As a huge fan of this show, I just want to share a complimentary perspective as an animal rights person. In our community, we do very much care about the tuna and think that it's just as wrong to take their life as it is to take the life of a dolphin. But unlike how Neil says that he respects life because it's alive, our position is that we should respect animals not because they are "alive", but because they are sentient and suffer. No evidence suggests trees experience life subjectively and suffer, while there is a mountain of evidence that suggests that animals do. We care about the tuna not because we value the tuna's life but because the tuna values their own life and doesn't wish to suffer or have their lives taken from them. Cows, pigs, dogs, fish, and humans are all different but when we suffer, we suffer as equals and that's why we think that in all cases where we can avoid causing suffering or taking the lives of animals, we should. Thanks for this episode, and keep up the awesome work!
Well, you were more polite than I was. I'm angered by the ignorance of most people on here on this topic. It's quite annoying to read all the silly arguments spat out in an attempt to "defend" animal cruelty (and I'm not even vegan...)
@@Melomathics If you are truly angered by ignorance, then the solution is simple, if not easy (yes the two words do mean different things). You need to become and educator and present the information in a polite and appealing manner. You are of course welcome to use a blunt and uninspired approach if you wish, but over 4 thousand years of recorded human history gives you less than a 0.000001% chance of success. Being appealing means others was to hear you speak, and being polite means they will listen to the end and give your opinions their due weight base upon the soundness of your arguments and the validity of your evidence supporting your arguments.
@@5tyyu Please explain what Neil got wrong, and how it was incorrect. Please be specific enough that I and others may review your answer to better appreciate it and understand your perspective.
@@vincentxu8217 Sorry to be so offensive, but the difference with your analogy is that humans don't love roses in the same way they love dogs. Your equivocation there is extremely sneaky and pernicious. You've sneakily substituted in a rose for an object that humans love, but it's not the same type of love, not even close. It's a completely different kind of love. You can't substitute one for the other. But my objection won't matter because the damage is already done -- idiots like Shannon Lynn will take a gander and buy what you're selling because it sounds clever on first impression. I don't know if that was your intention or not. Maybe you knew it was a flawed idea but put it out there anyway because it sounds clever. I'm sure you despise vegans like me, but I don't care, you're not my responsibility. I only type this for my own satisfaction.
Pretty standard response: I'm ok with killing living things to survive as long as those things don't have the capacity to experience suffering. I'm biased against the experience of suffering.
@@michaelwatts5481 I agree whole heartedly. NDT seems to lack the consideration of the capacity to suffer (i.e. sentience) in his apparent attempt at insight here.
@@Looonymoony must be islam w their halal slaughter... pls, if you care abt animals you just don't support their exploitation, simple as that! Can't stand this "being thankful" for your flesh sentiment... or "compassionate killing", what an oxymoron... Stop imposing this on animals, they don't care... At the end of the day, it only makes HUMANS feel better, NOT the animals, they're dead!
@@blackzzzaddy yeah not really. We breed animals purposely to eat them we grow the crops they eat and if we wouldnt breed and feed them there wouldnt be that much cattles, pigs ect.
Funny they are concerned that the dolphins are drowning because they can't breathe, but, their perfectly fine with deliberately pulling the tuna out & letting them suffocate out of the water...
A cow will eat 32 pounds of plants daily, thats 46,080 pounds in the 4 years it take to be raised for your consumption, thats allot more plants then the ones in the veggie burger that substitutes that dish.. What a ridiculous and limited point of view
Yep, we all do. Over the years I've noticed sometimes Neil rides on shock value points when it's a subject matter not of his expertise, then makes a compelling video out of it. He was really reaching with some of the more emphasized arguments made in this video, and at the end I felt like it was inconsistent. This video could have really used an ecologist, naturalist, biologist, some earthy sciences expert as guest. He's obviously a deep thinker. I appreciate that and it's why I always listen when he speaks. Neil always presents ideas that I hadn't thought about, which helps to shape my own.
Lol, remember that one time he referred to cows as biological machines? Technically not wrong of course, but there's an implied value there isn't there...
@@reedclippings8991 I agree with you. Machines, only in that we are all biological machines. But I wonder how new would feel about an argument that says that slaves were just biological machines to pick cotton. The problem in both cases is that it ignores a living animal's self-interest, and thus places all the emphasis on the priorities and interests of the exploiter/oppressor.
Neil, I respect you very much. I always enjoy seeing your interventions. "StarTalk" is one of my favourite podcasts, "Cosmos" is one of my favourite science shows and I hold you in great esteem. Nevertheless, in this video, you are wrong about a couple of important things. First and foremost, the "species bias" that you talk about are called speciesm and carnism. Speciesm is like sexism and racism, it holds that some group is superior to another (or other) group(s). I agree with you that we should respect both the tuna and the dolphins and the best way to show this respect is not to consume them. Animals are sentient beings, beings that can feel pain, whereas plants are not sentient. You don't have to hate plants but you have to agree that, according to the body of evidence that we have, killing animals causes pain and suffering. This is why we should not eat them. You are also wrong when you say that we have to eat animals (whether tuna or pigs). In fact, we are omnivorous animals and, while having the ability to consume animals, we don't have to. Actually, we are much healthier if we stick to plants and fungi. Moreover, if you really care about all life, you should try to minimize your impact on living beings. If you choose to eat an animal, like a pig or a cow, you are eating 3 to 10 times the plants you would have eaten if you had eaten a plant-based diet. Next we have climate change and the havoc that animal agriculture wreaks on our planet. As a matter of fact, eating animals is very polluting, it is a driver of climate change, it is one of the main causes of dead-zones and species extinction. I really do think that you expressed some personal beliefs in an awkward (and, no offence, surprisingly uninformed) way and your message got lost somewhere along the way. However, keep in mind these points: Eating animals causes them unnecessary pain and suffering; eating animals is very polluting and wasteful; eating animals is very unhealthy; eating animals is totally unnecessary; and eating animals is destroying our planet. Should you need any more information, feel free to contact me.
> Actually, we are much healthier if we stick to plants and fungi. > eating animals is very unhealthy Debatable. You definitely CAN have a very healthy vegetarian / vegan diet, and cutting things out of your diet (such as meat or carbs) is actually a pretty good way to start paying close attention to what you eat. To the average person not thinking too hard about their diet however, veganism is a great way to end up with deficiencies such as in vitamin B. Furthermore, some people with rare autoimmune disorders seem to do much better on a plantless diet.
What you are missing here is that agriculture in it's current form is the ruining the soil , many of the fields around the world are already becoming essentially useless for farming therefore people starting to destroy natural habitats to create more farms and literally killing many animals who where living there this is already happening for hundreds of years and the damage which agriculture done to the natural wild life and plant life of out planet is many times higher than any other thing that you can imagine.
Right! The largest organization of nutrition professionals said so clearly. "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases."
Most humans are so cut off from the sources of their food supply, they have never contemplated the tree ot life. They will play with a lamb in the afternoon, then eat its leg for dinner. Thanks for this provocative episode.
Very few things bring perspective to a person's life like killing and eating their own food. Or even farming something themselves. The work that goes behind it and the respect you feel towards your meal is an experience everyone should have at least once.
What about degree of suffering? Do you truly find this irrelevant? Do you think picking a flower or beheading a dog are the same morally? Seems like a scary mindset to have.
@@GS-lq2is Yeah Neils argument is a clear dig at vegetarians/vegans, but as you rightly point out - eating a carrot and slitting an animals throat are obviously completely different things. I'm sure he'd be happy taking his kid out picking strawberries, but wouldnt even consider a day out at the slaughterhouse. Cognitive dissonance exists in everyone, even smart space-thinky people.
suffering wasn't his point.. its all about bias.. thats why his first example was about the dolphin and tuna. it has nothing to do with vegetarians dont even know why you are triggered
@@hansrama3485 the first comparison makes sense, I point out the flaws in the comparisons between sentient beings and non-sentient things/plants/objects. That can hardly be defined as being “triggered”
Reminder that "respecting" a sentient being before you eat it doesn't change the fact that it didn't want to die to be eaten by you. Sentient animals want to stay alive just as we do.
So, according to your Logic, plants don't want to stay alive too? Plants fight to stay alive like every life form. That is what irritability, photo tropism, geo tropism and other forms of tropism indicate.
If we justify not giving animals rights because they are of lower intelligence, does this not also justify removing rights from lower-intelligence humans?
Speaking of cherry picking, you can pick cherries off of a tree, and not harm the tree. Couldn't an animal exist that only eats fruits and vegetables that keep the source plant life intact?
@@carultch Back in the days, I heard of a tribe of buddhist monks that only ate fruit that had fallen naturally, and after the meal they then planted the seeds.
Two big problems here Every pound is not an individual plant! And that meat contains more calories and/or nutrients what you could not consume (ie grass,peel leafs) This argument doesn't look as solid now, does it?
@@sandraeastwick2517 Yes, every pound of plants is not an individual plant, well done 😂👏 It is many plants and many lives (if you believe plants have feelings too and are equal to animal lives). All nutrients we need are originally found in plants 😂. The most comprehensive study on farming to be done (an Oxford study published in Science -‘Reducing Food’s Environmental Impacts Through Producers and Consumers), which looked at over 40,000 farms in 119 countries, showed that … WHILST 83% OF ALL GLOBAL AGRICULTURAL LAND IS USED FOR ANIMAL FARMING, IT ONLY DELIVERS 18% OF THE WORLD’S CALORIES. Processed meat is also listed as a class 1 carcinogen by the WHO. I’ll say it again since maybe you didn’t get it the first time. Plant(s)--->Animal --->Human Plant(s)------------>Human If you think plant and animal life is equal, eating animals still takes more life. That’s just a fact. 🤷♀️
What you're doing by trying to preserve ALL life is literally going directly against nature. Are you gonna try and say that a lion killing an antelope in order to feed itself, is being cruel? Absolutely not, obviously. Grow up. Humans have just as much right to consume other living things as other animals do. It's the circle of life. Even plants cannot survive without feeding off of other living things. Pitcher plants and Venus fly traps hunt insects. Even fully photosynthesis based plants still need nutrients from the soil, and where do you think those nutrients come from? The dead and decaying matter of other living things that have died. It's literally built into the system that one creature has to die in order to sustain another. That's why I don't understand all you crazies trying to preserve every single life ever. It's completely irrational and an impossible fight. We are OMNIVORES. Not herbivores. You're the type who would try to feed a cat a vegetarian diet and consequently end up killing it because it's supposed to eat MEAT and cannot physically process and digest plant matter. You need to educate yourself and think hard about your path in life if you want it to actually mean anything.
So happy to see so many fellow vegans trying to educate others on the errors of this video. Mic the Vegan, Hench Herbivore and Lifting Vegan Logic all did rebuttal videos to this video. Go check them out. 👍🏻
Leave it to vegans to turn an impartial video into propaganda for veganism because they are triggered over the notion that they biased toward animals over plants, which happens to be true.
@@Ascend777 Isn't all morality biased though? What does simplifying the reasoning by labeling it have to do with the validity of the argument? I mean, why not escalate and bring up eating human meat then? Also, it's besides the point. Even if "species bias" was enough to shut the argument down, what about the fact that by consuming primary consumers (pigs cows, chickens) you're also consuming the plants they ate? Wouldn't consuming the lowest trophic level innately cause the least amount of deaths? Also, what about plants that don't die when you consume their fruits? Is it bias to eat something that actually produces food on purpose so that it can spread its seeds?
Can we have a discussion on logical fallacies and cognitive dissosance? While I can understand the interviewer adopting their role as 'representative of the ignorant masses', but I'm surprised at Neil for using strawman arguments and allowing cognitive dissosance to prevent him from realising it.
I was gonna say the same thing. I don't think I will eat a cat or a dog unless my life depended on it, but I'm fully aware that I'm being biased by eating cows and chickens and plants. I guess it's wired deeply in out brains
@@Xaders1 If we should care about plant deaths then we need to be vegan. Eating farmed animals who themselves had to eat loads of plants results in FAR more plant deaths than being vegan does.
I love the thought experiment of it, but the truth remains that there is no life without death. Those plants taking in the sun are also soaking up nutrients from formerly living things in the ground. It is the beautiful circle of life. But, we are all in this together so be kind!
Two criticisms, Neil: (1) If you ate more plants and less animals, there would be both less animal deaths overall and less plant deaths overall (animal feed). This is unambiguously supported by research. So if you see life as sacred and value it all, then just eat plants. (2) Even if the above wasn't true, there is a pretty clear-cut way to derive negative ethical consequences of what you consume: does it have a central nervous system (i.e. can it experience pain)? Plants do not have a central nervous system, while animals do. If I can choose between killing and consuming in a way that produces pain versus a way that does not produce pain, I would choose the latter.
According to Neil’s logic, he doesn’t distinguish between killing dogs, cows, pigs, and killing lettuce and tomatoes. Going by that, he shouldn’t have a problem with cannibalism then since humans are animals and are on the tree of life and he does not morally distinguish between plants and animals.
@@thomaschoate976 I'm sure he would have something witty to say, such as drawing an arbitrary line that excludes humans from the menu, while rejecting the arbitrary line that cuts out animals (;
What you're doing by trying to preserve ALL life is literally going directly against nature. Are you gonna try and say that a lion killing an antelope in order to feed itself, is being cruel? Absolutely not, obviously. Grow up. Humans have just as much right to consume other living things as other animals do. It's the circle of life. Even plants cannot survive without feeding off of other living things. Pitcher plants and Venus fly traps hunt insects. Even fully photosynthesis based plants still need nutrients from the soil, and where do you think those nutrients come from? The dead and decaying matter of other living things that have died. It's literally built into the system that one creature has to die in order to sustain another. That's why I don't understand all you crazies trying to preserve every single life ever. It's completely irrational and an impossible fight. We are OMNIVORES. Not herbivores. You're the type who would try to feed a cat a vegetarian diet and consequently end up killing it because it's supposed to eat MEAT and cannot physically process and digest plant matter. You need to educate yourself and think hard about your path in life if you want it to actually mean anything.
@@jigartalaviya2340 By Neil’s logic consuming any life form on earth is acceptable as long as you tell yourself you have “respect” for it. Cringe barely describes how lazy and thoughtless of an argument that was.
@@hi-rez3552What you're doing by trying to preserve ALL life is literally going directly against nature. Are you gonna try and say that a lion killing an antelope in order to feed itself, is being cruel? Absolutely not, obviously. Grow up. Humans have just as much right to consume other living things as other animals do. It's the circle of life. Even plants cannot survive without feeding off of other living things. Pitcher plants and Venus fly traps hunt insects. Even fully photosynthesis based plants still need nutrients from the soil, and where do you think those nutrients come from? The dead and decaying matter of other living things that have died. It's literally built into the system that one creature has to die in order to sustain another. That's why I don't understand all you crazies trying to preserve every single life ever. It's completely irrational and an impossible fight. We are OMNIVORES. Not herbivores. You're the type who would try to feed a cat a vegetarian diet and consequently end up killing it because it's supposed to eat MEAT and cannot physically process and digest plant matter. You need to educate yourself and think hard about your path in life if you want it to actually mean anything.
@@scottgrohs5940 it’s not about the killing. It’s about suffering. Going to an orchard to pick an apple isn’t the same as going to a slaughterhouse and cutting and animal’s throat open.
Boy are you wrong. A plant knows it's being eaten as it's being eaten. Animals don't suffer when they're killed. Look up the Glass House Project. Y'all vegans are so damn weird.
In fact, plants suffer longer than animals. Imagine sitting on a shelf rotting away or waiting to be devoured just to finally die. Knowing you aren't going to drop your seeds, the whole reason you exist anyways. Maybe you're lucky enough to be a strawberry and get your seeds pooped out by a raccoon or something.
Yet this should not be the reason to exploit them I personally value more a Tree than a bunch of grey flies. Regardless of Self awareness Every life form has a role to fulfill and making arbitrary distinction based on sentience is just as much mental gimnastic as "omnivores r accused with.
@@sandraeastwick2517 Understanding that a tree can be morally important though is in reference to its effect of the planet and animal life, not it's direct moral worth. Question, run over a dog, or swerve to avoid the dog and hit and destroy a bed of roses?
@@Yourhighnessnona chemical defence is the plant’s response to threat. Just because you can’t relate to it doesn’t make it not real that they are making an effort to avoid injury and death.
I love Neil deGrasse Tyson but I can think of so many things wrong with this argument: 1) I am going to assume NdGT doesn't have a freezer full of human body parts for his meals so he still has species bias and won't eat humans 2) Most food grown in America is grown to feed animals. When you eat meat, you also caused massive amounts of plants to be killed to feed the animal you are consuming which leads to 3) Large amounts of environmental destruction caused by humans is due to raising animals for food. For example, between 7-18% of the methane emissions from mankind is from ruminant livestock and very large (5,800 sq km per year) amounts of Amazon rainforest, which is some of the most densely populated terrain for all kinds of life on the planet, is being destroyed every year to expand livestock production and finally 4) as NdGT points out we can't just lay in the sun and get our nutrition that way. You don't have to eat meat but you have to eat some kind of plant life. So you can't point your fingers at vegans and accuse them of killing plants - they have to eat SOMETHING.
I'd rather not listen to him at all, he's always been so brash. There are many people just as smart (or smarter) as him who can talk on those subjects.
It's not about the species, it's about whether or not the organism can suffer (i.e. feel pain) from you killing them. If we lived in some utopia world where animals could be killed for consumption without them suffering, then sure, but we don't (and we probably never will). Right now, with what's going on in factory farming, it's LITERALLY the opposite of preventing the suffering of these animals. This is the main factor for why many people decide to go veggie. Because (based on science) plants can't suffer, and since we ought to eat something to survive, then better go with those plants instead of causing unnecessary suffering just for the sake of taste. PS: With that said, my own reason for only eating plant based food is actually somewhat different from the above, since it's mostly for the health benefits.
Then another question raises: what it is to suffer? How can we be sure plants don’t suffer in an indescribable for us way? Yeah, they don’t have neurons, but they react to different stimuli. And what is pain of other for us except the reaction we got from it? We cannot put our mind directly into the “body” of that other species.
I think you guys should do more videos like these. Where there is no question or answer. But just a deep set of thoughts that leaves the mind to explore different topics that it never thought of.
@@GregVidua And a horse has no udders and a cow can not whinney. Any more cryptic gibberish or would you like to make a full, reasoned point to help us out?
@@SylvanApe it is a full, reasoned out point. A tree would have no value, despite being alive, if there were no birds to hide in its branches, no deer to rub on its bark, no human to breathe the oxygen it makes. What unifies all of those? Sentience. That's the common denominator. Once you remove sentience, there is no one to experience that tree, the value is gone despite life still being there.
Trees are not sentient. They don't feel, don't think, don't feel hope or fear. It makes absolutely no reason for evolution to favor plants feeling pain, since pain exists so animals have an incentive to avoid danger. Plants are ROOTED. And cannot escape. Neil just abandoned all rationality on this one.
It should more so reveal your own morals which have been blinded your whole life by the conditioning of society. Speciesism is very real and is the foundation of all discrimination. Racism and sexism for example will never end until we see our own speciesism. You can’t love other species and still eat them. We were all born to love animals not to cause violence and suffering upon them. We were all born vegan until we were programmed to be cruel to innocent beings. It’s unnecessary to eat animals and their secretions. If you aren’t vegan yet please think about what the animal went through to get to your plate. He or she didn’t want to die. Now it’s time to awaken and align your actions with your morals. There is no justification for what we do to non human animals. I hope your new perspective is even newer now. ;) Don’t be a hypocrite, go vegan. Problem solved. You’re welcome.
What you're doing by trying to preserve ALL life is literally going directly against nature. Are you gonna try and say that a lion killing an antelope in order to feed itself, is being cruel? Absolutely not, obviously. Grow up. Humans have just as much right to consume other living things as other animals do. It's the circle of life. Even plants cannot survive without feeding off of other living things. Pitcher plants and Venus fly traps hunt insects. Even fully photosynthesis based plants still need nutrients from the soil, and where do you think those nutrients come from? The dead and decaying matter of other living things that have died. It's literally built into the system that one creature has to die in order to sustain another. That's why I don't understand all you crazies trying to preserve every single life ever. It's completely irrational and an impossible fight. We are OMNIVORES. Not herbivores. You're the type who would try to feed a cat a vegetarian diet and consequently end up killing it because it's supposed to eat MEAT and cannot physically process and digest plant matter. You need to educate yourself and think hard about your path in life if you want it to actually mean anything.
Neil: respect all life by living and eating in a way that kills as few other life forms as possible. That way is to be a vegan. Eating meat effectively also kills all the plants that that animal ate to live. Eliminate the middle man and just eat the plants! You're smart, you can see this if you think some more about it.
No this way 3 separate lifeforms experienced existence. In your model just two Vegan usually favor maximum number of "x" SO here you go Chance for happiness and existence 3>2 (I bet you didn't hear this one :p)
@@oneiroagent how do you know plants dont? They can't communicate and they can't show expressions so there's no way to know if they can or cannot feel pain
@@jordanfitzgerald8645 No you are wrong trees breathe oxygen that's different story because it is respiration but it happens in smaller scale which is insignificant. Trees use CO2 for photosynthesis meaning preparation of food. This is major event where CO2 is consumed and O2 is released.
@@sosheeanand3537 bro. Trees absorb the Co2 and release O. If you know chemistry, that means trees breathe carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. You have your comment exactly backwards.
Trees are not sentient. They don't feel, don't think, don't feel hope or fear. It makes absolutely no reason for evolution to favor plants feeling pain, since pain exists so animals have an incentive to avoid danger. Plants are ROOTED. And cannot escape. Neil just abandoned all rationality on this one.
Thanks for bringing up the subject, Neil! But looking at only one perspective of what you said, if you value all life the same, you can't choose to eat animals, because you know the amount of destruction, resources and suffering it requires. That's way more lives (if you consider that the animals have to be fed with plants and sometimes even other animals to grow), water, energy, land, etc, than eating plants directly.
You were going places at first but Neil you ended up Literally putting plants at the same moral value of an animal meaning a tree has the same moral value than a human I honestly don't know how you can't see through that logic.
@@nielsherzberg2413 not really. As George Carlin put it, either no life is sacred or ALL life is sacred. You cannot arbitrarily decide "plants have less value because I THINK they do not suffer so I can eat them with no guilt" just to justify a choice. Especially when you want to force others to abide by your choice, without presenting the evidence that lead your there (namely, the evidence that plants do not suffer so it is ok to eat them - who's gonna produce your oxygen then? The cows and pigs you "saved" from the evil meat eaters? To name one value point for plants nobody seems to remember on lunch time)
It is well researched that plants dont have the same capacity to suffer and express emotions like animals. In my opinion all life is sacred but i have to eat some form of organic matter to survive. So i choose to eat plants because it has the least enviromental impact. A vegan diet kills less plants than a carnivore diet or omnivore diet because you have to feed a cow up to 10kg of grains to produce 1 kg of meat. The space needed to grow that feed and raise the cows destroys natural habitat resulting in more animal and plant deaths. In Conclusion: All life is sacred but with a plant based diet you reduce the amount of harm and death that your diet brings to the environment and fellow living things.
@@nielsherzberg2413 can I please also choose the form of organic matter I consume to not die or I must ask permission (from who actually?)? Also, if a vegan diet is so beneficial, are you ready to choose it for your offspring too? From day 1 of their lives? And for the rest of their lives? And for their offspring as well? And so on and so forth?
1. We value animals more than plants because animals are sentient, while plants are not. 2. Even if you value plants the same as animals, eating animals is still killing much more plants than eating plants directly. 3. It sounds like you're trying to justify your act of eating animals by concluding that "all lives matter the same," but do you really think that way? The same reason can be used to justify cannibalism, right?
3.Something might be justifiable yet inmoral and not pragmatic. SO don't make false analogy please Beacouse if you value them equally you will use other value system to decide witch to consume. And if you got half a brain cannibalism is not quite healthy both physically and mentally (among social species) Human flesh tastes awful imho And choosing so causes lot of logistic problems. Now here you got pragmatic and reasons. Also valuing every life includes yourself, your desires, and realisation everything needs a sacrifice. What you take you'll give back (one way or another) Peace.
1. How do you know this? If plants do not suffer why do many of them change the chemical composition of their leaves when said leaves are eaten, to make them taste worst and be less digestible? 2. Again, how? Give an example, if there is one available. Keep in mind that many meat eaters like to consume veggies along with their meat while others do not. 3. Why does it ALWAYS have to be either one extreme or the other? Is there no place "in between" for you people? Is your world so black and white you cannot see all the colors around anymore? How would you react if I insisted that YOU remain a vegan, at ALL costs, for as long (and I truly hope it is very long) as you shall live? And teach your offspring to go vegan as well? Would I be offering you a service or would I be facing criminal charges?? Remember, true vegans do NOT consume milk, among other things...
@@someguy2135 George said that in the context of "either no life is sacred or ALL life is sacred", including life that, according to you, is not sentient or cannot "suffer" (how do you know what life forms are sentient and/or can suffer? Any evidence you can share with the rest of us on that?).
@@MaegnasMw If all life were sacred, we would be left with eating nothing but fruit. I am not one of those deluded fruitarians. I draw the line at sentience.
Plants don't have a brain or a nervous system and can't feel pain, fear or suffering. That's the difference. Cutting a carrot is not the same as stabbing a cow. We don't have to eat meat so why cause suffering to those that don't want it when we don't need to do it? Watch the response on this video on Unnatural vegan channel.
Even if it was morally wrong to eat plants it would be less morally wrong than eating animals. Animals eat plants anyways so there is just as much (more actually) plant death by eating animals.
What you're doing by trying to preserve ALL life is literally going directly against nature. Are you gonna try and say that a lion killing an antelope in order to feed itself, is being cruel? Absolutely not, obviously. Grow up. Humans have just as much right to consume other living things as other animals do. It's the circle of life. Even plants cannot survive without feeding off of other living things. Pitcher plants and Venus fly traps hunt insects. Even fully photosynthesis based plants still need nutrients from the soil, and where do you think those nutrients come from? The dead and decaying matter of other living things that have died. It's literally built into the system that one creature has to die in order to sustain another. That's why I don't understand all you crazies trying to preserve every single life ever. It's completely irrational and an impossible fight. We are OMNIVORES. Not herbivores. You're the type who would try to feed a cat a vegetarian diet and consequently end up killing it because it's supposed to eat MEAT and cannot physically process and digest plant matter. You need to educate yourself and think hard about your path in life if you want it to actually mean anything.
@@fit_tit9902 they start with the absolutely absurd claim that meat eaters would eat a human, then move on to dogs/cats (pets in general) and then arrive at the usual animal species used as food by humans. It is an attempt at guilt tripping and, like other "Jedi mind tricks" only works on the weak minded. 😉
@@MaegnasMw Following Neil’s logic, he does not make moral distinctions between forms of life (including humans since we are on the tree of life). He thinks slitting a dog’s throat would be no different than cutting a vine. By his logic, it would be okay to slaughter other humans and eat them. Cannibalism occurs in nature and animals eat their own species. Neil is spouting nonsense in this video, he thinks snapping a cat’s neck would be just as bad as killing bacteria.
This is basically what I ponder... Why this, why that... and most of the time the answer is "because!" or "it's always been that way...". Fact is that it is has so many dimensions as well, because you also have culture in what is being eating or valued higher/lower. Horses over cows, or specific plants over others. This is awesome - a new conundrum to reflect on! Thanks
I mean technically every living thing has species bias, obviously more so animals than plants since animals are able to control where they go. I mean dolphins will regularly protect humans and attack sharks, but readily eat smaller fish.
3 words: central nervous system. If I’m going to slaughter an evolved life form for my own survival, being an emotionally evolved human, I’d rather that life form doesn’t suffer and isn’t terrified. Also requires a lot less plants to feed us than plants + plants to feed the animals we eat. Food for thought. Pun intended.
@@hansrama3485 Of course, even if this were possible (it isn't- not in a way that would leave the flesh edible) it ignore the usual suffering of the animal for much of it's life- the degree varies by region and practices. It also if it ignores the needless taking of a life.
He said that it was morally equal to killing anything else. Not questionable. We attempt to eradicate whatever we don't like on earth. It's pretty normal for all forms of life. He's saying that you shouldn't be that hung up on killing a chicken or a cow, because all lifeforms on the tree of life are ultimately equal, and have evolved for the same amount of time with different niches and needs
Any living thing has feeling. A plant responds to insects attacking it by producing a special sap to encase the insect and plug the hole. If you prune a plant you get epicormic growth, if you transplant a tree you get signs of shock and fatigue in the leaves. Animals, insects, plants, fungus, microbes and all living things respond to stimulus, which means there is a sensory response. If there is a sensory response, then this is called feeling. If you cut anything off any living thing it feels it. The difference is that some living things have cognitive functions and some don't. Some have consciousness and some don't. But all have feelings. You cannot survive without consuming something that was once alive, so just be humane about it and make it quick and painless for the life form that you are consuming, respecting life is respecting the fact that if you were being consumed, you would want it to be quick and painless. And of course, maintain balance. And don't waste food, because if you waste food you are basically killing that living thing for nothing, and that is shameful, just as it would be if your life was taken for no valid reason.
I'm impressed that you're doing this introspection about speciesism. The fact is we don't need to eat animals or animal products. While sweet that you thank the animal while devouring his or her flesh, that animal, sadly, will not benefit from your gratitude. Why not thank the animal by not eating him or her? Your body will thank you as will the planet which is being destroyed largely due to animal agriculture.
Glad you’re talking about it but maybe next time have a guest that will challenge some of your ideas. It would make for a much more interesting and fruitful episode👍🏼
@@TheMaxSpak yes, there is a difference. The key word you used there is 'want'. All living things have functions whose ultimate purpose is to propagate the genes within the organism, but only organisms who are conscious / sentient / have a subjective experience can 'want' something. I.e. a dog can 'want' to not experience pain, but a protist just avoids aversive conditions, without actually experiencing those conditions subjectively. So indeed, implying that killing a bacterium is equivalent to killing a human because both organisms have genetic programming that ensures self-preservation, is ludicrous.
@@leviskickingpractice6542 Are you telling me that dogs have a subjective experience and trees don't? Because that is exactly what I said in comparing dogs and protists. Not sure why you think I need confirmation on a position I clearly already hold.
Some "Charlie, the Tuna" comes to mind. When we destroy any one species we are more than likely affecting or even destroying another one that depends on it to survive. Look at the American Black-footed Ferret. Their main source of food was the prairie dog and when the cattle ranchers came in and got rid of all the prairie dogs it also killed off the ferrets.
So many bad arguments in this video. Plants aren’t sentient hence they are morally the better option to eat. Additionally by eating meat you’re not only killing the sentient animal but also the animal must be fed plants, which of course will be more plants than you would eat in the first place, as nothing is 100% efficient. You know thermodynamics so therefore you *should* understand this simple concept. Stop trying to justify your choice to eat meat with poorly thought out arguments and instead either own your personal biases / selfishness or go plant based/vegan
What you're doing by trying to preserve ALL life is literally going directly against nature. Are you gonna try and say that a lion killing an antelope in order to feed itself, is being cruel? Absolutely not, obviously. Grow up. Humans have just as much right to consume other living things as other animals do. It's the circle of life. Even plants cannot survive without feeding off of other living things. Pitcher plants and Venus fly traps hunt insects. Even fully photosynthesis based plants still need nutrients from the soil, and where do you think those nutrients come from? The dead and decaying matter of other living things that have died. It's literally built into the system that one creature has to die in order to sustain another. That's why I don't understand all you crazies trying to preserve every single life ever. It's completely irrational and an impossible fight. We are OMNIVORES. Not herbivores. You're the type who would try to feed a cat a vegetarian diet and consequently end up killing it because it's supposed to eat MEAT and cannot physically process and digest plant matter. You need to educate yourself and think hard about your path in life if you want it to actually mean anything.
What about the extremophiles that live on the deep ocean floor in the hydrothermal vents that feed off hydrogen gas?? They ain’t killing anybody to consume energy
This is why I think animals deserve to have rights. People treat them like they are objects. They need to be respected as much as humans are. People need to stop killing animals for no reason. I remember when you said that thing about an alien species looking down on us the same way we look down on apes. The funny thing is that’s my animals are smarter and more in tune with the universe than we are in a lot of ways. Neil deGrasse Tyson, you are a genius. I respect you. I have been listening to you speak ever since and my friend Michael did a project on you for my astronomy class. You helped to inspire my love for astronomy, and you taught me so many fascinating things about the universe. You sparked my wonder for knowledge, anda made think much deeper about reality. Thank you. Keep doing what you are doing. 🌚🌸🐀🌳☄️✨🪐💫🌙
It's funny how, when the topic veganism is raised, suddenly all these plant activists appear out of nowhere. It's also strange how you never meet omnivores who have a problem with chopping vegetables but you do find plenty who feel disturbed at the thought of killing e.g. cows themselves or having to visit a slaughterhouse. 91% of the destruction of the Amazon is due to animal agriculture. Only about 2% of Soya from this process is used directly for human consumption. The logical conclusion would be to adopt a plant-based nutrition then. Basic ecology of food chains and energy losses. Perhaps Tyson should go back to basics again!
Re: Dolphins There is a sentient level argument. There is another. In many societies it is an ancient taboo to eat top predators. Top predators also concentrate toxins rising up through the food chain.
The sentience argument generally assumes that sentience is only possible with a mammalian nervous system. Technically, plants react just as much to "pain" stimuli as animals (just without moving, obviously), and do indeed react to external stresses with some agency. It's just that plants use chemical warfare instead of physical warfare XD. Evolutionarily, those responses serve the exact same purpose Tl;dr, there are other ways to process information, that don't include nerves, and whenever someone says "plants don't feel pain", the only accurate way to interpret that is "they don't feel pain in the way animals do". Which leads to the philosophical quandary: "Is the Plant version of a pain response as valid as the Animal one?"
Jeremy Bentham: “The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" You know how flat-Eathers sound to you? Right now you sound like that to everyone that has read Singer, or familiarized themselves with moral arguments related to speciesism/suffering. Respect you in general, but I'm not exaggerating how far off-base you are on this one. And I'll add that it causes substantial harm. You have influence, and with that, responsibility.
Chuck, if you ate just the leaves and left the plant alive; this is where you have to ask yourself what 'Life' is. all the microorganisms in that leaf are still alive. But they collectively also make up a single muticellular organism.. the plant. Personally I've been fine with all kinds of deaths as long as they were respected and never taken for granted. Thank you plants. Thank you animals. And most of all, thank you Sun.
How do you even know Trees don't have consciousness? We only know they do not have nervous system, and we do not fully understand what consciousness is.
Thank you for sharing this perspective on speciesism. I also am someone who values all life. I live my life by trying to not intentionally take another life. Even that of a tick or mosquito! I applaud you, you have a great mind!
What great mind?.. The animal he wants to eat has consumed 32 pounds of plants daily, thats 46,080 pounds in 4 years it took to raise for you to eat it, thats allot more plants then the ones in the veggie burger that substitutes that dish.. What a ridiculous person
Felt bad about salad then remembered plants eat photons who basically have no time from sun emission (birth) to being consumed by the plant (photosynthesis). So, I ate that salad with no remorse.
The pig is so glad that you thanked before eating him that he and his friends will try their best to stay healthy at the factory to prevent a new pandemic.
I pay for it directly/with taxes to being fed, sheltered, treated if sick, its existence is thanks to me, all I ask is that in the end of its life pay me back. It fair IMHO
@@sandraeastwick2517 To be fair, most factory-bred animals would be better off not having been born in the first place. Their miserable existence is nothing they owe anything to anyone, on the contrary. The "treated if sick" part in particular is responsible for a growing number of antibiotic resistant germs.
If anyone watching this video has an open mind and patience, please watch this video response: ua-cam.com/video/1LN5JKZstBE/v-deo.html. Don't make pre-judgements but really listen to what Mic has to say. 90% of what Neil has said in this video is contradictory and even adheres to "species blindness" which is extremely similar to people saying they're "color blind" when referring to the experiences of different races.
He hasn't acknowledged speciesism as it is currently coined. Because he fails to draw the moral difference between a plant and animal. He has chosen to value life arbitrarily without enquiring why it ought to be valued. So whilst he is a hypocrite, because he values human life more than all other life still, he isn't the bad faith person you are perceiving.
Lol he barely acknowledges it though. Notice how he didn’t mention any of the animals that he eats and diverted to talking about trees and bacteria within mere minutes. Oh but it’s all cool because he thanks the dead animal before he eats it. That’s what the Native Americans do ya know.
It’s this exact acknowledgment of speciesism that turns people vegan - a movement where people make the conscious choice of what to eat based on a careful judgement as to the life and suffering the species encountered in order to be farmed and eaten. Most meat eaters ignore these realities. Neil and you completely ignore this point
Very similar conversation was had in "A Glorious Accident". Stephen Gould talked about the aesthetic argument, and how we look into the eye of a mammal and 'see ourselves' because the genealogical relationship is so close. When you look into the eye of a fish, you don't have that, or share the same homologous emotional reactions. Hence, there is something there to help explain why many vegetarians will eat fish, but not red meat
Only if you are ignorant about this topic (which is apparently most people around here). Neil is unfortunately missing the whole point in this one. It's not about the species, it's about whether or not the organism can suffer (i.e. feel pain) from you killing them. If we lived in some utopia world where animals could be killed for consumption without them suffering, then sure, but we don't (and we probably never will). Right now, with what's going on in factory farming, it's LITERALLY the opposite of preventing the suffering of these animals. This is the main factor for why many people decide to go veggie. Because (based on science) plants can't suffer, and since we ought to eat something to survive, then better go with those plants instead of causing unnecessary suffering just for the sake of taste. PS: With that said, my own reason for only eating plant based food is actually somewhat different from the above, since it's mostly for the massive health benefits of a WFPB diet.
He very much overlooked the only one important thing that Vegans value which is "sentient"! It's not about speciesizm and discriminating one life over the other life. The reason to not consume other life is because they are sentient -they have nerve system and feel pain just like us. Very dissapointed with Neil. Check Ed Eearthling debunking Neil's lack of logic: ua-cam.com/video/hMlFQNGeWkE/v-deo.html
As I'm watching this I'm holding a moth I found inside the building where I work. She/he is dying so I'm giving her love until she goes. I loved this one guys. I'm right there with ya. I feel and have felt the same way. I've just always felt super connected to the Earth. No one had to tell me I just knew. It's great to know there are others. ❤🤘🤙🤓😎
What about suffering? Animals suffer at factory farms, then will be murdered with even more suffering. Plants don't have a nervous system and probably can't suffer. I want to eat food that had the least suffering and this is plants. Synthetic meat can help when people don't ready to change their diet.
Sorry, I greatly respect NdGT's astrophysical and general science expertise, but he's dead wrong here. Killing a plant to eat it is not even in the same universe of morality as killing a sentient animal to eat it. How can he possibly *NOT* see that?! He's just making a "rational" excuse for continuing to eat animals so he can sleep better at night.
He is pointing out the bias of why one thing is right and one thing is wrong. I would say he would agree it is such a correct bias to value a plant over and animal that it would be illogical to think otherwise
Dr. Tyson, relative to trees and plants, in your Cosmos series, you had a complete episode about how all plants communicate with each other using a continuous network through the soil. That episode was as near to proving the idea of a Gaia as could be brought forward. As you stated, all living things a connected in one way or another.
I am a vegetarian (wannabe Vegan) for two reasons: 1. I like to minimize the 'Pain & suffering' necessary for my meal. Plants as far as we know, do not need to suffer like animals in cages or feel the physical pain of being slaughtered. 2. Minimize my carbon footprint. just my thoughts. No judgement on vegans or meat eaters on my part. Totally understand Neils point though, I see where he is coming from.
Bottomline: Neil loves the taste of animals and wants to keep on eating them! .......but he could have come up with stronger arguments than that to defend his gustatory compulsions for the great scientist and thinker that he is....kinda diminished my image of him for the inconsistency in his rational and critical thinking, coz the arguments presented here are ridiculously lame!
Do an experiment: Try to get an Oak Tree (or any plant) to show fear for it’s life. Then try the same with a pig. You will find that the pig looks fearful, cowers away, tries to run and escape, makes sounds of distress. The Oak Tree will be silent and immobile - that’s the difference and it’s very very simple.
I have told my grandson that in America we give the animal an IQ test. If they fail, we eat it. This is why it is OK to eat a chicken, pig, and cow, but not a dog, horse, and dolphin.
As a huge fan of this show, I just want to share a complimentary perspective as an animal rights person. In our community, we do very much care about the tuna and think that it's just as wrong to take their life as it is to take the life of a dolphin. But unlike how Neil says that he respects life because it's alive, our position is that we should respect animals not because they are "alive", but because they are sentient and suffer. No evidence suggests trees experience life subjectively and suffer, while there is a mountain of evidence that suggests that animals do. We care about the tuna not because we value the tuna's life but because the tuna values their own life and doesn't wish to suffer or have their lives taken from them.
Cows, pigs, dogs, fish, and humans are all different but when we suffer, we suffer as equals and that's why we think that in all cases where we can avoid causing suffering or taking the lives of animals, we should.
Thanks for this episode, and keep up the awesome work!
Well, you were more polite than I was. I'm angered by the ignorance of most people on here on this topic. It's quite annoying to read all the silly arguments spat out in an attempt to "defend" animal cruelty (and I'm not even vegan...)
My man.
@@Melomathics If you are truly angered by ignorance, then the solution is simple, if not easy (yes the two words do mean different things). You need to become and educator and present the information in a polite and appealing manner. You are of course welcome to use a blunt and uninspired approach if you wish, but over 4 thousand years of recorded human history gives you less than a 0.000001% chance of success. Being appealing means others was to hear you speak, and being polite means they will listen to the end and give your opinions their due weight base upon the soundness of your arguments and the validity of your evidence supporting your arguments.
Yes Neil got this one wrong.
@@5tyyu Please explain what Neil got wrong, and how it was incorrect. Please be specific enough that I and others may review your answer to better appreciate it and understand your perspective.
Check out Dr. Melanie Joy's book on speciesism, "Why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows."
Why we love roses, eat cabbages and wear cotton
@@vincentxu8217 Nice.
@@vincentxu8217 Most of the people who love roses, still cut them.
Thanks for the recommendation 😊
@@vincentxu8217
Sorry to be so offensive, but the difference with your analogy is that humans don't love roses in the same way they love dogs. Your equivocation there is extremely sneaky and pernicious. You've sneakily substituted in a rose for an object that humans love, but it's not the same type of love, not even close. It's a completely different kind of love. You can't substitute one for the other. But my objection won't matter because the damage is already done -- idiots like Shannon Lynn will take a gander and buy what you're selling because it sounds clever on first impression. I don't know if that was your intention or not. Maybe you knew it was a flawed idea but put it out there anyway because it sounds clever. I'm sure you despise vegans like me, but I don't care, you're not my responsibility. I only type this for my own satisfaction.
Pretty standard response: I'm ok with killing living things to survive as long as those things don't have the capacity to experience suffering. I'm biased against the experience of suffering.
My religion teaches to produce as little suffering to animals when killing them to eat.
@@lapiswolf2780 which religion if you don’t mind me asking you
If you want to reduce suffering on this planet don’t eat animals. Factory farming causes suffering to humans too
@@michaelwatts5481 I agree whole heartedly. NDT seems to lack the consideration of the capacity to suffer (i.e. sentience) in his apparent attempt at insight here.
@@Looonymoony must be islam w their halal slaughter... pls, if you care abt animals you just don't support their exploitation, simple as that! Can't stand this "being thankful" for your flesh sentiment... or "compassionate killing", what an oxymoron... Stop imposing this on animals, they don't care... At the end of the day, it only makes HUMANS feel better, NOT the animals, they're dead!
“The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” -Bentham (1789)
Right. The philosopher Jeremy Bentham.
whos out here making animals suffer legally
@@dimitrilalli356 Anyone paying for meat dairy and eggs?
Neil clearly hasn't heard this quote before.
Stop harming sentient beings and eat the non-sentient beings. The future is vegan. ❤️
@@someguy2135 they werent tortured
If you're in favor of protecting plants then don't eat animals that eat 2 to 15X more crops than the average 200lb man.
Lol... According to your logic, a Smart person would say "eat more animals to prevent them from excessively eating plants"
@@blackzzzaddy No, that’s what a person not engaging in thought would say. Who consumes more plants and water a 2000 lb animal or a 200 lb animal?
@@blackzzzaddy yeah not really. We breed animals purposely to eat them we grow the crops they eat and if we wouldnt breed and feed them there wouldnt be that much cattles, pigs ect.
@@hi-rez3552 An american eats more, because MURICA!
@@valentinrafael9201 Not all Americans. Some of us are vegans who eat mostly whole plant foods.
Funny they are concerned that the dolphins are drowning because they can't breathe, but, their perfectly fine with deliberately pulling the tuna out & letting them suffocate out of the water...
no one has "swimming with tuna" on their bucket list.
Tuna was killed for being eaten, dolphin died for no reason.
@@anuragkadam7935 ---> And what makes you think you're not getting a heaping helping of Dolphin in your tin of Tuna???
@@bigfatbaataed they changed the net design and laws 30 years ago in most of the world, fishermen wouldnt risk the fines.
Tuna with tomato, pimento peppers, onions, garlic, black pepper & salt - mmmmm 😋yum
What about all the plants animals eat before you consume them?🤔
Just saying that’s a lot of plants.
A cow will eat 32 pounds of plants daily, thats 46,080 pounds in the 4 years it take to be raised for your consumption, thats allot more plants then the ones in the veggie burger that substitutes that dish.. What a ridiculous and limited point of view
Thats how the chain works boi
Neil: “I don’t value judge one life over another”
Umm, yeah you do Neil. Every day.
Yep, we all do. Over the years I've noticed sometimes Neil rides on shock value points when it's a subject matter not of his expertise, then makes a compelling video out of it. He was really reaching with some of the more emphasized arguments made in this video, and at the end I felt like it was inconsistent. This video could have really used an ecologist, naturalist, biologist, some earthy sciences expert as guest.
He's obviously a deep thinker. I appreciate that and it's why I always listen when he speaks. Neil always presents ideas that I hadn't thought about, which helps to shape my own.
the key word there is "JUDGE" - that's different than "VALUE" - just saying.
Lol, remember that one time he referred to cows as biological machines? Technically not wrong of course, but there's an implied value there isn't there...
Love this comment Sean.
@@reedclippings8991 I agree with you. Machines, only in that we are all biological machines. But I wonder how new would feel about an argument that says that slaves were just biological machines to pick cotton. The problem in both cases is that it ignores a living animal's self-interest, and thus places all the emphasis on the priorities and interests of the exploiter/oppressor.
In conclusion, it's ok to eat dogs, humans or whatever we want as long as we are thankful to them.
You are blind vegan
@@whyarewestillherejusttosuffer Why is that? I never said I was vegan, btw.
Neil, I respect you very much. I always enjoy seeing your interventions. "StarTalk" is one of my favourite podcasts, "Cosmos" is one of my favourite science shows and I hold you in great esteem. Nevertheless, in this video, you are wrong about a couple of important things. First and foremost, the "species bias" that you talk about are called speciesm and carnism. Speciesm is like sexism and racism, it holds that some group is superior to another (or other) group(s). I agree with you that we should respect both the tuna and the dolphins and the best way to show this respect is not to consume them. Animals are sentient beings, beings that can feel pain, whereas plants are not sentient. You don't have to hate plants but you have to agree that, according to the body of evidence that we have, killing animals causes pain and suffering. This is why we should not eat them. You are also wrong when you say that we have to eat animals (whether tuna or pigs). In fact, we are omnivorous animals and, while having the ability to consume animals, we don't have to. Actually, we are much healthier if we stick to plants and fungi. Moreover, if you really care about all life, you should try to minimize your impact on living beings. If you choose to eat an animal, like a pig or a cow, you are eating 3 to 10 times the plants you would have eaten if you had eaten a plant-based diet. Next we have climate change and the havoc that animal agriculture wreaks on our planet. As a matter of fact, eating animals is very polluting, it is a driver of climate change, it is one of the main causes of dead-zones and species extinction. I really do think that you expressed some personal beliefs in an awkward (and, no offence, surprisingly uninformed) way and your message got lost somewhere along the way. However, keep in mind these points: Eating animals causes them unnecessary pain and suffering; eating animals is very polluting and wasteful; eating animals is very unhealthy; eating animals is totally unnecessary; and eating animals is destroying our planet. Should you need any more information, feel free to contact me.
I hope he reads this very thorough comment! 🤞🏼🤞🏼
Add in pandemics and all those karmic connections, including more chances of getting sick. spiral-m.com/coronavirus-history
> Actually, we are much healthier if we stick to plants and fungi.
> eating animals is very unhealthy
Debatable. You definitely CAN have a very healthy vegetarian / vegan diet, and cutting things out of your diet (such as meat or carbs) is actually a pretty good way to start paying close attention to what you eat. To the average person not thinking too hard about their diet however, veganism is a great way to end up with deficiencies such as in vitamin B. Furthermore, some people with rare autoimmune disorders seem to do much better on a plantless diet.
What you are missing here is that agriculture in it's current form is the ruining the soil , many of the fields around the world are already becoming essentially useless for farming therefore people starting to destroy natural habitats to create more farms and literally killing many animals who where living there this is already happening for hundreds of years and the damage which agriculture done to the natural wild life and plant life of out planet is many times higher than any other thing that you can imagine.
Right! The largest organization of nutrition professionals said so clearly.
"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases."
Most humans are so cut off from the sources of their food supply, they have never contemplated the tree ot life.
They will play with a lamb in the afternoon, then eat its leg for dinner.
Thanks for this provocative episode.
Very few things bring perspective to a person's life like killing and eating their own food. Or even farming something themselves. The work that goes behind it and the respect you feel towards your meal is an experience everyone should have at least once.
Simple make them slaughter the lamb themselves.
Interesting how your focus is on animals, rather than plants.
@@longfang98 yeah. I would. And I have.
I ate lamb tonight. It was delicious.
What about degree of suffering? Do you truly find this irrelevant? Do you think picking a flower or beheading a dog are the same morally? Seems like a scary mindset to have.
Yeah, this was the opposite of thoughtful or insightful.
@@GS-lq2is Yeah Neils argument is a clear dig at vegetarians/vegans, but as you rightly point out - eating a carrot and slitting an animals throat are obviously completely different things. I'm sure he'd be happy taking his kid out picking strawberries, but wouldnt even consider a day out at the slaughterhouse. Cognitive dissonance exists in everyone, even smart space-thinky people.
suffering wasn't his point.. its all about bias.. thats why his first example was about the dolphin and tuna. it has nothing to do with vegetarians dont even know why you are triggered
@@hansrama3485 Rational distinctions aren't biased. Using sentience and suffering as a distinction is rational. Neil's rant was not.
@@hansrama3485 the first comparison makes sense, I point out the flaws in the comparisons between sentient beings and non-sentient things/plants/objects. That can hardly be defined as being “triggered”
Chuck: I will chop down that tree Oak tree and build a boat, and then take that earthworm and catch a tuna and eat it!
Neil: Daymm Chuck.😂😂😂
I thought about it :(
"What if I were to harvest children but only eat their fingers" ~Chuck Nice.
🤣🤣🤣
@@AsobiMedio
Not Nice! Chuck!
Chuck 😂😂😂😂
I am happy you are thinking about this. There are so many great videos about this subject. I recommend Earthling Ed's channel.
Reminder that "respecting" a sentient being before you eat it doesn't change the fact that it didn't want to die to be eaten by you. Sentient animals want to stay alive just as we do.
Welcome to nature
@@lohkokgitu8305 animals eat their own babies in nature. Does that make it moral for a human to do so?
@@lohkokgitu8305 did you harvest the device you used for this video? you find it in a forest along with your clothes? welcome to civilization.
@@emiliohoms6491 Nothing to do with his previous point, oof 😂
So, according to your Logic, plants don't want to stay alive too?
Plants fight to stay alive like every life form. That is what irritability, photo tropism, geo tropism and other forms of tropism indicate.
If we justify not giving animals rights because they are of lower intelligence, does this not also justify removing rights from lower-intelligence humans?
We don't eat lower intelligence humans..... yet.
I say we choose them by weight not by intelligence
@@thesure1 So we give more rights to cows than to cats? That would definitely change what stores sell and what videos are on youtube.
Yes, I see no problem with that.
@TheFantasticalBodyBag I said by weight....we should have a vote to determine what amount of weight
“We weep for the blood of a bird, but not for the blood of a fish. Blessed are those who have voice.”
― Mamoru Oshii
Lovely
That's not Nirvana.
@@erdemmemisyazici3950 Well it doesn’t smell like teen spirit, so I guess not.
@@TheEternalPheonix It sounds more like Pulp Fiction.
“Cherry-picking the tree of life.” - Poetry.
Speaking of cherry picking, you can pick cherries off of a tree, and not harm the tree. Couldn't an animal exist that only eats fruits and vegetables that keep the source plant life intact?
@@carultch Back in the days, I heard of a tribe of buddhist monks that only ate fruit that had fallen naturally, and after the meal they then planted the seeds.
Please invite the real Vsauce Michael!
@@MrNicknayme that had to be a very small tribe
@@chevyDboyMike Yea?
16 pounds of plants to make 1 pound of meat (beef).
Plant->Animal-->Human
Plant-------->Human
Eating meat takes more life.
He probably forgot his astrophysicist brain when he woke up today.
Two big problems here
Every pound is not an individual plant!
And that meat contains more calories and/or nutrients what you could not consume (ie grass,peel leafs)
This argument doesn't look as solid now, does it?
@@sandraeastwick2517
Yes, every pound of plants is not an individual plant, well done 😂👏
It is many plants and many lives (if you believe plants have feelings too and are equal to animal lives).
All nutrients we need are originally found in plants 😂.
The most comprehensive study on farming to be done (an Oxford study published in Science -‘Reducing Food’s Environmental Impacts Through Producers and Consumers), which looked at over 40,000 farms in 119 countries, showed that …
WHILST 83% OF ALL GLOBAL AGRICULTURAL LAND IS USED FOR ANIMAL FARMING, IT ONLY DELIVERS 18% OF THE WORLD’S CALORIES.
Processed meat is also listed as a class 1 carcinogen by the WHO.
I’ll say it again since maybe you didn’t get it the first time.
Plant(s)--->Animal --->Human
Plant(s)------------>Human
If you think plant and animal life is equal, eating animals still takes more life. That’s just a fact. 🤷♀️
What you're doing by trying to preserve ALL life is literally going directly against nature. Are you gonna try and say that a lion killing an antelope in order to feed itself, is being cruel? Absolutely not, obviously. Grow up. Humans have just as much right to consume other living things as other animals do. It's the circle of life. Even plants cannot survive without feeding off of other living things. Pitcher plants and Venus fly traps hunt insects. Even fully photosynthesis based plants still need nutrients from the soil, and where do you think those nutrients come from? The dead and decaying matter of other living things that have died. It's literally built into the system that one creature has to die in order to sustain another. That's why I don't understand all you crazies trying to preserve every single life ever. It's completely irrational and an impossible fight. We are OMNIVORES. Not herbivores. You're the type who would try to feed a cat a vegetarian diet and consequently end up killing it because it's supposed to eat MEAT and cannot physically process and digest plant matter. You need to educate yourself and think hard about your path in life if you want it to actually mean anything.
So happy to see so many fellow vegans trying to educate others on the errors of this video. Mic the Vegan, Hench Herbivore and Lifting Vegan Logic all did rebuttal videos to this video. Go check them out. 👍🏻
Earthling Ed did a response video to this too. :)
@@pumpkinhead1977 Vegan Gaze now did one too.
Leave it to vegans to turn an impartial video into propaganda for veganism because they are triggered over the notion that they biased toward animals over plants, which happens to be true.
@@Ascend777 Leave it to meatflakes to get upset about people talking about veganism in a video about speciesism. It's what veganism is all about...
@@Ascend777 Isn't all morality biased though? What does simplifying the reasoning by labeling it have to do with the validity of the argument? I mean, why not escalate and bring up eating human meat then? Also, it's besides the point. Even if "species bias" was enough to shut the argument down, what about the fact that by consuming primary consumers (pigs cows, chickens) you're also consuming the plants they ate? Wouldn't consuming the lowest trophic level innately cause the least amount of deaths? Also, what about plants that don't die when you consume their fruits? Is it bias to eat something that actually produces food on purpose so that it can spread its seeds?
Say you don’t want to stop eating animals without saying you don’t want to stop eating animals…
Species Bias
"You can tune a piano, but not tuna fish." - Tien Shinhan
@@DaFeanor20 you can’t tuna fish
unless it's a bass ...
You should all be drawn and quoted.
I thought that was REO Speedwagon?
@@louiscypher7090 It is, but the one I was referencing was from an episode of Dragonball Z.
4:53 I don't think oak trees are doing just fine. We are butchering forests with land clearance for animal agriculture
As so many do, Neil tries to adjust his values to fit his actions. Instead of adjusting his actions to fit his values. Which leads to veganism.
great point
Well said
Thats it
Spot on!
You have not watched it correctly.......it is not about your actions it is about respecting all forms of life.
Can we have a discussion on logical fallacies and cognitive dissosance? While I can understand the interviewer adopting their role as 'representative of the ignorant masses', but I'm surprised at Neil for using strawman arguments and allowing cognitive dissosance to prevent him from realising it.
He seems pretty high and sounds like a typical stoner
Neil, it's awesome that you touch this subject, the same happens with chickens, pigs, cows, etc. and dogs, cats, etc.
So... You're saying you are for or against eating cat?
@@maximelepage7664 we should all be against eating every animal
@@tannerman46 but not against eating plants?
I was gonna say the same thing. I don't think I will eat a cat or a dog unless my life depended on it, but I'm fully aware that I'm being biased by eating cows and chickens and plants. I guess it's wired deeply in out brains
@@Xaders1 If we should care about plant deaths then we need to be vegan. Eating farmed animals who themselves had to eat loads of plants results in FAR more plant deaths than being vegan does.
I love that this is a conversation coming to the forefront. We're all on this earth together🌍💖
Yeah, but we don’t need to be hysterical about things
I love the thought experiment of it, but the truth remains that there is no life without death. Those plants taking in the sun are also soaking up nutrients from formerly living things in the ground. It is the beautiful circle of life. But, we are all in this together so be kind!
Right?! We should definetly just eat everything with a face. This bias is ridiculous.
@@scienceisall2632 Chuck is just baked is all.
@@jrodmeade3466 what we eat doesn't matter nearly as much as how sustainably our societies are built imo✌
Two criticisms, Neil:
(1) If you ate more plants and less animals, there would be both less animal deaths overall and less plant deaths overall (animal feed). This is unambiguously supported by research. So if you see life as sacred and value it all, then just eat plants.
(2) Even if the above wasn't true, there is a pretty clear-cut way to derive negative ethical consequences of what you consume: does it have a central nervous system (i.e. can it experience pain)? Plants do not have a central nervous system, while animals do. If I can choose between killing and consuming in a way that produces pain versus a way that does not produce pain, I would choose the latter.
According to Neil’s logic, he doesn’t distinguish between killing dogs, cows, pigs, and killing lettuce and tomatoes. Going by that, he shouldn’t have a problem with cannibalism then since humans are animals and are on the tree of life and he does not morally distinguish between plants and animals.
@@thomaschoate976 I'm sure he would have something witty to say, such as drawing an arbitrary line that excludes humans from the menu, while rejecting the arbitrary line that cuts out animals (;
What you're doing by trying to preserve ALL life is literally going directly against nature. Are you gonna try and say that a lion killing an antelope in order to feed itself, is being cruel? Absolutely not, obviously. Grow up. Humans have just as much right to consume other living things as other animals do. It's the circle of life. Even plants cannot survive without feeding off of other living things. Pitcher plants and Venus fly traps hunt insects. Even fully photosynthesis based plants still need nutrients from the soil, and where do you think those nutrients come from? The dead and decaying matter of other living things that have died. It's literally built into the system that one creature has to die in order to sustain another. That's why I don't understand all you crazies trying to preserve every single life ever. It's completely irrational and an impossible fight. We are OMNIVORES. Not herbivores. You're the type who would try to feed a cat a vegetarian diet and consequently end up killing it because it's supposed to eat MEAT and cannot physically process and digest plant matter. You need to educate yourself and think hard about your path in life if you want it to actually mean anything.
An apple or a bean or a cabage isn’t sentient.
Yeah but what do they feeeeeeel, what about bacteria though!
Yes, they are.
This was the cringiest thing ever. How can someone be so confident in a topic he clearly never understood
Look in the mirror.
Thats what cringe looks like.
Not this video.
@@jigartalaviya2340 By Neil’s logic consuming any life form on earth is acceptable as long as you tell yourself you have “respect” for it. Cringe barely describes how lazy and thoughtless of an argument that was.
@@matthewtaylor902 Tone police don't last long anywhere :/
@@hi-rez3552What you're doing by trying to preserve ALL life is literally going directly against nature. Are you gonna try and say that a lion killing an antelope in order to feed itself, is being cruel? Absolutely not, obviously. Grow up. Humans have just as much right to consume other living things as other animals do. It's the circle of life. Even plants cannot survive without feeding off of other living things. Pitcher plants and Venus fly traps hunt insects. Even fully photosynthesis based plants still need nutrients from the soil, and where do you think those nutrients come from? The dead and decaying matter of other living things that have died. It's literally built into the system that one creature has to die in order to sustain another. That's why I don't understand all you crazies trying to preserve every single life ever. It's completely irrational and an impossible fight. We are OMNIVORES. Not herbivores. You're the type who would try to feed a cat a vegetarian diet and consequently end up killing it because it's supposed to eat MEAT and cannot physically process and digest plant matter. You need to educate yourself and think hard about your path in life if you want it to actually mean anything.
As a vegan, it's not that vegetable life is less important than animals, it's that plants cannot experience suffering.
I thought it was that you could harvest the plant foodstuffs without killing the plant...🤔
@@scottgrohs5940 it’s not about the killing. It’s about suffering. Going to an orchard to pick an apple isn’t the same as going to a slaughterhouse and cutting and animal’s throat open.
So, your comment just proved the video right. You're species biased.
Boy are you wrong. A plant knows it's being eaten as it's being eaten. Animals don't suffer when they're killed. Look up the Glass House Project. Y'all vegans are so damn weird.
In fact, plants suffer longer than animals. Imagine sitting on a shelf rotting away or waiting to be devoured just to finally die. Knowing you aren't going to drop your seeds, the whole reason you exist anyways. Maybe you're lucky enough to be a strawberry and get your seeds pooped out by a raccoon or something.
Unlike animals we eat, trees and bacteria do not have a central nervous system and lack any will to live or capacity to feel pain.
Lack will to live,yet evolve defence mechanisms to make sure they live.
@@lapiswolf2780 There is no evolutionary reason for plants to feel pain, because they can't flee.
Yet this should not be the reason to exploit them
I personally value more a Tree than a bunch of grey flies. Regardless of Self awareness
Every life form has a role to fulfill
and making arbitrary distinction based on sentience is just as much mental gimnastic as "omnivores r accused with.
@@sandraeastwick2517 Understanding that a tree can be morally important though is in reference to its effect of the planet and animal life, not it's direct moral worth. Question, run over a dog, or swerve to avoid the dog and hit and destroy a bed of roses?
@@Yourhighnessnona chemical defence is the plant’s response to threat. Just because you can’t relate to it doesn’t make it not real that they are making an effort to avoid injury and death.
Neil, you could really benefit from watching Earthling Ed's video responding to what you say here. Could be really mind-changing :)
I love Neil deGrasse Tyson but I can think of so many things wrong with this argument: 1) I am going to assume NdGT doesn't have a freezer full of human body parts for his meals so he still has species bias and won't eat humans 2) Most food grown in America is grown to feed animals. When you eat meat, you also caused massive amounts of plants to be killed to feed the animal you are consuming which leads to 3) Large amounts of environmental destruction caused by humans is due to raising animals for food. For example, between 7-18% of the methane emissions from mankind is from ruminant livestock and very large (5,800 sq km per year) amounts of Amazon rainforest, which is some of the most densely populated terrain for all kinds of life on the planet, is being destroyed every year to expand livestock production and finally 4) as NdGT points out we can't just lay in the sun and get our nutrition that way. You don't have to eat meat but you have to eat some kind of plant life. So you can't point your fingers at vegans and accuse them of killing plants - they have to eat SOMETHING.
Please debate Cosmic Skeptic. Thank you.
Vegan Lifting Logic did a great response to this.
ua-cam.com/video/Fh_3gH7l6Dw/v-deo.html
I'm a big Neil fan but strongly disagree with his assessment of animal life. Go give this response video a watch.
Can’t be great on every subject I guess. I’d rather listen to you on physics and astronomy. Speciesm and utilitarism are another matter...
I'd rather not listen to him at all, he's always been so brash. There are many people just as smart (or smarter) as him who can talk on those subjects.
It's not about the species, it's about whether or not the organism can suffer (i.e. feel pain) from you killing them. If we lived in some utopia world where animals could be killed for consumption without them suffering, then sure, but we don't (and we probably never will).
Right now, with what's going on in factory farming, it's LITERALLY the opposite of preventing the suffering of these animals. This is the main factor for why many people decide to go veggie. Because (based on science) plants can't suffer, and since we ought to eat something to survive, then better go with those plants instead of causing unnecessary suffering just for the sake of taste.
PS:
With that said, my own reason for only eating plant based food is actually somewhat different from the above, since it's mostly for the health benefits.
Then another question raises: what it is to suffer? How can we be sure plants don’t suffer in an indescribable for us way? Yeah, they don’t have neurons, but they react to different stimuli. And what is pain of other for us except the reaction we got from it? We cannot put our mind directly into the “body” of that other species.
I think you guys should do more videos like these. Where there is no question or answer. But just a deep set of thoughts that leaves the mind to explore different topics that it never thought of.
This topic has been discussed for centuries and answers are quite simple.
@@GregVidua Do enlighten us on how to judge the value of a life.
@@SylvanApe life by itself has no inherent value.
@@GregVidua And a horse has no udders and a cow can not whinney.
Any more cryptic gibberish or would you like to make a full, reasoned point to help us out?
@@SylvanApe it is a full, reasoned out point. A tree would have no value, despite being alive, if there were no birds to hide in its branches, no deer to rub on its bark, no human to breathe the oxygen it makes.
What unifies all of those? Sentience. That's the common denominator. Once you remove sentience, there is no one to experience that tree, the value is gone despite life still being there.
Thanks Neil for showing that even geniuses can be idiots.
Oh yeah, Neil is the biggest idiot!
Why is he an idiot? All he said is true and basically common sense, I like my dog more than I like your goldfish, he never said dont eat this or that
Now this video gives me a new perspective about life.
Go watch Earthlings, Dominion and SeasPiracy.
Joseph Campbell, “Life eats Life!” And then we dance...
The intentions of the Gods elude us
Trees are not sentient. They don't feel, don't think, don't feel hope or fear. It makes absolutely no reason for evolution to favor plants feeling pain, since pain exists so animals have an incentive to avoid danger. Plants are ROOTED. And cannot escape. Neil just abandoned all rationality on this one.
It should more so reveal your own morals which have been blinded your whole life by the conditioning of society. Speciesism is very real and is the foundation of all discrimination. Racism and sexism for example will never end until we see our own speciesism. You can’t love other species and still eat them. We were all born to love animals not to cause violence and suffering upon them. We were all born vegan until we were programmed to be cruel to innocent beings. It’s unnecessary to eat animals and their secretions. If you aren’t vegan yet please think about what the animal went through to get to your plate. He or she didn’t want to die. Now it’s time to awaken and align your actions with your morals. There is no justification for what we do to non human animals. I hope your new perspective is even newer now. ;) Don’t be a hypocrite, go vegan. Problem solved. You’re welcome.
Hey i live in an Island in Persian Gulf ( Qeshm) we have many poems and in a lot of them different fish are mentioned
maaaaahiii
Cool! Fishermen's communities in India living along the sea coast have had folk songs about fish for centuries as well.
As a biologist and vegan, I am so dissapointed by the ridiculeness of this video. Watch Earthling Ed's response to this
Or
Lifting Vegan Logic
Or
Hench Herbivore
Or
Mic the Vegan
What you're doing by trying to preserve ALL life is literally going directly against nature. Are you gonna try and say that a lion killing an antelope in order to feed itself, is being cruel? Absolutely not, obviously. Grow up. Humans have just as much right to consume other living things as other animals do. It's the circle of life. Even plants cannot survive without feeding off of other living things. Pitcher plants and Venus fly traps hunt insects. Even fully photosynthesis based plants still need nutrients from the soil, and where do you think those nutrients come from? The dead and decaying matter of other living things that have died. It's literally built into the system that one creature has to die in order to sustain another. That's why I don't understand all you crazies trying to preserve every single life ever. It's completely irrational and an impossible fight. We are OMNIVORES. Not herbivores. You're the type who would try to feed a cat a vegetarian diet and consequently end up killing it because it's supposed to eat MEAT and cannot physically process and digest plant matter. You need to educate yourself and think hard about your path in life if you want it to actually mean anything.
3:50 That mammal example rings a bit hollow given that people eat cows, pigs, sheep, horses and all sorts of other mammals.
Neil: respect all life by living and eating in a way that kills as few other life forms as possible. That way is to be a vegan. Eating meat effectively also kills all the plants that that animal ate to live. Eliminate the middle man and just eat the plants! You're smart, you can see this if you think some more about it.
No this way 3 separate lifeforms experienced existence. In your model just two
Vegan usually favor maximum number of "x"
SO here you go
Chance for happiness and existence 3>2
(I bet you didn't hear this one :p)
Your still lilling the plant. What makes it's life to live any less then the animal's?
@@shahidahseifullah2695 Animals feel pain.
@@oneiroagent how do you know plants dont? They can't communicate and they can't show expressions so there's no way to know if they can or cannot feel pain
@@swannthegoat586 There are plenty of videos debunking your argument.
Chuck Nice: from The Radio Chick Show, to do a podcast with the great Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Way to go.
I love you both.
Great match.
I just realized that a lonely tree in a crowd of people would enjoy fresh air just like a person would enjoy fresh air in a forest
Trees breathe carbon dioxide i think they'd be quite satisfied.
@@jordanfitzgerald8645 No you are wrong trees breathe oxygen that's different story because it is respiration but it happens in smaller scale which is insignificant.
Trees use CO2 for photosynthesis meaning preparation of food. This is major event where CO2 is consumed and O2 is released.
@@sosheeanand3537 bro. Trees absorb the Co2 and release O.
If you know chemistry, that means trees breathe carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen.
You have your comment exactly backwards.
@@sosheeanand3537 also "air" is not just oxygen. It's a massive ocean of different gases including O2 CO2 CO and many many other gases !
Trees are not sentient. They don't feel, don't think, don't feel hope or fear. It makes absolutely no reason for evolution to favor plants feeling pain, since pain exists so animals have an incentive to avoid danger. Plants are ROOTED. And cannot escape. Neil just abandoned all rationality on this one.
Thanks for bringing up the subject, Neil! But looking at only one perspective of what you said, if you value all life the same, you can't choose to eat animals, because you know the amount of destruction, resources and suffering it requires. That's way more lives (if you consider that the animals have to be fed with plants and sometimes even other animals to grow), water, energy, land, etc, than eating plants directly.
You were going places at first but Neil you ended up Literally putting plants at the same moral value of an animal meaning a tree has the same moral value than a human I honestly don't know how you can't see through that logic.
Isn't equating between an ant and a human odd tho?
@@sandraeastwick2517 Thats his point. There is much more to consider to determine the value of a lifeform than the fact that its alive.
@@nielsherzberg2413 not really. As George Carlin put it, either no life is sacred or ALL life is sacred. You cannot arbitrarily decide "plants have less value because I THINK they do not suffer so I can eat them with no guilt" just to justify a choice. Especially when you want to force others to abide by your choice, without presenting the evidence that lead your there (namely, the evidence that plants do not suffer so it is ok to eat them - who's gonna produce your oxygen then? The cows and pigs you "saved" from the evil meat eaters? To name one value point for plants nobody seems to remember on lunch time)
It is well researched that plants dont have the same capacity to suffer and express emotions like animals. In my opinion all life is sacred but i have to eat some form of organic matter to survive. So i choose to eat plants because it has the least enviromental impact. A vegan diet kills less plants than a carnivore diet or omnivore diet because you have to feed a cow up to 10kg of grains to produce 1 kg of meat. The space needed to grow that feed and raise the cows destroys natural habitat resulting in more animal and plant deaths. In Conclusion: All life is sacred but with a plant based diet you reduce the amount of harm and death that your diet brings to the environment and fellow living things.
@@nielsherzberg2413 can I please also choose the form of organic matter I consume to not die or I must ask permission (from who actually?)?
Also, if a vegan diet is so beneficial, are you ready to choose it for your offspring too? From day 1 of their lives? And for the rest of their lives? And for their offspring as well? And so on and so forth?
Had to respond to this because, Neil, I expected so much better from a mind like yours
Well his mind raised a very interesting topic of conversation most people never considered...
@@borrow4654 Because he said this XD
1. We value animals more than plants because animals are sentient, while plants are not.
2. Even if you value plants the same as animals, eating animals is still killing much more plants than eating plants directly.
3. It sounds like you're trying to justify your act of eating animals by concluding that "all lives matter the same," but do you really think that way? The same reason can be used to justify cannibalism, right?
3.Something might be justifiable yet inmoral and not pragmatic.
SO don't make false analogy please
Beacouse if you value them equally you will use other value system to decide witch to consume.
And if you got half a brain cannibalism is not quite healthy both physically and mentally (among social species)
Human flesh tastes awful imho
And choosing so causes lot of logistic problems.
Now here you got pragmatic and reasons.
Also valuing every life includes yourself, your desires, and realisation everything needs a sacrifice. What you take you'll give back (one way or another)
Peace.
1. How do you know this? If plants do not suffer why do many of them change the chemical composition of their leaves when said leaves are eaten, to make them taste worst and be less digestible?
2. Again, how? Give an example, if there is one available. Keep in mind that many meat eaters like to consume veggies along with their meat while others do not.
3. Why does it ALWAYS have to be either one extreme or the other? Is there no place "in between" for you people? Is your world so black and white you cannot see all the colors around anymore?
How would you react if I insisted that YOU remain a vegan, at ALL costs, for as long (and I truly hope it is very long) as you shall live? And teach your offspring to go vegan as well? Would I be offering you a service or would I be facing criminal charges?? Remember, true vegans do NOT consume milk, among other things...
"Save the tumors!"
- George Carlin
George said that to be funny. Not because he thought that tumors were sentient or could suffer.
@@someguy2135 George said that in the context of "either no life is sacred or ALL life is sacred", including life that, according to you, is not sentient or cannot "suffer" (how do you know what life forms are sentient and/or can suffer? Any evidence you can share with the rest of us on that?).
@@MaegnasMw Suffering requires a brain to experience it. No brain, no pain.
@@someguy2135 apparently.
@@MaegnasMw If all life were sacred, we would be left with eating nothing but fruit. I am not one of those deluded fruitarians. I draw the line at sentience.
Plants don't have a brain or a nervous system and can't feel pain, fear or suffering. That's the difference. Cutting a carrot is not the same as stabbing a cow.
We don't have to eat meat so why cause suffering to those that don't want it when we don't need to do it?
Watch the response on this video on Unnatural vegan channel.
Also lifting vegan logic.
Even if it was morally wrong to eat plants it would be less morally wrong than eating animals. Animals eat plants anyways so there is just as much (more actually) plant death by eating animals.
@@isaacgates5859 Very true.
What you're doing by trying to preserve ALL life is literally going directly against nature. Are you gonna try and say that a lion killing an antelope in order to feed itself, is being cruel? Absolutely not, obviously. Grow up. Humans have just as much right to consume other living things as other animals do. It's the circle of life. Even plants cannot survive without feeding off of other living things. Pitcher plants and Venus fly traps hunt insects. Even fully photosynthesis based plants still need nutrients from the soil, and where do you think those nutrients come from? The dead and decaying matter of other living things that have died. It's literally built into the system that one creature has to die in order to sustain another. That's why I don't understand all you crazies trying to preserve every single life ever. It's completely irrational and an impossible fight. We are OMNIVORES. Not herbivores. You're the type who would try to feed a cat a vegetarian diet and consequently end up killing it because it's supposed to eat MEAT and cannot physically process and digest plant matter. You need to educate yourself and think hard about your path in life if you want it to actually mean anything.
Neil’s logic in a nutshell:
“I don’t value or judge one life over another… so I eat them all!”
"I was hungry and had to decide between my neighbour and potatoes. Threw a coin because I value all life equally. Sorry neighbour."
I hope your strawman of Neil makes you feel better.
Including humans?
@@fit_tit9902 they start with the absolutely absurd claim that meat eaters would eat a human, then move on to dogs/cats (pets in general) and then arrive at the usual animal species used as food by humans. It is an attempt at guilt tripping and, like other "Jedi mind tricks" only works on the weak minded. 😉
@@MaegnasMw Following Neil’s logic, he does not make moral distinctions between forms of life (including humans since we are on the tree of life). He thinks slitting a dog’s throat would be no different than cutting a vine. By his logic, it would be okay to slaughter other humans and eat them. Cannibalism occurs in nature and animals eat their own species. Neil is spouting nonsense in this video, he thinks snapping a cat’s neck would be just as bad as killing bacteria.
This is basically what I ponder... Why this, why that... and most of the time the answer is "because!" or "it's always been that way...". Fact is that it is has so many dimensions as well, because you also have culture in what is being eating or valued higher/lower. Horses over cows, or specific plants over others. This is awesome - a new conundrum to reflect on! Thanks
Go watch Earthlings, Dominion and SeasPiracy
I mean technically every living thing has species bias, obviously more so animals than plants since animals are able to control where they go. I mean dolphins will regularly protect humans and attack sharks, but readily eat smaller fish.
3 words: central nervous system. If I’m going to slaughter an evolved life form for my own survival, being an emotionally evolved human, I’d rather that life form doesn’t suffer and isn’t terrified. Also requires a lot less plants to feed us than plants + plants to feed the animals we eat. Food for thought. Pun intended.
The one intelligent comment in a sea of trash comments.
there are ways to put down animals without any pain
@@hansrama3485 Such as?
@@hansrama3485 Of course, even if this were possible (it isn't- not in a way that would leave the flesh edible) it ignore the usual suffering of the animal for much of it's life- the degree varies by region and practices. It also if it ignores the needless taking of a life.
@@hansrama3485 but they’re more expensive. Profit rules the economy, not ethics.
Dude indirectly said killing microbes is morally questionable. Does that mean washing my hands and Sanitizing is morally wrong.
He said that it was morally equal to killing anything else. Not questionable.
We attempt to eradicate whatever we don't like on earth. It's pretty normal for all forms of life.
He's saying that you shouldn't be that hung up on killing a chicken or a cow, because all lifeforms on the tree of life are ultimately equal, and have evolved for the same amount of time with different niches and needs
@@DTux5249 so according to his logic a human life is as valuable as a microbe's ???
Any living thing has feeling.
A plant responds to insects attacking it by producing a special sap to encase the insect and plug the hole. If you prune a plant you get epicormic growth, if you transplant a tree you get signs of shock and fatigue in the leaves.
Animals, insects, plants, fungus, microbes and all living things respond to stimulus, which means there is a sensory response. If there is a sensory response, then this is called feeling. If you cut anything off any living thing it feels it.
The difference is that some living things have cognitive functions and some don't. Some have consciousness and some don't. But all have feelings.
You cannot survive without consuming something that was once alive, so just be humane about it and make it quick and painless for the life form that you are consuming, respecting life is respecting the fact that if you were being consumed, you would want it to be quick and painless.
And of course, maintain balance. And don't waste food, because if you waste food you are basically killing that living thing for nothing, and that is shameful, just as it would be if your life was taken for no valid reason.
I'm impressed that you're doing this introspection about speciesism. The fact is we don't need to eat animals or animal products. While sweet that you thank the animal while devouring his or her flesh, that animal, sadly, will not benefit from your gratitude. Why not thank the animal by not eating him or her?
Your body will thank you as will the planet which is being destroyed largely due to animal agriculture.
Wisdom > Educated... the cognitive dissonance is strong with this one 😖
Neil quotes: Listen to the scientists / I'm not giving up my ribeye
Glad you’re talking about it but maybe next time have a guest that will challenge some of your ideas. It would make for a much more interesting and fruitful episode👍🏼
For some of us, the concern has to do with the capacity of the animal to suffer. (As far as we know) plants have no capacity to suffer.
And even if plants do suffer, short of commiting suicide, the only way we can currently cause the least amount of harm practicable is to be Vegan. ✌💚
Embarrassing take. Using his logic, there is no difference in the morality of being a cannibal versus taking an antibiotic.
Well, is there? No living being wants to die, "sentient" or not. What logic do you suggest using?
@@TheMaxSpak yes, there is a difference. The key word you used there is 'want'. All living things have functions whose ultimate purpose is to propagate the genes within the organism, but only organisms who are conscious / sentient / have a subjective experience can 'want' something. I.e. a dog can 'want' to not experience pain, but a protist just avoids aversive conditions, without actually experiencing those conditions subjectively.
So indeed, implying that killing a bacterium is equivalent to killing a human because both organisms have genetic programming that ensures self-preservation, is ludicrous.
@@mnpa6154 you know why you play with a pet rather than a tree right? Response and feelings are the reason.
@@leviskickingpractice6542 Are you telling me that dogs have a subjective experience and trees don't? Because that is exactly what I said in comparing dogs and protists. Not sure why you think I need confirmation on a position I clearly already hold.
@@mnpa6154 did I ever mention subjective experience? It's just that dogs can feel pain and trees cant.
Some "Charlie, the Tuna" comes to mind. When we destroy any one species we are more than likely affecting or even destroying another one that depends on it to survive. Look at the American Black-footed Ferret. Their main source of food was the prairie dog and when the cattle ranchers came in and got rid of all the prairie dogs it also killed off the ferrets.
So many bad arguments in this video. Plants aren’t sentient hence they are morally the better option to eat. Additionally by eating meat you’re not only killing the sentient animal but also the animal must be fed plants, which of course will be more plants than you would eat in the first place, as nothing is 100% efficient. You know thermodynamics so therefore you *should* understand this simple concept.
Stop trying to justify your choice to eat meat with poorly thought out arguments and instead either own your personal biases / selfishness or go plant based/vegan
What you're doing by trying to preserve ALL life is literally going directly against nature. Are you gonna try and say that a lion killing an antelope in order to feed itself, is being cruel? Absolutely not, obviously. Grow up. Humans have just as much right to consume other living things as other animals do. It's the circle of life. Even plants cannot survive without feeding off of other living things. Pitcher plants and Venus fly traps hunt insects. Even fully photosynthesis based plants still need nutrients from the soil, and where do you think those nutrients come from? The dead and decaying matter of other living things that have died. It's literally built into the system that one creature has to die in order to sustain another. That's why I don't understand all you crazies trying to preserve every single life ever. It's completely irrational and an impossible fight. We are OMNIVORES. Not herbivores. You're the type who would try to feed a cat a vegetarian diet and consequently end up killing it because it's supposed to eat MEAT and cannot physically process and digest plant matter. You need to educate yourself and think hard about your path in life if you want it to actually mean anything.
What about the extremophiles that live on the deep ocean floor in the hydrothermal vents that feed off hydrogen gas?? They ain’t killing anybody to consume energy
yes, he does not know his biology
and i think they consume sulphur?
I've been talking about speciesism for years. Thank you for this content.
He was speciesist throughout this whole video though…
This is why I think animals deserve to have rights. People treat them like they are objects. They need to be respected as much as humans are. People need to stop killing animals for no reason. I remember when you said that thing about an alien species looking down on us the same way we look down on apes. The funny thing is that’s my animals are smarter and more in tune with the universe than we are in a lot of ways.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, you are a genius. I respect you. I have been listening to you speak ever since and my friend Michael did a project on you for my astronomy class. You helped to inspire my love for astronomy, and you taught me so many fascinating things about the universe. You sparked my wonder for knowledge, anda made think much deeper about reality. Thank you. Keep doing what you are doing. 🌚🌸🐀🌳☄️✨🪐💫🌙
It's funny how, when the topic veganism is raised, suddenly all these plant activists appear out of nowhere. It's also strange how you never meet omnivores who have a problem with chopping vegetables but you do find plenty who feel disturbed at the thought of killing e.g. cows themselves or having to visit a slaughterhouse. 91% of the destruction of the Amazon is due to animal agriculture. Only about 2% of Soya from this process is used directly for human consumption. The logical conclusion would be to adopt a plant-based nutrition then. Basic ecology of food chains and energy losses. Perhaps Tyson should go back to basics again!
You should too, basics aren't enough for a complex issue
Re: Dolphins
There is a sentient level argument.
There is another. In many societies it is an ancient taboo to eat top predators. Top predators also concentrate toxins rising up through the food chain.
The sentience argument generally assumes that sentience is only possible with a mammalian nervous system. Technically, plants react just as much to "pain" stimuli as animals (just without moving, obviously), and do indeed react to external stresses with some agency. It's just that plants use chemical warfare instead of physical warfare XD. Evolutionarily, those responses serve the exact same purpose
Tl;dr, there are other ways to process information, that don't include nerves, and whenever someone says "plants don't feel pain", the only accurate way to interpret that is "they don't feel pain in the way animals do". Which leads to the philosophical quandary: "Is the Plant version of a pain response as valid as the Animal one?"
Jeremy Bentham: “The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"
You know how flat-Eathers sound to you? Right now you sound like that to everyone that has read Singer, or familiarized themselves with moral arguments related to speciesism/suffering.
Respect you in general, but I'm not exaggerating how far off-base you are on this one. And I'll add that it causes substantial harm. You have influence, and with that, responsibility.
Completely agree with you.
Sad to see a hero of mine fall irretrievably
Chuck, if you ate just the leaves and left the plant alive; this is where you have to ask yourself what 'Life' is. all the microorganisms in that leaf are still alive. But they collectively also make up a single muticellular organism.. the plant.
Personally I've been fine with all kinds of deaths as long as they were respected and never taken for granted. Thank you plants. Thank you animals. And most of all, thank you Sun.
I have a deeper respect to all species now. Thank you
Love the podcast, I watch all of them. I agree that the comedy aspect “ Chuck Nice” makes the show more enjoyable.
Aren’t living things differ from living things with consciousness?
Guess what species have consciousness
oh right, only Humans.
@@theronquishow5837 probably how most of the people seems to be thinking
I value self awareness more.
@@theronquishow5837 only humans have consciousness? Are you ok?
How do you even know Trees don't have consciousness? We only know they do not have nervous system, and we do not fully understand what consciousness is.
Thank you for sharing this perspective on speciesism. I also am someone who values all life. I live my life by trying to not intentionally take another life. Even that of a tick or mosquito! I applaud you, you have a great mind!
What great mind?.. The animal he wants to eat has consumed 32 pounds of plants daily, thats 46,080 pounds in 4 years it took to raise for you to eat it, thats allot more plants then the ones in the veggie burger that substitutes that dish.. What a ridiculous person
Felt bad about salad then remembered plants eat photons who basically have no time from sun emission (birth) to being consumed by the plant (photosynthesis). So, I ate that salad with no remorse.
After the first minute I could tell this is going philosophical. Nice video!
The pig is so glad that you thanked before eating him that he and his friends will try their best to stay healthy at the factory to prevent a new pandemic.
I pay for it directly/with taxes to being fed, sheltered, treated if sick,
its existence is thanks to me, all I ask is that in the end of its life pay me back.
It fair IMHO
@@sandraeastwick2517 To be fair, most factory-bred animals would be better off not having been born in the first place. Their miserable existence is nothing they owe anything to anyone, on the contrary. The "treated if sick" part in particular is responsible for a growing number of antibiotic resistant germs.
@@sandraeastwick2517 My parents said the same thing about me. Recently they started to sprinkle me with salt, it's concerning.
If anyone watching this video has an open mind and patience, please watch this video response: ua-cam.com/video/1LN5JKZstBE/v-deo.html.
Don't make pre-judgements but really listen to what Mic has to say. 90% of what Neil has said in this video is contradictory and even adheres to "species blindness" which is extremely similar to people saying they're "color blind" when referring to the experiences of different races.
Acknowledging speciesism without going vegan is the epidomy of hypocrisy.
He hasn't acknowledged speciesism as it is currently coined. Because he fails to draw the moral difference between a plant and animal. He has chosen to value life arbitrarily without enquiring why it ought to be valued.
So whilst he is a hypocrite, because he values human life more than all other life still, he isn't the bad faith person you are perceiving.
Lol he barely acknowledges it though. Notice how he didn’t mention any of the animals that he eats and diverted to talking about trees and bacteria within mere minutes. Oh but it’s all cool because he thanks the dead animal before he eats it. That’s what the Native Americans do ya know.
It’s this exact acknowledgment of speciesism that turns people vegan - a movement where people make the conscious choice of what to eat based on a careful judgement as to the life and suffering the species encountered in order to be farmed and eaten. Most meat eaters ignore these realities.
Neil and you completely ignore this point
This video seems to be the nicest logical way possible of calling everybody a hypocrite one way or another
Very similar conversation was had in "A Glorious Accident". Stephen Gould talked about the aesthetic argument, and how we look into the eye of a mammal and 'see ourselves' because the genealogical relationship is so close. When you look into the eye of a fish, you don't have that, or share the same homologous emotional reactions. Hence, there is something there to help explain why many vegetarians will eat fish, but not red meat
This was such a great episode!
Only if you are ignorant about this topic (which is apparently most people around here). Neil is unfortunately missing the whole point in this one.
It's not about the species, it's about whether or not the organism can suffer (i.e. feel pain) from you killing them. If we lived in some utopia world where animals could be killed for consumption without them suffering, then sure, but we don't (and we probably never will).
Right now, with what's going on in factory farming, it's LITERALLY the opposite of preventing the suffering of these animals. This is the main factor for why many people decide to go veggie. Because (based on science) plants can't suffer, and since we ought to eat something to survive, then better go with those plants instead of causing unnecessary suffering just for the sake of taste.
PS:
With that said, my own reason for only eating plant based food is actually somewhat different from the above, since it's mostly for the massive health benefits of a WFPB diet.
Really?? I thought his pseudo-intellectual drivel was absolutely embarrassing
Drops of dew
Born of night
Spark of day
Catch of light
🙏
He very much overlooked the only one important thing that Vegans value which is "sentient"! It's not about speciesizm and discriminating one life over the other life. The reason to not consume other life is because they are sentient -they have nerve system and feel pain just like us. Very dissapointed with Neil. Check Ed Eearthling debunking Neil's lack of logic: ua-cam.com/video/hMlFQNGeWkE/v-deo.html
Every living being is sentient
As I'm watching this I'm holding a moth I found inside the building where I work. She/he is dying so I'm giving her love until she goes.
I loved this one guys. I'm right there with ya. I feel and have felt the same way. I've just always felt super connected to the Earth. No one had to tell me I just knew. It's great to know there are others. ❤🤘🤙🤓😎
What about suffering? Animals suffer at factory farms, then will be murdered with even more suffering. Plants don't have a nervous system and probably can't suffer. I want to eat food that had the least suffering and this is plants. Synthetic meat can help when people don't ready to change their diet.
Sorry, I greatly respect NdGT's astrophysical and general science expertise, but he's dead wrong here. Killing a plant to eat it is not even in the same universe of morality as killing a sentient animal to eat it. How can he possibly *NOT* see that?! He's just making a "rational" excuse for continuing to eat animals so he can sleep better at night.
He is pointing out the bias of why one thing is right and one thing is wrong. I would say he would agree it is such a correct bias to value a plant over and animal that it would be illogical to think otherwise
Keep trying Neil. You are in the right track. Let go of your bias and you will get there
I wonder if NDT finds peeling a carrot and skinning a dog alive to be moral tragedies of equal worth.
Dr. Tyson, relative to trees and plants, in your Cosmos series, you had a complete episode about how all plants communicate with each other using a continuous network through the soil. That episode was as near to proving the idea of a Gaia as could be brought forward. As you stated, all living things a connected in one way or another.
I am a vegetarian (wannabe Vegan) for two reasons:
1. I like to minimize the 'Pain & suffering' necessary for my meal. Plants as far as we know, do not need to suffer like animals in cages or feel the physical pain of being slaughtered.
2. Minimize my carbon footprint.
just my thoughts. No judgement on vegans or meat eaters on my part.
Totally understand Neils point though, I see where he is coming from.
I think that I shall never see
A poem as lovely as a tree
- Joyce Kilmer
Indeed! Unless the billboards fall
I'll never see a tree at all!
- Ogden Nash
Bottomline:
Neil loves the taste of animals and wants to keep on eating them!
.......but he could have come up with stronger arguments than that to defend his gustatory compulsions for the great scientist and thinker that he is....kinda diminished my image of him for the inconsistency in his rational and critical thinking, coz the arguments presented here are ridiculously lame!
Do an experiment: Try to get an Oak Tree (or any plant) to show fear for it’s life. Then try the same with a pig. You will find that the pig looks fearful, cowers away, tries to run and escape, makes sounds of distress. The Oak Tree will be silent and immobile - that’s the difference and it’s very very simple.
Unreal how polite and thoughtful everyone in the comments is. I personally can't believe what I just watched.
I have told my grandson that in America we give the animal an IQ test. If they fail, we eat it. This is why it is OK to eat a chicken, pig, and cow, but not a dog, horse, and dolphin.
IQ tests (designed by humans, of course) show that pigs are more intelligent than dogs.