to attract all the people as well.

是的。但你可以看到……嗯，这对我来说不是什么新闻。这两件事可能是有联系的。我可以结合我在其他地方，比如我的家乡所看到的来谈。如果你比较20年前的普通倡导者和现在的普通倡导者，20年前的他们要投入得多，因为只有非常投入的人才会参与进来。随着运动的发展，越来越多的人加入，你接触到的社会学光谱也更广。然后，平均的投入程度就开始下降了。这很合理。而且，你也开始看到一些人，当他们开始以专业的方式从事这项工作时，他们把它看作一份工作。他们并不是为之而活，为之奉献一生。这种情况在中国还没有发生，这很好。当然，更好的情况是，在发展壮大的同时，你仍然能保持一个真正投入的核心群体，并且也能吸引其他人加入。

Jojo：So maybe one more practical question is that if you had to pick a few areas for advocates in China to focus on, whether in public education or maybe policy, what would they be and how you suggest them to approach it?

那么，一个可能更实际的问题是，如果你要为中国的倡导者挑选几个重点领域，无论是在公众教育还是政策方面，你会选择哪些？你会建议他们如何着手？

Oscar Horta： Yeah, so I think that how you approach these questions really varies a lot from one place to another. And maybe one type of question would be whether to focus more on education and changing attitudes or on trying to attain changes in policies—changes in how decision-makers can take animals into consideration. I think that if the latter were attained in China, that would be great, even if the change wasn’t very significant in the short term. So if, for instance, the government in China just expressed that animal welfare is a concern, even if what they actually did in practice to enforce this wasn’t very significant, just that statement would be a huge step. And to connect it to what we were talking about before, about AI, that would also be reflected in AI policy as well. That would be a consideration to take into account and that could make a huge change. So attaining one change of that kind, even if it were symbolic, I think would be extremely important.

是的，我认为如何处理这些问题，在不同地方差异很大。比如，一个问题可能是，应该更侧重于教育、改变人们的态度，还是尝试实现政策上的改变——让决策者将动物纳入考量。我认为，如果后者能在中国实现，那将是非常棒的，即使短期的改变不是很显著。例如，如果中国政府仅仅表示动物福利是一个值得关注的问题，即使他们在实践中为执行这一点所做的并不多，仅仅是这样一个声明，就将是巨大的一步。把它和我们之前谈到的，比如人工智能联系起来，这也将反映在人工智能政策上。这将成为一个需要考虑的因素，并可能带来巨大的改变。所以，实现这样一个即使是象征性的改变，我认为也会极其重要。

Then, as for goals in public education, I think something that is interesting is that if you consider how things are going in different places, you can look at what model you would prefer and try to avoid mistakes. For instance, if you compare how things are done in the English-speaking world versus the French-speaking or Spanish-speaking world, what you’ll see is that the concept of “speciesism” is very present in the Spanish-speaking world and extremely present in the French-speaking world, and is almost absent in the English-speaking world. In the English-speaking world, they put much more emphasis on things like factory farming, behavioral change, veganism, and stuff like that, or just reducing the consumption of animals. I really think that this is worse overall. In a context like China, advocating for things like the moral consideration of animals and the rejection of speciesism would be much better, connecting it with China’s philosophical traditions and so on. So you don’t need to impose behavioral changes on people or make them think that you are trying to impose them—because you are never imposing anything if you are advocating for something, but people get that impression. So I would put more stress there.

至于公众教育的目标，我认为有趣的一点是，如果你观察不同地方的情况，你可以看看你更喜欢哪种模式，并试图避免错误。例如，如果你比较英语世界和法语世界或西班牙语世界的做法，你会发现，“物种歧视”这个概念在西班牙语世界非常普遍，在法语世界更是如此，但在英语世界几乎不存在。而在英语世界，他们更强调工厂化养殖、行为改变、维根主义之类的事情，或者只是减少动物消费。我真的认为后者总体上更差。在像中国这样的背景下，倡导诸如动物的道德考量和反对物种歧视等理念会好得多，并将其与中国的哲学传统等联系起来。这样你就不需要强加行为改变给人们，或者让他们觉得你在试图强加——因为当你倡导某件事时，你当然从未强加任何东西，但人们会产生这种印象。所以，我会更强调这一点。

I would also incorporate from the beginning ideas like concern for all sentient beings, including those with very simple minds like invertebrates. And you may think, “Oh, but people don’t like bugs. When people think of cockroaches, they feel disgusted.” Well then, you don’t use the example of a cockroach. Maybe you use the example of a butterfly or a bee or a dragonfly, which people feel more sympathy for. And then the idea of caring for wild animals as sentient individuals—you can just incorporate it from the very beginning. You don’t need to do as in other countries where they didn’t advocate for that until much later. So you can, so to speak, take the shortcuts and not incur problems that advocacy has in some other places.

我也会从一开始就融入一些理念，比如，关心所有有情众生，包括像无脊椎动物这样心智非常简单的生命。你可能会想：“哦，但是人们不喜欢虫子，想到蟑螂就觉得恶心。”那你就不要用蟑螂举例，你可以用蝴蝶、蜜蜂或者蜻蜓，人们对这些动物更有好感。然后，关心作为有情个体的野生动物这个理念，你也可以从一开始就融入进来。你不需要像其他国家那样，直到很久以后才开始倡导。所以，你可以说，是走捷径，避免一些其他地方倡导工作遇到的问题。

And you can also have this long-term approach, meaning that at the end of the day, if you attain certain attitude changes—even if they are not the ones that you would like to see because you would like them to be deeper, and even if they aren’t accompanied by the behavioral changes that would be desirable—in the long term, that can be much better. I’m going to give an example of this that I sometimes use, and I think it illuminates this in a way that makes it clear. So suppose that you could make it so that 10 people don’t eat animal products ever again for reasons that have nothing to do with concern for animals, but maybe for whatever other reason—they think it’s healthier or what have you whatever.

是的，你也可以采取这种长远的视角，意思是，最终，如果你实现了一些态度的改变——即使这些改变不是你最希望看到的，因为你希望它们更深刻，即使它们没有伴随着理想的行为改变——从长远来看，这可能要好得多。我来举一个我有时用的例子，我觉得这能清楚地说明这一点。假设，你可以让10个人永远不再吃动物制品，但原因与关心动物完全无关，可能是因为他们觉得这样更健康或其他任何原因。

And then suppose that you can also make it so that another 10 people question speciesism. They challenge their own speciesist attitudes, even though they continue to eat animal products. But knowing that they’re doing something that is morally questionable, maybe they lack the willpower to do so, but they are nevertheless convinced that they shouldn’t be doing it and that speciesism is wrong. If the world were to end two months from now, you should prefer the former. But since that’s not going to happen, I think you should prefer the latter. Because eventually, the only change you are going to attain with the first course of action is that those people won’t eat those animals. But with the other people, the change you’re going to attain is going to be much more significant because these people are going to be speaking with others, and they may change the minds of others who eventually may end up not eating animals. So in the second case, you are starting a movement. It’s like a snowball. You are putting something in motion, whereas in the former, it’s just a dead end. Right? So I think these are things that have not been considered in other places, and maybe they should be taken into account in China.

然后，假设你也可以让另外10个人质疑物种歧视。他们挑战自己物种歧视的态度，尽管他们会继续吃动物制品，但他们知道自己做的是在道德上存疑的事情。也许他们缺乏意志力去改变，但他们仍然相信自己不应该这样做，并且认为物种歧视是错误的。如果世界两个月后就要毁灭，你应该选择前者。但既然不会发生这种情况，我认为你应该选择后者。因为最终，第一种做法能带来的唯一改变就是那10个人不再吃那些动物。但对于另一组人，你所带来的改变将意义深远得多，因为这些人会和别人交谈，他们可能会改变别人的想法，而那些人最终可能会不再吃动物。所以在第二种情况下，你是在发起一场运动。它就像一个雪球，你在推动一些东西。而在前一种情况下，它只是一个死胡同。对吧？所以，我认为这些是在其他地方没有被考虑过的事情，也许在中国应该被纳入考量。

Jojo：Hmm, I understand. So do you have any other comments about your China trip or do you have any other words that you want to say to Chinese advocates or Chinese audience of us or something like what you look forward to in your next China trip? Like what do you expect to change in maybe two years three years’ time so yeah because she has other questions that don’t relate that much to your China trip so I want to give you this freedom of say whatever you want about this China trip.

嗯，我明白了。那么，关于你的中国之行，你还有其他评论吗？或者，你有什么想对中国的倡导者或我们的中国听众说的话吗？比如，你对下一次中国之行有什么期待？你希望在两三年内看到什么变化？因为Q还有其他与你的中国之行不太相关的问题，所以我想给你这个自由，让你畅所欲言。

Oscar Horta：About that China trip… I mean, even though it was half a month, I got the impression that it was very short, so next time I’ll try to go to more places, speak with other people, and learn from them. In some previous comments, I mentioned the state of animal advocacy, not really the state of animal ethics. I just put it all together. But if what you mean by animal ethics as a discipline is work that is more intellectual or academic—and I’m connecting this with your question about my trip because I was giving talks in universities—I think that the work that some pioneers there, like especially Professor Guo Peng, have done is amazing. And I think it would be great if people could push a bit more for that. I think there are very interesting possibilities there.

关于这次中国之行……嗯，尽管是半个月，但我感觉非常短暂。所以下次我会尝试去更多的地方，和更多的人交流，向他们学习。在我之前的一些评论中，我提到了动物倡导的现状，但没有真正谈到动物伦理学的现状。我把它们混为一谈了。但如果你指的是作为一门学科的动物伦理学，考虑到那些更偏向智识或学术的工作——我把这个和你的问题联系起来，因为我在旅途中在大学里做了讲座——我认为，一些先行者，特别是郭鹏教授所做的工作，是惊人的。我认为，是的，如果人们能在这方面再多推动一下，那就太好了。我认为那里有非常有趣的可能性。

Maybe also collaborating with scholars from Hong Kong, trying to make a stronger connection with scholars from other countries, and also with other people who are not scholars but are advocates. I think it would be great if there could be more collaboration and communication. So let me just be clear: it’s not that people from outside are going to speak with Chinese people and tell them what they should do. That’s not what this is about. I’m talking about communication and an exchange of ideas.

也许也可以和香港的学者合作，尝试与其他国家的学者，以及非学者的倡导者建立更强的联系。我认为如果能有更多的合作与沟通，那会非常好。让我说清楚：这并不是说外国人要来和中国人说，告诉中国人该怎么做。不是这个意思。我指的是思想的交流和沟通。

In addition to this, for sure, there are a bunch of things that could be taken into account. We don’t really have the time to get into detail with that. Maybe it would require a different format, like another course or session like the one we had in Ji’nan. But I think these key ideas—trying to incorporate more frontier thinking, trying to take into account ideas from other people, paying lots of attention to things like AI, especially with China being one of the leading countries in this respect—even if that’s the only thing that happens, that would be super useful.

除此之外，当然还有很多事情可以考虑。我们真的没有时间详细讨论。也许那需要一个不同的形式，比如再办一个像我们在济南那样的课程或会议。但我认为这些关键思想——尝试融入更多前沿思考，尝试考虑其他人的想法，特别关注像人工智能这样的事情，尤其是考虑到中国在这方面是领先国家之一——即使只发生这些，也已经非常有用了。

And I guess to conclude, I’ll say just one thing. There is this mindset that most people—most animal advocates around the world—have, and Chinese activists have it as well. It can be useful for them to get rid of it, which is that we tend to be reactive instead of proactive. We tend to think, “How can we have a good impact?” instead of “How can we have the best impact?” Right? So often when we see things that are bad for animals that we can change, we figure out campaigns we can run and we say, “Okay, let’s do it.” That’s a mistake. A very big mistake. You shouldn’t be doing campaigns just because they are worth it and you see them in front of you. You shouldn’t be doing that.

我想，最后我想说一件事。这是世界上大多数人、大多数动物倡导者都有一种心态，中国的行动者也有。如果能摆脱这种心态，对他们会很有帮助。那就是：我们倾向于被动反应，而不是主动出击。我们倾向于思考“我们如何能产生好的影响？”，而不是“我们如何能产生最好的影响？”对吧？通常，当我们看到对动物不好的事情，并且我们能改变它，我们想出了可以开展的运动，我们就会说：“好吧，我们来做吧。”这是一个错误。一个非常大的错误。你不应该仅仅因为有些事情值得做、就在你眼前，就去开展运动。你不应该那样做。

You should be identifying where you can have the biggest impact, where you can change more things for more animals, and you should focus there. This means that maybe the campaign you thought of at the beginning is not the one you should work on. You should work on something else instead. And trying to work on China in general, not just at a local level, can be an example of this. But yeah, we don’t have time to go into detail, but I think that would be a good recommendation.

你应该去识别在哪里你可以产生最大的影响，在哪里你可以为更多的动物改变更多的事情，然后你应该专注于那里。这意味着，也许你一开始想到的那个运动，你不应该去做。你应该去做别的事情。尝试在中国，从整体而非仅仅是地方层面开展工作，可能就是这方面的一个例子。是的，我们没有时间深入探讨，但我认为那会是一个很好的建议。

Q：Yeah, thanks, Oscar, and thanks, Jojo. These are great questions, answers, and proposals. I guess I’ll start to work on my “big red button”, because I think that’s going to be the most impactful strategy to eliminate animal suffering. (29:08) But joke aside, I want to pick up the thread from a different angle. So, let’s look at how animal ethics, speciesism, and these kinds of ideas play out in practice.

是的，谢谢Oscar，也谢谢Jojo。这些都是很棒的问题、回答和建议。我猜我要开始研究我的“大红按钮”了，因为我认为那会是消除动物苦难最有效的策略。玩笑归玩笑，我想从一个不同的角度继续这个话题。我们来看看动物伦理、物种歧视这些理念在实践中会如何体现。

Often when we talk about animal ethics, I think the hardest part is always the practice, right? For example, when human interests and animals’ interests are in conflict. In cases like human-wildlife conflicts, protecting individual animals sometimes clashes with supporting human livelihoods, especially in farming communities or indigenous contexts. Of course, I’m not asking you for a solution—it’s always very context-dependent and very complicated. But how do you usually think about making these trade-offs?

通常当我们谈论动物伦理时，我认为最难的部分总是在实践中。例如，当人类的利益和动物的利益发生冲突时。在像野生动物冲突——比如人类与野生动物的冲突——这类情况下，保护个体动物有时会与支持人类生计相冲突，尤其是在农业社区或原住民的背景下。当然，我不是要你给出一个解决方案，这总是非常依赖具体情境，非常复杂。但你通常是如何思考这些权衡的？

Oscar Horta： Well, this connects with what I mentioned before, which is that you need to think. Suppose that you are considering one such case, right? Meaning that maybe you could run a campaign there. But is that campaign going to be the one that has the most significant impact on animals? Probably not. If it’s a conflict with some indigenous group or something, that probably means the number of animals involved is very small. So you shouldn’t be working on that; you should be working on something else. That would be the most important thing.

嗯，这和我之前提到的有点关系，那就是你需要思考。假设你正在考虑一个这样的案例，对吧？这意味着你可以在那里开展一场倡议行动。但这场倡议行动会是对动物产生最显著影响的那一场吗？可能不会。如果这是与某个原住民群体的冲突，那可能意味着涉及的动物数量非常少。所以你不应该在这上面花时间，你应该去做别的事情。这将是最重要的一点。

Now, this being said, if you ask me at a more theoretical or moral level, we shouldn’t discriminate against non-human animals. Speciesism is wrong. This means that if there is a conflict between two groups of humans where one group is harming the other, but doing so is something they’ve been doing for a long time and is maybe very important for their economy—if we would nevertheless defend the ones being harmed in that case, then we need to hold the same view when the individuals being affected are animals. Because we shouldn’t be speciesists. This is very clear. But again, let me just stress that these are probably not going to be the examples of campaigns with a very significant impact.

话虽如此，如果你从更理论或更道德的层面问我，我们不应该歧视非人类动物。物种歧视是错误的。意思是，假设有两群人类之间发生冲突，其中一群正在伤害另一群，但这样做是他们长期以来的习惯，而且可能对伤害者的经济非常重要——如果在那种情况下，我们仍然会捍卫受害者，那么当受影响的个体是动物时，我们也需要持有同样的观点。因为我们不应该是物种歧视者。这一点非常清楚。但是，请允许我再次强调，这些可能不会是影响非常显著的运动案例。

Q： But I feel like there’s a contradiction there. Previously, when you were talking about advocating for helping people to overcome speciesism, you mentioned appealing to sympathy, right? Using butterflies or other charismatic animals can help people change their biases against unattractive or less charismatic species. But when it comes to conflicts like this, I think it’s people’s inclination and sympathy that makes them feel, “Okay, I want to work on this issue because this is very urgent and it concerns, say, elephants or other animals that people feel they can relate to.” Also, not everyone is a utilitarian, right? Not everyone applies this framework when it comes to decision-making. So how would you respond to this situation, where people are drawn to work on these issues?

但我觉得这里有一个矛盾。之前你提到倡导帮助人们克服物种歧视时，你提到也许可以诉诸同情心，对吧？用蝴蝶或更有魅力的动物来帮助人们改变对那些不吸引人、没什么魅力的物种的偏见和歧视。但当涉及到这样的冲突时，我认为人们的倾向和同情心会让他们觉得：“好吧，我想处理这个问题，因为这很紧急。”而且这也关系到，比如说，大象或其他人们认为自己能产生共鸣的动物。而且，不是每个人都是功效主义者，对吧？不是每个人在做决策时都会应用这种框架。那么，你会如何回应这种情况呢？人们就是会被吸引去处理这些问题。

Oscar Horta：Okay, so first thing, I guess when you say “not everyone is a utilitarian”, it’s because you are identifying utilitarianism with the idea that we should try to have the best impact. But this doesn’t really need to be the case. Utilitarianism is just one ethical theory according to which, when deciding how to act, we should add up all the positive things that individuals can have (typically their experiences or satisfied preferences) and all the negative things (frustrated preferences or suffering). Then, considering all that, we estimate what’s going to happen if we do A or if we do B, we compare them, and we do what’s going to turn out better. Okay, so if we accept this, we want to have the best impact.

好的。首先，我猜当你说“不是每个人都是功效主义者”时，是因为你把功效主义等同于“我们应该努力产生最好的影响”这个想法。但其实不必如此。功利主义只是一种伦理理论，它认为在决定如何行动时，我们应该把个体可能拥有的所有积极的东西——通常是他们的体验或被满足的偏好——和所有消极的东西——受挫的偏好或痛苦——加总起来。然后，综合考虑所有这些，我们估算如果我们做A或做B会发生什么，然后进行比较，选择那个会带来更好结果的行动。好的。所以如果我们接受这一点，我们就会想要产生最好的影响。

But suppose we have a different view. For instance, I am an egalitarian. My focus is: yes, I want there to be the least suffering possible, but I also want to avoid some individuals being in a very, very bad situation. So I wouldn’t agree with utilitarianism, because it may imply that in a certain scenario, the best solution involves some individuals being in a very bad position. And I wouldn’t want that because I want to protect the worst-off. But I still want to have the best impact—the best impact for everyone, especially the worst-off. Or suppose that I defend a virtue ethics approach. I want individuals to act as virtuously as possible. It’s not that I want only myself or a few individuals to act virtuously; I want everyone to. And acting virtuously means that you want the best outcome, not the worst. If you have a choice and you choose the worse scenario, that is probably not really virtuous.

但假设我们有不同的观点，例如，我是一个平等主义者。我的重点是：是的，我希望痛苦尽可能少，但我也希望避免某些个体处于非常非常糟糕的境地。所以我不会同意功利主义，因为它可能意味着在某种情境下，最好的解决方案可能导致某些个体处于非常不利的位置。我不想那样，因为我想保护那些处境最差的。但我仍然想产生最好的影响——为所有人，特别是处境最差的，带来最好的影响。或者假设我支持美德伦理学。我希望个体尽可能地以有美德的方式行事。我不是只希望我自己或少数人有美德，我希望每个人都有。而且，有美德地行事也意味着你希望发生的是最好的事，而不是最坏的事。如果你有一个选择，而你选择了那个更坏的情境，那可能就不是真的有美德。

Or if you are a care ethicist, if you accept a feminist care ethic, then you would place special importance on paying attention to those individuals who are in need of aid. And then again, you will want to help them as much as you can. It looks like you are not really caring for them if you are preferring an option that is suboptimal. And so on, we could go with other theories like deontological theories. So trying to have the best impact is not something that commits you to a certain ethical viewpoint, I think. Of course, there are ethical viewpoints that don’t commit you to that, but I think they can be challenged on different grounds.

或者如果你是一个关怀伦理学家，假设你接受女性主义的关怀伦理，那么你会特别重视关注那些需要帮助的个体。然后，你同样会希望尽你所能去帮助她们。如果你选择了一个次优的方案，那看起来就不像是在真正地关怀她们。诸如此类，我们可以继续讨论其他理论，比如道义论等等。所以，试图产生最好的影响并不意味着你必须认同某一种特定的伦理观点。当然，有些伦理观点不要求你这样做，但我认为那些观点在其他方面也可能受到挑战。

Anyway, let’s come back to your main point. So, now you are fleshing out the kind of example you have in mind a bit more. In your original formulation, you didn’t mention, “Oh, suppose you can run a campaign that people love and really want to work on.” You just mentioned a conflict, and I told you what I thought. But now you are coming up with a more nuanced description in which people are very sympathetic. Okay, fair enough. The fact that people are very sympathetic about that means that maybe you can get a lot of support very easily, meaning that with fewer resources, you can have a higher impact here than in another campaign. This is definitely something to take into account.

好了，让我们回到你的主要问题。现在你对你想到的例子做了更细致的描绘。因为在你最初提问时，你没有提到：“哦，假设你可以发起一场人们非常喜欢、非常愿意参与的运动。”你只是提到了假设有这种冲突，然后我告诉了我的想法。但现在你提出了一个更细致的描述，其中还包括了人们对此非常有同情心。好吧，这很合理。人们对此非常有同情心，意味着你可能很容易就能获得大量支持，也就是说，用更少的资源，你可以在这里产生比在另一场运动中更大的影响。好的，这绝对是需要考虑的一点。

Now, it’s not the only thing to take into account, because it may well be the case that you can run a campaign that people feel a lot of sympathy for, so it’s very easy to leverage your impact there. But the number of individuals affected or the kind of harm at stake may not be that important. Whereas another campaign that people support much less could have a huge impact on many others. Then you should run the second campaign instead of the former, right? But then suppose there is a campaign that can have a huge impact and people are sympathetic toward it. But if you run this campaign, some humans are going to have their interests affected. If those interests are not as important as the animals’—and they for sure won’t be, given that this campaign is meant to be very effective—then the interests of the animals should prevail.

但，这并不是唯一需要考虑的。因为很可能，你可以发起一场人们非常有同情心去参与的运动，所以很容易就能在这里撬动你的影响力。但受影响的个体数量或者所涉及的伤害类型可能并不那么重要。而另一场运动，人们支持度低得多，但那场运动可以对许多其他个体产生巨大的影响。那么，你应该选择第二场运动，而不是前一场，对吧？但是，假设有一场运动既能产生巨大影响，人们又对此抱有同情心。但如果你开展这场运动，会有人类的利益受到影响。如果这些利益不像动物的利益那么重要——考虑到这场运动旨在非常有效，那它们肯定不会那么重要——那么动物的利益应该优先。

However, it’s often very strategic to take into account the interests of humans as well, to make the campaign more likely to be accepted. So maybe you can provide ways to mitigate the negative impact on human beings if their interests are going to be affected because you are protecting these animals. These are things you need to take into account. At the end of the day, though, we really shouldn’t be speciesist. So we shouldn’t say, “Oh, but these humans are affected, so you can’t run this campaign because you can’t do something that is worse for humans.” Not at all. We shouldn’t be speciesist and just accept that “while we can’t do something bad for humans, it’s totally okay to allow things to happen that are terribly bad—much worse—for non-human animals”. That wouldn’t be acceptable.

然而，将人类的利益也考虑进来，通常在策略上是非常明智的。这样可以让运动更容易被接受。所以，也许你可以提供一些方式，如果在保护这些动物的同时，人类的利益会受到影响，你可以用一种方式来做，让它对人类的影响不那么糟糕。这些是你需要考虑的事情，但归根结底，我们真的不应该是物种歧视者。所以我们不应该说：“哦，但是这些人类会受到影响，所以你不能开展这场运动，因为你当然不能做对人类更糟的事情。”完全不是这样。我们不应该物种歧视，不应该接受“我们不能做对人类有害的事，但允许对非人类动物发生极其糟糕、糟糕得多的事情是完全可以的。”我认为这是不可接受的。

Q：Relate to that, I think the current governance, the current especially environmental governance where most animals are being managed under is often protecting habitats, that their focus is often about protecting habitats or ecosystems rather than the welfare of individual animals. And from a policy perspective, I think many people might argue that habitat protection can seem more practical. And it might also provide more protection for all kinds of animals, all different kinds of species, etc., even though individual welfare is not the center of the concern. And it can sometimes overlook the suffering of individual animals. So how do you see the right balance between these two, habitat protection and individual animals’ welfare?

与此相关，我认为当前的治理，特别是环境治理——大多数动物都在其管理之下——其重点通常是保护栖息地或生态系统，而不是个体动物的福祉。从政策角度看，我认为许多人可能会说，保护栖息地看起来更实际。它也可能为所有不同种类的动物提供更多的保护，即使个体福祉不是关注的中心。但它有时会忽视个体动物的苦难。那么，你如何看待这两者之间的正确平衡——栖息地保护和个体动物的福祉？

Oscar Horta：(39:08) Yeah, so there is this common misconception. When we are thinking of wild animals, we are looking at these groups. So instead of seeing animals as sentient individuals, they are just seen as members of species or as parts of ecosystems. And this is wrong, because ecosystems or species can’t suffer; it’s individuals that suffer. So that’s an important confusion to be clarified. By defending one thing, we’re not necessarily defending the other because they’re two different things.

是的，这里有一个常见的误解。就是当我们思考野生动物时，我们看待的是这些群体。所以，人们不是把动物看作有情个体，而是仅仅看作物种的成员或生态系统的一部分。这是错误的，因为生态系统或物种不会感到痛苦，是个体会感到痛苦。所以这是一个需要澄清的重要混淆。捍卫一件事，我们不一定就在捍卫另一件事，因为它们是两回事。

But then, of course, you can think, “Well, maybe even if they’re different things—one is about groups, another is about individuals, and we should only care about individuals—it just so happens that when you protect species or ecosystems, you are also protecting individuals, because individuals are members of those ecosystems. When you are protecting their habitats, the places where they live, you are protecting them.” This is an assumption that is actually wrong.

但当然，你可能会想：“好吧，即使它们是不同的东西——一个是关于群体，一个是关于个体，而我们只应该关心个体——但当你保护物种或生态系统时，你也在保护个体，因为个体是这些生态系统的一员。当你保护它们的栖息地，它们生活的地方时，你也在保护它们。”这其实是一个错误的假设。

If your focus is on protecting species, you may do things like breeding animals in captivity, which is very, very bad for the animal. Or, for instance, another thing that has been done is relocating animals to restore certain ecosystems by capturing them from certain areas and releasing them into others. This may be very bad for those animals because they are kidnapped, so to speak. They are separated from their families and brought to somewhere they don’t know. They suffer a lot. For instance, this has happened with wolves, and it has been extremely harmful to them. And it’s also obviously harmful for the prey animals who used to have better lives. Now it’s not just that they’re killed; it’s also that they need to be careful not to be harmed. As a result, in areas where there are predators, animals’ nutrition is way worse because they need to be much more careful when they eat. So they typically lack nutrients that they might have more easily when they can eat safely, and their stress levels can also skyrocket. So it’s worse for the animals.

如果你的重点是保护物种，你可能会做一些事情，比如在圈养环境中繁殖动物，这对动物来说是非常非常糟糕的。或者，例如，已经做过的另一件事是重新安置动物，通过从某些地区捕捉动物并释放到其他地区来恢复某些生态系统。这对那些动物来说可能非常糟糕，因为牠们可以说是被绑架了，与家人分离，被带到一个牠们不认识的地方。牠们会遭受很多痛苦。例如，这种情况发生在狼身上，对狼的伤害极大。这显然也对被捕食的动物有害，牠们过去可能有更好的生活。现在不仅是牠们被捕食，而且牠们还需要小心翼翼，以免受到伤害。结果就是，在有捕食者的地区，动物的营养状况要差得多，因为牠们在进食时需要更加小心。所以牠们通常缺乏在安全进食时更容易获得的营养物质，压力水平也可能飙升。所以这对动物来说更糟。

And with habitat, it’s not totally clear either that habitat conservation is good or bad for animals. This may come as a surprise to many people, but in some cases, it can be good, and in other cases, it can be bad. Why is that? Well, because it’s not that the welfare of animals is always great in the wild. Sometimes animals suffer a lot due to factors like disease, parasitism, hostile weather conditions, accidents, conflicts, etc. So suppose that animals are present in a certain area and you allow them to expand to an adjacent area, which is at the fringe of where they live. And suppose this area has slightly different environmental conditions. It is the case that these conditions typically vary from one year to another. Environmental conditions are not always stable. The temperature changes, the weather is not the same from one year to another; the level of humidity, light, and salinity may also vary.

对于栖息地，栖息地保护对动物是好是坏也并不完全清楚。这对许多人来说可能会感到惊讶。但在某些情况下，它可能是有益的，在另一些情况下，它可能是有害的。为什么呢？因为野生动物的福祉并非总是很好。有时动物会遭受很多痛苦，比如由于疾病、寄生、恶劣天气、事故、冲突等等。假设动物原来存在于某个区域，你让牠们能够扩展到邻近的区域，那是在牠们生活范围的边缘。再假设，这个区域的环境条件有点不同。事实是，这些条件通常每年都会变化。环境条件并非总是稳定的。温度会变，天气每年都不同；湿度、光照、盐度也可能变化。

As a result of this, animals who live on the fringe of their range typically suffer a lot. They may just completely disappear from one year to the next. So expanding the habitat there isn’t necessarily going to be helpful for animals. It is probably just going to make the proportion of suffering for many animals unbearable. You’re going to be increasing the overall suffering of animals. You are also going to be increasing the number of animals who have lives that contain more suffering than pleasure—the number of animals who have terrible lives. And these are many animals. You need to take into account that most animals reproduce by laying very, very large numbers of offspring, like eggs. Some animals may lay thousands or millions of eggs.

结果就是，生活在牠们活动范围边缘的动物，通常会遭受很多痛苦。牠们可能一年之内就完全消失了。所以，扩展那里的栖息地并不会对动物有帮助，反而很可能让许多动物的痛苦比例达到无法承受的程度。你将增加动物的整体痛苦。而且，你也将增加那些生命中痛苦多于快乐的动物的数量——增加那些生活极其糟糕的动物的数量。而这些动物数量非常多。你需要考虑到，大多数动物是通过产下非常非常大量的后代（比如卵）来繁殖的。一些动物可能产下数千甚至数百万个卵。

And of course, we don’t see animal populations growing exponentially. Sometimes they do, but typically if you have stable populations, what happens is that only one per parent will survive and make it to maturity. Most of them die shortly after coming into existence in their juvenile states. As a result, they may endure the suffering of death but don’t have time to enjoy positive experiences in the process leading to their death. So that’s why you should be very, very careful in assuming that what may be better for conservation is going to be better for the well-being of animals. Sometimes it is, but in many cases, it’s not.

当然，我们不会看到动物种群呈指数级增长。有时会，但通常如果你有稳定的动物种群，发生的情况是，每个亲代只有一个后代能存活并长到成年。大多数在出生后不久的幼年阶段就死去了。结果就是，牠们可能忍受了死亡的痛苦，但在导致死亡的过程中没有时间享受积极的体验。所以，这就是为什么你应该非常非常小心，不要假设对保护有利的事情就一定对动物的福祉有利。有时是，但在很多情况下不是。

Q： So we have just been talking about the tension between focusing on habitats and focusing on individuals. And that also connects to a bigger debate in political philosophy and political theory. For example, Zoopolis, which has been recently translated and published in China, argues that animals can be seen as part of our political communities with rights of citizenship or sovereignty, for example, and should be included in our decision-making processes as political agents.

我们刚刚谈到了关注栖息地和关注个体之间的张力。这也联系到了政治哲学、政治理论中一个更大的辩论。例如，《动物城邦》（Zoopolis）——这本书最近在中国翻译出版了——它认为动物可以被视为我们政治共同体的一部分，拥有公民权或主权等权利，并应作为政治行动者被纳入我们的决策过程。

And your work has been more cautious about this, as far as I know, in one of your earlier papers, especially with regards to wild animals. You argue against the sovereignty conceptualization of Will Kymlicka’s model, and you emphasize that we still have obligations to intervene. So how do you see the limits of the Zoopolis approach, and what’s different about your perspective?

而你的工作，据我所知，在早前的一篇论文中，对此持更谨慎的态度，特别是关于野生动物。你反对威尔·金里卡（Will Kymlicka）模型中的主权概念化，并强调我们仍然有干预的义务。那么，你如何看待《动物城邦》（Zoopolis）方法的局限性？你的观点有何不同？

Oscar Horta： Yeah, so to start with, I’m not very happy with the nation-state approach, even when it comes to human beings, because I think that all human beings should count the same. I don’t think I have the slightest reason to care more for someone who lives a kilometer from where I am than for someone who lives in China. It’s not that I shouldn’t care so much more, as many people do, for others who live close to them. No, I don’t think I should care an inch, a centimeter, a millimeter more for someone who lives 100 meters from here than I should for anyone living anywhere else in the world. And this applies to human beings. As a result of that, I’m not happy with that model being applied to non-human animals either.

是的，首先，我不太满意民族国家这种模式，即使是对于人类。因为我认为所有人都应该被同等看待。我认为我没有任何理由更关心一个住在我一公里外的人，胜过关心一个住在中国的人。不是说我不应该像很多人那样更关心住在身边的人，不，我认为我不应该多关心一寸、一厘米、一毫米住在我100米外的人，胜过世界上任何地方的任何人。这对人类适用。因此，我也不满意将这种模式应用于非人类动物。

I think that sentience is all that matters, and we should care for all sentient beings. We shouldn’t be raising these barriers between sentient beings. And these barriers, which I think shouldn’t apply in the case of human beings, become very problematic when raised in the case of other sentient beings—especially when we think that in their case, things are going to work like we’ve been assuming they work in Westphalian scenarios in the case of human nations.

我认为，感知能力（sentience）才是一切的关键。我们应该关心所有有情众生，不应该在有情众生之间设置这些障碍。这些障碍，我认为在人类的情况下都不应该适用，而在其他有情众生的情况下设置它们，问题就更大了。尤其是认为在它们的情况下，事情会像我们一直假设的那样运作，就像在关于人类国家的“威斯特伐利亚”情景中那样。

In addition to this, there are many, many non-human animals who do form political communities. I don’t know, maybe elephants, though I don’t think they are like nations among humans that are distinct. But then there are many non-human animals who don’t form nations, and they deserve the same respect. Again, the concept of a “political community” is probably not the best one to address what happens in their case.

此外，有很多很多非人类动物确实形成了政治共同体。我不知道，也许大象是，虽然我不认为它们像人类国家那样是不同的。但还有很多非人类动物不形成国家，它们也应该得到同等的尊重。而且，“政治共同体”这个概念可能不是处理它们情况的最佳方式。

Furthermore, I guess this distinction between domesticated animals, wild animals that don’t live close to human beings, and wild animals like liminal animals (as they are called, these synanthropic animals who live closer to human beings) is not one that I would consider relevant. I think our obligations towards them shouldn’t vary in strength; they should be equally strong. Even though their interests and what we need to do to help them may be different, I think we should not be harming anyone and we should be helping them all, not just helping those that are domesticated or those that live close to us.

除此之外，我认为这种区分——驯养动物、不住在人类附近的野生动物，以及像“边缘动物”（liminal animals）那样住在人类附近的共生动物（synanthropic animals）——我并不认为这种区分是相关的。因为我认为我们对它们的义务在强度上不应该有所不同，我认为应该同样强烈。尽管它们的利益和我们需要为帮助它们所做的事情可能不同，但我认为我们不应该伤害任何一个个体，并且应该帮助所有个体，而不仅仅是帮助那些被驯养的或住在我们附近的。

Q：Well, thank you. I am not going to engage in a very extensive debate about defending their framework, but I do see where you’re coming from. So before we wrap up, I want to bring up, I want to bring in something you have written about also a few years ago, maybe. We have touched on this in a past episode, the idea of second-order discrimination. I don’t know if you still remember. So basically the idea that vegans are being discriminated for standing up against the discrimination of animals, standing up against speciesism.

So it’s not just the suffering of animals that weighs on many vegans, but also the misunderstanding or even hostility we sometimes face from the wider society. It can take a real toll on our mental health. (49:13) So as someone who has been engaging this movement for a really long time, do you have any advice or strategies you use yourself, ways to stay resilient, keep perspective, cope with stress, and especially given how daunting the future for animals can feel?

好的，谢谢。我不会就他们的框架展开一场广泛的辩护性辩论，但我理解你的出发点。在我们结束之前，我想提一个你几年前也写过的东西，我们之前的一期节目也谈到过，就是“二阶歧视”（second-order discrimination）这个概念。我不知道你是否还记得。基本上就是说，vegan因为站出来反对对动物的歧视、反对物种歧视而受到歧视。

所以，压在许多vegan身上的不仅是动物的苦难，还有我们有时从更广泛的社会中面临的误解甚至敌意。这可能对我们的心理健康造成真正的伤害。作为一个在这个运动中参与了很长时间的人，你有什么建议或自己使用的策略吗？比如，如何保持韧性、保持视角、应对压力，特别是考虑到动物的未来看起来是如此令人望而生畏？

Oscar Horta： To be honest, I don’t. I don’t find it that difficult. No, I just don’t harm animals, and I’m used to not harming them. I don’t find it difficult at all. I would find it very difficult to harm animals, actually. So it’s like a second skin to me, and I don’t really think that much about it. It’s true that sometimes people can be nasty, and sometimes people can be discouraging. For instance, this is something that many people have asked me: “You know, I have this friend or relative, and I’ve been trying to explain everything to them. I’ve told them everything they do to animals, I’ve even shown them a video, I’ve explained all the arguments, and they won’t change. What can I do to make them change?”

说实话，我没有。我不觉得这有多难。不，我只是不伤害动物，而且我已经习惯了不伤害动物。我一点也不觉得难。实际上，我会觉得伤害动物非常难。这对我来说就像第二层皮肤。我真的不怎么想这件事。确实，有时人们可能很刻薄，有时人们可能很打击人。例如，很多人问过我这个问题：“哦，你知道，我有个朋友或亲戚，我一直试图向他们解释一切。我告诉了他们所有对动物做的事情，我甚至给他们看了视频，解释了所有的论点，但他们就是不改变。我能做什么来让他们改变？”

And the answer is: nothing. They are not going to change if they haven’t already. What you should do is stop insisting, stop caring. Try to convince someone else. That would be a much better use of your time, and it won’t make you so unhappy, right? And that’s what I do. For instance, I have relatives. I have relatives who went vegan, and I have relatives who didn’t go vegan, and they are not going to go vegan. So, yeah, I don’t spend my time trying to change them. I spend my time trying to change other people around me.

答案是：什么也做不了。如果他们之前没改变，他们是不会改变的。你应该做的是停止坚持，别再管了。试着去说服别人。那会更好地利用你的时间，也不会让你那么不开心，对吧？我就是这么做的。例如，我有亲戚，有些成了 vegan，有些没有，而且他们也不会成为 vegan。所以，是的，我不会花时间试图改变他们。我花时间去改变周围的其他人。

And then, something else is that the way in which we deal with nasty people may be different depending on our character. But you shouldn’t stand for bad people. So whenever someone is nasty to you, whenever someone makes a joke, if you don’t need to put up with them, don’t. It’s like, “Okay, whatever. Don’t care about those people.” You don’t have the obligation to care for people who are hurting you in this way and who are hurting animals, right? You may sometimes choose to be patient in certain contexts when there are other people around and you are doing advocacy. And maybe in that moment, making the other person look like an idiot while your argument seems reasonable requires some patience. So, you do it.

然后，另一件事是，我们如何应对那些刻薄的人，可能会因我们的性格而异。但你不应该容忍坏人。每当有人对你刻薄，每当有人开玩笑，如果你不需要忍受他们，就不要忍受。就好像：“哦，好吧，随便。别管那些人。”你没有义务去关心那些伤害你、伤害动物的人，对吧？有时，在某些情境下，当有其他人在场而你在做倡导时，你可能会选择保持耐心。也许在那一刻，为了让对方看起来像个傻瓜而你的论点显得很合理，这需要一些耐心。是的，那就做吧。

For the rest, this feeling of being alone, that there are no other people around you who share your ideas—well, I can see how for some people that’s hard. But then I suggest that you think of all the other people who really are activists, who are thinking just like you, who are out there all around the world—in China or wherever people are listening to this. So you can get connected with those people, and maybe that can help. And even when you are not directly speaking with them, just the awareness that you are part of something bigger can be very helpful as well.

至于其他时候，那种感觉你很孤独，周围没有其他人认同你的想法……我能理解这对一些人来说很难。但那我建议你，想想所有其他真正的行动者，那些想法和你完全一样的人，他们有很多，遍布世界各地——在中国，或者任何在听这个节目的人所在的地方。你可以和那些人建立联系，也许那会有帮助。即使你没有直接和他们交谈，仅仅是意识到你是更大集体的一部分，这本身也会很有帮助。

But yeah, I’m sorry that I can’t really come up with great suggestions for this. I guess I’m better at speaking about the things that I know more about. There are other people who are much more knowledgeable about this than I am. And I guess the only thing I can say is that for people who find it hard when they start with veganism, it will become easier and easier. And at some point, you just don’t care. It’s great. As you age, it gets way easier, and it doesn’t affect you that much.

但是，是的，我很抱歉我无法在这方面提出什么很好的建议。我猜我更擅长谈论我更了解的其他事情。有其他人在这方面比我知识渊博得多。我猜我唯一能说的是，对于那些刚开始维根主义时觉得困难的人来说，这会变得越来越容易。到某个时候，你就根本不在乎了。这很棒。随着年龄的增长，是的，会容易得多，也不会那么影响你了。

Q：Right. “I’ve seen it all”, basically. On that positive note, I guess it’s a good timing for us to end our conversation. But before we end, is there anything, Oscar, you would like to plug? Maybe if you have any final remark or places that you can tell us listeners where they can follow your work and learn more about your projects, what you’re doing.

是的，基本上就是“什么都见过了”。以这个积极的调子，我想现在是结束我们对话的好时机了。但在结束前，Oscar，你有什么想宣传的吗？也许你有什么最后的评论，或者可以告诉我们的听众在哪里可以关注你的工作，了解更多关于你的项目和你正在做的事情？

Oscar Horta：Yeah, so I guess I would suggest that rather than following me, people can take a look at the Animal Ethics website, which is available in a bunch of languages, and they can read it in Chinese. Well, I mean, currently with translators, it’s very easy; they could just read the content by translating it from English. But yeah, there is a bunch of material there. And again, I would encourage people to get more informed about wild animal suffering. They can just do some internet searches for this. There is a book that has not been translated into Chinese, but it’s available in English. It’s called Introduction to Wild Animal Suffering.

是的，我建议大家与其关注我个人，不如去看看“动物伦理”（Animal Ethics）网站。它有很多种语言版本，他们可以用中文阅读。嗯，现在有了翻译工具，也很容易，他们可以直接翻译英文内容。但那里有很多资料。我再次鼓励大家更多地了解野生动物的苦难。他们可以在网上搜索一下。有一本书叫《野生动物苦难导论》（Introduction to Wild Animal Suffering），虽然还没有翻译成中文，但有英文版。

Then, AI is important. They can also look for information about this. One site they can look at is that of Sentient Futures, who work on this. They can also look at the work of Tse Yip Fai, who is a great researcher from Hong Kong.I mean, awesome.

然后，人工智能很重要。他们也可以查找这方面的信息。一个可以看的网站是“有情未来”（Sentient Futures），他们从事这方面的工作。他们也可以看看謝業輝（Tse Yip Fai）的工作，他是香港一位非常优秀的学者。

Q：Yeah，shout out to Fai.

是的，为Fai 点赞！

Oscar Horta：Yeah, I mean, but yeah, I mean, he’s leading the way, actually. He’s the leading person all around the world in this regard. And yeah, you can read what he has been coming up with. And you can also get informed with, you know, more about invertebrate farming, which is very, very problematic. There is a possibility that in the future, animal farming will be something of the past because, you know, alternative proteins will, you know, eventually prevail. But invertebrate proteins are a big threat to this. We should be very wary of this.

And then finally, something that I would strongly recommend to all our listeners is to continue to listen to this podcast and to be in touch with the amazing work. Really, really amazing work that Jojo and Joslyn and. I’m probably pronouncing your name very bad, because these are amazing people who are pioneering work on this. I can’t stress sufficiently how much I admire their work and also how much I admire the work of all other pioneers in China. I mentioned already a few people like Fai, like Professor Wu, but there are many others. Many of them, I’ve met them in this trip.

And yeah, I would just say this, keep on the great work, don’t give up. And yeah, let’s make the world a better place.

是的，我的意思是，他实际上是引领者。他是在这方面全世界的领军人物。是的，你可以读读他的成果。你也可以更多地了解无脊椎动物养殖，这个问题非常非常严重。未来，动物养殖有可能成为过去，因为替代蛋白最终会胜出。但无脊椎动物蛋白对此是一个巨大的威胁。我们应该对此非常警惕。

最后，我强烈推荐给所有听众的一件事，就是继续收听这个播客，并关注Jojo和Q（我可能把你的名字念错了）所做的了不起的工作，真的非常了不起。这些了不起的人正在开创这方面的工作。我无法足够地强调我有多么钦佩她们的工作，以及我多么钦佩中国所有其他先行者的工作。我已经提到了几个人，比如Fai，比如郭教授，但还有很多其他人。这次旅行中我见到了他们中的许多人。

是的，我就想说这些：继续做伟大的工作，不要放弃。是的，让我们把世界变得更美好。

Q：Thank you. Thank you, Oscar. Thank you so much for giving a shout out to our podcast and also our friends. And thank you again for joining us on Slightly Tofu. and we really appreciate your generosity with your time and the chance to talk through so many important issues.

谢谢。谢谢你，Oscar。非常感谢你为我们的播客和朋友们发声。再次感谢你参加我们的《Slightly Tofu》节目。我们非常感谢你慷慨地抽出时间，让我们有机会探讨这么多重要的问题。

Oscar Horta：Likewise, thank you.

彼此彼此，谢谢你们。

Jojo：Yeah, thank you for your time.

是的，感谢你的时间。

名词参考

• Wild Animal Suffering / 野生动物的痛苦：这个概念挑战了传统环保主义只关注物种和生态系统的视角，转而关注野生个体动物因饥饿、疾病、捕食、寄生虫和恶劣天气等自然因素所承受的巨大痛苦。它要求我们重新思考人类是否以及如何干预自然，以减轻这些痛苦。
• Long-termism / 长期主义：这是一种伦理视角，强调我们不仅要对当下的动物负责，更要对未来可能存在的、数量极其庞大的后代动物的福祉负责。这个框架促使我们思考今天的决策将如何影响未来千百万年人与非人动物的生存状态。
• AI and Animal Ethics / 人工智能与动物伦理：随着AI技术的发展，它可能被用于优化动物养殖（加剧剥削），也可能被用于监测和帮助野生动物。更深远的风险在于，我们可能会在AI系统中锁定物种歧视的偏见，使其在未来被无限放大。如何确保AI的发展对动物有利，是一个紧迫的前沿问题。
• Directed Panspermia / Terraforming / S-Risk/ 定向泛种论 / 地球化：指的是将地球生命（包括动物）有意地散播到其他星球。其巨大的伦理风险在于，我们可能不仅传播了生命，更是在宇宙尺度上复制和传播了地球上野生动物所经历的巨大痛苦，这被称为 S-Risk。
• Synthetic Biology & Gene Drive / 合成生物学与基因驱动：这些技术允许我们创造全新的生命形式或通过基因驱动快速改变整个物种的基因库。这带来了前所未有的伦理问题，例如，我们是否会创造出承受新型痛苦的动物？改变一个物种的基因是否会引发不可预见的生态灾难和动物痛苦？
• Rewilding / 再野化：指的是将某个区域已灭绝的物种（如狼、熊等）重新引入其原生栖息地，以恢复生态系统。这在伦理上充满争议，因为它虽然有益于生态，但会给被重新引入的动物（面临适应压力）和当地的食草动物（面临新的捕食者）带来直接的痛苦和死亡。
• Relocation /（动物）迁移：作为「再野化」或解决人与动物冲突的一种手段，迁移指的是将动物从一个地方捕捉并转移到另一个地方。这个过程本身会给动物带来巨大的生理和心理压力，甚至导致死亡，因此其伦理合理性备受质疑。
• Invertebrate & Insect Farming / 无脊椎动物与昆虫养殖：随着人们寻找可持续蛋白质，昆虫和其它无脊椎动物的规模化养殖正在兴起。这是一个前沿议题，因为这些动物的感知能力（sentience）长期被忽视，而它们的养殖数量可能达到万亿级别，有可能在未来制造出比现有工厂化养殖规模大得多的痛苦。

参考文献

• Horta, O. (2010). What is speciesism?. Journal of agricultural and environmental ethics, 23(3), 243-266.
• Horta, O. (2017). Animal suffering in nature: The case for intervention. Environmental Ethics, 39(3), 261-279.
• Horta, O. (2013). Zoopolis, interventions and the State of Nature. Law, Ethics and Philosophy, 113-125.
• Horta, O. (2018). Discrimination against vegans. Res Publica, 24(3), 359-373.
• Singer, P., & Tse, Y. F. (2023). AI ethics: The case for including animals. AI and Ethics, 3(2), 539-551.

• Previous
  【豆腐两岸】Vol.02 动物权利和植物肉是「西方阴谋」？