You are conflating the word 'vegan' with 'environmentalist'. Those are separate issues. Introducing predators and Mars have nothing to do with veganism. This video is mistitled. A vegan world would still have the least suffering. 2.7 trillion animals a year wouldn't be violently slaughtered compared to 2.7 trillion animals a year violently slaughtered.
Hi Jack, it was fun talking to you on discord the other day. I think it would be extremely interesting if you made a video about whether or not turning wild areas into crop land decreases suffering, and if it does, whether or not it would then be ethical to buy animal products that cause a huge amount of crops to be used.
@@TheParadigmShiftTV Or you could choose to see it in terms of a venn diagram. Yes two different issues which Jack never says are identical, but which overlap in a common area of animals enduring pain & suffering, that we humans can potentially minimise by our choices and actions.
No need, speciesism is a joke in 99% of the cases, are you speciesist if you save 1 human over 2 flies? ... The term only really makes sense when we're talking about speciesism on the same level of legitimate racism, not as in using the n word in a joke in private or among friends, but people actually not giving a f about someone because they're not of the same race or specie, or only pretend to care about them to the degree that they can't get something out of it, like someone that has no interest in stopping to eat hamburgers even tho they say they care about animals because hamburgers taste nice. And in case you missed it, speciesism was Jack's argument to try to justify not rewilding, which is kind of a joke (tbh I stopped watching the video at this point because I kinda don't care anymore and I think I already know where this is going and I'm bored, I've already heard of all these kinds of arguments before). It's true that if there are reasonable alternatives then we should prioritizing trying those first, but at the end of the day you're dooming individual animals to suffering either way whether you take action or not, if you don't take action then certain species take over and ruin the ecosystems, killing species, and causing suffering to animals plagued by and suffering due to starvation etc due to the plague, if you do take action then the other specie is gonna ripped apart by predators, but at least you're saving a species and, as a result, part of the ecosystem. See, no need for any appeals to nature necessary. While we're on that topic tho, would you say it's an appeal to nature fallacy to say we probably shouldn't merge with machines or do endless cosmetic surgeries or eat ultra-processed food because it's very unnatural (and unhealthy)?
@@guystryche Health and nature usually correlates quite significantly. So natural could simply be a heuristic for saying i.e. likely unhealthy in the absence of evidence which often is in fact absent, and when not absent is complicated to decipher
@@SourceChan yes of course, all of modern medicine is natural. And all diseases are artificial. Plus, how does this apply in this context? Wild animal suffering is healthy? How so?
@@guystryche Most of modern medicine is definitely not natural, things like pharmaceuticals is nothing close to natural, it's literally called a drug pandemic because doctors are overprescribing addictive chemically composed pills that makes you feel good and gets you hooked with more side-effects and wear and tear than actual benefits. How are diseases artificial? What have you been my smoking my dude, did the plants get the best of you, thinking all plants are healthy so you started eating and smoking kilos of reefer on the daily or something? I never said wild animal suffering is healthy, when did I ever say that, again what you have been smoking...?
Two things: 1. What do you propose we do about carnivores (non human animal predators) 2. What has any of the three topics to do with a vegan world? The title says that a vegan world might contain more suffering, but in the video you talk about how progression of morality is urgently needed. I don't get it, does a vegan world contain more suffering or not?
Just wondering, is the title mainly to trigger vegans into watching, OR attract carnists by making them think if they watch they'll get the next 'debunk' for veganism, only to then have them actually think about these issues? Or neither let me know
@Leafar70 Carnism is a term coined by psychologist Dr. Melanie Joy. It is essentially the opposite of veganism, and, crucially, it is a belief system that is all too often taken for granted and thus rendered "invisible" to most people most of the time. Here's a nice introduction video by her: ua-cam.com/video/ao2GL3NAWQU/v-deo.html
Jack is more than just a vegan youtuber. I'd claim that most of the vegans are vegan because they see life as something beautiful which is completely the wrong reason. You should be vegan because life on average is bad, and even more importantly for the risk of life being indescribably bad. The less life, the better. And this doesn't apply only to factory farmed animals, it applies to all sentient beings. And the fact that Jack understands this puts him in another category.
@@HJEAOOFNONAOEK so if the less life, the better Then wouldn’t it follow that eating animal products more efficiently reduces the amount of overall suffering in the world?
@@AntiTekk Obviously not. The whole point in veganism is to prevent new animals from being bread into existence. Using animal products supports the industry and new animals are being bread into existence replacing the animal you ate.
@@HJEAOOFNONAOEK I’m essentially making the same point as the title of the video. By eating animal products more animals are bred to existence but also many more are kept from being brought into existence due to the destruction of wild animal habitat. There’s technically more animals suffering in the wild than in factory farms I think. No way to prove that tho and I guess I’m happy about that. Nonetheless I agree with Hancock about being careful about rewilding
@@AntiTekk _"By eating animal products ... many more animals are kept from being brought into existence due to the destruction of wild animal habitat."_ How does these correlate? Factory farms are isolated from the wild. Using factory farmed products doesn't "destroy wild animal habitat" and therefore doesn't prevent wild life from coming into existence.
How can we have stable functioning ecosystems without some level of predation? I don’t disagree that there is incredible suffering in nature- but, you can’t oppose it without providing a solution. Do predators deserve to starve, suffer and go extinct? It almost seems futile. The only way to eliminate all suffering is to allow all life to snuff out completely. There’s got to be a balance, hence making humans non predatory shifts everything, a current realistic goal worthy of focus.
> How can we have stable functioning ecosystems without some level of predation? As of now we can't (and even with predation, and with no human interference, there are at times quite wild fluctuations of different animal populations). Who knows though, maybe it will be possible in the future somehow, using very futuristic technologies (radical genetic engineering, large-scale and sophisticated population control using contraception, etc). Also, even though any present-day ecosystem will contain lots of suffering, different possible "balances" for a given ecosystem might contain different amounts of suffering. > I don’t disagree that there is incredible suffering in nature- but, you can’t oppose it without providing a solution. Well, it can be frustrating to have someone talk a lot about a problem without having solutions. At the same time, covering both in one video would make for a loong video, and I think there is value in raising awareness of problems that can't be totally solved (in case we at least can make them a bit better, or avoid making them worse). Btw, Humane Hancock has made a video about how we might help: ua-cam.com/video/cp1qpzXe2Yw/v-deo.html. Personally I also see things we might do in the future beyond what he mentions in this video (but I guess time will tell what will or wont become possible). > Do predators deserve to starve, suffer and go extinct? No wolf deserves to die. And neither do the tens of animals than an average wolf might eat during its life. As to extinction, wolves don't care about biodiversity. They don't want to die of course, but whether it sucks for an animal to die doesn't depend on whether they belong to an endangered species or not. Anyway, those are some of my thoughts. I do find your comment a good/reasonable one in many ways, even though it seems our perspectives differ 🙂
You can acknowledge a problem without having a solution. Eradicating life wherever we find it is a policy I consider seriously (building large spaceships to ram at relativistic speeds into planets that might harbour life). But I think we can also try to gradually make ecosystems less natural and thereby decrease the suffering within.
@@TorBarstad it’s curious, and I appreciate the response. It’s just seems so far out of reach, and for humans a bit of an overstep. I’d say it sounds idyllic but I can’t even picture it. No cat getting the thrill of chasing mice. Yes I root for the mouse if they escape, reproduce n start a colony, but I root for the cat- who, obeying their natural behaviours finds joy and nourishment. It’s currently hard enough for humans to treat each other with respect, asking humans not to hurt the animals, the environment, and themselves, by going plant based is a major stretch, unfortunately still. I don’t disagree that we need to look forward into our future and how we will live, and effect the rest of the world natural and otherwise. I just disagree that this idea has any relevance or potential at this time. If it’s not about the erasure of predatory animals it will require technology we don’t have, and an understanding we can’t currently conjure.
@@MrCmon113 this is true. It’s just entirely theoretical, and I have a hard time understanding ideas that lack practicality. The only solution I can think of to stop animals from exhibiting their natural behaviours in their respective food chain is to erase them, which is hardly fair to them, nor sustainable for the environment all these non-predators will be living in.
The thing that scares me the most about the possibility of creating conscious AI or simulations is that, we can possibly get to the point where some kid in his mom's basement can order some remote computing power and casually press a button that causes more suffering than the Holocaust. And preventing that legally would be tremendously difficult, because if you try to talk to legislators about AI rights, they'll laugh you out of the hall. Look about how much animal suffering we're already able to tolerate because "they're not human". "Now you want me to care about a fucking robot?" they'll say. Yet if those "robots" are just as capable of conscious sensation and self awareness as us, then torturing them is just as bad as torturing us. If we get to such a hypothetical scenario, then honestly, it's better if we get wiped out.
It's better if we can do everything in our power to reduce the current state of suffering experienced by all sentient life( which is long overdue). i think our voluntry extinction is optimal to guarantee the perpetuation and thrivabilty of millions of non-human species.
"We have a moral obligation to plan for the propagation of life". I can't understand why one would want to make hell bigger, let alone think that there is a moral obligation to do it.
@@Scott_Raynor I see that he talks about transhumanism, but does he mention the reduction of wild animal suffering? Anyway, even eliminating all suffering in humans doesn't seem something feasible to me.
@@georgecaldero4393 He does talk about wild animal suffering, yes. It might seem like science fiction, but we may only be a few centuries away from being able to eliminate the suffering ofany sentient being with genetic engineering.
@@Scott_Raynor It does sound like science fiction. The world is too big and eliminating all the suffering in it seems too unrealistic. But maybe I check him out to see what he has to say about it.
@@georgecaldero4393 I watch his interview with the Sentientism guy, I think it's "Sentientist Conversations" or something
3 роки тому+11
Hey Jack! I was talking with you yesterday at AY's discord. Just wanted to congratulate you for being put on the spot by various people and still managing to answer quickly and logically. Nice talking with you! Cheers 🙂
@ Sim, e contigo? :) Quais os teus pensamentos sobre este assunto que o Jack nos tem trazido recentemente? E' um assunto pertinente mas um bocado avassalador...
3 роки тому+1
@@martaso643 Tudo fixe 😊 Não sei se estás a perguntar quanto às 3 situações que o HH falou ou do sofrimento selvagem no gral, mas falando no geral, precisamente por ser avassalador é que neste momento o que eu acho que devíamos fazer era só estudar bastante melhor a situação porque não acho boa ideia fazermos algo em larga escala sem termos alguma indicação de que isso vai ser benéfico. Devíamos dedicar uma boa quantidade de recursos para perceber melhor este tema. Por outro lado não me parece que seja uma obrigação moral. O sofrimento não está a ser causado por nós portanto provavelmente é uma virtude moral ajudar se pudermos mas não uma obrigação como por exemplo o veganismo. E tu o que achas?
@ Concordo exactamente contigo. :) E relativamente ao rewilding, sempre pensei so na parte vegetal, replantar florestas, nunca me ocorreu a parte de introduzir animais tambem. Assumi que isso seria algo que aconteceria gradual e naturalmente com o tempo. Para mim nao me faz muito sentido a ideia de criar propositadamente animais ou transferir animais de outros sitios para popular uma nova floresta. Foi a primeira vez que percebi que isso tambem fazia ou poderia fazer parte da ideia. Se faz parte entao realmente sim, aí temos responsabilidade. Este assunto e o da agricultura biologica nao ser vegan (que se falou em alguns canais) sao assuntos em que tenho um bocado dificuldade em posicionar-me, parecem-me facas de dois gumes. Tenho de estudar mais. xD
One thing I don't understand is why a group of vegans seem to think that human intervention is some kind of solution to suffering. Why is suffering the only metric to understand why animal rights should exist? Why is it okay for us to intervene in everything cause we are "smarter"? I don't really believe we are more intelligent, I think it just depends on the criteria we choose to base "smartness" on. Would be very interested to hear your thoughts about these aspects.
When firefighters intervene after an earthquake, they don't wonder about consent, about rights, about God or intervention. We see it as an unequivocally good think to intervene to reduce extreme forms of harm and help others not to die in terrible ways. This is seen as intuitive, and no one questions this when it is done to humans. We know animals tend to suffer like we do, so since we have the capacity to help them, this should come as a moral intuition in the same way it is perceived after an earthquake. There's nothing natural about firefighters taking planes to Turkey to rummage through broken homes in the hope of saving a human who is nearly dehydrated to death. You could call it "playing god". I would call it compassion, and striving for a more dignified world for all.
This is a great video.These are topics that most people arent even concerned about, but i think its important that we do start having these conversations.
You should invite Brian Tomasik on for an interview like you did with Jacy Reese. He left a positive comment on one of your previous videos so I think he would be up for it.
Great job, love that you are a nother voice for the philosophical side of veganism and beyond. With you and @cosmicskeptic we might have a chance at some real moral progress, keep it up 👍.
Interesting video, I just wonder what reducing wild animal suffering could possibly look like and if it would not ruin the fragile balance that exists in ecosystems that affects things like soil health etc. It almost seems like the only way to eliminate wild animal suffering is to cull them or let them die out somehow?? And with the amount of animals that exist on land AND in the ocean it’s just so completely unimaginable. But I really can’t argue against rewilding without being speciesist, very frustrating haha
You should read Wild Animal Initiative's answer to the questions "What can we do to improve the well-being of wild animals?" and "Aren't ecosystems too complex to be able to predict the outcomes for wild animal welfare?" (www.wildanimalinitiative.org/faq ). This organization is currently recommended as a top charity by Animal Charity Evaluators (animalcharityevaluators.org/blog/announcing-our-2021-charity-recommendations/ ), so if you can support them that's probably an excellent way of helping to improve the lives of wild animals. You might also want to watch Animal Ethics' online course: ua-cam.com/play/PLRspdAk7uENPslR3I20AZMgtZzOoUYDmW.html
I think the title is misleading because the problems you mention can happen whether or not the world is vegan. But excellent video otherwise! Question though: what would you suggest for how to manage populations without reintroducing predators?
Thanatosis and adrenaline assist the captured prey. Wolves will only eat their prey alive if they aren't able to kill it first, which is usually the case when they go after larger animals of prey like elk or moose. The main reason for eating their prey alive is because they can't kill it before eating it as their necks are too big for the wolf's teeth. In addition, captured prey animals are usually the very young/old or the sick, lame or lazy, whilst this is horrible for the individual, it is a better way to control populations than hunting or culling, which usually kills the best looking and pregnant mothers.
Interesting stuff, thank you. Part of the consequences of a vegan world will be an abundance of farm land redundant for agriculture. An effective use to aid carbon capture is to re-wild these areas. Assuming we leave them return to the wild as opposed to actively managing them; would you consider us to be morally responsible for the suffering incurred in the naturally developing ecosystems that take over these lands?
There's a really good episode of Black Mirror "White Christmas" where conscious digital doppelgangers are put into home monitoring devices as a kind of personalised alexa. With nothing else to do in the void a technician would up the clock speed to force them to comply with their new job
Nature is nature, and involves alot of suffering. Human lives involve alot of suffering too. This doesn't mean we have an excuse to breed humans or non-humans by the TRILLIONS and give them a 'less painful death'. Some things can't be avoided, this is a fact of life.
Maybe suffering can't be avoided, but it can be reduced. And we definitely shouldn't increase suffering, as we currently do by introducing predators into habitats.
Remember, all creatures who are born suffer and die, nothing avoids that even human beings. Concious life itself is so painful. I'm sure the title is to get clicks but going vegan is one of the biggest kindest things you can do. No its not perfect but its better. But as your points YES I agree we should look into wild animal control to cause less suffering. Remember, go vegan, live kindly, do not own pets, do not have any children.
Anti natalism is wrong. The existence of suffering does not make life not worth living or continuing for that matter. Also existence and non existence aren’t comparable.
"We have a moral obligation to plan for the propagation of life'' I couldn't disagree more, no life to begin with means no suffering. While propagating life means propagating needless sufferings. Antinatalism is a moral obligation.
Antinatalism is a flawed and incorrect philosophy. The existence of suffering does not mean that life isn’t worth continuing. Antinatalism is not morally superior in any way. Someone having kids can negative, positive, or neutral depending on the environment.
I think he's saying that these things could make the world worse than it is now even if we were all vegan. In fact, many vegans even seems to be in favor of rewilding at the moment.
@@AwkwardAdolescent When I think about rewilding, I think about trees, not about wolves chasing deer O_O... So I guess I am in favor of re-treeing only.
Go Antinatalist Today! This way we can avoid all potential future suffering. Our goal should be to end suffering and not maximize pleasure. Extinction of sentient life is the only solution.
Okay, couple of things here... First, we usually do not introduce wolves because we want the deer to have a natural death. I think the problem with your trophic rewilding segment is that you only talk about the perspective of the deer, but it is as much about the wolf, too. If we want to grant him a right to live, this more painful death of the deer - I definitely agree on that - is just the logical consequence. Sure, we could get rid of the wolf once and for all (not sure if that is your position), but that would feel strangely off as well, in my opinion. I guess we could also have hunters to hunt down (and as painless as possible) old or hurt deers with a rifle and then let wolves and other predators have it to eat. However, I am not sure if this even would work and not even considering the amount of time and money spent for that cause. And again: If we see that 60% of the biomass is farm animals, I don't think that it is reasonable to say that a vegan world could cause more suffering due to the rather small amount of dead deers (compared to the billion of animals we would spare from suffering). Your second point is valid in the sense of introducing wild animal suffering to another planet. BUT: What does that have to do with veganism? It's not (only) vegan people who want other planets do be colonized. So I don't see why the wild animal suffering on another planet would be increased by going vegan on planet earth... (Although I appreciate the interesting and in a way new thought of how we would colonize another planet and what species we would [not] introduce.) And the third segment kind of feels like your second point: Very interesting, indeed (thanks for that thought), but it is just a "possible future world", not a specific "vegan future world". So in conclusion, very interesting video, but I don't see almost any valid point why this would make a vegan future be less desirable. So it has some kind of clickbaitish touch to it which I think could be avoided if the video was renamed (I would have clicked it anyway ;)).
I wonder if not "regulating wildlife" trough hunting or introducing predators will really cause less suffering. At some stage the animals will not find enough food, especially throughout winter and starve to death, or get infected with diseases, due to large population size. Would like to hear your opinion on that? :)
@@juliamarinasenapassarelli7829 Could you explain the practicalities of that in Kruger National Park with over 100 000 Impalas? I’m not suggesting your wrong but how can it realistically be done
@@bornfree8487 what if they employed as many veterinarians as there are hunters to do the job? Also, a spayed/neutered animal is better for population control than a dead animal, because it competes for food with the rest of the animals and therefore helps to lower the reproduction.
Hi Jack. Since rewilding increases suffering, then would the logical extension be that removing wildlife will decrease suffering? If so, the answer would be to eliminate all wild animals that consume other animals?
If it is a choice between living in the wild with wolves that could eat you alive or living in a factory farm cage, then we would choose to live in the wild. Animals in the wild are free to experience making their own choices and develop their skills to avoid predators, animals on factory farms are denied all basic dignity. Interesting video and viewpoints that we have never considered so thank you for making this content. We hope that a future vegan world will be able to rise to the challenge of creating a more non violent world for all beings. x
16:20 what if it was participants supporters or entities (same entities , the chooser ) agreeing with rewilding for learning all aspects of choice and agreements . the simulators or sentient robots on idiocracy hands = entropy loops (endless suffering and insanity) .
Yes, what you described increase the level of suffering to an infinite amount. But by the same token, doesn't it increase happiness to the same extent? Am I missing something?
I guess that depends on how it's used? Like, space colonization and concious simulations / digital minds - these are technologies that can create a lot of suffering, and a lot of happiness/well-being, but how much/little that is created of each is determined in part by the morality of the people that use these technologies.
@@SeqZZ I assume that you, like me and everyone else have experienced happiness and suffering. Would you have rather not been born at all to avoid the suffering and consequently happiness?
@@eleunameoiggam Yes, from a selfish perspective, I'd prefer not to have been born to avoid the worst forms of suffering. In my life so far there hasn't been too much extreme suffering, but there will likely be more in my old age and while dying. Plus, we face small risks of experiencing extremely bad situations (e.g., literal torture), even if most of us humans are usually lucky enough to avoid those outcomes.
You're losing me at the wild animals stuff. Getting people to go vegan is hard enough without further complicating the issue with the idea of interfering with wildlife.
The video speaks out against introducing wolves to areas where they don't currently exist. But there is a clear difference between speaking out against *actively* spreading animals of these species to new areas, and wanting to *actively* make them go extinct (from e.g. hunting, or from wild-life contraception, or in other ways). The former doesn't necessitate the latter. Personally though (as someone who isn't Humane Hancock) I think that the extinction of these animals probably wouldn't be such a bad thing - especially in areas where the deer and elk that they kill would be hunted by humans instead if there weren't wolves/bears in the area. To the animal that dies, it usually sucks to die, whether or not it belongs to an endangered species (and I see no reason to assume that wolves/bears going extinct would increase the amount of deaths among animals in nature). Btw, if I were to choose one place for wolves/bears to exist, it would probably be in zoos - preferably zoos where they have plenty of space, have good healthcare, and never go hungry (since they are fed plenty of plant-based or lab-grown meat) 😛
@@TorBarstad You’re my man! After going to Safari in Africa a few times, the agony of animals in the Wild has led me to the same conclusion. For their sake, it’s better they didn’t exist As usual humans prioritise their interests over those of animals The Wild is no picnic
@@HumaneHancock But if you think we should protect deer and other animals from predators then you're implying that those predators shouldn't exist as they're obligate carnivores and couldn't sustain themselves in the wild without eating other animals🤔 That being said I'm not very familiar with the concept of reintroducing wolves for population control instead of hunting but it seems kind of pointless...if we can capture and breed wolves for "population control" why can't we just capture and relocate deer elsewhere where their population is not a threat?
You'd think human population growth & lifestyle could be quite a large threat, vegan world or not. The earth does have a limit to how much it can take, environmental damage means everyone and everything will suffer.
You need to update your Yellowstone river example: www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/scientists-debunk-myth-that-yellowstone-wolves-changed-entire-ecosystem-flow-of-rivers/349988
I agree with those things being evil, I've often thought about Detroit - Become Human happening in real life. But the very same could happen in a non-vegan world so I don't really understand what this has to do with the world going vegan
He never said that more suffering would happen because the world goes vegan, but instead said: more suffering could happen, despite the world being vegan.
A natural predator preys on the sick, the old and the slow, keeping a healthy, natural, population balance. Humans hunters, with high powered weapons, go for the largest, fittest and strongest which only weakens the gene pool and destroys the laws of natural selection. And; what are we to do? I’ve heard you say this numerous times now Jack but; in your vision of a Vegan world, do we just exterminate all natural predators? Or only the big ones? And is it only on land or does that include oceans? Because they’re ALL predators! Or do we somehow keep all of the carnivores away from all of the herbivores? I mean; even it that were remotely possible, what would they eat? We couldn’t let them just starve so what would we feed them? Terraforming Mars? What twaddle! Mars is outside the band where life can survive... any life and has no breathable atmosphere. Humanity is millennia away from having the technology to terraform a whole planet devoid of atmosphere, water and too far from the Sun to have sufficient energy to sustain even the simplest of plant life! Human consciousness is not the same as intelligence or just an ability to feel pain. AI; however complex cannot have emotional responses. Oh, it can surely be programmed to simulate them (like a sociopath does) but it cannot “feel” them. The human brain is a true miracle, able to calculate, store data and carry out hundred of separate tasks simultaneously, I am sure that, given enough time, it will be be possible to design some artificial approximation. But, human life is a billion times more than just a brain! The seven billion people on this planet are separate individuals not robots of robots of robots! I know you have no faith or belief in God, which is why you can make these arguments but, I believe that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is the only logical explanation for life, the universe and everything! (Not 42!) 👍
"A natural predator preys on the sick, the old and the slow" Imagine if we were talking about a human serial killer and said "hey, at least he only goes after the sick, the old and the slow". It doesn't seem to make it any better. Many people would consider it even worse (although I wouldn't necessarily agree - suffering is suffering, independent of who experiences it).
Okay, I get it. I don't want suffering either. However for life to actually progress, there has to be evolution by natural selection. It's worth it to have the suffering required to begin life in a new ecosystem so that there can be life there at all. If I were a deer not yet born, and I had the choice to never be born (along with my species), or to take a chance of survival with a large risk of brutal death, I'd choose life. Especially if this meant a life away from humans.
You can't generate consciousness with a computer. Everything you do on any digital computer can be represented by a very large natural number. If you say simulations can generate consciousness, you have to say numbers can be conscious. Do you think numbers can be conscious? This would also mean if i define a set of all natural numbers i generate an infinity amount of consciousness beings, an infinite amount of them suffer and an infinite amount of them feel joy. Do you believe that?
This is a huge problem for any materialistic world view. There is no difference in a real, material universe vs a simulated universe. This means there has to be something beyond the materialistic universe that gives use consciousness.
It’s just prime directive for me when it comes to other animals. I’d reintroduce the wolves purely because it rights the wrong of genociding them in the first place. Not really because it’s “natural” or that anyone is “meant” to exist. I don’t wish deers to be killed, the wolves kill to survive and they are non-agents. The absence of predators is used an excuse by humans to exploit, use, and murder thousands of herbivores. There is a categorical difference between the wolf killing to survive and the agent killing because they just like it or view it as their duty as some kind of “steward” for future generations of humans
Sterilization for predator animals till they go extinct and then the sterilization of prey animals to keep them in carrying capacity of environment using gene drive probably
So what you're saying is that: 1. Re-wilding (which happens in a society that is in acceptance with animal exploitation and abuse, and not in a Vegan society, so it has nothing to do with Veganism) causes more suffering than killing 80 billions land animals and up to 3 trillion marine animals every year. 2. Space Colonization (which has nothing to do with being or not being Vegan) creates more suffering because we propagate life, and life leads to much suffering. I guess that you'd rather not have been born then, to avoid suffering. 3. Conscious Simulations (which again, relates to Veganism how?) creates more suffering because we could create thousands of different "realities" which would all contain suffering. Sounds to me like all these options would easily be worse in a non-Vegan society.
I'm not seeing how the panspermia project and simulations are the result of a vegan world, but they're interesting subjects to speculate and morally debate.
Panspermia with the current view of the majority of vegans is a problem. We appeal to nature as if it knows best, the same fallacy we readily call non-vegans on.
@@roku3216 yeah and thats fair enough, but you can't fault people for trying to take their ethics further looking to blind spots of the future. You don't need to feel oblidged to do it, keep fighting for farmed animals, I appreciate your contribution.
I assume you take veganism as ending animal exploitation and cruelty to animals instead? (or sth around those lines) If we accept that definition of veganism, surely Hancook's philosophy of minimizing animal suffering would imply veganism. I think he is arguing that veganism isn't the "end all, be all" when it comes to animal suffering, hence the title of the video.
@@basilerommes1650 I prefer to think of Veganism as a principle rather than an act or a goal. Ending exploitation is different from ending suffering . If ending suffering is the goal then Efilism is the logical conclusion and that's a rights violation . Hancock is suggesting that we intervene against predators and end evolution , which is a rights violation and thus not vegan , imo .
@@basilerommes1650 I believe that Veganism is closer to rejecting speciesism in the context of regarding sentience as a characteristic of an organism that most humans already agree is a crucial trait to regard in terms of moral consideration. The goal of minimizing animal suffering is definitely NOT the goal of veganism under any reasonable definition of the word. Seeking, as a goal, to minimize animal suffering is entirely different from veganism. There would have to be a different name created for that ideology. I'm not at all interested in the goal of seeking to minimize animal suffering. If, as a result of me living Vegan that some reduction in animal suffering is the result, then that's good.......but that doesn't mean that the goal of Veganism is about animal suffering reduction.
I think eradication of suffering by creating a super-happy society is more realistic from a sociological perspective (and perhaps also from a technical one). Personally I'm not a negative utilitarian, so it's what I'd prefer anyway, but I think negative utilitarians like David Pearce are being strategically wise when they promote concepts such as "The Hedonistic Imperative". I also feel like pointing out that more or less every moral philosophy would imply having to make aversive choices in certain extreme (and unrealistic) thought-experiments. Like, someone who *only* cares about justice - well, the society with the least injustice and inequality would presumably be a society where everyone is dead? And someone who *isn't* a utilitarian (not even partly), and commits to principles of not doing harm in service if the greater good - well, such a person would then commit themselves prick the finger of a child, even if doing so would save the world and help billions of people from experiencing extreme torture for billions of years? This article also feels relevant: longtermrisk.org/reasons-to-be-nice-to-other-value-systems/. Anyway, I know I'm not the one you asked, but those are some of my thoughts :)
If the “Vegan World” is more sustainable then currently that might contribute to less suffering and more benefit to society as we will be around for a longer time
You talked about humans colonisation of Mars in this video. Thats pure science fiction it will never happen. The earth will rid itself of us long before we get the technology to do that.
Colonisation is the passionate goal of the richest man in the world, and there are whole communities of people who are working towards this goal. The fact that you can claim with certainty that it will “never happen” as if you’re some kind of expert on the matter is absurd. We don’t know whether or not it will happen and anyone who claims to know with certainty needs to learn how to acknowledge uncertainty and be more humble.
@@HumaneHancock you dont know the difference between science fiction and science fact. Science fact. We have never landed a human on Mars. Its too dangerous thats why. Science fiction its pure science fiction when people talk about colonies on Mars. Gravity on mars is different to earth. Thinner atmosphere on mars compared to earth. Colonies on mars are pure science fiction.
You cant' be serious with this example of bear killing humans. Those humans are not isolated if you can reintroduce bears in their environment. It means that you have acces to their environment and then you might come up with better solutions than kill them.
Interesting concepts! Thanks for the content. Is it even realistic or favourable to eliminate all suffering in the world? No matter what we do, it seems like our action or inaction will inevitably lead to more or less suffering in other parts of the world, to other cultures, to other species, etc. And what definition of suffering are we even using here? I’m going to be the wolves’ advocate here 🐺
@broccoli It would need to be demonstrated that it necessarily must be the case that being shot results in less suffering........and it hasn't been even remotely demonstrated to be the case.
@broccoli I'm not making the claim, Jack is. But certainly I can EASILY understand that some (or many) animals may live longer after being shot than being killed by a wolf. Also, CERTAINLY it could be the case that a wolf manages to kill a deer very quickly by attacking the neck immediately, as just one example.......resulting in a very quick kill potentially. There's ZERO good reason to believe that being shot necessarily entails less suffering.
@broccoli Only if one PRESUMES that EVERY person who shoots at a deer is a marksman and hits, with the very first shot, a location that causes virtually immediately the deer to be rendered insensate........and that EVERY time a wolf kills a deer, it's a long, drawn out kill. To me this is a foolish presumption on all levels.
@@LouisGedo Agreed. On top of that, the release of natural painkillers (endogenous opinoid neuropeptides) has to be taken into account when a prey is catched by a predator.
Do you think the comparison is absurd when world famous academics do it? Like Peter Singer, Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker? Yes if we outlaw eating animals, people would do it illegally. What’s your point? You do realise that when we outlawed human slavery, people kept slaves illegally, right?
@@HumaneHancock irrelevant. Animals will never be equal to humans in law. For example if a man was being attacked by a crocodile and you had a powerful rifle. Would you shoot the crocodile or let the man be eaten? If you shoot the crocodile and you had an animal equality act shooting the crocodile might be unlawful. So more people would get killed by animals.
I think it’s acceptable to harm non-humans in self-defense, just as I think it’s acceptable to harm other humans in self-defense. Obviously this is irrelevant to the question of whether we should be breeding, torturing and killing animals unnecessarily.
I’m a little confused on how brain simulators and colonization of another planet causes a vegan world to be terrible. I’m a vegan by the way, I support you, but this is confusing
I think his message isn't "this is how the future might contain more suffering, because it went vegan", but more like "this is how the future might contain more suffering, *despite* of going vegan (if it goes vegan)". At the same time, he probably wrote his title in a confusing way partly for clickbaity reasons 😛
@@TorBarstad thank you for clearing that up, the title was definitely confusing. I actually promote veganism through singing on my channel, if you would like to check it out!
Very few carnivorous animals rip their prey to shreds alive. Even wolves mostly try to kill their prey by biting on the neck. Note also animals go in to shock when attacked. So how do u know that that a life in the wild followed by wolf death is a worse life than being shot?
> Very few carnivorous animals rip their prey to shreds alive. It would be very interesting to have statistics on this, but I'm not aware of good data being available on this topic. My impression is that starting at the but/legs/stomach is quite common (but that starting at the neck also is quite common). > Even wolves mostly try to kill their prey by biting on the neck. My clear impression from seeing footage/images is that they often don't (but if they do so more or less than 50% of the time, I dunno). Also: Going into shock presumably often happens both when they are hunted by humans and when they are hunted by other animals, and also in slaughter-houses (and helps to alleviate suffering, while at the same time not helping nearly enough..).
@@TorBarstad Time and impending danger is a crucial factor on whether carnivores eat their prey alive - they dont want others to steal their meal. But many animals rather kill first then eat.. or at least sedate - again they dont want a meal to getup and run off. So leopards, lions etc will suffocate first if possible. But my point was really to demonstrate that I think HH is making unverified claims here. He points at the wolf kill as being a terrible thing and something that we cannot allow. I think it needs to be demonstrated that it is a worse death than any other. Perhaps being constantly stung and eaten alive by insects is actually much worse?!?... those tsetse flies are real b8st4ards!
@@ZambeziKid > So leopards, lions etc will suffocate first if possible. Do you have statistics on that? Any studies you're basing this claim on? (A rhetorical question - I know you don't). The sweeping/broad claim that they "suffocate first if possible" - I suspect the source of that claim is someone who made it up (either you or someone else). I know that such animals do suffocate often, but footage I've seen suggests that they also often don't. Earlier you made the unsubstantiated claim that "Even wolves mostly try to kill their prey by biting on the neck". And instead of taking that back, and reflecting on what made you make such an unsubstansiated claim, you go on to make more unsubstansiated (and IMO probably false) claims.
@@ZambeziKid > He points at the wolf kill as being a terrible thing and something that we cannot allow. I think it needs to be demonstrated that it is a worse death than any other. I sometimes work on these scripts as well, and what it is like to be eaten by a predator (because yes, there is a great deal of variation) is something I agree should be covered in more detail. I don't think being eaten by a wolf is a worse death than any other. For example, I think that being skinned and then having boiling water poured on top of you, or perhaps being roasted over a fire, probably is significantly worse. As to how being eaten by a wolf compares to being shot by a human hunter - it would be good to have more statistics/info on this, but in the meantime I think the more reasonable assumption/guess is that being eaten by a wolf is worse on average.
@@ZambeziKid Here is one text that I found: ""The way wolves hunt varies a lot based on the target animal and also on whether the prey is trying to fight back or escape. The wolf might attack a large deer animal from behind to stay as far away from its forehooves as possible, but the wolf commonly attacks smaller game from the front. The wolf kills its prey by biting it in the neck area. It may also bite a large prey animal in the snout. The wolf might also bite smaller game, such as sheep, foxes and beavers, in the back. An animal killed by a wolf can have bite marks all over its body." This text doesn't list any sources (I'm not aware of any studies on this topic, or other ways of gathering statistics). I don't trust that what it says necessarily is correct. That being said, what it says about wolves often starting to attack large deer by biting/attacking the legs, coincides with my intuitions. I have seen several/many videos where wolves start at other places than the neck, and also heard stories where this is the case. And in the case of e.g. sheep, it seems that many sheep often will be alive after a wolf attack (and have to be killed/anesthetized afterwards). Some relevant images: * www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/photos/2008/11/eaten-alive-wolf-predation-captured-camera/ * www.agric.wa.gov.au/sites/gateway/files/styles/gw_medium/public/sheep%20still%20alive%20after%20attacked%20by%20a%20dog%20IMG_5065.JPG?itok=Mx4aTD6- * speakupforthevoiceless.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/sheep-attack-1.jpg * www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/files/2011/09/Image31-580x435.jpg * 4.bp.blogspot.com/_VuYuEz_hAgk/ShqPB_zobGI/AAAAAAAAADQ/2qI7d8doMCs/s1600/wolves1.jpg * www.reddit.com/r/natureismetal/comments/ew6r47/this_pronghorn_had_a_run_in_with_a_coyote_or_wolf/ But as mentioned, I wish I had more info/statistics on this.
If you enjoyed this video, you may be interested in this playlist: ua-cam.com/play/PL3DYHJ1o1Q0z5Np9lR2BGl4_QqP2SLw5c.html
'enjoyed' might not be the right word, but thanks, as always, for the insight!
You are conflating the word 'vegan' with 'environmentalist'. Those are separate issues. Introducing predators and Mars have nothing to do with veganism. This video is mistitled. A vegan world would still have the least suffering. 2.7 trillion animals a year wouldn't be violently slaughtered compared to 2.7 trillion animals a year violently slaughtered.
Hi Jack, it was fun talking to you on discord the other day. I think it would be extremely interesting if you made a video about whether or not turning wild areas into crop land decreases suffering, and if it does, whether or not it would then be ethical to buy animal products that cause a huge amount of crops to be used.
@@niek024 I was just about to type exactly the same thing! "Enjoyed???????"
@@TheParadigmShiftTV Or you could choose to see it in terms of a venn diagram. Yes two different issues which Jack never says are identical, but which overlap in a common area of animals enduring pain & suffering, that we humans can potentially minimise by our choices and actions.
Beware, vegans will appeal to nature in the comments!!!
No need, speciesism is a joke in 99% of the cases, are you speciesist if you save 1 human over 2 flies? ... The term only really makes sense when we're talking about speciesism on the same level of legitimate racism, not as in using the n word in a joke in private or among friends, but people actually not giving a f about someone because they're not of the same race or specie, or only pretend to care about them to the degree that they can't get something out of it, like someone that has no interest in stopping to eat hamburgers even tho they say they care about animals because hamburgers taste nice.
And in case you missed it, speciesism was Jack's argument to try to justify not rewilding, which is kind of a joke (tbh I stopped watching the video at this point because I kinda don't care anymore and I think I already know where this is going and I'm bored, I've already heard of all these kinds of arguments before).
It's true that if there are reasonable alternatives then we should prioritizing trying those first, but at the end of the day you're dooming individual animals to suffering either way whether you take action or not, if you don't take action then certain species take over and ruin the ecosystems, killing species, and causing suffering to animals plagued by and suffering due to starvation etc due to the plague, if you do take action then the other specie is gonna ripped apart by predators, but at least you're saving a species and, as a result, part of the ecosystem.
See, no need for any appeals to nature necessary.
While we're on that topic tho, would you say it's an appeal to nature fallacy to say we probably shouldn't merge with machines or do endless cosmetic surgeries or eat ultra-processed food because it's very unnatural (and unhealthy)?
@@SourceChan wtf are you on about? Yes unhealthy things are bad. They are bad because they are unhealthy, not because they're natural
@@guystryche Health and nature usually correlates quite significantly. So natural could simply be a heuristic for saying i.e. likely unhealthy in the absence of evidence which often is in fact absent, and when not absent is complicated to decipher
@@SourceChan yes of course, all of modern medicine is natural. And all diseases are artificial. Plus, how does this apply in this context? Wild animal suffering is healthy? How so?
@@guystryche Most of modern medicine is definitely not natural, things like pharmaceuticals is nothing close to natural, it's literally called a drug pandemic because doctors are overprescribing addictive chemically composed pills that makes you feel good and gets you hooked with more side-effects and wear and tear than actual benefits. How are diseases artificial? What have you been my smoking my dude, did the plants get the best of you, thinking all plants are healthy so you started eating and smoking kilos of reefer on the daily or something? I never said wild animal suffering is healthy, when did I ever say that, again what you have been smoking...?
Thank you for talking about suffering simulations! Might be the most important moral issue of all time. Please make more content about that! Cheers
Can not believe we have UA-cam videos popularizing s-risks now! Thanks :)
Upvoted for the thumbnail.
Dude why say upvoted when ur on youtube
@@Juttjuttjuttjutt4 You're right, I'm spending too much time on reddit.
Two things:
1. What do you propose we do about carnivores (non human animal predators)
2. What has any of the three topics to do with a vegan world? The title says that a vegan world might contain more suffering, but in the video you talk about how progression of morality is urgently needed. I don't get it, does a vegan world contain more suffering or not?
Just wondering, is the title mainly to trigger vegans into watching, OR attract carnists by making them think if they watch they'll get the next 'debunk' for veganism, only to then have them actually think about these issues? Or neither let me know
i think both, it applies to both anyway imo! it got me watching thinking hancock went on r/exvegan and thought they made a point LOL
@Leafar70 Carnism is a term coined by psychologist Dr. Melanie Joy. It is essentially the opposite of veganism, and, crucially, it is a belief system that is all too often taken for granted and thus rendered "invisible" to most people most of the time. Here's a nice introduction video by her: ua-cam.com/video/ao2GL3NAWQU/v-deo.html
I wish more vegan youtubers talked about this as well
Jack is more than just a vegan youtuber. I'd claim that most of the vegans are vegan because they see life as something beautiful which is completely the wrong reason. You should be vegan because life on average is bad, and even more importantly for the risk of life being indescribably bad. The less life, the better. And this doesn't apply only to factory farmed animals, it applies to all sentient beings. And the fact that Jack understands this puts him in another category.
@@HJEAOOFNONAOEK so if the less life, the better
Then wouldn’t it follow that eating animal products more efficiently reduces the amount of overall suffering in the world?
@@AntiTekk Obviously not. The whole point in veganism is to prevent new animals from being bread into existence. Using animal products supports the industry and new animals are being bread into existence replacing the animal you ate.
@@HJEAOOFNONAOEK I’m essentially making the same point as the title of the video. By eating animal products more animals are bred to existence but also many more are kept from being brought into existence due to the destruction of wild animal habitat. There’s technically more animals suffering in the wild than in factory farms I think.
No way to prove that tho and I guess I’m happy about that. Nonetheless I agree with Hancock about being careful about rewilding
@@AntiTekk _"By eating animal products ... many more animals are kept from being brought into existence due to the destruction of wild animal habitat."_
How does these correlate? Factory farms are isolated from the wild. Using factory farmed products doesn't "destroy wild animal habitat" and therefore doesn't prevent wild life from coming into existence.
How can we have stable functioning ecosystems without some level of predation? I don’t disagree that there is incredible suffering in nature- but, you can’t oppose it without providing a solution. Do predators deserve to starve, suffer and go extinct? It almost seems futile. The only way to eliminate all suffering is to allow all life to snuff out completely. There’s got to be a balance, hence making humans non predatory shifts everything, a current realistic goal worthy of focus.
> How can we have stable functioning ecosystems without some level of predation?
As of now we can't (and even with predation, and with no human interference, there are at times quite wild fluctuations of different animal populations).
Who knows though, maybe it will be possible in the future somehow, using very futuristic technologies (radical genetic engineering, large-scale and sophisticated population control using contraception, etc).
Also, even though any present-day ecosystem will contain lots of suffering, different possible "balances" for a given ecosystem might contain different amounts of suffering.
> I don’t disagree that there is incredible suffering in nature- but, you can’t oppose it without providing a solution.
Well, it can be frustrating to have someone talk a lot about a problem without having solutions. At the same time, covering both in one video would make for a loong video, and I think there is value in raising awareness of problems that can't be totally solved (in case we at least can make them a bit better, or avoid making them worse).
Btw, Humane Hancock has made a video about how we might help: ua-cam.com/video/cp1qpzXe2Yw/v-deo.html. Personally I also see things we might do in the future beyond what he mentions in this video (but I guess time will tell what will or wont become possible).
> Do predators deserve to starve, suffer and go extinct?
No wolf deserves to die. And neither do the tens of animals than an average wolf might eat during its life.
As to extinction, wolves don't care about biodiversity. They don't want to die of course, but whether it sucks for an animal to die doesn't depend on whether they belong to an endangered species or not.
Anyway, those are some of my thoughts. I do find your comment a good/reasonable one in many ways, even though it seems our perspectives differ 🙂
You can acknowledge a problem without having a solution.
Eradicating life wherever we find it is a policy I consider seriously (building large spaceships to ram at relativistic speeds into planets that might harbour life).
But I think we can also try to gradually make ecosystems less natural and thereby decrease the suffering within.
@@TorBarstad it’s curious, and I appreciate the response. It’s just seems so far out of reach, and for humans a bit of an overstep. I’d say it sounds idyllic but I can’t even picture it. No cat getting the thrill of chasing mice. Yes I root for the mouse if they escape, reproduce n start a colony, but I root for the cat- who, obeying their natural behaviours finds joy and nourishment.
It’s currently hard enough for humans to treat each other with respect, asking humans not to hurt the animals, the environment, and themselves, by going plant based is a major stretch, unfortunately still.
I don’t disagree that we need to look forward into our future and how we will live, and effect the rest of the world natural and otherwise. I just disagree that this idea has any relevance or potential at this time. If it’s not about the erasure of predatory animals it will require technology we don’t have, and an understanding we can’t currently conjure.
@@MrCmon113 this is true. It’s just entirely theoretical, and I have a hard time understanding ideas that lack practicality. The only solution I can think of to stop animals from exhibiting their natural behaviours in their respective food chain is to erase them, which is hardly fair to them, nor sustainable for the environment all these non-predators will be living in.
Amazing video. Humane Hancok is the messiah
Wipe out all life and then no suffering will happen.
WHAT u are crazy. Dearh ans suffer are a part of this world if u cant handle it u die and suffer.
Sry for my bad grammar.
Do you think Efilism is possible? I'm not sure. I think if it were, it would be the most ethical action to take.
Yes
Na, the existence of suffering doesn’t make life not worth living.
#BoycottMeat and all other animal products, cruelty and exploitation in any way possible!
The thing that scares me the most about the possibility of creating conscious AI or simulations is that, we can possibly get to the point where some kid in his mom's basement can order some remote computing power and casually press a button that causes more suffering than the Holocaust. And preventing that legally would be tremendously difficult, because if you try to talk to legislators about AI rights, they'll laugh you out of the hall. Look about how much animal suffering we're already able to tolerate because "they're not human". "Now you want me to care about a fucking robot?" they'll say. Yet if those "robots" are just as capable of conscious sensation and self awareness as us, then torturing them is just as bad as torturing us. If we get to such a hypothetical scenario, then honestly, it's better if we get wiped out.
It's better if we can do everything in our power to reduce the current state of suffering experienced by all sentient life( which is long overdue). i think our voluntry extinction is optimal to guarantee the perpetuation and thrivabilty of millions of non-human species.
"We have a moral obligation to plan for the propagation of life". I can't understand why one would want to make hell bigger, let alone think that there is a moral obligation to do it.
What if life was bliss for all? If that was the case I would absolutely be in favour of propagating life. Check out David Pearce.
@@Scott_Raynor I see that he talks about transhumanism, but does he mention the reduction of wild animal suffering? Anyway, even eliminating all suffering in humans doesn't seem something feasible to me.
@@georgecaldero4393 He does talk about wild animal suffering, yes.
It might seem like science fiction, but we may only be a few centuries away from being able to eliminate the suffering ofany sentient being with genetic engineering.
@@Scott_Raynor It does sound like science fiction. The world is too big and eliminating all the suffering in it seems too unrealistic. But maybe I check him out to see what he has to say about it.
@@georgecaldero4393 I watch his interview with the Sentientism guy, I think it's "Sentientist Conversations" or something
Hey Jack! I was talking with you yesterday at AY's discord. Just wanted to congratulate you for being put on the spot by various people and still managing to answer quickly and logically. Nice talking with you! Cheers 🙂
Nice to see you here, vegano Luis. :)
@@martaso643 Look who it is! heheh Está tudo bem? 😁
@ Sim, e contigo? :) Quais os teus pensamentos sobre este assunto que o Jack nos tem trazido recentemente? E' um assunto pertinente mas um bocado avassalador...
@@martaso643 Tudo fixe 😊 Não sei se estás a perguntar quanto às 3 situações que o HH falou ou do sofrimento selvagem no gral, mas falando no geral, precisamente por ser avassalador é que neste momento o que eu acho que devíamos fazer era só estudar bastante melhor a situação porque não acho boa ideia fazermos algo em larga escala sem termos alguma indicação de que isso vai ser benéfico. Devíamos dedicar uma boa quantidade de recursos para perceber melhor este tema. Por outro lado não me parece que seja uma obrigação moral. O sofrimento não está a ser causado por nós portanto provavelmente é uma virtude moral ajudar se pudermos mas não uma obrigação como por exemplo o veganismo. E tu o que achas?
@ Concordo exactamente contigo. :) E relativamente ao rewilding, sempre pensei so na parte vegetal, replantar florestas, nunca me ocorreu a parte de introduzir animais tambem. Assumi que isso seria algo que aconteceria gradual e naturalmente com o tempo. Para mim nao me faz muito sentido a ideia de criar propositadamente animais ou transferir animais de outros sitios para popular uma nova floresta. Foi a primeira vez que percebi que isso tambem fazia ou poderia fazer parte da ideia. Se faz parte entao realmente sim, aí temos responsabilidade. Este assunto e o da agricultura biologica nao ser vegan (que se falou em alguns canais) sao assuntos em que tenho um bocado dificuldade em posicionar-me, parecem-me facas de dois gumes. Tenho de estudar mais. xD
I absolutely love your thought experiments brother! An amazing mind! ✊🌱
My brain was hungry, so thank you for this food for thought!👍🙂👍
One thing I don't understand is why a group of vegans seem to think that human intervention is some kind of solution to suffering. Why is suffering the only metric to understand why animal rights should exist?
Why is it okay for us to intervene in everything cause we are "smarter"? I don't really believe we are more intelligent, I think it just depends on the criteria we choose to base "smartness" on.
Would be very interested to hear your thoughts about these aspects.
When firefighters intervene after an earthquake, they don't wonder about consent, about rights, about God or intervention. We see it as an unequivocally good think to intervene to reduce extreme forms of harm and help others not to die in terrible ways. This is seen as intuitive, and no one questions this when it is done to humans. We know animals tend to suffer like we do, so since we have the capacity to help them, this should come as a moral intuition in the same way it is perceived after an earthquake. There's nothing natural about firefighters taking planes to Turkey to rummage through broken homes in the hope of saving a human who is nearly dehydrated to death. You could call it "playing god". I would call it compassion, and striving for a more dignified world for all.
Loved all the space stuff and about simulations
There is no such thing as a "victory for veganism". There is only a victory for animals through liberation.
This is a great video.These are topics that most people arent even concerned about, but i think its important that we do start having these conversations.
Reintroducing predators is good because it will exchange starvation death by less painful death(predation). Change my mind
You should invite Brian Tomasik on for an interview like you did with Jacy Reese. He left a positive comment on one of your previous videos so I think he would be up for it.
Can you leave a link to his channel? I used to subscribe to philosophers’ official channels even if they have no videos such as David Pearce’s.
Right, I found. Is this him? ua-cam.com/users/BrianTomasik
Mind-blowing video Jack
What do Vegans think the answer is for wild suffering?
Great job, love that you are a nother voice for the philosophical side of veganism and beyond. With you and @cosmicskeptic we might have a chance at some real moral progress, keep it up 👍.
Thank you for all your videos. You are doing important work
Interesting video, I just wonder what reducing wild animal suffering could possibly look like and if it would not ruin the fragile balance that exists in ecosystems that affects things like soil health etc. It almost seems like the only way to eliminate wild animal suffering is to cull them or let them die out somehow?? And with the amount of animals that exist on land AND in the ocean it’s just so completely unimaginable. But I really can’t argue against rewilding without being speciesist, very frustrating haha
You should read Wild Animal Initiative's answer to the questions "What can we do to improve the well-being of wild animals?" and "Aren't ecosystems too complex to be able to predict the outcomes for wild animal welfare?" (www.wildanimalinitiative.org/faq ).
This organization is currently recommended as a top charity by Animal Charity Evaluators (animalcharityevaluators.org/blog/announcing-our-2021-charity-recommendations/ ), so if you can support them that's probably an excellent way of helping to improve the lives of wild animals.
You might also want to watch Animal Ethics' online course: ua-cam.com/play/PLRspdAk7uENPslR3I20AZMgtZzOoUYDmW.html
I miss the Jack that used to go out to the streets doing one of the best vegan outreaches I’ve seen.
I think the title is misleading because the problems you mention can happen whether or not the world is vegan. But excellent video otherwise! Question though: what would you suggest for how to manage populations without reintroducing predators?
Thanatosis and adrenaline assist the captured prey. Wolves will only eat their prey alive if they aren't able to kill it first, which is usually the case when they go after larger animals of prey like elk or moose. The main reason for eating their prey alive is because they can't kill it before eating it as their necks are too big for the wolf's teeth. In addition, captured prey animals are usually the very young/old or the sick, lame or lazy, whilst this is horrible for the individual, it is a better way to control populations than hunting or culling, which usually kills the best looking and pregnant mothers.
Absolutely loving your videos now mate.
Your street debates are hands down the best. I hope to see you back out there. Great video. Keep it up!
Very important things, we should do our best to spread this understanding
Love your work keep it up!
I am speciist, you as well, and we are both against hunting and against reintroduction of predators.
Interesting stuff, thank you.
Part of the consequences of a vegan world will be an abundance of farm land redundant for agriculture. An effective use to aid carbon capture is to re-wild these areas. Assuming we leave them return to the wild as opposed to actively managing them; would you consider us to be morally responsible for the suffering incurred in the naturally developing ecosystems that take over these lands?
Very well said and put together Jack! Cheers!
Thanks for the work Hanky!
These things arent caused by vegamism though right?
I sell Animal Liberation
and Animal Liberation accessories
**This message was approved by Hank Hill**
There's a really good episode of Black Mirror "White Christmas" where conscious digital doppelgangers are put into home monitoring devices as a kind of personalised alexa. With nothing else to do in the void a technician would up the clock speed to force them to comply with their new job
Good video Jack, I agree with all the points here
Taking the antinatalist stance helps with better understanding issues such as these IMO. A much needed issue discussed here, bravo 👏👏
Nature is nature, and involves alot of suffering. Human lives involve alot of suffering too. This doesn't mean we have an excuse to breed humans or non-humans by the TRILLIONS and give them a 'less painful death'. Some things can't be avoided, this is a fact of life.
What point are you trying to make?
Maybe suffering can't be avoided, but it can be reduced. And we definitely shouldn't increase suffering, as we currently do by introducing predators into habitats.
Remember, all creatures who are born suffer and die, nothing avoids that even human beings. Concious life itself is so painful.
I'm sure the title is to get clicks but going vegan is one of the biggest kindest things you can do. No its not perfect but its better.
But as your points YES I agree we should look into wild animal control to cause less suffering.
Remember, go vegan, live kindly, do not own pets, do not have any children.
Anti natalism is wrong. The existence of suffering does not make life not worth living or continuing for that matter. Also existence and non existence aren’t comparable.
@@Shwab1627 seems like youve never truly suffered then huh.
@@NetCafeCat Seems like you're just extremely pessimistic and don't know how to cope with difficult things in life.
"We have a moral obligation to plan for the propagation of life''
I couldn't disagree more, no life to begin with means no suffering. While propagating life means propagating needless sufferings.
Antinatalism is a moral obligation.
Why would antinatalism be a moral obligation?
Antinatalism is a flawed and incorrect philosophy. The existence of suffering does not mean that life isn’t worth continuing. Antinatalism is not morally superior in any way. Someone having kids can negative, positive, or neutral depending on the environment.
So a vegan world would not be worse but not the ultimate goal is what you're saying? Good video :)
I think he's saying that these things could make the world worse than it is now even if we were all vegan. In fact, many vegans even seems to be in favor of rewilding at the moment.
@@AwkwardAdolescent When I think about rewilding, I think about trees, not about wolves chasing deer O_O... So I guess I am in favor of re-treeing only.
a much needed video
Go Antinatalist Today!
This way we can avoid all potential future suffering. Our goal should be to end suffering and not maximize pleasure.
Extinction of sentient life is the only solution.
indeed.
Okay, couple of things here...
First, we usually do not introduce wolves because we want the deer to have a natural death. I think the problem with your trophic rewilding segment is that you only talk about the perspective of the deer, but it is as much about the wolf, too. If we want to grant him a right to live, this more painful death of the deer - I definitely agree on that - is just the logical consequence.
Sure, we could get rid of the wolf once and for all (not sure if that is your position), but that would feel strangely off as well, in my opinion. I guess we could also have hunters to hunt down (and as painless as possible) old or hurt deers with a rifle and then let wolves and other predators have it to eat. However, I am not sure if this even would work and not even considering the amount of time and money spent for that cause.
And again: If we see that 60% of the biomass is farm animals, I don't think that it is reasonable to say that a vegan world could cause more suffering due to the rather small amount of dead deers (compared to the billion of animals we would spare from suffering).
Your second point is valid in the sense of introducing wild animal suffering to another planet. BUT: What does that have to do with veganism? It's not (only) vegan people who want other planets do be colonized. So I don't see why the wild animal suffering on another planet would be increased by going vegan on planet earth... (Although I appreciate the interesting and in a way new thought of how we would colonize another planet and what species we would [not] introduce.)
And the third segment kind of feels like your second point: Very interesting, indeed (thanks for that thought), but it is just a "possible future world", not a specific "vegan future world".
So in conclusion, very interesting video, but I don't see almost any valid point why this would make a vegan future be less desirable. So it has some kind of clickbaitish touch to it which I think could be avoided if the video was renamed (I would have clicked it anyway ;)).
So interesting, you make way too much sense
I wonder if not "regulating wildlife" trough hunting or introducing predators will really cause less suffering. At some stage the animals will not find enough food, especially throughout winter and starve to death, or get infected with diseases, due to large population size.
Would like to hear your opinion on that? :)
Spaying and neutering is way more effective than hunting
@@juliamarinasenapassarelli7829
Could you explain the practicalities of that in Kruger National Park with over 100 000 Impalas?
I’m not suggesting your wrong but how can it realistically be done
@@bornfree8487 what if they employed as many veterinarians as there are hunters to do the job? Also, a spayed/neutered animal is better for population control than a dead animal, because it competes for food with the rest of the animals and therefore helps to lower the reproduction.
@@bornfree8487 but I don't have the exact answer for your question, population control strategies are complex and it's not my field of work.
My coffee just finished.. Perfect timing!
Hi Jack. Since rewilding increases suffering, then would the logical extension be that removing wildlife will decrease suffering? If so, the answer would be to eliminate all wild animals that consume other animals?
just eradicate sentient life the universe doesnt need it and its pointless. no big deal.
If it is a choice between living in the wild with wolves that could eat you alive or living in a factory farm cage, then we would choose to live in the wild. Animals in the wild are free to experience making their own choices and develop their skills to avoid predators, animals on factory farms are denied all basic dignity. Interesting video and viewpoints that we have never considered so thank you for making this content. We hope that a future vegan world will be able to rise to the challenge of creating a more non violent world for all beings. x
16:20 what if it was participants supporters or entities (same entities , the chooser ) agreeing with rewilding for learning all aspects of choice and agreements .
the simulators or sentient robots on idiocracy hands = entropy loops (endless suffering and insanity) .
Plants feel pain but no one seems to care because they show it differently so weigh that too
Yes, what you described increase the level of suffering to an infinite amount. But by the same token, doesn't it increase happiness to the same extent? Am I missing something?
I guess that depends on how it's used? Like, space colonization and concious simulations / digital minds - these are technologies that can create a lot of suffering, and a lot of happiness/well-being, but how much/little that is created of each is determined in part by the morality of the people that use these technologies.
it is unnecessary to create sentient life even for the reason that they might have the chance to experience happiness.
@@SeqZZ I assume that you, like me and everyone else have experienced happiness and suffering. Would you have rather not been born at all to avoid the suffering and consequently happiness?
@@eleunameoiggam Yes, from a selfish perspective, I'd prefer not to have been born to avoid the worst forms of suffering. In my life so far there hasn't been too much extreme suffering, but there will likely be more in my old age and while dying. Plus, we face small risks of experiencing extremely bad situations (e.g., literal torture), even if most of us humans are usually lucky enough to avoid those outcomes.
You're losing me at the wild animals stuff. Getting people to go vegan is hard enough without further complicating the issue with the idea of interfering with wildlife.
İt is more complicated but İt is true though and this large amount of suffering is happening right now in this moment
Mother Nature is not an animal rights activist.....
Great video
Did he just say wolves and bears shouldn't exist? 😐
Nope. I literally did not say that.
The video speaks out against introducing wolves to areas where they don't currently exist. But there is a clear difference between speaking out against *actively* spreading animals of these species to new areas, and wanting to *actively* make them go extinct (from e.g. hunting, or from wild-life contraception, or in other ways). The former doesn't necessitate the latter.
Personally though (as someone who isn't Humane Hancock) I think that the extinction of these animals probably wouldn't be such a bad thing - especially in areas where the deer and elk that they kill would be hunted by humans instead if there weren't wolves/bears in the area. To the animal that dies, it usually sucks to die, whether or not it belongs to an endangered species (and I see no reason to assume that wolves/bears going extinct would increase the amount of deaths among animals in nature).
Btw, if I were to choose one place for wolves/bears to exist, it would probably be in zoos - preferably zoos where they have plenty of space, have good healthcare, and never go hungry (since they are fed plenty of plant-based or lab-grown meat) 😛
@@TorBarstad
You’re my man!
After going to Safari in Africa a few times, the agony of animals in the Wild has led me to the same conclusion. For their sake, it’s better they didn’t exist
As usual humans prioritise their interests over those of animals
The Wild is no picnic
@@HumaneHancock But if you think we should protect deer and other animals from predators then you're implying that those predators shouldn't exist as they're obligate carnivores and couldn't sustain themselves in the wild without eating other animals🤔 That being said I'm not very familiar with the concept of reintroducing wolves for population control instead of hunting but it seems kind of pointless...if we can capture and breed wolves for "population control" why can't we just capture and relocate deer elsewhere where their population is not a threat?
Your FB link wasn't working for me for some reason.
Go Vegan ! Everyone can make the choice to not choose to contribute to animal cruelty and live a more sustainable life
Then do it. Don't tell me about it until you can manage to do it yourself.
@@janieswanson2549 thanks, I’ve been Vegan for 3 years now and love it!
this is a great video
You'd think human population growth & lifestyle could be quite a large threat, vegan world or not. The earth does have a limit to how much it can take, environmental damage means everyone and everything will suffer.
You need to update your Yellowstone river example: www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/scientists-debunk-myth-that-yellowstone-wolves-changed-entire-ecosystem-flow-of-rivers/349988
Excellent content Hancock ✌️
I agree with those things being evil, I've often thought about Detroit - Become Human happening in real life. But the very same could happen in a non-vegan world so I don't really understand what this has to do with the world going vegan
He never said that more suffering would happen because the world goes vegan, but instead said: more suffering could happen, despite the world being vegan.
@@rupert909 Ah, I get what you mean
A natural predator preys on the sick, the old and the slow, keeping a healthy, natural, population balance. Humans hunters, with high powered weapons, go for the largest, fittest and strongest which only weakens the gene pool and destroys the laws of natural selection. And; what are we to do?
I’ve heard you say this numerous times now Jack but; in your vision of a Vegan world, do we just exterminate all natural predators? Or only the big ones? And is it only on land or does that include oceans? Because they’re ALL predators!
Or do we somehow keep all of the carnivores away from all of the herbivores?
I mean; even it that were remotely possible, what would they eat? We couldn’t let them just starve so what would we feed them?
Terraforming Mars? What twaddle! Mars is outside the band where life can survive... any life and has no breathable atmosphere. Humanity is millennia away from having the technology to terraform a whole planet devoid of atmosphere, water and too far from the Sun to have sufficient energy to sustain even the simplest of plant life!
Human consciousness is not the same as intelligence or just an ability to feel pain. AI; however complex cannot have emotional responses. Oh, it can surely be programmed to simulate them (like a sociopath does) but it cannot “feel” them.
The human brain is a true miracle, able to calculate, store data and carry out hundred of separate tasks simultaneously, I am sure that, given enough time, it will be be possible to design some artificial approximation. But, human life is a billion times more than just a brain! The seven billion people on this planet are separate individuals not robots of robots of robots!
I know you have no faith or belief in God, which is why you can make these arguments but, I believe that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is the only logical explanation for life, the universe and everything! (Not 42!)
👍
"A natural predator preys on the sick, the old and the slow"
Imagine if we were talking about a human serial killer and said "hey, at least he only goes after the sick, the old and the slow". It doesn't seem to make it any better. Many people would consider it even worse (although I wouldn't necessarily agree - suffering is suffering, independent of who experiences it).
Mr. Hancock, you need to talk about James Aspey. Big time.
Okay, I get it. I don't want suffering either. However for life to actually progress, there has to be evolution by natural selection. It's worth it to have the suffering required to begin life in a new ecosystem so that there can be life there at all.
If I were a deer not yet born, and I had the choice to never be born (along with my species), or to take a chance of survival with a large risk of brutal death, I'd choose life. Especially if this meant a life away from humans.
You can't generate consciousness with a computer. Everything you do on any digital computer can be represented by a very large natural number. If you say simulations can generate consciousness, you have to say numbers can be conscious. Do you think numbers can be conscious? This would also mean if i define a set of all natural numbers i generate an infinity amount of consciousness beings, an infinite amount of them suffer and an infinite amount of them feel joy.
Do you believe that?
This is a huge problem for any materialistic world view. There is no difference in a real, material universe vs a simulated universe. This means there has to be something beyond the materialistic universe that gives use consciousness.
It’s just prime directive for me when it comes to other animals.
I’d reintroduce the wolves purely because it rights the wrong of genociding them in the first place. Not really because it’s “natural” or that anyone is “meant” to exist.
I don’t wish deers to be killed, the wolves kill to survive and they are non-agents. The absence of predators is used an excuse by humans to exploit, use, and murder thousands of herbivores. There is a categorical difference between the wolf killing to survive and the agent killing because they just like it or view it as their duty as some kind of “steward” for future generations of humans
Jack…..being born is not a harm, why are we on the negative utilitarian train
So... What do you suggest we do with predator animals?
Sterilization for predator animals till they go extinct and then the sterilization of prey animals to keep them in carrying capacity of environment using gene drive probably
"Let me explain how a Vegan world could contain more suffering."
Goes on to explain 3 non Vegan-dependent issues.
So what you're saying is that:
1. Re-wilding (which happens in a society that is in acceptance with animal exploitation and abuse, and not in a Vegan society, so it has nothing to do with Veganism) causes more suffering than killing 80 billions land animals and up to 3 trillion marine animals every year.
2. Space Colonization (which has nothing to do with being or not being Vegan) creates more suffering because we propagate life, and life leads to much suffering. I guess that you'd rather not have been born then, to avoid suffering.
3. Conscious Simulations (which again, relates to Veganism how?) creates more suffering because we could create thousands of different "realities" which would all contain suffering.
Sounds to me like all these options would easily be worse in a non-Vegan society.
I'm not seeing how the panspermia project and simulations are the result of a vegan world, but they're interesting subjects to speculate and morally debate.
Panspermia with the current view of the majority of vegans is a problem. We appeal to nature as if it knows best, the same fallacy we readily call non-vegans on.
@@suchawolfy A lot of us are still busy with the whole thing of what we humans do to domestic animals.
@@roku3216 yeah and thats fair enough, but you can't fault people for trying to take their ethics further looking to blind spots of the future. You don't need to feel oblidged to do it, keep fighting for farmed animals, I appreciate your contribution.
*Veganism ISN'T about maximizing the reduction of suffering of animals.*
I've never heard him defend this point either . Its actually getting a little frustrating .
IMO , Jack's argument is Welfarists .
I assume you take veganism as ending animal exploitation and cruelty to animals instead? (or sth around those lines) If we accept that definition of veganism, surely Hancook's philosophy of minimizing animal suffering would imply veganism. I think he is arguing that veganism isn't the "end all, be all" when it comes to animal suffering, hence the title of the video.
@@basilerommes1650 I prefer to think of Veganism as a principle rather than an act or a goal.
Ending exploitation is different from ending suffering .
If ending suffering is the goal then Efilism is the logical conclusion and that's a rights violation .
Hancock is suggesting that we intervene against predators and end evolution , which is a rights violation and thus not vegan , imo .
@@basilerommes1650 I believe that Veganism is closer to rejecting speciesism in the context of regarding sentience as a characteristic of an organism
that most humans already agree is a crucial trait to regard in terms of moral consideration.
The goal of minimizing animal suffering is definitely NOT the goal of veganism under any reasonable definition of the word. Seeking, as a goal, to minimize animal suffering is entirely different from veganism.
There would have to be a different name created for that ideology.
I'm not at all interested in the goal of seeking to minimize animal suffering. If, as a result of me living Vegan that some reduction in animal suffering is the result, then that's good.......but that doesn't mean that
the goal of Veganism is about animal suffering reduction.
@@basilerommes1650 Veganism can't be the end all of animal suffering because that's not what Veganism is about.
I'm against rewilding but what should we do with the freed up farmland in a vegan world?
maybe animal sanctuaries or veganic crop land?
parking lots :P
But wolves kill sick preys and hunters kill healthy animals so I'd argue wolves cause less surfering than hunters.
What's your view on Benevolent World Destroyer?
I think eradication of suffering by creating a super-happy society is more realistic from a sociological perspective (and perhaps also from a technical one). Personally I'm not a negative utilitarian, so it's what I'd prefer anyway, but I think negative utilitarians like David Pearce are being strategically wise when they promote concepts such as "The Hedonistic Imperative".
I also feel like pointing out that more or less every moral philosophy would imply having to make aversive choices in certain extreme (and unrealistic) thought-experiments. Like, someone who *only* cares about justice - well, the society with the least injustice and inequality would presumably be a society where everyone is dead? And someone who *isn't* a utilitarian (not even partly), and commits to principles of not doing harm in service if the greater good - well, such a person would then commit themselves prick the finger of a child, even if doing so would save the world and help billions of people from experiencing extreme torture for billions of years?
This article also feels relevant: longtermrisk.org/reasons-to-be-nice-to-other-value-systems/.
Anyway, I know I'm not the one you asked, but those are some of my thoughts :)
Good
If the “Vegan World” is more sustainable then currently that might contribute to less suffering and more benefit to society as we will be around for a longer time
But why should I give a fuck about the future when I am gonna die before that (if I am gonna die before that time)
@@Juttjuttjuttjutt4 Because other sentient beings will exist after your death?
@@briish7082 yeah good answer
You talked about humans colonisation of Mars in this video.
Thats pure science fiction it will never happen.
The earth will rid itself of us long before we get the technology to do that.
Colonisation is the passionate goal of the richest man in the world, and there are whole communities of people who are working towards this goal. The fact that you can claim with certainty that it will “never happen” as if you’re some kind of expert on the matter is absurd.
We don’t know whether or not it will happen and anyone who claims to know with certainty needs to learn how to acknowledge uncertainty and be more humble.
@@HumaneHancock you dont know the difference between science fiction and science fact.
Science fact. We have never landed a human on Mars. Its too dangerous thats why.
Science fiction its pure science fiction when people talk about colonies on Mars.
Gravity on mars is different to earth.
Thinner atmosphere on mars compared to earth. Colonies on mars are pure science fiction.
I love your video it is definitely food for thought. Well said!
Wreckless assumptions are the bread and butter of carnist arguments.
Im so grateful for ur videos 🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰
You cant' be serious with this example of bear killing humans. Those humans are not isolated if you can reintroduce bears in their environment. It means that you have acces to their environment and then you might come up with better solutions than kill them.
Interesting concepts! Thanks for the content.
Is it even realistic or favourable to eliminate all suffering in the world? No matter what we do, it seems like our action or inaction will inevitably lead to more or less suffering in other parts of the world, to other cultures, to other species, etc. And what definition of suffering are we even using here? I’m going to be the wolves’ advocate here 🐺
2:50
NO..........not necessarily true that a deer being shot results in less suffering than being killed by a wolf.
@broccoli It would need to be demonstrated that it necessarily must be the case that being shot results in less suffering........and it hasn't been even remotely demonstrated to be the case.
@broccoli I'm not making the claim, Jack is.
But certainly I can EASILY understand that some (or many) animals may live longer after being shot than being killed by a wolf.
Also, CERTAINLY it could be the case that a wolf manages to kill a deer very quickly by attacking the neck immediately, as just one example.......resulting in a very quick kill potentially.
There's ZERO good reason to believe that being shot necessarily entails less suffering.
@broccoli
Only if one PRESUMES that EVERY person who shoots at a deer is a marksman and hits, with the very first shot, a location that causes virtually immediately the deer to be rendered insensate........and that EVERY time a wolf kills a deer, it's a long, drawn out kill.
To me this is a foolish presumption on all levels.
@@LouisGedo Agreed. On top of that, the release of natural painkillers (endogenous opinoid neuropeptides) has to be taken into account when a prey is catched by a predator.
@broccoli You need to ask that of Jack........ I didn't make the claim.
Comparing animal farming to human slavery is absurd.
If you outlawed eating meat. People would eat it illegally.
Do you think the comparison is absurd when world famous academics do it? Like Peter Singer, Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker?
Yes if we outlaw eating animals, people would do it illegally. What’s your point? You do realise that when we outlawed human slavery, people kept slaves illegally, right?
@@HumaneHancock you don't realise animals could never be equal to humans in law as animals cannot sign a contract.
Some mentally disabled people can’t sign a contract either, should we start treating them worse for that reason?
@@HumaneHancock irrelevant.
Animals will never be equal to humans in law.
For example if a man was being attacked by a crocodile and you had a powerful rifle. Would you shoot the crocodile or let the man be eaten?
If you shoot the crocodile and you had an animal equality act shooting the crocodile might be unlawful.
So more people would get killed by animals.
I think it’s acceptable to harm non-humans in self-defense, just as I think it’s acceptable to harm other humans in self-defense. Obviously this is irrelevant to the question of whether we should be breeding, torturing and killing animals unnecessarily.
Again, listening to your ideas is better than porn, I swear. Very very amazing as usual.
Sure when you spread life you spread suffering, but you also spread pleasure. Would you prefer to not exist?
💜💜💜
I’m a little confused on how brain simulators and colonization of another planet causes a vegan world to be terrible. I’m a vegan by the way, I support you, but this is confusing
I think his message isn't "this is how the future might contain more suffering, because it went vegan", but more like "this is how the future might contain more suffering, *despite* of going vegan (if it goes vegan)". At the same time, he probably wrote his title in a confusing way partly for clickbaity reasons 😛
@@TorBarstad thank you for clearing that up, the title was definitely confusing. I actually promote veganism through singing on my channel, if you would like to check it out!
I hope Captain Kirk watches your videos 200 years from now
Sorry but seeing this title, watching it, is increasing my suffering. I agree with Louis Gedo.
Very few carnivorous animals rip their prey to shreds alive. Even wolves mostly try to kill their prey by biting on the neck.
Note also animals go in to shock when attacked. So how do u know that that a life in the wild followed by wolf death is a worse life than being shot?
> Very few carnivorous animals rip their prey to shreds alive.
It would be very interesting to have statistics on this, but I'm not aware of good data being available on this topic. My impression is that starting at the but/legs/stomach is quite common (but that starting at the neck also is quite common).
> Even wolves mostly try to kill their prey by biting on the neck.
My clear impression from seeing footage/images is that they often don't (but if they do so more or less than 50% of the time, I dunno).
Also: Going into shock presumably often happens both when they are hunted by humans and when they are hunted by other animals, and also in slaughter-houses (and helps to alleviate suffering, while at the same time not helping nearly enough..).
@@TorBarstad Time and impending danger is a crucial factor on whether carnivores eat their prey alive - they dont want others to steal their meal. But many animals rather kill first then eat.. or at least sedate - again they dont want a meal to getup and run off. So leopards, lions etc will suffocate first if possible.
But my point was really to demonstrate that I think HH is making unverified claims here. He points at the wolf kill as being a terrible thing and something that we cannot allow. I think it needs to be demonstrated that it is a worse death than any other. Perhaps being constantly stung and eaten alive by insects is actually much worse?!?... those tsetse flies are real b8st4ards!
@@ZambeziKid > So leopards, lions etc will suffocate first if possible.
Do you have statistics on that? Any studies you're basing this claim on? (A rhetorical question - I know you don't). The sweeping/broad claim that they "suffocate first if possible" - I suspect the source of that claim is someone who made it up (either you or someone else). I know that such animals do suffocate often, but footage I've seen suggests that they also often don't.
Earlier you made the unsubstantiated claim that "Even wolves mostly try to kill their prey by biting on the neck". And instead of taking that back, and reflecting on what made you make such an unsubstansiated claim, you go on to make more unsubstansiated (and IMO probably false) claims.
@@ZambeziKid > He points at the wolf kill as being a terrible thing and something that we cannot allow. I think it needs to be demonstrated that it is a worse death than any other.
I sometimes work on these scripts as well, and what it is like to be eaten by a predator (because yes, there is a great deal of variation) is something I agree should be covered in more detail.
I don't think being eaten by a wolf is a worse death than any other. For example, I think that being skinned and then having boiling water poured on top of you, or perhaps being roasted over a fire, probably is significantly worse. As to how being eaten by a wolf compares to being shot by a human hunter - it would be good to have more statistics/info on this, but in the meantime I think the more reasonable assumption/guess is that being eaten by a wolf is worse on average.
@@ZambeziKid Here is one text that I found:
""The way wolves hunt varies a lot based on the target animal and also on whether the prey is trying to fight back or escape. The wolf might attack a large deer animal from behind to stay as far away from its forehooves as possible, but the wolf commonly attacks smaller game from the front. The wolf kills its prey by biting it in the neck area. It may also bite a large prey animal in the snout. The wolf might also bite smaller game, such as sheep, foxes and beavers, in the back. An animal killed by a wolf can have bite marks all over its body."
This text doesn't list any sources (I'm not aware of any studies on this topic, or other ways of gathering statistics). I don't trust that what it says necessarily is correct.
That being said, what it says about wolves often starting to attack large deer by biting/attacking the legs, coincides with my intuitions.
I have seen several/many videos where wolves start at other places than the neck, and also heard stories where this is the case. And in the case of e.g. sheep, it seems that many sheep often will be alive after a wolf attack (and have to be killed/anesthetized afterwards).
Some relevant images:
* www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/photos/2008/11/eaten-alive-wolf-predation-captured-camera/
* www.agric.wa.gov.au/sites/gateway/files/styles/gw_medium/public/sheep%20still%20alive%20after%20attacked%20by%20a%20dog%20IMG_5065.JPG?itok=Mx4aTD6-
* speakupforthevoiceless.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/sheep-attack-1.jpg
* www.skinnymoose.com/bbb/files/2011/09/Image31-580x435.jpg
* 4.bp.blogspot.com/_VuYuEz_hAgk/ShqPB_zobGI/AAAAAAAAADQ/2qI7d8doMCs/s1600/wolves1.jpg
* www.reddit.com/r/natureismetal/comments/ew6r47/this_pronghorn_had_a_run_in_with_a_coyote_or_wolf/
But as mentioned, I wish I had more info/statistics on this.
*2021.................Year of the Vegan Activist*
How did you know?
@@SNinjaQK Tea leaves, my friend......... tea leaves! 😉
*2021................Year of the 'Vegan' Poseur Who's Against Interspecies Oppression But Totally FOR Intraspecies Oppression*
Tainted Mucus , don't *Vegan Poseur Lives Matter?*
😘
Lois Peedo
no, those lives can be immediately added to the *Lives That Don't Matter For Shit* list