Clip taken from the Triggernometry Podcast: • The Moral Case Against... If you like Cosmic Skeptic content, please consider supporting the channel at / cosmicskeptic
@@gordonsirek9001, how so? Certain animals, I assume lions are included in this population, are poly amorous as a result of their evolutionary heritage, which is what the first gentleman in the video is talking about. Likewise, it could be argued that from an evolutionary perspective, men are meant to be poly amorous, given than we don't have long and cumbersome reproductive cycles and that, unless we become infertile, can typically impregnate the opposite sex all that way up to our final years. And yet, we wouldn't use our own evolutionary history as a justification for cheating on our spouse, which is, as far as I can tell, what Bad Hombre was pointing out.
My guess would be that people like to think of them selves as lions rather than sheep, which honestly is a really old fashioned way of looking at people.
and in the next sentence - right after essentially having equated themselves to a lion - they like to condemn advocates against animal exploitation to be extremists who "equate humans with animals" or even "put animals over humans". it's just bizarre what kind of connections a human brain can make when experiencing cognitive dissonance.
It’s always LIONS too. It’s never Tigers or Bears or Wolves or Alligators. Why is that the first species that comes to mind, out of all the meat-eating animals?
@I invented Google Even more amazing when it comes from 'left' people. They go full reactionary, and instead of calling you libtard or SJW they say ableist or coloniser without further explanation (not a centrist just non vegan leftists are hypocritical af)
@I invented Google Me too. I try to remember that I was also blinded of the issue by cognitive dissonance too. Fingers crossed our cultural norms change very quickly 🤞
And thats good enough, I think It's important vegans don't belittle meat eaters or anything (which CosmicSkeptic never does). The fact is stopping people from eating dairy/animal products (let alone meat) is fucking hard, even for myself it took me a quite a long, gradual process. I couldn't just instantly stop straight away. It is a very easy topic to discuss when it comes to morality but when it comes to actually getting people to stop, physically, It's much more difficult. At least for me anyway.
@@hasekfan2450 so is it okay to accept rapists in society? It's their personal choice to enjoy what they do! Would it be okay if they took baby steps in order to stop being a rapist? When you put 2 in 2 together like do onto others that you want done to yourself! It wont take long for you to switch! Like it's crazy that we steal from babies and then kill babies just to consume their bodies! I understand the cognitive dissonance!
You can have your tasty wheat. For me and everyone else, we will have our delicious steaks. Let it be a wonderful New Year to you all. I have the eyes of the "Oracle" buy Bitcoin you won't regret it. You are living in a state of consciousness that resembles sleep. Please be advised a message to the wise and sufficient. Pfizer and Medora can not be sued nor be held accountable. COVID-1984 AND THE AGENDAS TO COME WITH JAMES PERLOFF www.bitchute.com/video/Pg8bmKMrDEkn/ # my knowledge of Kung Fu is stronger than yours it just simply a matter of fact.
What scares me so much about human carnism is just how thoughtlessly we accept it and have no problem with it. I wonder if most people back before the civil rights movement just thoughtlessly accepted racism without any inkling of doubt as to how bad it actually is and they turned a blind eye to the horrendous consequences of racism. That's what scares me the most. This is why us humans can NEVER ASSUME THAT we are perfectly moral. What if there's something else that we all just thoughtlessly accept under our noses which is immoral? We have to he diligent.
Not sure but maybe capitalism? Going to work, working our asses of for minimum wage while the rich make money of off our hard work. And we just like go with the flow?
I agree. We do need to reflect on our past behaviors that have been taken for granted. Though I suspect in the case of meat consumption, it will take longer time than we realized racism is bad. As a species of omnivore, the force of flesh eating habit is rooted in our lineage. That's why veganism hasn't gained mainstream traction. It's against people's instincts. Not to mention there's business and financial interests to consider.
I'm thinking as part of our evolution it was at one time necessary and so there hasn't been much reason to question it until recently. I think if it bothers you to kill and eat an animal, don't do it. But whether we kill and eat an animal or not, chances are in nature, something else will.
A very clean rebuttal, Alex. Especially liked how you pointed out his sudden shift of wording from essential to natural, as if they're interchangeable or at all similar.
I see vegans use this argument, too. “But you’re not a lion. You don’t hunt your own meat or eat it raw with your bare teeth”. They use this argument to discredit the carnist diet. It seems as if they would be fine with people eating meat as long as they hunted for their own meat rather than buy it at a store. Being a carnivore means you primarily eat meat; it’s got nothing to do with how you acquired that meat.
@@sveandful Even when hunting, humans use the mentality of plant-eaters; go for the biggest, the bestest, the most colorful with the largest antlers etc. thereby being detrimental to the gene pool - while actual predator animals in nature tend to go for the sick, old, weak, yada yada
@@rstevewarmorycom the point is, Lions are obligate carnivores who cannot survive on a plant-based diet, nor can they understand ethics. Lions are also rapists, but you don’t see anyone trying to justify rape by pointing at lions and saying “but THEY do it!” We’re not lions. We can live healthfully and deliciously on a vegan diet, and we can understand ethics. That’s the point.
@@liversinthefridge I don't care about lions, lions have their own evolved ethics and morality. A male lion who kills the offspring of another to bring the mother into heat again is behaving very virtuously, for a lion. All the females want him. We are a different species with evolved HUMAN morality, which is different than lions. We are cooperative and egalitarian. But we have the intestines of a raccoon, and like them, we tear other animals apart and eat them, but we also eat fruit and nuts and tubers and veg. We have the shortest gut among the primates and apes. A meat-eating gut. Meat is the most easily digested food. And no, we don't get what we need on a vegan diet, and the many wasted-away ex-vegans who gave up the vegan diet to regain their health prove it. As regards the animals we eat, there is NO ethics involved, because they do NOT think in any way close to the way we do. Animals are a lower form of life like ours, but which do not think. They make perfect prey. We are the superior life form, we eat the inferior life form.
This argument’s simplicity is beautiful. We don’t have to eat animals, therefore it is unnecessary. Eating animals causes suffering. Therefore, us eating animals is causing unnecessary suffering. A moral decision can be reduced to negating unnecessary suffering. Therefore, eating meat is amoral. Funny how this argument is basic enough to be one of the first examples someone sees in a propositional logic course yet we’re still somehow arguing that it’s moral to eat meat.
it's always lions. I had 1 person say bear and 5 say lions, in the past week. its like we are hardwired to compare ourselves to wild cats for some reason. 😂
The overwhelming agreement in the comments worries me It means the algorithm is starting to audience these videos solely to people who might agree with it. For a video like this it would be more important if it reached people who disagree with the topic
I disagree. Regenerative farming decreases the amount of suffering in the world on many levels. Cattle live an idyllic life eating grass within their social group, free from the fear of being savagely killed by predators. When they are killed, it is unexpected and painless. Humans thrive on their meat, eating a whole unprocessed food for which they are physiologically adapted. The farms can be carbon negative (vs monocrops), thereby reducing/mitigating the effects of climate change; better for the soil, Earth, water, people, the animals. Win/win all round.
@@darkpatches Regenerative farming is a technique used for growing crops. It doesn't say anything about how the animals are treated, you're just straight up lying to yourself about the conditions your food is being produced in :D
@@Astrobay13 You got me! I set up this fake website and fake article about regenerative cattle farming. www.agriculture.com/livestock/cattle/meet-allan-savory-the-pioneer-of-regenerative-agriculture I might be ideologically impervious to new information, but damn I'm good! The question is, are you really concerned about reducing suffering? Many vegans, not necessarily you, seem unwilling to integrate new facts when they conflict with their ideology. Regenerative cattle farming improves the well-being of cattle, humans and the planet. Those are facts.
@@darkpatches Aha, I knew it! 😂 I didn't find anything related to that, but nice to see 👍 The only problem I have with that is that alot of people really like pointing out that there ARE ways to hold animals without them suffering and use that to justify continuing to support factory farming. Like "look, there some farms that don't torture their animals, so it's okay that I continue to buy meat from factories that do" I'm not a vegan btw, not even vegetarian, but I definetly am concerend about the reduction of suffering. I don't have a problem with eating meat either, but I've realised that the benefits of nice taste don't outweigh the downside of supporting an industy that abuses and kills animals in the billions whilst also destroying nature and the climate
We DO have to eat meat, and animals that are dead do not suffer, and how they get dead is instantaneous, and animals do not think in any sense we would recognize. If we were such an animal for ten minutes we would come back uninformed, puzzled, and amazed that nothing we were able to think about exists in the poor excuse for a mind that a food animal has. Our intestines are those of a meat-eating omnivore. Whether we could get along without it or not is like asking us to get along without other things we are evolved to enjoy, like thinking, having sex, music, or making journeys. We do NOT need to be deprived, even if we would barely survive with bad health that way, as many ex-vegans have recounted to us. Alex has gone off the deep end, I no longer have ANY respect for him or his moronic position. I don't even consider him an atheist anymore because his beliefs are totally superstitious and logically unfounded. It is to me as if Alex became a flat-earther, and is now quite literally insane.
I often wonder why so many people, who participate in a debate about veganism, don't put in five minutes of effort, to look up the most ridiculous arguments beforehand in order to not make a fool out of themselves.
When you become vegan, especially for ethical reasons, you will have discussions with meat eaters which feels like banging your head against a solid adamantium wall. It's amazing how many times people don't see the logical leap of using animals that HAVE to eat meat to humans whom no longer NEED to eat meat. The natural argument falls at the first hurdle and continues to flounder when you ask them to describe what's so natural about factory farming. But it rarely gets through. You get labelled the extreme one in the discussion (which is a charitable description of some of these interactions). It's insanity.
ah yes, being condemned as "extremist who places other animals on the same level as humans" while the same person grasps for excuses by equating him/herself with a lion.........
Rutting heads eh... Al-Baqarah 2:67 وَإِذْ قَالَ مُوسَىٰ لِقَوْمِهِۦٓ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يَأْمُرُكُمْ أَن تَذْبَحُوا۟ بَقَرَةًۖ قَالُوٓا۟ أَتَتَّخِذُنَا هُزُوًاۖ قَالَ أَعُوذُ بِٱللَّهِ أَنْ أَكُونَ مِنَ ٱلْجَٰهِلِينَ And [recall] when Moses said to his people, "Indeed, Allah commands you to slaughter a cow." They said, "Do you take us in ridicule?" He said, "I seek refuge in Allah from being among the ignorant." Quran #GreentechApps Al-A'raf 7:179 وَلَقَدْ ذَرَأْنَا لِجَهَنَّمَ كَثِيرًا مِّنَ ٱلْجِنِّ وَٱلْإِنسِۖ لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ لَّا يَفْقَهُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ أَعْيُنٌ لَّا يُبْصِرُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ ءَاذَانٌ لَّا يَسْمَعُونَ بِهَآۚ أُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ كَٱلْأَنْعَٰمِ بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّۚ أُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْغَٰفِلُونَ And We have certainly created for Hell many of the jinn and mankind. They have hearts with which they do not understand, they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear. Those are like cattle; rather, they are more astray. It is they who are the heedless. Quran #GreentechApps
@@jes3788 exactly!! nature has no morality, so to claim that something is good because its natural makes no sense. rape, tribalism, greed, etc. are natural, yet these most definitely ain't good things
@@chrisjoshua69420 natural=good is the most annoying argument lol. So much of our lives are unnatural, unless the people making this argument are seriously suggesting surgery and medicine are bad lol
Only if you argue about ethics of veganism and even here you will loose all your arguments if you argue with someone who don't cate about ethics of animal farming
When we slaughter a cow, it exposes criminals. Because criminals spiritually turn into animals. Al-A'raf 7:179 وَلَقَدْ ذَرَأْنَا لِجَهَنَّمَ كَثِيرًا مِّنَ ٱلْجِنِّ وَٱلْإِنسِۖ لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ لَّا يَفْقَهُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ أَعْيُنٌ لَّا يُبْصِرُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ ءَاذَانٌ لَّا يَسْمَعُونَ بِهَآۚ أُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ كَٱلْأَنْعَٰمِ بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّۚ أُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْغَٰفِلُونَ And We have certainly created for Hell many of the jinn and mankind. They have hearts with which they do not understand, they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear. Those are like cattle; rather, they are more astray. It is they who are the heedless. Quran #GreentechApps
@@dylanjones268 yet you criminals start having feelings for our food when we eat our food bevause Allah cursed you for your crimes and turned you into animals.
"We are completely selective with our empathy, it's not like we don't care about animals already." "If you want to use these arguments let's apply them consistently, and see how OK you are with dogs being put into battery cages"
Alex, thank you for everything you do. I’m an old Goat (60+ yrs old) and have learned much from you. I’ve watched you for years. I’m a bit embarrassed to admit that I’ve learned much from a twenty something. Let’s all keep an open mind and keep learning. Love from Georgia (USA)
As someone who loves eating meat. Alex, every point you made was spot on and valid. I really wanting lab grown meat to be easily accessible as I believe this is one way that allows us to enjoy eating meat without the need of animals to pointlessly suffer.
Now that I think of it, I actually think the fact that we value dogs more than other animals is not merely arbitrary selective empathy as many think (and so have I). I actually think there might be a scientific and evolutionary explanation for why we value dogs more, but I'm not going to go there as I see how it can be a slippery slope.
I’ve been doing a lot of research into veganism and vegetarianism. For us humans, yes we most certainly can live without meat for the most part, except for supplementing vitamin b12. But you need to be a lot more conscious with your diet when you’re on a vegan diet. If you’re not consuming all the nutrients properly you might run into some serious irreversible health issues. You can check the stats for this. Most nutrient deficiencies and diseases related to nutrient deficiency are linked with vegans and vegetarians. Most people can’t eat consciously all the time, that’s just the way they are. Just like how people can’t stop smoking even though they know it’s killing them. At the end it comes down to risking our own lives and well being vs the well being of animals in which case i’d rather prefer our well being.
@Abel Abel if that’s the case then there would be no obesity. Most people that are obese know that eating unhealthy can be fatal for them. The fact is that not everyone can make conscious decisions about their diet and so being a vegan and eating without making conscious decisions about your diet will only cause you more harm than good. I can agree for once that if you have the means and will to turn into a vegan, then you most certainly should. But forcing someone who has a weak will power to turn vegan could even mean risking their lives.
@Abel Abel no what i mean to say is that it’s safer to be non vegetarian. If you’re someone that is a vegan i’m sure you know that you need to consciously make sure that you’re getting your nutrition right. Not everyone has the will and means to do that. Now, despite this fact if someone still decides to go vegan and if they fail with getting their nutrition right then they might have some irreversible health effects. It’s safer to have a omnivorous diet.
Fantastic arguments as always. But one thing that could've been added as well would've been that there's another difference seperating us from lions as well. lions also doesn't have the mental capacity to do moral decisions, but we do. So that's why we wouldn't judge a lion for doing something immoral, but we can each other in the hopes to improve this world we live in and I think this, is the base of the argument here.
Thank you for your brilliant work and in helping to create a world in which we will be able to live better now and as we continue forward into the future.
I only care about animals that I know. Just the mammals actually. I don’t care if my fish die. I wish the animals that I eat didn’t have to suffer but meat is the one thing that doesn’t affect my Crohn’s disease. Many vegetables, beans, soy, gluten, and dairy products do bother me. I wish factory farming wasn’t a thing. I do care about the environment but I have to eat. I guess I have to depend on people like Alex to make a difference. Thanks!
I would be seriously interested in what his approach would be for people who don't care about the reasonable argument about animal suffering. I.e. they acknowledge the cognitive dissonance of being opposed to things like dog fighting, but are not bothered enough by factory farms to give up meat. How do you convince someone that's ok with their double standard, because they just enjoy eating what they want?
If they don't care about the environmental aspect. Link them to the studies showing the relationship between meat/dairy consumption and diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and stomach problems (mainly dairy). If they don't care about themselves... They are probably a lost cause. lol If they believe in a God, you might be able to reach them on that point as no religion demands you eat meat, but you have to be EXTREMELY patient and able to work with a lot of nonsense to go that route. Here's one for the road: academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/67/5/255/1825526
I love that you were on Triggernometry. Their viewer base is mostly conservative/right-wing. They need to hear this message because many of them see veganism as "liberal hippie bullshit". They need to have their eyes opened.
One thing I've never seen touched on (at least yet) is why morality is treated as an externally applied behavioural prescription as opposed to an internally derived way of living -- why is it assumed that we have any dictatorial say in the way others live their lives? I don't think anyone should be giving-in to someone's authoritarian decrees of immorality, but if people non-expectantly confide in you how they're struggling with feelings that they helplessly find themselves associating with your behaviour, I think it's difficult not to show compassion. On top of this issue is the understandably frustrating problem of cognitive dissonance, of how the layman averts their gaze from the manner in which food is produced. I think this is really no different in structure from the more general discussion on closemindedness vs open-mindedness. I personally find open-mindedness to one's own feelings (as opposed to often neurotically living constrained by one's ill-informed judgments) to be a far more rewarding and illuminating way of living one's life, without having to bare any social lashes on my back. Internal consistency is something I strive to attain because it seems to prevent me from missing out on what life can offer so, if we think it's in our best interests, why would we criticise or expectantly handwave at those who struggle with it? Surely we could equally be compassionately discussing why we think it's in our best interests to be open-minded? But then why stop at veganism? If we can amputate our normative view of morality and implant a sense of selfishness into open-mindedness then we're also tackling political tribalism, problems with social discourse, prejudice in all forms, mental health problems/neuroticism, the justice system, recidivism (just look at some scandinavian prisons), and so on.
I for one think the only way to trust such an industry is to have 100% transparency. If there is even a molecule of secrecy involved in the process, I wouldn't trust it as ethical. Well-planned Vegan diets are healthier anyway (research backs this up), and will likely be cheaper.
I love when people tell me their animal lovers so I can follow up with the question of “what did you have to eat last night”. 90% say chicken, beef or fish.....real animals lovers!!
Yo! If you haven't heard it already, Shelly Kagan made an excellent response to the whole, "why do we excuse lions that murder a bunch of cubs to put the females back into breeding mode" argument. It's basically like, if a baby rips up a bunch of pages out of someone's book, one wouldn't hold the baby "morally accountable" for what they're doing because the baby just doesn't know better. Same reason we don't hold lions morally accountable
Thank you for uploading & sharing this. Personally, when I realised that, with a bit of planning, going plant-based would improve my health and reduce damage to the global environment, "winning" the moral argument was just a small bonus. We can keep winning debates on the moral argument but we also need to promote a practical way to migrate others onto a sustainable plant-based platform. A lot of my friends ask me : is eating just fruit & veg enough for them? I then ask them : when you are not feeling well, do you eat a lot of meat? Their answer is ALWAYS no and that is because they know that fruit & veg is really better. Most notably, the dairy & animal-based industries know that by bombarding people with advertising on their products they will keep people sitting on the fence and not move to plant-based.
Remember how sad people find it every time a lion eats a human? Isn't meat essential for lions? Also, just use another carnivore! Enough with the lions! Just say hawk, or something.
Lions are always naked and piss and shit whenever they feel like it , I'm sure this man isn't ok with me showing up naked in his house and piss everywhere .
Keep em coming Alex! If we repeat it enough, and say exactly the same thing in many different ways, maybe, just maybe a few more people will eventually stop & think, 'hang on, this makes perfect sense!'
I don't care what this guy's Intelligence is.... he's hitting so many angles you can't tell what the fuck he's doing in his free time People deserve to know what they'll be at 100 years of age....some of us missed the plot there....if you are to change it has to be on your own terms, behaviour and latitude
Fair enough. If we have evolved a shorter digestive system than other apes, then that seems to indicate a lean towards at least an omnivorous diet. My issue is that we need to cook our meat in order to digest it without becoming ill. Very rare steak aside, if anyone ate some raw chicken or lamb, I suspect they'd become very ill very quickly. Obviously carnivorism(?) isn't quite as natural as many argue. Also apes aren't lions 🤦♂️ I'm a layman regarding biology though, so I'd tend towards Alex's argument of unnecessary suffering and cruelty. Excellent video 👍
I'll agree with him. I don't follow the argument either. Humans are omnivores, not carnivores. If you're gonna draw a parallel, do so with other omnivores in nature instead of exclusively meat-eating animals.
@Abel Abel I don't personally think it's relevant either. I was saying that if someone _is_ going to do so, then they should at bare minimum pick an animal that we're more like rather than one that's exceptionally different.
It's not about whether eating meat is good or bad, its about what kind of meat you should eat, how you eat it and how often. Eat good quality meat. If it is more expensive, you will eat it less often, and therefore you will intuitively learn to respect it and eat it with grace.
If you don't need to eat animals, then there is no way to exploit their bodies with respect and grace. What you're suggesting is impossible. Tell me how someone can exploit your body and kill you with respect and grace, when they don't need to do it?
@@jamesbyrne3033 In an attempt to feel objective as your starting point you have reduced man the level of the animal, which while maybe true in the realm of biology, it does not follow that all animals, including humans, are equal before moral standards. That is an extreme egalitarian proposition which I entirely reject. The second part of your response is rather freakish because you are equating having a civilised Sunday roast with an act of cannibalism. No, these two acts are not equal on the morality scale, but given your inner egalitarian, perhaps you view them as being just as evil, which is to say, they are just as good.
Alex-I’d honestly like to see you apply these principles and John Rawls work to abortion. I’m really not trying to stir things up, I’m genuinely interested in how that plays out.
I don't agree that it's unnecessary. Eating meat is delicious. That's why people do it. Because it's delicious, eating meet has purpose. And if there's purpose, then it's no longer unnecessary.
@Abel Abel completely depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to live a hedonistic lifestyle (as most people do to some degree), and eating meat gives you pleasure, then it becomes necessary for you to eat meat. It depends on your goal. But for him to say that because our bodies don’t need meat, it’s unnecessary to do so is a fallacious argument.
@Abel Abel how is that twisting the definition of necessary? Necessary just means “to require”. The word is dependent on your goal. It’s not a moral principle, it’s something that you use to make sure your following a principle. If his principle is “only eat the things that his body needs to use” then yes it’s necessary for him to not eat meat. If following God’s word and enjoying the pleasures of life when possible is my principle it’s necessary for me to not lie or cheat. Etc. And also necessary for me to eat meat since I get pleasure from it. My point is, eating meat may not at all be necessary for him but I’d like to point out that he’s equating next with morally good. The two concepts often share the same circle but they’re not the same thing
Regenerative farming decreases the amount of suffering in the world on many levels. Cattle live an idyllic life eating grass within their social group, free from the fear of being savagely killed by predators. When they are killed, it is unexpected and painless. Humans thrive on their meat, eating a whole unprocessed food for which they are physiologically adapted. The farms can be carbon negative (vs monocrops), thereby reducing/mitigating the effects of climate change; better for the soil, Earth, water, people, the animals. Win/win all round.
@Abel Abel You're changing the subject. But, Kant would be proud of you. I suppose you could call this your Cattlegorical Imperative: "Only eat that which could be a universal food for everyone; and that ain't cows." ...Despite the fact that eating beef raised on regenerative farms literally makes the world a better place.
I think saying we ought eliminate unnecessary (for survival) suffering isn't the best way to go about this. People may respond by pointing to instances where we cause unnecessary suffering and don't consider it unethical to do so, as long as the goal isn't directed towards survival.
@@Astrobay13 Yeah, any action that isn't required for survival that causes any amount of suffering. Say, driving a car on a casual trip, potentially running over multiple insects, or buying a luxury item that involves some amount of suffering to make, or if going to the gym entails some suffering at first. Saying we ought eliminate unecessary suffering opens up these lines of attack. Seems better to make a case from ethical consistency.
At the risk of sounding cruel and being called out for it, I have to ask a question that's been on my mind for a while: Why should we care about the suffering of other species? Most of you likely think that we obviously should care, but the reason seems to often boil down to emotion. Before you take up your pitchforks and burn my home down, however, I'd like you to take a moment to honestly ponder the question.
Most don't *really* care - if they did, they would be vegans. As for why we *should*? Well, yes, emotions - do you want to be the direct or indirect cause of suffering of another living thing? I'm not vegan.
@Abel Abel I don't need to interact with every single human being on the planet to realize that causing them suffering could come with unpleasant consequences from, for example, the legal system. Additionally, treating other humans in a way that benefits them can and often will benefit me as well. My initial question didn't concern our attitude towards our own but towards other species. Do also keep in mind that it was meant as food for thought, rather than a serious discussion.
@@astorvialaw4980 It's a very good question. It goes more in the direction of "why have a morality system at all" tho imo. I'd like to point out that one could easily switch "species" with "race" in your question and the question wouldn't change at all. There is no disadvantage for you, if a different race would be treated badly, as that could never influence you. But since we do infact have a morality system, we should work on applying that consistently. I think the question "what is the purpose of a morality system now" is pointless. You could only ask where that morality system came from, which is egoism, as in I wanna be treated good, so I don't anger other people. But we've moved way past that point in evolution and we can't just apply the existing morality system selectively without risking it's integrity. Humans already care about animals being tortuted and killed for fun. We just fail to apply that to all areas of our life
Let me tell you as a YEC that there is evidence that big cats are completely capable of surviving off of a non meat diet.. Some have survived with a vegan diet. I believe there is a Liger or Tion, which is larger than either of its parent breeds, which was raised healthy on a purely vegan diet. And a zoologist named Walter Veith who taught at one of South Africa's University became a Christian YEC while having tenure. And before being forced out he did research with graduate students in big cat diets and the effects of different diets. Noting some fascinating physiological adaptations to the gut of the carnivore upon different forms of protein. Usually animals which feed on plants need very long intestinal tracts and some cattle have multiple stomachs etc to break it down. The carnivores have short guts for digesting the more dense proteins. Some if the studies he did had shown to lengthen carnivore digestive tracts as they shifted the diets. In a single animal life span.
I should have verified this story and cited the evidence. I will seen if I cant. I took it as granted by hearing the man speak on it but have not seen the documentation. Not saying it is wrong, or that I have reason to doubt him. But it was a claim without proof.
Exactly it makes no sense to have laws against dog fighting whilst at the same time allowing the torture and murder of other animals. Unless of course you say that dog fighting is fine as long as the dogs are eaten afterwards.
At least the guy that originally posed that argument or idea was reasonable enough to consider what was being said and not continue to go down that line of illogical thought. If an individual prizes trying to be reasonable beyond all else they are already on a whole other level and have broken down the walls of confined thought. That's a beautiful thing.
So eloquently put, with people like you.. we hopefully will see an end to the needless and immeasurable suffering of billions of animals and the driving force of species extinction and environmental destruction.
I understand the case for veganism and am trying to turn into a vegan myself. After reading some of the comments, I have been pondering about what is actually considered suffering; as much as people throw around this word I haven't actually seen it being defined. It not being defined properly leads to the confusions described below. (Please excuse my not being well read enough in this topic.) If we instead annihilate the animals instantaneously, so that "it didn't know what hit it" (we can never guarantee that this is possible, of course, but assume for the moment it is), would it break the moral argument for veganism? Because here there is no suffering (right?) and we like to eat meat so we are happy (opposite of suffering). Obviously we might apply the same logic to justify murdering people: if they are killed "instantaneously" then there would be no "suffering"; here the hole lies in the fact that there are people who care about the person being murdered, and these are the people who are actually suffering, not the person being murdered. I believe the same rebuttal applies to animals; if an animal is killed (even if instantaneously), it is their family who will suffer, thus making killing of animals immoral. Is this the exact nature of suffering in my "theoretically instantaneous" animal killing? Or is there any other reason why instantaneous killing of animals is immoral? I'm sorry, it's 3AM and I'm trying to think philosophy for some reason...
Given that you have said in the past that death isn't bad for the person who dies (it's bad for their friends, family etc), doesn't that mean that eating animals is fine as long as they had a good life while they were alive?
Actually as long as there are vegans it applies, because vegans are sad you eat meat. The only moral worth animals have is created by vegans and if there are enough of them they will win. So please convince people not to be vegan whenever you can.
There are no long term studies on a diet completely void of animal foods, nutrition science isn't black and white and there is so much more to understanding nutrition. For every study in favor of a "plant-based diet," (key word, plant-based, because there aren't any long term vegan diets,) is a study just as reputable that can contradict it. Saturated animal fat and cholesterol is required for every metabolic process and is required to synthesize vitamin D from the sun, a vitamin vegans get even less than meat eaters already. Heme iron being the only iron bioavailable to humans, and the only iron that can properly reverse anemia. Veganism lacks B12, obviously, with supplementation varying in efficacy, adequate amounts of fat soluble vitamins such as D3, K2(MK4, MK7, MK9), bioavailable vitamin A (retinol) and vitamin E. Eating only plants will offset your omega3-omega6 ratio, plants and vegetable seed oils contain large quantities of inflammatory omega6 fatty acids that is difficult to balance out. Then you have to take the gut-microbiome into consideration, and how healthy your digestive system actually is. There's a multitude of factors that effect digestibility of certain foods. Like antinutrients, which can wreak havoc on the gastrointestinal tract. The paper value on the back of a box means absolutely nothing to the human body and you cannot assume we can be optimally healthy on a vegan diet long term regardless of how meticulous your attention to your nutrition intake and supplementation. When it comes to the environmental issue, I'd like to mention the large amount of pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, etc. and harmful synthetic vitamins and minerals that are used in conventional plant agriculture, used to kill pests by the millions. Wild rabbits, deer, mice, voles, birds, anything that would cause harm to the crops. Also happens to cause soil depletion, wreaks havoc on water supplies and natural habitats due to runoff excess plant feed being dumped, which happens on many of the farms you get your GMO monocrops from, often resulting in the deaths of an immeasurable amount of animals. Feed runoff has caused red tide. The carbon emissions of conventional farming alone, animal and plant, both are causing extreme detriment to the ozone layer... I could go on and on, but I urge you to look into these things a bit. Giving all these variables into account, how c an you argue that we eat animal foods for "taste pleasure" when we are in fact biologically an obligate omnivore. Animal foods cannot be mimicked or replaced, we cannot conclude your claims to be true until we have a scientifically validated case of a human subsisting off strictly plant foods from birth to death, also meaning the mothers breast milk cannot contain nutrients from animal foods as well. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3941825/ www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3502319/ academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/78/3/633S/4690005 www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/anti-nutrients/ www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5983041/ www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3967179/ www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3303980/ www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/cholesterol#:~:text=Cholesterol%20is%20important,-Cholesterol%20is%20produced&text=We%20need%20a%20small%20amount,body%20to%20produce%20vitamin%20D openheart.bmj.com/content/5/2/e000898 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335257/
you should also know that most of the crops are fed to livestock that is 70 billion animals every year. Just search up how much land is used for animal feed compared to human food. Therefore, more pests and insects are killed by animal agriculture
@@keiramitchell5240 Firstly, the information provided on K2 and dairy products states the current understanding of how bacteria produce K2 and fermented dairy products are the absolute best source of K2 in it's most bioavailable form. Just because an industry funded something doesn't make it automatically invalid, considering the findings of K2 in the study is the scientific consensus. Secondly, I support regenerative agriculture which has a multitude of benefits and works with nature instead of against it. A few being that on pasture there are cycle rotations that allow for less land usage while maintaining an adequate feed yield, grazing cows eat bushes, flowers and weeds along with their grass, which is a ruminants natural diet. As well as the fact that regenerative agriculture and pasture raised ruminant animals sequester CO2 emissions as well as restoring life and the natural ecology of what could have been otherwise infertile land. To the fools who are going to tell me "methane tho," in the natural grazing pattern of cattle, methane remains within a cycle of the ranches ecology, going from grass to cow, cow to air and from the air back into the grass, with methane only sticking around for 10 years, meanwhile the CO2 that comes from plant agriculture sticks around for 10× as long, only for grass-fed regenerative practices to sequester it and then some. www.wri.org/blog/2020/05/regenerative-agriculture-climate-change#:~:text=There%20is%20broad%20agreement%20that,can%20also%20reduce%20water%20pollution. regenerationinternational.org/why-regenerative-agriculture/ heliaeglobal.com/10-regenerative-agriculture-practices/
Girl: "Why did you cheat on me??"
Boy: "Well, Lions are polygamous, soooooo"
False analogy.
Girl: why did you rape me?
Man: lions tho 🦁
@@gordonsirek9001, how so? Certain animals, I assume lions are included in this population, are poly amorous as a result of their evolutionary heritage, which is what the first gentleman in the video is talking about. Likewise, it could be argued that from an evolutionary perspective, men are meant to be poly amorous, given than we don't have long and cumbersome reproductive cycles and that, unless we become infertile, can typically impregnate the opposite sex all that way up to our final years. And yet, we wouldn't use our own evolutionary history as a justification for cheating on our spouse, which is, as far as I can tell, what Bad Hombre was pointing out.
Jordan that's a dark example its better not to use
@@user-sr1il3yo9t It is a dark example, but only because this is what the “lions tho” excuse for eating meat entails.
It's staggering how often people bring up The Lion Argument.
My guess would be that people like to think of them selves as lions rather than sheep, which honestly is a really old fashioned way of looking at people.
and in the next sentence - right after essentially having equated themselves to a lion - they like to condemn advocates against animal exploitation to be extremists who "equate humans with animals" or even "put animals over humans". it's just bizarre what kind of connections a human brain can make when experiencing cognitive dissonance.
@@holleey omg i hadn't even made that connection! That is gold XD
It’s always LIONS too. It’s never Tigers or Bears or Wolves or Alligators. Why is that the first species that comes to mind, out of all the meat-eating animals?
@@liversinthefridge I've had the pleasure with some wolf-people, too. ;)
I wonder if they role-play when it's full moon.
Their "hmhMh" at the end there lol
That hhmhm translates to "damn he's right and our argument was fricken stupid"
@I invented Google Even more amazing when it comes from 'left' people. They go full reactionary, and instead of calling you libtard or SJW they say ableist or coloniser without further explanation (not a centrist just non vegan leftists are hypocritical af)
@@chandir7752 To me it sounded like "hmm, but uhm plAnTs fEeL pAiN thO"
@I invented Google
Me too. I try to remember that I was also blinded of the issue by cognitive dissonance too. Fingers crossed our cultural norms change very quickly 🤞
Yeah I get that sometimes too lol
Alex: "I don't follow the argument"
Guys: "Hmmmm"
Translation: "Yeah, we have no argument"
And thats good enough, I think It's important vegans don't belittle meat eaters or anything (which CosmicSkeptic never does). The fact is stopping people from eating dairy/animal products (let alone meat) is fucking hard, even for myself it took me a quite a long, gradual process. I couldn't just instantly stop straight away. It is a very easy topic to discuss when it comes to morality but when it comes to actually getting people to stop, physically, It's much more difficult. At least for me anyway.
he's getting them thinking, that's good :)
mm yes...yes quite...
@@hasekfan2450 so is it okay to accept rapists in society? It's their personal choice to enjoy what they do! Would it be okay if they took baby steps in order to stop being a rapist? When you put 2 in 2 together like do onto others that you want done to yourself! It wont take long for you to switch!
Like it's crazy that we steal from babies and then kill babies just to consume their bodies! I understand the cognitive dissonance!
You can have your tasty wheat. For me and everyone else, we will have our delicious steaks. Let it be a wonderful New Year to you all. I have the eyes of the "Oracle" buy Bitcoin you won't regret it. You are living in a state of consciousness that resembles sleep. Please be advised a message to the wise and sufficient. Pfizer and Medora can not be sued nor be held accountable.
COVID-1984 AND THE AGENDAS TO COME WITH JAMES PERLOFF
www.bitchute.com/video/Pg8bmKMrDEkn/
# my knowledge of Kung Fu is stronger than yours it just simply a matter of fact.
You quickly became one of the most important voices for animal liberation. Thank you.
What scares me so much about human carnism is just how thoughtlessly we accept it and have no problem with it. I wonder if most people back before the civil rights movement just thoughtlessly accepted racism without any inkling of doubt as to how bad it actually is and they turned a blind eye to the horrendous consequences of racism. That's what scares me the most. This is why us humans can NEVER ASSUME THAT we are perfectly moral. What if there's something else that we all just thoughtlessly accept under our noses which is immoral? We have to he diligent.
+
Not sure but maybe capitalism? Going to work, working our asses of for minimum wage while the rich make money of off our hard work. And we just like go with the flow?
We move forward when we look at the situation from the perspective of the victim.
That's what carnists never do. 🤒🤕
I agree. We do need to reflect on our past behaviors that have been taken for granted. Though I suspect in the case of meat consumption, it will take longer time than we realized racism is bad. As a species of omnivore, the force of flesh eating habit is rooted in our lineage. That's why veganism hasn't gained mainstream traction. It's against people's instincts. Not to mention there's business and financial interests to consider.
I'm thinking as part of our evolution it was at one time necessary and so there hasn't been much reason to question it until recently. I think if it bothers you to kill and eat an animal, don't do it. But whether we kill and eat an animal or not, chances are in nature, something else will.
A very clean rebuttal, Alex. Especially liked how you pointed out his sudden shift of wording from essential to natural, as if they're interchangeable or at all similar.
Bro 1: "Hey, Bro, why do you always sniff my **s when we catch up?"
Bro 2: "Lions in nature do Bro."
Bro 1: "Oh, yeah Bro. You're right Bro!"
Oof.. "lions though" is a cringey one
Even when I wasn't vegan and never thought I would ever be vegan I never pulled such BS arguments! Crikey!!
I do not understand why literally everyone I bring up veganism to opens with "LiOnS tHo"?
I could see the man making the argument was struggling to even say it seriously without sounding silly.
Beat me to it, one of the worst arguments against veganism
I see vegans use this argument, too. “But you’re not a lion. You don’t hunt your own meat or eat it raw with your bare teeth”. They use this argument to discredit the carnist diet. It seems as if they would be fine with people eating meat as long as they hunted for their own meat rather than buy it at a store. Being a carnivore means you primarily eat meat; it’s got nothing to do with how you acquired that meat.
To add to that, lions are not factory farming their prey, nor destroying the environment around them when they hunt, so...
and further more large carnivores improve on biodiversity in their ecosystems, humans do what they can to eliminate it.
@@sveandful
Even when hunting, humans use the mentality of plant-eaters; go for the biggest, the bestest, the most colorful with the largest antlers etc. thereby being detrimental to the gene pool - while actual predator animals in nature tend to go for the sick, old, weak, yada yada
@@ConsciousBrosCommunity Interesting, never thought about it that way
Nope, they tear their prey apart alive and eat it while it’s living and trying to escape.
@@LeneChibi
:)
ua-cam.com/video/kGDYydkvg3E/v-deo.html&t=1
That guy: "Lions eat me tho...."
Me: "You realize we're not lions....?"
No, we're meat-eating omnivores. Moron.
@@rstevewarmorycom the point is, Lions are obligate carnivores who cannot survive on a plant-based diet, nor can they understand ethics. Lions are also rapists, but you don’t see anyone trying to justify rape by pointing at lions and saying “but THEY do it!”
We’re not lions. We can live healthfully and deliciously on a vegan diet, and we can understand ethics. That’s the point.
rstevewarmorycom omnivores with a moral conscience
@@liversinthefridge Well explained. What the hell is your username about? Or is that your real name?haha
@@liversinthefridge
I don't care about lions, lions have their own evolved ethics and morality. A male lion who kills the offspring of another to bring the mother into heat again is behaving very virtuously, for a lion. All the females want him.
We are a different species with evolved HUMAN morality, which is different than lions. We are cooperative and egalitarian. But we have the intestines of a raccoon, and like them, we tear other animals apart and eat them, but we also eat fruit and nuts and tubers and veg. We have the shortest gut among the primates and apes. A meat-eating gut. Meat is the most easily digested food.
And no, we don't get what we need on a vegan diet, and the many wasted-away ex-vegans who gave up the vegan diet to regain their health prove it. As regards the animals we eat, there is NO ethics involved, because they do NOT think in any way close to the way we do. Animals are a lower form of life like ours, but which do not think. They make perfect prey. We are the superior life form, we eat the inferior life form.
This argument’s simplicity is beautiful.
We don’t have to eat animals, therefore it is unnecessary. Eating animals causes suffering. Therefore, us eating animals is causing unnecessary suffering. A moral decision can be reduced to negating unnecessary suffering. Therefore, eating meat is amoral. Funny how this argument is basic enough to be one of the first examples someone sees in a propositional logic course yet we’re still somehow arguing that it’s moral to eat meat.
it's always lions. I had 1 person say bear and 5 say lions, in the past week. its like we are hardwired to compare ourselves to wild cats for some reason. 😂
lmao
I can't help but laugh every time someone brings up "lions tho"
ps, I love Cosmic Clips !
I feel really embarrassed to admit this, but I used to say the same thing...wow the cringe lol
@@Silzaress oh wow, interesting, thanks for sharing
surely the "lions though" argument has had its time. time to come up with another deranged way to justify torturing animals
The overwhelming agreement in the comments worries me
It means the algorithm is starting to audience these videos solely to people who might agree with it. For a video like this it would be more important if it reached people who disagree with the topic
It is no different from religious apologist videos.
I disagree.
Regenerative farming decreases the amount of suffering in the world on many levels. Cattle live an idyllic life eating grass within their social group, free from the fear of being savagely killed by predators. When they are killed, it is unexpected and painless. Humans thrive on their meat, eating a whole unprocessed food for which they are physiologically adapted. The farms can be carbon negative (vs monocrops), thereby reducing/mitigating the effects of climate change; better for the soil, Earth, water, people, the animals. Win/win all round.
@@darkpatches Regenerative farming is a technique used for growing crops. It doesn't say anything about how the animals are treated, you're just straight up lying to yourself about the conditions your food is being produced in :D
@@Astrobay13 You got me! I set up this fake website and fake article about regenerative cattle farming. www.agriculture.com/livestock/cattle/meet-allan-savory-the-pioneer-of-regenerative-agriculture
I might be ideologically impervious to new information, but damn I'm good!
The question is, are you really concerned about reducing suffering? Many vegans, not necessarily you, seem unwilling to integrate new facts when they conflict with their ideology. Regenerative cattle farming improves the well-being of cattle, humans and the planet. Those are facts.
@@darkpatches Aha, I knew it! 😂
I didn't find anything related to that, but nice to see 👍
The only problem I have with that is that alot of people really like pointing out that there ARE ways to hold animals without them suffering and use that to justify continuing to support factory farming.
Like "look, there some farms that don't torture their animals, so it's okay that I continue to buy meat from factories that do"
I'm not a vegan btw, not even vegetarian, but I definetly am concerend about the reduction of suffering.
I don't have a problem with eating meat either, but I've realised that the benefits of nice taste don't outweigh the downside of supporting an industy that abuses and kills animals in the billions whilst also destroying nature and the climate
I cringe every time people bring up lions as an example. The projection is strong in them
It’s weird how much human beings think of themselves to compare themselves to lions
@@TheAmyShows lions are big strong alphas! I want to be a big strong alpha. Therefore I am a big strong alpha!
Imagine trying to morally justify killing animals with our evolutionary heritage 🤣🤣🤣🤣👌🏿
imagine being so stupid to compare morals with past behavior
Well it does make sense to argue from evolutionary heritage. Lions are justified to kill due to evolutionary heritage.
@@MarkoMood yes and lions need to eat meat...
so what ?
thats not were morals come from
you either have morals or evolutionary heritage
We DO have to eat meat, and animals that are dead do not suffer, and how they get dead is instantaneous, and animals do not think in any sense we would recognize. If we were such an animal for ten minutes we would come back uninformed, puzzled, and amazed that nothing we were able to think about exists in the poor excuse for a mind that a food animal has. Our intestines are those of a meat-eating omnivore. Whether we could get along without it or not is like asking us to get along without other things we are evolved to enjoy, like thinking, having sex, music, or making journeys. We do NOT need to be deprived, even if we would barely survive with bad health that way, as many ex-vegans have recounted to us. Alex has gone off the deep end, I no longer have ANY respect for him or his moronic position. I don't even consider him an atheist anymore because his beliefs are totally superstitious and logically unfounded. It is to me as if Alex became a flat-earther, and is now quite literally insane.
@@rstevewarmorycom no we dont have to so i wont even read the rest because the first sentence is wrong
I like people who bring out the lion's tho meme as they are going to deliver a revolutionary philosophical standpoint on the topic lol
I often wonder why so many people, who participate in a debate about veganism, don't put in five minutes of effort, to look up the most ridiculous arguments beforehand in order to not make a fool out of themselves.
@@squeegybeckenheim2489 Agree
You are making 2020 a lot better! Thanks for being a voice for animals :)
:)
@Manly Man ( ͡°( ͡° ͜ʖ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ʖ ͡°) ͡°)
@Manly Man
Incredible vegan power
When you become vegan, especially for ethical reasons, you will have discussions with meat eaters which feels like banging your head against a solid adamantium wall. It's amazing how many times people don't see the logical leap of using animals that HAVE to eat meat to humans whom no longer NEED to eat meat. The natural argument falls at the first hurdle and continues to flounder when you ask them to describe what's so natural about factory farming. But it rarely gets through. You get labelled the extreme one in the discussion (which is a charitable description of some of these interactions). It's insanity.
ah yes, being condemned as "extremist who places other animals on the same level as humans" while the same person grasps for excuses by equating him/herself with a lion.........
Rutting heads eh...
Al-Baqarah 2:67
وَإِذْ قَالَ مُوسَىٰ لِقَوْمِهِۦٓ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يَأْمُرُكُمْ أَن تَذْبَحُوا۟ بَقَرَةًۖ قَالُوٓا۟ أَتَتَّخِذُنَا هُزُوًاۖ قَالَ أَعُوذُ بِٱللَّهِ أَنْ أَكُونَ مِنَ ٱلْجَٰهِلِينَ
And [recall] when Moses said to his people, "Indeed, Allah commands you to slaughter a cow." They said, "Do you take us in ridicule?" He said, "I seek refuge in Allah from being among the ignorant."
Quran
#GreentechApps
Al-A'raf 7:179
وَلَقَدْ ذَرَأْنَا لِجَهَنَّمَ كَثِيرًا مِّنَ ٱلْجِنِّ وَٱلْإِنسِۖ لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ لَّا يَفْقَهُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ أَعْيُنٌ لَّا يُبْصِرُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ ءَاذَانٌ لَّا يَسْمَعُونَ بِهَآۚ أُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ كَٱلْأَنْعَٰمِ بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّۚ أُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْغَٰفِلُونَ
And We have certainly created for Hell many of the jinn and mankind. They have hearts with which they do not understand, they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear. Those are like cattle; rather, they are more astray. It is they who are the heedless.
Quran
#GreentechApps
@@ummerfarooq5383
What are you trying to say?
Its natural, says the man who lives in a house and wears clothes.
Well put. haha made me lol lots
@ADz - that's not a roast at all. Their point is natural doesn't mean good, so they would have no problem using a blender.
@ADz - Vegans aren't the ones with pathetic attempts to appeal to nature.
@@jes3788 exactly!! nature has no morality, so to claim that something is good because its natural makes no sense. rape, tribalism, greed, etc. are natural, yet these most definitely ain't good things
@@chrisjoshua69420 natural=good is the most annoying argument lol. So much of our lives are unnatural, unless the people making this argument are seriously suggesting surgery and medicine are bad lol
Comment for the algorithm
Where was the argument to begin with? :')
Thank you for what you're doing, Alex
One of the good things about being vegan is that, once you have your points lined up, it's very hard to lose an argument about it 😀
Only if you argue about ethics of veganism and even here you will loose all your arguments if you argue with someone who don't cate about ethics of animal farming
@@Biellushi you will waste time discussing ethics with psychopaths, sure.
@@GregVidua lmao
In that case, leave the rest of us alone.
@@GregVidua I'm not a psychopath.
It's frustrating how repetitive and predictable arguments against veganism are, like here we go again...
When we slaughter a cow, it exposes criminals. Because criminals spiritually turn into animals.
Al-A'raf 7:179
وَلَقَدْ ذَرَأْنَا لِجَهَنَّمَ كَثِيرًا مِّنَ ٱلْجِنِّ وَٱلْإِنسِۖ لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ لَّا يَفْقَهُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ أَعْيُنٌ لَّا يُبْصِرُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ ءَاذَانٌ لَّا يَسْمَعُونَ بِهَآۚ أُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ كَٱلْأَنْعَٰمِ بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّۚ أُو۟لَٰٓئِكَ هُمُ ٱلْغَٰفِلُونَ
And We have certainly created for Hell many of the jinn and mankind. They have hearts with which they do not understand, they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear. Those are like cattle; rather, they are more astray. It is they who are the heedless.
Quran
#GreentechApps
I'm quite repetitive when I try and teach my kids how to behave too, that's what you have to do when addressing simple minds.
@@ummerfarooq5383 That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard
I'm confused about these comments and who's supporting who. Can someone please explain arguments for both sides?
@@dylanjones268 yet you criminals start having feelings for our food when we eat our food bevause Allah cursed you for your crimes and turned you into animals.
This was a great interview and definitely worth watching the full version.
Thanks for posting Alex. Love thee mini clips. Wouldn’t have found this podcast you did unless you had posted! Keep up the wonderful work my friend!
"We are completely selective with our empathy, it's not like we don't care about animals already."
"If you want to use these arguments let's apply them consistently, and see how OK you are with dogs being put into battery cages"
Selective empathy is correct. Many will decry the Koreans eating dogs and yet have no problem eating bacon and ham. It's all barbaric and unnecessary.
I’ve never been a lion before though. But that’s just me.
I think I’m in love with Alex
As always, excellent!
Cosmic Skeptic Please PLease Please have a conversation with Sam Harris!!!!
yes please
Alex, thank you for everything you do. I’m an old Goat (60+ yrs old) and have learned much from you. I’ve watched you for years. I’m a bit embarrassed to admit that I’ve learned much from a twenty something. Let’s all keep an open mind and keep learning. Love from Georgia (USA)
Off we go with a hardcore opening statement about lions...
My goodness I wish I was this articulate in debates. You're playing a big part in the societal shift towards animal liberation, and I appreciate you
Always so well articulated!
As someone who loves eating meat. Alex, every point you made was spot on and valid.
I really wanting lab grown meat to be easily accessible as I believe this is one way that allows us to enjoy eating meat without the need of animals to pointlessly suffer.
Is no one going to talk about the double drink at the beginning?
Yes, I care about other animals. Just not all animals equally. Like every other person.
oh god my eyes never rolled back in my head so fast and hard. a LiOn tHoUgH
Now that I think of it, I actually think the fact that we value dogs more than other animals is not merely arbitrary selective empathy as many think (and so have I). I actually think there might be a scientific and evolutionary explanation for why we value dogs more, but I'm not going to go there as I see how it can be a slippery slope.
What about cats then? People fucking love cats. In fact, most people apparently want to BE lions. lol
Konstantin: *mm...*
Francis: *hmm...*
I’ve been doing a lot of research into veganism and vegetarianism.
For us humans, yes we most certainly can live without meat for the most part, except for supplementing vitamin b12. But you need to be a lot more conscious with your diet when you’re on a vegan diet. If you’re not consuming all the nutrients properly you might run into some serious irreversible health issues. You can check the stats for this. Most nutrient deficiencies and diseases related to nutrient deficiency are linked with vegans and vegetarians. Most people can’t eat consciously all the time, that’s just the way they are. Just like how people can’t stop smoking even though they know it’s killing them. At the end it comes down to risking our own lives and well being vs the well being of animals in which case i’d rather prefer our well being.
@Abel Abel if that’s the case then there would be no obesity. Most people that are obese know that eating unhealthy can be fatal for them. The fact is that not everyone can make conscious decisions about their diet and so being a vegan and eating without making conscious decisions about your diet will only cause you more harm than good.
I can agree for once that if you have the means and will to turn into a vegan, then you most certainly should. But forcing someone who has a weak will power to turn vegan could even mean risking their lives.
@Abel Abel no what i mean to say is that it’s safer to be non vegetarian. If you’re someone that is a vegan i’m sure you know that you need to consciously make sure that you’re getting your nutrition right. Not everyone has the will and means to do that. Now, despite this fact if someone still decides to go vegan and if they fail with getting their nutrition right then they might have some irreversible health effects. It’s safer to have a omnivorous diet.
What they answers to that at the end
"Hmm"
"Hm"
GET A NEW PROFILE PICTURE. I thought it was a hair, and could not Remove it.... 😓
@@GlossRabban That's kind of the point sorry
The lion is a reference to the ruthless king.
very well decorticated . you basicly indirectly explained Ahimsa. Lowest possible suffering for all sentient being... Possible.. not always possible.
Fantastic arguments as always. But one thing that could've been added as well would've been that there's another difference seperating us from lions as well. lions also doesn't have the mental capacity to do moral decisions, but we do. So that's why we wouldn't judge a lion for doing something immoral, but we can each other in the hopes to improve this world we live in and I think this, is the base of the argument here.
Bro. You got me.
glad to hear it
Just google Challenge22
Great Response, to a facepalmingly stupid argument.
I can't take "lions though" seriously anymore, it's just one big tired meme at this point
I've been Vegan for 10 years.
Me 7.
Me a little over a month, and I am 38:(
5 years
That's great, I'm 6 months in, but I'm getting there
A little over a year! One day I will be saying 10 years as a vegan, the prospect is very exciting 🙂
Thank you for your brilliant work and in helping to create a world in which we will be able to live better now and as we continue forward into the future.
As a Lion.. I approve of this message 👌
Lions tho is such a ridiculous argument. There are some messed up people who literally eat animals alive... I suppose it's okay because Lions do it.
I only care about animals that I know. Just the mammals actually. I don’t care if my fish die. I wish the animals that I eat didn’t have to suffer but meat is the one thing that doesn’t affect my Crohn’s disease. Many vegetables, beans, soy, gluten, and dairy products do bother me. I wish factory farming wasn’t a thing. I do care about the environment but I have to eat. I guess I have to depend on people like Alex to make a difference. Thanks!
I would be seriously interested in what his approach would be for people who don't care about the reasonable argument about animal suffering. I.e. they acknowledge the cognitive dissonance of being opposed to things like dog fighting, but are not bothered enough by factory farms to give up meat. How do you convince someone that's ok with their double standard, because they just enjoy eating what they want?
If they don't care about the environmental aspect. Link them to the studies showing the relationship between meat/dairy consumption and diabetes, heart disease, obesity, and stomach problems (mainly dairy). If they don't care about themselves... They are probably a lost cause. lol If they believe in a God, you might be able to reach them on that point as no religion demands you eat meat, but you have to be EXTREMELY patient and able to work with a lot of nonsense to go that route.
Here's one for the road: academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/67/5/255/1825526
I love that you were on Triggernometry. Their viewer base is mostly conservative/right-wing. They need to hear this message because many of them see veganism as "liberal hippie bullshit". They need to have their eyes opened.
Well said, you pinpointed the hypocrisy of the argument excellently.
One thing I've never seen touched on (at least yet) is why morality is treated as an externally applied behavioural prescription as opposed to an internally derived way of living -- why is it assumed that we have any dictatorial say in the way others live their lives? I don't think anyone should be giving-in to someone's authoritarian decrees of immorality, but if people non-expectantly confide in you how they're struggling with feelings that they helplessly find themselves associating with your behaviour, I think it's difficult not to show compassion.
On top of this issue is the understandably frustrating problem of cognitive dissonance, of how the layman averts their gaze from the manner in which food is produced. I think this is really no different in structure from the more general discussion on closemindedness vs open-mindedness. I personally find open-mindedness to one's own feelings (as opposed to often neurotically living constrained by one's ill-informed judgments) to be a far more rewarding and illuminating way of living one's life, without having to bare any social lashes on my back. Internal consistency is something I strive to attain because it seems to prevent me from missing out on what life can offer so, if we think it's in our best interests, why would we criticise or expectantly handwave at those who struggle with it? Surely we could equally be compassionately discussing why we think it's in our best interests to be open-minded?
But then why stop at veganism? If we can amputate our normative view of morality and implant a sense of selfishness into open-mindedness then we're also tackling political tribalism, problems with social discourse, prejudice in all forms, mental health problems/neuroticism, the justice system, recidivism (just look at some scandinavian prisons), and so on.
Solid logic. Thank you.
Alex, what do you think of the new no-kill meat being introduced in Singapore. It is chicken meat grown in a lab in a bioreactor.
I for one think the only way to trust such an industry is to have 100% transparency. If there is even a molecule of secrecy involved in the process, I wouldn't trust it as ethical. Well-planned Vegan diets are healthier anyway (research backs this up), and will likely be cheaper.
The argument should be that lions are not moral creatures, we are.
wait. so what about plants? Plants are alive too and we eat them... i know im being stupid but can someone help me out here? please?
Not the "lions though" argument. This is a cringe
I love when people tell me their animal lovers so I can follow up with the question of “what did you have to eat last night”. 90% say chicken, beef or fish.....real animals lovers!!
*Create a Better World by...........Living Vegan*
And dying vegan;)
@@GlossRabban No one has ever died from living vegan.
Veganism is NOT a diet.
@@LouisGedo I think you misunderstood what I meant. Look at My comment again, and try to look at it with New, and non judgemental eyes:)
@tears of venus Ohh woopsie, and thanks :)
@@GlossRabban It's vague what you mean but I'm going to guess that you support veganism. 👏
Yo! If you haven't heard it already, Shelly Kagan made an excellent response to the whole, "why do we excuse lions that murder a bunch of cubs to put the females back into breeding mode" argument. It's basically like, if a baby rips up a bunch of pages out of someone's book, one wouldn't hold the baby "morally accountable" for what they're doing because the baby just doesn't know better. Same reason we don't hold lions morally accountable
We (grown) humans have moral agency, a choice and alternatives, while the non-human animals do not :)
Thank you for uploading & sharing this. Personally, when I realised that, with a bit of planning, going plant-based would improve my health and reduce damage to the global environment, "winning" the moral argument was just a small bonus. We can keep winning debates on the moral argument but we also need to promote a practical way to migrate others onto a sustainable plant-based platform. A lot of my friends ask me : is eating just fruit & veg enough for them? I then ask them : when you are not feeling well, do you eat a lot of meat? Their answer is ALWAYS no and that is because they know that fruit & veg is really better. Most notably, the dairy & animal-based industries know that by bombarding people with advertising on their products they will keep people sitting on the fence and not move to plant-based.
Remember how sad people find it every time a lion eats a human? Isn't meat essential for lions? Also, just use another carnivore! Enough with the lions! Just say hawk, or something.
Everybody in the comments section pretending to have the argumentative wit of this kid 😂
Lions are always naked and piss and shit whenever they feel like it , I'm sure this man isn't ok with me showing up naked in his house and piss everywhere .
Keep em coming Alex!
If we repeat it enough, and say exactly the same thing in many different ways, maybe, just maybe a few more people will eventually stop & think, 'hang on, this makes perfect sense!'
Lions are technically vegan as they avoid animal products as far as possible
Excellent point.
I don't care what this guy's Intelligence is.... he's hitting so many angles you can't tell what the fuck he's doing in his free time
People deserve to know what they'll be at 100 years of age....some of us missed the plot there....if you are to change it has to be on your own terms, behaviour and latitude
Fuckin hell youd have thought they'd have stopped using this one by now
If you drink the milk
....
Zombies....
Reeeeeeeeeee HAVE SOME ELECTRIC ROCK JORDAN PETERSON WILL NEVER DIE REEEEEEEE
Fair enough. If we have evolved a shorter digestive system than other apes, then that seems to indicate a lean towards at least an omnivorous diet. My issue is that we need to cook our meat in order to digest it without becoming ill. Very rare steak aside, if anyone ate some raw chicken or lamb, I suspect they'd become very ill very quickly. Obviously carnivorism(?) isn't quite as natural as many argue.
Also apes aren't lions 🤦♂️
I'm a layman regarding biology though, so I'd tend towards Alex's argument of unnecessary suffering and cruelty. Excellent video 👍
I'll agree with him. I don't follow the argument either. Humans are omnivores, not carnivores. If you're gonna draw a parallel, do so with other omnivores in nature instead of exclusively meat-eating animals.
@Abel Abel I don't personally think it's relevant either. I was saying that if someone _is_ going to do so, then they should at bare minimum pick an animal that we're more like rather than one that's exceptionally different.
It's not about whether eating meat is good or bad, its about what kind of meat you should eat, how you eat it and how often.
Eat good quality meat. If it is more expensive, you will eat it less often, and therefore you will intuitively learn to respect it and eat it with grace.
If you don't need to eat animals, then there is no way to exploit their bodies with respect and grace. What you're suggesting is impossible.
Tell me how someone can exploit your body and kill you with respect and grace, when they don't need to do it?
@@jamesbyrne3033 In an attempt to feel objective as your starting point you have reduced man the level of the animal, which while maybe true in the realm of biology, it does not follow that all animals, including humans, are equal before moral standards. That is an extreme egalitarian proposition which I entirely reject.
The second part of your response is rather freakish because you are equating having a civilised Sunday roast with an act of cannibalism. No, these two acts are not equal on the morality scale, but given your inner egalitarian, perhaps you view them as being just as evil, which is to say, they are just as good.
Lions don't keep cow farms.
Alex-I’d honestly like to see you apply these principles and John Rawls work to abortion. I’m really not trying to stir things up, I’m genuinely interested in how that plays out.
I don't agree that it's unnecessary. Eating meat is delicious. That's why people do it. Because it's delicious, eating meet has purpose. And if there's purpose, then it's no longer unnecessary.
@Abel Abel completely depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to live a hedonistic lifestyle (as most people do to some degree), and eating meat gives you pleasure, then it becomes necessary for you to eat meat. It depends on your goal. But for him to say that because our bodies don’t need meat, it’s unnecessary to do so is a fallacious argument.
@Abel Abel how is that twisting the definition of necessary? Necessary just means “to require”. The word is dependent on your goal. It’s not a moral principle, it’s something that you use to make sure your following a principle.
If his principle is “only eat the things that his body needs to use” then yes it’s necessary for him to not eat meat. If following God’s word and enjoying the pleasures of life when possible is my principle it’s necessary for me to not lie or cheat. Etc. And also necessary for me to eat meat since I get pleasure from it.
My point is, eating meat may not at all be necessary for him but I’d like to point out that he’s equating next with morally good. The two concepts often share the same circle but they’re not the same thing
Little Tyke: Are you kidding me?
A lion that ate no meat at all, the owner tried it to feed her meat but she did not any of it.
Regenerative farming decreases the amount of suffering in the world on many levels. Cattle live an idyllic life eating grass within their social group, free from the fear of being savagely killed by predators. When they are killed, it is unexpected and painless. Humans thrive on their meat, eating a whole unprocessed food for which they are physiologically adapted. The farms can be carbon negative (vs monocrops), thereby reducing/mitigating the effects of climate change; better for the soil, Earth, water, people, the animals. Win/win all round.
@Abel Abel You're changing the subject.
But, Kant would be proud of you. I suppose you could call this your Cattlegorical Imperative: "Only eat that which could be a universal food for everyone; and that ain't cows." ...Despite the fact that eating beef raised on regenerative farms literally makes the world a better place.
An enemy has been slain
"double kill"
@@imaginaut Very true lol
I love this guy
lions tho
I think saying we ought eliminate unnecessary (for survival) suffering isn't the best way to go about this. People may respond by pointing to instances where we cause unnecessary suffering and don't consider it unethical to do so, as long as the goal isn't directed towards survival.
Can you think of another instance?
@@Astrobay13 Yeah, any action that isn't required for survival that causes any amount of suffering. Say, driving a car on a casual trip, potentially running over multiple insects, or buying a luxury item that involves some amount of suffering to make, or if going to the gym entails some suffering at first.
Saying we ought eliminate unecessary suffering opens up these lines of attack. Seems better to make a case from ethical consistency.
At the risk of sounding cruel and being called out for it, I have to ask a question that's been on my mind for a while:
Why should we care about the suffering of other species?
Most of you likely think that we obviously should care, but the reason seems to often boil down to emotion. Before you take up your pitchforks and burn my home down, however, I'd like you to take a moment to honestly ponder the question.
@Abel Abel Because I interact with my own species on a daily basis and not doing so could cause me to suffer as well.
Most don't *really* care - if they did, they would be vegans. As for why we *should*? Well, yes, emotions - do you want to be the direct or indirect cause of suffering of another living thing?
I'm not vegan.
@Abel Abel I don't need to interact with every single human being on the planet to realize that causing them suffering could come with unpleasant consequences from, for example, the legal system. Additionally, treating other humans in a way that benefits them can and often will benefit me as well.
My initial question didn't concern our attitude towards our own but towards other species. Do also keep in mind that it was meant as food for thought, rather than a serious discussion.
@@astorvialaw4980 It's a very good question.
It goes more in the direction of "why have a morality system at all" tho imo.
I'd like to point out that one could easily switch "species" with "race" in your question and the question wouldn't change at all. There is no disadvantage for you, if a different race would be treated badly, as that could never influence you.
But since we do infact have a morality system, we should work on applying that consistently.
I think the question "what is the purpose of a morality system now" is pointless. You could only ask where that morality system came from, which is egoism, as in I wanna be treated good, so I don't anger other people. But we've moved way past that point in evolution and we can't just apply the existing morality system selectively without risking it's integrity.
Humans already care about animals being tortuted and killed for fun. We just fail to apply that to all areas of our life
@Abel Abel Please stop over simplifying my position. The legal system was just one example.
Let me tell you as a YEC that there is evidence that big cats are completely capable of surviving off of a non meat diet.. Some have survived with a vegan diet. I believe there is a Liger or Tion, which is larger than either of its parent breeds, which was raised healthy on a purely vegan diet. And a zoologist named Walter Veith who taught at one of South Africa's University became a Christian YEC while having tenure. And before being forced out he did research with graduate students in big cat diets and the effects of different diets. Noting some fascinating physiological adaptations to the gut of the carnivore upon different forms of protein.
Usually animals which feed on plants need very long intestinal tracts and some cattle have multiple stomachs etc to break it down. The carnivores have short guts for digesting the more dense proteins. Some if the studies he did had shown to lengthen carnivore digestive tracts as they shifted the diets. In a single animal life span.
I should have verified this story and cited the evidence. I will seen if I cant. I took it as granted by hearing the man speak on it but have not seen the documentation. Not saying it is wrong, or that I have reason to doubt him. But it was a claim without proof.
Exactly it makes no sense to have laws against dog fighting whilst at the same time allowing the torture and murder of other animals. Unless of course you say that dog fighting is fine as long as the dogs are eaten afterwards.
At least the guy that originally posed that argument or idea was reasonable enough to consider what was being said and not continue to go down that line of illogical thought. If an individual prizes trying to be reasonable beyond all else they are already on a whole other level and have broken down the walls of confined thought. That's a beautiful thing.
So eloquently put, with people like you.. we hopefully will see an end to the needless and immeasurable suffering of billions of animals and the driving force of species extinction and environmental destruction.
“Lions tho”
I understand the case for veganism and am trying to turn into a vegan myself. After reading some of the comments, I have been pondering about what is actually considered suffering; as much as people throw around this word I haven't actually seen it being defined. It not being defined properly leads to the confusions described below. (Please excuse my not being well read enough in this topic.)
If we instead annihilate the animals instantaneously, so that "it didn't know what hit it" (we can never guarantee that this is possible, of course, but assume for the moment it is), would it break the moral argument for veganism? Because here there is no suffering (right?) and we like to eat meat so we are happy (opposite of suffering).
Obviously we might apply the same logic to justify murdering people: if they are killed "instantaneously" then there would be no "suffering"; here the hole lies in the fact that there are people who care about the person being murdered, and these are the people who are actually suffering, not the person being murdered. I believe the same rebuttal applies to animals; if an animal is killed (even if instantaneously), it is their family who will suffer, thus making killing of animals immoral.
Is this the exact nature of suffering in my "theoretically instantaneous" animal killing? Or is there any other reason why instantaneous killing of animals is immoral?
I'm sorry, it's 3AM and I'm trying to think philosophy for some reason...
Given that you have said in the past that death isn't bad for the person who dies (it's bad for their friends, family etc), doesn't that mean that eating animals is fine as long as they had a good life while they were alive?
Actually as long as there are vegans it applies, because vegans are sad you eat meat. The only moral worth animals have is created by vegans and if there are enough of them they will win. So please convince people not to be vegan whenever you can.
death is a natural part of life that doesn't mean murdering humans is fine as long as they lived a good life?
There are no long term studies on a diet completely void of animal foods, nutrition science isn't black and white and there is so much more to understanding nutrition. For every study in favor of a "plant-based diet," (key word, plant-based, because there aren't any long term vegan diets,) is a study just as reputable that can contradict it. Saturated animal fat and cholesterol is required for every metabolic process and is required to synthesize vitamin D from the sun, a vitamin vegans get even less than meat eaters already. Heme iron being the only iron bioavailable to humans, and the only iron that can properly reverse anemia. Veganism lacks B12, obviously, with supplementation varying in efficacy, adequate amounts of fat soluble vitamins such as D3, K2(MK4, MK7, MK9), bioavailable vitamin A (retinol) and vitamin E. Eating only plants will offset your omega3-omega6 ratio, plants and vegetable seed oils contain large quantities of inflammatory omega6 fatty acids that is difficult to balance out. Then you have to take the gut-microbiome into consideration, and how healthy your digestive system actually is. There's a multitude of factors that effect digestibility of certain foods. Like antinutrients, which can wreak havoc on the gastrointestinal tract. The paper value on the back of a box means absolutely nothing to the human body and you cannot assume we can be optimally healthy on a vegan diet long term regardless of how meticulous your attention to your nutrition intake and supplementation.
When it comes to the environmental issue, I'd like to mention the large amount of pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, etc. and harmful synthetic vitamins and minerals that are used in conventional plant agriculture, used to kill pests by the millions. Wild rabbits, deer, mice, voles, birds, anything that would cause harm to the crops. Also happens to cause soil depletion, wreaks havoc on water supplies and natural habitats due to runoff excess plant feed being dumped, which happens on many of the farms you get your GMO monocrops from, often resulting in the deaths of an immeasurable amount of animals. Feed runoff has caused red tide. The carbon emissions of conventional farming alone, animal and plant, both are causing extreme detriment to the ozone layer... I could go on and on, but I urge you to look into these things a bit.
Giving all these variables into account, how c an you argue that we eat animal foods for "taste pleasure" when we are in fact biologically an obligate omnivore. Animal foods cannot be mimicked or replaced, we cannot conclude your claims to be true until we have a scientifically validated case of a human subsisting off strictly plant foods from birth to death, also meaning the mothers breast milk cannot contain nutrients from animal foods as well.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3941825/
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3502319/
academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/78/3/633S/4690005
www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/anti-nutrients/
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5983041/
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3967179/
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3303980/
www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/cholesterol#:~:text=Cholesterol%20is%20important,-Cholesterol%20is%20produced&text=We%20need%20a%20small%20amount,body%20to%20produce%20vitamin%20D
openheart.bmj.com/content/5/2/e000898
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335257/
i just opened the first study to see.if there's any bias in what you are saying and it's funded by International dairy federation lol. I'm out
you should also know that most of the crops are fed to livestock that is 70 billion animals every year. Just search up how much land is used for animal feed compared to human food. Therefore, more pests and insects are killed by animal agriculture
@@keiramitchell5240 Firstly, the information provided on K2 and dairy products states the current understanding of how bacteria produce K2 and fermented dairy products are the absolute best source of K2 in it's most bioavailable form. Just because an industry funded something doesn't make it automatically invalid, considering the findings of K2 in the study is the scientific consensus.
Secondly, I support regenerative agriculture which has a multitude of benefits and works with nature instead of against it. A few being that on pasture there are cycle rotations that allow for less land usage while maintaining an adequate feed yield, grazing cows eat bushes, flowers and weeds along with their grass, which is a ruminants natural diet. As well as the fact that regenerative agriculture and pasture raised ruminant animals sequester CO2 emissions as well as restoring life and the natural ecology of what could have been otherwise infertile land. To the fools who are going to tell me "methane tho," in the natural grazing pattern of cattle, methane remains within a cycle of the ranches ecology, going from grass to cow, cow to air and from the air back into the grass, with methane only sticking around for 10 years, meanwhile the CO2 that comes from plant agriculture sticks around for 10× as long, only for grass-fed regenerative practices to sequester it and then some.
www.wri.org/blog/2020/05/regenerative-agriculture-climate-change#:~:text=There%20is%20broad%20agreement%20that,can%20also%20reduce%20water%20pollution.
regenerationinternational.org/why-regenerative-agriculture/
heliaeglobal.com/10-regenerative-agriculture-practices/
Such an ally keep doing your thing