In this conversation, @moby — musician, songwriter, producer and animal rights activist — and Sentient Media’s founder, Mikko Järvenpää discuss punk rock’s tie to veganism and animal agriculture’s impact on the world around us.
In this conversation, @moby — musician, songwriter, producer and animal rights activist — and Sentient Media’s founder, Mikko Järvenpää discuss punk rock’s tie to veganism, animal agriculture’s impact on the world around us, American media’s coverage of animals (or lack thereof) and Moby’s new film.
Watch the interview here: https://youtu.be/1BNTBjjMKL8
Links:
Punk Rock Vegan Movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9q1IidazY8
Moby’s website: https://moby.com/
Follow Moby on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/moby/
Follow Moby on Twitter: https://twitter.com/thelittleidiot
Moby 0:00
The only tweet I ever had that was taken down was a tweet where I said that in a vegan world there'd be no pandemics. I was like, yeah, but it's true. All pandemics are zoonotic, the etiology of every pandemic is zoonotic. And it's always been that way. If we stopped using animals for food, if we stopped intruding on animal habitats, there'd be no more pandemics. But clearly, that is a truth that is far too inconvenient for most people to handle.
Mikko 0:35
Hi, Moby.
Moby 0:37
Hi, how are you?
Mikko 0:38
Good. Good. It's great to have you here. Thank you so much for taking the time. And congratulations on getting the new movie out.
Moby 0:46
Well, thank you. Yeah.
Mikko 0:48
So for anybody who may not have seen it yet, or for people who want to summarize it to their friends to get them to see it as well, how would you describe the movie?
Moby 0:59
Well, I mean, the title does kind of sum it up pretty succinctly. It's called "The Punk Rock Vegan Movie." And it's a history of, or it's look at the history of punk rock and animal rights activism. Because, you know, I've been a vegan now for 35 years, and a lot of my veganism and animal rights activism came from that early punk rock scene in and around New York City. And what I found is quite a lot of people, even in the animal rights community, weren't aware of the impact that punk rock had on the evolution of animal rights. And more than that, I just wanted to look at the underlying ethos of punk rock and how it lent itself to animal rights — you know, the ethos of questioning, and adhering to principles over commercial expedience and moving forward with rational principled integrity. And so the movie looks at those ideas, and I sort of presumptuously suggest to people that now would be a great time for a lot of people to rediscover those ideals.
Unknown Speaker 1:43
That's great, thank you. Yeah, yeah, you're right, the title definitely gets you pretty far into the story — it's really fascinating and really resonates. Just as an anecdote for myself, I ran into animal rights first through the punk subculture when I was 15, like back in the day. So this is definitely a very interesting pattern and kind of cross-section of movements to look into. What do you think it was about punk specifically that made it so amenable to talking about animals? Do you think it has something to do with allowing resistance of the status quo?
Unknown Speaker 3:08
I mean, yeah, the underlying idea of punk rock is skepticism, and questioning everything. And when you first discover punk rock, and you embrace the world of punk rock, you question fashion, you question politics, you question everything, and for a lot of people that also led to questioning food production and fashion production. And obviously, once anybody spends even five seconds looking at food production, you realize that the production of meat and dairy, to state the obvious, is unbelievably unethical and destructive. And if you're exploring alternative lifestyles, if you're a punk rocker and you're rejecting convention, you're rejecting established ideas, it becomes almost like a no-brainer that you would reject meat and dairy because of how it's produced. There's no one — I don't know anybody on the planet — who is ethically okay with how meat and dairy is produced, and then the consequences, as we know, for climate change, for pandemics, for antibiotic resistance, for human health, for cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity. I mean, really the bigger question that I keep wrestling with, and I'm sure you wrestle with, I'm sure people watching are wrestling with, is why isn't the world vegan? You know, everyone already agrees with us. No one wants to hurt animals. No one wants to destroy the environment. No one wants to hurt their health. But yet everyone actively supports this industry that kills animals, destroys the environment and destroys people's health. And it's just that baffled confusion on our part of wondering, why didn't everyone in the world wake up this morning and just say, "Oh, yeah, eating meat and dairy is so destructive and so cruel we should simply stop."
Unknown Speaker 5:21
Yeah, that makes sense. That makes sense. Before talking more about the animal rights side of things, are you seeing today or have you seen in the past, other subcultures — not to go too nerdy into what are the lines between subcultures — but where this similar kind of ethos has taken root or could be taking root as of today, for instance?
Unknown Speaker 5:46
Well, I mean traditionally the counterculture, you know, activism, was expressed in folk music, going back hundreds of years. And folk music and hip hop are both hotbeds of a lot of activist thought and a lot of activist culture. What's so depressing to me is how apolitical so much of alternative music is. I mean indie rock, alternative music, that's the most privileged group of people on the planet. It's not being critical, but generally the world of alternative rock and indie music, it's white people who went to college who probably might even have advanced degrees who live in expensive lofts in Bushwick, or Silverlake, it sort of feels like — I don't understand why they're so aggressively apolitical. Maybe they vote, maybe they listen to NPR, but I follow so many alternative music accounts, and I just don't understand why all they do is talk about themselves. There's almost no use of people's platforms to address bigger issues, and I am just so confused and saddened by that — that anybody who has a platform wouldn't use it to try and address, in my case, in your case, in a lot of people's cases, advancing the cause of animal rights, but even using platforms to advance other activist issues, to not use a platform for that purpose just seems really kind of unethical to me.
Unknown Speaker 7:31
Yeah, no that's really interesting. It's a really good point about about folk music as well, of course, and its deep historyin all kinds of rights movements. What's interesting today in talking about animal rights, perhaps our use of animals, especially in food and fashion, whether that's in punk, or in more mainstream culture? what are things that pique your interest today?
Moby 8:07
Well, I like to put it in perspective that in 1987 when I went vegan, I believe there were two vegan restaurants on the entire planet. And veganism was so weird back then, no one even knew how to say the word vegan. You know, whether it was vegan, ve-gan, vejen. And the only literature was "Diet for a New America" by John Robbins and "Animal Liberation" by Peter Singer and the occasional PETA newsletter. But really, veganism was so weird and obscure back then it barely existed. And now, I mean, the spread has been remarkable, as we know, it's like, billion dollar companies making alternative proteins. We have senators who are vegan, members of Congress, you know, the House of Representatives who are vegan, it's just on and on, the spread has been so remarkable. But it's barely scratching the surface. On one hand, it's easy to be excited about how much spread there has been in the world of animal rights activism. But on the other hand, it's worth remembering 1 trillion animals are still killed by and for humans every year. So I guess it's that question, what's it going to take to actually start getting to the same tipping point that other movements have gotten to if, again, to really state the obvious, every activist movement starts tiny and eventually changes the world. If we're talking about abolition, or if we're talking about suffrage, if we're talking about same-sex marriage, if we're talking about … I mean, on and on and on. These incredibly fringe ideas eventually become the norm. And that will happen with veganism. I just don't see any way in which humans can continue to produce food and fashion, the way they're producing it. The bigger question is, will humans be around? You know — humans will either disappear or become vegan, there really isn't another choice.
Unknown Speaker 10:33
I definitely agree with you there. In a more hopeful moment, it's clear that the change will happen at some point. And maybe it doesn't even take hope, maybe it's just a rational idea that at some point there will no longer be animals used in human food systems. What are some of the critical steps that we — let's talk on the level of culture, on the level of the discussion we have in society — what needs to happen for us to move significantly in that direction? What do you think?
Unknown Speaker 11:21
That's a wonderful question. And as we both know, everybody in the animal rights community is constantly asking themselves, what can they do? Sure, you know, we keep presenting people with information, first you go to people and you say, "Hey, you don't want to hurt animals, here's an easy way not to hurt and kill animals — stop hurting and killing them, stop using them for food and fashion." And you would think that would reach people, and it does reach some people. But clearly, 99 percent of people just ignore that message. And then you have movies like "What the Health" or "Forks Over Knives" that say, "Hey, by the way, in addition to animal agriculture killing animals, it also is killing you." And you would think that the people who don't care about animals at least want to protect their health. And so you would think, okay, between people who care about animals and people who care about their health, at this point, the world should have been vegan. Clearly, it wasn't. And then we advanced the idea of well, animal agriculture is the third leading cause of climate change, it's the leading cause of rainforest deforestation, it's the leading cause of ocean pollution. So at this point, we're also confused. We're like, well, we've given humanity all these reasons, all this evidence as to why we should stop using animals for food, but nothing changes. And then we finally bring out the last horse of the apocalypse, the pale horse, the pandemic horse, the antibiotic resistance horse, and we say, "Guess what? Pandemics are caused by intruding on the lives of animals." The only tweet I ever had that was taken down was a tweet where I said that in a vegan world there'd be no pandemics. And it got flagged and taken down. I was like, yeah, but it's true. All pandemics are zoonotic, the etiology of every pandemic is zoonotic. And it's always been that way. If we stopped using animals for food, if we stopped intruding on animal habitats, there'd be no more pandemics. But clearly, that is a truth that is far too inconvenient for most people to handle. And the fact, as I mentioned, sorry for rambling on, but the fact that 90 percent of antibiotic resistance is a result of animal agriculture. And that's just a simple fact. You can go to the CDC website, the NIH website, simple. That is not even a question, fact. And so to your point, then all of a sudden, vegan food becomes delicious. And we're like, "Hey, come to this vegan restaurant, you love the food." So now at this point, sorry for my long, rambling diatribe, but we've shown to people that if you care about animals you probably should not be torturing and killing them, if you care about your health you should probably not be eating food that is torturing and killing you, if you care about the planet you should not be supporting agriculture that destroys the planet and if you want to prevent antibiotic resistance and pandemics you should probably not support the industries that cause them. So what's left? And at this point, even the progressives — even AOC, Bernie Sanders — they ignore all this. And they agree with us, but they still eat hot dogs and hamburgers on social media. And I'm like, what the hell? How, if even our allies aren't willing to change, how can we expect massive change? And the only thing I think we have left is money. And what I mean by that is, I really feel like one of the things that's going to change the system is figuring out how we tell people how much the current system is costing them. You know, in terms of direct subsidies, in terms of indirect subsidies, in terms of healthcare costs, in terms of climate costs, on and on again — the cost of animal agriculture is overwhelming. I feel like especially when you look at the role of subsidies — the fact that our tax dollars are subsidising this industry that kills animals and kills us — there has to be a way to leverage that to get people to finally make some changes.
Unknown Speaker 15:55
Yeah, that's wonderful. I think that's very powerful, and especially on the money point. But isn't also that why punk was so powerful, and is so powerful — that it allows you to resist things that you see to be wrong. Oftentimes, apathy is not an option. Once you realize that you can resist and there are things worth resisting. Are we losing that ethos?
Moby 16:33
Oh, I believe yes. And I think, like you say, that apathy is not an option, but yet the majority of people have chosen it. So I feel it's not just apathy, in a way I don't think that people are choosing apathy. I think they're choosing the path of least resistance. And what I mean by that is, obviously, to change the way you eat, to change the way you approach the world, to live a principled life is lonely. It means that you probably aren't going to be invited to as many parties. And if you go to parties, you're not gonna be able to eat with your friends — like Thanksgiving rolls around, Christmas rolls around, and suddenly your family looks at you funny because you're not eating the food that they're eating. It's incredibly isolating and lonely trying to live what is ostensibly a principled existence. And I honestly think that if you were to do a sort of, I don't know, like post mortem phrenological look at the brains of activists and punk rockers, you would simply see that they're a little more comfortable with loneliness than the rest of the population. Because I really think, people give all these reasons for why they're not willing to go vegan, the number one reason is they don't want to be isolated. You know, they don't want to have their family look at them funny. They don't want to go on a date and have their date roll their eyes. That's just human nature. We're, you know, we are human cockroaches — humans love to be around other people. They love the approval of other people. They love feeling like they've done nothing that might alienate their tribe, and living according to your principles, you end up alienating a lot of people, especially when you start reminding people that the way you're living is principled, and consistent and not as hypocritical as them. The biggest arguments I ever had with my mother were about veganism. And she argued with me, I would just sort of sit there while she would get so upset because I was rejecting her food. And I would say, "Yeah, but you like animals? Why are you supporting a system that kills them?" And she would just get so mad. I'm sure you've had that experience, I'm sure lot of people have that experience. People get really angry when you remind them of what the truth actually is.
Mikko 19:21
Yeah. That's right. That's right. I think there's a little glimmer of hope there. I'd like to think that people wouldn't get mad at challenging their habits unless they had some inkling of, they're doing something wrong, at least.
Moby 19:40
That's a really nice way to look at it. Yeah. Clearly the sociopaths don't get mad when you confront them with their hypocrisy. If anything, I'm sure if you were to go to Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr., and say you're hypocrites, they'd be like, yeah, they're probably proud of it. But you're right that the resistance, the hostility, the anger that most people have when you confront them with the ethical inconsistencies in their choices, that anger that they have is actually a sign that they're aware that they're not living a consistent ethical life.
Mikko 20:24
So, we've touched on on a lot of things, in terms of talking about animal rights, talking about veganism, talking about food systems, you've done a massive part in in getting these discussions more out into the mainstream media. But what do you think are the kinds of stories, or story angles, or narratives that you'd like to see more in the media — that you think could be something we could be trying to get more out there?
Moby 21:01
It's a wonderful question. And luckily, the way the global media is, we can actually look at how different outlets are approaching this. Because obviously, it'd be nice to have a blue-sky conversation about what's the best way of presenting the information — the problem there, as we know, unless you own a social media platform, or unless you own CNN, or unless you own The New York Times, you have to get the approval of a platform in order to get your information out there. You know, that's the sad truth, unless you want to just go stand on a street corner and hand out leaflets, which is a very viable way of reaching people. But there is that awareness that 99 percent of our communication involves going through a gatekeeper. And so I think we have to both strategically try and figure out, as some people have been very good at doing — like Earthling Ed, or some of the great vegan influencers — how do you almost bypass the platforms? How do you use the strengths of the platforms without triggering their suppression? And so I think it's looking at people who have used the platforms well. But also, for example, half of the media I follow is in the U.K. and half of it is in the States, and there's just such a huge market difference between the way in which the BBC and The Guardian cover issues of animal agriculture and veganism, as opposed to American media. American media won't touch it. You know, even sensibly progressive media, like The New Yorker — article on article about racial justice, economic justice, gender rights, even climate change, environmentalism — they won't touch veganism. And I write letters to them, like what's wrong with you — you write articles about climate change and the causes of climate change but you never mentioned animal rights? And you never mentioned meat and dairy production? When you have a media class in the United States, even a progressive media class, whether it's the Huffington Post, MSNBC, The New Yorker or what have you, who won't touch this issue? I don't know what we can do. It hurts me that I don't have like a quick, fun, glib answer to that question, but I don't know. I don't know how we do a better job advancing this agenda. I really wish I knew. But when you have an institutional progressive media, like we have in the United States, who won't touch this issue, basically we've been boycotted, we've been blacked out. The blacklist in the United States is talking about animal rights in the media.
Mikko 24:08
Yeah. There is a lot of truth to that for sure. In Sentient Media we've we've seen some of that. Quite a bit of that.
Moby 24:20
But just going back to the U.K., and then you look at the fact that The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, the New Yorker, Huffington Post, MSNBC won't really touch veganism and the consequences of animal agriculture, but then you open up the BBC, and they have article after article about it, and The Guardian, article after article about it, and you're like, wow — how do they get it and all of these outlets in the United States won't touch it? I think, in the United States — I had a conversation about this with Al Gore a while ago, and he basically calls the role of meat and dairy. It's the real inconvenient truth. You know, people are afraid of losing subscribers, they're afraid of losing revenue streams, they're afraid. Even a lot of people like Bernie Sanders and AOC, they're just meat eaters who are afraid to lose their hotdogs. It's so depressing. That's why, if I'm being grim and honest, to me, the only solution is essentially a world without people — that world is being created by humans as we speak. But a world without people is probably going to end up being a much better world than the world we've created.
Mikko 25:42
Yeah, it is dizzying how much suffering we've managed to create and perpetuate, within such a short period of time as well.
Moby 25:55
I almost feel like if there was a divine entity, the moment one human being tortured another human being, God should have just said that's it, wipe them get rid of them, this is a bad species. Because other animals kill other animals, but usually for food or for practical reasons, like alligators. Alligators tend not to take other alligators and put them in cages and torture them for decades. So humans are the only species I know of, apart from house cats, who seem to delight in causing sustained agony and suffering. And for that reason I kind of have the opinion that maybe, maybe it's time for humans to no longer be around.
Mikko 26:45
Right. Right. That could be a topic for another call.
Moby 26:51
It's such a lighthearted thing to say. You ever really want to alienate your friends and not get invited to parties, just tell them that you're an anti-human who thinks that humanity is a curse that should be wiped off the planet.
Mikko 27:07
Right. Right. Right. There are some opinions and trends and patterns that support that for sure, as well. And that is a discussion that's being had in academic philosophy, for instance, so it's not a totally out of the blue, fringe thing.
Moby 27:27
It's also — so sorry for interrupting — but it's also the most obvious thing on the planet. You look at everything humans do, and even when they try and solve a problem, they end up causing more problems. Humans are an overwhelming, destructive, horrifying, violent, entitled, terrible species, all evidence points to that, and then people are like, oh, but you know, what about symphonies? I'm like, yeah, symphonies are nice, that's the exception. What about art? Yeah, art's nice, that's the exception. Look at a freeway, look at what humans create, everywhere. They pave over the natural world, they kill other animals, they kill each other. And everything they do ends up killing humans as well. No, unless we figure this out, we don't have much time here. And I think that's not such a bad thing.
Mikko 28:28
So, for a young person, who finds themselves a member of a destructive species and wants to do something to change the world into, if not a more compassionate place, at least a place with less suffering. What would you tell them?
Moby 28:49
Oh, boy, I would say, become a master at social media, while also figuring out how to become a billionaire, and possibly running for president, and inventing a new type of phenomenal alternative protein. And figure out how to be a great author who writes books that will actually reach people and get them to change. So they should ideally do all of those things at the same time.
Mikko 29:23
Right. That's a good set of the levers for sure, yeah, that's perfect.
Moby 29:30
But ultimately my suggestion to basically anyone is figure out how to become a billionaire, because the billionaires run the world. And right now, you look at Elon Musk — Elon and I were friends a long time ago, I don't know what the hell happened to him — but if he wanted to end animal agriculture, he could. He could use all of his money and do study after study, fund films, fund books, talk to politicians, reach everyone and say, "Look, animal agriculture is destroying animals and destroying us." And instead, he buys Twitter so that anti-Semites and racists can have a platform.
Mikko 30:19
Yeah. Those are some misled priorities.
Moby 30:24
One would think so yes.
Mikko 30:28
With that note, but maybe perhaps rather with a note of your advice to the young generation who want to get change done in the world,thank you very much for for taking the time to talk with us. And thank you very much for making that awesome film.
Moby 30:50
All thanks. And one thing I should mention about "Punk Rock Vegan Movie" is it's free. We made it with the idea of giving it away, because I don't want to create any barriers to activist content. And also, I cannot in good conscience ever try and make a penny from animal rights activism like that. It makes my stomach turn, the thought of trying to monetize or create revenue streams from activist content. Other people, I'm not criticizing those who figured out how to do it, I'm just saying for myself, my activist work has to be for free because otherwise it just feels deeply unethical. If I don't need additional revenue streams, I shouldn't try and monetize activism.
Mikko 31:38
Sure. No, that makes a lot of sense. And that's definitely worth pointing out as well about about the film. Yes, we will certainly link to the film from anywhere this interview is published. So if you're watching this online, definitely look at the links around this video. We will also link back to Moby's other work. Moby, thank you so much again for taking the time and for doing this interview.
Moby 32:07
Oh, my pleasure. Yes. And thank you guys for what you do. I follow you on social media and I love everything you're working on.
Mikko 32:14
That's so great to hear.
Moby 32:15
Okay, thanks again.
Mikko 32:17
Bye.
Moby 32:18
Bye.