Aditya Sharma It's worse than that: The world made us do it (by forcing our ancestors to evolve with carnivorous instincts), so now we have those instincts inside of us like any other animal. And it has made us speciecist, like any other animal. Part of the uncomfortable insight into nature is the realisation that we not only have no reason to assume animals don't suffer like us, we also have no reason to assume we had free will in contrast to them. Every perpetrator is a victim of something, and every victim of its genetics and environment can easily turn into a perpetrator themselves. This is why so many people who like to engage in moral grandstanding hated the Joker movie.
@Aero Dynamix, Normal doesn't mean optimal. It means common or mediocre. I think you're better than that or at least have a potential to be better than that. Don't be a creep who eats flesh, milk and eggs of immiserated animals, be vegan instead.
The world was already brutal long before us, friend. Suffering is the default state of the world without humanity. Humans are the only thing we aware of that do anything to change it.
@@bobarends3229 I love Sam Harris and all but he is a moral hypocrite. He says he basis his ethics on wellbeing and suffering but eats animals. He says we should use science as a moral guide (as Dawkins just did) but refuses to do so. And that quote you used of his in this context, is not a logical or moral argument for suffering and killing non-human animals either.
@fae ragan Well firstly there's not solid science on the sentience of insects though I would still give them the benefit of the doubt. And you misunderstand Veganism as a moral principle. Veganism defined: "Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." As far as possible and practicable equates to a deontological view of Animal Rights in line with Human Rights. The insect deaths you mention are examples of collateral industry harm and death. And there's a big difference between collateral industry death and directly paying someone to kill animals? The idea that a Vegan is a hypocrite on their Animal Rights stance because of crop spray deaths or house building. Is like saying that a person is a hypocrite on their Human Rights stance because they own a phone (which has elements which cause resource war deaths in the Congo), or buy clothes (vast majority are made in sweatshops where people die of low safety regulations and chemical poisonings) or drive a car (1.35 million people die each year in crashes and 50 million more people suffer non-fatal injuries.) or own a home (many die in the construction industry annually from accidents) Some things happen collaterally and need safety improvements. And some things are direct and intentional... like stabbing animals to death for meat. To take your own words and put them in the Human Rights context I could say. "Is it wrong to [Own sweatshop clothes]? If not your argument about [Not owning slaves & murdering people] would seem to fall flat. Using [Phones] should be seen as just as bad as gassing the jews. If building a house meant [killing people] who [work] there, it would be wrong to build the house. How could it be possible to live this way?" We can take measures, which morally we should, to build houses, buy clothes, own technology etc. Whilst minimising collateral harm to both human-animals and non-human animals. These products and services can be created without causing harm and death, though obviously there is an inherent risk. If you want to eat meat, you must directly and intentionally kill an animal, that's the goal. (Bar future lab meat and road kill cafes) And there are certain cases where we deny rights to humans who commit offenses. i.e. if someone attacks you can use lethal force to stop them, if someone breaks into your house and tries to remove or damage your property you can also use lethal force. I see no reason to exempt non-human animals from such a clause
I was genuinely shocked when I first learned there are actually people who think animals (and sometimes even human babies) can't feel pain! That sounds like an utterly ridiculous idea to me, why the hell would they not feel it??
@Ignat Radu Yeah same, though I try to at least make ethical choices like avoiding factory farming - I have no inherent problem with killing animals for food, that's just part of nature, but I'm not on board with unnecessary torture. I also do not support unnecessarily hurting or killing animals like animal testing or trophy hunting. But just eating them? That's fine by me as long as they get a decent life.
That's the first step in going Vegan, having a logical reason to do so. Not like the trendy teenagers who go Vegan to give them a sense of identity. My advise is to not jump straight into Veganism, try out a Vegetarian diet, it's much easier. After a few years, you'll have no issue going Vegan for the rest of your life.
@@MikaelLewisify I agree that being vegan definitely more important than one's reason for going vegan. However, unless the person has a strong moral or logical reason for becoming vegan he is likely to return to consuming non vegetarian food.
He is perfectly right, but I'd add that physical pain for most animals is not an uncertainty and psychological pain has already been detected beyond a reasonable doubt for many animals such as cows, dogs and other primates, close to that of a 4 year old human being. I'd also add that the fact that we have knowledge and technology adds another ethical responsibility towards them: 1) avoid using them whenever we can and search alternatives instead 2) if there's no way around it, we should do it avoiding as much pain as possible and allowing it to live as long as possible and a good quality of life in exchange, including giving them the care of our medicine and such 3) we should help them whenever we can, just because and avoid doing harm to the best of our capabilities, just like we do to human animals
Vitamin B12 is given to farmed animals as a supplement too. People who eat animals bodies and excretions get it from these, but kinda inefficiently. So actually you are paying the supplement industry more by eating meat instead of not eating it and supplementing B12 yourself. There is no need for other supplements unless you have a health condition. If you think the supplement industry is too powerful and is advertising wrong, go ahead and educate people, I think that's a good idea! Veganism is about causing the least amount of pain an suffering to beings who feel pain just like we do. Then there are many health and environmental benefits. Period. :) I agree, there are some weird vegans among the cool ones, but that's the same in every topic.
You're like child with those responses "Why did I rob that house? because it felt good, I like money". I'm not a vegan or veterinarian, but I respect people who are. I'm not going to argue to people who hasn't turned 13 yet.
Environmentally and morally, I agree. Health-wise, I haven't seen any evidence that vegan diets are better than non-vegan. It's certainly possible to pick a vegan diet and a non-vegan diet where the vegan one is healthier, but that's also true the other way around.
Environmentally and in terms of health, I agree. Moral-wise? Definitely not. It is a well known fact that morals are purely subjective, and every viewpoint that is derived from some normative conjecture is also subjective as well, as if it were virally so. This is known as the is-ought problem. Claiming the moral superiority of veganism does nothing but get you ridiculed.
I would have agreed with the statement that morals are subjective until very recently. I was swayed by the arguments of Sam Harris in favour of there being objective morality. I highly recommend reading "The Moral Landscape" if you haven't already. I can't do it justice in a TH-cam comment, but at its core, the argument is that morality is a similar concept to medicine. Medicine objectively improves health and morality objectively improves wellbeing. To argue that morality is subjective is actually to argue that wellbeing is subjective, but if you do that then you must also concede that health is subjective (a 'preferred state of being') and by association, the process of medicine. I think that's a much harder argument to justify. Again, I don't do it justice in a TH-cam comment, so please try the book before poking giant holes in my three sentence summary.
I think most people are against animal cruelty but then they don't put that opinion into practise. They buy factory farmed meat where animals are treated horribly (yes animal abuse is standard in factory farming, those horrible slaughter house footage you've seen is not just from "one specific factory". If you believe that then you are very ignorant and distant from reality. France exposed disgusting animal abuse across the country a few months ago and all three of US biggest factory farming companies Tyson, Cargo etc have all been exposed several times for their animal abuse). People are such hypocrites and they get defensive and angry when you point it out because they know it's true. They have no problem buying meat but once they see the killing of the cow they don't want it anymore. They watch youtube videos of cute animals and applaud anyone who saves a bird on a road and write "animals are so cute! I hate those who are cruel to animals! I love animals" And....then they go to McDonalds and pay for someone to abuse and slit a cow's throat and put pigs in carbon dioxide chambers. I've realized most people are SO dumb.
Amanda N.K, it is people per say, but when the economy consists of conveniences and impulse action, society chooses indulgence. It would take massive change from industries which never intend to change for the better of mankind, but rather capture the time they have devoted to their businesses' as the only dedication to mankind(capitalism), thus far. It takes opportunity to push for big change, and those opportunities should reach all ranges of the economic spectrum to avoid any negative feedback or fallacies of "class warfare".
There's nothing that clarifies that a meat product is factory farmed. For all I know a cheap slab of meat could be free-range or something. Don't blame me and my brethren of meat eaters for the oppressive system we're forced to live in People like you always blame the individuals when in actuality the blame is upon the system those individuals live in. You idiots need to understand determinism and how getting at the root of the issue is much more effective than attacking the victims. Instead of attacking the meat eaters attack the factory farms, advocate for the factory farms being forced to label their products as "cruelty made" or even make it illegal to factory farm. I understand real change is hard to accomplish but if you remain getting upset over my indulgence of meat instead of fighting against what influences me to indulge then the only person to blame is yourself
Andrew Godly, Oh did I blame you? Or did you read poorly? Because I said industry provides temptation that lures in society(you and me) with convenience, capturing the aspect of time and convenience. I did not claim your addiction to red meat and implicit obsession with individualism towards diet is the root. Please go back to school and learn to read.
Andrew Godly That was one of the most poor attempts at an excuse I've ever heard. Free range and more ethically produced meat is ALWAYS labeled. Why? Because they want to tell the customer about it so their product seem better than the competitors. Free range is more expensive to produce and obviously they want to show it off since free range is a positive thing. Unless it's clearly stated then you can be sure that they've used the crappiest most antibiotics filled and most cruel meat, because it's the cheapest and give them the the biggest profit. Secondly, don't try and play the victim. You're not the victim, you're certainly the perpertraitor. Ever heard of demand and supply? It's the basics of economy. If people don't buy eggs from caged chicken then that business will die. Same with meat. Your dollar is a vote on what products should exists How on earth do you not understand such a simple thing? I shouldn't have to explain simple things like that to an adult, it's ridiculous. Every time you buy non-labeled cruelty free meat you economically support animal cruelty. Logically speaking it's imposible to be against animal cruelty and buy meat products since killing is cruel. If I slammed your puppy's head into the wall, then kicked it and let it bleed to death that would be cruel. This is a common method used by slaughter house workers to kill piglets who don't grow fast enough or is injured in some way. It's utterly disgusting to watch. This was one of the things Cargo's and Tyson's factories used on a regular basis as shown in undercover footage. So my point is, it's cruel to kill but if you need to do it then the least make sure to economically support those brands who practise more ethical breeding and killing.
You totally avoided the point. My point is that if you want real change you change the system. How was slavery abolished? It was made illegal, not by convincing people to stop buying slaves. How was poaching abolished? By making it illegal, not by convincing people to stop buying furs My point was that attacking me won't accomplish anything. I already know of the market and demand. I know that trying to convince people to not buy a product is as pointless as complaining about it
What the contrarians in the comments are missing or ignoring is that ---> it is exactly our ability to understand that other species can suffer that obligates us to not intentionally cause this suffering at the very least, and take steps to reduce it where practical. Every vegan understands that carnism in nature is mostly for the necessary purpose of survival. It is most often perpetrated by an animal without a well-developed moral agency, and so a lion's lack of herbivorous adaptations, nearby grocery stores, and ability to abstractly reflect on its moral decisions excuses it of this obligation. And for the love of Poseidon... can we please stop appealing to situations that we're not in to justify our actions in NOT those situations?
metalhead2508 Uh, spoiler alert, we're animals. So saying we apply human emotions to animals (who express the same feelings & primitive emotions) isn't really accurate. We're cut from the same cloth, we're not extraterrestrials.
metalhead2508 Yes, you're saying we're applying unique human traits to animals. Except it isn't unique. Those traits are a product of a brain, nervous system & evolution and are present in animals, including humans.
Existing is suffering. It leads to death and illness. So why do you have kids or choose to live? Our ability to understand (logic) is only half of the equation.
@@__________________________1030 so am I. I'm a second-gen Desi with a South-Indian Brahmin background. But drop the 1000 years shtick lmao *Edit:* Jeez your TH-cam videos made me barf
if you stop eating meat you will be a herbivore and you cannot survive anywhere in this earth unless you create technology to harvest plants everywhereee.
Speciesism is a remnant of old religious thinking, where we weren't thought of as animals at all, but entirely separate. When we were thought to have souls and animals didn't. When we were thought to be made in the image of God, whereas animals weren't. It makes no sense from a scientific standpoint, casting away magical ideas of souls and gods, as we are merely one animal among many. But most self-proclaimed rationalists still suffer from this irrationality. They are not as free from cultural influence as they would like to think. No doubt, if they had been born in a country where bullfighting or slavery were the norm, they would accept that, too, and use their rational training to try to defend their irrational attitudes. Individualism is an important part of rationalism. Independent thought. Casting off culture and norms, and doing and believing what actually makes sense, objectively speaking. And of course, rationalism has to be coupled with actually CARING about kindness and justice, in order to manifest in that most important of areas: Ethics.
Let's be real about what is appealing about bacon. It has a lot of fat, salt, flavorings, texture, aroma, emotional connection to lovely breakfasts with mum when you were a kid. But none of those things are exclusive to dead animal parts. Please try eating a boiled pork chop and tell me you love meat. No you love all the additions and preparations.
The God Emperor youre on a video that concludes the fact that veganism is a morally superior lifestyle, the only non double standard in this case. Consider the bigger issues over your personal triggerings. Dont shut logic down based on 'being annoyed'.
Modern morality is an ever-growing arc towards more equality, more inclusion, more compassion, more harm reduction ... eventually, we will see animals as part of those we need to protect ...
@Ignat Radu "I'm evil" is no more an argument against the observation of moral progress than "I dropped out of school" is an argument against the observation of more education.
Irish Jester trying to come off as "rational" by mentioning natural selection while natural selection itself is telling us, in the form of heart disease, (#1 global cause of death) that we are not designed to eat other animals... You are so pathetic, lol.
Irish Jester btw, what does evolution have to do with drinking the milk of another animal? Mistaking evolution by social conditioning is so intellectually stupid, LOLOL.
Irish Jester An argument of evolution and natural selection would justify rape as it is the most efficient reproduction method. Pure evolutionary methodology cannot exist in an emotional world. Think a bit before you create such fallacies.
You understand by evolution, we could care less how society is. Our instincts to survive and procreate are above all. By this fact if we use evolution as a guideline (as you seem to be suggesting) we will go at anything to procreate even if it takes barbarism. Ethics and Instincts are not interchangeable.
I see veganism as the next and most important universal justice movement that humanity has ever faced. To acknowledge that what morally matters is the who inside the other, has to be finally extended to the all-time forgotten victims of humanity: the animals. Each one of them are individuals who care for their own live. Needlessly using an individual, capable of understanding himself and his surroundings in a subjective experience, is wrong. All sentient individuals will definetely be represented in some kind of human contract called *Animal Rights.* Respect for all sentients may not be understood in all and every human mind for hundreds of years, and therefore be transgressed by some humans, the same way it happens with Human Rights since they were officially announced. The root of these transgressions have always been the same: envy and greed that drives oneself to focus on differences between him / her and others (individuals, sex, race, species...) Speciesism is the ultimate root from which this behaviour arises. Focus on educating about speciesism, and humans will see other humans as their obvious companios, taking care of individuals of other species because we can, instead of exploiting them. Go Vegan. Educate others.
Unfortunately the dairy industry causes more suffering to the cows then the meat industry. Cows like any other species just give milk after birth. The male calves are considered waste and get slaughtered with the mother weeping for her stolen kids. After a couple years the constant milking and giving birth the body of the cow is broken down and she's send to the slaughterhouse often even unable to walk. The best way to protect the animals is to go vegan.
Consider veganism. The dairy and egg industries are brutal. If you do it for the animals it is quite easy. Consider watching a few short videos on youtube such as Farm to Fridge & Dairy Is Scary 🙂
@@veganm8918 I think veganism is way too much, it's dangerous for the health and also unnecessary. It's way too radical. Animals don't necessarily have to suffer in any way if everything is done properly. For example, there are free-range eggs which are obtained from free chickens around the farm lands. As long as we treat animals decently and we don't have to kill them, it's OK. Best regards.
@@Octovisuals Bad News: You have no clue what you are talking about. Good News: Ignorance is bliss. Free range chickens rarely see the light of day or breathe a single breath of fresh air until they day they're brutally thrown into a truck and sent to slaughter. Except that is usually done at night so people on the roadway cannot see them so actually they never see the light of day. Free range only means not in a cage. So they can pack them in one on top of the other inside giant sheds, They can chop their beaks off because when given the space of one sheet of paper to live your life they peck to protect themselves. Chickens on earth now on average are 4- weeks old when killed for meat. They grow so fast their legs often can't keep up and break. Every single industry that raises animals for food is brutal. So do not watch a movie such as Earthlings, Dominion, do not watch Farm to Fridge. Stay uninformed, blissfully ignorant, and happy! Best regards,
@@veganm8918 Man, I feel you, but you can't live in a fairy tale world. Nature made us omnivores, so... Good luck trying to eat just vegetables, which by the way its production also leads to land occupation and therefore animal deaths (or not births...), plus pesticides, plus everything. You have to face it: being alive is destructing. The key here is creating more than destroying, doing more good than bad. If you're worried for the chickens of your eggs and the cows of your milk, then collaborate to save many other animals. Also, if not for the industry, those animals wouldn't have even been born at all... Like I said: don't be so radical. You have to let go some things in life and just... live. Do more good than harm. And that's it. Cheers and peace.
What we think and what we feel often aren't aligned. I think many people know perfectly well that what they do is irrational and astronomically destructive, but they won't change until that emotional motivation kicks in. That is why so many go vegan after seeing compelling footage and actually feel the horror that is connected to their own actions. A rational mind alone can't do much. Most of our behaviour is still emotional. It's when those two align you start to really feel integrity.
@@fromeveryting29 adding to this. Also I think people have another problem too. It takes some considerable effort to transition to a vegan diet and feel healthy. Lots of misinformation about what to eat , not educated about nutrition , allergies, etc pose a hurdle to the transition.
I feel so bad when people call dawkins bad or evil or satan just because he speaks against religion. He is so cool and intelligent and kind.He is the grandpa that i never had.
The Abolitionists Abolished Human Slavery in the U.S. We can ABOLISH THE USE and ABUSE of ALL ANIMALS. ALL ANIMALS ARE SENTIENT BEINGS. GO VEGAN. HAVE THE COURAGE TO GO VEGAN!!! ANIMALS FEEL PAIIN AND PLEASURE AND THEY WANT TO LIVE. HAVE THE COURAGE TO GO VEGAN NOW.
Because people don't see animals as worthy of respect the same way we see humans. It's why people's hearts seem to bleed for starving humans in Africa but a stray animal is shunned because it could be carrying sickness.
Really, you don't see humans showing super great respect for their pets? We hear stories about rescued animals from other countries, or beached whales being saved, etc. And all farmers respect their animals for the value they provide, which is much the way most humans view other humans.
DoomRulz - I think you could make the opposite argument, actually. Especially here in America and other modern "first world" nations. I see far more outrage generated on stories involving dogs or cats being tortured, or elephants and tigers hunted for sport and trophies, than is generated on homelessness, or elder abuse, for example. A lot of people whose hearts break at the sight of a stray puppy give not a second thought to the panhandler begging for change at the intersection. Some of us are far more callus to one another that we'd ever be to one of our pets. So perhaps it's a more complicated issue than you've made it out to be.
Harmony Alexandria You are proposing that the children born in sub saharan Africa and dying of starvation are somehow culpable of that fact, which is a very delusional and actually quite idiotic way of thinking. Also I'm not so sure that overpopulation is the explanation for the state of things in many of those countries so your entire angry rant seems to me just a big pile of rubbish.
Buddha said Animals feel more pain because they're unable to express their pain, they're unable to communicate their pain and in many unable to cry. So their pain is worse.
Wesley Welch wrong. B12 is not found in either animals or plants, it is a bacteria found in microbes which cover the earth. Creative is made naturally by all animals. Do some research
You are mostly on the right inclination. happen to know that cobalamin(b12) is produced in high amount in the gut microbes of ungulates and ruminants( cow, sheep, deer, horses) as a readily available for our use. the b12 our gut-microbes produce is not used by us and there for we need to consume other animals to obtain it.
People are so incredibly inconsistent when it comes to this topic. So many complain about dogs being harmed and killed for meat in a different country, while they themselves do the same thing to pigs, cows and chickens. We already know we don't need meat to live a healthy life so in my opinion killing animals for meat is highly immoral. We are killing animals for pleasure (taste)
This is why I’m vegetarian. I just can’t get over the self-evident fact that it’s wrong to eat mammals with whom we share so much of the same DNA, such a similar body plan (curious eyes, a nose, and ears...) and the same love for play and simply sharing in the joy of being alive! How can anyone justify taking a life only for the taste of its flesh? Over many generations to come we will make progress. I’m certain of it 🤞
I do agree that in the future we probably won't eat animals only because meat will probably be grown in a factory from muscle stem cells. Not because we have become more enlightened. It will be very easy for future generations to judge when they can eat meat with no moral considerations.
And ate terribly and "had" to give it up. No details on what he actually ate as far as I am aware - but he did admit he was not going a good job… so he basically admitted being lazy. It's a shame because his discussion on the topic resulted in me going Vegan. Two years later, still happy and healthy. Blood work is fantastic.
Dawkins has also said elsewhere that wild animals constantly suffer. This is because wild animals breed in a Malthusian way to the point of exhausting their local resources, and a steady population is always in a state of near-starvation. If the vast majority of wild animals' lives are short, hungry, and painful, as Dawkins claims, do we have a moral responsibility to extinguish nature, or at least to alter it? This is a perspective I have never heard discussed before, but it is a logical endpoint to the premise that animals suffer. In fact, domesticated species such as cows may have far less suffering in their lives than wild ones. Domestic animals never want for food or shelter, live longer, and are less stressed when measured against wild populations (it's true - look it up). Is it therefore a vegan moral duty to save wild prey species before factory farmed animals? Nobody talks about this, yet it is highly arguable.
I think ethics is not about "treat others like they treat you", "treat others the same as you" or "treat others the way you want to be treated", but "treat others the way they need".
I'm reading the book roots by Alex haley and I find so much similarity between the slave owners and animal owners of modern society. slave owners thought they were 'taking care' of the enslaved people because they thought black people were all slow and stupid and had no abillity to survive on their own. but actually slave owners were the ones who stopped the enslaved people from getting educated and even from using any of their own survival knowledge and abillities. (Doing anything African origin like drumming was illegal then) I live in a Korean viliage and very old couple in my neighborhood have so many big dogs in very tiny individual cages. I think about freeing them at night but there's no habitat left for them around and whole villiage treat dogs the same way so I am not confident that they will survive when they've been in that cages all their lives. I feel like I am in 1700's and not doing anything about slavery happening next door.
He is perfectly right, but I'd add that physical pain for most animals is not an uncertainty and psychological pain has already been detected beyond a reasonable doubt for many animals such as cows, dogs and other primates, close to that of a 4 year old human being. I'd also add that the fact that we have knowledge and technology adds another ethical responsibility towards them: 1) avoid using them whenever we can and search alternatives instead 2) if there's no way around it, we should do it avoiding as much pain as possible and allowing it to live as long as possible and a good quality of life in exchange, including giving them the care of our medicine and such 3) we should help them whenever we can, just because and avoid doing harm to the best of our capabilities, just like we do to human animals
ozskipper The question was proposed by Dawkins and Sam Harris. And to answer your question, yes, in some aspects I do. We're more morally advanced than they were. But the idea is always to look a little farther then a couple of generations.
There's been some interesting studies into whether they can. Like trees which can appear to have their own kind of nervous system which may actually cause them a sensation akin to 'pain' when they are ill or damaged.
Plants at best, MIGHT, like 1 in a million chance feel some version of pain. Animals feel pain, 100%. If plants felt pain, we'd have no alternative and we'd have to eat plants anyways. With animals, we have choice. It's the dumbest argument I see, and it's everywhere.
Well, if you think about it, a lot of people ("scientists") say that "from dead atoms, came life". Extrapolating that, we should be able to deduce that dead atoms can also be food. Who says that we have to eat ANY former living thing? We could eat nutritious chemicals that were NEVER alive. (Uh-oh, I FEEL a backlash coming)
Less meat eaters, less need for unethical mass production of meat. It's a simple as that. Animals subjected to mass production are treated like inanimate objects. If you had to witness what they went through before you bought that packet of meat in the grocery store, you wouldn't ever want to buy such products again. Additionally, producing meat requires way more resources than plant-based foods. If everyone stopped eating meat, it would be easier to feed the growing population and animals wouldn't be subjected to the torture we bring them.
Rosaza 😾 Really? And you know this because . . . ? The basis of his talk is philosophical, not personal. Therefore his specific behaviour is irrelevant at this point. PS. Referring to a person by their surname only is considered rude and dismissive by many. Show a modicum of courtesy when you choose to respond to someone on any level.
Where in the world is it considered rude to refer to people by their surname? In my country you'd still be using the first name if you met the prime minister. Outside of formal ceremonies, you'd be using first names with the royal family too. But just 50 years ago, you used surnames to speak to people in formal settings, to superiors and authority figures. Using surnames has always been a sign of respect, at least in the western world. I was not aware it was anything other elsewhere, so out of curiosity: where?
Been vegan for 3 years and grew up vegetarian for 22 years before that. It's probably the most important thing I will ever do for the world. Feels great to have taken my responsability, and not base my 'human superiority' on violence, exploitation, death or dominion, either given by nature or divine force.
After critically thinking about humanities relationship with the animal kingdom... Veganism and animal rights are just common sense. We suffer as equals, and therefore deserve equal moral consideration.
_"The decline of slavery was due not to _*_moral progress but to economic change._*_ Production under direct physical compulsion proved less profitable or convenient than production under the stimulus of acquisitive desire."_ ______ Will Durant So I guess it's safe to say that if capitalism fails,we'll return to the classical institution of slavery once again.
That's true Tasin, but what's the point? The decline of farmed animals will probably be caused by laboratory-grown meat. Any mass cultural habit is hard to change, and follow economics. That's why to create social change, we need only convince the thinkers and people with power like Lincoln. In this case, maybe billionaires who can fund lab meat, since power has shifted from politicians to companies. In the case of electric cars, people like Elon Musk, who doesn't so much argue for electric cars, as simply doing the billion dollar research to make it economically viable than gasoline cars, and watch as the billions follow the economics to the vision of one.
+Tasin Al-Hassan I highly doubt that Will Durant was right on this one. After all the american civil war was fought for/against slavery in the united states. Back then there was still a major economical incentive for slavery. More so in the south, but certainly not limited to this area. We didn't get rid of slavery because it wasn't usefull anymore. We get rid of it because the uses declined and it became easier to see that there are other ways. But when it was finally abolished it was still useful and economical sound, and it was due to moral progress. "So I guess it's safe to say that if capitalism fails,we'll return to the classical institution of slavery once again." I doubt that this is safe to say. And it's fallacious thinking that lead you to this conclusion. So think again.
People who think animal cruelty is okay are ridiculously ludicrous when you consider the fact that we are just more advanced apes from which we evolved from. Hunting is actually wrong in some ways. #conservewildlife
But then tigers kill deers... Kites eat rabbits, and we kill mosquitoes and stamp on ants and other insects... Where do we draw the line? How do we differentiate? I'm not justifying cruelty to animals. I'm seeking help for a stronger argument.
Dr Peter Singer is an INTERNATIONAL hero! I am a Reductionist: I support Reductionism. That means everything differs in magnitude, not in kind. That means I do not arbitrary different categories for different opponents. ALL opponents are just opponents, whether it is some scammer trying to defraud me, or a sexual predator trying to force sex on me, or a politician forcing unjust laws on me, or a judge trying to imprison me. All opponents try to maximize the suffering & pain of their opponents. As a Vegan I treat carnivores/meat-eaters the SAME way those who oppose fraud treat convicted fraudsters like Sam Bankman Fried, or the way those opposed to pedophilia treat pedophiles. Why the F shouldn't I? There is NO logical reason why I shouldn't. As a pro-war Green, I make no distinction between a civilian vs a soldier: except in amount of firepower. Being a veteran or soldier or "terrorist" or vigilante or murderer says NOTHING about WHICH SIDE of a conflict you are on, whether you are justified or unjustified. Dr Dawkins is a great Atheist and Evolutionary Science advocate. But, he is wrong about transgender people. Sex is not well defined as he thinks it is.
Pretty much everything he said, I already thought and it's great to hear Dawkins also saying it. It has always baffled me that some people actually think we're the only sentient animals in the world. How is there 8.5 million non sentient animals and only one sentient animal and that's just coincidentally whatever animal we are
Hello. Physiotherapist here. I would consider myself an expert in pain. Medically speaking, pain is defined as a "an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage." Pain is both sensory and emotional in origin. It is very likely that humans have stronger and more complex emotions compared to other animals. Thus, I would expect pain to be felt more strongly in humans compared to other animals. We know from experiments that animals avoid noxious stimuli, as Richard alluded to. That requires sensation of pain of some sort. We call this "nociception." However, merely sensing pain (nociception) does not amount to having the complex sensory AND emotional experience that humans have. Pain is useful to survival but only up to an extent. Too much pain that causes an animal to stop moving or even stop paying attention to surroundings would be detrimental to survival. At the end of the day, we can not know for certain how much pain animals feel. The only way to know would be to ask an animal and have them reply. My guess would be that most animals feel comparatively minor amounts of pain, with more intelligent/emotional animals having more capacity for pain similar to us.
Great to see intellects like Dawkins waking up on this issue. I know he's not vegan (yet) but perhaps soon enough he will. It's definitely a positive sign. Throughout history, intellects/scientists/philosophers have tended to go along with basic societal norms, except for a few on the fringe. However as movements make progress in changing attitudes on subjects (whether it was slavery, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) suddenly some intellects start to wake up before the rest do as a wave of societal change unfolds shortly after. Only time will tell but I have cautious hope.
all animals killed for food is killed as instantly as possible, any suffering is unintentional and rare, if it was intentional then I dont agree with that specific method of slaughter.
It's a form of psychosis. Its definition is very apropos - a mental disorder in which you lose your contact with reality. That's what this is, isn't it? Some people just can't get their head out of their own arse to realize what they are really doing to others like themselves. Is the pain of "others like you" real to you or not? And what your definition of "others like you" is. This will answer whether you are psychotic or not. A few years back, for most, that definition only included their own group (race, religion, nation). Now that definition is expanding as we are educating people and making them realize that this is not just their reality; it's everybody's reality. Many are still hypnotized and lost in themselves, the unevolved Trump's. We stopped slavery by making most people realize that we are all human beings. Now we need to realize that we are all animals, and those who do that are the most human.
I don't empathize with animals that are not the same species as me. Because I am not evolved to pass the genes of other species forward. It's a competition, and only passing on human genes are important to win the competition.
Oliver Bergqvist 😾 Your 'not evolved to pass the genes of other species' is ridiculous! No species is! You 'do not empathise . . . with other species' , therefore you would not attempt to help a creature in distress? You would dismiss the behaviour of those who set a hedgehog on fire as inconsequential? Those who participate in cock fighting or dog fighting gangs? Those who operate puppy farms? Those who beat and starve so called pet dogs and cats? You would decry punishing such people as unjustified? You would ignore the evidence that cruelty to animals has a strong correlation with cruelty to humans? In effect, you are placing yourself beyond those of us who are both compassionate and humane in our concern for the suffering of animals, as well as that of humans. You my not be aware that here in 🇬🇧 it was members of the RSPCA. who later founded the NSPCC - showing that compassion is not species specific. Please reflect upon the deeper elements of such a serious issue, then consider your position.
Sir Meow The Library Cat To all of your many rethrotical questions: no I wouldn't, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. As for the last one, if animal cruelty has a correlation with cruelty to humans, just condemn and punish anyone who commits cruelty to humans. Why is the correlation even important? Your empathy with animals is irrational. Why does your brain release dopamine when other animals are happy? You get no benefit from making sure no other animals are hurt or killed. Except if the animal being alive helps you in some way. Also, I don't care about being "humane" (whatever that even means exactly). Nor your stupid fucking organizations for that matter. In fact, virtually nobody does. For example, (if I had the power,) I would kill all the mosquitoes in the world. Because they don't do anything good for humanity. They're just an annoyance. But I guess you would consider that mass murder?
Oliver Bergqvist - From what I understand, you are saying that we are selfish in nature and then why do we try to be altruistic, which, as you put it, is completely irrational. I feel sad that you feel that way even though it doesn't affect me in any way. I want you to think some more about what you believe, and consider why don't we try to be altruistic and not follow our selfish nature. Man, I don't know where to start, but I'll try. We are not evolved to pass on the genes of our species. We are evolved to pass on genes of our self. Richard Dawkins has written a rather aptly named book on it - The Selfish Gene. If everybody accepts they are selfish in nature, then it will explain your feelings for our behavior towards animals. But, why would we then feel differently for our actions towards other humans? We are also competing with other humans to pass on our genes. So shouldn't we feel happy when someone not from our social group (who indirectly help us by keeping our genes safe) is killed? Shouldn't we feel happy when we enslave a big portion of our species (the other group) and regulate their population? It'd benefit us in passing on our genes. We don't feel happy in such cases. In fact, many (who are not psychopaths) feel the opposite way - we are repulsed by even the thought of it. We are empathetic towards our species because our culture has evolved past our selfish nature, and thus our beliefs => our thoughts => our feelings => our actions have evolved past our selfish nature. As we grow from a selfish infant, we create beliefs, based on our culture and from what is taught to us by the older generation, that can contradict our inherent programming and make us more altruistic. At snail's pace, generation by generation, our culture is becoming more egalitarian and inclusive, and we are becoming more and more empathetic. This is the opposite of being irrational. A "rational" human being who is not empathic is irrational because they are limited in their thoughts, and because of their inability to get their stuck head out of their own arse and think of other's feelings. Yes, we have evolved because all the living beings have a sole motive - to pass on their genes. That was the only way nature could find where a species survives. However, in humans, nature has created intelligence - an aspect of nature that can oppose nature itself. We are not bound to be selfish. Our culture is constantly being shaped by intelligent and rational human beings, who can think past their selfish nature and even the existing cultural beliefs to see the bigger picture. What's that bigger picture? Well, we are still moving towards it, but it starts with the realization that we are not the only individual who is the psychological center of their world. Every single being in this world perceives reality from their own senses, and each of that reality is real, not just ours. Their feelings are as real as our feelings. (Though I find it difficult to include mosquitoes and insects in that model :p, some Buddhists, Jains and few others do feel that way. Maybe future generations, some 1000 years later, if our species still survives, will think of someone like me as barbarous.)
We *are* evolved to pass on the genes of our species, especially our communities. One is indirectly passing on their genes when their sibling gets a child (even though directly passing on ones genes is preferable). But that's not my point. The reason we're evolved to feel empathy for other humans is that humans can spread their genes more effectively when working together. Language, gesturing, facial expressions, are all abilities evolved to do that, resulting in things like civilisation. But feeling empathy with animals doesn't create civilisation. Something to ride on, or something to guard ones sheep, is as good as it gets. And that's just using the animal to ones own benefits, not working together. Honestly it's not very complicated. I don't see why you try so hard to justify that animal cruelty is evil. I mean from the animals perspective it's evil, but since they have inferior intelligence they can't do anything about it.
Ethical veganism is the only way you can be morally consistent with this sentiment. We have to apply animal rights to all animals, not just a few. Sadly Dawkins is not vegan but he should be.
+Phillip Scott So you would rather we continuing unnecessarily enslaving, raping, and murdering innocent thinking and feeling animals that are capable of experiencing suffering and happiness, for no other reason than our taste pleasure? I'm curious, where do you base your morals in, and how do you think that's moral (or do you even care)?
+COM LAG Yes, your dietary choices have an impact. It is as simple as supply and demand. Just like any consumer purchase, a vote with your wallet does contribute to major industry changes. Just think about it, if all of the millions and millions of vegans and vegetarians throughout the world tomorrow went back to eating dead animal flesh, demand for meat/dairy/eggs would jump dramatically and more millions animals would be murdered than are being now. And besides the moral impact of being responsible for less death of innocent beings, that also entails a much smaller waste of water (by millions of gallons) and much less of a Co2 footprint. So yes, vegans have an impact. You may think one individual person may not have a *big* impact (due to the billions of animal enslavers/rapists/slaughterers around them), and that's true, but they do have *an* impact, and collectively among all vegans that impact is indeed a big one. If you really don't think monetary purchases (ie demand) have moral implications or effect the supply of certain goods I encourage you to talk to an intro level Economics student. And I guess then you think buying child pornography doesn't have moral implications because consumers buying products from a seller in increasing amounts (demand) has no impact on how much of that is produced (supply).
Brutal Indus While I have been against animal suffering since forever, I'm not sure videos of animals crying are real. Not all animals express emotions the way we do. Tears dont mean nothing to many animals, the same way as many of them never change their face expression.
Brutal Indus 😳 Elephants have been filmed mourning the loss of calves or an elderly member of the herd. We have no other explanation for their behaviour.
we are mammals - as are many large creatures - we share many of the same characteristics - probably including feeling pain and crying. I have no doubt at all that similar animals to ourselves feel pain just like we do ... pain is a very basic survival mechanism that most complex creatures must surely share. Or their species would never have got off the ground.
Eating meat and provoking suffering in animals are not necessarily related. If you found a way for humans to eat meat without provoking any animal suffering, would you still say that veganism is morally-consistent in any way? I think you are conflating two things that are only partly related. I will give you a counter example: veganism may lead to the extinction of several of the domesticated animals we use just for eating their meat and by-products, because they cannot survive in nature and humans won't have any incentive to still have them and protect them if we do not eat them. Is that still morally-consistent for veganism? Is it morally virtuous to drive these species into extinction? As you can see, the topic is much more nuanced than you try to present it.
But as Marvin Varela has stated, veganism is not necessary a final solution that draws as conclusion of this video. Dawkin's position could be supported by at least not making animals suffer. So in theory you could eat eggs, milk etc. since you are not making animal suffer. I mean ok, you still "steal", in some sense, for example the eggs that could have been used by hen to procreate... but again you take quite care for that specie and it is in your general interest for it to succeed to procreate.
First off, you need to understand that veganism is a philosophy, not a diet. It involves not participating in the unnecessary exploitation of animals. Not including animals or their byproducts as part of your diet is only a subset of the philosophy. As it stands today, we are required to kill animals that desire to live in order to eat meat... I agree that eating meat and provoking animal suffering are not necessarily related in the sense that there may be a way to kill an animal without them feeling pain, but does that justify killing an animal that didn't want to die (I don't consider euthanizing an animal that is already in severe pain as part of this point)? Don't ignore the reality of the world we live in either: The overwhelming majority of animals raised and killed on factory farms lived a life of misery and pain. Dawkins is suggesting that non-human animals may even feel MORE pain than humans... If we are against treating humans as slaves, why are we enslaving billions of animals every day in slaughterhouses? If you agree that treating humans as slaves is wrong and eating meat is fine, then what is the trait that is present in animals which if present in humans would make it fine to eat humans? You need to name the specific trait or else you are contradicting yourself... To your points: -If there was a way for humans to eat meat without provoking animal suffering, would it be morally consistent with the ethics of veganism? It is not consistent if an animal was still killed against its will. However, companies like Memphis Meats and Hampton Creek are developing lab-grown meat... In this case since no animal had to die or suffer, eating it would stay consistent. -Is it morally virtuous to drive these farm animal species into extinction? Keep in mind that this dilemma would never present itself in the fashion that you are suggesting... Not everyone is going vegan overnight. This will be a gradual process over time. As fewer people eat meat, fewer farm animals will be bred into existence because the demand will lessen. If at any point there were too many farm animals for us to handle, they could be brought to farm sanctuaries around the world where they could live out the rest of their lives in peace. We would never have to resort to releasing them into the wild to die.
@Steven Sandberg. This conversation is great, which is a rare occurrence in TH-cam. I am glad I started it. I agree with you that there is nothing that makes it morally justifiable to have animals as slaves. However, I want you to be aware of the fact that the way it is done in huge farms and slaughter houses is not the only way that exists. In many parts of the world, animals are not industrial products, they grow as companions to humans and they are treated with respect and care, and they live free and successful lives, able to prosper and reproduce. I agree with you that they are not the majority these days, because the industrial world deals with many more animals than the rest of the world, but that does not make it evident as you imply that domesticated animals used for consumption are synonymous with slavery. Also, you mention that it is not morally justifiable to kill an animal against its will or to kill an animal who does not want to die. There you are attributing will and desires to animals and you would need to justify that before we can have a discussion on the topic as it is not automatic. If you are simply talking about wanting to live in the evolutionary sense, that is one thing, but desires coming from consciousness would need first a demonstration that they have consciousness for that argument to have any weight at all. For most animals, surviving until after they can successfully reproduce a couple of times is all they "want" (in the evolutionary sense) and therefore by letting them reproduce or at least attempt to reproduce before they die you would be completely fulfilling their "desires" (again in the evolutionary sense). You would need to demonstrate that animals are capable of having a will or a desire beyond the evolutionary sense in order to justify your claim of "early undesired death." Finally, I want you to be aware of the fact that not all humans are physically able to survive without eating meat. Some humans can suffer health issues, get ill and die if they stop. They have therefore, the need to eat meat in order to stay alive. Would you say that it is morally justifiable for them to do so, then, or should they risk their own lives in favor of the lives of animals they eat? (a little note that I do not want to leave out: I agree that artificially producing meat would solve this conundrum completely and satisfactorily, let's hope that happens soon enough).
I became vegan 4 years ago. When my wife finishes with a chicken’s leg or a pig’s rib, what she sees are the leftovers from a meal. But what I see are skeletons of slaughtered fellow beings. Our descendants will judge us not too favorably I think.
Today there was a slaughter festival in my country. Pretty fucking gruesome. It celebrates ibrahim's "glorious" act of nearly slaughtering his own son. Early in the morning I ran to a slaughter area to see the act. There were about 40+ cows/bulls there, lined up eating their food. Five teams of butchers would pick one. take it a few feet back and slaughter it right there in plain view of all. Soon the place was full of blood like a horror movie. The rest of the cattle could see it, the blood was running under there feet. But they still followed the butcher to the same area as if nothing is wrong. This all makes slaves and Australopithecus etc different from cows, that are smart indeed, but not smart enough to feel worried about that scenario.
But yes, we do treat animals like shit. I am opposed to the scenario in above post. The cows should live on an open field, and should be anesthetized before getting killed.
Wait so the other cows saw the one cow get slaughtered and they weren't freaked out by it? or were they too busy eating food and didn't notice anything. I'm pretty sure if you slaughtered a cow right in front of another one it would get freaked out for sure.
They saw it all. One after another. Multiple corpses on ground with butchers on them. But they didn't freak out. By the end the food was all gone and washed away with red bloody water. Still they followed the butcher. These animals aren't entirely senseless and they do get aggravated easily if you tease them a bit in a personal way or manhandle them. But they had no concept of sensing danger from that scenario. The long domestication period has altered them a lot. Its probably how you can take eggs from most chicken's egg laying area in front of them, and it wont give a shit. Goodluck doing that with a wild or recently domesticated bird species.
Thats why i left Islam while i was a vegetarian and later became a vegan cause i dont want to believe in any evil and bloodthirsty god who has created so much suffering and injustice on earth in first place.
I think he's vastly overestimating how much people care about each other to think that we would then too care about animals. He seems like a very nice guy tho, respect.
Very few people think cruelty to animals is OK . Eating animals is something different, because the animals are not killed with the intention to inflict cruelty them per se . Yes, slaughtering techniques are often cruel, but this is not a reason to be opposed to eating animals per se. The human race would not have been able to survive without eating animals .
"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the Civil War, don’t look at where you stand on slavery today. Look at where you stand on animal rights."
Oh ffs, these vegans can't be for real. One thing is to argue about veganism helping the environment and another thing is indirectly telling people that are not vegetarians and vegans pro-slavers.
Much respect to Richard Dawkins for addressing this issue. It is also worth considering that low intelligence is no barrier to emotional distress either.
![ไปอยู่ไสมา - ช๊อปเปอร์ โตเกียวมิวสิค [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sWuVNbRTJbc/mqdefault.jpg)
Want to get Smarter, Faster?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter
Smarter? Try dumber.
Tears roll down from my eyes when he said non human species may feel more pain.
What we've done to the world!!!
Aditya Sharma It's worse than that: The world made us do it (by forcing our ancestors to evolve with carnivorous instincts), so now we have those instincts inside of us like any other animal. And it has made us speciecist, like any other animal. Part of the uncomfortable insight into nature is the realisation that we not only have no reason to assume animals don't suffer like us, we also have no reason to assume we had free will in contrast to them. Every perpetrator is a victim of something, and every victim of its genetics and environment can easily turn into a perpetrator themselves. This is why so many people who like to engage in moral grandstanding hated the Joker movie.
@Aero Dynamix If caring about the suffering of animals makes us dysfunctional, you are amazingly functional
@Aero Dynamix,
Normal doesn't mean optimal. It means common or mediocre. I think you're better than that or at least have a potential to be better than that. Don't be a creep who eats flesh, milk and eggs of immiserated animals, be vegan instead.
The world was already brutal long before us, friend.
Suffering is the default state of the world without humanity.
Humans are the only thing we aware of that do anything to change it.
“We will embarrass our descendants, just as our ancestors embarrass us. This is moral progress.” - Sam Harris
Sam Harris embarasses himself by still defending eating non-human animals. Dude needs to progress morally.
@@bobarends3229 I love Sam Harris and all but he is a moral hypocrite. He says he basis his ethics on wellbeing and suffering but eats animals. He says we should use science as a moral guide (as Dawkins just did) but refuses to do so. And that quote you used of his in this context, is not a logical or moral argument for suffering and killing non-human animals either.
@fae ragan Well firstly there's not solid science on the sentience of insects though I would still give them the benefit of the doubt. And you misunderstand Veganism as a moral principle. Veganism defined: "Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." As far as possible and practicable equates to a deontological view of Animal Rights in line with Human Rights.
The insect deaths you mention are examples of collateral industry harm and death.
And there's a big difference between collateral industry death and directly paying someone to kill animals? The idea that a Vegan is a hypocrite on their Animal Rights stance because of crop spray deaths or house building. Is like saying that a person is a hypocrite on their Human Rights stance because they own a phone (which has elements which cause resource war deaths in the Congo), or buy clothes (vast majority are made in sweatshops where people die of low safety regulations and chemical poisonings) or drive a car (1.35 million people die each year in crashes and 50 million more people suffer non-fatal injuries.) or own a home (many die in the construction industry annually from accidents) Some things happen collaterally and need safety improvements. And some things are direct and intentional... like stabbing animals to death for meat.
To take your own words and put them in the Human Rights context I could say. "Is it wrong to [Own sweatshop clothes]? If not your argument about [Not owning slaves & murdering people] would seem to fall flat. Using [Phones] should be seen as just as bad as gassing the jews. If building a house meant [killing people] who [work] there, it would be wrong to build the house. How could it be possible to live this way?"
We can take measures, which morally we should, to build houses, buy clothes, own technology etc. Whilst minimising collateral harm to both human-animals and non-human animals. These products and services can be created without causing harm and death, though obviously there is an inherent risk. If you want to eat meat, you must directly and intentionally kill an animal, that's the goal. (Bar future lab meat and road kill cafes)
And there are certain cases where we deny rights to humans who commit offenses. i.e. if someone attacks you can use lethal force to stop them, if someone breaks into your house and tries to remove or damage your property you can also use lethal force. I see no reason to exempt non-human animals from such a clause
Bob Arends Sam Harris is vegetarian
@@AKhanboxing Not anymore
I was genuinely shocked when I first learned there are actually people who think animals (and sometimes even human babies) can't feel pain! That sounds like an utterly ridiculous idea to me, why the hell would they not feel it??
@Ignat Radu Yeah same, though I try to at least make ethical choices like avoiding factory farming - I have no inherent problem with killing animals for food, that's just part of nature, but I'm not on board with unnecessary torture. I also do not support unnecessarily hurting or killing animals like animal testing or trophy hunting. But just eating them? That's fine by me as long as they get a decent life.
@Ignat Radu I see no problem with that, plenty of animals eat other animals and so so we!
@Ignat Radu dog meat for human's consumption these days
I am more shocked when I meet people who take as an insult to be labeled an animal. It shows what they they think of our fellow sentient beings.
Absolutely
Although I am not vegan, this makes me think about it much more than I thought I would. Thank you richard for giving me ideas and room to think.
That's the first step in going Vegan, having a logical reason to do so. Not like the trendy teenagers who go Vegan to give them a sense of identity.
My advise is to not jump straight into Veganism, try out a Vegetarian diet, it's much easier. After a few years, you'll have no issue going Vegan for the rest of your life.
skeletonboi...bit off a sanctimonious reply. Does it matter why they do it? I think it matters more THAT they do it.
@@MikaelLewisify I agree that being vegan definitely more important than one's reason for going vegan. However, unless the person has a strong moral or logical reason for becoming vegan he is likely to return to consuming non vegetarian food.
He is perfectly right, but I'd add that physical pain for most animals is not an uncertainty and psychological pain has already been detected beyond a reasonable doubt for many animals such as cows, dogs and other primates, close to that of a 4 year old human being. I'd also add that the fact that we have knowledge and technology adds another ethical responsibility towards them: 1) avoid using them whenever we can and search alternatives instead 2) if there's no way around it, we should do it avoiding as much pain as possible and allowing it to live as long as possible and a good quality of life in exchange, including giving them the care of our medicine and such 3) we should help them whenever we can, just because and avoid doing harm to the best of our capabilities, just like we do to human animals
Ethan it's been 3 years - did you go vegan?
I'm slowly starting my journey to veganism for many reasons, and this just makes me more motivated.
Good for you! You have my support! :)
Drexler yeah!!
Look up James Aspey, he motivates me no end!
Drexler Great to hear, don't be afraid to ask for advice if you need it.
Vitamin B12 is given to farmed animals as a supplement too. People who eat animals bodies and excretions get it from these, but kinda inefficiently. So actually you are paying the supplement industry more by eating meat instead of not eating it and supplementing B12 yourself.
There is no need for other supplements unless you have a health condition. If you think the supplement industry is too powerful and is advertising wrong, go ahead and educate people, I think that's a good idea!
Veganism is about causing the least amount of pain an suffering to beings who feel pain just like we do. Then there are many health and environmental benefits. Period. :)
I agree, there are some weird vegans among the cool ones, but that's the same in every topic.
You can't argue against Veganism, it is better on environmental, health, and moral standpoints.
You're like child with those responses "Why did I rob that house? because it felt good, I like money". I'm not a vegan or veterinarian, but I respect people who are. I'm not going to argue to people who hasn't turned 13 yet.
Environmentally and morally, I agree. Health-wise, I haven't seen any evidence that vegan diets are better than non-vegan.
It's certainly possible to pick a vegan diet and a non-vegan diet where the vegan one is healthier, but that's also true the other way around.
Environmentally and in terms of health, I agree. Moral-wise? Definitely not. It is a well known fact that morals are purely subjective, and every viewpoint that is derived from some normative conjecture is also subjective as well, as if it were virally so. This is known as the is-ought problem. Claiming the moral superiority of veganism does nothing but get you ridiculed.
I would have agreed with the statement that morals are subjective until very recently. I was swayed by the arguments of Sam Harris in favour of there being objective morality. I highly recommend reading "The Moral Landscape" if you haven't already.
I can't do it justice in a TH-cam comment, but at its core, the argument is that morality is a similar concept to medicine. Medicine objectively improves health and morality objectively improves wellbeing. To argue that morality is subjective is actually to argue that wellbeing is subjective, but if you do that then you must also concede that health is subjective (a 'preferred state of being') and by association, the process of medicine. I think that's a much harder argument to justify.
Again, I don't do it justice in a TH-cam comment, so please try the book before poking giant holes in my three sentence summary.
also it does nothing to stop animal cruelty.
I think most people are against animal cruelty but then they don't put that opinion into practise.
They buy factory farmed meat where animals are treated horribly
(yes animal abuse is standard in factory farming, those horrible slaughter house footage you've seen is not just from "one specific factory". If you believe that then you are very ignorant and distant from reality. France exposed disgusting animal abuse across the country a few months ago and all three of US biggest factory farming companies Tyson, Cargo etc have all been exposed several times for their animal abuse).
People are such hypocrites and they get defensive and angry when you point it out because they know it's true.
They have no problem buying meat but once they see the killing of the cow they don't want it anymore. They watch youtube videos of cute animals and applaud anyone who saves a bird on a road and write "animals are so cute! I hate those who are cruel to animals! I love animals"
And....then they go to McDonalds and pay for someone to abuse and slit a cow's throat and put pigs in carbon dioxide chambers.
I've realized most people are SO dumb.
Amanda N.K, it is people per say, but when the economy consists of conveniences and impulse action, society chooses indulgence. It would take massive change from industries which never intend to change for the better of mankind, but rather capture the time they have devoted to their businesses' as the only dedication to mankind(capitalism), thus far. It takes opportunity to push for big change, and those opportunities should reach all ranges of the economic spectrum to avoid any negative feedback or fallacies of "class warfare".
There's nothing that clarifies that a meat product is factory farmed. For all I know a cheap slab of meat could be free-range or something. Don't blame me and my brethren of meat eaters for the oppressive system we're forced to live in
People like you always blame the individuals when in actuality the blame is upon the system those individuals live in. You idiots need to understand determinism and how getting at the root of the issue is much more effective than attacking the victims. Instead of attacking the meat eaters attack the factory farms, advocate for the factory farms being forced to label their products as "cruelty made" or even make it illegal to factory farm. I understand real change is hard to accomplish but if you remain getting upset over my indulgence of meat instead of fighting against what influences me to indulge then the only person to blame is yourself
Andrew Godly, Oh did I blame you? Or did you read poorly? Because I said industry provides temptation that lures in society(you and me) with convenience, capturing the aspect of time and convenience. I did not claim your addiction to red meat and implicit obsession with individualism towards diet is the root. Please go back to school and learn to read.
Andrew Godly
That was one of the most poor attempts at an excuse I've ever heard.
Free range and more ethically produced meat is ALWAYS labeled. Why? Because they want to tell the customer about it so their product seem better than the competitors. Free range is more expensive to produce and obviously they want to show it off since free range is a positive thing.
Unless it's clearly stated then you can be sure that they've used the crappiest most antibiotics filled and most cruel meat, because it's the cheapest and give them the the biggest profit.
Secondly, don't try and play the victim. You're not the victim, you're certainly the perpertraitor. Ever heard of demand and supply? It's the basics of economy. If people don't buy eggs from caged chicken then that business will die. Same with meat. Your dollar is a vote on what products should exists
How on earth do you not understand such a simple thing? I shouldn't have to explain simple things like that to an adult, it's ridiculous. Every time you buy non-labeled cruelty free meat you economically support animal cruelty.
Logically speaking it's imposible to be against animal cruelty and buy meat products since killing is cruel. If I slammed your puppy's head into the wall, then kicked it and let it bleed to death that would be cruel. This is a common method used by slaughter house workers to kill piglets who don't grow fast enough or is injured in some way. It's utterly disgusting to watch. This was one of the things Cargo's and Tyson's factories used on a regular basis as shown in undercover footage. So my point is, it's cruel to kill but if you need to do it then the least make sure to economically support those brands who practise more ethical breeding and killing.
You totally avoided the point. My point is that if you want real change you change the system. How was slavery abolished? It was made illegal, not by convincing people to stop buying slaves. How was poaching abolished? By making it illegal, not by convincing people to stop buying furs
My point was that attacking me won't accomplish anything. I already know of the market and demand. I know that trying to convince people to not buy a product is as pointless as complaining about it
Richard is getting old and it makes me feel really sad about it
naaah, he's getting smarter.
LagiNaLangAko23 Which horseman have we lost??!!!!!
And he had a stroke that he's still recovering from.
LagiNaLangAko23 there will come new ones :) don't worry.
Makes me star to miss Christopher Hitchens... I don't want to lose them both.
Go vegan, Richard Dawkins!
Imagine the impact Richard Dawkins would have on the Humanist community if he honored the morals veganism.
we became humans as in gained intellect because we ate meat and organs as cringy as it sounds to vegans its true it's damn true.
@@wilsons2882 We were mostly plant based and opportunistic carnivores, especially during seasons when plant material wasn't abundant.
@@ellieaquitaine6396 you mean throughout the ice ages?
@@sarfaraazsinghsangha2040 haha yeah.
What the contrarians in the comments are missing or ignoring is that ---> it is exactly our ability to understand that other species can suffer that obligates us to not intentionally cause this suffering at the very least, and take steps to reduce it where practical.
Every vegan understands that carnism in nature is mostly for the necessary purpose of survival. It is most often perpetrated by an animal without a well-developed moral agency, and so a lion's lack of herbivorous adaptations, nearby grocery stores, and ability to abstractly reflect on its moral decisions excuses it of this obligation.
And for the love of Poseidon... can we please stop appealing to situations that we're not in to justify our actions in NOT those situations?
Josh Reed Well said! 👍
Josh Reed
YES 👍👍👍👌👏
metalhead2508 Uh, spoiler alert, we're animals. So saying we apply human emotions to animals (who express the same feelings & primitive emotions) isn't really accurate. We're cut from the same cloth, we're not extraterrestrials.
metalhead2508 Yes, you're saying we're applying unique human traits to animals. Except it isn't unique. Those traits are a product of a brain, nervous system & evolution and are present in animals, including humans.
Existing is suffering. It leads to death and illness. So why do you have kids or choose to live? Our ability to understand (logic) is only half of the equation.
I went Vegan months ago because of my realization of this.
how are you holding up?
@@__________________________1030 so am I. I'm a second-gen Desi with a South-Indian Brahmin background. But drop the 1000 years shtick lmao
*Edit:* Jeez your TH-cam videos made me barf
Now he probably is on a carnivore diet
lol nothing is vegan in store today, it's just another bullshido religion
Be part of the future, don't eat animals.
DeadDodo Meat is delicious. Yummm.
DeadDodo
Immature 10-year olds trying to pull off old "jokes" 👆
Tom Z it's my point. Yum!
Eat bugs only
if you stop eating meat you will be a herbivore and you cannot survive anywhere in this earth unless you create technology to harvest plants everywhereee.
Speciesism is a remnant of old religious thinking, where we weren't thought of as animals at all, but entirely separate.
When we were thought to have souls and animals didn't.
When we were thought to be made in the image of God, whereas animals weren't.
It makes no sense from a scientific standpoint, casting away magical ideas of souls and gods, as we are merely one animal among many.
But most self-proclaimed rationalists still suffer from this irrationality.
They are not as free from cultural influence as they would like to think.
No doubt, if they had been born in a country where bullfighting or slavery were the norm, they would accept that, too, and use their rational training to try to defend their irrational attitudes.
Individualism is an important part of rationalism.
Independent thought.
Casting off culture and norms, and doing and believing what actually makes sense, objectively speaking.
And of course, rationalism has to be coupled with actually CARING about kindness and justice, in order to manifest in that most important of areas: Ethics.
Late comment. But your thoughts are excellent.
I don't want to say this but almost 50% world's problems comes with religion
I like your explanation. I very much agree
come to the vegan side
Dylan T nah, my side has tasty, tasty bacon.
plus.google.com/u/1/photos/photo/118357405454653855941/6461121545001524098?icm=false&iso=true
Let's be real about what is appealing about bacon. It has a lot of fat, salt, flavorings, texture, aroma, emotional connection to lovely breakfasts with mum when you were a kid. But none of those things are exclusive to dead animal parts. Please try eating a boiled pork chop and tell me you love meat. No you love all the additions and preparations.
google image search "nipple bacon"
eat up hahahahahahaha
Dylan T i agree, regardless the carnist argument of pleasure does not justify needless destruction. No matter what, preferrences are not arguments
Vegan for life!!!
no one cares
replied because it's tiresome to see Vegans always have to shove that shit in 90% of their comments.
The God Emperor youre on a video that concludes the fact that veganism is a morally superior lifestyle, the only non double standard in this case. Consider the bigger issues over your personal triggerings. Dont shut logic down based on 'being annoyed'.
James D because they are human
Uleek M'diq what about a human other than intelligence objectively differentiates moral value?
Still love Dawkins.
We need more voices like this to spread these ideas. Thank you Big Think, and thanks to Richard.
We need vegans spreading the message of animal rights. Non-vegans talking about the ethics of how animals are treated is undeniably laughable.
It is amazing to see this man after such a great recovery.
was he ill?
Profesor Dawkins suffered a stroke a few months ago.
Haku yes, stroke.
Ikkitousen2323
I hope he's feeling better and back to normal now, he's such a great man!
Oh wow, maybe a priest roofied his drink.
Modern morality is an ever-growing arc towards more equality, more inclusion, more compassion, more harm reduction ... eventually, we will see animals as part of those we need to protect ...
@Ignat Radu Start with semi-vegetarian.
@Ignat Radu
"I'm evil" is no more an argument against the observation of moral progress than "I dropped out of school" is an argument against the observation of more education.
@Ignat Radu No, you just implied it.
Do we also protect animals from each other, or is it only evil when our species kill other animals?
@@obligatoryusername7239 Yes.
Go vegan my dudes ✌️
Irish Jester trying to come off as "rational" by mentioning natural selection while natural selection itself is telling us, in the form of heart disease, (#1 global cause of death) that we are not designed to eat other animals...
You are so pathetic, lol.
Irish Jester btw, what does evolution have to do with drinking the milk of another animal?
Mistaking evolution by social conditioning is so intellectually stupid, LOLOL.
Edu Arg , and the sun damages our eyes over time. Let's just all close our eyes forever!
Irish Jester An argument of evolution and natural selection would justify rape as it is the most efficient reproduction method. Pure evolutionary methodology cannot exist in an emotional world. Think a bit before you create such fallacies.
You understand by evolution, we could care less how society is. Our instincts to survive and procreate are above all. By this fact if we use evolution as a guideline (as you seem to be suggesting) we will go at anything to procreate even if it takes barbarism. Ethics and Instincts are not interchangeable.
I see veganism as the next and most important universal justice movement that humanity has ever faced. To acknowledge that what morally matters is the who inside the other, has to be finally extended to the all-time forgotten victims of humanity: the animals.
Each one of them are individuals who care for their own live. Needlessly using an individual, capable of understanding himself and his surroundings in a subjective experience, is wrong. All sentient individuals will definetely be represented in some kind of human contract called *Animal Rights.* Respect for all sentients may not be understood in all and every human mind for hundreds of years, and therefore be transgressed by some humans, the same way it happens with Human Rights since they were officially announced.
The root of these transgressions have always been the same: envy and greed that drives oneself to focus on differences between him / her and others (individuals, sex, race, species...) Speciesism is the ultimate root from which this behaviour arises. Focus on educating about speciesism, and humans will see other humans as their obvious companios, taking care of individuals of other species because we can, instead of exploiting them.
Go Vegan. Educate others.
Richard Dawkins you have a very beautiful heart! WE LOVE YOU!! Thank you!
I totally and completely agree. I couldn't agree more. I'm becoming a vegetarian. Today it's easier than ever!
Unfortunately the dairy industry causes more suffering to the cows then the meat industry.
Cows like any other species just give milk after birth. The male calves are considered waste and get slaughtered with the mother weeping for her stolen kids. After a couple years the constant milking and giving birth the body of the cow is broken down and she's send to the slaughterhouse often even unable to walk.
The best way to protect the animals is to go vegan.
Consider veganism. The dairy and egg industries are brutal. If you do it for the animals it is quite easy. Consider watching a few short videos on youtube such as Farm to Fridge & Dairy Is Scary 🙂
@@veganm8918 I think veganism is way too much, it's dangerous for the health and also unnecessary. It's way too radical. Animals don't necessarily have to suffer in any way if everything is done properly.
For example, there are free-range eggs which are obtained from free chickens around the farm lands.
As long as we treat animals decently and we don't have to kill them, it's OK.
Best regards.
@@Octovisuals Bad News: You have no clue what you are talking about. Good News: Ignorance is bliss.
Free range chickens rarely see the light of day or breathe a single breath of fresh air until they day they're brutally thrown into a truck and sent to slaughter. Except that is usually done at night so people on the roadway cannot see them so actually they never see the light of day. Free range only means not in a cage. So they can pack them in one on top of the other inside giant sheds, They can chop their beaks off because when given the space of one sheet of paper to live your life they peck to protect themselves.
Chickens on earth now on average are 4- weeks old when killed for meat. They grow so fast their legs often can't keep up and break. Every single industry that raises animals for food is brutal.
So do not watch a movie such as Earthlings, Dominion, do not watch Farm to Fridge. Stay uninformed, blissfully ignorant, and happy!
Best regards,
@@veganm8918 Man, I feel you, but you can't live in a fairy tale world.
Nature made us omnivores, so... Good luck trying to eat just vegetables, which by the way its production also leads to land occupation and therefore animal deaths (or not births...), plus pesticides, plus everything.
You have to face it: being alive is destructing. The key here is creating more than destroying, doing more good than bad.
If you're worried for the chickens of your eggs and the cows of your milk, then collaborate to save many other animals.
Also, if not for the industry, those animals wouldn't have even been born at all...
Like I said: don't be so radical. You have to let go some things in life and just... live.
Do more good than harm. And that's it.
Cheers and peace.
Much respect to Dawkins. his information is very interesting stuff
He's totally right! I've been saying the same thing for years! What surprises me is that despite saying all this, he still eats meat!
What we think and what we feel often aren't aligned. I think many people know perfectly well that what they do is irrational and astronomically destructive, but they won't change until that emotional motivation kicks in. That is why so many go vegan after seeing compelling footage and actually feel the horror that is connected to their own actions.
A rational mind alone can't do much. Most of our behaviour is still emotional. It's when those two align you start to really feel integrity.
@@fromeveryting29 adding to this. Also I think people have another problem too. It takes some considerable effort to transition to a vegan diet and feel healthy. Lots of misinformation about what to eat , not educated about nutrition , allergies, etc pose a hurdle to the transition.
I feel so bad when people call dawkins bad or evil or satan just because he speaks against religion. He is so cool and intelligent and kind.He is the grandpa that i never had.
The Abolitionists Abolished Human Slavery in the U.S. We can ABOLISH THE USE and ABUSE of ALL ANIMALS. ALL ANIMALS ARE SENTIENT BEINGS. GO VEGAN. HAVE THE COURAGE TO GO VEGAN!!! ANIMALS FEEL PAIIN AND PLEASURE AND THEY WANT TO LIVE. HAVE THE COURAGE TO GO VEGAN NOW.
You are a brilliant mind.
Thank you for educate us.
Just before he passes away, I just want to say I love you Richard!
Just before who passes away??
@@JacobA666 Richard Dawkins
@@Sluj666 I thought he passed away... but just now I realized what it means from your comment. Definitely, Richard Dawkins is a true humanist.
@@JacobA666 I'm surprised he is still alive. He did have a stroke a couple of years ago. Yeah, he is one of a kind. Right next to Christopher Hitchens
Because people don't see animals as worthy of respect the same way we see humans. It's why people's hearts seem to bleed for starving humans in Africa but a stray animal is shunned because it could be carrying sickness.
Really, you don't see humans showing super great respect for their pets? We hear stories about rescued animals from other countries, or beached whales being saved, etc. And all farmers respect their animals for the value they provide, which is much the way most humans view other humans.
DoomRulz - I think you could make the opposite argument, actually. Especially here in America and other modern "first world" nations. I see far more outrage generated on stories involving dogs or cats being tortured, or elephants and tigers hunted for sport and trophies, than is generated on homelessness, or elder abuse, for example. A lot of people whose hearts break at the sight of a stray puppy give not a second thought to the panhandler begging for change at the intersection. Some of us are far more callus to one another that we'd ever be to one of our pets. So perhaps it's a more complicated issue than you've made it out to be.
Actually people care more about Harambe I feel, than a random kid dying of starvation in South Sudan...
DoomRulz It would be great if that was actually true. I see more 1st world citizens more willing to cry over a dead chicken than their fellow man.
Harmony Alexandria You are proposing that the children born in sub saharan Africa and dying of starvation are somehow culpable of that fact, which is a very delusional and actually quite idiotic way of thinking. Also I'm not so sure that overpopulation is the explanation for the state of things in many of those countries so your entire angry rant seems to me just a big pile of rubbish.
Buddha said Animals feel more pain because they're unable to express their pain, they're unable to communicate their pain and in many unable to cry. So their pain is worse.
Go Vegan
Axy, Go slob a knob.
Axy no, b12 and creatine are only found in meat. They are absolutely needed for proper brain and musvle fuction
Wesley Welch wrong. B12 is not found in either animals or plants, it is a bacteria found in microbes which cover the earth. Creative is made naturally by all animals. Do some research
You are mostly on the right inclination. happen to know that cobalamin(b12) is produced in high amount in the gut microbes of ungulates and ruminants( cow, sheep, deer, horses) as a readily available for our use. the b12 our gut-microbes produce is not used by us and there for we need to consume other animals to obtain it.
I just ate a Vegan, they taste just as gross as meat eaters do. Your recommendation is not appreciated!
What a wonderful point made.
I love his explanation of pain at 3:08
Cutting red meat including beef, venison, and mutton out of my diet. Already have given up pork.
I won't judge you bro for your past rather i'll appreciate you for your future actions
People are so incredibly inconsistent when it comes to this topic. So many complain about dogs being harmed and killed for meat in a different country, while they themselves do the same thing to pigs, cows and chickens. We already know we don't need meat to live a healthy life so in my opinion killing animals for meat is highly immoral. We are killing animals for pleasure (taste)
This hypocrisy made me hate dogs and cats
I've been vegan nearly 10 years
Kudos! I've only been vegan for 2 years and I really love it!
The Legendary Richard Dawkins...🤗
This is why I’m vegetarian. I just can’t get over the self-evident fact that it’s wrong to eat mammals with whom we share so much of the same DNA, such a similar body plan (curious eyes, a nose, and ears...) and the same love for play and simply sharing in the joy of being alive! How can anyone justify taking a life only for the taste of its flesh? Over many generations to come we will make progress. I’m certain of it 🤞
You do realize these arguments justify going vegan, right?
I do agree that in the future we probably won't eat animals only because meat will probably be grown in a factory from muscle stem cells. Not because we have become more enlightened. It will be very easy for future generations to judge when they can eat meat with no moral considerations.
That is an interesting point indeed.
First of the Horsemen to come out and say it already! Veganism is the future! 😋
sam harris was vegan for a while
And ate terribly and "had" to give it up. No details on what he actually ate as far as I am aware - but he did admit he was not going a good job… so he basically admitted being lazy.
It's a shame because his discussion on the topic resulted in me going Vegan.
Two years later, still happy and healthy. Blood work is fantastic.
@@StephenJosiahRose He is going vegan again, but he did end up ill the first time.
@@Edward-qe8xg Where did you hear he is going vegan again?
@@StephenJosiahRose You do realize for most people to shift to veganism you would have to make their vegan way of life very convenient.
Dawkins has also said elsewhere that wild animals constantly suffer. This is because wild animals breed in a Malthusian way to the point of exhausting their local resources, and a steady population is always in a state of near-starvation. If the vast majority of wild animals' lives are short, hungry, and painful, as Dawkins claims, do we have a moral responsibility to extinguish nature, or at least to alter it? This is a perspective I have never heard discussed before, but it is a logical endpoint to the premise that animals suffer. In fact, domesticated species such as cows may have far less suffering in their lives than wild ones. Domestic animals never want for food or shelter, live longer, and are less stressed when measured against wild populations (it's true - look it up). Is it therefore a vegan moral duty to save wild prey species before factory farmed animals? Nobody talks about this, yet it is highly arguable.
I think ethics is not about "treat others like they treat you", "treat others the same as you" or "treat others the way you want to be treated", but "treat others the way they need".
Because human is a stupid animal.
Best video so far ❤️ This is why it’s so important to be vegan.
I'm reading the book roots by Alex haley and I find so much similarity between the slave owners and animal owners of modern society. slave owners thought they were 'taking care' of the enslaved people because they thought black people were all slow and stupid and had no abillity to survive on their own. but actually slave owners were the ones who stopped the enslaved people from getting educated and even from using any of their own survival knowledge and abillities. (Doing anything African origin like drumming was illegal then)
I live in a Korean viliage and very old couple in my neighborhood have so many big dogs in very tiny individual cages. I think about freeing them at night but there's no habitat left for them around and whole villiage treat dogs the same way so I am not confident that they will survive when they've been in that cages all their lives. I feel like I am in 1700's and not doing anything about slavery happening next door.
He is perfectly right, but I'd add that physical pain for most animals is not an uncertainty and psychological pain has already been detected beyond a reasonable doubt for many animals such as cows, dogs and other primates, close to that of a 4 year old human being. I'd also add that the fact that we have knowledge and technology adds another ethical responsibility towards them: 1) avoid using them whenever we can and search alternatives instead 2) if there's no way around it, we should do it avoiding as much pain as possible and allowing it to live as long as possible and a good quality of life in exchange, including giving them the care of our medicine and such 3) we should help them whenever we can, just because and avoid doing harm to the best of our capabilities, just like we do to human animals
Veganism is the answer.
What was the question?
ozskipper How can we make our descendants feel a little less embarrassed about us?
@Breno That question doesnt make sense. Do you feel embarrassed about your Grandparents?
ozskipper The question was proposed by Dawkins and Sam Harris. And to answer your question, yes, in some aspects I do. We're more morally advanced than they were. But the idea is always to look a little farther then a couple of generations.
Morally advanced. Do you think they would be embarrassed about your generation being sexually promiscuous.? Its all subjective.
Lots of meatards getting upset in the comments I see lol, here come the 'plants feel pain too' brigade!
giroguy22 they do.
There's been some interesting studies into whether they can. Like trees which can appear to have their own kind of nervous system which may actually cause them a sensation akin to 'pain' when they are ill or damaged.
Plants at best, MIGHT, like 1 in a million chance feel some version of pain. Animals feel pain, 100%.
If plants felt pain, we'd have no alternative and we'd have to eat plants anyways. With animals, we have choice. It's the dumbest argument I see, and it's everywhere.
Meatards? Wow, that's childish.
Well, if you think about it, a lot of people ("scientists") say that "from dead atoms, came life". Extrapolating that, we should be able to deduce that dead atoms can also be food. Who says that we have to eat ANY former living thing? We could eat nutritious chemicals that were NEVER alive. (Uh-oh, I FEEL a backlash coming)
Less meat eaters, less need for unethical mass production of meat. It's a simple as that. Animals subjected to mass production are treated like inanimate objects. If you had to witness what they went through before you bought that packet of meat in the grocery store, you wouldn't ever want to buy such products again. Additionally, producing meat requires way more resources than plant-based foods. If everyone stopped eating meat, it would be easier to feed the growing population and animals wouldn't be subjected to the torture we bring them.
I just love intellectuals who don't give a crap about animal ethics, like *I use my intelligence whenever is convenient*.
Come on, Richard! At least finish your point: "Therefore, go vegan."
I bet you Dawkins is no Vegan! He likes fried fish, hamburgers, hot dogs, fried chicken, ect.
lol..
Rosaza 😾 Really? And you know this because . . . ? The basis of his talk is philosophical, not personal. Therefore his specific behaviour is irrelevant at this point. PS. Referring to a person by their surname only is considered rude and dismissive by many. Show a modicum of courtesy when you choose to respond to someone on any level.
Dawkins likes to eat FISH COW, CHICKEN, probably PIG. What do you say about that VEGANS!?
Where in the world is it considered rude to refer to people by their surname? In my country you'd still be using the first name if you met the prime minister. Outside of formal ceremonies, you'd be using first names with the royal family too. But just 50 years ago, you used surnames to speak to people in formal settings, to superiors and authority figures. Using surnames has always been a sign of respect, at least in the western world. I was not aware it was anything other elsewhere, so out of curiosity: where?
Be kind, be vegan
Been vegan for 3 years and grew up vegetarian for 22 years before that. It's probably the most important thing I will ever do for the world. Feels great to have taken my responsability, and not base my 'human superiority' on violence, exploitation, death or dominion, either given by nature or divine force.
Great intellectual; great explanation...
Finally some cleaver speakers on here. Good content.
Does this mean that Richard Dawkins is going vegan? He is using the same philosophical argument that vegans make.
You don't need to be Vegan to make the Philosophical argument against Animal cruelty amd suffering.
After critically thinking about humanities relationship with the animal kingdom... Veganism and animal rights are just common sense. We suffer as equals, and therefore deserve equal moral consideration.
I’m not sure suffering works. Is it immoral to kill someone who is severely disabled and their whole life is suffering?
Richard Dawkins is the G.O.A.T.
UsuallyAsianAsians, and Goats can feel pain.
_"The decline of slavery was due not to _*_moral progress but to economic change._*_ Production under direct physical compulsion proved less profitable or convenient than production under the stimulus of acquisitive desire."_
______
Will Durant
So I guess it's safe to say that if capitalism fails,we'll return to the classical institution of slavery once again.
That's true Tasin, but what's the point? The decline of farmed animals will probably be caused by laboratory-grown meat.
Any mass cultural habit is hard to change, and follow economics. That's why to create social change, we need only convince the thinkers and people with power like Lincoln.
In this case, maybe billionaires who can fund lab meat, since power has shifted from politicians to companies. In the case of electric cars, people like Elon Musk, who doesn't so much argue for electric cars, as simply doing the billion dollar research to make it economically viable than gasoline cars, and watch as the billions follow the economics to the vision of one.
+Nivesh Proag One thing's for sure,economics doesn't follow morals.
+Tasin Al-Hassan
I highly doubt that Will Durant was right on this one.
After all the american civil war was fought for/against slavery in the united states. Back then there was still a major economical incentive for slavery. More so in the south, but certainly not limited to this area.
We didn't get rid of slavery because it wasn't usefull anymore. We get rid of it because the uses declined and it became easier to see that there are other ways. But when it was finally abolished it was still useful and economical sound, and it was due to moral progress.
"So I guess it's safe to say that if capitalism fails,we'll return to the classical institution of slavery once again."
I doubt that this is safe to say. And it's fallacious thinking that lead you to this conclusion. So think again.
People who think animal cruelty is okay are ridiculously ludicrous when you consider the fact that we are just more advanced apes from which we evolved from. Hunting is actually wrong in some ways. #conservewildlife
Very thoughtful and intelligent human being.
But then tigers kill deers... Kites eat rabbits, and we kill mosquitoes and stamp on ants and other insects...
Where do we draw the line? How do we differentiate?
I'm not justifying cruelty to animals. I'm seeking help for a stronger argument.
that tie...
Free my boy harambe
**Pulls dick out and wipes tear from eye*
Will B ii
Shut up
50 morons think it's still 2016. Then again, it wasn't funny last year either. Just STFU with this harambe poor excuse for humor.
We can't let this meme die. We can't let our homie Harambe die twice.
Dr Peter Singer is an INTERNATIONAL hero! I am a Reductionist: I support Reductionism.
That means everything differs in magnitude, not in kind.
That means I do not arbitrary different categories for different opponents.
ALL opponents are just opponents, whether it is some scammer trying to defraud me, or a sexual predator trying to force sex on me, or a politician forcing unjust laws on me, or a judge trying to imprison me. All opponents try to maximize the suffering & pain of their opponents. As a Vegan I treat carnivores/meat-eaters the SAME way those who oppose fraud treat convicted fraudsters like Sam Bankman Fried, or the way those opposed to pedophilia treat pedophiles. Why the F shouldn't I? There is NO logical reason why I shouldn't. As a pro-war Green, I make no distinction between a civilian vs a soldier: except in amount of firepower.
Being a veteran or soldier or "terrorist" or vigilante or murderer says NOTHING about WHICH SIDE of a conflict you are on, whether you are justified or unjustified.
Dr Dawkins is a great Atheist and Evolutionary Science advocate. But, he is wrong about transgender people.
Sex is not well defined as he thinks it is.
Pretty much everything he said, I already thought and it's great to hear Dawkins also saying it. It has always baffled me that some people actually think we're the only sentient animals in the world. How is there 8.5 million non sentient animals and only one sentient animal and that's just coincidentally whatever animal we are
Go vegan, if you not already are :)
I love this man.
I DON'T accept animal cruelty...
@SpiritWolf2K ...said the majority of people on this planet all the way to the market with cheap meat.
Meat eaters and hunters should be punished for murder of sentient beings
Hello. Physiotherapist here. I would consider myself an expert in pain.
Medically speaking, pain is defined as a "an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage."
Pain is both sensory and emotional in origin. It is very likely that humans have stronger and more complex emotions compared to other animals. Thus, I would expect pain to be felt more strongly in humans compared to other animals.
We know from experiments that animals avoid noxious stimuli, as Richard alluded to. That requires sensation of pain of some sort. We call this "nociception."
However, merely sensing pain (nociception) does not amount to having the complex sensory AND emotional experience that humans have.
Pain is useful to survival but only up to an extent. Too much pain that causes an animal to stop moving or even stop paying attention to surroundings would be detrimental to survival.
At the end of the day, we can not know for certain how much pain animals feel. The only way to know would be to ask an animal and have them reply.
My guess would be that most animals feel comparatively minor amounts of pain, with more intelligent/emotional animals having more capacity for pain similar to us.
Just came to write "GO VEGAN"
Great to see intellects like Dawkins waking up on this issue. I know he's not vegan (yet) but perhaps soon enough he will. It's definitely a positive sign. Throughout history, intellects/scientists/philosophers have tended to go along with basic societal norms, except for a few on the fringe. However as movements make progress in changing attitudes on subjects (whether it was slavery, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) suddenly some intellects start to wake up before the rest do as a wave of societal change unfolds shortly after. Only time will tell but I have cautious hope.
I do not trust people who genuinely think other living creatures are just empty flesh husks.
all animals killed for food is killed as instantly as possible, any suffering is unintentional and rare, if it was intentional then I dont agree with that specific method of slaughter.
It's a form of psychosis. Its definition is very apropos - a mental disorder in which you lose your contact with reality. That's what this is, isn't it? Some people just can't get their head out of their own arse to realize what they are really doing to others like themselves. Is the pain of "others like you" real to you or not? And what your definition of "others like you" is. This will answer whether you are psychotic or not.
A few years back, for most, that definition only included their own group (race, religion, nation). Now that definition is expanding as we are educating people and making them realize that this is not just their reality; it's everybody's reality. Many are still hypnotized and lost in themselves, the unevolved Trump's. We stopped slavery by making most people realize that we are all human beings. Now we need to realize that we are all animals, and those who do that are the most human.
I don't empathize with animals that are not the same species as me. Because I am not evolved to pass the genes of other species forward. It's a competition, and only passing on human genes are important to win the competition.
Oliver Bergqvist 😾 Your 'not evolved to pass the genes of other species' is ridiculous! No species is! You 'do not empathise . . . with other species' , therefore you would not attempt to help a creature in distress? You would dismiss the behaviour of those who set a hedgehog on fire as inconsequential? Those who participate in cock fighting or dog fighting gangs? Those who operate puppy farms? Those who beat and starve so called pet dogs and cats? You would decry punishing such people as unjustified? You would ignore the evidence that cruelty to animals has a strong correlation with cruelty to humans? In effect, you are placing yourself beyond those of us who are both compassionate and humane in our concern for the suffering of animals, as well as that of humans. You my not be aware that here in 🇬🇧 it was members of the RSPCA. who later founded the NSPCC - showing that compassion is not species specific. Please reflect upon the deeper elements of such a serious issue, then consider your position.
Sir Meow The Library Cat To all of your many rethrotical questions: no I wouldn't, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. As for the last one, if animal cruelty has a correlation with cruelty to humans, just condemn and punish anyone who commits cruelty to humans. Why is the correlation even important? Your empathy with animals is irrational. Why does your brain release dopamine when other animals are happy? You get no benefit from making sure no other animals are hurt or killed. Except if the animal being alive helps you in some way.
Also, I don't care about being "humane" (whatever that even means exactly). Nor your stupid fucking organizations for that matter. In fact, virtually nobody does.
For example, (if I had the power,) I would kill all the mosquitoes in the world. Because they don't do anything good for humanity. They're just an annoyance. But I guess you would consider that mass murder?
Oliver Bergqvist - From what I understand, you are saying that we are selfish in nature and then why do we try to be altruistic, which, as you put it, is completely irrational. I feel sad that you feel that way even though it doesn't affect me in any way. I want you to think some more about what you believe, and consider why don't we try to be altruistic and not follow our selfish nature. Man, I don't know where to start, but I'll try.
We are not evolved to pass on the genes of our species. We are evolved to pass on genes of our self. Richard Dawkins has written a rather aptly named book on it - The Selfish Gene. If everybody accepts they are selfish in nature, then it will explain your feelings for our behavior towards animals. But, why would we then feel differently for our actions towards other humans? We are also competing with other humans to pass on our genes. So shouldn't we feel happy when someone not from our social group (who indirectly help us by keeping our genes safe) is killed? Shouldn't we feel happy when we enslave a big portion of our species (the other group) and regulate their population? It'd benefit us in passing on our genes.
We don't feel happy in such cases. In fact, many (who are not psychopaths) feel the opposite way - we are repulsed by even the thought of it. We are empathetic towards our species because our culture has evolved past our selfish nature, and thus our beliefs => our thoughts => our feelings => our actions have evolved past our selfish nature. As we grow from a selfish infant, we create beliefs, based on our culture and from what is taught to us by the older generation, that can contradict our inherent programming and make us more altruistic. At snail's pace, generation by generation, our culture is becoming more egalitarian and inclusive, and we are becoming more and more empathetic. This is the opposite of being irrational. A "rational" human being who is not empathic is irrational because they are limited in their thoughts, and because of their inability to get their stuck head out of their own arse and think of other's feelings.
Yes, we have evolved because all the living beings have a sole motive - to pass on their genes. That was the only way nature could find where a species survives. However, in humans, nature has created intelligence - an aspect of nature that can oppose nature itself. We are not bound to be selfish. Our culture is constantly being shaped by intelligent and rational human beings, who can think past their selfish nature and even the existing cultural beliefs to see the bigger picture. What's that bigger picture? Well, we are still moving towards it, but it starts with the realization that we are not the only individual who is the psychological center of their world. Every single being in this world perceives reality from their own senses, and each of that reality is real, not just ours. Their feelings are as real as our feelings. (Though I find it difficult to include mosquitoes and insects in that model :p, some Buddhists, Jains and few others do feel that way. Maybe future generations, some 1000 years later, if our species still survives, will think of someone like me as barbarous.)
We *are* evolved to pass on the genes of our species, especially our communities. One is indirectly passing on their genes when their sibling gets a child (even though directly passing on ones genes is preferable). But that's not my point. The reason we're evolved to feel empathy for other humans is that humans can spread their genes more effectively when working together. Language, gesturing, facial expressions, are all abilities evolved to do that, resulting in things like civilisation. But feeling empathy with animals doesn't create civilisation. Something to ride on, or something to guard ones sheep, is as good as it gets. And that's just using the animal to ones own benefits, not working together.
Honestly it's not very complicated. I don't see why you try so hard to justify that animal cruelty is evil. I mean from the animals perspective it's evil, but since they have inferior intelligence they can't do anything about it.
Brothers and sisters, go vegan! :D Get animal cruelty out of you life! (:
Joshua Metzner but it tastes so gopd D:
Do you think your taste is more important than a living, breathing, sentient being?
Joshua Metzner yes.
Joshua Metzner no thanks
Joshua Metzner considering many animals would est you given the chance, yes I am fine with it
The collection of ties of sir Dawkins is amazing... love you sir Ricuard Dawkins 😘😘
Ethical veganism is the only way you can be morally consistent with this sentiment. We have to apply animal rights to all animals, not just a few. Sadly Dawkins is not vegan but he should be.
lets make pain great again
It's time to evolve and go vegan and leave our caveman like behaviour behind us
+Phillip Scott So you would rather we continuing unnecessarily enslaving, raping, and murdering innocent thinking and feeling animals that are capable of experiencing suffering and happiness, for no other reason than our taste pleasure? I'm curious, where do you base your morals in, and how do you think that's moral (or do you even care)?
Keep Calm, have a Hamburger!
At least I don't live in a bubble and think that my dietary plans will change something.
+COM LAG Yes, your dietary choices have an impact. It is as simple as supply and demand. Just like any consumer purchase, a vote with your wallet does contribute to major industry changes. Just think about it, if all of the millions and millions of vegans and vegetarians throughout the world tomorrow went back to eating dead animal flesh, demand for meat/dairy/eggs would jump dramatically and more millions animals would be murdered than are being now. And besides the moral impact of being responsible for less death of innocent beings, that also entails a much smaller waste of water (by millions of gallons) and much less of a Co2 footprint. So yes, vegans have an impact. You may think one individual person may not have a *big* impact (due to the billions of animal enslavers/rapists/slaughterers around them), and that's true, but they do have *an* impact, and collectively among all vegans that impact is indeed a big one.
If you really don't think monetary purchases (ie demand) have moral implications or effect the supply of certain goods I encourage you to talk to an intro level Economics student. And I guess then you think buying child pornography doesn't have moral implications because consumers buying products from a seller in increasing amounts (demand) has no impact on how much of that is produced (supply).
Animals eat animals
Thank you, Professor Dawkins. Superb.
It's kind of crazy that he can say this and still eat meat
I saw a video of a horse crying with tears after the other horse died next to him, i wish i could find that video again. it broke my heart
Brutal Indus While I have been against animal suffering since forever, I'm not sure videos of animals crying are real. Not all animals express emotions the way we do. Tears dont mean nothing to many animals, the same way as many of them never change their face expression.
Brutal Indus 😳 Elephants have been filmed mourning the loss of calves or an elderly member of the herd. We have no other explanation for their behaviour.
we are mammals - as are many large creatures - we share many of the same characteristics - probably including feeling pain and crying.
I have no doubt at all that similar animals to ourselves feel pain just like we do ... pain is a very basic survival mechanism that most complex creatures must surely share. Or their species would never have got off the ground.
Therefore... being vegan is the only morally-consistent option in a civilized society... although I don't think Dawk is @askyourself
Eating meat and provoking suffering in animals are not necessarily related. If you found a way for humans to eat meat without provoking any animal suffering, would you still say that veganism is morally-consistent in any way? I think you are conflating two things that are only partly related. I will give you a counter example: veganism may lead to the extinction of several of the domesticated animals we use just for eating their meat and by-products, because they cannot survive in nature and humans won't have any incentive to still have them and protect them if we do not eat them. Is that still morally-consistent for veganism? Is it morally virtuous to drive these species into extinction? As you can see, the topic is much more nuanced than you try to present it.
But as Marvin Varela has stated, veganism is not necessary a final solution that draws as conclusion of this video. Dawkin's position could be supported by at least not making animals suffer. So in theory you could eat eggs, milk etc. since you are not making animal suffer. I mean ok, you still "steal", in some sense, for example the eggs that could have been used by hen to procreate... but again you take quite care for that specie and it is in your general interest for it to succeed to procreate.
someone asked him that, and he just said that he had no defense for not being vegan.
First off, you need to understand that veganism is a philosophy, not a diet. It involves not participating in the unnecessary exploitation of animals. Not including animals or their byproducts as part of your diet is only a subset of the philosophy.
As it stands today, we are required to kill animals that desire to live in order to eat meat... I agree that eating meat and provoking animal suffering are not necessarily related in the sense that there may be a way to kill an animal without them feeling pain, but does that justify killing an animal that didn't want to die (I don't consider euthanizing an animal that is already in severe pain as part of this point)? Don't ignore the reality of the world we live in either: The overwhelming majority of animals raised and killed on factory farms lived a life of misery and pain.
Dawkins is suggesting that non-human animals may even feel MORE pain than humans... If we are against treating humans as slaves, why are we enslaving billions of animals every day in slaughterhouses? If you agree that treating humans as slaves is wrong and eating meat is fine, then what is the trait that is present in animals which if present in humans would make it fine to eat humans? You need to name the specific trait or else you are contradicting yourself...
To your points:
-If there was a way for humans to eat meat without provoking animal suffering, would it be morally consistent with the ethics of veganism? It is not consistent if an animal was still killed against its will. However, companies like Memphis Meats and Hampton Creek are developing lab-grown meat... In this case since no animal had to die or suffer, eating it would stay consistent.
-Is it morally virtuous to drive these farm animal species into extinction? Keep in mind that this dilemma would never present itself in the fashion that you are suggesting... Not everyone is going vegan overnight. This will be a gradual process over time. As fewer people eat meat, fewer farm animals will be bred into existence because the demand will lessen. If at any point there were too many farm animals for us to handle, they could be brought to farm sanctuaries around the world where they could live out the rest of their lives in peace. We would never have to resort to releasing them into the wild to die.
@Steven Sandberg. This conversation is great, which is a rare occurrence in TH-cam. I am glad I started it. I agree with you that there is nothing that makes it morally justifiable to have animals as slaves. However, I want you to be aware of the fact that the way it is done in huge farms and slaughter houses is not the only way that exists. In many parts of the world, animals are not industrial products, they grow as companions to humans and they are treated with respect and care, and they live free and successful lives, able to prosper and reproduce. I agree with you that they are not the majority these days, because the industrial world deals with many more animals than the rest of the world, but that does not make it evident as you imply that domesticated animals used for consumption are synonymous with slavery. Also, you mention that it is not morally justifiable to kill an animal against its will or to kill an animal who does not want to die. There you are attributing will and desires to animals and you would need to justify that before we can have a discussion on the topic as it is not automatic. If you are simply talking about wanting to live in the evolutionary sense, that is one thing, but desires coming from consciousness would need first a demonstration that they have consciousness for that argument to have any weight at all. For most animals, surviving until after they can successfully reproduce a couple of times is all they "want" (in the evolutionary sense) and therefore by letting them reproduce or at least attempt to reproduce before they die you would be completely fulfilling their "desires" (again in the evolutionary sense). You would need to demonstrate that animals are capable of having a will or a desire beyond the evolutionary sense in order to justify your claim of "early undesired death." Finally, I want you to be aware of the fact that not all humans are physically able to survive without eating meat. Some humans can suffer health issues, get ill and die if they stop. They have therefore, the need to eat meat in order to stay alive. Would you say that it is morally justifiable for them to do so, then, or should they risk their own lives in favor of the lives of animals they eat? (a little note that I do not want to leave out: I agree that artificially producing meat would solve this conundrum completely and satisfactorily, let's hope that happens soon enough).
Veganism is the most clear cut ethical issue we have now
I became vegan 4 years ago. When my wife finishes with a chicken’s leg or a pig’s rib, what she sees are the leftovers from a meal. But what I see are skeletons of slaughtered fellow beings. Our descendants will judge us not too favorably I think.
Today there was a slaughter festival in my country. Pretty fucking gruesome. It celebrates ibrahim's "glorious" act of nearly slaughtering his own son.
Early in the morning I ran to a slaughter area to see the act.
There were about 40+ cows/bulls there, lined up eating their food. Five teams of butchers would pick one. take it a few feet back and slaughter it right there in plain view of all.
Soon the place was full of blood like a horror movie. The rest of the cattle could see it, the blood was running under there feet. But they still followed the butcher to the same area as if nothing is wrong.
This all makes slaves and Australopithecus etc different from cows, that are smart indeed, but not smart enough to feel worried about that scenario.
But yes, we do treat animals like shit.
I am opposed to the scenario in above post.
The cows should live on an open field, and should be anesthetized before getting killed.
Wait so the other cows saw the one cow get slaughtered and they weren't freaked out by it? or were they too busy eating food and didn't notice anything. I'm pretty sure if you slaughtered a cow right in front of another one it would get freaked out for sure.
They saw it all. One after another. Multiple corpses on ground with butchers on them. But they didn't freak out.
By the end the food was all gone and washed away with red bloody water. Still they followed the butcher.
These animals aren't entirely senseless and they do get aggravated easily if you tease them a bit in a personal way or manhandle them. But they had no concept of sensing danger from that scenario.
The long domestication period has altered them a lot.
Its probably how you can take eggs from most chicken's egg laying area in front of them, and it wont give a shit. Goodluck doing that with a wild or recently domesticated bird species.
^SMH
Thats why i left Islam while i was a vegetarian and later became a vegan cause i dont want to believe in any evil and bloodthirsty god who has created so much suffering and injustice on earth in first place.
So, dear professor, it's time to be consistent with your arguments, and become vegan! ;)
I think he's vastly overestimating how much people care about each other to think that we would then too care about animals. He seems like a very nice guy tho, respect.
Anyone who thinks that Dawkins doesn't care about morality because he wrote "The Selfish Gene" should watch this video.
Was this still a question for lots of people?
kwhite621 I mean, have you seen the rate of meat consumption? :/
"we never stopped slavery, we just outsourced it to more vulnerable countries"
Foxconn wants to know your location.
modern slavery is not slavery ahahahhahah so funny right so contradictory.
"...outsourced to more vulnerable species."
We don't..
Very few people think cruelty to animals is OK . Eating animals is something different, because the animals are not killed with the intention to inflict cruelty them per se . Yes, slaughtering techniques are often cruel, but this is not a reason to be opposed to eating animals per se. The human race would not have been able to survive without eating animals .
"If you want to know where you would have stood on slavery before the Civil War, don’t look at where you stand on slavery today. Look at where you stand on animal rights."
No true scotsman.
Class Punk not really, no true scotsman has to be based on a dogma. Here we have just a comparison.
Oh ffs, these vegans can't be for real. One thing is to argue about veganism helping the environment and another thing is indirectly telling people that are not vegetarians and vegans pro-slavers.
+Rogred That's not what he said.
Rogred didn't say that, if you think I did you should look up carnism, there is a ted talk explaining it, definitely worth watching
Much respect to Richard Dawkins for addressing this issue. It is also worth considering that low intelligence is no barrier to emotional distress either.
See in their eyes. You see the pain.
😣
Go vegan