I highly recommend that you read "The Omvivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan. I think it will help you. It certainly helped me.

Had you hear about Mexie. She also has a vegan position but from the leftist perspective. Very good research. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pb-Pd9diz8vdZIE.html

I wonder what would be a better term for supporting not only humans, but other animals with nervous systems. Animalist? Animist? Neurologist? (watches until 13:50) AH SENTIENTIST.

Given everything we know nowadays about sentient life your conclusion is natural and rational one.

ok, so I'm reacting to the demotion, but what about our evolution as omnivores? is it unethical for other carnivores and omnivores to prey on herbivores? what about communities that base most of their survival on what they can pull from the sea? as I said, I'm reacting to the demotion, but would a plant based diet around the world be feasible? could we produce that many crops? and in those times that drought is bad then how do those people survive? what about indigenous people who rely on their herds for their clothing and food? please answer these questions as I need to understand more. I want to note though that I do agree that we should lessen suffering as a whole for all animals, but I lack the understanding of how that could be and how we could make such a food base successful. it seems to me that eliminating meat and animal agriculture is only feasible for more developed countries. poorer countries need to obtain their food in whatever way that is available to them. please correct my ignorance if I am wrong, but is veganism and vegetarianism a privileged position?

They will never find the bodies, if you dig deep in the wilderness. DEEP.

Hahahaha best comment

Lolol.

Yes! yesterday I was pulling into a parking spot and me and another driver spotted each other. We made eye contact and then they honked at me and pulled into the spot I obviously was going to pull into 😂 Oh well, guess they really wanted that spot lol

@@Debilitator47 Just to make sure get a dog or dear corpse that you can bury on top of the other body. Well that and make sure the body is buried vertically, that way it will occupy the least amount of space.

*You are Turtle Approved* ©™

lol

...wait you’re different people?

You need to work on your accent to achieve true Cosmic Skepticism.

Easy, just listen to the accent

Fetus's are in the human circle and anyone who says they aren't are guilty of the fallacy's he illustrated in this video

@@momsberettas9576 No one is saying they’re not. Just as a caterpillar is also in the butterflies life cycle, yet we call them caterpillars and not butterflies:)

@@momsberettas9576 This is equivocation. Most people are not of the opinion that a "fetus" isn't a human, but rather that an embryo that is only a few weeks old is not a human *yet*. You have no excuse for not knowing this and you *should* feel stupid. Something tells me you feel smugly superior instead though.

Human DNA means the embryo is human. It is never not Human DNA.

How do u reconcile or explain that we all will burn in hell & slavery?

I like this perspective, but I think ultimately most people get really cynical about this story not being about us. I honestly think that’s one of the reasons people cling to religion so hard. Ultimately, I think we’re lucky to experience anything at all. Were just an amalgamation of atoms that’s able to experience love, wonder and so much more 🥹.

With a little scope you can understand why. Here are some variables you can combine to understand. Beliefs reinforce to some human/earth centricity. Those around them also reinforce such ideas as not conforming would leave them in the outgroup and what consequences that entails like stigmas. Sometimes people are in alot of pain and conceptualizing a smaller reality can lessen the burden of feeling insignificant and worthless.

@@melelconquistador Yes, and if this crutch is given to a person at a young age, contemplating navigating the world without it would be understandably daunting. It is relatively easy for those of us who never had the crutch and who have embraced a more uncontrived mode of perceiving the world around us, to think our way is easily accessible to all... but it isn't. This is powerful stuff: literally the core of meaning around which humans construct their reality. Shifting it in ANY way takes effort, let alone in a way that demotes us from the leading, romanticised role to an ensemble cast of infinite scope. I feel an immediate respect and kinship for people choose to work on themselves in this way.

Seriously? You don't think you're the center of the universe? You think your back is against a giant wall? Who's controlling you? I dont let anyone or thing control me. Free your mind and your ass will follow.

I'm going to college soon as a chemistry student, and though my path may change, my ultimate goal right now is to become an astrochemistry researcher. Basically, studying the composition of stars and the atmospheres of distant planets, work which could aid astrobiologists in potentially finding life on other planets. I think it's fascinating that there is so much we don't know, and it'd be exciting to uncover new things about the universe that we never could've imagined were real! It'd give me more of an existential crisis to know that there was just one rock floating out here in space with things that live, but the uncertainty is what makes life exciting, right? There's so much out there that we don't know, and I feel like people need to embrace discovery rather than be afraid of our blind spots, because that's what leads to slowed progress and it leads to people being hurt when we're unable to acknowledge that we don't have all the answers.

😂🤣😭

Did you expect him to come out as reptilian or something? 😂

I often catch myself thinking "silly hoomans" ;) I'm not exactly neurotypical, so most humans do seem pretty alien a lot of the time.

Otherkin moment

@@Cringer77 indeed I did. My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined. 😔

LOL 😂....love that trilogy!

@@arthurvice503 that might actually be a sign of higher intelligence that they have NOT done the awful things that the human race has done.

@@arthurvice503 my boy, you are in for a massive surprise

@@arthurvice503 Woosh

The problem with this thinking is that it assumes dolphins think they're better or happier than us. Happiness itself is an intellectual human construct. ... The man revels and contemplates his society's achievements, often unequally. The dolphin is ignorant but brainy and free.

Thank you for this. I feel like this is where I want to lean

Sadly, some humanists wear that plastic badge to show off they hold the best view and ideology. 😔

Are his prior views common among humanists? Maybe I just haven't spoken to enough of them. To me those views sound like human supremacism, I don't associate them with humanism.

Yeah, he address this very thing towards the end and feels and expresses the humanist label just isn't for him even if he agree with most of the thing with humanists and prefers a different label to express himself.

You are urged to become VEGAN, since carnism (the destructive ideology that supports the use and consumption of animal products, especially for “food”) is arguably the foremost existential crisis.🌱

There is no cognitive dissonance. We care for other humans we eat animals. There's nothing wrong with that.

Funny thing is that veganism is probably less pro-life than even the carnivore diet, because that kind of farming kills so many more animals than livestock does. I think the only reason people are vegans is because the animals that are killed simply aren't as cute and as livestock. A single cow can feed someone for a year, while a single person needs acres of land and hundreds of animals to be destroyed

Plants' lives matter!

Interesting! As an atheist I had the opposite journey. I was a vegetarian and reflexively pro-choice due to being raised by liberal parents. But eventually had to square the fact I didn't eat fertilized eggs (because they were "baby chickens") with my dehumanizing view of fetuses. This moved me towards the pro-life position.

Lol 😆

Cosmically modified skeptic

@@NotesFromAutumn hey I recognize you

Get a room, you two.

Idk how people even confused you two in the first place, is this some kind of inside joke or something? I never really saw similarities other than that you were both "skeptic" channels.

And who said we were perfect?

@@pureone8350 dk some people I guess

@I want to suplex Joe Cecot Christians say we are made in the image of God but were corrupted by sin. According to them, everyone is a sinner and imperfect so we need to turn to God or go to hell. So again, who ever said we were perfect?

Yeah i hate God too

Poetry

Then what do we eat

@@EvilSapphireR Animals (?)

@@EvilSapphireR animals

@@EvilSapphireR food

@@EvilSapphireR Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. -Michael Pollan

Ya and your Animal instincts tell you so? Some day Knowledge will help us animals be Captain of an air buss 380 wont it. Grizzly bear Flying one soon to be. Animals are and all ways will be Animals whether atheist or theist its a Fact that Humans are gifted Knowledge and Animals are Not. We are Human Beings not animals as a proven fact by Knowledge its self. Not sure about history but no animals as of yet have Knowledge . get that facted through the thick Highly sophisticated Intelligent Educated College Graduate Heads.

Ernest hemming way and this quote is not the direct quote. "There Is Nothing Noble in Being Superior to Some Other Man. The True Nobility Is in Being Superior to Your Previous Self" is the correct version of it i think.

Can you make a video on Adam Ragusa?

But what is wrong about human exceptionalism? Humans are the only moral agents and the only ones who are even able to care about the well being of other creatures. Stating that we are exceptional would be nothing but sincere in my opinion. Also how can we not be the most important beings in the universe when the very notion of importance and meaning is inherent to our perspective of the universe?

For a good read on the "Inhuman perspective" see "Intelligence And Spirit" by one Negarestani.

@@CynicalBastard from what i gathered just now on a superficial level it would be more of a post human perspective? Linke concious minds that we may or may not consider still human?

Perhaps we just need to not get too hung up on labelling ourselves as any kind of 'ist' in the first place. Humanism was a product of its time as a reaction against religiously centred mindsets and has been largely made redundant by our modern Western societies adopting secular underpinnings. That means that calling ourselves 'humanists' in this day and age doesn't really mean that much unless we are differentiating ourselves in a very specific way from only some types of religious people who think that our societies should revert to a mindset of a former time. But even then, the word 'secular' is a much more useful and applicable term to use in that situation anyway. And like others here have said, I don't consider either humanism or secularism to have anything to do with human exceptionalism, or to have anything to do with our relationship with other species at all. The words only describe our own social situations, and are not even moral descriptors of any kind. That's why I thought this video seemed to be you agonising over nothing.

in this case soy popsicle. Funny scene tho.

Big badda boom!

Nailed it

#fifthelementfansrepresent :D

More like a bag of meet trying to avoid being consumed by other animals.

Fetus's are in the human circle and anyone who says they aren't are guilty of the fallacy's he illustrated in this video

@@momsberettas9576 it's not being human that's as important as the capacity for awareness, freedom, and suffering.

I came back around to it 30 years ago and only wish that I had done it sooner.

Fortunately morality doesn’t come from deities. So many millions killed by those who do. Scriptures is one of the absolute worst places to mirror morality.

🤔 Indeed so. I have never placed myself as any form of supreme being. Such would be a version of a deity. Ridiculous! We happened to be the one species of life on this planet to have an opportunity to apply our intelligence in a manner that ensured our survival against enormous odds. Unfortunately we have yet to develop the degree of self control necessary for the rest of life here to continue as evolution has worked over millennia.

You are correct Stew, humanism has nothing to do with humans being the center of the universe. Humanism doesn't even really say humans are important.

Humanism isn’t about human supremacy, that would be a perversion of what humanism stands for.

Humanism is that morality is about the well-being of humans, it's not just "morality doesn't come from a deity". In saying that morality is only about humans, you are in fact saying humans are "superior" compared to other animals. No one is saying we shouldn't have moral concen for humans, so your second statement is kind of irrelevant. What is being said is that we should also have moral concern for non-human animals because suffering is what matters morally speaking.

I love this amazing creature's channel. :-)

@@JariDawnchild i love paltry amounts of poultry

Believed but never really liked it, can’t think why anybody want to

So.. you think people who are humanists have flawed thinking but the way you think is A O K.

@@Timmeh_The_tyrant meh...

Evidence for what specifically are you interested in?

@random videos nothing you just said is accurate. Even the 3230 genes is an estimated hypothetical based on modern humans. It also represents only 10 to 15 percent of our genes, and is included in the DNA we share with other primates.

Your misunderstandings / misrepresentations from genetics and archeology are indeed evidence of something...

Wow, the gatekeepers of the evidence land

@I want to suplex Joe Cecot Funnily enough that you mentioned Norse, it is quite possible that the story of Adam and Eve was invented to be more inviting for Nordic people or to entice them into Christianity (roughly around when tensions between the two were not great to put it simply; mind you this could possibly date the story of Adam and Eve long after much of Genesis was already written beforehand in the Torah). There are many similarities between the first story in the Bible with the Nordic myth. More specifically, Adam and Eve is quite an interesting and reasonable take on possible events post-Ragnarok. When the gods' were essentially dying, one god (I think it was Odin, but I could be wrong) hid 2 humans behind the world tree in order to at least save humanity: one man and one woman. Also, Christianity didn't make much of effort to differentiate itself from Norse mythology with the whole "Tree of Life" as it sounds familiar like, say, Yggdrasil. *Granted, a lot of this is just speculative,* but I wouldn't put it past the Catholic church to concoct this plan to ease tensions and convert the Nordic people over to Christianity. It just makes too much sense historically speaking in my mind.

Do you ask your birds for consent when you treat them as an equal in the bedroom?

@@CaptainTae he said “not that different” and “can’t treat them much differently.” Not they are exact “equals” to us. Are you even reading?

@@genesisz1 So if there IS a difference... what are we talking about? Stop trying to proselytize for 5 seconds.

@@CaptainTae are you seriously asking what the difference between a bird and a human is? I don’t teach first grade. Also it’s completely irrelevant, because the point that is being made is that they are sentient beings who feel pain, suffering and other types of emotions just like us human animals do, that’s why we should give them value over taste pleasures, just like you would a human animal.

@@genesisz1 No. I’m not asking anything like that. Did you misunderstand or is this a really bad attempt at a Strawman?

Agree. Humanism does not preclude veganism at all for instance. It does not posit that human beings are an inherently superior species or that our wellbeing is more significant or that somehow we are cosmically paramount. It merely states that human philosophy, reason and emotion are the best moral, experiential guides we have. That means considering human well being and happiness and of course the suffering of other animals. There is plenty of reference to this on the humanists UK wesbite. Humanism has a scientific basis that recognises we are simply evolved mammilian apes and tries to get the best out of our impulses and consciousness.

Unfortunately, there is a rather large segment of secular humanists that attempt to strengthen their opposition to veganism by pointing toward secular humanism. Matt Dillahunty, for example, has been doing this for years.

@@AV57 Interesting. Would you mind posting an example of this? I would like to see it. I would not allow that to inform your understanding of humanism as a whole. That isn't a humanist principle nor a perspective I imagine most humanists take. Most definitions of humanism talk about placing all living creatures at highest moral importance.

@@fordprefect1925, i can’t quickly get a timestamp of them. I’ve been listening to the Atheist Experience for probably 10 years now and when a vegan challenges Matt, he will occasionally point out that he is a secular humanist first and foremost and that the interests of nonhumans logically take a backseat. I’m not saying he’s correct in portraying humanism this way, but he and apparently much of his audience, think that argument holds water. It is a rather annoying argument that even people who don’t use the label “humanist” will trot out. They will insist that you have to choose between human rights and animal rights, otherwise you are some sort of species traitor.

@@AV57 well that certainly isn't my view nor the view advocated by humanists UK for instance. Not sure whether it's an American thing but I don't think that the argument that I am a human therefore the suffering of my fellow humans and myself come foremost is logical except in cases of survival. Humanism advocates the basic scientific understanding that have the capacity to experience suffering and at a basic level instinctively avoid this and seek pleasure. Therefore it also logically argues that we should seek to prevent the suffering of animals as they are also sentient beings and they share our experience in this regard.

Did you mean 'relevant'? Or if relative, what do you mean? :) Edit: Oh, I got it now (I think), ignore me (or don't).

I thought it was Jack Torrance who said this....

humans are chaos , that's why

@@riches3581 And this is why we can travel to the moon and back while not solving the homeless, drug, or violence problem.

@@dcxxxx Nah we're highly ordered. Its just that we're (as a society) much more motivated by the threat of a foreign power controlling a new frontier and the potential suffering it might cause than actual human suffering happening here and now. There's a reason we haven't had a human on the moon in 50 years.

Fetus's are in the human circle and anyone who says they aren't are guilty of the fallacy's he illustrated in this video

l am against artificial extending life spans as only those that don't deserve extended lives would be able to afford it (the greedy rich, not the altruistic poor) & at 61 myself l don't want to live to 100 (due to failing health) let alone into the 100's but l do wish l could come back every decade or so to see where we have moved to.

@@momsberettas9576 Your comments would sound more useful if you would at least learn to use apostrophes. However, pointing out the obvious that fetuses are part of the human cycle of life adds nothing to the study of ethics. Something that is entirely insentient cannot be harmed in any way.

Be nice to know we are seeing it now?

@Sky Gardener Ya but i'm a animal like a Human animal and wanted to keep gaining the knowledge you humans get but still they won't Let me be a Captain of the Air Buss 380? I'll keep trying though Good Luck . Human Being is and Grizzly bears who are intelligent but Apes or Gorilla's have not ridiculouset achived Knowledge is Making me feel sick these days because they know they never will and waste our tax money on such rediculis movments with these Animals. When will our loving non Mamipulative Creator Give us a Spititual Sign and not just the way things are turning.

I disagree , yes we might not be a divine race chosen by a flying man from the heavens but we really are an extremely intelligent race capable of doing extraordinary things. The pinnacle of mankind (General Relativity , Space exploration , Modern medicine,AI ) are truly remarkable achievements. If in solidarity , I believe mankind can truly achieve things which could be considered remarkable even in a cosmological scale.

@@user-qi3lv5og4v arguing for the superiority of humans... Wow... it's not like there are animals going around, trying to oppress us or something. I'm not saying that what you wrote is inherently wrong, but why did you even feel the urge to write it in the first place? You don't have anything to prove, we're all humans here. It's like a bizarre reinvention of trying to defend your lifestyle choices, or everything you remotely identify with, for that matter.

@@user-qi3lv5og4v I don’t wanna achieve remarkable things tbh. I just wanna coexist with the rest of the stuff on the planet man. That’s remarkable enough

@hello 2.0 Mostly because I am fed up with people commenting everywhere "hUmAnS aRE jUst aNimAlS" or something along the lines of it. Do you really think a chimp could solve the Schrodinger equation or even comprehend it even in a thousand years? As far as we know mankind along with evolution, technology and science is a rare phenomena which might not even exist in our observable universe. We aren't just some mammals.

@@user-hi2fp1he5g I agree with @001, it's simply annoying when people say "humans are just animals" and pretend that there is nothing different between a fish and a human. I have even seen some try to justify bestiality with this line of thinking. No one is arguing that humans have some transcendent superiority over other animals... we're just saying humans act, think and behave in a way that's very different from all other animals on earth.

Nice, humble insight, I really apreciate that. BTW are you by chance of the KZfaqr OddBawZ? I ask because of your Avatar. It's from a music video but he uses it, too. :)

@@thomaskositzki9424 it's from pearl jam do the evolution around 2:50

@@l33t9r0u93 That was the track! OddBawZ is a huge Pearl Jam fan. I got to admit, the artwork is super cool. :)

@@thomaskositzki9424 I'm not familiar with OddBawZ, I just know the music video.

Fetus's are in the human circle and anyone who says they aren't are guilty of the fallacy's he illustrated in this video

All life? Why all life? Does it say that in the definition?

@@avivastudios2311 why? Because of our environment and future of the planet, and the moral responsibility not only for protecting that, but the dignity and compassion for all living things.

You've articulated my own immediate response to the title. It could just be a question of degree and humanist moral considerations of other species just aren't up to snuff for him anymore. To some ethical vegans, a moderate humanist's response to the realities of the modern meat industry is not enough, and philosophy must be followed with action. And honestly, the label could use work. Humanist is useful but may be outdated soon if not now. The alternatives also don't strike well for me.

@Ariel Pontes; Thank you for your comment which fits my view about humanism.

👏👏👏

This is not a genuine testimony though. Nonetheless, very well stated.

I could be wrong, I'm not particularily well versed in humanism, but from the video it seems like the reason he's rejecting the label and the ideology is because of how it's actually undertaken, rather than what is presented as the principles? Also, the human centric worldview seems like it would lend itself to the valuing of human like traits above any others in animals? First of all, stating that other animals may also be worthy of consideration isn't the same as actually saying all animals (with the ability to feel pain, at least) are worthy of the same consideration. Recognizing the value of gibbons, dolphins, gorillas and other creatures that exhibit human like social behaviors and high intelligence is something that fits very well with the idea that human intelligence sets us apart. Valuing a chicken at the same level does not. While he's not saying he values every living creature equally or anything like that, the viewpoint he's espousing does seem to be a broader form of consideration for animals than humanism would promote and one that doesn't rely on similarity to us. Secondly, and perhaps more important, he explicitly mentions the behavior of humanists and their human centric point of view, while saying he still agrees with them on many points. If a large section of a community acts in a specific way you disagree with consistently then the publishing of more moderate viewpoints by people within the community doesn't come off as the truth- it feels disconnected or disengenuous. When a representative organisation for a group that is frequently xenophobic and hateful (let's say...the Republican party) publishes a diversity and inclusion statement on their website it doesn't make me think that's what the grouping as a whole believes and follows, it makes me think they're trying to soften their position to make people on the fence feel more comfortable. This is less severe than that, obviously, but the point still stands that if it's an issue with the community, even if the ideology doesn't support it, you still probably don't want the label. TLDR; When you use a label associated with a community you indicate yourself to be a part of that community as it actually is, reguardless of how different the community may be from the ideology it's named after.

Thank you for sharing the names of the books. I'll give them a try.

@@bakarenibsheut12 I hope you enjoy them, both are good for software developers or designers. Don't Make Me Think references Designing With the Mind in Mind a lot, but Designing with the Mind in Mind dives much deeper into details, while the first has more practical examples.

@@Sk4lli I think I'll start with the latter. As a beginning software developer, I should find this interesting.

@@bakarenibsheut12 Good luck and enjoy your journey then! 😀

I LOVE THIS COMMENT!!!

I recently thought about this more deeply than I had ever done so before. What about raising animals for food makes you think we are making them suffer. In most cases we assure that they are well fed and cared for. They don't have to fend for themselves in a potentially dangerous environment. They are also often provided with medical care if needed. While their lives are cut shorter than they would otherwise be I don't believe they are aware of what will be their ultimate fate. When they are slaughtered I think it occurs very quickly and the time of suffering is very short. If they were not bred and raised for food it is very unlikely that they would ever have existed at all. Would you rather have a short life where you are well cared for, not knowing your ultimate fate or never to exist at all. I know that there are some cases where their living environment might be less than ideal, even to the point of causing them suffering. This however wouldn't have to be the case if there were laws against this and they were enforced. There are other cases, fish for example, that may be harvested from the wild and maybe this should be reduced or eliminated entirely. It's very possible that I have missed something in my reasoning and if you believe that is the case then please point out my error. Thank you.

@@perrygershin3946 "in most cases we assure they are well fed and cared for.." uhhhh... Haha no. That's not how factory farming is. Majority of the world's meat and animal products are the result of truly horrible, traumatic, and inhumane conditions.

@@ellaheather3500 Hi Ellla, thank you for your reply to my comment. I have to admit that I know very little about factory farming. I was born and raised on a small family farm in Iowa. I can say for certain that our animals were well cared for. The same goes for the surrounding farms that I was aware of. If factory farms are indeed causing a lot of suffering then I would like there to be laws against that practice and have them enforced. I stated that in my original comment. If the suffering were eliminated then would you have any other objections to eating animals? Do you see any other problems with my reasoning? I am truly curious and would appreciate any further replies.

@Big Chungus Is it OK for animals to eat other animals? If humans are animals too (I think we are) then why can't we eat other animals?

Fetus's are in the human circle and anyone who says they aren't are guilty of the fallacy's he illustrated in this video

As a fellow waterfowl, I agree!

I'm jealous

Yes

Glad to know I'm not the only person watching this drunk (and not the only one fawning at Drew's eyes.)

This comment is underrated... But hope you get the time to watch later 😆

That is only true if we are the only observers 👽

* centre of the universe observable *by us*

It's not true either way lmao

@@alessandrovigano8149 every observer is the center of their observable universe.

If I’m outside a box, I’m not inside of it. If we’re not the center of the “observable universe” then we are not. No matter how centered you might think you are in Spacetime, there is no center. even in our Galaxy we are very far from the center. That’s just the mentality of narcissists.

Nice to see you here, J.J.!

My second favorite canadian

OH SHIT ITS JJ

There isn't really a debate with abortion though... Foetuses are not babies - I think that's the whole debate right there.

@@caimaccoinnich9594 wym there’s no debate, one side says there should be no abortions one side says there should be abortions - tell me what I’m missing here

Fighting the good fight is borrowed from scripture, the apostle Paul to be exact. "For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. From now on there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day-and not only to me, but to all who crave His appearing.…" To fight a good fight means there is something worth fighting for. If there's no God then there's no moral framework and the universe is essentially meaningless, and amoral. Therefore in the atheistic worldview there is nothing objectively good or objectively bad, and nothing objectively worthy to fight for. Your subjective perspective might view the suffering of animals as bad but there's no moral framework that objectively supports that view within your worldview.

@@prayunceasingly2029 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

I wish I could go ethical vegan but I fully acknowledge my weakness as an omnivore. I don't think I have the willpower and discipline to forgo all animal products, not just meat. I did however go vegetarian for about 5 months while in college almost 20 years ago (yikes!!!) just to see if I could do it and while difficult at first (mostly out of habit more than anything else) it became easier as it went on. From that experience I now do not feel the need to have a meat portion with every meal (many if not most people feel that every meal needs a portion of meat or it's somehow "incomplete") and every week there are days where I have no meat at all. If people can go vegan or vegetarian I think that's great, especially concerning the ethical issues of massive meat factories and because of the terrible effect on climate change. However, if us omnivores simply went without meat for 3 or 4, heck even 2 days a week, especially beef, it would have a serious (and great!) impact on the aforementioned issues. So if you are weak and lack discipline (like me) when it comes to the consumption of meat consider just reducing instead of eliminating; you can make a difference.

@@prayunceasingly2029 I totally agree, Ryan Olson is kidding himself. Empathy and Atheism doesn't mix. There is no purpose in concerning yourself with other people if there is no purpose. You do it only to feel good about yourself. It is the endorphine kick from helping others, which evolution has given you to enhance your family group's survival on the savannah. What he is saying is like a junkie claiming Heroin is the ultimate form of meaning and purpose. There is only biochemestry and elevating it to a purpose, is exactly like any other religion ever invented.

By deciding to adhere to a bunch of rules someone else came up with. To act morally superior based on the group you’ve decided to join. To tell people they are bad for how they live. He is still in a religion. This one is just more pretentious.

Agreed! I've never really associated humanism with human egocentrism.

I agree. Humanity has it’s own place, including its own unique flaws and strengths. And while I’ve never considered humanism as human-centric, there is a reality that humans are the only ones who can completely screw up our existence and we are also the only ones who can save us. With that is an inherent responsibility to be better. As far as the vegan argument- humans aren’t removed from the food chain and i wouldn’t expect a bear or lion or shark or whatever to consider my suffering before snacking on me.

I equated humanism with a belief in the power of humans rather than the belief in a god who could solve all our problems. I never saw it as so human centric that it forgot about the lives of other creatures.

Yea, I think that's the healthiest humanism.

Drew seems to imply that “humanist” is synonymous with “human supremacists”. I never knew that that was the case.

Welcome aboard. Pass the hummus.

That's awesome. I've only been a vegan for about 2 months now, but I don't see myself stopping. When you say "currently deconverting from Christianity", that sounds really interesting, but what exactly do you mean?

@@Kanzu999 it’s been a process for the past year or so. Just reading a lot trying figure out if I believe at all. Looking for evidence and reading the Bible through the eyes of a skeptic. Reading it this way really shows everything that is wrong with it, so I pretty much don’t believe now, but I still want to learn and be able to defend my reasons why I no longer believe. Especially to my family since I haven’t been able to come out to them.

@@aramdg Yeah I think I get that, even though I can't say that I've been in the same situation, as I was never raised to believe in any faith. I think it's such a shame that it's difficult to come out to your family, but it's also very understandable. I don't know your family, but my guess is that they are just convinced of different beliefs than you, but they still want the best for you, and so it makes sense that they would worry, especially if they think you're going to Hell for not believing. I honestly think it's so sick that stuff like that is put in people's heads and that it actually makes sense to them that the most perfect moral, good and benevolent being would make it so that you get eternal suffering just for not being convinced of the right belief. That's something I truly have a hard time understanding. In any case, it really makes sense that you want to learn more to be able to defend your position better. I don't know if this is helpful to you, but I've worked just a bit with some highlights of the Bible that I find relevant in the religion debate. I haven't really shared this with anyone before, but with this link you should (hopefully only) be able to view it lol. You might already be aware of all this, but if it helps, that would be pretty cool. docs.google.com/document/d/13rYAe_9E2N-8lSYtgtadElxKHNHdAA5UcDn2ljctgSY/edit?usp=sharing

@@aramdg It's a work in progress and very messy though.

A lot of that is caused by stupidity, possibly wilful, and laziness.

Animal suffering is an argument for reforming the industry, not an argument for veganism.

@@ytunnuyt Still better than nothing

I don’t see the word “vegan” in the OP. Nor is it referenced. Thus, I will say that animal suffering is an argument for reforming the industry, not an argument for home composting.

@@caseyjude5472 Drew did mention veganism in the video, or are you commenting in the wrong video by accident?

What about vegans mass murdering plants? They are alive. Some communicate. Being a vegan is just another lie, a justification to kill to live.

Hi Alma …What brings you to identify as Agnostic Theist? Having deconstructed from Christianity over many years, I admit I wish their were more Agnostic Christians. To me an Agnostic Christian is a person who esteems the Gospels and may practice some version of Christian community and ritual but just let’s God be God in the humble recognition that we don’t know and can’t reliably claim to know the supernatural and eternal dimensions which traditional Christianity has claimed to possess. But saying theist is more universalist so how does that work for you currently? Just curious, available if you’d like to chat. No hidden conversion agenda…😊 Cheers!

That's very intersting, I don't think I have met anybody who identified as an Agnpstic Theist. I would be very interested in knowing more about how you got to this perspective.

Cellular biologists and taxonomists.

first it was obvious, then we started to feel very special and sopped being animals, now we're realizing it again.

Morality comes from objectivity. Morals come from truth. Is it bad to be slow to anger, be patient, be kind, be peaceful, be righteous, be honest, be truthful, have self control, put the truth first, don't be arrogant, don't have pride, don't let money be your god, don't brag, don't say evil and mean things, don't lie, don't disobey your parents, don't be ungrateful, don't be unholy, love others, forgive people, don't gossip, don't be cruel, love what is good, love your friends, don't be reckless, don't be conceited, don't let pleasure and feeling good become your god. Is any of what I just listed considered bad?

Exactly. And one of if not the most detrimental animals in existence respective to the survival of all other earthly life. It is very easy to flip out perspective to see ourselves as a dangerous parasite.

*our perspective

So without a religion, you still found dogma to espouse and feel oppressed for? KEEN!

Popularity in many cases only means being good at aiming at the lowest common denominator. I doubt this can be of much consolation to your younger self, but there you go anyway

Good on ya 👍

@Yamnihc Ebmilaw 😂😂

@Yamnihc Ebmilaw yet u here...

@Yamnihc Ebmilaw nah, in america we atheists control Satan 😈

i advise u to follow subboor ahmad, mohammed hijab, The Muslim Skeptic channels, they have much better content for u as a muslim also here is a video of subboor ahmad refuting this idiot for his miserable attempt to project a bad image of Muslims kzfaq.info/get/bejne/q7GJm9GU3bvVhWQ.html

@@Taha-Aamamou went and had a look at your suggested video, I saw emotionally charged mockery based on racial differences. No proper rebuttal or response.

Got some atheist-watch-suggests?

@@slevinchannel7589 Veggietales XD

Well, it's understandable. Consciousness arrived very late for us in evolutionary terms, and reason still more recently. What's remarkable is not whether we can do these things well, it's that we can do them AT ALL. What we in fact do, for example in the case of abstract reasoning and its application, is consciously practice the operations until they become unconscious habits of thought. Then our conscious awareness of this ability more or less goes to sleep until some situation activates it, and this much is simply pattern recognition. We're then able to some extent to react logically, albeit unconsciously, until we hit something sufficiently complex that we have to begin putting it into narrative order. It's no wonder that it feels post hoc at this point. It's as if someone else has set up the problem and part of the solution and dumped it on us. But that "someone else" is just our unconscious mind working at reactive speed, not narrative speed. Given the limitations of our cognitive hardware, it's a pretty good trick, to train our minds in this way. It exploits pre-existing capabilities (such as conditioned response, introspection, possibly basic storytelling) to support something completely synthetic that we variously call consciousness or abstract reasoning or theory of mind. You're right that we rationalize after our minds are made up, and that we are bullshitters. This is absolutely to be expected. First of all, storytelling is in our nature, even before language, even in our dreams. Second, given our architecture, the rationalization phase has to come AFTER the pattern recognition phase in order for us to have any hope of validating our instant, necessarily unconscious and primitive, impression of a given situation. The two phases can't take place in parallel, because narration is an inherently serial rendering of the situation. So we're really doing quite well with what we've got. Finally, let's look at rationalization for a second. What's specifically the problem? It's that we're only superficially applying reason while serving our unconscious emotions and biases, all of which ends up not serving our rational, abstract, dispassionate goals. Why does this happen, when at some level we don't want it to? Our unconscious minds are active even while we're preoccupied with conscious activities such as narration, and this activity of course directs our attention to some degree. We often want it to, just not always. What's the solution? We already know the solution: practice consciously until the desired patterns of thinking become "second nature," unconscious habits of thought. Specifically, be strict about your reasoning whenever it's not emotionally expensive. Make it a constant practice, and please make a point of finding joy in it. Reason is beautiful, elegant, powerful, calming, confident... so it isn't intrinsically hard to associate it with joy. But it goes so much better when you intentionally do that it's worth calling out. Practice often with topics that are easy to be objective about, and try not to worry or loop over the ones that feel like they invoke rationalization. Just take a break from them whenever you can. It's also very helpful to work on mindfulness practice. This is so that you can observe phenomena, in particular your emotions, without getting caught up in them. You're present with your emotions, whatever comes up, just observing, not seizing onto them or pushing them away, not even narrating them to yourself. Just sitting quietly is a start. There's ample literature on the subject. The point is, through practice you become more conscious of your emotions, and then they won't UNCONSCIOUSLY have so much influence over your attentional process, the one that drives you toward certain biased lines of reasoning, unconscious defenses and other patterns. Meanwhile, your objective reasoning skills are being exercised and integrated so that if a truly bad rationalization breaks through, you'll be more apt to catch it as something not quite right, recognize the emotional field or belief that preceded it, and gently let it go. That too is practice. It's all practice, man. Then you die. But not today.

@@starfishsystems great comment. Been trying to automate as much logic as I can to be a subconscious framework, to relieve burden on conscious thought for new things, but it really takes a while, and is hard.

Just as common, if not more so is the tendency for humans to over-simplify things. The world is incredibly rich, complex, and nuanced, but humans have a baseline tendency to find the most cognitively simple explanation that fits their needs or worldview, which often leads to missing out on important considerations

Thank you for working towards veganism! You can do it!

When I went vegan several years ago i had no idea it would be so easy - i had no idea that there were tons of vegan options everywhere now :) if you live anywhere near a supermarket it should be a cinch ^_^

You need to focus on where you are going after you die. Enjoy the lake of fire Revelation 20:15 your suffering will be eternal. God wins.

@@MyNameIsChristBringsASword hell is made for Christians only, so enjoy.

@@MyNameIsChristBringsASword if winning means most of your creation ends up in an eternal lake of fire, why would God want to win?

@@MyNameIsChristBringsASword brainwashed much?

@@MyNameIsChristBringsASword 🤦

You're vegan now? (y)

Animals don’t have reasoning though. They make choices, yes, but those choices are primarily informed by survival or hormonal instincts, classical or operant conditioning, or a combination of instinct and conditioning. Human logic is a lot more nuanced. Sure, our motivations include instinct and conditioning as well, but also encapsulate deduction, induction, and a distinctly human perception of self-awareness that animals lack. I’m not addressing your other points, nothing more and nothing less than just saying that the point on animals having logic is a shaky one at best, and you’d need to have more of a robust definition of logic, if that makes sense.

Morality does not have an central objective basis. Plants are just as alive as animals, why draw an arbitrary line about what can be eaten?

@@matthewdancz9152 Hi! The ethical reasoning behind veganism is not necessarily just whether something is alive, but whether a being has a central nervous system and is able to experience pain/suffering/love/excitement etc... I do think it's good that you are considering plants though. Even when we look at it from that view, most of the plants that humans grow is to feed and raise several billion animals for years before they get slaughtered for meat. As counterintuitive as it may sound at first, eating fewer/no animal products uses much fewer plants, uses drastically less water, produces less waste, and reduces carbon footprint. In animal agriculture, the tradeoff is between cruel (factory farming, cruel but efficient and profitable) and completely unsustainable (grass-fed animals). Sry to go off on the tangent, but just considering ethics, it is about the sentience and ability to suffer and feel pain rather than simply responding to stimuli like plants.

Is that even the case in the bible? Literally on the first page Genesis 1:29 God gives humanity plants for food. Its only later after the flood that animals are even granted by God as okay for food. So the notion that animals were made for the purpose of being eaten doesn't even follow. And later in Isaiah's prophecy of the new earth all animals return to living off plants as in Eden. Wolves sleep alongside lambs, lions eat hay like the ox, and the knowledge of the holy mountain flows through all the waters of the earth blah blah blah.

Thought the same thing lol

So he went backwards then...

Mostlyharmless1985 - In what way is veganism “backwards” from humanism?

@@bariumselenided5152 It technically isn't backwards from humanism, but it certainly is backwards from human supremacy. I, for one, believe the latter. I shall be able to eat whatever I want unless it's a fellow human.

@@bariumselenided5152 so, if you follow the nonsense that follows your question, that’s why. Simply put, acknowledgment of a human as being an animal, acknowledging other animals as feeling beings, and failing to recognize humans as predators is a hat trick of stupid. No one gets angry at the lion for eating the gazelle, and humans are every bit as a lion. Sure you can live a half life without eating meat, but why should you deny your animal nature any more than any other creature? It’s a step away from Jainism, and every bit as ridiculous.

+1

A shame Sam Harris fell off the wagon, stupid pratt. I don't know what Dawkins is waiting for.

Thanks for making it sound like a cult. You’re helping me A LOT.

@@saganandroid4175 What do you mean by Harris and Dawkins in this context? Can you elaborate?

💪💚

@Joe dirty71 Nah, those that say others are dumb for arguing about Semantics are dumb. And childish.

@Joe dirty71 Imagine being such a little chil dyou come here and randomly insult-around.

@@loturzelrestaurant but you just said others are dumb

Biologically humans are animals. It's a weird christian mindset that seperates us

The fact that humans are animals is pretty straightforward, and I wonder what leads a person to believe otherwise. It's almost like saying we're not alive. Very unsettling.

Fetus's are in the human circle and anyone who says they aren't are guilty of the fallacy's he illustrated in this video

Even the human omnivore that I am can get behind that. 👍

Just out of curiosity: Are you vegan?

​@@fozzsr Do you mean carnist when you use the term omnivore? Omnivore is just a biological term. After all also vegans could consider themselves omnivores. ;-)

@@panulli4 i mean omnivore because I know what omnivore means: meat and plant. Carnist is not a thing as far as I know. Do you also believe that a humanist eats humans? 😄

@@fozzsr Thanks for the reply! haha Of course I wasn't too serious about my comment. But just to be clear: There actually is a resaonable distinction to be made between omnivores and carnists - just as between herbivores and vegans. One is the biological term and the other is a philosophical attitude.

Giving them moral consideration doesn't require them to be capable of considering morality for themselves. A lion does not have cognitive awareness of the status of what a child means to humans. I wouldn't judge a lion as evil for eating a baby antelope either. I wouldn't judge a human as evil for the same act if they were under severe chemical influence (either biologically produced or environmentally introduced) to the point where they could not be cognitively aware of the social impact of their actions either. We call evil that which causes some socially significant harm. But it has to be carried out by a mind capable of morality as we define it, otherwise hurricanes would be evil (those that believe in a god that controls the weather and has a moral mind might call it evil). A baby that hits its mother isn't evil though her partner would be for the same act. (Just as an aside, I generally don't believe an being can be categorically evil. In actuality it would be the actions themselves I might categorize. But humans are more than their worst actions)

@@loops8274 You clearly haven't encountered actual evil. I can tell by your definition of evil, as well as your naive idea that "humans are more than their worst actions"

@@loops8274 spot on. I do sometimes wonder why I am not doing the good work of saving the baby antelopes in Africa. Do you have anything to explain that.

@@loops8274 you put it quite well. For anyone wanting to read further on the subject you can look up things as 'moral agency and moral patienthood'.

Confirmation bias is the best!

@@person737 yes

Morality comes from objectivity. Morals come from truth. Is it bad to be slow to anger, be patient, be kind, be peaceful, be righteous, be honest, be truthful, have self control, put the truth first, don't be arrogant, don't have pride, don't let money be your god, don't brag, don't say evil and mean things, don't lie, don't disobey your parents, don't be ungrateful, don't be unholy, love others, forgive people, don't gossip, don't be cruel, love what is good, love your friends, don't be reckless, don't be conceited, don't let pleasure and feeling good become your god. Is any of what I just listed considered bad?

Nice to see I'm no longer the only sci-vegan. It's been lonely.

And imported fire ants. Never forget imported fire ants.

I don't give a fuck how capable of suffering rats are, when they stop eating my plumbing I'll consider stopping feeding them neurotoxins and using cats as weapons of mass destruction. the cats and neurotoxin are used separately.

Let's not forget bedbugs.

I mean i'm vegan but I still kill mosquitoes, don't wanna get zika or dengue (again)

Don't forget the wasps

If you feel like it, try challenge22.com They will give you practical advice and encouragement on how to take out animal based products out of your life. It feels much better when you know you aren't funding cruelty and environmental destruction every time you go to the store. The thing I hear most vegans say about their choice to go vegan is "damn, I wish I had done it sooner." Good luck 😀

Long overdue.

Just give it a dozen decades till we can cheaply synthetically produce meat. Once people don't have skin in the game of meat, they'll turn and accept that we shouldn't eat animals.

Fetus's are in the human circle and anyone who says they aren't are guilty of the fallacy's he illustrated in this video

ONE OF US ONE OF US WEEBLE WOBBLE

@@CaptainTae wtf

Dan you are vegan too?? Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Taylor Johns - Dan here said he was proud of someone challenging his own preconceptions and having the integrity to follow his reason in spite of his wants. You, in response and antagonism, said “weeble wobble” . Are you trying to look like a joke? Cuz ya look like a joke, my guy.

@@bariumselenided5152 Oh no!!! A cult member thinks I look like a joke! He’s showing me how toxic he isn’t! It’s SO DIFFERENT WHEN HE DOES IT! Lmao.

As a lifelong Texan and vegetarian for half a century, I deeply understand the similarities and differences between religious and dietary disagreements. While I have been threatened and had a manager try to fire me for religious differences, I have been publicly and loudly verbally attacked (and had my food taken and dumped) for my quiet failure to order a meat entree (or light up a cigarette back when that was the custom). Strange how so many people see any difference in choices as a vile assault on their choices and character.

@@kathryngeeslin9509 Hi, Kathryn. In my experience, which admittedly, is limited by a mere 74 years of living among people on this one particular planet, it would appear that smokers and meat eaters, and countless others, know they are making bad decisions when they light up or chow down, but if you do it with them then they have your approval and agreement, and in their own minds it diminishes or eliminates the harm. If you don't do those things, then you haven't given them your approval, and consequently they lash out at you for being the villain of the piece in order to minimize their own cognitive dissonance, which they are consciously and unconsciously creating a lot of for themselves. I say this as an armchair philosopher/psychologist, and this mythological armchair is located in a cave deep underground where the entrance is blocked by rubble and where no light nor fresh air can enter. Please keep that in mind if and when you are evaluating the dubious worth of my comment.

I think that he is a vegetarian who still wants to get rid of dairy and eggs but I don't know for sure you can watch the video of him with vegan gains and cosmicskeptic

" will have joined my club." Which club is that? Can anyone join?

As a Christian pacifist and vegetarian, i agree with you completely and share almost the same perspective! it was very refreshing to see someone have almost the identical thought process as me (:

Andrew, Excellent and considerate comment; I agree with most of it. However, your argument that our ethics should only concern fellow humans seems to be flawed. By this logic, are you against laws that protect our dogs and cats? Laws that ban whaling off the U.S. coast? Laws that protect our endangered species? Laws protecting dogs from being trapped in hot cars? Laws that ban importation of elephant trophies? If you support any of those laws, as nearly all people do, then you admit that our ethics must not only pertain to ourselves, but to other sentient beings as well. And as you mentioned, veganism may be needed to save the planet. Increasingly, this is the conclusion drawn by many think tanks and environmental organizations. What isn't as well-known is that eating animals is antithetical to caring for our "fellow group members." Because of all the food needed to fatten livestock, the vast majority of the worlds agricultural land is used for growing this feed. This land could instead be used to grow food for our fellow starving humans. I believe the statistic is that enough grain is grown every day for each person on earth 8 loaves of bread. Yet we grow this food to feed livestock so that rich westerners can eat steak. It's a crime.

​@@eklein89 No I'm not against those laws. As I already said, there is a logic to the ethical treatment of animals. And even without logic, I'm instinctively against sport hunting, doing harm to our environment and being cruel but that does not mean I think of non-human animals as our equivalent. Many of the examples you make are quite easy to come down on, but I can give some where 'nearly all people' will not be able to make a decision. For instance, if you have a pest problem in your house, most people will say you are entitled to kill the animals but more people will object to killing mice than cockroaches. I don't believe that you can draw a line ethically based on animals cuteness, intelligence or relation to us. Why should an intelligent species be entitled to more rights than a species that has been around for millennia. I'm not by the way accusing you of this hypocrisy. But I make the point because I believe all humans and only humans should have human rights. All animals should be protected from unnecessary cruelty but not at the cost of human suffering. So I justify medical testing on animals. Regarding the livestock situation. I really can't argue with you. I eat animals but I should eat less. I can't justify the meat industry, which is held up purely for economic reasons and needs to change.

@@eklein89 I think your last paragraph sums up perfectly how an ethical perspective centered around humans could still end up making a case for protecting other animals, so I guess that's enough of a counter argument to your own objection, if not a completely invalidating one I admit. I think your case about, let's call it "pet exceptionalism" does merit some serious consideration though. After all, Andrew's thesis hinges on a vision for our ethics as merely an extension and elaboration of our own instincts, rather than a reasoned (and reason-able) set of guidelines, which circles back to the whole "elephant and rider" dilemma... However, since I suspect "reason" suffers from a fatal incompleteness that makes it imperfect even in a theoretical best case, I'm not all that conflicted about the potential contradictions.

​@@andyTONYpandy We do not need to think of non-human animals as our equivalent. By using that phrasing, a false dichotomy is created. It goes..... "Are animals our moral equivalent? No. So that means I can do to them whatever I please." We can believe that animals are somehow "less" than us without enslaving and torturing them. We can let them be. For animals that are negatively impacting one's quality of life, an argument can be made for taking their life. Even so, this should be done with care. There are humane catch- and release mouse traps. Or, bugs can be squashed completely instead of being left to suffer for days in a glue trap. This all falls under the domain of not inflicting cruelty unnecessarily. "Human rights" is a made-up concept, of course, but I support the efforts to implement and safeguard them. Animal rights activists are not trying to extend these rights to animals. No one expects an animal to hold religious beliefs, join unions, or vote. However, animals should be afforded one right: the right to not be treated as property. Kudos for re-evaluating the way you eat. As hundreds of millions of people around the world can attest, we can easily survive and thrive on a vegan diet. In fact, nutrition research is increasingly coming to that conclusion. My issues with medical testing are both logistical and philosophical. For the sake of time I'll just write my thoughts on the philosophical objections: "Why do we test on animals?" "Because they are so much like us. Their bodies and reactions can teach us so much about ourselves." "Well, if they are so similar to us, then isn't what we do tremendously cruel? Burning, crushing, bruising, drowning, severing spinal cords, paralyzing, injecting viruses, causing cancers, separating babies from mothers, keeping social animals in isolation, providing nothing but a steel cage scarcely larger than the animal?" "Oh that isn't cruel, animals are nothing like us" As we know from study of philosophy, something cannot simultaneously BE and NOT BE. Animals are either similar to us in the ability to feel psychological and physical pain, and what we do is tremendously cruel. OR they are so dissimilar to us, and such research is an utter waste of time. It isn't both. Thanks for the respectful conversation, btw :)

We look out for our families and that is a moral thing to do.

@@avivastudios2311 yeah basically

I get those in athiest and pagan vids I watch it's really funny like bro your not converting me

Same. I am like YES get that Christian AdSense.

I've stopped counting the times one of these videos started off with "shalom, friend". if they knew anything about anything they'd realise we are as far from their target audience as can be.

@i o You can be pagan and also an atheist. All atheism is, is a rejection of the idea that a God or gods created the universe. Many pagan religions or ideologies don't have a creator deity.

or one can also just WATCH pagan (or even christian) videos without being convinced that they're true in any meaningful way. :-)

Yeah I don't know why I was so resistant to the idea when I was 14. Resisting the compassionate instinct for 6 years was the worst decision I ever made, finally going vegan was the best.

I don’t understand this thought process if we are just animals. Don’t animals or predators exploit other animals for food and show no compassion or consideration. Have you seen what happens when a weasel gets into a chicken coop. If animals have no consideration why should we if it helps us survive ( not talking about abusing resources.)

@@bjwwag abusing resources and causing mass destruction is what humanity currently does to get animal products. If we have special abilities above other animals we should show it by developing our compassion. If we are more intelligent then we can make a better system

I guess the video to me and your point seems contradictory to itself. He admits we are not special and are just animals but then goes on to try and show compassion to animals when animals themselves do not show compassion, but then says because we are smarter we should show compassion. The fact that you are even conflicted with this instead of just running on instinct and survival shows that you are special. By the way there is a way to sustainably eat animals but I don’t think a lot of people are aware of it. Also even if the only way to eat animals was to raise and process them in a way you would consider unethical but sustainable to the environment, which is very possible if you do a little research, why should that matter when animals themselves do not express this same concern. Trying to be logically consistent here, obviously abusing resources until they no longer exist is not helping us survive but to bring in compassion into the equation does not seem logical. I guess I separate compassion vs smarts. You can argue that compassion makes us smarter or vice versa but eventually compassion will lead to a decision that will not help you strictly survive. Sorry I may have stated the same point in 2 different ways my bad :).

@@bjwwagyou talk about surviving and its probably what seperate us from animal. We have have past the point of surviving, we have time to develope science, art and dream of traveling the univers. So now we can expand on what we want to be as a speacie, compasion might be a part of it.

but bro my chick-fil-a spicy chicken sandwich

plants have feelings too

Yes that's very true and all but what seems to be going on is that this guy is now a 'posthumanist', so therefore he must have been a 'humanist'. Which is of course confusing, but what can you expect from yet another postmodernist concept? Many of the postmodernisms do this, they have to assume a dumb, naïve form of modernism and then follow it up with "but here is the enlightened post-modernist perspective". This guy basically declared himself postmodernist and wasted a bunch of words misexplaining it hahaha.

If the goal is to stop animal suffering...wouldn't the best course of action be the extermination of as many animals as the ecology can sustain? Animals who live in the wild all die horrible deaths, whether by starvation as they grow old, or by predators. As long as animals keep reproducing, there will be a never ending stream of suffering inflicted by nature.

@@epluribus591 maybe first stop animal agriculture before even contemplating to relief wild animal suffering?

@@user-yn5sk5ru5g I just find it interesting the outlandish conclusions one arrives at when one assumes animals experience conscious suffering. I think only animals with advanced brain structures experience conscious experiences of any sort, animals like great apes, corvids, parrots, cetaceans, elephants. We know by observing humans that basic cognitive functions do not by themselves elicit conscious awareness. Humans can walk without paying attention to the road, we can do simple routine chores without paying attention to what we're doing. To use a more powerful example, patients with a condition known as blindsight have fully-functional eyes, but their brain cannot consciously see. Those patients can however, catch a ball thrown at them, navigate a curved path, while the patients themselves believe they are walking in a straight line.

@@epluribus591 Hmm interesting . So which or what specific " Advanced brain structures" would in your opinion, " elicit conscious experieces"?