If you're interested in learning about the problem of wild animal suffering and what can be done to help, maybe check out the playlist on my channel: th-cam.com/video/BfwleTdiP1c/w-d-xo.html
@@TurningVeganese We do that regularly, daily - when we build houses, fences, gardens, push back other species, plant crops / seize land etc. Wild animal suffering is a problem many of us also address, when we see it. I wouldn't just stand there applauding as another animal decided to tear into another one. I don't want to live in a world where brutality is allowed to run rampant.
Great video, I have thought a lot about these subjects . Aggressive use of AI to address animal suffering could potentially lead to significant improvements in conditions within factory farms and other industries that exploit the animals and if AI systems become mature and potentially superintelligent, there could be concerns about the ethical boundaries of their decision-making processes, or a detached outlook that may not adequately consider human perspectives or well-being. So these would be inroads to developing these legal frameworks.
I live in China and it would take a miracle. No concept that animals have feelings or feel pain at all. Veganism is just buddhism and a religious belief to most people.
Great to hear that he had added "wild animal suffering" in his book. Also it seems that he changed his mind in favor of helping animals in the wild. Peter Singer is that one human being who changed my life in so many ways. Thank you Peter!
Humans impact ecology so much already. We could prioritise the wild animals we do harm e.g. through pollution. Antinatalists only have one generation to do so anyway. I wouldn't get too stuck on ecological consequences and conservation values. And certainly bin space colonisation!
I'm not sure his non-veganism is "disaligned with their morals". He has stated that he eats a vegan diet at home, and tends to do so when he travels, but does not systematically check the absence of animal products when eating out : his example was saying he doesn't verify if something was cooked in ghee when he goes to an Indian resturant, but that he will not eat something where animal products are central / visible. Given he is a consequentialist, focused on impact, his non-veganism remains coherent with his own controversial positions : eg, that refusing to consume a few grams of animal abuse product does not change the impact one has in a speciesist society, while, say, eating a cheese sandwich would. I would say it's caricatural to infer from this that he's "too lazy to be vegan" or that he "doesn't care about consistency" as many claim. He just thinks that the impact of systematic avoidance vs general avoidance is trivial. Which is, of course, debateable.
This video had me questioning how utilitarian Peter Singer really is. Why does he think we should eliminate the suffering of farmed animals before making serious efforts for wild animals? Overall, I found his comments on wild animal suffering quite restrained. Maybe he's just aware of his position and doesn't want to stir up unnecessary controversy?
Please rephrase your first question? I assume you mean "domestic before wild"? And I guess successful people tend to have to watch their words in order to best influence, in a utilitarian way.
I guess it's because he's a regular utilitarian and not a negative utilitarian. This is the Antinatalist nightmare. There's no one suffering on Mars, it's perfect. No need to populate galaxies, create more suffering, problems, conflicts, hatred, even if there's some "happiness" (however you define it) that's also created.
" How would we be animals like the others since the human order ( in the Wokes ] must be built in the negation of this natural difference that we have in common with animals? " Sorry if tne grammar is wrong, I'm French
Peter Singer sounds very reasonable and compassionate in this particularl interview. But in other interviews and his writings he said some pretty disturbing things like it's ok to have some sexual interactions with animals if you assume there is consent, and his speciesist views that it's ok to "humanely" kill and eat animals who had a good life.
He's made some moral progress in these areas. I think the bestiality article was made as a sort of more-or-less shock value piece to bring attention to the fact that we only condemn sexual relations with nonhuman animals because it's seen as degrading for humans, and not because of the actual harm done to animals (which is why it's legal to sexually abuse animals on famrs), and he has stated in the interview that he regretted writing the article (which served as a preface to a review on bestiality, if I recall). As for the second view, which was expressed in the original "Animal Liberation", it has been changed in the new edition (saying that it is doubtful that there's such a big different in interest in continuing to live between human and nonhuman animals).
If Super AIs take their cues from humans about how to treat us, it will take less than a second to review the way our species has treated so many others and we're doomed. Simple as that.
Except that I feel we are moving backwards. Look at what's happening now with bringing back animal testing for cosmetics and the bans on using certain words in order to shut down the plant based industries, amendment 41. This has even reached Chile now, with the agricultural lobby fighting to have words removed from what a few years ago was a small Chilean startup, Not. Co. Soon their Not Milk won't be able to called that if the lobbyists win, the same for all their burger products etc. It's truly awful 😢
Hello from Beijing ，here is no hope for any animals at all ，we living under totalitarian regime and we do not even get a chance to speak for ourselves，thats the hard truth
Singer is disappointed that humanity has not come further regarding animal liberation yet himself can't even be bothered to be vegan. Maybe animal rights is the way to go rather than his warped idea of utilitarian number justice?
Or maybe you're deluded about the overwhelming dominance of magic word-based thinking in the morality and politics of our current world, not consequentialism. It's deontology, not consequentialism, that lets people believe if they didn't intend to torture the animal themself, it's not their fault. It's deontology that says if it was "for" food rather than "for" sadistic pleasure, then the torture is much more okay.
@@indef2def People believe whatever they want to believe to justify their current behavior. That is why rights are more practical, they allow less loop holes. And practicality is important; rather than the most correct meta ethics. Also, consequentialism is used to justify the suffering caused by food choices as well; I don't think you have a point when you say that the underlying meta ethics of a rights based liberation movement are used for that.
i agree with Peter whole heartedly about speciesism but it always makes me think if (mostly) white men cape these hard for non human sentient rights why don't they also use their voices for trans rights, the rights of women and POC , especially in this climate
A large amount of humans have the tendency to forget about the suffering of other creatures, non human animals, in an attempt to deny the reality. A lot of emphasis is put, instead, on other subjects, irrelevant in my opinion, as a method of distraction. Anyway I'm sure Mother Nature, in due time, will be concerned, as it is normal in a process of Evolution, to upgrade DNA and eliminate animal suffering in the wild. What about humans instead? Need much more time? 👽🙂
@@RandomAmbles This is a living Planet, conscious and in a constant process of evolution. Nature doesn't consider a stand still position. All creatures will change towards a higher energetic state. Humans too, if not trapped in machines. Maybe someone doesn't see this as an option.
19:14 No ......... there is NO logical pathway from 'we should be helping humans' to it's 'an obligation to help wildlife'. Helping alleviate the suffering of those whom we're not responsible for their care is NOT and NEVER a moral obligation. It may be morally virtuous to help....... but not an obligation.
So a kid being beaten by a group of people, there's no need to 'help'. Essentially helping doesnt exist to in an obligatory sense to you. correct me if im wrong
If the model of causation you use let's you conclude that wild animals' suffering is not cause by us. Then how is the poor people's suffering due to the affluent people?
1. Human suffering is bad cos suffering is bad. 2. Animal suffering is bad cos suffering is bad 3. Humans suffer from natural diseases we should help them cos suffering is bad. 4. Animals suffer from natural diseases we should help them for the same reason, that is, suffering is bad. This is one view someone could take. If suffering is what is being valued then it would probably make sense to help those who are suffering, whether human or non-human animal.
@Chris McGowan You're missing the point entirely. The kid may have an urgent desire to be helped but that doesn't mean I am morally OBLIGATED to help. It may be morally virtuous to help and since I'm a very morally virtuous person, I'd very likely find a way to help / intervene......... but that still doesn't make it a moral OBLIGATION to help.
So many people have this exaggerated idea about how much suffering there is in the wild. The truth is, if you actually look into it, most "prey" animals live long, healthy lives up until old age, injury or disease. And a lot of those lives are likely even better than many humans today in various parts of the world. "Prey" animals are equipped to deal with the pressures put on them by carnivorous animals. The life of a predator in the wild is often very difficult, as most "prey" animals are incredibly difficult to catch when healthy, and are constantly on the verge of starvation. Trying to muck about fixing this delicate balance in nature would be the absolute last thing on the list of things to do by any vegan that's taken even a cursory look of what life is like for animals in the wild.
While I won't deny that might possibly be true, it's always easier to notice the wrongs elsewhere as they are not normative to us. I think that's probably exactly the reason why people get outraged when they hear about farming dogs but just do not question western animal agriculture. I moved country recently (still within the EU, so not even that far) and it's kind of amazing to realise how many things, good or bad, you just took for granted. I had the same attitude change with veganism too. I was kinda hesitant about it and just felt that I should, not wanting to be a bother for others I initially decided not to be vegan when eating out, and I kept that up only shortly when I realised that anytime I did eat animal products I got sick. Only after distancing myself from it for a couple of weeks I could really internalise how wrong it was. You can't have much of an objective view of something when it's still a habit.
@@PauLtus_B yes that's a good point, i think i understand that they don't think it's wrong to eat dogs. I don't live there so can't be 100% sure, but it seems they are still pretty homophobic and racist in comparison to Europe, which is what makes me say I think they are behind in morality not only towards animals but towards everything. I wouldn't be surprised if slavery was still legal there.
Upset with factory farms, he argues people switch to veggies. Yawn. What does it even mean to eliminate wild animal suffering, like counting angels dancing on heads of pins? Obtuse and remote argument in time and space from us. When you can flip an Ai off+on and it gushes about near-death-experiences, then I’ll give Turing the nod.
My dream scenario is that humans unwittingly extinct themselves with AI, followed by a mass coronal ejection eliminating the global power grid, thus eliminating AI.
Too bad some of his ideas became the lunacy of effective altruism and longtermism... and that he does not frontally oppose the m.o. of these "movements"
I gave it a honest listen but i simply disagree. If hes worried about biodiversity then plant based agriculture is just as bad if not worse considering how many animals and insects it has to kill to maintain the crop. Much less the space needed to produce the same protien per pound would devestate habitats and further erode soils since rotation would be much quicker. And this isnt even mentioning the health for a enviroment to sometimes even hunt animals to keep the populations in check. Should we treat the animals we produce as food better and process it with better nutritional quality yes, but this idea we could do without animal produce at all is just ridiculous. Also surprisingly producing many cooking oils has a net carbon emmision higher than raising a chicken so its actually worse for climate change but people like this wont tell you that. its not just as easy to say "plant food good, meat food bad". Whenever anyone is dogmatic about something try to find the actual nuanced discussion.
This is a gish gallop (too many points to refute), but ill say that broadly speaking, animal agriculture requires more water and more land than plant agriculture.
Isn’t it speciesist to think humans know better than nonhuman wild animals how to live their lives? Suffering is OK when it is the result of choices made out of self-sovereignty: It’s how we learn. Trying to minimize “wild animal suffering” will simply lead to enslavement.
No, it's speciesist to take a strong moral stand against human torture at the hand of humans, but call it "the majesty of nature" when nonhumans are tortured at the hand of nonhumans.
@@indef2def Vegans finding new justifications to slave and murder animals-I guess we’ve come full circle. So, what, you think we should wipe out all of the birds, most insects, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, marine life? To your point, torture is an action exclusive to humans and should not be confused with predation. It is not our place to judge animals for what they do out of necessity.
There you go petal, I'll leave a message for you - I see you are desperate for attention. It's horrible being lonely, I hope you find a real world friend soon 😘
If you're interested in learning about the problem of wild animal suffering and what can be done to help, maybe check out the playlist on my channel: th-cam.com/video/BfwleTdiP1c/w-d-xo.html
Boooooo! You’re a Numkwat! Wild animal suffering is not humanity's problem to solve! We can’t police nature!
@@TurningVeganese
We do that regularly, daily - when we build houses, fences, gardens, push back other species, plant crops / seize land etc.
Wild animal suffering is a problem many of us also address, when we see it.
I wouldn't just stand there applauding as another animal decided to tear into another one.
I don't want to live in a world where brutality is allowed to run rampant.
@@JB.zero.zero.1 Just because we do some harm doesn't justify doing even more.
Great video, I have thought a lot about these subjects . Aggressive use of AI to address animal suffering could potentially lead to significant improvements in conditions within factory farms and other industries that exploit the animals and if AI systems become mature and potentially superintelligent, there could be concerns about the ethical boundaries of their decision-making processes, or a detached outlook that may not adequately consider human perspectives or well-being. So these would be inroads to developing these legal frameworks.
The best thing we can do for wild animals is to leave them the f*ck alone, and leave their habitat alone.
What a pleasant surprise.
Man, what a quality videos and interviews you're gifting to us, thanks.
Underated channel. Much thanks to you, Jack ❤
It's not underrated, guga foods gets millions apon millions of views just cooking a steak, vegans are boring he is where he should be
@@rondarkman.
argumentum ad populum 🤭
@@rondarkman. useless juvenile comment
It's so great to hear Peter Singer updating the Animal Liberation and that he stays so focused on tha cause area. Looking forward to read it soon ❤
I live in China and it would take a miracle. No concept that animals have feelings or feel pain at all. Veganism is just buddhism and a religious belief to most people.
Great to hear that he had added "wild animal suffering" in his book. Also it seems that he changed his mind in favor of helping animals in the wild. Peter Singer is that one human being who changed my life in so many ways. Thank you Peter!
Singer...singing the Truth from the rooftops...May the 'deaf' learn to hear this magical tune...
Fascinating convo between two living legends. Bravo 👏
Thank you Peter singer for continuing to be an inspiring pragmatic animal advocate! You are a legend ❤
Is Singer rocking a Casio Watch!?! What a man of culture
amazing collab. Peter influenced me a lot when I first went vegan. Thanks from Tasmania, Australia.
I'm going to tassie soon for dark mofo, looks like you have many glorious places that do seafood platters cannot wait
@@rondarkman. are you feeling well? Get some help.
@@rondarkman. hahah. Yeah, I'm sure we do. Tom McHugos has great food.
I love Peter Singer, he's such an awesome human being! Nice that you did this interview! Simple and great.
Thanks for another great discussion.
2 of my absolute heroes having an incredible conversation. How did i miss this video when it came out...
Wow what a great conversation. Love you both very much💚 and tnx for the amazing content
This was a really great interview! Good job Jack :) and such a wholesome ending!
Great interview
Great to see you pulling in some big names to the channel for a chat Jack.🌱🌅🍀
nice format HH. Freaking good interview.
Great interview
great to see more content from you mate
Thank you for this interview!
Great audio production
love u bro, thanks for this amazing interview
Thanks for the content
Excellent 😻
Thx for the interesting Podcast 👍 I'd like to hear more similar interviews with similar guestst
Ban Slaughter
Never
@Vegan What else?
Lol nope
Humans impact ecology so much already. We could prioritise the wild animals we do harm e.g. through pollution. Antinatalists only have one generation to do so anyway. I wouldn't get too stuck on ecological consequences and conservation values. And certainly bin space colonisation!
is peter singer a vegan now?
Sadly not
Nice
nice video
Would have been good to hear him pushed on why he isn't vegan.
He isn't??!! 😮
@@heatherwoodley8244 sadly not. Another intellectual who doesn't align their actions with their morals
I'm not sure his non-veganism is "disaligned with their morals". He has stated that he eats a vegan diet at home, and tends to do so when he travels, but does not systematically check the absence of animal products when eating out : his example was saying he doesn't verify if something was cooked in ghee when he goes to an Indian resturant, but that he will not eat something where animal products are central / visible. Given he is a consequentialist, focused on impact, his non-veganism remains coherent with his own controversial positions : eg, that refusing to consume a few grams of animal abuse product does not change the impact one has in a speciesist society, while, say, eating a cheese sandwich would. I would say it's caricatural to infer from this that he's "too lazy to be vegan" or that he "doesn't care about consistency" as many claim. He just thinks that the impact of systematic avoidance vs general avoidance is trivial. Which is, of course, debateable.
This video had me questioning how utilitarian Peter Singer really is. Why does he think we should eliminate the suffering of farmed animals before making serious efforts for wild animals?
Overall, I found his comments on wild animal suffering quite restrained. Maybe he's just aware of his position and doesn't want to stir up unnecessary controversy?
Please rephrase your first question? I assume you mean "domestic before wild"? And I guess successful people tend to have to watch their words in order to best influence, in a utilitarian way.
@@decipheritalian Thanks, and yes I meant farmed animals!
Despite how much he may have done for the movement....however hes still not even vegan.
@@John.AR.Activism
There's no need to be vegan
@@John.AR.Activism Full time 100% veganism in an unvegan world is a distraction from suffering reduction and advocacy.
Btw, have wondered for awhile if you are sympathetic with negetive utilitarianism, Anti-natalism, and or EFILism
He's talked about it a few years ago on Cosmic Skeptics channel
He's a member of a negative utilitarian discord.
12:35
WTF?? Wonderful? That actually sounds like one of the worst possible futures. 😡
True
Yeah seems a recipe for disaster. I was hoping he would instead say "reduce alien suffering". Ah well, he's only human!
I guess it's because he's a regular utilitarian and not a negative utilitarian. This is the Antinatalist nightmare. There's no one suffering on Mars, it's perfect. No need to populate galaxies, create more suffering, problems, conflicts, hatred, even if there's some "happiness" (however you define it) that's also created.
@@Masilya111
Yup 👍
A vegan galaxy is better if there are non-vegan aliens.
" How would we be animals like the others since the human order ( in the Wokes ] must be built in the negation of this natural difference that we have in common with animals? " Sorry if tne grammar is wrong, I'm French
Peter Singer sounds very reasonable and compassionate in this particularl interview. But in other interviews and his writings he said some pretty disturbing things like it's ok to have some sexual interactions with animals if you assume there is consent, and his speciesist views that it's ok to "humanely" kill and eat animals who had a good life.
He's made some moral progress in these areas. I think the bestiality article was made as a sort of more-or-less shock value piece to bring attention to the fact that we only condemn sexual relations with nonhuman animals because it's seen as degrading for humans, and not because of the actual harm done to animals (which is why it's legal to sexually abuse animals on famrs), and he has stated in the interview that he regretted writing the article (which served as a preface to a review on bestiality, if I recall). As for the second view, which was expressed in the original "Animal Liberation", it has been changed in the new edition (saying that it is doubtful that there's such a big different in interest in continuing to live between human and nonhuman animals).
I can't believe you waited 13 whole minutes before asking about wild animal suffering 😂
If Super AIs take their cues from humans about how to treat us, it will take less than a second to review the way our species has treated so many others and we're doomed. Simple as that.
Except that I feel we are moving backwards. Look at what's happening now with bringing back animal testing for cosmetics and the bans on using certain words in order to shut down the plant based industries, amendment 41. This has even reached Chile now, with the agricultural lobby fighting to have words removed from what a few years ago was a small Chilean startup, Not. Co. Soon their Not Milk won't be able to called that if the lobbyists win, the same for all their burger products etc. It's truly awful 😢
Hello from Beijing ，here is no hope for any animals at all ，we living under totalitarian regime and we do not even get a chance to speak for ourselves，thats the hard truth
Crazy!
Singer is disappointed that humanity has not come further regarding animal liberation yet himself can't even be bothered to be vegan. Maybe animal rights is the way to go rather than his warped idea of utilitarian number justice?
Or maybe you're deluded about the overwhelming dominance of magic word-based thinking in the morality and politics of our current world, not consequentialism. It's deontology, not consequentialism, that lets people believe if they didn't intend to torture the animal themself, it's not their fault. It's deontology that says if it was "for" food rather than "for" sadistic pleasure, then the torture is much more okay.
@@indef2def People believe whatever they want to believe to justify their current behavior. That is why rights are more practical, they allow less loop holes. And practicality is important; rather than the most correct meta ethics. Also, consequentialism is used to justify the suffering caused by food choices as well; I don't think you have a point when you say that the underlying meta ethics of a rights based liberation movement are used for that.
i agree with Peter whole heartedly about speciesism but it always makes me think if (mostly) white men cape these hard for non human sentient rights why don't they also use their voices for trans rights, the rights of women and POC , especially in this climate
If we were to align A.I.'s moralities with our own in this present moment humans would most certainly up being factory farmed, lol.
think we will care about animal suffering when we inflict so much of it upon ourselves?
I am refusing to listen to Peter Singer. He is not vegan and he knows EVERYTHING! And I dont understand why many vegans look up to him.
A large amount of humans have the tendency to forget about the suffering of other creatures, non human animals, in an attempt to deny the reality. A lot of emphasis is put, instead, on other subjects, irrelevant in my opinion, as a method of distraction. Anyway I'm sure Mother Nature, in due time, will be concerned, as it is normal in a process of Evolution, to upgrade DNA and eliminate animal suffering in the wild. What about humans instead? Need much more time? 👽🙂
I understood the first half of this comment, but not the second.
@@RandomAmbles This is a living Planet, conscious and in a constant process of evolution. Nature doesn't consider a stand still position. All creatures will change towards a higher energetic state. Humans too, if not trapped in machines. Maybe someone doesn't see this as an option.
7:30 humans are to stupid to change in time …
19:14
No ......... there is NO logical pathway from 'we should be helping humans' to it's 'an obligation to help wildlife'.
Helping alleviate the suffering of those whom we're not responsible for their care is NOT and NEVER a moral obligation. It may be morally virtuous to help....... but not an obligation.
So a kid being beaten by a group of people, there's no need to 'help'. Essentially helping doesnt exist to in an obligatory sense to you. correct me if im wrong
If the model of causation you use let's you conclude that wild animals' suffering is not cause by us. Then how is the poor people's suffering due to the affluent people?
I agree with you.
1. Human suffering is bad cos suffering is bad.
2. Animal suffering is bad cos suffering is bad
3. Humans suffer from natural diseases we should help them cos suffering is bad.
4. Animals suffer from natural diseases we should help them for the same reason, that is, suffering is bad.
This is one view someone could take. If suffering is what is being valued then it would probably make sense to help those who are suffering, whether human or non-human animal.
@Chris McGowan
You're missing the point entirely.
The kid may have an urgent desire to be helped but that doesn't mean I am morally OBLIGATED to help.
It may be morally virtuous to help and since I'm a very morally virtuous person, I'd very likely find a way to help / intervene......... but that still doesn't make it a moral OBLIGATION to help.
So many people have this exaggerated idea about how much suffering there is in the wild. The truth is, if you actually look into it, most "prey" animals live long, healthy lives up until old age, injury or disease. And a lot of those lives are likely even better than many humans today in various parts of the world. "Prey" animals are equipped to deal with the pressures put on them by carnivorous animals. The life of a predator in the wild is often very difficult, as most "prey" animals are incredibly difficult to catch when healthy, and are constantly on the verge of starvation. Trying to muck about fixing this delicate balance in nature would be the absolute last thing on the list of things to do by any vegan that's taken even a cursory look of what life is like for animals in the wild.
I might be wrong here but from the outside China always seems so behind when it comes to any moral issue :/
While I won't deny that might possibly be true, it's always easier to notice the wrongs elsewhere as they are not normative to us.
I think that's probably exactly the reason why people get outraged when they hear about farming dogs but just do not question western animal agriculture.
I moved country recently (still within the EU, so not even that far) and it's kind of amazing to realise how many things, good or bad, you just took for granted.
I had the same attitude change with veganism too. I was kinda hesitant about it and just felt that I should, not wanting to be a bother for others I initially decided not to be vegan when eating out, and I kept that up only shortly when I realised that anytime I did eat animal products I got sick. Only after distancing myself from it for a couple of weeks I could really internalise how wrong it was. You can't have much of an objective view of something when it's still a habit.
@@PauLtus_B yes that's a good point, i think i understand that they don't think it's wrong to eat dogs. I don't live there so can't be 100% sure, but it seems they are still pretty homophobic and racist in comparison to Europe, which is what makes me say I think they are behind in morality not only towards animals but towards everything. I wouldn't be surprised if slavery was still legal there.
Upset with factory farms, he argues people switch to veggies. Yawn.
What does it even mean to eliminate wild animal suffering, like counting angels dancing on heads of pins? Obtuse and remote argument in time and space from us.
When you can flip an Ai off+on and it gushes about near-death-experiences, then I’ll give Turing the nod.
My dream scenario is that humans unwittingly extinct themselves with AI, followed by a mass coronal ejection eliminating the global power grid, thus eliminating AI.
Too bad some of his ideas became the lunacy of effective altruism and longtermism... and that he does not frontally oppose the m.o. of these "movements"
Altruism is not long term , when you walk your talk and love vegan in the present moment
I gave it a honest listen but i simply disagree. If hes worried about biodiversity then plant based agriculture is just as bad if not worse considering how many animals and insects it has to kill to maintain the crop. Much less the space needed to produce the same protien per pound would devestate habitats and further erode soils since rotation would be much quicker. And this isnt even mentioning the health for a enviroment to sometimes even hunt animals to keep the populations in check. Should we treat the animals we produce as food better and process it with better nutritional quality yes, but this idea we could do without animal produce at all is just ridiculous. Also surprisingly producing many cooking oils has a net carbon emmision higher than raising a chicken so its actually worse for climate change but people like this wont tell you that. its not just as easy to say "plant food good, meat food bad". Whenever anyone is dogmatic about something try to find the actual nuanced discussion.
Wrong
This is a gish gallop (too many points to refute), but ill say that broadly speaking, animal agriculture requires more water and more land than plant agriculture.
Isn’t it speciesist to think humans know better than nonhuman wild animals how to live their lives? Suffering is OK when it is the result of choices made out of self-sovereignty: It’s how we learn. Trying to minimize “wild animal suffering” will simply lead to enslavement.
No, it's speciesist to take a strong moral stand against human torture at the hand of humans, but call it "the majesty of nature" when nonhumans are tortured at the hand of nonhumans.
@@indef2def Vegans finding new justifications to slave and murder animals-I guess we’ve come full circle. So, what, you think we should wipe out all of the birds, most insects, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, marine life?
To your point, torture is an action exclusive to humans and should not be confused with predation. It is not our place to judge animals for what they do out of necessity.
I’m finding him more and more problematic lately 😬
I liberate the animals every night.
On my plate 🐄 🐔 🐖 🍖 🐟.
So many delicious animals to choose from no need to be vegan, animals are here for us
There you go petal, I'll leave a message for you - I see you are desperate for attention.
It's horrible being lonely, I hope you find a real world friend soon 😘