#Animal ethics

[why-animals-do-the-thing]

hi! can i ask what's ur opinion on giving pets away? not necessarily because u can't afford to care for em anymore but maybe incompatibility of personalities or maybe lifestyles. is it wrong to give ur pet for adoption if u know someone who's better suited for keeping a pet, like emotionally?

This is going to be controversial, but I support making that choice.

There’s a lot of rhetoric lately around how it’s evil and unethical to rehome your pet if you don’t “need to.” And what that does is prioritize human ideology over the actual animal’s well-being.

Pets that aren’t a good match for your home or pets that aren’t really wanted anymore frequently have lower welfare! When caring for an animal becomes a burden or is forced, people end up resenting them, and that means the animal often doesn’t get all of its needs fulfilled. Even if you’re still feeding it and providing appropriate vet care, how likely are you to provide affection or enrichment to an animal you’re tired of being stuck with?

Lifestyle and personality really matter to making sure a pet is a good fit for a home. A dog that alert-barks at every leaf that moves is probably a bad fit for someone who has a chronic migraine syndrome, and they might not know that until the dog has been in the home for weeks and started to open up. A really feisty kitten that requires a ton of play might not do best in the home of someone older who wanted a quiet lap cat. And while you can you do your best to plan to find a compatible animal, you won’t always know ahead of time what issues might arise.

“Forever home” rhetoric is really, really popular and I think it’s very unfair to the animals it is supposed to support. It started with the backlash of seeing animals abandoned inappropriately, and has been heavily reinforced in the public mind because it’s so frequently used to drive fundraising and support for legislation. The whole “forever home” concept communicates to people that getting an animal is an immutable commitment and that if you can’t keep an animal, it is a personal moral failing. It frames human priorities (we think people who get rid of animals are Evil and Bad and should be shunned) as more important than actual welfare needs for individual animals (are they getting the care they need where they are).

Obviously, I don’t support people dumping animals or just getting fad pets they’ll discard immediately, but there’s so many alternate situations that can arise. Even if it’s just “they got a pet and didn’t know what caring for it would take and didn’t want to care for it so they brought it back, how awful” like… okay, I’d like the person to have done more research before they got a pet, but isn’t it better that the animal now has a second chance to go to better home? Knowing what a commitment requires theoretically can be very different than having to actually follow through regularly, and I’d rather see someone maturely acknowledge that having an animal isn’t a good fit than keep it anyway!!

If animals being happy and with all their biological, veterinary, and social needs fulfilled is actually the goal, we need to prioritize their welfare over human opinion. I’d much rather see an animal rehomed responsibly to somewhere it will thrive and be welcomed than see people keep animals they can’t/don’t want to care for out of guilt or shame. 

[mammoth-clangen]

D’you perchance have any thoughts on the morphological (for lack of a better word?) dire wolves that Colossal Biosciences just revealed to the public? 👀

Oh my god Aenocyon, you can't just ask someone why they're white!

"Morphological dire wolf" my ass. Which is coincidentally where Colossal pulled the white coats from…

Give me an example of a modern temperate/grassland predator that's white*, I'll wait. *Excluding white lions, which are an uncommon but resilient morph resulting from leucism.

I based my Aenocyon design off bushdogs and dholes. They are called Masked Wolves in Kindred's setting, because I enjoy a good pseudo hyena niche uvu-b

Extremely extremely long 'thoughts' below the cut lol c':

Preface: in this discussion the term "dire wolf" has too many meanings, as such I will be referring to them as follows:

Thrones' wolves: for the huge, white, fantasy animals from Game Of Thrones GMO wolves: for Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi, Colossal's creations, Canis lupus Aenocyon: for Aenocyon dirus, the true, extinct dire wolf known from fossils across North America

----

Part 1: That's not a dire wolf-

The first question everyone has been asking is "So, are dire wolves de extinct now?" The answer is an emphatic "NO!" from anyone with knowledge of genetics, palaeontology, or taxonomy.

Aenocyon dirus were actually not wolves, nor dogs, but a secret third thing.

They are canids, but last shared a common ancestor with grey wolves and their lineage some ~5.7 million years ago.

For context, this paper suggests a similar divergence time between genus Homo (humans, Neanderthals and co) and Pan (chimps and bonobos); animals that look and behave markedly differently from each other.

The genomes of Canis lupus and Aenocyon dirus being 99.5% similar may sound like a lot, but again, humans share 98.8% with chimps, and 99.7% with Neanderthals, and yet are very distinct from both.

Skeletally, behaviourally, in soft tissue, etc, you could tell any of the three apart; the same goes for Aenocyon and Canis members.

Additionally, Colossal made 20 changes in 14 genes.

The grey wolf genome has 2,447,000,000 base pairs. Does that maths seem a bit off to you?

That's not even enough to change a grey wolf into a domestic dog, let alone an ancient outgroup!

This would be akin to modifying a lion to have bigger teeth and saying you resurrected Smilodon fatalis.

Or editing a Asian Elephant genome so they retain their juvenile hair and calling it a Woolly Mammoth.

It's a bold-faced lie.

Beth Shapiro says "they look and act like dire wolves" but that, too,simply isn't true.

Visually, the GMO wolves simply aren't what Aenocyon would have looked like. It's what a Thrones' wolf looks like.

Hmmmmm, funny about that, seeing George R R Martin helped fund the 'dire wolf project'...

As with many fossil animals, we don't know much about Aenocyon's behaviour.

You can't say the GMO wolves (who are also still pups) act like Aenocyon, because that's based off nothing.

What we do know is Aenocyon were likely pack animals (from the sheer number found in La Brea Tarpits), and crunched more bones than modern wolves (from their many broken teeth).

Also, crucially, they had Wild Sex Lives (from the many, huge, broken and healed bacula... youch).

Colossal is also being colossally shady by: doubling down on their bs use of the outdated "morphological species definition", blatantly misleading the public with their use of the words 'cloning', 'dire wolves', and 'de extinction', and refusing to share their methods in a peer reviewed paper before going public with a clickbait headline.

Do not trust them with your Red wolves either. They're using coyote hybrids and considering what they deem 'close enough' for a dire wolf, I wouldn't put any money on the quality of their GMO red wolves either...

Also can I just say, whatever genes they modified to "make the skull larger" clearly didn't impact the lower jaw...

No, I'm not sorry for this image uvu-b (But for real look at that poor pup and his overbite jfc)

Part 2: -and if it was, that wouldn't be good either.

I fundamentally do not support de extinction.

No, not even for the Thylacine, not even for passenger pigeons, nor the dodo. Even my beloved Homotherium should be left in the past.

This might be an unexpected stance because I am, surprising no one, a big fan of extinct animals, megafauna and otherwise.

But the thing is, I'm an even bigger fan of actual, living animals.

The animal ethics of de extinction are dubious at best.

The surrogate dog mothers of the GMO wolves likely won't live good lives.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were destroyed after being used, because their bodies could contain feto microchimerisms and Colossal absolutely doesn't want their special wolf genome getting out.

I doubt the GMO wolves themselves will live a full life before they outgrow their hearts, like Ligers.

This would likely be the case for any modern animal genetically modified into megafauna; a body not adapted to deal with the increased size.

Purely conjecture, but I also wouldn't be surprised if Romulus, Remus and Khaleesi have vision/hearing issues from their white coats.

White coats in wolves are associated with hearing impairments, so the gene used for these animals was from domestic dogs. Meaning Colossal has created a very expensive wolfdog.

Again, what kind of life are these wolfdogs supposed to live? As awful pets for the rich? In a zoo? Released to pollute wild wolf genomes? (assuming they're fertile; I hope not)

Regardless, it's not looking good if they ever planned to have them be 'wild animals'

Even true clones (which the GMO wolves are not) tend to have health issues.

Celia the Pyrenean Ibex (bucardo) was cloned, but the clone died after 9 minutes from a deformed lung.

So in 2003, this made the bucardo the first species to go extinct twice, yippee?

There's also the problem of genetic diversity.

How many intact genomes do you have on hand?

For dire wolves the answer is Zero!

To my knowledge, we don't have the full genome coded from one individual, just Frankenstein-ed from many. Which is fine for sequencing the canine family tree's relatedness, but not for cloning.

The absolute minimum individuals to survive a genetic bottleneck is said to be 50 in larger species. Called the 50/500 rule, it states that 50 is enough to survive, but 500 is required to prevent genetic drift.

To which I say, good luck!

Even with well preserved permafrost species (such as woolly mammoths), you'll have a hard time finding 500 individuals with prefect genomes.

And then, where will you put them?

If you were to, somehow, make a breeding population, where are they going? A national park? A zoo? Is their old habitat still available to them?

In Aenocyon, the answer is simply "they don't have a niche anymore".

Unlike the Thylacine or Dodo, humans did not directly cause the extinction of Aenocyon dirus. And even if they had, it was 10,000 years ago!

Would making room for a de extinct species impact the habitat/niche of another species?

Regular grey wolves fill Aenocyon's role as a canine mesopredator, with Puma as the apex (alongside bears as an apex omnivore).

With the loss of megafauna to prey on, a de extinct predator would just compete with other, also endangered species.

Animals also change the environment they life in.

Mammoths will clear trees like modern elephants. This would recreate the Mammoth Steppe, but those trees making up the taiga and boreal forests are themselves crucial habitat.

Other species have moved in since the mammoths' extinction. Siberian tigers, lynx, muskoxen, brown bears, elk, moose, and so many others; many endangered.

Trees also prevent erosion, which is already happening at unprecedented rates due to agriculture and deforestation.

Crucially: What's to stop an extinct animal going the same way it went out last time?

Ask yourself this:

Would the average American appreciate "flocks of Passenger pigeons big enough to darken the sky and whiten ground with their guano"?

Would people suddenly be okay with lions in Europe eating their livestock, when they are champing the bit to shoot Iberian wolves again?

Would Tasmanians suddenly feel the same about the Thylacine, when farmers in Australia still happily kill dingoes and eagles for lamb predation? [citation, I am an enviro technician and have had farmers tell me they shoot Wedge-tails, knowing I'm a toothless lion to stop them.]

I doubt it

At what cost?

Are we going to find 50 thylacine genomes?

If so (doubtful), how much will cloning and/or modifying a relative into a thylacine cost? Now that x50?

Wouldn't that money be better spent on quoll reintroduction?

What about finding 50 gestational carriers for mammoths?

Are you going to use their closest relative; the already critically endangered Asian Elephant?

Wouldn't that time and effort on those elephant mothers be better used making more elephants?

And the social cost:

If extinction isn't forever, what's to incentivize lawmakers to fund conservation?

Really, it comes down to this:

Why bring back the dire wolf when we could put this money into protecting the Iberian and Red wolves?

Why bring back the thylacine when their cousin is dying of a transmissible cancer?

We've already seen the impacts of "extinction isn't forever anymore", with those in power already trying to cut funding to conservation, because you can "just bring them back".

But as we've seen time and time again: there is no Planet B. There is no De-Extinction, not really.

Maybe what was gone should stay gone, so we can focus on what we still have.

[myfandomrealitea]

Conversations about animal welfare are so difficult because nobody wants to believe they're unintentionally causing harm or being neglectful/abusive. And rarely still do people want to put in the actual long-term work of building genuine trust and communication with animals.

Confining animals to human behaviors and expectations is just restrictive control. Animals need to be allowed to express and enforce boundaries and displeasure and fear and pain as much as humans are. Not just for their own sake, but for the actual safety of the people around them, too.

When I worked on a riding yard we had a little appaloosa who hated being ridden, hated being tacked up, hated his spine or stomach or sides being touched. The moment you tried he'd swing at you with his teeth. I still have a scar on my arm from when I was told to tighten his girth at the mounting block and nobody was holding his head.

Everyone just shrugged it off as him being "naturally pissy" and "an asshole." When I was first introduced to him the instructor actually laughed and told me to "watch out for this one, he's a total jerk."

He wasn't a jerk. He was in constant pain. He had kissing spine and stomach ulcers. He tried to tell us every single day he was hurting, he didn't want to be ridden, and he was constantly punished for it and forced to endure it because nobody was willing to actually understand what he was trying to say.

Animals do not have words like we do, but they have communication, they feel pain, they have things they are uncomfortable with.

Animal welfare is not just about correct diet and habit. Its about co-existing and communicating. The tides are slowly turning on this, but there's still so much misinformation and lack of education and lack of just actual willingness to change.

Dogs growl and nip and bite and bare their teeth for a reason. If your dog growls at your toddler for stamping all over his ribs and paws, the solution is not to punish the dog. Its to teach your child to be respectful of the other living entity in your home, or have active prevention so it can't happen until that child is old enough to understand those boundaries and that respect.

Punishing your pets until they give up any form of self-advocacy or boundaries and submit silently to pain and discomfort and fear is not "having a perfectly behaved pet."

[vegandude73]

[fimbry]

Hi! I’m trying to understand more about the ethics of the Lykoi breed. So far, your post is the only one I’ve seen covering the cysts that lykoi cats get, and while I think you did a great job formatting the posts, I’m wondering if you have any sources for the condition that aren’t based on facebook posts? (This isnt hate or shade, I’m genuinely interested in looking into this deeper) thank you <3

Hello!

Most of what I know is from the FB group, but there are some studies linked by people on the post. I know one study is linked in the comments, and if I recall someone made a long reblog with studies linked as a reply to the post. I'm on mobile or I'd dig these up myself! But they are there, and I hope this helps.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Sentience

The philosophy of sentience explores the nature of conscious experience, the ability to feel, perceive, and experience subjectively. It is central to debates in ethics, philosophy of mind, and the nature of being. Sentience is often linked to discussions about what entities have moral worth, the nature of consciousness, and the criteria for subjective experience.

1. Definition of Sentience

Sentience refers to the capacity to have subjective experiences or feelings. In contrast to mere information processing or cognition, sentience is characterized by a conscious awareness of sensory and emotional states, such as pain, pleasure, fear, or joy.

It is often distinguished from sapience, which refers to higher-order intellectual faculties like reasoning, wisdom, and problem-solving.

2. Sentience and Consciousness

Sentience is often discussed as a subset of consciousness. While all sentient beings are conscious (in that they experience sensations), not all conscious beings may be considered sentient in the ethical sense (if they do not experience suffering or pleasure in the same way).

Philosophical questions arise about the degree of phenomenal consciousness (the first-person subjective experience) that different beings possess, and whether machines or artificial systems could ever achieve sentience.

3. Sentience and Moral Consideration

Utilitarian Ethics: Philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer argue that sentience is the key criterion for moral consideration. According to this view, any being that can experience pleasure or pain deserves moral concern, regardless of its species or intellectual capabilities.

Peter Singer’s Argument for Animal Rights: Singer's utilitarian perspective advocates for the equal consideration of interests, extending moral concern to non-human animals that can suffer. Singer’s argument has led to the modern animal rights movement and a rethinking of ethical duties to sentient beings beyond humans.

Rights-Based Approaches: Some philosophers argue for rights to be extended to sentient beings, not merely based on their capacity for reason or autonomy, but on their ability to suffer. This leads to discussions of rights for animals and, in more futuristic contexts, artificial intelligence (AI) or sentient robots.

Moral Status of AI: With the advancement of artificial intelligence, the question arises whether machines can ever become sentient, and if so, whether they would deserve moral consideration. This touches on the moral status of artificial systems and how we should treat them if they ever develop subjective experiences.

4. Sentience and Non-Human Animals

The philosophical study of animal sentience is concerned with understanding which animals are sentient and how their sentience compares to human consciousness. This involves both scientific and philosophical inquiry into the nature of animal minds.

Animal Sentience and Consciousness: Research in cognitive science has shown that many non-human animals exhibit complex behaviors and signs of emotional and sensory experiences. Philosophers like Thomas Nagel in his famous essay "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" explore how sentience might differ across species, suggesting that the subjective experience of being another kind of animal may be inaccessible to humans.

Speciesism: The philosophy of sentience challenges the idea of speciesism, a form of bias that grants higher moral status to humans over animals based solely on species membership. Philosophers like Peter Singer argue that sentience should be the benchmark for moral consideration, not intellectual or species-based distinctions.

5. Sentience in Artificial Intelligence and Machines

Can machines be sentient? This question lies at the intersection of philosophy, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science. Philosophers and computer scientists debate whether AI can ever develop subjective experiences or whether they merely simulate cognitive functions.

The Chinese Room Argument (John Searle): In his famous thought experiment, Searle argues that even if a machine can simulate understanding of language or cognition, it does not mean that it is sentient. According to Searle, machines might process information but lack the subjective awareness that characterizes sentience.

Functionalism and Sentience: Some functionalist philosophers argue that if a machine or AI system can functionally replicate the processes that give rise to sentience in humans (e.g., neural activity), it may indeed be sentient. However, others contest that functional replication is insufficient to create true subjective experiences.

6. Sentience and Conscious Experience

The hard problem of consciousness, as articulated by David Chalmers, involves explaining why and how sentient experiences (qualia) arise from physical processes. Even if we understand the brain's functions, there remains the mystery of how these functions lead to subjective experiences like the sensation of red or the feeling of pain.

Panpsychism: One solution proposed by some philosophers is panpsychism, the idea that consciousness or sentience is a fundamental property of the universe, present even in basic forms in all matter. This would suggest that all entities, even non-living ones, have some degree of sentience, though perhaps vastly different from human experience.

7. Degrees of Sentience

Sentience is often understood in degrees, where some beings are capable of more complex, nuanced experiences than others. For example, humans may experience a wide range of emotions, reflections, and pleasures, while simpler animals or even AI may only experience basic sensations like pleasure or pain.

Philosophical Issues: Philosophers explore how we determine the degree of sentience in different beings, whether there is a qualitative difference between human and animal sentience, and whether any entities besides biological organisms could possess it.

8. Sentience and Self-Awareness

Some philosophers link sentience to self-awareness, suggesting that to be sentient, one must not only feel but be aware of oneself as the subject of those feelings. This leads to further debates on whether animals or machines could ever achieve self-awareness or whether that is a uniquely human trait.

The philosophy of sentience is concerned with the nature of conscious experience, the capacity to feel and perceive, and the ethical implications of sentience. It raises questions about the moral status of animals, AI, and other beings, as well as the deeper metaphysical question of how subjective experience arises from physical processes. Sentience is central to many debates about what it means to be conscious and what obligations we have to other sentient beings.

[esarkaye]

on nonhuman animal capabilities and flourishing

[cathartidae]

hi do u know if this is safe for the snail? ive heard that water can dry out snails but im not sure if thats true https://www.tumblr.com/heartnosekid/712984118234955776/natashenka-on-ig

hi! im not a huge snail expert however i Do know a guy- and here's what xey said: doing this with snails washes out their mucous layer a little (itd be more fine if it was trickling like rain or misting water with a spray bottle or something) but most importanly this is stressful for the snail and generally advised against. these look like they could be gals (giant african land snails) and those are known to need a bit extra moisture, but not to the extent of pouring water on them like this. soooo tldr doesnt dry them out but does cause stress

thanks for reaching out, and good eye :)

[science-fiction-is-real]

Opinions about dogs.

1) the adopt don't shop crowd is wrong. There are a very large number of legitimate reasons to want a puppy instead of an adult dog, to want a pure bred with a predictable temperament and predictable health outcomes instead of a dog of unknown origins. You are not hurting dogs by going to a reputable breeder. It sucks that there are lots of dogs in shelters but you aren't a horrible person because you want to be picky about a (potentially dangerous!) animal that you bring into your house.

2) yes, that poodle mix is probably from a backyard breeder. Backyard breeders and puppy mills are one of the main reasons why pure bred dogs often have so many health problems. If you want a puppy do your research and make sure the breeder is doing extensive genetic testing, and that their dogs are being "proven" in some way such as through show, sports, or obedience classes.

3) mutts are not necessarily healthier than pure breds. A mixed breed dog can still have genetic problems. My dog was a mix of more than 10 different breeds (DNA test) and he still inherited really bad dry eye from his schnauzer ancestor four generations back. He also had horrible arthritis. Breeders who do genetic testing are the key to making sure future generations of dogs are healthier

4). Even if a dog breeder is a member of a prominent kennel club, even if they breed to standard, genetically test, only breed dogs with the best temperament, that does not make them an ethical breeder.

Many of these breeders are still pairing dogs that are close genetic relatives.

And also, there are some breeds of dog that CANNOT be ethically bred. The only way to ethically breed such a dog is if you are crossing it with something else.

Brachycephalic breeds need to go extinct. Pugs, bull dogs, boxers, Boston terriers, there is no ethical way to breed these dogs because the main characteristic that makes them the breed they are is actually a horrific genetic deformity that causes the dog to suffer.

Shar peis with their extreme wrinkles should go extinct.

Dalmatians should go extinct because the same genes that cause them to be white with black spots also cause them to be prone to deafness and kidney problems.

And there are other breeds that are like this.

[solarpunkpresentspodcast]

I (Ariel) recently listened to the audiobook version of Animals in Translation: Using the Mysteries of Autism to Decode Animal Behavior by Temple Grandin and Catherine Johnson. It really shone a light on how far we’ve come both in our understanding of neurodiversity and the language we use to talk about it; it also caused me to realize how very little I actually know about animal behaviour. It’s free to read over on our Patreon; I’d really like you to go take a look!

[happylittletidalwave]

One thing about working at a zoological institute is, the need to see the animals you care for as not a part of your life. What I mean is when talking about them upper management always reminds us that they are the institutes animals. When we are mine or ours, but to me that is just taking pride in your work. How can you expect someone, who spends 40+ hours a week with these animals not to consider them an important part of our lives. We are with them on holidays, bad weather, and think about them even when we are not there with them.

[crow-hopping]

Lobsters trapped in grocery stores make me feel extremely upset.

Once free to roam the ocean, spend time with their family, exist by their own accord. Now trapped within the glass, watching their inmates slowly be picked off one by one. Relief is sweet if in captivity. I would prefer death over capture. Freedom to die.

It sickens me. Captivity. A life of freedom get stuck in such a small space, only to entice people to eat you. Your claws clamped shut. They may never open again. You’re packed so closely with your peers that there is barely any distinction.

Have they ever even seen the wonders of the earth? Or were they born in captivity? What makes my life any more valuable than theirs? What defines my value? Why am I not in that tank, resigned to my space?

It’s awful. It shatters my soul. I believe it is natural to eat and be eaten. You know what isn’t natural? Torturing them before you do. It isn’t right. What makes us any better than them? Why must they be stuck in captivity while I am free?

[monstertsunami]

i spilled pasta in my backpack and got so mad that i made a traumacore edit about it

[cherryaire]

Stop buying purebred animals that you KNOW will be in pain later in life.

Literally if the demand for them stops, so does the supply. But because people are so interested in the 'aesthetic' of their animal over their wellbeing, people continue to buy animals with purposefully bred docked tails, flat brachycephalic faces, and short legs. Munchkin cats are literally being force bred with DWARFISM, just as Corgis are. Dwarfism comes with so many health complications, whether it's an animal or a person who has it. There's less study into how Munchkin cats suffer as they're a newer breed and most of the studying went into identifying their specific types of dwarfism first.

If the mutation happened randomly, as it does sometimes, that's one thing. But people are purposefully breeding these poor animals knowing that they can't breathe, they have spinal problems, and they will end up with arthritis and in a ton of pain the older they get because they're literally missing proper joint strength by shortening their legs on purpose. People are essentially making these animals suffer in some form for their entire lives because they want their pet to be cute. What human beings have done to the Pug since the 60s should be considered a crime.

And do not even get me started on the breeds that are mixed with literal wild cats like Savannahs and Bengals and Wolf Dogs. Do NOT get those animals.

ADOPT. DON'T SHOP.

Resources: Munchkin Cats Brachycephalic Cats Ethical Breeding (has links to papers within the text)

[solarpunkpresentspodcast]

3.2: Thinking About How We Think About Animals with Dr Chloë Taylor

Today’s episode is all about animal ethics—or do we mean critical animal studies? @arielkroon discusses this linguistic nuance and the differences between them (and much, much more!) with Dr Chloë Taylor, professor of women and gender studies at University of Alberta.

Today’s episode is all about animal ethics—or do we mean critical animal studies? Ariel discusses this linguistic nuance and the difference between them (and much, much more!) with Dr Chloë Taylor, professor of women and gender studies at the University of Alberta. Dr Taylor has been involved in a five-year-long project researching the “Intersections of Animality” and is a trained philosopher who works in gender studies, and sees a lot of intersections between the way that we think about and treat animals and the way that we think about and treat minoritized subjects. Come join us for a thought-provoking and highly educational discussion here!

Links

Dr Chloë Taylor’s profile at University of Alberta 

Peter Singer and Tom Regan

North American Association for Critical Animal Studies

Where Disability Rights and Animal Rights Meet: A Conversation with Sunaura Taylor

Making Kin: An Interview with Donna Haraway 

Auroch de-extinction and rewilding

Connect with Solarpunk Presents Podcast on Twitter, Mastodon, or at our blog.

Connect with Ariel at her blog, on Twitter at @arielletje, and on Mastodon.

Connect with Christina at her blog, on Twitter, and on Mastodon

Support the show on Patreon or make a one-time donation via PayPal.