Clip taken from the Cosmic Skeptic Podcast episode #10: • Richard Dawkins | Outg... If you like Cosmic Skeptic content, please consider supporting the channel at / cosmicskeptic
Because of Alex and his wonderful argumentation and insight, I recently jumped from vegetarian to vegan. I appreciate it. Thanks for the videos my guy.
@@asathelogiclaman637 Vegetarians don't eat meat but do eat eggs, honey, drink milk, go to zoo's, or use other products where animals are used. Vegans are against any form of use and exploitation to animals.
@@ab-td7gq why do vegeterians restrain themselves from onlu Eating meat? Cause torture and suffering of animals cant be the reason...as eggs milk and all other stuffs that are derived from torturinlg and exploiting animals are also done through animal cruelty...so what is basically the Moto of the vegans? Can i know that... What is their reason for not eating meat?
@@asathelogiclaman637 I think some do it for their health, some are against killing animals for food directly, thinking they're doing enough and that veganism is too "extreme" but many are not informed enough I think and would be vegan if they knew about everything else that happens to animals.
As Upton Sinclair said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!", and salary can easily be replaced with any other thing of value to people like: pleasure, or job, or respect of others, or convenience, or avoiding embarrassment and so on.
@@user-rn5dl6tf8r I do not see how it is wrong to put pineapple on a pizza even if it isn't meant to be a pizza topping. I however do think it is wrong to shoot a person with an assault rifle, even if the rifle is meant to be a weapon.
Ann Rice described some thing like that happening in New Orleans. Slaves who had skills would live and work in the city and send a portion (most?) of what they earned back to their owners. Alex Haley's "Roots" also included instances where slaves could work in their free time and earn money for themselves. In that instance the goal was to earn enough to buy their freedom.
@@kibryncrow8922 Yeah a certified boffin mate. What sort of shit is that. The dude is a pseudo intellectual his argument for there being an evolutionary aspect to inter species morality was just rushed over like nothing with an awful non sensical explanation. You don’t have to be smart to notice.
I decided to become vegan after getting a dog. I caught myself becoming absolutely besotted with this animal, yet I was also eating animals and consuming their by-products every day. How could I call myself an "animal lover", but extend this assertion only to those animals society claims worthy of my care and respect? I also found it interesting that friends and family point blank refused to explore the idea of animals feeling pain or suffering for our taste buds. "No, no, spare me, it's all so horrible." Yes, it is horrible, and to challenge or to question what we've always believed is difficult. Also, meat and dairy alternatives these days blow my mind.
But you'll either still feed your dog animal products, or you're not giving it the best food fit for a carnivore, so inevitably some issue will still arise. I'd also say that there are extremely few that can call themselves animal lovers in all senses, as most would be pretty keen on getting rid of cockroaches or other insect pests near them, despite that they are just as much animals as dogs. So close enough to all people need to reconcile with the fact that we're drawing arbitrary, subjective lines for our care of animals. Not surprising as we that live in rich countries certainly focus on enjoying our everyday luxuries instead of doing all that we can to help starving children, so we're very good at making sure our own conveniences are taken into account.
@@storkfletcher821 I'm not denying it's a complicated issue, and if you cross examine anyone who wants to live by certain principles, you'll find inconsistencies. I adopted a rescue dog, he is a carnivore, this is something I cannot change, nor do I want to. I'll be the first to admit, I won't be crying myself to sleep if I see a dead cockroach in my house, but I think we both know this. I also think we both know what I meant when I said I thought of myself as an animal lover. I'm fond of, and respect animals, and therefore make conscious daily decisions to do no harm to them. This really can be as easy as picking vegan sausages instead of ones made from pigs, or swapping cow's milk for oat milk; and being brave enough to face up to the reality of modern animal farming
@@roseleith I think a big part of it people miss is that it is absolutely necessary To cull populations of animals as nature intended any predator to do. I also believe that there is nothing inhumane about doing just that. I will add that I don't enjoy the way that major companies treat the animals and would like to see things change on that end. But Everything on this planet consumes something else to exist. Even those plants are alive, exhibit behavior such as leaning towards better light, and digesting other animals. While I understand the stance you guys take, I think it's more rooted in fanciful day dreams.
@@claytonsmith7627 Your culling example doesn't work as these populations have been specifically bred by humans and wouldn't exist if it weren't for humans. They only exist because people pay for them; as less people buy them, farmers will keep less animals. Then at some inevitable point, live stock will be a thing of the past. Companies treat animals in these horrendous ways for one reason and one reason only, demand. John and his wife want cheap meat, they don't care how they get it, they want it cheap.
@@roseleith Veganism is largely about politicizing and moralizing about privileged consumption. A pet is essentially a creature morphed over centuries of manipulative breeding for human emotional consumption.
Yeah lets brainwash our kids into thinking all meat's bad, because that is what you guys want to achieve. Kids that grow up with Disney movies where lions, boars and deers sing together surely can deal with factory farming. Might as well show them some isis stuff while you're at it to make them believe all men with long beards are killers.
@@zaebos0079 In what sense would visiting factory farms brainwash kids into thinking factory farms are bad? Explain, please. People always complain that the education system doesnt prepare people for life.. There ya go, knowing where and how your food is made is a good thing to know. Allows people to make more informed decisions in their lives rather than being ignorant and thinking sausages grow on trees. People ought to know where their food comes from and the impact its production has on the environment. We already do that for almost everything else, but food has remained deliberately obscured. For good reason, but it shouldnt be. When I was a kid we did visit farms and factories several times a year. Its part of education, let kids know how the most basic of commodities are produced. Certainly more educational that doing repetitive math tasks about Billy and 87 watermelons.
I went vegan after his interview with Anthony Magnabosco. I think focusing on reducing unnecessary suffering is the best way to love a moral life and veganism is one of those things you can do to reduce it. That was the strongest reason for me
It’s brilliant. Much easier than I thought it would be. I haven’t had to give up anything, it’s just all now plant based. The hardest part was coming up with legitimate reasons NOT to be vegan! When you realise you are a monster in the eyes of the animals, being a good person doing the right thing becomes easy.
It's been 2.5 years for me and my only regret is that I had not done it sooner!!! Steak and sushi were my favorite foods and I can honestly say that I don't miss animal flesh AT ALL - I am as attracted to cow flesh and fish flesh as I am to dog flesh and cat flesh. I LOVE love love vegan cuisine! - I learned to veganize most of my favorite meals as well as dive into new ones! Whole food plant based diet is not only delicious but helping to make me healthier than ever! (look for HOW NOT TO DIE lecture by Dr. Greger) And if you want junk food (which we all do from time to time) vegan options are simply AMAZING - vegan ice cream/eggs/cheese/burgers etc. - there is an amazing selection at most supermarkets these days and they are getting better and cheaper all the time, the more people look for them :)
@@leebeeskee no cholesterol in foods, saturated fat is difficult to come by. (These things are important for diet, Google saturated fat myth, cholesterol myth) No heme iron, antinutrients in plants. Depending on polymorphism, can't correctly convert beta carotene to vitamin A. Poorer mental health, smaller brain size, synthetic supplements (B12) that might have side effects, no scientific evidence except epidemiology (and short term comparing vegans to SAD). The list goes on and on. Veganism would be nice if it worked for humans. It doesn't.
im 60 , been vegan(actually I use the term whole foods plant based diet because I eat no junk) for 5 years. On no meds and don't need viagra. daily sex with my 27 yr old gf. I am a happy man.
Vegetarianism is easy, trust me. I am by no means a man of strong willpower or high moral virtue, yet I found the transition relatively trouble-free. Give it a go, you’ll be surprised!
Can I ask you, though, as regards what they're talking about in the clip - have you noticed any benefit as regards how you feel about yourself and your place in existence? I think that while it's true that kindness doesn't usually have a genetic element to it - it does improve our well-being. Do you feel less conflicted, Gabe? Can you better enjoy the world around you without the incongruity of arbitrarily deciding which sentience is not worth your consideration?
@@batintheattic7293 my spidey-senses are detecting a hint of cynicism in your comment but I will nonetheless answer it wholeheartedly. I do feel less conflicted especially since attempting full veganism. At the risk of sounding sanctimonious I often feel a sense of harmony when I spend time with animals such as my pet doggo, knowing that I’m not contributing to the suffering of his kin (be that mammalian or other classes). I couldn’t honestly say that I was an animal lover whilst eating meat. It felt wrong. In this regard, I can attest to vegetarianism improving my general wellbeing.
Dawkins is spot on here. A lot of vegans confuse our ability for empathy with our ability to be moral. Empathy only applies to the ingroup (that's how you get xenophobic Christians, for example). When people are being empathetic towards animals, they temporarily expand the circle to include them in their ingroup (and in turn exclude meat-eating human beings from it so that they can criticise them; otherwise they would have to empathize with the humans' needs, too, and realise it's hard to blame them for acting on their instincts like any other animal would). The problem is that there is no genetic gain for us in extending our empathy towards e.g. pigs. Whereas extending it to dogs is much easier for us because we have a long history of symbiosis with them. Morality can be developed based on empathy, but empathy isn't enough to implement moral actions. Willpower is required on top of that. And humans are now starting to realise they don't have as much of that as they would want to, or as they thought they had.
Late reply, but I thought this was interesting to read. I'd also add that it's very easy to become defeatist and to place psychological obstacles in the way of moral progress. If we value this quality, and we want to continue to press forward in our compassion in the way we have in reducing slavery and expanding democracy, then we have to start with the way we treat animals.
@@mattbondcomposer Rationality Rules made a good point about slavery: A huge part in its abolition was industrialisation - when trained and paid workers simply became more efficient than untrained slaves. It wasn’t just a sudden jump in moral progress - there were practical concerns and technological shifts underpinning it. Just like veganism may “win“ once lab-grown meat is upscaled to industrial production levels.
@@cosmicprison9819 Fake leather is almost as good as real leather. Almond and oat milk are almost as good as cow milk. Cruelty-free beers are as good as beers that use fish in the production process. Vegan cigarettes are as good as cigarettes that use castoreum. Sure, for meat specifically we don't have a good enough replacement, but for other things we do, and *people still don't replace*. This makes me pessimistic.
Maybe I was in my own little world when reading The Expanding Circle but I was never under the impression that Singer was arguing that extending the moral circle to animals comes via evolution, but more so that our ability to reason is what ultimately expands it. Kin and Reciprocal Altruism still play their part, especially in our need to be logically consistent to our reciprocators, but reason is ultimately our capability to transcend our evolution.
I thought it was only me that thought sheep trucks were like the Belsen trains, and how many people turn a blind eye to animal misery. One of the reasons I went vegetarian and non-dairy. Great conversation.
@@daytonahandful I was vegetarian for a long time, completely unaware of certain practices in the egg and dairy industry, like the complete culling of all male egg chicks, and male dairy cows. Since neither produce eggs/ milk. I figured that since it wasn't meat, it was ethically acceptable to consume these products. I became vegan after learning otherwise
I just turned vegan two months ago and as a long time reader of Dawkins, this was quite an interesting conversation. I also reached the same conclusions. I have never really eaten vegetables and was primarily a meat eater all my life but I've always felt guilty about supporting an industry that condemns millions of animals into a life that's clearly inhumane. The cognitive dissonance got so much that Ive decided to make the change and just decide to stop buying and consuming animal products. Im over two months in now.
@whesley hynes Lol, what nonsense. Experimenting on animals has not only saved human lives, but animals. As a lot of medications we use, are used on them too. The end DOES justify the means. The only Nazi's here are you Vegan cultist fascists who want to cram your high failure eating disorder inferior diet of numerous health problems on everyone. We aren't trying to outlaw your diet, but you are trying to outlaw our's, proven. Vegans are the epitome of cultist fascists.
@@gramoukdoom Lol, nope not fragile, sounds like you're projecting. You must be a fragile Vegan who can't handle facts. There's all kinds of proof, studies galore and plenty of science. All I said here that there would be a study for was that most Vegans quit within the first year and much of the rest within a decade. Look it up, denialist, "84% of Vegans quit within the first year", there's quite a notorious one. There's that and others that show that ex-Vegans outnumber current ones 5:1 too. lol. And now the Vegans are noticing dwindling numbers thanks to Covid, hehehe. Almost cut them half as a matter of fact and it was declining before Covid. It's peak was around 2015 and it's been going downhill since, as expected. *snicker. Then there are the plethora of studies which show it's dangerous and highly problematic. Everything from iron (over 27 studies) to Omega-3, to gut problems, bone (43% more fractures) and dental problems, they have 20% more strokes and brain shrinkage and age related mental diseases like dementia, 2-3 times more mental illness too, you name it. Like I said, humans aren't Herbivores. Veganism is a proven inferior diet, that's set in stone science.
I think these small clips are a great idea. Especially for this important topic that should get more coverage and exposure. Maybe next you could also add one about free speech seems awfully relevant in recent times.😞
@@morganthem I can't get enough of learning the science on nutrition and how much fallacious crap has been fed to us all in regards to needing to eat animals to survive. The wealth of scientific knowledge we have about the body and how what we know contradicts the common beliefs should be enough to make you like it.
I think that it is genetically sound for us to develop a sense of moral responsibility for animals. It has to do with adapting to a society where violence is no longer tolerated. Right now, I think, we teach our children to think that violence against certain species is okay, which can gray out the lines where that violence would end, inevitably leading to a large part of society glorifying conditional violence, which obviously is not ideal for human welfare and longevity in the long run. But other than that, we are smart enough as humans to realize that human poverty and starvation, health and pollution of the planet is also at stake when it comes to not extending our moral sphere to non-human animals. I'd love for Dawkins to address this aspect of it.
I'm 66 and became vegan 2 years ago. Veganuary helped me for the first few months. I cut out dairy first about 6 years ago which was hard as vegan cheese is horrible. I learned to do without. Animal flesh was easy to give up after that.
Good for you. I started looking into this stuff a year ago and have since reduced my animal product consumption by about 80-90% since I started looking into all this stuff. I've replaced all my milk groceries with nut milks and the vast majority of meat related groceries with seitan and tofu. I know I'm still falling short but I hope to reach your level at some point!
Can you share these clips on Facebook as a video and not a link, I find that it's better to put these clips on Facebook cuz the information spread better and faster, also it's easier to watch and share there as well.
I commend Richard Dawkins for his change to vegetarianism but unfortunately he carries the common misconception that vegetarianism is enough. I hope to see a vegan future. 🌱
@@davidevans3223 ”To answer the claim that it’s ridiculous to see animals and humans as equals - You don’t have to in order to recognize that they both have moral worth. You don’t even have to think that human beings and non-human animals have an equal moral worth in order to justify veganism. There are many ways in which we might determine a human being to have more moral worth than a non-human animal. For instance, human beings have an awareness of the future that most animals lack. If we were killing humans for food it would cause a pandemonium amongst all of us, but this wouldn’t happen with say chickens, who don’t know what’s going to happen to them. This is a relevant difference, in the sense that if we need to have an industry that converts living beings into meat, it makes far more moral sense to do this to chickens than to humans because of this difference. However, this presupposes that we do need such an industry at all, which is simply not the case. It might be more moral to kill chickens for foods than to kill humans for food, but that doesn’t make it actually moral to do either of these. It’s more moral to just murder someone than to rape and murder them, but neither of these is moral. Even if we do see animals as having less moral worth than humans, this doesn’t justify us treating them as though they have no moral worth at all […] Veganism is not about whether we value animals as much as humans, it’s about if we value animals as much as human tastebuds.”
People are much more willing to become vegetarian than vegan. You don't want to deter people by asking them to become vegan straightaway if they are not willing. You have to realise that being vegetarian is still better than eating meat.
@@patrickhiggins9633 who are you to say what's better a meat eaters might kill less animals than a vegan and a vegetarian kills animals direct you're NOT even close to as good as someone eating normal food you just think you are if it's actually thinking anymore more like repeating evolution is fake
Humans being able to work for themselves to make their own money has actually been one of the greatest achievements in getting rid of poverty :) Btw if this is a rant against free market capitalism, understand that it's ONLY through free market capitalism that VEGANISM has made strides - the fact that we can CHOOSE to vegan plant based foods ONLY is what's helping the animals. On the other hand, meat/dairy/egg industries are all heavily subsidized by the government, and would've been out of business a long time ago but for these unholy crony socialism.
@@animalsarebeautifulpeople3094 Oh boy, you sure learned a lot about the world so far. But keep on learning, it can only get better I feel. No hard feelings though.
I like to point out that most of us don't exploit humans purely for monetary gains. But almost ALL of us do pay for animals to be enslaved and brutally killed for no reason other than we CBF moving our hands to a different shelf in the store. We are the ones responsible for what happens to animals since we know about it - which means are the ones responsible for not contributing to it.
@@conanthelibrarian3280 You might not feel it, there might not be someone behind you with a whip while working, but to make a profit with your labour, you are being exploited.
Been a vegetarian for 8 years, ever since I worked for 4 shifts in a chicken factory, out of desperation for money. It wasn't just what I saw inside, it was the sheer amount of corpses. They had these bath tub carts, with wheels on, filled to the brim with stripped carcasses, that were going by one every five seconds. That image stuck in my brain, more than seeing the brutal ways in which the chickens were slaughtered.
Unless you're a true vegetarian, i.e. a vegan, then I hope you're aware that the dairy industry is ten times worse than whatever you saw inside the chicken factory.
@@nicholastidemann9384 you seem educated on veganism so I have a question for you, it’s not like an attacking question, just a question. I live in a religious Hindu family that believes like cows are like friends of people, like cows are gifts from God and that in Hinduism it’s prevalent to be vegetarian, and it’s almost like a mockery if you’re vegan by choice. This is because they don’t believe in the slaughtering of animals for our taste satisfaction, so that’s why Hindus usually don’t eat meat. The thing is, whenever I try to bring up the point that cows face just as much, if not more, atrocities by the dairy farms to give us milk, no one seems to listen to me. When I asked my mother she didn’t even listen to what I had to say and shut me down immediately. Do you know any way I can get their attention and call them out for their hypocrisy?
@@cellotron4758: Cows are indeed like friends; no one milks their friends. And no, there's not really anything you can say to convince them, ignorant assholes will remain that way until they either wake up or they die. You could always show them a documentary about the practices, but the common reaction is to either refuse to watch it, or to keep pretending it's not happening. www.veganfirst.com/article/animal-equality-india-launches-deadly-dairy-documentary-
@@cellotron4758 I'm sorry to hear that your family behave this way. Probably it is simply that they don't want their culture to be criticised, even though logically speaking, you are completely right. It is difficult for someone to accept that what they are doing (in eating dairy products, or eggs) is wrong. Likewise, my parents are pescatarian "for ethical reasons" but don't recognise that fish are lifeforms with as much right to life as any other animal. All you can do is be persistent, and instead of challenging them outright, ask for them to explain to you why they think it's okay that cows are killed by the dairy industry every day. Ask them to explain to you in detail why it's not okay to kill a cow and eat it, but it is okay to keep cows prisoners and to kill their calves. Simply ask more questions. In the end, it's likely their own lack of answers will say more to them than pressuring them would. I wish you all the best, friend.
Im really interested to know what is alex's take on using animals for lab experiments . (If he already made a video please someone provide the link) I mean its really sad that we are doing this, but would it be ethical to directly use non-tested new drugs on humans ?
When it comes to animal testing, there can be a case made for that in some circumstances. Not even Singer is opposed to that, and I doubt that Alex will because if you apply the three R's of animal research onto meat production then you naturally arrive at veganism.
@@peterschumaker1771 To be honest and without intention to troll? Because it's tasty, because I have dozens of issues on my platter, most of them revolving around my personal well-being (or rather, dread and attempts in not being able to secure it) as well as the well-being of my close loved ones. Because while I am not a fan of mass produced meat (due to inherent animal abuse within mass production), I have no moral issues with non-mass-produced meat. I'm certainly for a reduction in meat production (again, see mass production) and consumption. And I personally don't eat a lot of meat - but I have literally more important things to worry and actively "do stuff about" than that. For me, personally, my last large "feel good" change was abandoning nicotine. And while I still vape (without any nicotine, of course) and even that has been reduced heavily since overcoming the nicotine addiction... Those steps already took a long time. My eating habits are shit. I eat too much fast food and "semi fast food." And currently, I don't even have the strength to cook and eat properly... Which would be an easier change than going vegetarian. Baby steps. Maybe in 10 years I won't eat meat. Dunno. I'm not the type of person to say "a meal without meat isn't a proper meal," so who knows where life will lead me - or if I'm even alive in 10 years.
@@cy-one Hey I get you. Thank you for sharing this stuff with an internet rando. But I really want to emphasize that going vegan is not only a lot easier than you think, but it can give you an enormous sense of accomplishment and purpose. I'm not here to demonize people who eat meat - I did for 22 years. But the truth is that pigs are about as smart as 3 year old humans. Cows feel love and fear and companionship with their families. And hundreds of billions - literally - of innocent, sentient beings are killed every year so we can enjoy a 15 minute meal. Going vegan has never been easier, and it feels amazing when you do it. Congrats on ditching nicotine. Took me forever to ditch smoking too. Take care and I hope you think about it.
@@peterschumaker1771 Going vegan can give you a false sense of moral superiority. Otherwise it will irreversible destroy your organism within few years. If you don't want to eat meat, you can live on ovo-lacto-vegetarian diet.There is no single sane argument against consuming bee products, like for example honey. Veganism is a dangerous cult.
I am glad to see that Dawkins realizes that evolutionary thought it irrelevant regarding moral rights. Evolution cares about survival, not about who deserves to survive and in what conditions.
Wrong, evolution doesn't care about anything. What does favor positive evolution is the death of the weak/negative mutations. Humans have stunted their evolution and are now attempting to do the same to animals.
@@thecuttingsark5094 Yes, it has to do with the benefits of mutualism and coevolution. That has nothing to do with what I said. I have no problem with either of those, the problem lies with us for some reason attempting to be morally perfect for no justified reason. Examples, The breeding of individuals that have detrimental genetic mutations. Humans are at a point where only the most detrimental mutation wont be passed on which fills our gene pool with detrimental mutations that would never survive in nature which we are forced to go through life for generations dealing with until there finally is a cure (if there can be a cure). Frankly natural selection minimally effects humans compared to animals in the wild. Now we are reaching a point in the timeline of humanity where we ignore what science tells us about ourselves and our history as apes and nature in favor of convoluted pretend morale superiority. Not only that we are getting to a point where we ignore nature altogether and attempt to control it for the sake of an impossible to reach morale goal. Apes (evidently) don't need to eat meat but they do, do we keep chimps and other species of ape from eating meat when we see it? If not how's that fair since evidently humans and other animals deserve equal rights, I want the same rights that ape gets. What about all the other animals on the planet? Do we police them too? to what end? Do we attempt to play "God" and remove all meat eaters for the sake of the non meat eaters? Make a planet where no animal eats meat at all? It's ridiculousness and somehow vegans attempt to take a morale high ground and tell me I'm immoral for eating meat while they go to whole food and buy a salad that in making it killed countless animals to produce. took countless animals homes and is destroying the environment. Its absolutely laughable.
"Washington and Jefferson were not aware about conditions on slave ships" xD Christ. They lived in that era, Jefferson got hundreds of letters against slavery, they were intelligent and ruled the country. I guarantee you they knew. Its like saying that Hitler didn't knew about holocaust xD
Here's an interesting piece . . . watch from about 7:20 . . . the declaration of independence draft. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Oijbr1i79tA.html
Whether or not Washington or Jefferson were aware of the conditions on slave ships is irrelevant, they considered people to be property end of story lol...
Maybe, but then, nowadays we have mass media and most people still have no real sense of just how awful factory farms are. There is a strong element of wilful ignorance - people either purposefully avoid thinking about the cruelty involved in factory farming, or choose to cherry-pick relatively frivolous complaints, as if the only objection is cows getting 50 square meters of roaming space not 20, not male dairy calves being trapped in crates and their own filth for their whole lives until slaughter. - I imagine non-abolitionists in that period did the same - choosing to either ignore conditions on slave-ships or focusing on 'making it better' without addressing the fact the model itself is not redeemable.
@@starofcctv94 Information is useful, no matter the source. Did you watch the video? I think the information they provide adds to the conversation. I'm assuming the account of the drafting of the DoI is accurate, of course, but it would seem to suggest that they put independence and nation building ahead of abolishing slavery . . . something they couldn't have hoped to do as colonies of Britain. But then they made sure they included 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness'. Were they playing the long game? I don't know.
Alex... just a passing thought... with the planet arguably heading towards a state of overpopulation by human beings, and with human life expectancy being increased and extended through various aspects of human compassion (primarily via medicine and the Hippocratic oath for example), how does this fit into your world view if human overpopulation might result in detrimental catastrophic events ? This is not a criticism, but a genuine question.
@@cuhurun I think the next step is to start mastering space exploration. Building a moon base and a Mars base is in the progressive planning stages. Once we push towards cultivating the ability to live on other worlds the ever expanding population issues on earth might have a solution. Sure this will take a long time to become reality if it even is possible. It’s hard to see other solutions that don’t include draconian methods to slow population rates.
The only solution to all problems facing by the nature is population control not veganism. If everyone goes vegan more land area should be exploited for cultivation and it will equally impact nature or even more. So stop this veganism thing.
Hi, drestarman. Yes, I agree with you entirely, absolutely. The old line from Dr Timothy Leary really is so true... that is, to perpetuate the human race three requisites are essential. 'SM', space migration. To achieve this a radical increase of intelligence is required, 'I-squared'. And lastly, in order to make deep space interstellar travel possible in one lifetime, 'LE', life extension. From this came the cliche old 1960's meme... SMILE !
@@nandhakishor103 it wii oils benefit your knowledge base to research land use and clearing for animal agriculture and animal feed (soy and grains). Also land requirements for grass feed cows.
And just like physical exercise plenty of people do it wrong and either hurt themselves or don't do it enough to change their body or they avoid it at all costs. Worst of all they might exercise too much and not have a decent diet.
@whesley hynes There will always be those that form the dregs of the natural order and society. Just count yourself fortunate if you're not one of them.
Actually, the expanding circle concept is called Contract Ethics, and it's explained by Singer in his books as being a selfish and limited form of ethics since it only considers those who can repay the consideration given. This means that Contract Ethics does not include those who could never repay our concern given, for example animals, slaves who would never see the light of freedom, or future generations. Contract Ethics in this sense is extremely faulty, and Singer rejects this type of ethics all together. He prefers "equal consideration of interests" type of ethics, meaning that each individual has interests that you should consider before acting, and if interests conflict then you have to consider the interest that weighs more than the other, fx my gastronomical experience or someone's life? I have an interest in eating someone while that someone has an interest in living. Which interest do we consider? It is quick to see that the interest of living weighs far more than my fleeting experience of a meal, delicious as it might be. Same goes with equality across the board, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. All these types of inequality can be solved by "equal consideration of interest"-ethics.
We love to help others because it can make us happy to see others become happy, and makes us even proud to get others out of their misery, which is based on surviving as a weak species to help each others back in the days of cavemen.
Animals value their lives as do humans, I like to think if I was being oppressed by a dominant species that individuals amongst them would be trying to stop it from happening to humans too
@@henrywalton5967 thank you Captain Obvious. My statement applies in both cases, from humans to humans, and the extension from humans to animals. It is just where "liking to help others" came from evolutionary.
Tho animals are not sentient I think it doesn't really matter and morals should apply simularly on everything that can suffer. Which animals are proven to.
@@rasin9391 They are sentient, what you're probably thinking of is sapient. To be sentient is to be able to think, perceive and feel. To be sapient is to be self aware.
@@666Havers so what? They are not self aware. Thats like saying Babys hurt each other now we can hurt Babys. Their really ist no difference between a just born baby and most animals. The difference is that we are the only species that is aware of this cycle of killing. Since animals can't change their behavior unlike us they don't have moral responsebilities.
@@liamdoherty8294 Yes, I carry a guilt. Even though I was unaware of the practices I still feel guilty for what I used to consume. I went vegan immediatley after watchig the raw footage of what happens behind the scenes in animal farming. Dominion on youtube for reference
Given evolution theory, this made me think how amazing it is and what are the odds are that we have the ability to care for things outside of our own "gene." That is unbelievable. What a shame most people glaze over this impossibility and justify with something we are not. Then I think.. Even more so, if that part that has the ability was given to us. All the more reason to use it?! As it clearly came from something more amiable.
Every meal? Really? The math seems off on that. One cow is approx 430.000 to 1000.000 kcal. That's over 200 times the daily calory intake. Considering many people still get plenty of calories from plant sources, going vegan saves about equal to or les than one cow a year even if you eat beef every single day. You might save some more animals if you'd eat chicken every day but I cannot find the calory content for whole chicken. But a whole animal per meal?
I think there is an argument to be made that it does serve the self to care about members of other species in that abusing nonhuman animals is often the stepping stone to abusing humans. We can often identify psychopaths from an early age by how they treat nonhuman animals. Of course, this explanation doesn't advocate an equality between the treatment of humans and other animals (in terms of equal consideration for equal interests), merely to treat nonhuman animals as above objects.
Interesting perspective. I was reflecting and thinking about these things recently and what made sense to me is that compassionate and inclusive way of living works for this particular reason- we are not separated from others. One way or the other we influence each other. What happens is that if we don't care about ecology and ecosystem, in turn we produce destructive force that'll have a huge negative impact on our lives too. By understanding relations between different groups and units of the thing that we call life and how they are interdependent, what ways do they influence each other, we can start making appropriate decisions in order to bring wellbeing for more and more parts of this thing that we call life. If we do everything only for ourselves, especially if we harm others, long term it breeds more negative consequences and it does not seem like a good way to go.
Having been fortunate enough to grow up on a small but working family farm, meaning both of my parents worked but we suplemented a great deal of our diet with food we raised, not bought (If you are curious, it is seriously hard work, even with two parents and five kids). When we, meaning us kids, learned how most livestock raised for food was treated we were flatly disgusted. This from kids who grew up raising, and yes, slaughtering our own pigs, chickens, even hunting and fishing to supplement our table. Meaning we thought nothing of killing our own food. Even so, we treated everything we raised or hunted with sincere respect. For my part, when I hear "Factory Farm" I always have the thought that "Factory" is fair and accurate, "Farming" is improper word choice, although in fairness I can't think what other term might be used in its place. I don't know that this matters really, it is just food for thought. (I couldn't resist the pun just now, apologies.)
Interesting videos to watch. I need to keep watching as I'm still missing the ontological reason we ought to care about the suffering of other species. Not saying we shouldn't, just wondering what Alex's reason is.
Compassion, empathy in the face of suffering. What other reasons could be worth a damn? The universe doesn't care and shortly (on cosmic timescales) our sun will die and we with it and leave not a rack behind.
@@DoctorMooye There is not an "ontological" reason, that is the point. Morality is a human construct, relating to how we have evolved to interact with each other. Anything else is semantic nonsense.
I’m a wildlife biologist so I’ve seen first hand the destruction not being vegan causes for this planet let alone the innocent victims that scream to death in gas chambers every year.
@@DoctorMooye I’m a wildlife biologist so I’ve seen first hand the destruction not being vegan causes for this planet let alone the innocent victims that scream to death in gas chambers every year.
Veganism is often presented as a choice on a moral landscape. I think that it is a mistake to approach human nutrition as if it were primarily a choice of a philosophy that could be divorced from health, economical, and ecological realities. It is like speaking of which car to buy by only comparing steering wheels between models.
But nobody is doing that. When someone says "buying a hybrid car is the moral thing to do", you don't assume that they are saying people who can't afford a hybrid are evil. Moreover, people like CS have addressed things such as nutrition directly, so how could it be the case that he's divorced the philosophy from the practice?
Indeed is is a moral choice, however we know for a fact that a plant-based diet is not only perfectly adequate, but actually superior at preventing chronic diseases. So since our nutritional requirements are easily met, then we can focus merely on the morality.
@@conanthelibrarian3280 Plant-based diet is not superior at preventing chronic diseases. You present your biased opinion as a fact. Traditional cultures with diets based on animal products without chronic diseases and obesity are a proof enough that meat and dairy are beneficial for the human health. Take the Maasai for example, they consume a lot of meat and dairy, yet virtually none of them is obese and chronic diseases like diabetes, high blood pressure, cardiovascular diseases are unknown in their community. Morality is not an objective category. It depends on the person, society, time, etc. If you think it's moraly write to exclude animal-based products from your nutrition nobody is going to stop you. Go for it and enjoy! Just I don't share your moral values and am not interested in following your example.
Violence and non-violence are in no way related to evolution. And "evolution" does not mean "improvement". Evolution only means "modification", "linear adaptation". Intellectual capacity (the capacity for organisation and abstraction) is not related to the capacity for non-violence either. If I had been taught all this at school, I would have gained 20 years in my nuanced understanding of the world. :) The knowledge/blinding of what happens in slaughterhouses and what used to happen on slave ships is exactly the same: cognitive dissonance. So to believe that Jefferson, etc. sincerely ignored it under the pretext that they expressed benevolent/pacifist intentions, this seems to me extremely naive. Alice Miller studied the origin of violence, its modes of transmission and how much we all - including psychopaths - wish to maintain a high opinion of ourselves. An in-depth understanding of this functioning allows us to understand how violence spreads (criminal epidemiology), how and why it is blindly transmitted between generations, how a culture locks on to its own violence, and to what extent denial is a major tool of our psyche to taste the sweetness of disempowerment.
Is it really applicable to compare human slavery with animal husbandry? I really think it is not. Not to say you have a lot of valid points in your rational.
@@goldfingerhardcore Events, systems and techniques can be brought together to better understand them and to ask ethical questions. This does not mean that we compare suffering or that we put all this on value scales (which would be a perverse reflex). ;)
3:10. How dare those Englishman call out the founding fathers of America for slavery when the UK has been trading for slaves for over a thousand years up until 1833…
Great video, great discussion! Rational thought is useful in thinking about these questions, but it's a heart-centered approach that fuels this widening of the circle of compassion. Let's not continue to turn a blind eye and use "rationality" as an excuse.
Why is the case that the compassion we feel toward say a chimpanzee can't be a kind of extended kin selection? If we share 96% or so with them, what's the argument against that?
I am not sure if that is known where they are. It is not a typical place that he has conversation at, right? So I don't think he can has any control over it being leather or not.
O.K., I also watched this video of Richard Dawkins to better see how he explains altruism and the selfish gene: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-n8C-ntwUpzM.html Question for prof. Dawkins: why do we climb mountains, or play soccer, or chess? Is that also a "mistake?" I'm not sure that it is. Just like lion cubs play to gain experience, we humans also overextend ourselves sometimes in ways that are playful, fun, but also possibly have various subtle benefits to us. Often, people who do these things have enough extra "energy reserves" and aren't really harming themselves in the process, but might gain various life experiences. Moreover, there is also the social "contract." For example, health insurance that is publicly supported, or tax payer supported roads, bridges, and schools that everyone benefits from, are all social "contracts" to extend the reciprocity available in small tribes (see the previous video link) to the larger city or country level. In other words, once you guarantee reciprocity in various forms, you get the same benefits that small tribes provide (where the selfish gene evolved).
Rights are a construct invented by humans necessitated for humans. Animals don't have rights because they don't have the capacity to maintain the social responsibility that comes with them. And further more, if a pig's or a fish's life is precious, than we can't just protect him against us nasty humans. A pig's life is equally precious even if another innocent animal is threatening it. It's a sweet idea but it's one rooted more in sentimental platitudes than reality.
Babies and some severely disabled people also fail to ‘maintain social responsibility’ - but we don’t see it as morally justified to kill them because of it
Rights are, indeed, a construct invented by Western humans because it helped improve life. And humans can choose to invent and adhere to a concept for rights for animals, plants, ecosystems, etc., if it helps improve life, which it would. Outside of the West, many peoples, including most indigenous peoples as far as I know, have never doubted that animals, plants, etc. have intrinsic value beyond human use. Which system has worked best to sustain ecosystems we live in: believing other beings have intrinsic value or believing they don't? The answer is the former, and that ought to be reason enough to move in that direction.
It's nice to hear Dawkins admit to the existence of group selection. That's the only possible reason for self sacrifice, bravery and altruism. At least to the extent we see it in humans.
He doesn't though. The type of kin altruism he speaks of here he has been talking about his entire career, while simultaneously railing against group selection.
Self sacrifice and altruism is entirely possible with selfish genes, as the genes in close relatives are largely the same. The unit of selection isn't groups, nor even individuals, but single genes. And as the same genes isn't confined to any one individual, altruism is possible without group selection.
The American forefathers were well aware of the conditions on slave ships as well as to everything else that was going on. The basic business model alone proves that as it was common knowledge that 1/3 of the 'cargo' was not going to survive the voyage, so insurance companies and the rest took this into account. The 1619 Project even proved that Washington threatened one of his own slaves by saying if he didn't obey he would be sent to the West Indies, a certain death which Washington knew about. Likewise, Thomas Jefferson thought the reason slaves weren't working hard enough was because they needed to be driven harder, instead of the real reason which was exhaustion. So, again, Jefferson saw slaves as another species with unique characteristics not present in the 'white race'.
Of course they knew. They just couldn't or wouldn't act immediately according to morals 200 years in the future. All change takes time, and trying to be too radical will cause you to lose your position where you can affect change.
@@TimoRutanen Slave existed for PROFIT and only profit. The forefathers were the sickest type of capitalist, literally working their 'employees' to death. It had zero to do with morals but with white supremacist belief that all other ethnicities were inferior, and that Africans were a separate species.
it is but a misguided notion of the progressives, thinking that to treat someone closer to you (favouritism) is irrational. I'd argue it is in fact rational to do so, seeing as those may well be more likely to return the favour in future. In short, we should treat others based on their potential benefit towards us, and not based on some lofty idea of "we are all the same, and contain the same value, for by merely living our value is infinite".
I understand your point, and I'll try to answer your question. I would draw the line under the current group of living humans. We are homo sapiens, human animals, every other living species are non-human animals. Your point is valid, that there is no distinct point in time where one of our ancestors were officially 'human', as we have always and are now constantly evolving.
@@MoonCherryLove Firstly, I'd like to hear the argument for why being selfish is rational but being altruistic is not (I doubt such an argument is possible). Secondly, someone could just turn that argument back on you; that is, acting altruistically may have selfish benefits as a social signal. In particular, a signal that you are likely to return favors or that you are otherwise trustworthy. Whatever your answer, I will likely reject it on the basis that personal identity is an incoherent concept. I believe that the only way around that would be for you to claim that it is only rational to benefit yourself in each moment, rather than benefiting your future "self".
@@MoonCherryLove But the world is so connected nowadays that everyone now can connect to everyone else. There's the idea Six degrees of separation that says "all people on average are six, or fewer, social connections away from each other." With the distance between people in the world shrinking as it is, there's no telling who you might and might not have to work together in the future. Or who might have spread some comments about what bad things you did to them years ago.
@@Qstandsforred It is rational and logical, to show favouritsm to some, based on how much they might repay you in future (i never said it was moral). What you mentioned is correct though, ie. me hunt mammoth, me share mammoth with tribe. Next time neighbour hunt mammoth, he gib me mammoth too. But, let us talk about a different kind of altruism, the kind which milennials so love (those who argue that an act of kindness which expect repayment is no kindness at all) What do i gain from donating to some poor people on the other end of the world, who have never, and will probably never see my face? Nothing. Another example would be fair trade brands. Once again, i get nothing. In fact, i lose out, since fair trade products cost more money, AND often do not have a prestige associated to their brand (or lack thereof). Thus, fair trade (conditions of workers) do not impact my purchasing decisions, but rather what does, is how much prestige i can gain from said piece of clothing. We can also argue the same about veganism. As many studies as there are on co2 and health effects of meat, there exists an amount claiming otherwise. Furthermore, appeal to religion, or the kindness of god doesnt work either, as scripture clearly does not endorse veganism. Thus, the only infallible argument for veganism is morality. But then again, as someone who puts the self, and the tribe, and the species before others, how does this morality benefit me? There is none, except if it clears your conscience. But what if i had no conscience, and was perfectly fine with billions of animals being slaughtered or gassed? In that case, there is none. The height of logic is psychopathy. And by psychopath i mean "one who is unable to empathize with those whom he/she has not formed a connection to". Psychopaths often get a bad rep in the media, being painted as serial kilers and all, but in fact, most psychopaths just dont care about others, and likewise, wont go out of their way to hurt others (and ofc, they wont help either).
I wonder if any body has any thoughts about the human race as an evolutionary force. What I mean is that we are almost certainly going to drive ourselves to extinction so what will come after? How will the aftermath of us really look and what with it mean for the living organisms that survive us?
I've noticed that Singer seems to struggle with biology in general. It's definitely something he should brush up on a little, especially seeing as his philosophy so often crosses over into the field of biology.
Dawkins admittedly said he didn't know much about the founding fathers. Then he said he'd imagine that they were treated kindly, sort of like saying "I would hope that they were treated kindly." He meant that he gives the founding fathers the benefit of the doubt, but in a way that's very generous, or at the very least he meant "kindly" as in relative to the slaves originally shipped over. I don't think he was insisting that the slaves were provided fine dining and friend ship. At least that's what I understood. Dawkins is pretty progressive, so I don't think he meant bad by it.
Morality is an evolution, a slow tower built brick by brick. Washington, Jefferson and many during the enlightenment laid plenty of bricks in that morality tower even in a time where the brushfires of Liberty swept the world. For people they can only see slave or no slave, black or white but in the same way that there are good and decent people that consume killed animals today, Washington and Jefferson were engaged in a system of owning humans but were by all standards of their time decent people and frankly on the cutting edge of morality and political philosophy. This is all without getting into Jefferson's actual views of slavery and his acts as a statesmen in regards to slavery.
Is it kind to buy products produced in sweat shops ?? As long as you don't have to get your own hands dirty you are happy to profit from modern slavery.
@@AtheistEdge If you go educate yourself on the way animals are treated to get their milk, eggs, or any other product, then there will be no point of me anwering.
I don't think it is a mistake. We have potential to be compassionate or selfish and cruel. Both are useful. In more advanced societies compassion and co-operation is the "default" behavior because it's more beneficial. This state of mind automatically extends to animals and often inanimate objects too. It's not irrational either. If you take good care of your car as if it was your child, you will likely benefit from it in the long run.
I don't know but look at bonobos , chimps, and primate instinctive behavior for genetic tendency to expand the circle of compassion because it favors specie survival.
These are some of the worst examples of the tendency to expand the circle of compassion. chimpanzees are incredibly brutal. The popular view of the bonobo as a peac loving hippie sex ape is patently false. The atheist community is full of indidivduals who are not well versed in science.
@@itheuserfirst3186 Bonobo society is a bit more peaceful than that of their cousins, the chimpanzee, but, like in any group that lives closely together, conflicts do arise. When it does, bonobos use sex to diffuse the tension, according to research led by Zanna Clay and Frans de Waal at Emory University roaring.earth/bonobos-use-sex-to-resolve-conflicts/. The point is that our nearest living relatives display variations that create opportunities for conflict resolution not limited to violence. Your comment is based on a deductive conclusion by someone claiming scientific expertise while denying science as an inductive process. Nobody claims bonobos are without violence, but the violence is relatively lower than with chimps. You are the one thinking in a binary way, which shows you lack the scientific ethos.
3:58 I almost spit the water out of my mouth when he said that, I'll credit it to innocent ignorance on Dawkins' part but Jefferson is known to have raped at least one slave named Sally Hemings for years, and Washington would have slaves who attempted to escape whipped and would punish "unruly slaves" by separating them from their families and selling them off to other slaveholders (although in his later years he attempted to keep families together).
Yes. And his black descendants are known and are alive today: Shannon LaNier, a TV news anchor, has complex feelings about being descended from Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. “He was a brilliant man who preached equality, but he didn’t practice it. He owned people. And now I’m here because of it.” Shannon LaNier chose not to wear a wig while posing as his great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather.
Yes thank you. I was just about to comment. I think Dawkins needs to pick up a book on the topic before venturing wild guesses at the 'benevolent' founding fathers. Bloody hell.
I agree, I guess if why he used the phase I'd like to think. By kind to the slaves I'm willing to think he means 'kinder', compared to now they are all clearly monsters. But back then, they were the progressive. Which I guess you could say the same is true now, we have people who are incredibly progressive but are fully ignorant of animal suffering. Its like culture has and promotes blind spots to anything it deems as 'other'. Much to the shame of humanity that included slaves across the entire world until the last few hundred years.
@@elmarko12341 that's the problem, they weren't even progressive for their time. There was a full on well known abolitionist movement in the US at that time, those are the true progressives. Jefferson and Washington were typical, slave holding, white supremacists. They tell us this themselves 😄
@@benevolentrationality955 yeah it depends on your willingness to put others before yourself, and everyone has that to a certain extent, but no one does everything they can. I think we should try to build society towards that, but can’t expect it to happen instantaneously.
@@alexistaylor9092 True! But one thing that I have noticed is that when I accept that I am doing something wrong, I start living with guilt and stop doing it after some period of time.
@@benevolentrationality955 yeah and I think we have the mindset that not going out of our way to fix what’s wrong is the moral neutral, at least when we aren’t directly confronted with it.
Black people protested and fought for their rights, it wasn't just a moral revelation that dawned upon everyone that everyone is human, and has equal rights. How are animals gonna protest. I really hope that it happens, but I am not sure how this extrapolation applies
I was searching for this comment before I was to make it myself. Like it or not, even amongst atheists, our morality and ethics have a basis in the Christian tradition.
@@dannyboy536 As a Christian myself, I don't agree with you. As an example, I am a Christian from an Arab Muslim-majority county (Jordan), so I often use Muslim expressions, figures of speech, idioms, etc in my daily life, simply because of how common they are. This does not mean that I believe or follow these things or even that my beliefs are influenced in any way by Islam. Saying that something is a "blessing" is just a figure of speech to people who don't believe in God. I think it is important for us Christians not to fall into the trap of becoming like the arrogant Pharisees, who Jesus Christ often criticized
I am so happy that everywhere I look I am feeling that the world is waking up as far as the plight of animals is concerned. Today I read that a vegan butcher shop opened in London, also much is written about animal farming in connection with the destruction of the planet. Every day I sign petitions against animal cruelty. There are many moments that I really dislike some humans. I believe in peace and respect for all species and the planet. Nature might be cruel by design but humans choose to be cruel not only to animals but to fellow men.There is nothing quite as beautiful as compassion. Cruelty is heartbreaking and demoralizing.
@@Oatmilllk only criminals think of themselves as if they were animals, the spirit of the criminal is animalistic. This is why ALLAH commands us to kill a cow and slaps it's meat on the suspect criminal. Because that criminal will spiritually feel the flesh of the cow as his own slaughtered flesh. Al-Baqarah 2:40 يَٰبَنِىٓ إِسْرَٰٓءِيلَ ٱذْكُرُوا۟ نِعْمَتِىَ ٱلَّتِىٓ أَنْعَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَأَوْفُوا۟ بِعَهْدِىٓ أُوفِ بِعَهْدِكُمْ وَإِيَّٰىَ فَٱرْهَبُونِ O Children of Israel, remember My favor which I have bestowed upon you and fulfill my covenant that I will fulfill your covenant, and be terrifed of Me. get Quran App: #GreentechApps
@@ummerfarooq5383 This is convergent, they may end up in the same place, but begin from completely different sources. This is also the most hilariously desperate argument I have ever seen against veganism. Keep looking.
It's really ridiculous to suggest that the founding fathers wouldn't have known about the conditions on slave ships, of course they knew. I thought Dawkins was smarter than this... I guess even he isn't immune to wishful thinking. As for them being kind to their slaves, I mean, I'm willing to believe that they didn't whip them or whatever, but they weren't kind enough to free them. (Or in the case of one of them, I forget which one, they also weren't kind enough to refrain from having sex with them even though they obviously couldn't give meaningful consent.) Also, not whipping them isn't neccesarily a sign of moral character, it's just another sign of their privilege. It's easy to feign kindness and generosity when you're super rich and the founder of a country, I wonder if they would be as kind if they were plantation owners with less of a high status and a stronger motivation to work their slaves to the bone.
Global meat consumption by 7 billion + leads to global deforestation loss of biodiversity, nutrient pollution of water, destruction of CO2 sequestration infrastructure, and a runaway greenhouse effect. The ethics of eating animals, aside from the cowardly brutality, is bound in the effects of industrial agriculture on the environment.
You are right ONLY in one aspect: industrial agriculture DOES destroy the environment. Factory farming and uncontrolled grazing DO lead to deforestation and pollution as factory farming relies on the clearing of land in order to grow crops such as soy and corn to feed the animals in the factory farming system. (As an aside, animals fed this way, especially cows, rely on antibiotics in order to NOT die because of their diet thus yielding poor quality oestrogenic meat riddled with antibiotics: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sj95feUpj3Q.html which not only makes those who consume it sick, but also contributes to antibiotic resistance.) HOWEVER, there is a HUMANE and ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY ALTERNATIVE to this system as it acts as carbon sink and leads to the restoration of desertified grassland: Holistic Management - savory.global/holistic-management/, savory.global/what-is-holistic-management/. I wish more people, ESPECIALLY those working for the government were aware of it and Allan Savory’s work. For your and their information here is a link to Allan Savory’s TED Talk: Allan Savory: How to fight desertification and reverse climate change | TED Talk - TED Talks - www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_fight_desertification_and_reverse_climate_change?language=en. The world would be a much better place if more people working in governmental institutions around the world would watch it. I’ve also put together a RU-vid playlist of videos on sustainable and environmentally friendly agricultural practices: ru-vid.com/group/PLJTdRq9RROgaYUFf1TEqD077xvPO4APBT. Another MUST WATCH for those working for governments around the world is ‘How Joel Salatin’s Farming Style CAN Feed the World’: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-a-zaAie8UZs.html as well as all videos about Joel Salatin included in the aforementioned playlist. Veganism is NOT as environmentally friendly as previously thought as it leads to destruction of both wildlife (a lot of animals must be killed before they get to the crops the vegan diet is based on as the ‘Vegan Kill Cult’ video series made by Garland Farms shows; here is link to the first video in the series: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ovGHKr-NoqQ.html) and their habitat (organic agriculture requires more land than conventional and yields healthier produce which is NOT riddled with carcinogenic pesticides such as Roundup). Also as I wrote in a previous comment posted on this RU-vid channel, the human body REQUIRES (quality) meat and animal products in order to PROPERLY develop and NOT deteriorate. I even posted in that comment a link to another RU-vid playlist I created which features stories of EX-vegans and the negative effects veganism has wrought on their bodies. Some of these are about malnourished babies and children who even got brain damage because of the lack of (REAL) nutrients in their diet. Are we cowards and immoral beings if our body NEEDS meat and animal products in order to be healthy? Are lions, tigers and bears immoral because they have to kill in order to survive and to thrive? I thought ONLY NEEDLESSLY killing and torturing animals is IMMORAL. Other links I posted in my previous comment on this channel you MIGHT be interested in are those about Temple Grandin and her HUMANE meat processing plant designs which take into account an animal’s way of thinking and interacting with the world. I wish all abattoirs were designed this way. The world would be a much better place and no-one would feel guilty for requiring meat for their survival and prosperity.
