Tuesday, December 17, 2024

Stephen Fry on the pleasure of language





Before listening / watching

1. What is an Anglophone?
2. What is wrong with saying "five items or less"? Why do you think supermarkets use this anyway?
3. What's the difference between "to infer" and "to imply"?
4. What is a pedantic person like?
5. Who was Oscar Wilde? Why do people often quote his sayings?
6. Which is correct: "none of them are of importance" or "none of them is of importance"? Does it matter?
7. What can you do with an apostrophe?
8. Which were these people? Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Monet, Mahler, Baudelaire.
9. Can you think of an example of a noun that we also use as a verb?



After listening

1. What, according to Stephen Fry, is the wrong way to bother with language?
2. What did Oscar Wilde tell his editors to do? What does Stephen want us to infer from this?
3. What do  Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Monet, Mahler, Baudelaire all have in common according to Stephen Fry?
4. What is the 'proper' sense of the word disinterested?
5. Who was really good at turning nouns into verbs?
6. What's the similarity between how we dress for different situations and how we use language?
7. " Context, convention and circumstance are all." What doers Stephen Fry mean by this?





Watch read listen enjoy:

Stephen Fry on the pleasure of language

Transcript:

For me, it is a cause of some upset that more Anglophones don’t enjoy language. Music is enjoyable it seems, so are dance and other, athletic forms of movement. People seem to be able to find ________ and ________ pleasure in almost anything _______ words these days. Words, it seems belong to other people, anyone who expresses themselves with originality, delight and _______ freshness is more likely to be mocked, ________ or disliked ______ welcomed. The free and happy ________ of words appears to be considered elitist or ________. Sadly, _________ sadly, the only people who seem to bother with language in public today bother with it in _______ the wrong way. They write letters to broadcasters and newspapers in which they are rude and haughty about other people’s ______ and in which they show off their own _________ ‘knowledge’ of how language should be. I hate that, and I _________ hate the fact that so many of these pedants assume that I’m on their side. When asked to join in a “let’s persuade this supermarket chain to get rid of their ‘five items or less’ sign” I never join in. Yes, I am aware of the _________ distinction between ‘less’ and ‘fewer’, and between ‘uninterested’ and ‘__________’ and ‘infer’ and ‘_____’, but none of these are of importance to me. ‘None of these _____ of importance,’ I wrote there, you’ll notice – the old pedantic me would have insisted on “none of them ____ of importance”.

Well I’m glad to say I’ve outgrown that silly approach to language. Oscar Wilde, and there have been few greater and more complete lords of language in the past thousand years, once included with a manuscript he was delivering to his publishers a compliment slip in ______ he had scribbled the ________: “I’ll leave you to tidy up the woulds and shoulds, wills and shalls, thats and whiches &c.” Which gives us all encouragement to feel less guilty, don’t you think?

There are all kinds of _______ around with more time to read and imitate Lynne Truss and John Humphrys than to write poems, love-letters, novels and stories it seems. They whip out their Sharpies  and take away and add apostrophes from public signs, shake their heads at prepositions which end sentences and mutter at split infinitives and _________, but do they bubble and froth and slobber and cream with joy at language? Do they ever let the tripping of the tips of their tongues against the tops of their teeth ________ them to giddy euphoric _____? Do they ever yoke impossible words together for the sound-sex of it? Do they use language to seduce, charm, excite, please, affirm and tickle those they talk to? Do they? I doubt it. They’re too farting busy _______ at a greengrocer’s less than perfect use of the apostrophe. Well sod them to ______. They think they’re guardians of language. They’re _____ more guardians of language ______ the Kennel Club is the guardian of dogkind.

The worst of this sorry bunch of semi-educated losers are those who seem to glory in being irritated by nouns becoming verbs. How dense and deaf to language development do you have to ________? If you don’t like nouns becoming verbs, then for heaven’s sake avoid Shakespeare _______ made a doing-word out of a thing-word every chance he _______. He TABLED the motion and CHAIRED the meeting in which nouns were made verbs. New examples from our time might take some _______ used to: ‘He actioned it that day’ for instance might strike some as a verbing too _____, but we have been sanctioning, __________, propositioning and stationing for a long time, so why not ‘action’? ‘Because it’s ugly,’ whinge the pedants. It’s only ugly because it’s new and you don’t like it. Ugly in the way Picasso, Stravinsky and Eliot were once __________ ugly and before them Monet, Mahler and Baudelaire.

Pedants will also claim, with what I am sure is eye-popping insincerity and shameless __________, that their fight is only for ‘clarity’. This is all ________ well, but there is no doubt what ‘Five items or less’ means, just as only a dolt can’t tell from the context and from the age and education of the speaker, whether ‘disinterested’ is used in the ‘proper’ sense of non-partisan, or in the ‘improper’ sense of _________. No, the claim to be defending language for the sake of clarity almost never, ever holds ______. ________ does the idea that following grammatical rules in language demonstrates clarity of thought and intelligence of mind.

Having said this, I admit that if you want to communicate well for the sake of passing an exam or job interview, then it is obvious that ______ original and excessively heterodox language could land you in the soup. I think what offends examiners and employers when confronted with extremely informalunpunctuated and haywire language is the __________ of not caring that underlies it. You slip into a suit for an interview and you dress your language up too. You can wear what you like linguistically or sartorially when you’re at home or with friends, but most people accept the need to _______ up under some ____________ – it’s only considerate. But that is an issue of fitness, of _________, it has nothing to do with correctness. There no right language or wrong language any _________ than are right or wrong clothes. Context, convention and circumstance are all.


Transcript:

For me, it is a cause of some upset that more Anglophones don’t enjoy language. Music is enjoyable it seems, so are dance and other, athletic forms of movement. People seem to be able to find sensual and sensuous pleasure in almost anything but words these days. Words, it seems belong to other people, anyone who expresses themselves with originality, delight and verbal freshness is more likely to be mocked, distrusted or disliked than welcomed. The free and happy use of words appears to be considered elitist or pretentious. Sadly, desperately sadly, the only people who seem to bother with language in public today bother with it in quite the wrong way. They write letters to broadcasters and newspapers in which they are rude and haughty about other people’s usage and in which they show off their own superior ‘knowledge’ of how language should be. I hate that, and I particularly hate the fact that so many of these pedants assume that I’m on their side. When asked to join in a “let’s persuade this supermarket chain to get rid of their ‘five items or less’ sign” I never join in. Yes, I am aware of the technical distinction between ‘less’ and ‘fewer’, and between ‘uninterested’ and ‘disinterested’ and ‘infer’ and ‘imply’, but none of these are of importance to me. ‘None of these are of importance,’ I wrote there, you’ll notice – the old pedantic me would have insisted on “none of them is of importance”.

Well I’m glad to say I’ve outgrown that silly approach to language. Oscar Wilde, and there have been few greater and more complete lords of language in the past thousand years, once included with a manuscript he was delivering to his publishers a compliment slip in which he had scribbled the injunction: “I’ll leave you to tidy up the woulds and shoulds, wills and shalls, thats and whiches &c.” Which gives us all encouragement to feel less guilty, don’t you think?

There are all kinds of pedants around with more time to read and imitate Lynne Truss and John Humphrys than to write poems, love-letters, novels and stories it seems. They whip out their Sharpies and take away and add apostrophes from public signs, shake their heads at prepositions which end sentences and mutter at split infinitives and misspellings, but do they bubble and froth and slobber and cream with joy at language? Do they ever let the tripping of the tips of their tongues against the tops of their teeth transport them to giddy euphoric bliss? Do they ever yoke impossible words together for the sound-sex of it? Do they use language to seduce, charm, excite, please, affirm and tickle those they talk to? Do they? I doubt it. They’re too farting busy sneering at a greengrocer’s less than perfect use of the apostrophe. Well sod them to Hades. They think they’re guardians of language. They’re no more guardians of language than the Kennel Club is the guardian of dogkind.

The worst of this sorry bunch of semi-educated losers are those who seem to glory in being irritated by nouns becoming verbs. How dense and deaf to language development do you have to be? If you don’t like nouns becoming verbs, then for heaven’s sake avoid Shakespeare who made a doing-word out of a thing-word every chance he got. He TABLED the motion and CHAIRED the meeting in which nouns were made verbs. New examples from our time might take some getting used to: ‘He actioned it that day’ for instance might strike some as a verbing too far, but we have been sanctioning, envisioning, propositioning and stationing for a long time, so why not ‘action’? ‘Because it’s ugly,’ whinge the pedants. It’s only ugly because it’s new and you don’t like it. Ugly in the way Picasso, Stravinsky and Eliot were once thought ugly and before them Monet, Mahler and Baudelaire.

Pedants will also claim, with what I am sure is eye-popping insincerity and shameless disingenuousness, that their fight is only for ‘clarity’. This is all very well, but there is no doubt what ‘Five items or less’ means, just as only a dolt can’t tell from the context and from the age and education of the speaker, whether ‘disinterested’ is used in the ‘proper’ sense of non-partisan, or in the ‘improper’ sense of uninterested. No, the claim to be defending language for the sake of clarity almost never, ever holds water. Nor does the idea that following grammatical rules in language demonstrates clarity of thought and intelligence of mind.

 Having said this, I admit that if you want to communicate well for the sake of passing an exam or job interview, then it is obvious that wildly original and excessively heterodox language could land you in the soup. I think what offends examiners and employers when confronted with extremely informal, unpunctuated and haywire language is the implication of not caring that underlies it. You slip into a suit for an interview and you dress your language up too. You can wear what you like linguistically or sartorially when you’re at home or with friends, but most people accept the need to smarten up under some circumstances – it’s only considerate. But that is an issue of fitness, of suitability, it has nothing to do with correctness. There no right language or wrong language any more than are right or wrong clothes. Context, convention and circumstance are all.

The Epic Split Feat


Watch Jean-Claude Van Damme carry out his famous split between two reversing trucks.


Discuss this ad in terms of Logos, Pathos, and Ethos


Dictation

Try to write down verbatim what van Damme says:

I've...



                                                                                                       ...splits.



Try writing the words to the song too.

Who.....


                                                                                                     ....time




Watch the ad without sound

Try to describe it in as much detail as possible


Discuss the music




The Epic Split Feat

What is the "ETHOS" of this ad?

What is the brand Volvo's point of difference?

Who are Volvo's potential customers? Where do they live? What do they use their cars for?

Who. which car brand, is Volvo's competition?

What might put people off buying a Volvo?

How does this ad take attention away from any negative associations Volvo might have as a brand?






Jonny Depp ad for Dior

1. What is the product?

2. What kind of people might buy or use this product?

3. What “ethos” is emphasised in the ad?

4. Why do you think the advertiser chose this ethos?

 

 

Pierce Brosnan Kia Ad

 

1.      1. What is the product?

2.      2. What kind of people might buy or use this product?

3.      3. What “ethos” is emphasised in the ad?

4.      4. Why do you think the advertiser chose this ethos?

 

Extension

 

1.      How does the ad use female stereotypes?

2.      What are the two males in the ad like? What are the two females like?

 

Quick Demographic Facts About Kia Car Owners

 

Kia car buyers in the United States are primarily male (56%) and between the ages of 18 and 54 (91%). The majority of Kia car buyers are White (60%) and have a Bachelor’s degree (33%). In terms of income, 40% of Kia car buyers make between $50,000 and $100,000 annually.

 

Discuss the demographic facts about Kia cars in relation to the ad.



Ethos - Jonny Depp - Dior


(Intermediate) 400-year-old Shark



Scientists say they have found a Greenland shark that is about 400 years old - making it the longest-living vertebrate known.

Quick video:

400-year-old shark


Match:

The longest living
The pilgrims landing
Slave
maiden
The transmission of the first
to land
the sinking
the first nonstop
the founding of 
The First sightings

 transatlantic telegraph

 voyage
through the Great Atlantic Cable
traders
of the North Atlantic garbage patch.
solo flight across the Atlantic
on Plymouth Rock.
on U.S soil
the UN
of the Titanic
vertebrate in the world



10 min Radio interview:

The shark that lives to over 300 years old

Guardian article:

Guardian article on the shark





Sunday, December 15, 2024

Animal telepathy

What is the lizard feeling?
Image result for smiling reptile







What is the dog feeling?

Image result for smiling animal





1. How is each animal feeling?

2. One is a mammal and the other is a reptile: what’s the difference mentally and emotionally between these?

3. Can a reptile feel sad, happy, interested, curious?


4. Love, gratitude, curiosity, loneliness, friendship, fear, anger, envy, sadness, joy



Which of these emotions can a crocodile feel?



What's the difference, mentally, between a mammal and a reptile? 

Are there any highly intelligent reptiles? Can reptiles feel love?


1. How did Chito find the crocodile?

2.  How did he make friends with it?

3.  What happened when Chito released the crocodile?







1. What is the world of an elephant like? What makes it different from the world of a human?
2. What is the would of a goldfish like? What kind of awareness does it have?
3. What is the world of a 500-year-old shark like? (yes, they do actually exist) Is it aware of its age?
4. What is the world of a dragonfly like? What is it able to experience?
5. Do we as humans all live in roughly the same world?
6. Here's an interesting conundrum:

Do humans have multiple points of view of a shared reality, or does society impose a shared view of different multiple realities? 

Discuss the ancient Chinese parable of Zhuangzi's Dream

"Zhuangzi dreamed he was a butterfly, happy and doing as he pleased, unaware that he was Zhuangzi. When he woke up, he didn't know if he was Zhuangzi who dreamed he was a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he was Zhuangzi."


There are many situations that only humans can understand - but are there any emotions that only humans can feel?


Think about these creatures

elephants     mice     dogs     cats    snakes      butterflies       tigers       eagles

What emotions can they feel?

guilt
anger
pride
love
fear
joy
boredom
despair
hope
shame
jealousy
humour
gratitude
insignificance
curiousity


Think about the same emotions again, this time compare how adults and children might experience these emotions differently.








Image result for animal telepathy sheldrake

1. What's special about parrots?

2. What are the armchair explanations given for this kind of animal behaviour?

3. What actually are the findings of these experiments?

4. Have you personally experienced a pet anticipating someone's arrival home?

5. Does the speaker seem credible to you?

6. If not telepathy, what is the explanation?

Animal Telepathy


More about the speaker and his ideas:

Undermines
Paranormal
Parapsychology
Conjecture
interconnections
pseudoscience
inconsistency


Alfred Rupert Sheldrake (born 28 June 1942) is an English author, and researcher in the field of ____________, who developed the concept of "morphic resonance".

Sheldrake's morphic resonance _________ posits that "memory is inherent in nature" and that "natural systems, such as termite colonies, or pigeons, or orchid plants, or insulin molecules, inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind". Sheldrake proposes that it is also responsible for "telepathy-type ___________ between organisms". His advocacy of the idea encompasses _________ subjects such as precognition, telepathy and the psychic staring effect as well as unconventional explanations of standard subjects in biology such as development, inheritance, and memory.

Morphic resonance is not accepted by the scientific community as a measurable phenomenon and Sheldrake's proposals relating to it have been characterised as __________. Critics cite a lack of evidence for morphic resonance and an __________ between the idea and data from genetics and embryology. They also express concern that popular attention paid to Sheldrake's books and public appearances _________ the public's understanding of science.


Does reading this make you more (or less) skeptical of the ideas in the video? Or do you think there might be something to the idea of morphic resonance?




Meat & Dairy Consumption and Climate Change

Image result for global fossil carbon emissions graph 2019


Discuss the graph. Why are C02 emissions going up?

Image result for methane emissions graph


Why are methane emissions going up? 




Image result for overview of greenhouse gases



Why worry about methane emissions when they're only %10 of the total emissions?


Image result for impact of farming new zealand




Part 1: Comprehension and vocabulary



Link:

George Monbiot: Ending Meat & Dairy Consumption Is Needed to Prevent Worst Impacts of Climate Change

2:08 - 3:38


George Monbiot is calling for a new revolution with a global shift to a plant-based diet. The British author and journalist is a columnist with The Guardian. His latest piece for The Guardian is headlined "The Earth Is In a Death Spiral - it will wake radical action to save us". He has written extensively on the link between animal farming and climate change, has himself switched to a plant-based diet."

What do these words mean - give a definition in your own words
existential
biodiversity
habitat
crisis
atmosphere
revegetate


Watch / listen and answer these questions
1. George prefers the term climate breakdown / climate change. 
2. Why does he prefer this term?
A) Because  it is more dramatic 
B) Because it is more honest
C) 
Because it is more unexpected
3. What does George mean by an "existential" crisis?
A) It threatens our existence 
B) It is too late to prevent it
C) 
It is caused by human activity
3. Removing _________ would free up land for revegetation.
A) carbon from the atmosphere
B) the destruction of soil
C) livestock
4. Which idea did George put the most emphasis on?
A) freeing up land for revegetation
B) stopping emissions
C) no longer using the term "climate change"
Discuss

1. What do you think of George's argument so far?

2. What do you think farmers would say to George?




3:38 - 4:28

Before listening
True or false?
1. 70% of our agricultural land is not used to grow food not for humans but for farm animals.
2. 40% of our diet is produced by farm animals.
3. Feeding livestock by grazing them is more sustainable than feeding them on grain.
4. Grazing livestock don't need very much land. 
Listen and check

Listen again for the figures

1. Amount of agricultural land livestock uses globally: %____

2. Percentage of our diet from livestock: %____

3. "a huge dirtionspropo" (unscramble)
4. "it's a fantastically astwuefl way of using land."

4:55-
2. To graze cattle you have to...

kill _________
exclude _________ 
wipe out _________, 
cause a radical fiiosicatmplin of the ecology.

3.Which negative effects of livestock farming does George mention:
destruction of coral reefs, polluting of water supply, bush fires, soil erosion, air pollution, low carbon holding capacity, flooding
4. "If you want to eat less soya, you should eat soya" - why does George say this?



Image result for soya




Part 2: Language focus

Skill: Linking and highlighting

Discuss

When you're trying to persuade someone to adopt your point of view, how do you make sure they get the points you're making and see how they add up?







George is a master of linking and highlighting his points. I have enlarged the language he uses to do this. It's not difficult language, but extremely useful and persuasive.




GEORGE MONBIOT: Well, it is not just that meat and dairy production make a huge contribution to climate breakdown. And I call it climate breakdown because calling it climate change is like calling an invading army "unexpected visitors". This is an existential crisis we face. Not just that it also contributes to much wider environmental breakdown, the collapse of biodiversity, the destruction of habitats, the destruction of soil and water resources. But it’s also that if we stop eating meat and dairy, we have an enormous potential then for sucking carbon out of the atmosphere. Because so much of the land which is currently occupied by livestock would revegetate if those livestock were removed. Trees could grow back, deep vegetation could grow back and in doing so, they suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and give us the best possible chance we have of preventing climate chaos and breakdown.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Can you explain, George, the amount of agricultural land that’s being used to produce food for the livestock—for the livestock and not for human beings—and why you think that’s especially injurious to the climate?
GEORGE MONBIOT: It’s quite remarkable, really. Livestock account for 83 percent of our agricultural land use, according to one study, and produce 18 percent of our diet. It is a huge disproportion. Now when you look specifically at grazing livestock, which people tend to assume is more environmentally friendly than feeding them on grain, it’s completely the opposite. It’s the worst possible option. Grazing livestock occupy twice as much land as all the arable and horticultural land put together, yet they provide just over one percent of our diet. It is a fantastically wasteful way of using land.
And in order to keep your livestock on that land, you have to exclude most other wildlife. You have to kill the predators. You have to exclude the competitors, the other herbivores, the wild ones. The livestock wipe out most of the trees because they eat the tree seedlings. The old trees die on their feet and they are not replaced. They wipe out the deep vegetation. They cause a radical simplification of the ecosystem. And as a result of all of that, where livestock are grazed, you end up with more or less a wildlife desert, very low carbon-holding capacity. Lots of damage downstream as well, as soil is eroded, as animal wastes go into the water supply. So doing it with the grazing route is very damaging.
Feeding them on grain is  also very damaging. The great majority of the soya plantations which are now devastating South America, wiping out the Gran Chaco dry forests, the Cerrado systems in Brazil, many of the forests around the edges of the Amazon basin—all being destroyed en masse for soya forming. The great majority of that soya goes into animal feed, such that if you want to eat less soya, you should eat soya. The reason being that there’s far more soya embedded in a lump of meat that has been produced in indoor agriculture than there is embedded in a lump of tofu.
Notice how linking phrases automatically highlight the information they link.

What other ways might you highlight something?










Suggestions

pausing before or after a key word, clause or sentence
amplifying an important word, clause or sentence through pitch, volume
Slowing or speeding up the pace to emphasise a point
repeating the same key word to drill it into people's heads 
repeating a stem word to clearly join different aspects of a general point (e.g. can + can + can + can, or do + do + do + etc) 
using emphatic sentence structures, such as cleft sentences and negative inversions
using emphatic adverbs like "ever" and "yet", also "absolutely", "unbelievably" etc to reinforce extreme adjectives
using deliberate understatement (irony)
using hyperbole (overstatement) and superlative
using emphatic, or extreme, or multiple adjectives (I'm absolutely delirious, thrilled, ecstatic to be part of the team.)
using emphatic punctuation (be careful here!!!) 
using short pithy sentences (i.e. "And that was that.")
Using chiasmus (ABBA structures - "It's nice to do it and to do it is nice.")



Let's review some of the linking structures:

GEORGE MONBIOT: Well, it is not ____ that meat and dairy production make a huge contribution to climate breakdown. And I call it climate breakdown because calling it climate change is like calling an invading army "unexpected visitors". This is an existential crisis we face. Not just that it also contributes to much wider environmental breakdown, the collapse of biodiversity, the destruction of habitats, the destruction of soil and water resources. But it’s ____ that if we stop eating meat and dairy, we have an enormous potential then for sucking carbon out of the atmosphereBecause so much of the land which is currently occupied by livestock would revegetate if those livestock were removed. Trees could grow back, deep vegetation could grow back and in _____ so, they suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and give us the best possible chance we have of preventing climate chaos and breakdown.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Can you explain, George, the amount of agricultural land that’s being used to produce food for the livestock—for the livestock and not for human beings—and why you think that’s especially injurious to the climate?
GEORGE MONBIOT: It’s quite remarkable, really. Livestock account for 83 percent of our agricultural land use, according to one study, and produce 18 percent of our diet. It is a huge disproportion. Now ____ you look specifically at grazing livestock, ____ people tend to assume is more environmentally friendly than feeding them on grain, it’s completely the opposite. It’s the worst possible option. Grazing livestock occupy twice as much land as all the arable and horticultural land put together, ___ they provide just over one percent of our diet. It is a fantastically wasteful way of using land.
And ___ order to keep your livestock on that land, you have to exclude most other wildlife. You have to kill the predators. You have to exclude the competitors, the other herbivores, the wild ones. The livestock wipe out most of the trees because they eat the tree seedlings. The old trees die on their feet and they are not replaced. They wipe out the deep vegetation. They cause a radical simplification of the ecosystem. And as a result of all of ____, where livestock are grazed, you end up with more or less a wildlife desert, very low carbon-holding capacity. Lots of damage downstream as well, as soil is eroded, as animal wastes go into the water supply. So doing it with the grazing route is very damaging.


Feeding them on grain is  also very damaging. The great majority of the soya plantations which are now devastating South America, wiping out the Gran Chaco dry forests, the Cerrado systems in Brazil, many of the forests around the edges of the Amazon basin—all being destroyed en masse for soya forming. The great majority of that soya goes into animal feed, such ____ if you want to eat less soya, you should eat soya. The _____ being that there’s far more soya embedded in a lump of meat that has been produced in indoor agriculture than there is embedded in a lump of tofu.



Extension cloze

Feeding them on grain is also very damaging. The ____ majority of the soya plantations ____ are now devastating South America, wiping out the Gran Chaco dry forests, the Cerrado systems in Brazil, many of the forests around the edges of the Amazon basin—all being destroyed __ masse for soya forming. The _____ majority of that soya goes into animal feed, such ___ if you want to eat less soya, you should eat soya. The reason ___ that there’s far more soya embedded in a lump of meat that has been produced in indoor agriculture than ____ is embedded in a lump of tofu.
Part 3

From 8:55...

Discuss

What is "free range" meat?

Listen:

1. What does George say about free range meat?

2. What are the three choices we have, according to George?Image result for gran chaco soya plantationsGran Chaco deforestation Paraguay

Part 4 - a plant based diet

1. What non-vegan foods will George eat?
2. How have George's tastes changed?
3. What do vegans have to be good at?
4. What does George most want to see happen?
5. How does meat consumption by wealthier societies push up food prices for the poor?



AMY GOODMAN: So let’s talk about your own personal answer and how you changed. You intellectually knew this before, but would you describe yourself as a vegan?
GEORGE MONBIOT: Yes, I’m very close to being a vegan. I will eat venison, deer meat, because in Britain, deer are massively overpopulated because we killed all of the predators. It’s almost impossible to establish new forests because the deer ate all of the seedlings, so we should have fewer deer, we need to cull the deer and I’m happy to eat the wild deer that are culled. I’ll eat roadkill as well, because that has no impact. Apart from that, it is basically one egg a month, which I can’t quite give up eggs altogether, so I’ll eat one egg a month. But apart from that, I don’t eat farmed animal products at all, and I will have a very small amount of wild animal products but that’s it.
AMY GOODMAN: And how hard was it to make that transition for you?
GEORGE MONBIOT: I thought it was going to be really hard. Particularly cheese; I loved cheese. I just thought, “How can I ever possibly give up cheese?” And something very odd happened. Within about a couple of weeks of giving up cheese, suddenly, cheese was just like a lump of lard to me. “Why would I eat this? It’s just—ew, it’s just fat. And it’s weird.” My tastes changed. What I thought I couldn’t do, suddenly, I couldn’t not do. I just don’t like cheese anymore. It’s a very odd thing what happens in the brain, that you adapt to your diet, you adapt to your circumstances and suddenly you like what you are now eating and you don’t like what you were previously eating. So I thought it was going to be really tough, and it wasn’t tough at all.
The one difficult thing about it is you have to be able to cook, if you’re going to have a rich and interesting diet as a vegan. Luckily, in my case, I’m a good cook and I enjoy cooking. But for large numbers of the people to take it up who aren’t into cooking, we do need a wider range of vegan meals. That is happening very rapidly in the U.K. where now seven percent of the population is vegans. That has gone up sevenfold in just three years. It’s a quite remarkable transformation. There’s a massive switch towards veganism here, and the supermarkets and the food manufacturers are responding very quickly to that, making vegan ready meals.
The switch towards plant-based burgers, cultivated meat, cultured meat, making what tastes and looks just like meat out of plant protein, that will massively help as well. And what I really want to see is all of that cheap meat which people eat without thinking, the chicken wings and the pork ribs and whatever else it might be, is quickly and rapidly substituted by cultured meat, which has a far, far lower environmental impact and doesn’t involve cruelty, either.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Despite the fact, as you say, George, that there are increasing numbers of vegans in the U.S., the U.S. remains—reportedly, meat consumption in the U.S. is three times the global average. So could you explain this massive differential? I mean the U.S. and Europe on the one hand, and the rest of the world, poorer countries, where meat consumption is relatively low and small farmers rely on the animals that they raise for their own nourishment? Would you say the same to them?
GEORGE MONBIOT: Well, what we see is an almost linear relationship between income and meat consumption. In the U.K., we eat our body weight in meat every year. In the U.S., you eat one and a half times your body weight in meat every year. And the poorest people eat very little meat. They have pretty well a vegan diet. Now obviously, poor people might want to eat more meat. This is why think the switch towards cheap cultured meat is an environmental priority.
But at present, our massive meat consumption deprives poorer people of their diet because the grains and the pulses which should be grown for human beings are instead grown for livestock, which go into our stomachs. And it’s highly inefficient feeding them to livestock first. You get far more food efficiency out of it if you eat that grain and those pulses directly. At the moment, 50 percent of the plant protein we grow is fed to livestock, rather than to human beings. That pushes up food prices, makes food much more expensive for the poor.
If the rest of the world wanted to switch to our levels of meat eating, well, there simply wouldn’t be enough food to go around. It’s a planetary disaster. There wouldn’t be enough soil. There wouldn’t be enough water. There wouldn’t be enough land. So obviously, that’s not a sensible way to go. What we need to do in the rich nations is to switch toward a plant-based diet. We have the means to do so, we have the technology to do so, we have the choice to do so and I believe that’s the course we should take as quickly as possible.

NB: Monbiot's position on the meat industry has changed several times: