I have a list of idiotic things Tyson says "Fact checking Neil deGrasse Tyson". The earliest item is from his Natural History column in April 2002. I'm guessing he was saying dumb stuff earlier but it wasn't recorded on the net. He has been saying idiotic stuff for more than two decades. And I would not call him an astrophysicist. He was lead author of only 5 papers, all during his college days. His college days when Harvard turned him down for post grade. When U.T. flunked him and showed him the door. He finally found a sympathetic in R. Michael Rich at Columbia. Rich hired students to help him with his disseration. And, in my opinion, Columbia should be embarrassed the gave this fool a degree.
@@I.M.Q7119 Like not knowing that in order for dairy cows to produce milk, they are forcibly impregnated and then have their calves taken away shortly after giving birth. If male, the calves will end up being killed and sold as veal. When dairy cows dry up, they are sold and also end up being killed for hamburger meat. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-aB_ajdDvLdc.html In the honey industry, bees are often killed for several different reasons and the honey industry is actually contributing the decline of wild bees. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-clMNw_VO1xo.html Despite the fact that numerous people have confronted him about his false claim, he has yet to recant any of it. It's literally the reason why vegans don't consume dairy products or honey. He could've easily Googled it before talking out of his a--, but he's too busy talking sh*t about vegans to consider the fact that he has no idea what he's even talking about.
In case you didn’t know, NDT knows everything and what’s best for humanity. We all should live according to his words and knowledge. I hope you know this is a joke. He’s finally showing who he truly is. A mouthpiece for the mainstream narrative. Many have seen this for a while now.
He’s not saying that at all. All he’s saying is be who you want to be as long as you don’t try to make me be the same as you against my will. And that we ought to have different ways to categorize sports to match with the progressing times, whatever those may be.
In his first statement, Tyson stated that laws should be based on objective reality. When he talks about gender he wants laws to be based around indefinable sensations in the heads of small minority of people rather than the objective reality of sex. He also ignores the sciences of evolutionary biology and biological anthropology in his assessment. Virtually ever culture in existence and throughout history has divided society based on sex, because of the obvious behavioral and temperamental differences between men and women. His position is contradictory. He also insulted Michael's position by referring to him as an angry old man on the porch. Not a good look.
His point was about binary thinking and change. Many won't even consider change. Lack of wanting to change kept people slaves and women excluded from education and the workforce for how long?
We literally could not have survived as a species if we couldn’t distinguish male from female at a glance. Even blind people can distinguish male from female. Just utter insanity from Neil DeGrasse Tyson pretending that these categories that predate human thought are some kind of human imposition.
I'm not even vegan and I can barely listen to the level of cringe of his "points". This is why experts in one field should mostly remain silent in others. Astronomy is nowhere near ethics (or even logic it seems).
Jeez, I always thought of Neil as being a true man of science. As said by one of the characters in the Shawshank Redemption "I believe his cheese has slid off his cracker"
“I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy, and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he sounds as naive as anyone untrained in the matter.” Richard Feynman
The more this guy tries to argue against veganism, the more he sounds ignorant and self-righteous. He likes to act like he's really thought about stuff, but his examples are so odd and off. His lack of nutritional knowledge is also glaring. We all have cognitive dissonances; vegans just try to have fewer. He doesn't want to get it. He looks for arguments against what he doesn't like (in this case, the possibility of not consuming animal products) rather than just looking for truth.
Soooo off base. There's a lot of evidence animal protein has benefits other forms of protein doesn't. There's nowhere near enough evidence to claim veganism is healthier. What we need is for synthetic meat to become affordable and ubiquitous
he clearly hasn't thought two minutes about animal suffering. making an analogy of SENTIENT plants being outraged over non-sentient plants being killed...riiiight. I actually can`t believe anyone wants to listen to anything he says outside of astrophysics. You don`t have to have an opinion on things you clearly don`t know anything about, let alone write about it in a book. It`s rather embarrassing. it doesn`t bode well that Shermer wasn`t able to push back on this also.
@@eazyrat He’s basically saying that however you chose to eat is up to you but using the plant based aliens has a way to get you thinking about how in some minute way the killing of plants is no different than killing animals. They’re both alive, and when you deprive the planet of what it needs, it does suffer-not in the same way-but even so. When you cut the plant, it dies. Plants DO compete with each other for survival. Yes it is much easier a plant, but they’re technically the same thing and it’s just something to think about. You can have an opinion on something WITHOUT it being your field of expertise. There is also a certain degree of life experience in these matters.
@@I.M.Q7119 OK so I understood that meaning completely, and like I said Neil has missed the point. Plants cannot feel pain. As far as we can tell they're not sentient. Intelligence is not he same as sentience. Nobody values the lives of animals because they're alive, they value them because they're sentient and able to suffer. You may as well substitute plants for rocks. Neil didn't do this because then its even more obvious that the analogy falls apart...but it really is no different. Rocks and plants do not feel pain. Animals do. So no, I didn't miss the point. It looks like both you and Neil did.
@@eazyrat his frame of reference about the plant based aliens see what primarily vegetarians and vegans do is an analogous to rational humans asking why the Holocaust had to happen in the first place. And other questions that may follow that. I know it’s not exactly the same thing but hopefully I’m making sense here. Who knows. There might very well be species like that.
On killing animals for pleasure: Neil deGrass Tyson was one of my heroes until this moment. He hasn't bothered checking his facts. He is arguing from emotion, uses strawman arguments and false equivalents. And the scientific community doesn't even agree with him (the cambridge declaration on consciousness). This is like him arguing for homeopathy. So so disappointing.
This was truly aweful. I never realised what a loud mouthed over-confident windbag DeGrasse-Tyson is. He constantly shouted over MS and called him an old man on the front porch. His arguments for gender theory were trivial and incoherent, and incredible for a guy who is supposed to be spruiking his book on how a scientific view can inform your thinking.
His hormones ratio idea is ridiculous. It takes NO account of the developmental advantages of testosterone on a body, especially a body that has gone thru puberty. And the advantage is never lost. He’s completely wrong. The science is very clear in this.
Wow. When Tyson waxed philosophical about veganism on his podcast some time ago, I commented how ironic it was to listen to such an intellectual make such intellectually lazy and fallacious arguments. It seems he has doubled down on that. It would really serve him well to first understand a philosophical position before making critiques about it. If a six-year-old made the usual asinine argument of 'but what about plants' feelings?', I would excuse it, but not an adult holding a doctorate in the natural sciences. Furthermore, that ANY adult, let alone a scientist, could believe that milk, for instance, is some magical substance that doesn't require anyone to die is dumbfounding. I am truly at a loss for words that such a well-educated person can be so ignorant of basic science and economics. (And this is of course ignoring that exploitation is fundamentally wrong, regardless of whether death is the result.) And I can imagine the irony is lost on him that he (and other public communicators of science like Dawkins, etc.) have before expressed surprise that such well-educated people can, due to cultural bias, believe in supernatural nonsense like religion despite its absurdity. And here we have Dr. Degrasse Tyson who believes plants may have equivalent moral value to sentient animals, and milk is a death-free resource that we can just extract from our environment. At least serious thinkers like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are consistent in their philosophies and acknowledge that veganism is an ethically preferable position, even if they admit cultural and personal reasons for not not being vegan themselves (e.g. personal weakness, etc.). So when THEY say 'educated people should not believe in fairy tales like Mohammed literally flew up to heaven on a winged horse', they are at least being consistent. Neil Tyson just believes in a different kind of Mohammed apparently. One that comes medium rare on a plate.
I don’t think you quite got his meaning. Long story short, he just encourages you to think about how you came to your decision-whatever it may be-and see if that changes how you look at things.
@@I.M.Q7119 That may have been a credible interpretation had he not doubled down on the 'absurdity' of ascribing moral value to animals and not plants on other occasions. That is not the point he was making.
@@I.M.Q7119 'milk and honey...our one chance to not have to kill any lifeform at all, and it's excluded in the vegan diet' is an absurd level of misunderstanding of BOTH how dairy works AND the vegan philosophy's opposition to dairy. Furthermore, this is a straightforward representation of one aspect of his position, which is a CRITICISM of the logic (or what he sees as lack of logic) of the vegan philosophy. He doubles down on his strawman with 'suppose there are aliens who are sort of sentient plants'...the keyword there being SENTIENT, which undermines the entire thought experiment, and is again an absurd misunderstanding of the vegan philosophy. Of course, you can simply continue to insist he was not making the point he was obviously making -- a criticism of the consistency of the vegan philosophy -- it's a free world, ostensibly. I'll continue to apply logic and reason to understanding people's speech.
exactly i found this whole incoherent rambling on the topic pretty incomprehensible. what do trees have to with that anyway. a tree is bigger and prduces more oxygen? who cares? that´s not the point. what do you think nature values more? what´s that even supposed to mean? nature doesn´t value anything. so what does he say there anyway? well the mouse is gonna die anyway at some point so might as well kill it now? what kind of argument it that?
I think you missed his point. There's a third option in this simple thought experiment - if the point is not participating in violence, then leave the mouse alone in the basement.
It's frustrating because Neil is smart enough to know full well everyone can express themselves however they want and everyone they encounter gets to express themselves back. People disagree with me doesn't make it an attack on who I am. The issue is they get upset when they don't successfully bend the world to their reality. No one has nor should they have the power to do that
But are you not doing the same thing right now? You claim the right not to have reality "bent' for you but you seem upset that other people might express themselves in a way that is not pleasing to you if you do? If people believe in affirming people's gender identity why are you getting so upset about it? It's their choice?
@@drts6955 glad you asked. To clarify I use the pronouns everyone prefers I think its socially decent. I want people to express themselves as they choose and I want people to accept or reject people's claims as they choose I don't care which. I just hate the outrage that comes with the expectation that everyone is required to speak differently than they choose or think the way they want us to think. No one really owes anyone anything (other than out physical boundaries, words after all are not violence. And no people can't run into a theater and yell bomb or fire thats not free speech thats a threat against people's safety). Long story short jk Rowling isn't a bad person because she's convinced that ment aren't women and making up acronyms doesn't win that argument for the left. I've been very liberal my whole life and some of the stuff going on lately that is hopefully mostly just the fringe is very dangerous to the moderates and traditional liberal values
@@Mike-bh9vs That's fair enough and I agree on many points there. And if you are willing to use people's pronouns, that's fair enough. There are other people who will maintain the right to treat people in a way that is unpleasant but then get annoyed that people get pissed at them! This is hypocrisy
Dude simple as this u can be whatever u feel like but when it comes down to biological differences, YOU cannot compete in sports in that way. Its wrong
On his take on meat eaters and vegetarians: When the plant aliens see how many more plants the non-vegans are feeding to animals they are going to be more pissed at Neil …….. (Fact check 80% of all global crops are fed directly to animals) If aliens came down that were of cow sentience and saw the atrocities humans do to cows , and slaughter 70 billion land animals per year, they would destroy our planet in fear. I was a big fan of NDT however now I’m so disappointed in his misunderstanding around the word he can hardly say, vegansim
Yeah... now I doubt everything he says... l don't know much about space, so I just believe him. When he talks about veganism, I know he is making false claims and bad analogies... so now I don't trust him anymore in other subjects.
100%. It was incredibly disappointing to hear his terrible arguments. As a vegan myself I was actually looking forward to an intelligent argument I hadn’t heard. His were actually some of the very worst.
The plant alien analogy is not correct, because there are earth plants that evolved for animals to eat fruits and nuts, digest them, and then grow once expelled.
Actually veganism is focused on exploitation, while utilitarianism is focused on suffering. That's why vegans and utilitarians sometimes disagree, for example about animal experiments and wild animal suffering.
Tyson's short vs tall analogy would be relevant to the topic if there was a league of 5 foot 10 basketball players, where everyone was required to be that height. But a special exemption was made for a 6 foot 5 player, because "insert strongest progressive talking points." Any reasonable person, yes, would say that it'd be unfair to the shorter people to let that person play, regardless of the reasoning.
@@I.M.Q7119He never implied what? OP is just rebutting Tyson's dumb argument about how there are all sorts of genetic accidents that can make people better or worse at given sport, therefore we should ruin women's leagues... The whole reason for women's leagues is that without carving out sports leagues that exclude males, women would never be able to compete at a very high level in most (all?) sports. We created women's leagues so we could watch and participate in high level women's sports. You could say that the exclusion of men in those leagues is arbitrary - but it just clearly isn't. It was done so that we could actually have women's sports... And like it or not the people who enjoy women's sports enjoy it because it's women's sports, and don't particularly want to see it transform into "transwoman sports". They should go start "transwoman" leagues if they can't bring themselves to play with the men. Of course this touches on the broader issue that men and women are immutably and fundamentally different and as such the customs, traditions, norms and even roles that societies have developed for each respective sex aren't just arbitrary and meaningless - but stemming from a simple truth about the human condition. Namely that there's really only two types of humans; male and female. So in general this notion that it's somehow progressive to toss out everything that is "gendered" is baseless and destructive. Anyways it's worth pointing out that most so-called "men's" leagues aren't really men's leagues anyways - a woman could in theory be drafted in the NFL or the NBA or whatever. It's just never going to happen, because in most sports a male amateur or mediocre professional can wipe with the floor with even the very best and most legendary female athletes. Furthermore, nobody's going to care if athletes playing with the men grow their hair out, wear dresses and call themselves "she/her" -- so there's just no good reason to mess up women's leagues like this. We all must conform ourselves to the reality of who and what we are at some point, and to the reality of the world around us. It's not always fun, sometimes it hurts our feefees - but it's the only way to live.
I like Neil deGrasse Tyson but he's wrong on this issue there is a serious difference between men and women they should not be playing sports together that's absurd.
He was talking about binary thinking. You're being absurd because you won't even consider the possibility. And he said it may not be the answer, but maybe we should consider other answers.
Science is a social construct. Electrons can be +or'- or anything in between. They can change on a whim. REMAIN CALM AT THIS TIME...THE FUTURE LIES AHEAD. I WILL NEVER LISTEN TO HIM AGAIN .HE IS APEDDLAR OF PSEUDOSCIENCE.
Most of what Tyson says about sex is just BS. Everyone can tell boys from girls and they don't go by jewelry. In real life, boy and girls tend to wear different clothes. However, we could still tell them apart, even if they wore the same clothes. In adults, body shape is a strong differentiator. Of course, with no clothes and no jewelry we could tell males from females with 99.9% accuracy.
NDT should have left the trans subject well alone. All he did was present platitudes to the extremes of trans activism in order to insulate himself from cancellation. Stick to science Neil. Sure everyone should be able to express themselves however they see fit. But as a scientist you should be able to convey, free from intimidation, the biological differences between men and women and the very real world ramifications of blurring the lines between the two.
It's notable that the sexes (male or female) is one of the ONLY processes in the universe that naturally parses itself into a binary system. Animals are either born with a ding dong or a vagina. Period.
Half the time I can't tell if he's playing devil's advocate or really believes what he's saying. I didn't like how he was characterizing Michael as the old man on the porch being out of touch with the times. Sometimes that old man made it to that porch by using the wisdom he acquired over the years. Also, Neil's hormone angle regarding sports is quite silly. He indirectly accused Michael of binary thinking when he was guilty of that very thing when discussing hormones in sports. How long did they have that hormone levels? Did they have it long enough to alter their muscle and bone development? Relevant questions that Neil is too lazy to research and ponder but has no problem bloviating about.
@@holdensagan I thought Neil's point on splitting up contenders by hormone and testosterone levels was pretty good. In a way we already do that by making sure all competing athlete's aren't on steroids, that's effectively a hormonal rule. You could just include biometrics as part of the parameters space with which contenders are selected and simply ignore the male/female parameter.
@@danielm5161 all this complication for such an extraordinarily small percentage of the population? It doesn’t make sense. Playing professional sports is a privilege based on performance. Not a right. Go do something else.
@@sulljoh1 it was an incredibly stupid point. Brown dwarfs are NOT stars becuase their is no fusion. You could not find a better binary example than star versus not star.
@@merlekelly1201 I'm not a astrophysicist, but fusion is probabilistic. So if you keep adding mass to a brown dwarf, bit by bit, you would get gradually more and more fusion output due to gravity pressure. Humanity draws lines between star types for convenience. That's why we need to keep changing our classification systems. The real universe is messy.
Great show as always. I think the wokeratti have gotten to Neil. I side more with Michael in the gendered sports discussion. A bit disrespectful to call Mr. Shermer "old man sitting on the porch" because you are using basic logic and actual science to back up your claims.
Too bad NDT isn’t following science when it comes to his views on basic biology. I’m very disappointed. Your discussion with Jonathan Kay on Quillette podcast about Scientific American’s shift away from science was a signpost to where this is going. Also, the “old man…” comments were uncalled for, ignorant and “elderphobic” imo.
Mr. Neil deGrasse Tyson was someone I long respected, right before he revealed his extremally irrational and uneducated thoughts regarding diet. He obviously made no effort to learn even the basics of nutrition (Neil - fats, carbohydrates, and proteins are called 'macronutrients,' as opposed to the vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals called 'micronutrients'), yet decided to share his cognitive dissonance in print - which will now forever damage his reputation as a man of science. True scientists should know better than to educate or preach from a place of ignorance. This desperate need to publicly justify his diet choices has regrettably led to him causing great harm as an 'educator.' What a sad and disappointing end to his status as a trusted science educator.
After knowing and listening to Tyson's arguments for over 20 years now, I find myself having increasingly less and less time for his sophistry. Most of his arguments are vacuous at best, disingenuous at worst. He likes to think of himself as this wild original thinker while everyone around him is just a regressive "rocking chair on front porch sitter". It's pompous and ridiculous.
he clearly hasn't thought two minutes about animal suffering. making an analogy of SENTIENT plants being outraged over non-sentient plants. I actually can`t believe anyone wants to listen to anything he says outside of astrophysics. Even the race stuff is not a hot take but of course he`s black so he`s going to capitalise on it.
Neil, I really urge you to look more into veganism. You made a lot of false claims and bad analogies. All dairy cows end up in slaughter. Crops are grown to feed dairy cows and they eat way more than humans (animal crop deaths). Even grass fed cows eat forage, have land cleared, and wild predators hunted to protect them, and after you get them pregnant their babies are slaughtered for veil most of the time. The sentient plants would look at humans and realize the vast majority of plants we grow go to feeding animals, which we then eat. So the sentient plants would be angrier at the meat eaters because they kill more plants. Also it’s a silly analogy. You used “sentient plants” because you know plants on earth aren’t sentient, which is the main point of veganism. The ability to feel love, sadness, anxiety, pain, joy, have a subjective experience of the world driven by thought and emotion, is what vegans value in animals. It’s like saying “what if a sentient rock alien came down to earth and saw us stepping on rocks and grinding them up, therefore we shouldn’t use rocks”. Vegans kill way less plants anyway, it’s the most sustainable diet. The mouse in the house analogy. You care about humans right? If a homeless man broke into your house and lived in your basement, would you call the cops? Kick him out? If you do that, you are subjecting him the dangers of prison, or the dangers of living outside. You could just let him live in your house, or, kick him out, and now you’re justified in eating humans. That’s your logic. This analogy is a simple rights violation. A being violated my rights by entering my home without my consent. I have the right to get my rights back in the gentlest means possible. That means kicking the homeless man out, or kicking the mouse out. I have no obligation to take care of the mouse because I am not the one causing its suffering. I am simply getting my rights back. However, with farmed animals, we are the ones intentionally causing the suffering, and since we are causing it, we have an obligation to not cause harm where we can. Veganism is about minimizing suffering when we can. Not eliminating all suffering.
Yeah. It's so weird how he makes up an alien to convince himself and then even fails to think it through. To be honnest it makes me doubt everything this man has to say. I guess he is just book smart.... honey and milk, it's even in the Bible.... really? "It's even in the Bible" is an argument?
@@sulljoh1 of course people that trap and release in the wild, know that the mice might get eaten... it's just a fair chance to try and survive in their natural Habitat, instead of being killed straight off by the home owner.
Dear Neil is somewhat off track (IMHO) concerning sex versus gender expression. Sex is Sex and is 99+% binary. Sexual/Gender expression is the result of natural processes that are not perfect and it therefore lies on a bell curve. Reasonable tolerance for non-violent/non-harmful natural variation is the best social path. However, born males who have or have had testes and who have been dosed with testosterone, should not be allowed to compete in woman's sports. If they still have testes and have not completely transitioned they should not be allowed in female bathrooms or change rooms.
I know NDT was only teasing Michael but I think it was unfair to characterize him as an "old man on the porch". Especially to then go ahead and suggest an idea as regressive as hormone-classed sports. Suppose we were to implement that. How far down the hormone league totem poll do we have to go before we start to see any significant number of competitive females? Surely too low for sponsors to invest in or for a profitably large enough audience to be developed. Effectively eliminating the professional athletic prospects of countless females. Even to split it into a high in hormone "x" league and a low in hormone "x" league would get us right back to where we are now, only with the additional embarrassment of any female with unusually high levels of this hormone being forced to compete against males. The current unisex open professional league with an additional female-designated league system seems to work especially well. What's even the problem here that we're trying to solve?
agreed. even more so since his "solution" consisted of holding the main problem "aside for a moment". or inventing arm lengths categories for swimming? which we supposedly have in boxing? (which we don´t ,just because arm lengths is measured doesn´t mean you´re classed according to arm lenths but according to weight.) and he wanted to compare swimming where a single number determines the victor to a combat sport like boxing? that´s rediculous. as you say you´d have that totem poll where women might as well forget about becoming professional athletes. after all the 236 ranked male tennis player still easily and effortlessly defeated the williams sisters. he didn´t even try to adress michaels point of conflicting rights. the question is simple really, should a handful of male puberty transgender woman be able tu ruin it for the 99,9% of female puberty women? the answer shouldn´t be that hard.
Well, Michael did laugh at it? And this is what Neil would say is a good debate. They both agree to disagree, and then go have a beer together afterwards.
The problem is the feefees of people who threaten to self delete when they don't get what they want. I don't mean to be cold - but that's what it is. Somewhere along the line it was decided that any societal customs that reflect the reality that males and females are distinct must be destroyed. It's not exactly reasonable.
I love Neil but I literally LOL’d at his attempted analogies regarding gender. He’s demonstrating that if you’re well-educated to the degree he is, it’s possible to perform the mental gymnastics required to convince yourself of things that us plebeians understand as patently untrue. However well-intended, I do not respect this silliness as such beliefs have consequences…see Abigail Shrier’s book Irreversible Damage. PS: if Michael is an old man in his rocking chair then that’s what I aspire to be, because his evidence-based reasoning and rationality even on controversial topics is far more admirable than Neil’s political pandering.
Hi, I understand what you are saying but in the back of my mind I think that 30 years from now we will view his arguments(NDT) as more on the right track than wrong.What he is essentially saying is that humans have this need to make sense of the world so they tend to categorise and make discrete, data that is continuous or does not really need to be categorised or necessarily categorised in the way we have done. For example, imagine at 4'1 male, and a 6'7 female both trying to score balls in regulation basketball baskets nets against each other. In this case the binary categorisation doesn't make sense. Now imagine, the same male against another tall male, and the 6'7" female against and 4 fit female. In this specific context this dualistic classification or binary approach doesn't make sense. Perhaps height might be a better categorisation, or arm length, or a combination of factors. NGD is on the right track.
Fascinating. Neil dropped some ad hominem arguments to Shermer. Shermer knows that ideas are not shielded from discussion. Also Neil used some “future contingents” as part of his arguments, neither necessarily true nor necessarily false. Neil said that he thought his ideas thoroughly but some we not compelling enough.
I’m a huge N. Tyson fan and at times critical of Shermer, his admiration for libertarianism is but one gripe I have with him. That being said, N. Tyson is just wrong on this gender issue from start to finish. Men need to compete against men in sports and same with women. There is a difference, we are “not” the same. I say this as someone who is a strong Trans ally who is progressive and liberal.
It doesn't even take a person of science to see there is a clear difference in the genders. The mental gymnastics these people have to do to say men and woman are the same is just sad. Woman who worked hard to reach a goal to their dreams stolen from them.
at around minute 20:00, Dr Tyson brings up milk not killing any animals. I think that is not true in practice. You have to make a cow pregnant and take away its calf to harvest the milk if you maximize efficiency. So it is killing calves (there are way too many and most get eaten), taking them from their parent and enslaving both. So the moral argument is not at all clear. (I am a meat eater but I would like to think about how we can improve at least mass animal production)
You are right, baby calves are either killed (males) or forced into the same system of being raped and forcibly impregnated (females). I would encourage you to see these beings as more than just "animals" though, as they are individuals that have their own individual experiences of emotions including fear and pain and suffering. Once we start seeing these beings as more than a product, then we can realize that no part of animal agriculture is acceptable. There is no improving an industry that forces these beings into existence just to kill them for profit...or in this case: rape them, steal their baby, kill their baby, steal the milk meant for their baby (for profit) then kill them (for more profit).
That is exactly the argument against dairy. Plus how the cows themselves are treated. It is truly awful in many cases and none of us know which are treated well when we buy store dairy. I spoke to a cattle rancher recently and she completely got my not wanting to eat meat. She also said that when she goes to the cattle auctions the worst looking, worn out and injured animals are from dairy operations.
He couldnt be more wrong about how people judge whether or not a person is male or female. If i had a hundred people and every one of those people were dressed as the oppposite gender i could accurately categorize at least 90 percent of them and probably more. Im not nullifying their freedom to do so im just pointing out a scientists failure to use the scientific method to draw a conclusion.
If Neal thinks we're going to change sports to accommodate 0.01% of the population, and expect it to be profitable, he's reaching. I admire his brain, but there are a few subjects where I think he is too optimistic to not have his motives questioned. At some point, science is taking a backseat
Splitting up athletes by hormone, testosterone distribution may not be so farfetched. In a way we already do that by making sure all competing athlete's aren't on steroids, that's effectively a hormonal rule. In regard to profit, there are tons of sports that aren't hugely profitable but still exist (volley ball, jiu jitsu, special olympics, dodgeball etc.).
@@danielm5161 yea but the vast majority of male and female athletes are not about to divide themselves up in order to accommodate a very small minute percentage of the population. Not only that, but these big organizations who make a lot of money are not about to jeopardize their profits for that either. The NBA and NFL would be out of their minds to do this, just so a few trans people can compete.
@@thejavilobby It isn't the athletes that will divide themselves up, it's the institutional rule setting body. And it isn't so far fetched that trans could end up in the NBA in the next 30 years or so. As the WNBA grows in popularity and profit, it will breed charismatic star players. It only takes one of these star players to decide they are a man and begin taking hormones. If the NBA thinks this trans player will bring in more fans than they repel, then the path for a trans star player into the NBA becomes very real. Keep in mind, this trend will look like a growing WNBA league from our current vantage point, as the market for the WNBA grows then NBA teams will want to syphon some of that market share into their teams.
@@danielm5161 I wouldn't hold my breath. Trans men are not competitive at all when it comes to sports. It's only trans woman who dominate in women sports. Which ultimately puts woman at a disadvantage. A man who transitions into a female will automatically have certain advantages after a certain age. Plus, I don't care how much the institutions want it, if not enough people have the will to see sports in this way, they don't have a market. But this is all speculation. The trans community is just far too small for them to offer any real profit motive. Definitely not enough to drastically change the industry
@@danielm5161 Most universities have a few sports that are actually profitable and most of the others are loss leaders. Yes, there can be 10 different wrestling categories. It's a solo sport. Can you imagine a school having 10 different football teams? There isn't going to be 10x the TV and gate revenue to pay for that. Frankly, Tyson is just just talking out of his ass.
Neils position of letting a mouse go increases animal suffering more than letting the mouse live inside the house does not make much sense. How does Neil know if the mouse is going to be eaten by a predator? He's just assuming things instead of providing solid evidence that every time a person lets a mouse go the mouse gets a gruesome death
@@joshh5353 It fills like he talks a lot but doesn't say much at the same time. For example, when he says that we need to understand that letting the mouse go has implications, or that there is hypocrisy when building the wooden house or when the sentient-plant aliens look and see vegans eating plants - all statements have the same message, view things from different angles, he's criticizing vegans for just looking things from one angle, but (and correct me if I am wrong) I have the impression that veganism is a philosophy in which one looks into things from different angles and understands that each action has a different consequence, for humans, animals or the environment. It feels to me that he did not spend too much time understanding the philosophy of veganism.
I'm not sure any naturalist would disagree with him as research has shown the life expectancy of small rodents on average to be somewhat low. In other words, most are consumed by predators over a short time frame. Mice can live for years in homes and homes are generally devoid of a substantial number of predators. Actually these ideas are generally not critical of vegetarianism as these are arguments used by animal rights and vegans. But his positions and arguments show that there are some flaws in thinking in the impact of our thinking. For context, I have been vegetarian my whole life (50 + years!) and don' disagree with some of this thinking.
@@turntablesrockmyworld9315 sure they might die sooner in the wild, but if you kill them right away, they for sure won't live another day. Think of it like this. You are the mouse. Living in a place, that is claimed as territory by a more powerful being. Your precense there is harmful to that more powerful being and that they want to remove you from their territory. This being gives you the choice. Quick death now? Or take your chances in the wild? You don't have to invent a salami alien or whatever to make this thought experiment. It's like a squatter is living in your basement. You find it out after 2 weeks. Do you A: kill him Or B: kick him out, where you know he will have a hard time to survive and probaply die in a more missarable way. And if you truly think that killing is the best for the creature, sure do so. If you believe it's better to give it a chance in the wild, do so. It's not rocket science. If you follow that line of thinking, you should go out in the major cities and kill all the homeless, cause you are helping them out of their misery.
@@turntablesrockmyworld9315 Yeah and I do understand that there are more predators outside than inside, then I guess, he could have said "there's a higher probability that the mouse is going to be killed", not working with absolutes and generalizations. And if there are any studies, he should cite them, otherwise is as valid as anything else.
Well done Neil. Your cancellation has been delayed for few more weeks unless you come out as a none binary obnoxiousness overload with pronounces me me me asap!
Neil has embarrassed himself beyond comparison. His own Colleagues are embarrassed to listen to his views on Veganisim. His arrogance and ignorance shows itself again. He should really stay on subjects he know about. He is beginning to discredit himself. Sad to hear and watch! Shows that intelligence does not always make a good hearted person. Actually he is being disingenuous and Mean.
His remarks on veganism and food are completely laughable. Honey is a whole, complete food? Ha, nope, no fat in there, Neil. Also, if you want to debate the facts of veganism, use actualities not these proposterous hypotheticals. You're a scientist for goodness sake! NDT comes off as completely pompous and misinformed. What a joke that segment was.
And not reading the science on testosterone or veganism. Or women’s rights and trans harms to kids. Ppl are starting to fight back. Whole Western countries are rolling back affirming treatments bec they’re completely experimental and unresearched.
That was really embarrassing. One would think they just found some random guy and asked him to argue against veganism, but no, that was actual Neil deGrasse Tyson speaking. Why do people enter other fields and try to act like an expert even though they are completely clueless about the subject...
So in Neil’s view an alien species who is sufficiently advanced enough to reach earth somehow isn’t sufficiently advanced enough to distinguish between sentient and non-sentient life? Cringe.
Neil, why would 'sentient' alien plants care about non- sentient earth plants? Did white landowners care about their black slaves? Just because you're a genius in one field doesn't neccessarily make you an erudite polymath,... think- Jordan Peterson
Neil seems almost borderline brain dead when it comes to the trans athlete issue. Saying boxing could be based upon arm reach - not mentioning that the males, regardless of reach, will punch far harder.
But what if Pluto feels like it's a planet? In all seriousness Tyson is washed. Too many yes theys around him and his narcissism has gotten the best of his intellect. Who the hell would want to hear him quip about trans people? Clear demonstration of Tom Sowell's critique of academics straying out of their lane and embarrassing themselves. Would love to see Alex Fillipenko on your show Michael.
Sorry, Neil. You lost me, and without hope of reprieve, at about the 31 minute mark. If you wish to pretend to remain scientific in your thinking, and at the same time you wish to piss on all the knowledge your biologist counterparts have learned and taught, then the only reasonable, honest response is, "as you will, goodbye." I had heard that you had gone woke, as it were, but this is beyond what any reasonable person can pretend to tolerate. You will now be able to garner as much honest respect as, say, robin diangelo (lower case letters mine). Never mind. Next......
The one interesting point that Neil made: "I'm making this up as we go along". I love him in his science of the universe; but he is really bad when it comes to this postmodern deconstruction of bio-gender. There are very good reasons why males and females cannot compete together in every sport. Even if they had the exact same height, weight, and skill, the male muscular power would still be greater than the female. And as a side note, when did allowing hormone drugs into sports become a thing. What happened to drug-free competition? Neil was so insistent that his philosophical deconstruction of binaries was absolutely the way to go. All of life is on a spectrum; even meteors, planets and stars, no binaries. Almost sounds religious. And I thought Michael was very weak in his challenges, very weak. Neil conflates mystical ideas of the gender non-binary spectrum with the bio-gender roles that various cultures around the world have constructed over thousands of years. As an effeminate gay man (who carries a purse), I am all in for expanding these societal constraints on human behavior. Much of these constraints have been harmful to women. However, as Michael interjected, words have meaning. And so does biology. Bio-gender is a binary. A man is an adult male. A woman is an adult female. And males and females are different in many substantive ways. However, human expression of this binary may very well be on a spectrum. But as humans are so desirous to do, behavioral norms are expected and for many good reasons should be required. And, myself having been deep in the gay underground many decades ago, I'm fully aware of masculine lesbian women and feminine gay men. None of whom had any dysphoria about their genitalia. They knew which sex they wanted! I also knew (and know) both women and men who experienced a deep dysphoria about their bio-gender that they did all they could do to present as the opposite sex. Those who could afford it had operations. However, even if money was no obstacle, the fear of extensive surgeries and lifetime hormone medication prevents many truly transgendered people from going the medical route. Rather than wasting our time following the unscientific and rather nihilistic paths of postmodern ideology, especially that waste of thought called Queer Theory, we should be looking for the wisest ways of incorporating new ideas of human expression into our culture and expanding our understanding of human rights, even as some of those rights conflict.
I would argue that, at it prime source, it's just an act of non-kinetic war or malicious engineering. Part of a much larger suite. It is intended to liquify the soil under our civilization in order to accommodate much bigger changes. Call it "progress" and millions will follow and the rest will be cast out as bigots overnight.
Yes. His ideas were woefully simplistic and misinformed. Plus, ZERO consideration of the harmful effects on women’s rights and kids who are being transed with no safeguarding, using experimental, permanent and unresearched treatments. Almost all of them are GNC and caught up in a massive social contagion but we’re not allowed to talk about that. The trans mvt has much to answer for that is harmful. The next 10 years will be an unveiling.
When a scientist claims we judge gender by hair length, earing, makeup and jewelry; and not brow ridge, cheek bones, jawline or Adam’s apple…. They ain’t a fkn scientist.
Neil talking utter nonsense about meshing groups in sport, it would be an endless categorisation..., you did not push back on him on that at all, what are you playing at! Boxing is broken down into weight categories not arm length, jeez this guy.
And as far as sports Leah could've kept participating with the men's team (yes it'd be harder but its not easy for me to make it on the Knicks sports are hard. Women's sports was a necessary victory for inclusivitity so women had the right to compete fairly in sports now people wanna take that away from them.
@@seewhativescene you don't get to decide what people care about. I care very much about women's rights it took a long time for them to get their own inclusive place in sports. There's no excuse for letting a woman who is physiologically a man compete against them and take those freedoms away from them. Anyone who defends that is anti woman and anti reason/common sense
@@Mike-bh9vscompletely agree. The trans mvt is destroying women’s rights in many areas. Supporters refuse to look at this and call anybody who isn’t 100% supportive, a transphobe. No dissent allowed. Actual women are starting to fight back and some Western countries are rolling back their unfettered acceptance of the ideology bec of the harm it causes for women and kids.
Seems you missed the point. He’s offering scientific evidence on the issue not driving a political outcome. Most political arguments have little to do with facts but are mostly differences in feelings, which is why the arguments persist for generations.
@@skepticalbutopen4620 he pointed out the evidence of the variety of ways people like to express themselves, the societal determination of gender being external fashion choices, and that the sex chromosomes being only one of many factors that impact human behavior. It’s a logical argument that gender exists on a continuum because the multi factor interactions will result in more than 2 outcomes. That’s not a political opinion; the political opinion is about whether it’s ok to force conformity into these arbitrary 2 choices and stifle self expression.
@@chemquests he’s clearly infusing his own personal beliefs into the conversation. Even on the topic of Veganism. He tries to justify the unnecessary killing of animals with a hypothetical story of plant lifeforms coming to earth and being appalled by a plant based diet….. Yes, plants are alive but they are not sentient. They can’t suffer like you and I can. Once again, infusing his beliefs instead of looking at scientific facts.
On the sports talk- Michael should have expanded more on how you could possibly have all those different categories for basketball, soccer, football, etc. It’s easy to take sport that already segments classes on weights, but when you *add* classes to a sport where it didn’t exist, it gets more complicated than anyone would like and thinks makes sense….
Serena Williams is bigger and heavier than Lleyton Hewitt. She would win 0/100 games against him. She's the greatest female tennis player of all time* He isn't even in the top 20. She lost to a drunk German male who smoked and drank between games of her and her sister. The testosterone profile of elite men's cyclists is oftentimes under the female allowed threshold. There isn't a female cyclist alive who could beat of Tour Cyclist and the end of a tour even when she was at peak performance Sorry Neil, sometimes you're just wrong.
I would have thought not. In order to know him, as it were, it is necessary to know who and what he really is, and if doing so here is of trouble to you... then perhaps it would be better not to bother at all. Do you want to know what he really thinks or just what he says he thinks publicly. Why would you feel sorrow regarding others' disappointment in him? He is either of significant value to you, or he is not, surely?
Why do people think Tyson is Smart? A typical human can look at a person and with almost perfect accuracy, can say man or woman. Only a massive amount of makeup can cover it up.
Really interesting discussion My question to Neil re: anthropology would be how we can judge objective work vs work influenced by racism (or other ideology that could bias results?)
@@seewhativesceneThat’s not quite true. Look at what Martin Luther King did? Look at his far we’ve come? Just a week ago the ISS had it’s fourth all female spacewalk. There’s talk of sending an all female space crew in the future.
i don't think vegans are morally superior to meat eaters. most meat eaters probably just haven't thought enough about these issues as NDT shows here. we should treat this great thinker and science communicator with as much understanding on this issue as he does to us when he explains the interconnections of the universe.
"did you know 100 years ago a "respected" scientist stated in public that he found it weird to separate boys and girls for sports by their biological sex"
Neil: “Ignore their feet, their legs, their height, their hips, their crotch, their giant tits, their arms, their body hair, their lips, their face, their shoulders, their voice, their baldness, their eyes, their hands, and every other cell in their body -- look if they wear earrings, that’s how you know someone is a woman”
In psychology, gender is a social construct that encompasses a person's gender identity, expression, and the behaviors and attitudes associated with their biological sex. Gender is a multidimensional concept that varies across societies and can change over time. Learn the definition.
Yeah. Why there are so few non-leftists Afro-americans... Polls are showing that in the us most of right isn't racist... It doesn't matter what race you are as long as you don't subscribe into"gender doesn't exist" crazy ideology. 'Gender doesn't exist " really? What about existence of unperceived Moon?! They are no scientific agendas among far LGBT it's just a new religion! And of course feminism no longer matters because by Heavens Decree all awards should always go into Trans males. Ha!
Seems like he's catering to people thinking more deeply about what they believe, lots of knee jerk reactions and binaries, oh you criticize the thing I also don't like great you're so smart, I'm a big fan, oh wait we don't agree on everything, what a sell out, sad.
Promote arguments with words, not with violence. Educated women double the workforce (thus reducing wages because the supply doubled), cause children to be raised by outsourced people (often government), has twice as much traffic and fuel burning, etc. Turns out one benefit has a cost. Build a dam and get electricity and water storage, but then watch millions move into deserts and grow crops in deserts and kill off salmon spawning, and create untold amounts of concrete (high emissions) etc.
I was worried when I saw comments about his view on veganism. But, ya, he clearly states that it IS NOT his view. He is carrying the formula someone might use further than most people do as a thought experiment. These thought experiments are important for a flexible and thoughtful mind. I think people who are up in arms about his thought experiment are too tied to their reasoning being solid to be able to consider another point of view in a hypothetical situation.
If I had a child that wanted to have a sex change operation, I would encourage that child to just be patient until the child becomes an adult, and then decide. I would not tell that child that what the child was feeling was wrong, and that I was right. After all, there isn't any way I could know what that child was having for an experience, other than what the child tells me.
"If I had a child with a spreading illness in their arm causing life threatening suffering that worsens the longer it is allowed to spread I would tell them to wait until they are an adult to decide whether or not to amputate the arm". This is what that logic sounds like to people more familiar with this subject. I think there are two fundamental misunderstandings here. 1) Such decisions are not taken lightly and like with every major medical decision there are professionals and legally binding codes of conduct involved to see what is the best for the wellbeing of the child and 2) that children just willy-nilly spend usually years in measurable stable distress about their gender identity and the just flip like a switch at some point. It is also extremely rare in general and not something people need to worry about as much as they clearly do. The likelyhood of a child being in the same school (elementary/high) as a transitioned child during their education is 1-2%. Over the 12 years or how long it exactly is. There are many times more children in the same schools being beaten, maltreated and/or molested, but these combined don't seem to get a tenth of the energy the relatively irrelevant trans discussion does.
@@hartyewh1 It's terrible to be "different" than the majority of the crowd ... no matter what the subject. But it's worse (in my opinion) to start messing with a child's body, such as changing the makeup of that body with operations, and mind-altering medications, just because the child says "they" are transgender. It's one thing to listen to the child, and to assure the child that you are not in any way saying they are wrong ... but that you want the child to wait until adulthood to make such important decisions on their body, because as a parent, concerning this subject, you simple don't know what is best for them.
@@hartyewh1 The horrible treatment of homosexuals, by people who are not only certain that a god exists, but that THEY know what the god is telling them through words in their bibles, was and is, an ongoing nightmare. Rather than saying that they personally hate the words homosexual, or transgender ... these nasty people use their books to say that a god is the one doing the hating. An example of the "beast" in such humans is plain to see in the following podcast. What a shame that such men are allowed to use books labeled as being holy information from gods ... to in turn preach hatred, in the name of love. Protestant preacher wants the government to put homosexuals to death ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-UbSM_kxpObc.html
@@hartyewh1 I totally relate to the following words ... From the book Starry Messenger … Cosmic Perspectives on Civilization … author Neil deGrasse Tyson One day, we may discover or otherwise affirm no discrete categories at all, as the multidimensional gender universe unfolds along a continuum, like the colors contained in sunlight. This will significantly dilute the power of homophobic and transphobic bigots to declare that they are somehow separate and distinct from other members of their own species. Many people, who defend our cherished freedoms as citizens of the US, will argue against mandated masks, helmet laws, gun laws, seatbelts, and anything else that constricts a person from living the way they want. Odd that many of these same people will maintain or seek laws to restrict another person’s free expression of their gender identity.
I am a huge admirer of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Michael Eric Dyson and Michael Shermer. I'm looking forward to digesting quite a few of these interviews. By the way, I can't leave out the great Carl Sagan. Neil has become a bit of an eccentric, but I still love him
Neil lost me here. I still like him, but he is wrong about the trans issue--not one is saying you have to be a 1950s stereotype to be a man or woman. You are either a man or woman and it is fine to have a personality that doesn't match stereotypes. Edit: I just listened to a bit more of Neil saying that people should compete in hormone categories, and he has completely and permanently lost my respect. He is out of my go-to skeptics to recommend to people. He is out. He has shown traits of this before, but he is showing signs of grandiose narcissism. Edit 2: Shermer was a gentleman and a scholar in this conversation--well done Micheal! Edit 3: I listened more to Neil talking about spontaneous abortions, and he has completely lost it (I am pro choice up to 24 weeks--I am a liberal, but Neil is strawmanning the pro life arguments). Edit 4: "old man on the porch" is pure ad hominem. He has gone from being tremondously respected to me to getting into PZ Myers territory.
