I suppose what's happened recently has confirmed suspicions I voiced in the book, and I think made clearer some of those things that I point out. For instance I have a section of the book where I talk about the possibility of torture.

All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering, the animals are our equals.

Effective altruism is the form of altruism in which we bring our rational capacities to bear in order to do the most good that we can.

We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals.

To give preference to the life of a being simply because that being is a member of our species would put us in the same position as racists who give preference to those who are members of their race.

I don't think there's anything in the compromise that means that there's a clash of ethics.

Of course, infanticide needs to be strictly legally controlled and rare - but it should not be ruled out, any more than abortion.