There are vast tragedies happening right now that we are failing to see 

Oh, I like that idea. Let me try my hand at one: Humans are not any more moral, ethical, or enlightened than we were 50k years ago, only the mechanisms to suppress most of what we consider as “wrong” or maladaptive behavior have greatly increased (and continue to). The notion that we are progressing toward some better version of ourselves is folly, and only a minor change in our collective circumstance (even via a minor shift in geopolitical realities) will quickly see us return to a (potentially increased/exaggerated) manifestation of all those ‘invisible monsters’ we thought we vanquished so long ago. Turns out, we ourselves are indeed all these so-called monsters.

@Alpheratz & Canopus I feel like being more adapted to a certain situation makes you more valuable, because everything in this universe is relative. One instance has no value until you give it a reference point to compare it to. After having 2 instances or measurements in any given collective gives rise to opportunities that weren't there before. Aristotle's paragraph which essentially says there are those who rule and those who serve and thats decided by a 50/50 chance of being a slave or being a slave master. Which to Aristotle sounded like equality since almost everyone during his time had a slave it was just normal.. To some it up with a quote from my father "It is what it is, so do what you gotta do." The human race is denying its roots as an animal to transcend that boundary. We can do this in 2 ways, become the planet or accept the planet. The former meaning we controll every aspect of life in our ecosystem, everything thing is artificial but it keeps us alive. No more nature to deal with. Or the latter being that we accept nature onto our species boat, since we are not yet independent of the planet we can claim it as part of humanity, the same goes for insects like bees or the atmosphere that keeps us alive. Without any balance of that or total mastery of those things, our time ticks closer and closer to the extinction of our species. In either one of those aforementioned scenarios we as a planet need to come to an understanding or we are doomed.

It's not a straightforward process. For example slavery, when it was invented, was reasonably moral. Because the only alternative that existed before was genocide. We tend to present the movement from past to present as moral growth just because common values become more resemling our present values. But objectively they are just changing, sometimes even back and forward. We can of course choose some major value to evaluate whole value systems on how well do they serve this one. For example "reduction of suffering". But we will miss out the fact that lots of societies view some forms of suffering as acceptable cost for some other, more precious values from their point of view. We can as well asess how sencere those value systems are: do they really lead to what they claim? But again, should they? Demanding consequtiveness from a value system is also a value.

That's one of the better definitions of what is "right" I've seen tbh

If I may, I'd like to suggest that a consideration of the rights, liberty, autonomy, and wellbeing of youths is a prime example of a way to spot an invisible monster.

Ah, this channel is nascent (excellent point) & I reeaaally like the line of thought entailed within this episode. Y’got me, subbed after two videos (first was Grabby Aliens per algorithm) onward unto this video’s sequel.. together, we’ll watch it all unfold. ⏳

One month later, 11k subs

*its

Turns out I watched one of their videos and only now am really watching them

I came for the shibes and stayed for the quality.

Yeah, everyone and their dog has a righteous crusade to fight when they got food and shelter guaranteed, but those same people would show unbelievable cruelty when they dont know where their next meal is coming from

Virtue signaling is really just trudging through the internet cesspool for validation. Best to treat the internet like any other addiction: Gradually distance from it and work on yourself instead. If the worlds "issues" were really that important to people, they'd do alot more than incessantly bitch and finger point. Know who else whines and fingerpoints? Politicians... on twitter... lol congrats, you slowly become like the people you always complain about.

Or just ignorant to the process which made them gain the technology in the first place

What's even more astonishing is the speed with which the trappings of civilization dissolve when expected comforts are abruptly removed. None is more primal, more animalistic and ferocious when they are hungry.

Yeah. Everyone's gonna be against animal farming when lab grown meat becomes ubiquitous and then act like they did so for ethical considerations, rather than due to lab grown meat being cheaper.

People always seem to miss the real moral of that story It's not about seeing what's there - It's the fact that everyone went along with it cos an authority said so It's a moral against cult following, dogma and hero-worship; as well as about not falling to peer-pressure "Simply because a million people say a stupid thing, does not mean it is any less of a stupid thing to say" - Lao Tzu

If u are a liberal in the modern day u are apart of the crowd

You are right. Emancipation is a harder bondage to break by increasingly weaker subjects. The lowliest slave only had a master to fear. By contrast, the civilized human need to bend the neck multiple times for multiple masters for multiple reasons.

My concern is that the incessant witch hunt for new monsters and the "expanding moral circle" is in fact the monster.

Interesting take. Monsters being slain by larger monsters when the ruling class finds it beneficial or expedient to slay them. In the case of slavery here in America, do you think there was a monster that turned out to be larger than it? And if so what was it? I can think of benefits the ruling class gained from the end of slavery but I'm having a hard time coming up with a monster bigger than slavery. Is that an exception or am I not being creative enough in my thinking?

@@DeMonSpencer Authoritarianism has killed and enslaved far more people than colonial America ever did.

@@DeMonSpencer It's not an exception and the reasoning is quite interesting. The larger monster is capitalism, for lack of a better word. Slavery, especially before the cotton gin, wasn't very efficient; you had to feed and house the slaves and hire someone to whip them. Capitalism is more efficient at extracting value from others because you don't have to feed or house them, the workers are usually autonomous and self-improving. If this wasn't the case, the South would've won the war. The bigger monster being shackling others with their pride, or their hope for a better life, instead of shackling them with fear.

Yeah, but knowing there is a dilemma and making a monster more visible is just a start to the whole process of overcoming it. At the start, alot of these monsters are hard-baked into our society, and a sudden change could easily mean a collapse of our society as we know it (a good example being slavery). Hell, for problems like world hunger the solutions which will save everyone takes alot of time and research to find something that works (I mean, just look at all the research that has gone into food production to solve world hunger. For once, we literally have the means to feed everyone and not crush our planet... Juuust implementing it is more the challenge now) All in all, with education and awareness comes gradual changes in those political/societal structures or growth into a technology that can allow us to fix what we couldn't before handle/comprehend. And with those changes, what used to be impossible can become possible. Just because we're aware of suffering happening doesn't mean we already know the answers to fixing it. Even with the whole predation thing: If we could talk to lions and gazelles, could we find a solution that makes everyone happy? Maybe lab meats for the lions, and other forms of enrichment is enough? Who knows. I sure as hell don't; and I'm pretty sure you can't say for certain either.

@Khenric Schopenhauer/Huxley/Mill.

By a similar logic, one can say that slavery only ended because of the start of the Industrial revolution. Early machines were created and average wealth was increasing, people could start to consider affording actually paying their slaves enough that they choose to work their on their own. It was still morally wrong but it was justified because humanities other goals of supporting themselves and ones "tribe" surpassed their goal to help others like them.

@@gabemerritt3139 your example did not highlight his "logic"

@@Hjea People have different goals. Decreasing suffering is not always their biggest priority, otherwise things like slavery would never exist. So in the same way that future humans can have conflicting goals, past and present humans already do.

Are you vegan?

@@brunolevilevi5054 nope. I know very well that the very nature of life is cruel. I must eat meat in order to be healthy. And even plants have life which i take away by eating. But i don't believe in unnecessary violence. Stomping on insects for the fun of it is way different from killing them to eat them

Glad I'm not the only one who at the very least feels bad for random bugs just getting squished because they're disgusting or whatever. Imagine if someone killed you even though you were just chilling on a wall or something. Of course, I understand why people might want to get rid off poisonous insects, but a lot of people hit flies and spiders when they aren't even dangerous.

When has reducing suffering ever gone too far?

@@brunolevilevi5054 It's just the "Both extremes must be wrong!" ideology many centrists assume must be a basic fact, even when one extreme wants health care and the other extreme wants genocide.

@@brunolevilevi5054when youve decided that making others suffer is prefferable to the ones your trying to “help”…. Its pretty consistent that asylum seekers cause more crime than the natives….

Categories are made up. We always controll what falls into and outside a category because the existance and bounderies of the category is a "choise". For example what makes a table a table? It's how it is used which is something we determine. Or the Ship of Theseus as an example of where does one category end and another begin. Its how that categorisation came to be or what it is based on that should determine if its usefull and in what context.

@@someonespotatohmm9513 yes. That's where the problems come from.

@XetXetable good points

One thing I don't understand is why society would have to become unnecessary in the future? A group of powerful transhumans still seem to be stronger than one. And this is based on an assumption that we will overcome our natural characteristic of being a social being. The need to make as less harm as possible is a result of empathy and understanding that pain is something we don't want, and not having pain is in our interest. But this is an interesting assumption, that future humans wouldn't need society, and with it, perhaps morality would be thrown away and with it, the empathy.

I think you're all incredibly foolish, and your notions about the future of humanity are preposterous illusions, but I could be wrong. Time will tell. One of us is clearly VERY wrong. Either way, I hope I'm around to find out.

@TheManFromAuntie It's true that every culture has its own moral codes, but this doesn't mean that morality isn't subject to reason. People used to believe that the earth was the centre of the universe, and that matter was composed of the elements earth, water, air and fire. Our current understanding of physics and cosmology is not just "different" from medieval models - it's BETTER. We are closer to truth now than we used to be. The same goes for ethics. Everyone has different morals, but some are better than others. Better in this case doesn't mean "closer to truth", but it does mean "more rational". If you fully commit to moral relativism, you will inevitably arrive at nihilism. The concepts of good and evil, right and wrong have no meaning at all, if every definition is equally valid. However, I agree with you that self-righteousness is a particularly ugly quality. I think that mercy, humility and forgiveness are crucial to real virtue. When people assume that they are unquestionably virtuous, they become capable of the worst atrocities.

@@grenadaball7655 I agree. In fact, I'd say it's even less than subjective: it's utterly meaningless. HOWEVER, the word "God" is quite often used by very flawed humans to pursue goals that are equally flawed.

Nice Warhammer 40k reference LOL

@@grenadaball7655 Name even a single way they've deteriorated.

Yeah objectively it’s merely changing, not necessarily progressing in that sense

@@Ryanowning i'm willing to bet that rampant poverty and individualism wasn't so prevalent in ancient agrarian societies. Not that they were better in general but, if it was the vase that people took care of each other more than the present days, then this can be a perfect example of "deteriorating morals". However, it's not clear cut as I put there. One cannot simply take a fact from ancient times in isolation and present it as proof that "back them it was better".

I think the arguement is that morals grow with affordability of necessities.

I am curious as to how your work on the sensory modalities and behavior of bees has any bearing on their capacity to suffer or how any empirical research on the nervous system could back up the psychologist theory needed to tie the two together. Hell, i even doubt neuroanthropologists can prove humans suffer with neuroscience. Have you heard of biosemiotics? Also I am curious as to how honey bees and bumblebees compare in those respects.

Great anti-abortion argument

Congratulations you see one of many monsters, invisible and still causing damage. It's also one of the oldest evils, you can argue the "monsters" in this video are only seen as an aberration to the natural order once enough people can recognize that the damage is caused by that *particular* one. And it's got other problems just like it, children of it's own too but it's the child of the oldest evil; to help you name it ask why would someone treat children or people whom they have power over as lesser than? Ignorance and Fear are it's immortal parents, but they can be sedated by thinking minds and open hearts. Maybe it doesn't have a name yet your monster but it does have a face, Abuse.

That's historically inaccurate. In the past, childhood wasn't given any particular consideration and children were seen as "simply" smaller adults, who had to pull their own weight like any other adult and so on. In fact - with the exception of the most well off families - childhood as this "special period of your life" is a modern concept that was truly democratized only after World War 2. Yes, children were not treated well, but no one else but the powerful were. Everyone who wasn't in a position of power was abused in some way and, in this regard, children's condition was no lesser than any adult's. What's changed in our modern society gave rise to something of a paradox. On one hand, children are now afforded a "preferential" treatment where they are (supposed to be) protected and educated by adults until they become adults themselves. On the other hand, this has led to the "infantilisation" of children, where a child is a "lesser" being, because they haven't yet reached the status of "productive adult", and thus are "deserving" - as you have rightfully pointed out - of different kinds of abuse. As reference, may I suggest an excellent video by @TheMedievalHistorian : Did Medieval Childhood Exist? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zAYDr7Pe5yc.html

She was communist, so I would doubt her morality.

@@baltofarlander2618 Speaking of very well-defended monsters... (looking at you, Capitalism) The problem with Communism is not Communism. It's human nature turning vain attempts at implementing Communism into fascist dumpster fires.

@@coopergates9680 capitalism isn't monster, and seeing monsters in necessary things just as video author does leads nowhere. If anything, the monster lies within our primal, animal nature.

@@coopergates9680 if problem with communism is human nature, then this system is pointless and impossible.

@@baltofarlander2618 Runaway capitalism is why we have atrocious corporate greed like standing rock oil pipeline construction, concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, and people the job market doesn't fit right basically being left for dead. There is no "fair day's wage for a fair day's work" Now, you could be right in that the problems with Capitalism stem from primitive, instinctual behavior, in other words Capitalism isn't the original/root cause.

-Coerced vaccinations and mask mandates.

What about male genital mutilation ... invisible monster to you? Quite a bit more prevelant in even more countries. Now expand that idea, if you agree that perhaps ALL infant genital mutilation is immoral, could it mean that men also deserve human rights just like women do? What does that say about mens rights activism? Is it really just a label that misogynists hide behind? Or does it perhaps contain people yelling out about the invisible monster which causes people to protest against female genital mutilation without even thinking for a second that perhaps it isn't just performing it on females which makes the act of genital mutilation wrong.

abolitionists in America often called for the end of not only chattel slavery but wage slavery as well but such rhetoric was stamped out quickly.

There's exactly two responses to this. The first is an argument that "different forms of slavery aren't comparable, so comparing them is pointless.", typically made by those that think the current system is fine. And the second answer is "Yes. Humans the world over are enslaved by capitalism. Thats the core problem of our moment in history. Thats the invisible monster most people can't see."

@Mikey Nexus that's a good point lol

The biggest, oldest, evilest monster is the fundamental principle upon which both "species surviving" and "humans suffering" are built: pronatalism.

Who gets to decide which monster to accept and which monsters to slay?

How do you mean, exactly? My knee-jerk reaction is that this an argument *for* ignorance -- not the logical fallacy known as The Argument from Ignorance, but rather an argument *for* ignorance -- meaning we should never change, learn, or grow..? What am I missing here, Random?

@@keykrazy I don't know what to say to you if you think values are the same as beliefs.

@@FishfaceTheDestroyer I'd say the exact opposite is the far more dangerous monster. There is no issue with people who readily change their minds as it's very difficult for them to hold a position that provides them with negative results, but those that are stuck in their ways historically are the only people who have commit great acts of destruction such as slavery, genocide, etc. It has always been the free thinkers who have pushed the boundaries of what is right and created increasingly more "right" societies.

@@Ryanowning Currently there is a wave of people who on a daily basis wake up and change their Genders depending on their readily changing minds. These type of people are corroding society faster than anything I have seen in my entire life yet they believe they have found an invisible monster and we all must bow to their values despite their values clearly causing Massive amounts of suffering and death that could have been avoided through better understanding on their part. There is currently a push to be progressive as possible never stopping to see if you have progressed off a cliff or not the entire time believing oneself to be morally superior to those who enjoy the current systems and abundance and safety we see in modern age which is well above anything ever seen in history of mankind. If one can rapidly change their mind it means they understand nothing with any certainty and those people would be far better to just stfu and listen to others instead of preaching their half truths from a moral pedestal. .

@@seditt5146 The way to deal with them is to remember that it's common to tell people how you'd like to refer to them if you have a doctorate or if you're a lord or various other scenarios. It really doesn't matter whether you believe in the same thing as them as long as you avoid escalatory remarks etc. Whether they corrode society or not- avoid them and create your own space. The fact of the matter is that despite the emergence of these kinds of people aren't uncommon in history they never reach prevalence for long; they only last about 40 to 60 years as a major group because they cannot exist for much longer than that. They are not aware of the amount of harm they are doing to society and there is no point in trying to inform them of it; instead all we can do is record what happens to them so that we can educate the future generations on the dangers of it while avoiding the pitfalls of aggression.

And yet - how do you know whether animals care if they suffer? You cannot. So isn't it ethically sound to assume they do?

Mass abortion is another one. I contribute to animal suffering by eating meat and I recognize this, just as I recognize that abortion causes so much death. But what can be done about either of these things? Especially when they're on opposite ends of the political spectrum, and people can't see to separate them from ideologies.

@@cortster12 What? Abortion is a whole different story. There's no sentient being suffering, just the end of a potential life. That's a really big difference, otherwise contraceptives would be morally equivalent to genocide.

I'll toss out the big one I'm seeing, punishment as a mean for disiplin. Society has already begun opening it's eye's to it in schools and homes, atleast the physical variety. Now it's been shown that treating a misconduct through understanding and educating is more effective long term. I belive that as society progress this will extend even to criminals, replacing prisons with mental health centers. Now as I'm no expert I can only state this as my limited understanding of our worldly developments.

@@ezdepaz4363 good point! Disentangling vengeance from justice could definitely be one as well.

@@cortster12 As someone generally pro-abbortion I can see your point. Even if I don't think a fetus is quite the same a born human, all life is precious and should be respected as such. Unfortunaly abortion IS the best choice we got in the world right now, with it combating other Monsters like Rape, Poverty and Incapable Parents. I hope for a breakthrough in chemical contraceptions that are more long lasting, safe and easily reversable.

lmao what? The south straight up didn't develop industrially, they had slaves, why would they develop an industry the slaves handled fine? Once they were forced to stop the old way of doing things, they adapted to new available technologies. Economic reality followed moral conflict. Also, child labor, and slaves, still exist today. Unless you're careful, you're buying slave-made clothes. And there is no amount of careful you can be to avoid buying slave-made computer parts. We buy them from countries where slaves are legal. Finally, fuck capitalism and fuck you.

And that is why we today only have cooperatively owned businesses for they outperform traditional firms in stability and success rate....

@@morningstarcollective4671 funny, how many of those child laborers live in communist countries

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You don't need meat to survive, vegetarians have existed for hundreds of years. It has also always been cheaper to be a vegetarian than an omnivore. The propaganda around vegetarian/vegan diets would have you believe they are more expensive. This is a complete farce, especially today with competitive pricing of plant-based "meat" alternatives. The only reason lab grown meat would bring dramatic change is if people will continue to refute the economic and ethical issues of consuming animal flesh, until it is simply cheaper to support their habit without raising and killing an animal to do so. Then they will turn around and be horrified by the thousands of years of animal exploitation, and act like they are now morally superior by making a decision which was not even an option before.

Clear economic sense to whom? Slavery continued to exist in the United States until 1942 (yes, 1942, we only got around to abolishing the means through which slavery was continued after the 13th amendment 75 years after its passage) because it was in the clear economic interest of the wealthy, white, predominately male landowners of the American agrarian South. In truth, this never stopped being the case, even after FDR finally put an end to it. We didn't stop enslaving black men for life (on trumped up charges instead of on the basis of birth) because it stopped being profitable for men with power. We stopped it because we were at war with the Nazis, who could and did use the fact that we still held millions of people in slavery as a propaganda tool to show that they "were no worse than the United States." It was a matter of narrative convenience, not economic expediency. Furthermore, why are we willing to cede that much of our moral sensibility to economics as a system? We already know what economics will do in the name of maximizing consumption and shareholder value: literally spend decades hiding the impending destruction of Earth's capacity to sustain human civilization as we know it from the people and the scientific community. This is not a system we should bend our neck to. It is one we should cast into outer darkness, before it can do the same to us.

like how america is segregating again in the name of racial justice and equality?

@@constantineergius1626 yeah man I remember in 08 when Obama got elected I think everyone felt pride that we could finally see a person of color in the white house. Kids that were around back then that are adults dont fully understand what that meant to people. Those same kids are now thinking some how today is more racists then what I saw in the late 70's.

@@frocurl to be fair there kind of is more racists now then during the 70s but its all the people that make everything about race rather then just being quite. I know a lot of people who have said "minorities by and large cannot succeed without the government" thats still a very common opinion these days theres this view in many areas that minorities need help and cant do things for themselves

@@constantineergius1626 **cough cough** fat acceptance and Twitter sexualities **cough cough cough*

@@constantineergius1626 "To the privileged, equality will feel like oppression".

yep

I agree that we won't reach true morality, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try?

@@speedy01247 I think you misunderstand my argument. I think morals are subjective, and you cannot claim to have "correct" morals nor claim anyone has "incorrect" morals. At least in part because there is no objective metric by which to measure how good a set of morals are.

@@Pedanta I'd disagree. There are basic morals principles that are undeniable. I'm certain there is an objectively perfect level of morality. I will not claim to hold such morals, as I do truly believe some facets such system is ungraspable to me. But there are objective moral truths. As an example of an "invisible monster" that is just now starting to be seen by a large amount of people is the mistreatment of transgender individuals. One can objectively state that transgender people are scientifically, morally, and historically validated. We have many instances of transgender people throughout history. And scientific research about transgender people kicked off in the 1930s. From then until now, the vast, vast majority of research validates that trans people, should be recognized as their indentified sex. And that such identity is their true sex. E.g. trans women are actually, undeniably women, even if they were born men, and vice versa with trans men, (and of course this includes non binary people being non binary) Objectively, rejecting this research in order to protect one's desire to oppress transgender individuals is morally wrong. One can apply this to many tragedies that have been committed, slavery is objectively wrong. One can argue as to why it might have been seen as morally right, but we must recognize that their morality was flawed. Not because they are immoral beings, but because of the lack of education. Lack of education, is the main cause of such. The more science we do, and education we receive, the closer our morals will be to being objective.

@@lunasills8031 You say that education will lead to more objective moral values, but I don't believe science nor education can do that. Science provides you with more knowledge, amd whilst this is excellent in that it allows people to make more informed decisions on moral values, it cannot itself make those decisions. For example I could know the exact frequencies and energy levels of red and green light. But that won't decide which is my favourite colour for me. Ultimately I would still need make the decision. In the same way I could know exactly what a sheep feels like whilst it is sent to the abattoir, but I still need to make the decision whether or not its okay to eat it. Education is similar in that all it can do is inform you on what the impact of different decisions will be. Anymore than that and its no better than propaganda, telling you what to think.

I too also noticed this in the video and felt that it might have been a little too far out of an example. But as you said it might just be a sort of unfortunate necessity at our current level of our specie’s development. Without the consumption of other animals we would not be able to survive as a species as we are today. But that is not to say that I still for the most part agree on the main message of the video, other then with the other issue of how morality is presented to be a universal and a not subjective. As mentioned in other comments the idea of trying to solve a predetermined idea of a “monster” might be a monster in-itself. Being that others might view the monster differently and focusing on one strict interpretation of an issue might lead to unintended consequences and might even be more harmful then doing nothing at all.

is saying "humanity comes first" any more justifiable than saying "white people come first"?

Say we flip your moral justification that the pleasure meat brings to your palate is more important than an animal's life and say that you being a slave say to me is a pleasure more important than your life. Which is more likely and why ? That your paradigm indicates that there are no common grounds in morality or that your justification is simply outside the common moral grounds ?

@@Ali-cya In the past year my opinion changed a bit, I still believe that human prosperity is the top priority in this debate but I do not place human pleasure above anything anymore. I'd say that yes my previous opinion has a foot outside of morality. But the other part still stands, we still need beasts to bear our burden. When they will become unnecessary, I will not be against stopping their slaughter as, when that time comes, that opinion will become useless and past its time. But this time is not now.

@@reshwesh83 It doesn't have anything to do with human prosperity if you could simply choose something else at the grocery store. "When they will become unnecessary" --- they already are.

Great anti-abortion argument

@@kevc5510 what??

based

You might also ask the question... where do rights come from? That is, it's not immediately obvious to me that people have rights to travel, work, and reside. Who grants them? Who protects them? Who chooses those instead of some other factors to call defensible rights?

An evil act that helps you out is still an evil act.

I’m pretty sure you’re overstating the presence of caste & similar systems in the described emerald to some degree. Though perhaps ‘locality’ has a very general meaning here. Mostly a note for other readers here.

Technology allows us to be vegan, not markets/capitalism as you seem to imply. Also, slavery and war only came about with the rise of agriculture and settled civilization. The advent of capitalism, markets, gunpowder and industrialization made all injustices and subjugations *worse* until working class people organized effective resistance to these horrors.

This is just based on the assumption human lives are more worth than animal lives. Also meat consumption is just killing people, this is one the one side where plagues come from, it is one of the many sources of climate change which will cause massive refuge waves and also wastes food as the production of meat need a multiple of plant calories. Also there is probably a decent argument to be made to cut together heavily all social programs in the west for development aid as there are people dying from easy to preventing things like malaria where i heard figures like 100 dollar a year a live. We in Europe also simply got this fixed when compared globally and homeless people can get in a homeless shelter even there social benefits which is more then the average income in many countries. Seems honestly we are just really bad at doing things on a global scale and rather think on more local scales where then regional interest cause issues besides resource attribution.

There are trillions of animals tortured and killed each year for food. It's an incredibly significant issue and one that is incredibly overlooked. Your comment reads like whataboutism

Nessesary evils ARE monsters, that's the point. Just like abortion is a nessesary evil with our current tech level, that doesn't make it any less monstrous. Same goes for meat consumption. And I will support both these things until both of them can be replaced with something better, but that will likely be centuries.

I agree. There's many holes that can be poked in this overall theme. It would feel foolish to take this stuff seriously.

essentially just make sure such a benefit isnt a government monopoly. Government monopolies on anything are really terrifying, ironically enough taking care of the vulnerable, poor and sick is the most common way dictators come to power , economic desperation is the biggest cause of the worst regimes you get rid of death you get rid of that end of life poverty and the biggest justification for state power over one's lives

Worrying about never dying dictators ignores the more realistic future where we are all owned by cyberpunk Walmart CEOs.

You don't even need to go that far to see problems. If nobody dies, but new people are born every year, then we will run out of space and food very fast.

dark music and glowy eyes lol childish.

What do you mean? Do you think that even greatest ancient philosophers, wouldn't have some views, that would be considered as completely immoral in modern world? He didn't say that this makes them less of a philosopher or great person, but mindset of people who lived thousands of years before us was very different and the way he presented it is only to show, how these words would be interpreted in modern world. Even by the people we respect and consider as important part of history.

📮

Your necasary evils are just evils ppl are unwilling to adress because it will come at the cost of their own comfort. That is how the world is but it doesn't mean it is how the world has to be. Are you moral when you only do it when it doesn't come at a practical cost?

Agreed. There are many things that society agrees are wrong that could be argued that they are really not and vise versa. So many things are being censored now. So many things are not ok anymore (Food brands, sports team names). I don't think it's a matter of society being more aware (woke) and morality superior. It's at least debatable to say that things have gotten ridiculous and people (SJWs) are just being assholes now.

The problem is that it's based on the notion of progress. But is humanity on a path of moral progress? It's a common logical fallacy to consider that WE are the epitome of mankind and that our ancestors were barbaric assholes, but it's simply false. And I am not sure that the current trope of considering animals as moral subjects is excellent, since the consequence is that human life is not worth more than that of a cow. Moreover the notion that slavery was widely accepted in the west until the Civil War is simply bonkers : this institution had simply disappeared in Europe from the fall of Rome to the early colonial era, and was very much frowned upon. Even the Greeks were questioning it, and justified it by the fact that, when you conquer an enemy, the alternative to slavery was to slay everybody.

@@TheEgg185 Then again, look at the other end and it is legitimate homophobes, racists and greedy scumbags. So really, all of society is just a joke.

No? The argument literally talks about how there's still "invisible monsters" around us. Meaning we still haven't found them yet, according to our current moral understanding of the world, but they're there anyway - and what to do about it.

@@aspexpl "I am not sure that the current trope of considering animals as moral subjects is excellent, since the consequence is that human life is not worth more than that of a cow." This argument is weak and doesn't say anything. If you replace "animals" with say, women and "human life" with men, the substance of the argument doesn't change at all. It's simply saying "the lives of group X being as valuable as the lives of group Y is bad" without giving any justification. I agree that the idea that humanity always progresses is flawed, but that doesn't mean that invisible monsters don't exist.

How so, I am not aware of Greek history

Most serius genetic illnesses are mutations or non dominant genes. Killing ppl is also the bad solution as the same can be achived by not having children. Also are we going to determine what is moral by fighting wars? If practicaly everyone agrees they would not like to be a slave I think for al practical purposes we can say it is objectively a moraly good decision to ban it. There must certainly be such problems today.

​@@someonespotatohmm9513 I'm pretty sure most people would like to not pay taxes too yet it's morally ok to tax them. I think people of the ancient times thought the same way about slavery, they thought it was something needed to keep the civilization going. Same could be said about making human clones to make tests for new medicines or grow organs. Sure it's cruel for the individual but it could really speed up the research on many things and save/cure many people.. it's like that famous thought experiment where a train is heading towards a group of people and you can choose to change its track so it runs into one person instead.. is it moral to change the track and kill someone who would have lived to save multiple people who were doomed to die ? I just think people in general don't see all the gray areas in moral questions and it's sad because it's where both sides meet and can make very interesting discussions

@@k0lpA .

one of the other issues is that the state is often seen as above the individual and the same people who will complain about individuals having power over others will not complain over governments having powers. Funnily enough there have been people of really any disability that achieved great things, the guy who invented windshield wipers was blind if im not mistaken. Morality is objective innocent people or beings of the same mental capacity as a human being should have rights and the idea that morality isnt objective leads to the idea that the state is the source of rights

The issue with your example lies in what you define as 'helping society'. Nazism 'believes' that people with disabilities are not helping society, yet many inventions, creations and understandings came to be thanks to some disabled individuals, by instead alleviating their disabilities rather than exterminating them along with their disability or by studying their disabilities and instead offering those who do not wish to be disabled a way to be like other beings or even become more capable. Another issue is the 'belief' that by exterminating disabled people, eventually genetic illnesses won't be past down anymore. But evidence shows that it's impossible to eliminate genetic illnesses, because life itself is malleable and to stay malleable imperfections occur that silently spread over generations constantly. So instead a better solution is finding out what causes those disabilities so that when someone risks reproducing and passing down a disability to be informed or stopped or better we develop a way to remove/fix those specific genes. In the end it comes down to whether the belief is thoroughly tested and that the solution proposed has the most benefits. A more enlightened humanity would not risk making unnecessary sacrifices. For making unnecessary sacrifices is also a 'monster' in and of itself as it exactly excuses other monsters' doings.

@dexatlon The one where you are the equivalent of a caveman trying to figure out a smartphone. Your lack of an ability to look at big picture developments is comparable to the caveman's crypto or programming proficiency a day after you hand the smartphone to him. Below is an outline how it could be achieved. If your argument isn't ability to envision differently from a technical standpoint, but rather some actually moral appeal to nature fallacy (whatever is natural is "just". Yeah, I am sure antelopes getting eaten alive like it, because it's oh so natural.), then I have nothing to tell you, except you are wrong. Projects for eliminating wilderness predation without carnivore elimination: Mission statement: Humans like goals. Sapient species like goals. The lack of a goal leads to nihilism, defeatism, and self-destruction. It is my holy conviction that the goal of the dominant sapient Earth species should be implementing an infinite and eternal paradise for all sentient life. We need no gods. We, life, will do it. This task is completely trivial (again, acquire a sense of scale beyond petty 21st century Earth) if the only requirement is to abolish predation. But if the additional demand is stipulated that predatory animals should not be behaviourally changed, then you can implement this following program: Mainly, predation will be made unnecessary and punishing, while a natural carnivore lifestyle will be retained via self-replicating non-conscious bionic constructs, that are to be introduced into the entirety of the local cosmic domain's macrofauna-containing ecosystems. These constructs are modelled on the appearance, and programmed to behave similar to, locally appropriate herbivores. These constructs include safeguards to stop a potential risk of runaway self-replication. One extremely conductive element for that is making them about as temperature resistant as biological organic chemistry is, as well as dependent on an atmosphere. Their body should preferably be non-metallic and include the absolute minimum of electronic systems. The constructs are culled every *n* years, with a new generation introduced that is a blank slate. This is mainly to prevent evolution (outside perhaps an acceptable drift, to simulate Darwinian processes, but that is outside scope of this framework), which could lead to development of consciousness, intelligence, hiveminds, and resistance to environmental conditions. This would also further aid in preventing a runaway self-replication scenario. The infrastructure to deployment would be kept at facilities (monitoring, manufacturing the first generations, orbital launch facilities etc. -- all automated) that experience minimal decay over zoological or geological timescales. A planet like Earth has very few such surface locations. Preferably it'd be on a planet's natural or artificial satellite. The constructs are either directly edible, or in the (riskier) non-organic form, they contain edible internals (over a breakable exterior. Perhaps a silicon skin/muscle analogue). This food component (and potential additives) could also be exploited for various other wildlife interventionist projects (although I personally am for laissez-faire. The elimination of worst-grade suffering is the only point in my agenda). Manipulation of predator behaviour towards disregarding non-constructs can be achieved via punishing reactions. The best way to introduce this is via a microscopic parasitic construct, which can attach or embed on animals, and replicate as usual for natural parasites until near-saturation. These bionic parasites would contain implements of disincentivizing predation. Regarding herbivore overpopulation: the same parasitic construct can be used. Lacing the local water with e.g. birth control is overkill, and would be inline with a much more managed and manicured habitat than the philosophy behind this current framework, which seeks to preserve environmental wilderness, but intervention on a per-organism basis. Motile, self-replicating bionic automatons are the best tool for that. Implementation: This project most likely can't be realized the next millennium or two. Technology is the most trivial aspect, economics second, by far the hardest is overcoming the human moral hurdle of regarding untampered-with wilderness as desirable -- especially once alternatives like above framework become feasible. The human hurdle would however not be an issue on terraformed planets/moons.

delete your rant

honestly i have to agree, mankind was giften with intelligence and any being we create in our image should have its own intellect an free will to an extent, i dont have problems with people making cranes for work but we should put a higher value on the individual right to both property and self preservation. Even moreso having a machine that looks like a human being but cannot think for itself normalizes collectivism and will lead to actual people really being easy to push over

This idea was expanded upon by Charles Stross in his novel "Accelerando". But there, they were enhanced lobsters not robots.

Yeah, it usually only takes about 60 insight to do the trick. Bit of a chore to collect that much Madman's knowledge though.

Both pursuits are comendable and does not need to be exclusive. I belive both options are needed to put an end to factory farming animals. Labmeat is new tech and tgerefor might not be as palettable to start with but should improve drastically as it's invested in. It will be needed to supply for the current demand of meat in the industry. Grazing animals will ensure the industry, it's workers and it's animals still continues running, albeit now ethically. Grassfeed beef is already a luxery item and gamemeat even more so, they couldn't sustain our huge population on their own.

@@ezdepaz4363 I switched to fish and eggs for a while and never noticed a difference, I wouldn't say we need red meat to sustain anyone. Ask people in India if they need beef to sustain their huge population. Personally I wouldn't mind having a quality burger now and then, but I don't understand why we have convinced ourselves that we need regular beef to "sustain our huge population" like it's some kind of required food. If anything it's the opposite, we have a huge heart disease problem and cheap beef is killing people. Don't get me wrong, I don't really care about the suffering or standing on moral highgrounds like the a lot of vegans and vegetarians do, go ahead and raise all the livestock you want, but it makes no sense to talk about red meat like a requirement for humans. Even many of the biggest red meat eaters, eventually will get the talk from their doctor about cutting back. Even the healthiest red meat will never be as healthy as finding protein from other sources like eggs, fish, chicken, or plants. If you're worried about muscle mass, no body builder I know relies on beef, it's always chicken breasts or eggs. You can get protein powder that uses whey or peanuts and absolutely bulk up.

@@pismodude2 Yo, I agree with you. Me using grassfeed beef as an example was a bit poor when it really could have been any type of ecologialy produced protein. My post was more from the prespective that lab meats would go easier on nature by skipping the agricultural step of raising/catching animals, while also potentially better in terms of nutrition due to more variety in what could be made. Say lab meat could be made from Rat cells, but doesn't sound that appetizing does it? Hovewer your cat might think differently! Current day pet food is mostly made of scraps from our own food production and probably not their best diet. Honestly what we currently produce is probably not our best diet, see how healt concerns there are regarding overweight and more. Lab meat will let us explore more options to solve our dietery problems. Now while I'm clearly in favour of lab meat, I don't think it's possible to do a too rapid shift. Agriculture has been a part of civilazation since it's dawn and moving away from it will be tough. Having farms and fishermen cut back is neccesary for the enviorment, but they will only do so if they can still make a living on their work. Thats whe treating "real" ecological meat as a luxery product makes sense, they'd get to produce less but still get well paid. There would also be an option for those not onboard with labmeats which is fair, new tech can be scary to some. This all applies to fish and eggs just the same as beef. Our oceans need be left alone to recover from us killing 50% of all marine life in just 40 years. Now all of this is just based of random articles I half remember, so I might be wrong, so please tell if I am. All in all I think we both seem to be pro-life and pro-health.

@@pismodude2 why do you not care about the suffering of sentient beings?

we are men so our circle of inclusion is limited to that. we are white so our circle of inclusion is limited to that. we are straight so our circle of inclusion is limited to that. we are Americans so our circle of inclusion is limited to that.

That's fair enough. By using obvious examples, I risk making it seem easy to spot monsters, even if the message is exactly the opposite. But if I used more nuanced examples, they would be more controversial, and the attention would be drawn to them, away from the general point. Plus, they would be associated with the groups happening to be crusading for them at the moment, and I would also be at higher risk to be saying something "wrong" (see definition of "wrong" in the pinned comment).

​@@RationalAnimations That's a good point. It was a good idea to first show that monsters exist, and then give advice on how to spot them. Still, I wonder if essential detail isn't being masked by the simplicity of our assumptions. What happens if we allow that, contrary to the slide at 0:47, Nature really is allowed to present us with a choice between multiple large, genuine, hard-to-compare evils? Say, if there's a tradeoff between Athens widening its circles, and Athens being able to compete demographically, economically and ultimately militarily with its neighbours? And, what happens if we decompose that definition of "wrong" into something which doesn't presuppose a katamari-like nature of morality? The core concept of evil which is not at the time understood to be evil would obviously still be true and important. But we would have to frame it in a different way. Probably in a way which leaves us less sure of our own moral assumptions.