I loved this video very much. Especially because you pushed your guest on particular points. So, it wasn't just a simple "question, response, next", but you actually pushed him and dug deeper. I really appreciate that.
Just for reference: “One particularly poor argument in defence of eating meat is that if humans did not eat animals, those animals would not have been brought into existence in the first place. Humans would simply not have bred them in the numbers they do breed them. The claim is that although these animals are killed, this cost to them is outweighed by the benefit to them of having been brought into existence. This is an appalling argument for many reasons. First, the lives of many of these animals are so bad that even if one rejected my argument one would still have to think that they were harmed by being brought into existence. Secondly, those who advance this argument fail to see that it could apply as readily to human babies that are produced only to be eaten. Here we see quite clearly that being brought into existence only to be killed for food is no benefit. It is only because killing animals is thought to be acceptable that the argument is thought to have any force.” ― David Benatar, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence
I have never heard such arguments from pronatalist vegans. The argument I heard is that their children will be vegan and great animal rights activists, and therefore, their children will reduce suffering. I ask them, how do you know your children will not rebel against you and start eating meat, and why aren’t you that great animal rights activist. Also, what about their grandchildren, and great grandchildren, and so on? They also say that by having children, they will increase the number of vegans. To that I say, we don’t need to increase the number of vegans, but we need to decrease the number of carnists by turning them into vegans.
Yes, the one you say is the far more common one. I didn't think to ask that here because that's something AN vegans have already been responding to for ages now.
Wow! You got Dr. Benatar to come on your podcast. Very impressive. This is going to be interesting. I have read his book several years ago. I highly recommend it to everyone.
Oh yeah you are totally the new leader of the antinatalist movement. Maybe Buzz and Neil even brought women to the moon. Did you try a 69 with Cosmic Sceptic?
His answer to the red button question was very interesting. I get where you’re coming from though- it’s a hypothetical!!! Part of the hypothetical is the assumption of knowing the outcome lol
But it's an utterly useless hypothetical. It doesn't lead to anything. Since one cannot ever know the outcome of such a device, the entire hypothetical is useless, because it can't be transfered to the real world.
@@WackyConundrum I don't think that hypotheticals have to have some real world transfer. Hypotheticals should expose logical (in)consistencies and values/contradictions. If we control for all factors that a red button could - in fact - instantaneously kill all sentient life, then I think there are compelling reasons to do so, given the structural harms all sentient life will go through. Even on a population level, if global antinatalism is supported, among the "fortunate" there will also be the "unfortunate". And I haven't even touched upon animal (wild life) suffering. In a real world scenario where AN has amassed a lot of democratic support, I would NOT use violence or force. Rather autonomy and self-determination and raising awareness otherwise a society will not function and people will suffer unspeakably in an authoritarian regime.
@@MunchinYou-jy6km If a hypothetical cannot be transferred to the real world in any sense, then I fail to see how it's relevant for anything. How could a such thing uncover our intuitions? Suppose you get an answer from someone and call it his intuition. Then, this intuition will necessarily be bound and isolated to this impossible scenario (which, as we established, cannot be transferred to the real world). Why use there is in having intuitions for impossible scenarios? They don't do anything. They don't even matter.
@@WackyConundrum That's why it is a hypothetical. It is like the altered trolley problem where you are asked to push a fat guy to stop a train from hitting few individuals. A fat guy, no matter who big, will never be able to stop a train. Even if that were possible, most people would not push it on grounds of i) respecting autonomy, ii) not using humans as a means to an end, iii) psychological culpability. So an utilitarian account would be maximally counterintuitive in that scenario
@@WackyConundrum Similarly, hypotheticals can be used to uncover underlying values in Antinatal discussions. If the opposing position challenges us with a hypothetical where there is 99% bliss and 1% suffering. As per the axiological asymmetry, coming into existence is always a harm for the being, but the action overall might in this case not be a harm overall as it can benefit others too. Here, benefiting others, could be permissible if it means to harm that being in a trivial manner.
Bro wouldn’t answer basic hypotheticals. Absolute sophist. Nothing worse than hypothetical dodgers. “Let’s say pressing a red button does X” “yea but how would you know it does X” “Let’s just say you knew for a fact it did” “ya but you can’t know” “it’s just entailed in the hypothetical that you know” “yea but you can’t know” I went into this with an open mind, but hypothetical dodging is sophistry 101. Absolutely no respect for clowns who hypothetical dodge.
When a philosopher of Dr. Benatar's stature is doing that it's ultimately going to be for a reason. I, too, hate hypothetical dodging, and found it frustrating at first to get the hypothetical across to him, but I think ultimately his stance is that humans basically know hardly anything of what there is to know and are extremely poor judges of anything that involves giant calculations with giant consequences, and that this absolutely must be factored into every hypothetical, to the extent where he says at that point it is no longer a human. Perhaps he sees such questions the same as asking, "let's say you have a square circle". I would actually love to do a follow-up with him and ask him about hypothetical dodging and if that is indeed what he is guilty of here or if he had valid reason. But I do recall he does answer it eventually when I say he has God-like powers and knows what will happen.
I too was very surprised by that part. In his writings, he's a little too unwilling for my taste to move away from whatever he thinks our initial common-sense intuition ought to be, but he respects contrary intuitions and addresses them carefully. Nothing like this "we shouldn't try to think about that because we're not gods".
Great episode, George, and quite impressive that you managed to get the reclusive Dr. Davy B. on the show! His hypothetical-dodging was a bit frustrating but I'm he did it because he doesn't want overconfident humans to misconstrue his potential answers as "permission" to take actions that would cause great immediate harm, such as intentionally destroying the environment or murdering humans/animals in the hopes of preventing future suffering. As for the actual topic of the video, I acknowledge that suffering caused by non-moral agents is bad, but I don't see a practicable, ethical way to cause sentient extinction. So I consider myself an efilist in principle but VHEMT in practice (and vegan, of course). I think that moral agents (humans) only have an obligation to not create or exploit moral patients (sentient beings), but I don't necessarily view it as morally obligatory to prevent harms that oneself is not causing (at best, I could see it as morally virtuous).
I agree with most of what you said, although I find our inability to do much to reduce wild animal suffering tragic. I will say that one counter argument against your last point that “I don’t necessarily see it as morally obligatory to prevent harms that oneself is not causing” is presented by Peter Singer’s famous thought experiment (1972). He posits that if there was a drowning child in a pond and the only cost to you was dirtying/ruining a decent pair of shoes, it would be morally wrong not to help the child. You ought to help them because it’s so easy/little cost to you. I highly recommend the lecture summarizing this work by Prof. Jeffer Kaplan (“Peter Singer - Ordinary People are Evil”).. In this case, however, it’s not clear that it’s easy to reduce wild animal suffering.
@@calvinlawn3457 I am already familiar with that thought experiment. My stance is that even in that scenario, it would be morally virtuous but not morally obligatory to help the child.
I am vegan and antinatalist and recently discovered your channel. I find it very interesting. Kudos to you especially for your contrast to the political and intersectionalist instrumentalization of the animal rights movement. In this episode, both your questions and David's answers gave me food for thought. I tend to agree with David Benatar. Here he made me think more about the risk of overestimating our own ability to know and understand consequences. It seems to me these questions are more about Wild Animal Suffering than veganism or antinatalism: i consider them as different topics and I think it's better they stay separated, even though I can see they have some connections. I think embending WAS with veganism and connecting antinatalism to veganism through WAS might seriously damage the spread of veganism in the world. To make a separate point I strongly suggest you to watch my series of videos on why efilism should be opposed and the "Bad Ethics" channel on UA-cam for more information about efilism and the ideas of its proponents.
He seems to be confusing ethical and practical issues. And I still don't know, why he's mentioning uncertainty in one case, but not the other. And the same for practical examples. There are practical examples of good deeds and good consequences and there's also great uncertainty for anti natalist future.
Thanks for posting this interview. I am not familiar with Dr. Benatar and as someone who is opposed to anti-natalism I was happily surprised by his level-headedness and arguments. I particularly liked his repeated sense of the limitations of the human ability to know the future brought about by proposals. There is a sense of humility in his approach that I don't often associate with philosophers. // Like another commenter, I find the association between veganism and anti-natalism strange; I don't see any logical or historical connection between the two. Perhaps that has to do with different views of what it means to be vegan and/or different ethical commitments. I can't say that the interview changed my mind about anti-natalism, but at least I was able to hear a thoughtful presentation of that perspective.
There is a long historical connection between the two ideas (and if not veganism then a great concern for animals - essentially the veganism of its time). Al Ma’arri, certain agnostic sects, Marie Huot, and plenty more. Concern for animals and the rejection of procreation have often been intertwined for at least a thousand years.
I'm very much in favor of well-researched intervention in nature and ending predation, but not by killing off predators. As I imagine a humane future for all, there would be like huge sanctuaries where animals can live their natural lives, but herbivores and predators separately. Predators will be fed lab-grown meat or smth like that, herbivores populations will be controlled via contraception. I know it feels utopian and impossible, but why not thrive for that. Being eaten alive is the worst thing i can imagine.
LOL That's ridiculous - you're going to remove all the animals from their forest and jungle homs into sections and serve the wild animals meals in a confined space??? These aren't farmed or lab animals that you're rescuing from horrible places, but from their natural HOMES. And you want to allow PHARMA to intervene -- one of the most EVIL, greedy and poisonous industries on the planet? Gee, what could possibly go wrong. Still SMFH here. Please stop thinking.
Every action in existence has a consequence which includes non-action of not choosing to press the red button, the trolley problem . Choosing to be a vegan or a non-vegan has consequences. Choosing to be natalist or anti-natalist has consequences. Vegan world will lead to 75% free land which would most likely be reforested, rewilded. Anti-natalism also has consequences and animals(non-humans) can't choose to be Anti-natalist. Natalism also has consequences of suffering risks going to other planets like Mars. There are insects, rats, reptiles, ants, birds, marine animals, monkeys etc who live in cities or nearer to human occupied spaces. They too suffer. The only thing which will end Suffering is Extinction.
@@Vegan_4The_Animals I already mentioned, Extinctionism is the only social justice movement aimed at ending suffering for all life, not veganism or any other philosophy.
Fascinating conversation! I really appreciated you pushing on some points and his responses, whether I agreed or not. It was all food for thought. You always do a great job!… Btw~ I would push the button and I would not kill the xenowolf… And I really hope he puts this argument for killing predators to rest with whatever he is coming out with. Please let me know when it comes out!
I’m curious, since you would press the button, and Benatar would not. What do you have to say against Benatar’s arguments for why one should not press the red button?
@@johnchesterfield9726 for me, the risk in not pressing it would outweigh the risk in pressing it. Could wiping humans off the face of the earth result in disastrous consequences? Possibly, but for me, keeping them is much more of a guarantee in a result of disastrous consequences. Basically, if a red button were put in front of me, I would see it as more of a "risk", more of gambling with others' lives and suffering, NOT to press it.
The phrase 'antinatalist vegan' seems odd. I can imagine someone is a vegan, and/or an antinatalist, but i see them as different and separate issues, no? Veganism being about ending animal exploitation/commodification is not impacted as far as i can tell by whether or not a human procreates. Suffering however, and the desire to not cause suffering in general (human or animal), i can understand the view of the antinatalist from that perspective. But it doesnt really affect veganism from my view. Am i way off there?
I think you are indeed way off haha. In order for animal exploitation to occur, humans need to be born. Anti-natalism reduces the amount of animal exploiters who come into existence.
Furthermore, anti-natalism assigns negative value to birth. Carnism is the world's largest form of forced birth on the planet; billions of animals per year forced into a hellish existence.
They are different issues for sure but they generally have overlap of concerns. While it's true that living doesn't necessarily entail the intentional exploitation of animals it's virtually impossible for a human to live a life without inadvertently or intentionally causing harm and suffering to others. So, to reduce that harm and suffering, antinatalism is the only way possible that 💯% ensures that harm and suffering won't be a consequence because logically there can't be a consequence of harm and suffering caused by something that never existed to begin with.
@@barbaraibiel would it though? How can you be sure that another sapient species would not evolve after us and go through another 1000's of years of exploitation until they started having this same conversation as we are now? In contrast, if humans can come together (admittedly unlikely) they could grant animals the right to not be exploited. This doesn't really touch on the suffering part of the convo tho. It seems to me like we have this opportunity to use our advanced intellect and technology or whatever to even potentially end suffering. If thats the goal. But if we end the human race, the animals will grow in number, with their sometimes brutal methods of survival without the ability to consider the moral implications (as far as we know).
There is one issue I strongly disagree on with Dr. Benatar. He supports circumcision of children! Google: Evaluations of circumcision should be circumscribed by the evidence
I am very amazed by that given he also wrote 'The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys'. In fact, surely he talks about that in the book?! I will read the paper you are talking about.
@@CarnismDebunked Men, who have been circumcised as infants, tend to defend the practice. It could be a coping mechanism. There is certainly no compelling ethical argument that can be made in favor of the practice. Circumcision rate in South Africa is 45%.
@@barbaraibiel Not me! I had it done, not out of religiosity, but in the days when it was medically almost universal. I don't feel personally regretful, although I don't really know how I would know what I ought to regret. However, it's pretty clear that the practice is horribly morally wrong.
@@indef2def It was never medically universal. Only certain countries, like the US, for example, practice it. I know most European countries don't. Don't do any research on it because then you might regret it, although there is reconstructive surgery.
I think circumcision of infants on religious grounds is just awful . If it became a choice for over 18's then I'm sure the take up would taper off . I think there is a connection between infant circumcision and autism . I think the medical reasons for circumcision are less clear now as well . When I was young they were routinely ' whipping out ' appendixes , adenoids etc at the drop of a hat . I am very surprised that Benatar would support routine circumcision !?
Dr. Benatar gave a very similar answer to the wild predators question as hunters do. I think it is wrong. Wild animal populations are controlled by food supply. It is prey animals who control predator populations not the other way around.
Props to Benatar but I couldn't help but laugh all through the 'red button' part 😆 Like bro, it's a *hypothetical* scenario, all this dissecting was unnecessary.
I noted some misrepresentations in the 'killing predators' hypothetical. The unpacked hypothetical stipulates that they are 'odd order predators' and that the killing of said predators would not result in increased ecological destruction. If humans obviously are not the most available and capable to strive towards ending the suffering in nature then who is?
Dr. Benatar's answer to the idea that it would "not result in increased ecological destruction", I'm fairly sure, would be that you have no way of knowing/calculating that and that humans are incredibly bad judges of such things. That said, I don't think the ecological impact argument is one he cared for with regards to that topic, if I'm not mistaken.
G man your pauses on ‘the red button’ lol I felt it too - it’s literally a hypothetical lol so answer the hypothetical - people playing God is another subject 😂 But yeah you’re such a good presenter/host 👏🏽
Can you get this guy to talk to Dr.Avi? He said himself it would be better to talk with someone who actually holds this position. No offense, I know you don’t actually hold this position so it’s not your fault, but you totally slaughtered the argument.
Seems Dr. Benatar is not able to answer hypotheticals… he was dodging and shifting the hypothetical constantly to avoid a clear answer to his own morals… 🙄. Vegan for the animals! 🌱
I was just saying in response to someone else's comment on this: if a philosophy expert such as Dr. Benatar is doing this, I can only imagine there is some kind of good reason. He may take the position that hypotheticals have to have a super, super-specific set of traits loaded into them to work and that using such hypotheticals as saying "say you have a human who is about to ____ (what he considers enact God-like powers), this would be like saying "let's say you have a square circle". It might just make no sense to him for whatever reason, such as believing humans are just far, far too limited in their abilities for such hypotheticals to work? Idk! 😂
@@CarnismDebunked That may be the case, but I really can't imagine how he manages his daily life. After all, every decision leads to a possible future that he would have to consider hypothetically first in order to then make his decision. If he is so philosophical that he is unable to make a decision based on hypothetical scenarios, how can he then live? It's all about his personal decision and his personal attitude, after all. I can't imagine that it's always so difficult for him to make a personal decision. So why is it when he is asked about these? He was really confusing 🫤.
@@efilism That was not the case. George has established a clear hypothetical that Doctor Benatar has subsequently tried to change and then on this changed hypothetical to give answers.
I can not understand how could AN harm animals, it can only help them, and the other thing is ''a natalist vegan'' is not vegan. Someone who, aware of animals suffering and potential suffering for his child in its life, decides to breed, can not be ethical vegan. Perion.
Yet, if you procreate as a vegan and you raise them Vegan AF then you stand a chance, if you don't procreate you just eliminate yourself from the game, ethical vegans are the only morally consistent people living on the planet... and we're very few in numbers so I don't think it would be beneficial for the movement. Consider this hypothesis, imagine you have convinced every single vegan on Earth to be an antinatalist and they just vanish off the planet in a hundred years or so there would be no vegan left, there would be no activists, nobody to convince meat eaters otherwise. I think vegans are taking this too far with antinatalism.
I hear you George, I still have a dilemma, consider this hypothesis, imagine you have convinced every single vegan on Earth to be an antinatalist and they just vanish off the planet in a hundred years or so there would be no vegan left, there would be no activists, nobody to convince meat eaters otherwise. I don't think vegans should stop breeding.
Value acquisition isnt necessarily hereditary or even efficiently hereditary. Do you have an arguement that it is? there is an opportunity cost in everything you do, do you have empirics to suggest value acquisition is more efficiently spent raising offspring VS other forms of activism (internet etc)?
Personally I think antinatalism's logical conclusion (preferential 'collective' non-existence) contradicts the very mechanisms from which we even derive value and makes it quite difficult to even argue for animal rights if accepted. Assuming you are a negative utilitarian, you would have to accept a hypothetical press the button scenario where all future procreation is taken from all beings, of which none consent, including that of moral agents. You would have to envision a universe of complete absence in meaning, even in a subjective sense, and explain how zero value can be better than experienced value, however imperfect. You would have to somehow explain how you, whose value judgements are entirely contingent upon existence, could preferentially value non-existence/complete absence of value. I think it's a genuine error in judgement. And how can we even claim to care about animals if we prefer their nonexistence? How can we claim that is in their best interests? Carnies erroneously mention personal choice all the time, but procreation seems to be a case of genuine personal preference. No ones rights are being infringed on in procreation. Pre-sentient life do not get rights. It is not an inherently cruel or exploitative act. Bad parenting aside, we are not responsible for what our children do as adults. I wouldn't hold a mother accountable if her child murdered someone, and I'd say the same about a child becoming a carnist later in life. All said, I would agree there are circumstances where we want to avoid pregnancy. Life has unavoidable suffering indeed, that which I think we must accept as a consequence of having and experiencing value, which thankfully also includes pleasure. And I mean what's even the threshold for this position? What would the universe have to be in order to find procreation acceptable to you? Do you need a universe of total infinite bliss in order to justify continuing presence of consciousness? What if it's like that but instead you also experience 3 seconds of discomfort from dust getting in your eye? Does any amount of suffering completely nullify meaningful procreation? Do you even want a universe of total bliss? How can you even know bliss without knowing suffering? Do you not value perseverance? Anyway, I'll leave it there. Definitely Vegan, definitely have some problems with antinatalism in the Vegan community. FYI I have no children and am unsure if I ever will.
Zero value is better than experienced value in that it is simply 'not bad', whereas experienced value in this case is bad. Personally, I am extremely thankful I didn't exist in all those horrific times throughout history. We are poor judges of our own current lives now and largely don't realise that future generations will look back and be thankful they weren't born as one of us, i.e. they will see now as we see Medieval times.
@@CarnismDebunked I suspected you feel this way but I fundamentally disagree. Having bad experiences is better than the complete absence of experience. Obviously I still care about rights and fundamentally believe animals are due rights against cruelty and exploitation because of their consciousness. Flourishing is in almost every respect better than experienced suffering no doubt, and I am also glad to be alive now compared to medieval times. This seems to be you: any level of suffering < non-existence (and maybe < total bliss) I am here: non-existence < any experience < experience approaching (but not reaching) total bliss Would you push a button that ends all procreation, even without the consent of anyone you affect? Do you not value the right of others to procreate? Would you reject procreation even in a universe of near total infinite bliss if mild discomfort was experienced for even a few seconds?
@@BonfireOvDreams I would press a button to end all procreation, yes, because I see procreation as a giant rights violation and the existence of humans as an awful thing. It would be a heroic act imo if someone were to push it. Then again, I understand I don't have all the answers and could perhaps be screwing something up. In a universe of overwhelming bliss I wouldn't press the button, but at the same time there would be no point in creating life in such a universe. Creating wellbeing from nothing is utterly pointless; wellbeing is only good when converted from suffering.
@@CarnismDebunked on what basis do you value animals? Presumably their consciousness. But you are also saying their continued presence is inherently unethical. How then is it that you value animals? Based on your answer for a universe of near total bliss, it seems there is some universe you would be fine with procreation existing. So there is some threshold. The problem I think then is that you are going to get into some weird classism, ableism, or eugenics stuff where only the hyperwealthy genetically 'superior' beings who could maximize the flourishing of their offspring would have any ethical basis to procreate. And maybe not now, but perhaps someday those very people would have access to technologies that give them that universe of near total bliss even if the universe doesnt inherently provide it. Maybe they have some kind of brain implant or brain chemistry alteration that guaruntees them those incredibly wonderful sensations and taking away the bad ones. It just seems to be that a threshold on this topic is a very slippery slope. I think your best bet is to take the position that the slight discomfort of dust in ones eye for even a fraction of a moment completely nullifies reasoning in favor of conscious existence, and I think thats silly.
Well, that was very disappointing. Went into this expecting to perhaps get my mind changed on the subject, but Benatar's arguments amount to "we should be humble and exclusively base our actions on the principles we intuitively adhere to", and "it is hubris to make big general claims, except if they're ones we intuitively adhere to (eg humans have increased suffering, farm animals suffer more than wild animals)". It's intuitive, for sure, but it's pretty limp, making for an intriguing but overall quite empty discussion (I think you led it quite well, though). I guess one of the main disagreements with his way of thinking here is that he barely ever seems to perceive non-action as a potential wrong, while he's quick to blame potential consequences of action. Of course, within such a framework, not much is justifiable and nothing can be attempted. Very unconvincing for anyone who takes the subject seriously, I guess. There is scientific consensus that wildlife has been immensely reduced in the past hundred years, with estimates ranging to 14% to 40% less sentient minds (without even counting insects, if I recall ?). Even if it's only 14%, that represents quadrillions, if not quintillions, of avoided suffering in the present. Is it hubristic to say we should give this moral weight in our considerations ? Excessive modesty can be very problematic, in my view, and clear the space for more ruthless people who probably care very little about the overall reduction of suffering. Though, of course, it's no surprise that Benatar would be biased about this, as it would go against his philosophy. However, I still appreciate him, and I will obviously not reproduce - for even if I am to believe that humans can be useful in suffering reduction, even in was that are actually intentional (wild-animal sterilization, vaccination, etc.), any resources that could go towards "raising" one or two humans with this aim could be used to convince hundreds of humans to get interested and active within these fields, if they further develop.
Both cases would greatly depend upon the higher-order consequences. A quiet carnist is very different from a Joe Rogan carnist. A vegan breeder who's an excellent parent and has a good chance of raising abolitionists, is very different from an unskilled, self-centered vegan breeder who has a good chance of alienating their children and creating anti-vegans.
"hOw CAn yOu tELl WHeN sOMeOnE'S aNTinAtALisT? dOn'T WoRRy. THey'Ll tElL yOU!" - à-bas-le-ciel Great discussion George and David 💯🙏🏻💚🥗🤠 It's nice to FINALLY have an intelligent response to the whole asinine killing predators nonsense. Not only with UA-cam debate bros but just humanity in general our species overestimates our intellectual abilities. Just s single discussion regarding our personal responsibility and relationships with our nonhuman brothers and sisters with any non-vegan and anti-vegan instantly debunks this belief that humans are the smartest beings on Earth.
I think I addressed the calculation objection to you personally in our conversation! If not, here's the primary response: actions and policies which are implicity founded upon enormously complex calculations are already widely accepted and are essential to our complex society. For example, speed limit laws trade off a direct benefit in time spread across very many individuals (with all of its quickly branching effects) against rate of death and serious injury to a much smaller number of individuals. The same holds for safety and effectiveness testing standards for pharmaceuticals, amount of training required for professional licences, calculation of deterrence in criminal law, and countless other things (some currently done well and others poorly). The supposed opposition to consequentialist decision making in the face of enormous complexity is shot through with status quo bias. What you're really objecting to isn't complex consequentialist decisions, but rather *weird* complex consequentialist decisions. And look, risk aversion is a perfectly sensible principle, to a degree. The really weird-sounding proposed consequentialist tradeoffs are generally ones that really, really have yet to be tried. But if that's, as I argue, what's truly underlying the objection, then we ought to talk about reasonable rate of risk aversion directly instead. Many of the controversial proposals being discussed could easily be tried at small scale first.
@@indef2def Unfortunately for you, that's definitely not anywhere close to a satisfactory answer except in certain examples where the differences are extremely obvious and intuitively accepted as such.
You seem like an unusually good guy, and people here in the comment section seem like relatively good people also :) So I encourage you all to become sperm donors (or egg donors, for those among you who are so endowed). Specifically encouraging the people who care most about reducing suffering to take themselves out of the gene pool seems to me like not the greatest of strategies toward making the world a less bad place. It's hard to guess net consequences. But in some sense, there is no alternative to doing so (implicitly or otherwise). If you are a bad driver, then you should try to drive carefully and conservatively, but simply not trying to steer would not be a good idea. You could have the perspective of trying to take actions where, if you are wrong, the consequences are less likely to be really bad. But that sort of perspective would not let anti-natalism particularly off the hook IMO.
There is no "compassion gene" or "good gene". And as pages like Vegan Army Fails shows, vegans routinely birth Carnists who think veganism is a joke. Some world-renowned AR activists (who I won't name) even now have grown-up sons and daughters who go against veganism. Vegans ourselves are not even from vegan parents. All of us here in the comments came from Carnist parents. Even Bin Laden or Hitler himself could donate sperm and it could be the most angelic child in the world, and vice versa with good people donating sperm and spawning evil people. Hell, I'm even related to one of the most evil men in the UK who there was a documentary about recently due to his vile crimes.
There is no "compassion gene", but there are genes and clusters of genes that make people more and less likely to be disposed toward compassion. There is no "height" gene either, but if you select for height you will get taller people over time. And if there is selection against compassion, we are likely to get less of it (on average). I mentioned sperm donation in particular, as there you have to a much lesser degree the factor of causing there to be more people (although there is a bit of that there as well - more supply of sperm donors does likely lead to a bit more children). Anyway, I can see how people may end up with different final guesses/conclusions. But genes seem to me like a central consideration.
@@TorBarstad but your comment once again erronously assume vegans not procreating is "selecting against compassion". It's a rather pompous-sounding argument vegans use that infers we have some kind of "compassion" gene that Carnists don't. Again, if the most evil man in history donated sperm, his child could grow up to be the most compassionate human ever. A capitalist sperm donor could create a communist. A slaughterman who abuses and tortures animals could create the next Gary Yourofsky. And Gary Yourofsky's sperm could create a psycho kid who tortures puppies...he doesn't have some kind of "compassionate DNA", it's nonsense.
@@CarnismDebunked I don't see any other purpose behind the term "compassion gene" than straw-manning. There is of course no "compassion gene", "intelligence gene" or "tall gene". And yet, selective breeding works the way I would expect. You seem to imply a false dichotomy here. But surely you must understand that personality and moral inclinations are influenced by genes (even if you suspect me of overestimating the importance of genes).
@@CarnismDebunked > your comment once again erronously assume vegans not procreating is "selecting against compassion" If that's an erroneous assumption, would the following assumptions also be erroneous?: * Psychopathy being heritable (but also influenced by environment of course) * IQ being quite heritable * Traits relating to non-brain body-parts being heritable I intend that question to be rhetorical. I don't think my assumption is erroneous (in fact, I think seeing it as erroneous would require some vigorous mental gymnastics). But I guess it's not an either-or sort of thing, but more a question of degree. And it is possible to hold a true assumption but give it too much weight.
If you are talking about the idea many vegan natalists have that "we need compassionate, vegan, intelligent genes in the gene pool", I think it's an arrogant load of bs lol!
Disappointing to see a professional philosopher dodge hypotheticals. As for the non-meta, you're raising a good point against a sort of universal natalism by pointing out that humans as a collective conduct atrocities such as animal abuse and so on. Now, what I want to suggest here is a form of discriminatory natalism where we would promote the reproduction of virtuous people and discourage the reproduction of the vicious people. Would you see a problem with such a view?
There is a huge problem with the view, because that's what natalism already is in its current state. It relies on optimism bias ("my child will be a good person and do good in the world"). We can see that this has catastrophically failed and that there is far more violence in the world than good.
@@CarnismDebunked So, the view I'm proposing here is not natalism in its current state. The disanalogy will come apparent once I say that this view would generally encourage the reproduction of ethical vegans and discourage the reproduction of carnists. That's obviously not a mainstream natalist view, right? As for whether my view and the mainstream natalist view are analogous in the sense of both relying on an optimism bias, I'm not sure my view relies on an optimism bias, but before I get there, let's just throw a hypothetical out there to see where your values lie: So, suppose we know (say God gives us the knowledge) that by encouraging ethical vegan reproduction and that by discouraging carnist reproduction, this will further animal welfare in the world. Would you be in favor of this view under such a hypothetical? As for why I'm not convinced my view relies on an optimism bias, the view is not even saying that I should be able to reproduce as an ethical vegan because I might just be a really fucking shitty ethical vegan who should not be allowed to reproduce. So, the view would actually encourage the reproduction of people that can reasonably be expected to raise decent human beings and discourage the reproduction of people that can reasonably be expected not to raise decent human beings.
Overall it was an interesting conversation. But even, if I agree that we "greatly increased suffering in the world", there's just no way of proving that the anti natalist world would be better.
Excellent talk! It may be overly nitpicking, but I hate the expression "the ends justify the means" as a description of consequentialism, because it implies that consequentialism places special importance on the agent's primary intention, which is the opposite of the case. From a consequentialist perspective, the disinction between end and means is meaningless to the moral calculation; acting to bring about rationally expected positive effects is justified if they're more good than the rationally expected negative effects are bad, and vice versa, regardless of which if any the acting agent considers to be their 'ends". I don't accept Benatar's asymmetry conclusion, but current facts certainly make the misanthropic argument quite compelling. It seems that in order to justify a birth with respect to the net expected affect on other sentient beings, it would have to be at least as likely that the child would grow up to be effective activist as that they would become an average carnist, which seems quite implausible.
@aibiel There's my shorter answer and my longer answer, neither of which I can really address in a single comment, but: The short answer is that the intuitions about specific cases he invokes, such as our not feeling bad about the lack of an island with extremely happy people and our lack of regret over not having had an extra happy child, seem like self-serving dispositions allowing us to feel more comfortable, but the more carefully I think about them, the more the uncomfortable truth seems to be that on a moral sentiment best calibrated to reality, we in fact *ought to care* about all of the happiness we fail to create. The long answer would go into the view of persons as somewhat vague strands built out of interwoven experiences, such that the moral calculus of positive and negative experiences is primarily a fact about the universe as a whole. Adding happiness makes the world state better, whether it takes the form of "an additional person" or adds to "an existing person". (And, just to be clear in a vegan thread, I think members of many nonhuman animal species have personhood in this philosophical sense.)
@@indef2def "we in fact ought to care about all of the happiness we fail to create." You are assuming that the children will be happy and will not create any suffering. That is an assumption that cannot be guaranteed. And are you saying that childfree by choice people are immoral? Where do you get the obligation to care about creating happiness for others? I did not even ask to be here, and now I have some work put on me? How is that fair?
@@barbaraibiel Not at all. I didn't say that we shouldn't care about anything else, which would be crazy. We should obviously also care about the suffering we create. And I'm not assuming anything about specific cases of reproduction. I'm claiming that whatever the reasonable expectation of outcomes is in any specific decision, we're responsible for all of those outcomes, both suffering and happiness, both "actively" created and "passively" prevented.
What do you think about this: 1. Reproduction - evil. Any pleasure is just diminishment of pain. For example, you will not get a pleasure from drinking water if you do not have desire to drink water (unsatisfied desires are painful, especially if they strong ) ( pleasure is only valuable because it is diminishment of pain, otherwise the absence of pleasure would not be a problem). , 2. The world has huge problems: predation, accidents, parasitism, diseases, misery, etc. 3. Suffering - is the only thing that matters ( therefore, suffering is bad, regardless if who suffer), anything other seems to be important, because it influences amount of suffering, for example, food decrease suffering, deceases increase suffering. 4. Good or evil god could not have been reason of life appearance ( Moreover, there are no concrete evidence of their existence and existence of other supernatural things). An intelligent or good god would not have created a source of senseless suffering (life does not solve any problems other than those it creates itself), and a stupid god (being evil is stupid) would not have been able to create life due to the fact that life is a very complex thing, and for creating complex things requires a high level of intelligence. Therefore, I believe that life did not happen as a result of some design, but as a result of the chaotic, blind forces of nature, coincidences, chemical reactions and physical processes. 5. Humanity have to switch to veganism, to make available euthanasia , to unite, to eliminate wild life, and finally to make whole life extinct completely. EFILism
He did not answer which normative theory he holds. Probably some form of threshold deontology. With regards to the red button hypothetical, I am not sure why he demands infallibility and omniscience. Surely, decisions can be made if they are thought about. It is a fact that humans will be frustrated in their interests and will be annihilated. It requires no omniscience, however, to also argue that all sorts of torture, war, suffering and agony are after that abolished. If you do press the button, you commit murder and frustrate interests, sans suffering. If you don't press the button you respect the autonomy of people, but who will ignorantly procreate because they, unlike you, have not given the idea of procreation little to no thought. I would argue that the benevolent exploder has probably more epistemic knowledge than most procreators, but maybe this is my hubris speaking.
I find Benatar’s pleas for epistemic humility in this video to be very selective. He pillories the vegan natalists for confidently making claims about how continued human existence and habitat destruction reduce suffering given how difficult it is to make such determinations, at one point even calling these sorts of things “impossible calculations”. Only for him later in the video to confidently assert that climate change increases suffering. Then at the end of the podcast, he states that humans have “definitely” increased the net-amount of suffering in the world. These are similarly complex questions, and yet Benatar has no problem making such confident statements (in the latter case expressing near certainty) about them. It’s a stunning display of hypocrisy and a total lack of the epistemic humility he was previously calling for. Also the hypothetical dodging is uber-cringe.
35 minutes in it is at this moment the student is now teaching the teacher his own philosophy. it is at this moment... the teacher... doesn't even believe his own philosophy.
I loved this video very much. Especially because you pushed your guest on particular points. So, it wasn't just a simple "question, response, next", but you actually pushed him and dug deeper. I really appreciate that.
Just for reference:
“One particularly poor argument in defence of eating meat is that if humans did not eat animals, those animals would not have been brought into existence in the first place. Humans would simply not have bred them in the numbers they do breed them. The claim is that although these animals are killed, this cost to them is outweighed by the benefit to them of having been brought into existence. This is an appalling argument for many reasons. First, the lives of many of these animals are so bad that even if one rejected my argument one would still have to think that they were harmed by being brought into existence. Secondly, those who advance this argument fail to see that it could apply as readily to human babies that are produced only to be eaten. Here we see quite clearly that being brought into existence only to be killed for food is no benefit. It is only because killing animals is thought to be acceptable that the argument is thought to have any force.”
― David Benatar, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence
Agreed
I have never heard such arguments from pronatalist vegans. The argument I heard is that their children will be vegan and great animal rights activists, and therefore, their children will reduce suffering. I ask them, how do you know your children will not rebel against you and start eating meat, and why aren’t you that great animal rights activist. Also, what about their grandchildren, and great grandchildren, and so on? They also say that by having children, they will increase the number of vegans. To that I say, we don’t need to increase the number of vegans, but we need to decrease the number of carnists by turning them into vegans.
Yes, the one you say is the far more common one. I didn't think to ask that here because that's something AN vegans have already been responding to for ages now.
Wow! You got Dr. Benatar to come on your podcast. Very impressive. This is going to be interesting. I have read his book several years ago. I highly recommend it to everyone.
Absolutely! A life-changing book indeed.
Great book!
@@CarnismDebunked It was not life changing for me. I already knew I don't want children, but I was not able to express this in such a rational manner.
Looking forward to listening! 🎉
Oh yeah you are totally the new leader of the antinatalist movement. Maybe Buzz and Neil even brought women to the moon. Did you try a 69 with Cosmic Sceptic?
Excellent episode 🦁🐍🌱
Thank you for bringing Prof. Benatar!
The UA-cam channel, glynos, has many of these issues worked out in a playlist, “The Road to Antinatalism”.
His answer to the red button question was very interesting. I get where you’re coming from though- it’s a hypothetical!!! Part of the hypothetical is the assumption of knowing the outcome lol
But it's an utterly useless hypothetical. It doesn't lead to anything. Since one cannot ever know the outcome of such a device, the entire hypothetical is useless, because it can't be transfered to the real world.
@@WackyConundrum I don't think that hypotheticals have to have some real world transfer. Hypotheticals should expose logical (in)consistencies and values/contradictions. If we control for all factors that a red button could - in fact - instantaneously kill all sentient life, then I think there are compelling reasons to do so, given the structural harms all sentient life will go through. Even on a population level, if global antinatalism is supported, among the "fortunate" there will also be the "unfortunate". And I haven't even touched upon animal (wild life) suffering.
In a real world scenario where AN has amassed a lot of democratic support, I would NOT use violence or force. Rather autonomy and self-determination and raising awareness otherwise a society will not function and people will suffer unspeakably in an authoritarian regime.
@@MunchinYou-jy6km If a hypothetical cannot be transferred to the real world in any sense, then I fail to see how it's relevant for anything. How could a such thing uncover our intuitions? Suppose you get an answer from someone and call it his intuition. Then, this intuition will necessarily be bound and isolated to this impossible scenario (which, as we established, cannot be transferred to the real world). Why use there is in having intuitions for impossible scenarios? They don't do anything. They don't even matter.
@@WackyConundrum That's why it is a hypothetical. It is like the altered trolley problem where you are asked to push a fat guy to stop a train from hitting few individuals. A fat guy, no matter who big, will never be able to stop a train. Even if that were possible, most people would not push it on grounds of i) respecting autonomy, ii) not using humans as a means to an end, iii) psychological culpability. So an utilitarian account would be maximally counterintuitive in that scenario
@@WackyConundrum Similarly, hypotheticals can be used to uncover underlying values in Antinatal discussions. If the opposing position challenges us with a hypothetical where there is 99% bliss and 1% suffering. As per the axiological asymmetry, coming into existence is always a harm for the being, but the action overall might in this case not be a harm overall as it can benefit others too. Here, benefiting others, could be permissible if it means to harm that being in a trivial manner.
Bro wouldn’t answer basic hypotheticals. Absolute sophist. Nothing worse than hypothetical dodgers. “Let’s say pressing a red button does X” “yea but how would you know it does X” “Let’s just say you knew for a fact it did” “ya but you can’t know” “it’s just entailed in the hypothetical that you know” “yea but you can’t know” I went into this with an open mind, but hypothetical dodging is sophistry 101. Absolutely no respect for clowns who hypothetical dodge.
When a philosopher of Dr. Benatar's stature is doing that it's ultimately going to be for a reason. I, too, hate hypothetical dodging, and found it frustrating at first to get the hypothetical across to him, but I think ultimately his stance is that humans basically know hardly anything of what there is to know and are extremely poor judges of anything that involves giant calculations with giant consequences, and that this absolutely must be factored into every hypothetical, to the extent where he says at that point it is no longer a human.
Perhaps he sees such questions the same as asking, "let's say you have a square circle".
I would actually love to do a follow-up with him and ask him about hypothetical dodging and if that is indeed what he is guilty of here or if he had valid reason. But I do recall he does answer it eventually when I say he has God-like powers and knows what will happen.
I too was very surprised by that part. In his writings, he's a little too unwilling for my taste to move away from whatever he thinks our initial common-sense intuition ought to be, but he respects contrary intuitions and addresses them carefully. Nothing like this "we shouldn't try to think about that because we're not gods".
He is explicit in his opposition to pressing the button in the "red button scenario".
Wow he really didn't want to accept the big red button hypothetical lol
Great episode, George, and quite impressive that you managed to get the reclusive Dr. Davy B. on the show! His hypothetical-dodging was a bit frustrating but I'm he did it because he doesn't want overconfident humans to misconstrue his potential answers as "permission" to take actions that would cause great immediate harm, such as intentionally destroying the environment or murdering humans/animals in the hopes of preventing future suffering.
As for the actual topic of the video, I acknowledge that suffering caused by non-moral agents is bad, but I don't see a practicable, ethical way to cause sentient extinction. So I consider myself an efilist in principle but VHEMT in practice (and vegan, of course). I think that moral agents (humans) only have an obligation to not create or exploit moral patients (sentient beings), but I don't necessarily view it as morally obligatory to prevent harms that oneself is not causing (at best, I could see it as morally virtuous).
I agree with most of what you said, although I find our inability to do much to reduce wild animal suffering tragic.
I will say that one counter argument against your last point that “I don’t necessarily see it as morally obligatory to prevent harms that oneself is not causing” is presented by Peter Singer’s famous thought experiment (1972).
He posits that if there was a drowning child in a pond and the only cost to you was dirtying/ruining a decent pair of shoes, it would be morally wrong not to help the child. You ought to help them because it’s so easy/little cost to you.
I highly recommend the lecture summarizing this work by Prof. Jeffer Kaplan (“Peter Singer - Ordinary People are Evil”)..
In this case, however, it’s not clear that it’s easy to reduce wild animal suffering.
@@calvinlawn3457 I am already familiar with that thought experiment. My stance is that even in that scenario, it would be morally virtuous but not morally obligatory to help the child.
Awesome ..hearing dr david benatar
I am vegan and antinatalist and recently discovered your channel. I find it very interesting. Kudos to you especially for your contrast to the political and intersectionalist instrumentalization of the animal rights movement. In this episode, both your questions and David's answers gave me food for thought. I tend to agree with David Benatar. Here he made me think more about the risk of overestimating our own ability to know and understand consequences. It seems to me these questions are more about Wild Animal Suffering than veganism or antinatalism: i consider them as different topics and I think it's better they stay separated, even though I can see they have some connections. I think embending WAS with veganism and connecting antinatalism to veganism through WAS might seriously damage the spread of veganism in the world. To make a separate point I strongly suggest you to watch my series of videos on why efilism should be opposed and the "Bad Ethics" channel on UA-cam for more information about efilism and the ideas of its proponents.
Bro. Nice to see you in the comments. Are you thinking of getting back to making videos?
@@WackyConundrumNice to see you too Conundrum. Not at the moment but i don't rule it out.
He seems to be confusing ethical and practical issues.
And I still don't know, why he's mentioning uncertainty in one case, but not the other. And the same for practical examples. There are practical examples of good deeds and good consequences and there's also great uncertainty for anti natalist future.
Thanks for posting this interview. I am not familiar with Dr. Benatar and as someone who is opposed to anti-natalism I was happily surprised by his level-headedness and arguments. I particularly liked his repeated sense of the limitations of the human ability to know the future brought about by proposals. There is a sense of humility in his approach that I don't often associate with philosophers. // Like another commenter, I find the association between veganism and anti-natalism strange; I don't see any logical or historical connection between the two. Perhaps that has to do with different views of what it means to be vegan and/or different ethical commitments. I can't say that the interview changed my mind about anti-natalism, but at least I was able to hear a thoughtful presentation of that perspective.
There is a long historical connection between the two ideas (and if not veganism then a great concern for animals - essentially the veganism of its time). Al Ma’arri, certain agnostic sects, Marie Huot, and plenty more. Concern for animals and the rejection of procreation have often been intertwined for at least a thousand years.
I'm very much in favor of well-researched intervention in nature and ending predation, but not by killing off predators. As I imagine a humane future for all, there would be like huge sanctuaries where animals can live their natural lives, but herbivores and predators separately. Predators will be fed lab-grown meat or smth like that, herbivores populations will be controlled via contraception. I know it feels utopian and impossible, but why not thrive for that. Being eaten alive is the worst thing i can imagine.
LOL That's ridiculous - you're going to remove all the animals from their forest and jungle homs into sections and serve the wild animals meals in a confined space??? These aren't farmed or lab animals that you're rescuing from horrible places, but from their natural HOMES. And you want to allow PHARMA to intervene -- one of the most EVIL, greedy and poisonous industries on the planet?
Gee, what could possibly go wrong. Still SMFH here. Please stop thinking.
*Antinatalism for the Win!*
🏆
Wow, this is a nice surprise!
Every action in existence has a consequence which includes non-action of not choosing to press the red button, the trolley problem
.
Choosing to be a vegan or a non-vegan has consequences.
Choosing to be natalist or anti-natalist has consequences.
Vegan world will lead to 75% free land which would most likely be reforested, rewilded.
Anti-natalism also has consequences and animals(non-humans) can't choose to be Anti-natalist.
Natalism also has consequences of suffering risks going to other planets like Mars.
There are insects, rats, reptiles, ants, birds, marine animals, monkeys etc who live in cities or nearer to human occupied spaces. They too suffer.
The only thing which will end Suffering is Extinction.
I recommend watching "Avi Convinces Anti-Natalist James
Warden To Become A Natalist In Under 10 min"
@@Vegan_4The_Animals I already mentioned, Extinctionism is the only social justice movement aimed at ending suffering for all life, not veganism or any other philosophy.
@@Vegan_4The_Animals Extinctionism is the only social justice movement aimed at ending suffering, not veganism or any other philosophy or position.
@@Vegan_4The_Animals Extinctionism is the only social justice movement aimed at ending suffering for all, not veganism or any other position.
I already mentioned, Extinctionism is the only movement aimed at ending suffering for all, not veganism or any other position or philosophy.
Benatar might have got me on board with VHEMT
As in, you didn't support it before?
@@CarnismDebunked i was halfway there but felt like it was bad to leave the animals behind
Fascinating conversation! I really appreciated you pushing on some points and his responses, whether I agreed or not. It was all food for thought. You always do a great job!… Btw~ I would push the button and I would not kill the xenowolf… And I really hope he puts this argument for killing predators to rest with whatever he is coming out with. Please let me know when it comes out!
Great to hear from you, Stacy! 🩶❤️
I’m curious, since you would press the button, and Benatar would not. What do you have to say against Benatar’s arguments for why one should not press the red button?
@@johnchesterfield9726 for me, the risk in not pressing it would outweigh the risk in pressing it. Could wiping humans off the face of the earth result in disastrous consequences? Possibly, but for me, keeping them is much more of a guarantee in a result of disastrous consequences.
Basically, if a red button were put in front of me, I would see it as more of a "risk", more of gambling with others' lives and suffering, NOT to press it.
The phrase 'antinatalist vegan' seems odd. I can imagine someone is a vegan, and/or an antinatalist, but i see them as different and separate issues, no? Veganism being about ending animal exploitation/commodification is not impacted as far as i can tell by whether or not a human procreates. Suffering however, and the desire to not cause suffering in general (human or animal), i can understand the view of the antinatalist from that perspective. But it doesnt really affect veganism from my view. Am i way off there?
Ending the human race would end animal exploitation.
I think you are indeed way off haha. In order for animal exploitation to occur, humans need to be born. Anti-natalism reduces the amount of animal exploiters who come into existence.
Furthermore, anti-natalism assigns negative value to birth. Carnism is the world's largest form of forced birth on the planet; billions of animals per year forced into a hellish existence.
They are different issues for sure but they generally have overlap of concerns.
While it's true that living doesn't necessarily entail the intentional exploitation of animals it's virtually impossible for a human to live a life without inadvertently or intentionally causing harm and suffering to others.
So, to reduce that harm and suffering, antinatalism is the only way possible that 💯% ensures that harm and suffering won't be a consequence because logically there can't be a consequence of harm and suffering caused by something that never existed to begin with.
@@barbaraibiel would it though? How can you be sure that another sapient species would not evolve after us and go through another 1000's of years of exploitation until they started having this same conversation as we are now? In contrast, if humans can come together (admittedly unlikely) they could grant animals the right to not be exploited.
This doesn't really touch on the suffering part of the convo tho.
It seems to me like we have this opportunity to use our advanced intellect and technology or whatever to even potentially end suffering. If thats the goal.
But if we end the human race, the animals will grow in number, with their sometimes brutal methods of survival without the ability to consider the moral implications (as far as we know).
There is one issue I strongly disagree on with Dr. Benatar. He supports circumcision of children! Google: Evaluations of circumcision should be circumscribed by the evidence
I am very amazed by that given he also wrote 'The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys'. In fact, surely he talks about that in the book?! I will read the paper you are talking about.
@@CarnismDebunked Men, who have been circumcised as infants, tend to defend the practice. It could be a coping mechanism. There is certainly no compelling ethical argument that can be made in favor of the practice. Circumcision rate in South Africa is 45%.
@@barbaraibiel Not me! I had it done, not out of religiosity, but in the days when it was medically almost universal. I don't feel personally regretful, although I don't really know how I would know what I ought to regret. However, it's pretty clear that the practice is horribly morally wrong.
@@indef2def It was never medically universal. Only certain countries, like the US, for example, practice it. I know most European countries don't. Don't do any research on it because then you might regret it, although there is reconstructive surgery.
I think circumcision of infants on religious grounds is just awful . If it became a choice for over 18's then I'm sure the take up would taper off . I think there is a connection between infant circumcision and autism .
I think the medical reasons for circumcision are less clear now as well . When I was young they were routinely ' whipping out ' appendixes , adenoids etc at the drop of a hat .
I am very surprised that Benatar would support routine circumcision !?
Dr. Benatar gave a very similar answer to the wild predators question as hunters do. I think it is wrong. Wild animal populations are controlled by food supply. It is prey animals who control predator populations not the other way around.
Props to Benatar but I couldn't help but laugh all through the 'red button' part 😆 Like bro, it's a *hypothetical* scenario, all this dissecting was unnecessary.
I felt like he kept going to an extreme as far as our not being certain of what taking certain actions would lead to.
I noted some misrepresentations in the 'killing predators' hypothetical. The unpacked hypothetical stipulates that they are 'odd order predators' and that the killing of said predators would not result in increased ecological destruction.
If humans obviously are not the most available and capable to strive towards ending the suffering in nature then who is?
Dr. Benatar's answer to the idea that it would "not result in increased ecological destruction", I'm fairly sure, would be that you have no way of knowing/calculating that and that humans are incredibly bad judges of such things.
That said, I don't think the ecological impact argument is one he cared for with regards to that topic, if I'm not mistaken.
How did you actually contact prof Benatar?
From the non-existent netherworld
G man your pauses on ‘the red button’ lol I felt it too - it’s literally a hypothetical lol so answer the hypothetical - people playing God is another subject 😂
But yeah you’re such a good presenter/host 👏🏽
Call me the vegan Jeremy Paxman, mate...asking the questions people want asked 😂😂
I'm fuming at how much benatar dodges hypotheticals. Why can't he answer the goddamned hypothetical?
Can you get this guy to talk to Dr.Avi? He said himself it would be better to talk with someone who actually holds this position. No offense, I know you don’t actually hold this position so it’s not your fault, but you totally slaughtered the argument.
For sure, I would love for these 2 to speak on this. Have replied via Insta.
Really looking forward to the future discussion with Dr. Avi 🔥
I LOVE IT! 🫶🏼
Oh Laith surfaces from whatever hole he crawled into. You still advocating for killing women to stop them having kids?
Seems Dr. Benatar is not able to answer hypotheticals… he was dodging and shifting the hypothetical constantly to avoid a clear answer to his own morals… 🙄.
Vegan for the animals! 🌱
I was just saying in response to someone else's comment on this: if a philosophy expert such as Dr. Benatar is doing this, I can only imagine there is some kind of good reason. He may take the position that hypotheticals have to have a super, super-specific set of traits loaded into them to work and that using such hypotheticals as saying "say you have a human who is about to ____ (what he considers enact God-like powers), this would be like saying "let's say you have a square circle". It might just make no sense to him for whatever reason, such as believing humans are just far, far too limited in their abilities for such hypotheticals to work? Idk! 😂
@@CarnismDebunked
That may be the case, but I really can't imagine how he manages his daily life. After all, every decision leads to a possible future that he would have to consider hypothetically first in order to then make his decision. If he is so philosophical that he is unable to make a decision based on hypothetical scenarios, how can he then live? It's all about his personal decision and his personal attitude, after all. I can't imagine that it's always so difficult for him to make a personal decision. So why is it when he is asked about these?
He was really confusing 🫤.
@@vegannafraali Don't confuse answers that deviate from whatever dialogue tree you want to go down with avoiding the question.
@@efilism
That was not the case. George has established a clear hypothetical that Doctor Benatar has subsequently tried to change and then on this changed hypothetical to give answers.
@@vegannafraali DB showed the presented hypotheticals aren't as robust as you and GM imagine them to be.
off-topic...but, besides Pat, I've never seen another Benatar, ever. It seems to be a unique name.
Loss of predators is an ecological disaster . Losing key species collapses ecological systems .
Unbelievable 🎉...
I can not understand how could AN harm animals, it can only help them, and the other thing is ''a natalist vegan'' is not vegan. Someone who, aware of animals suffering and potential suffering for his child in its life, decides to breed, can not be ethical vegan. Perion.
I recommend watching "Avi Convinces Anti-Natalist James
Warden To Become A Natalist In Under 10 min"
@@NathanSavageDamageexactly
Yet, if you procreate as a vegan and you raise them Vegan AF then you stand a chance, if you don't procreate you just eliminate yourself from the game, ethical vegans are the only morally consistent people living on the planet... and we're very few in numbers so I don't think it would be beneficial for the movement. Consider this hypothesis, imagine you have convinced every single vegan on Earth to be an antinatalist and they just vanish off the planet in a hundred years or so there would be no vegan left, there would be no activists, nobody to convince meat eaters otherwise. I think vegans are taking this too far with antinatalism.
I hear you George, I still have a dilemma, consider this hypothesis, imagine you have convinced every single vegan on Earth to be an antinatalist and they just vanish off the planet in a hundred years or so there would be no vegan left, there would be no activists, nobody to convince meat eaters otherwise. I don't think vegans should stop breeding.
Value acquisition isnt necessarily hereditary or even efficiently hereditary. Do you have an arguement that it is? there is an opportunity cost in everything you do, do you have empirics to suggest value acquisition is more efficiently spent raising offspring VS other forms of activism (internet etc)?
Personally I think antinatalism's logical conclusion (preferential 'collective' non-existence) contradicts the very mechanisms from which we even derive value and makes it quite difficult to even argue for animal rights if accepted. Assuming you are a negative utilitarian, you would have to accept a hypothetical press the button scenario where all future procreation is taken from all beings, of which none consent, including that of moral agents. You would have to envision a universe of complete absence in meaning, even in a subjective sense, and explain how zero value can be better than experienced value, however imperfect. You would have to somehow explain how you, whose value judgements are entirely contingent upon existence, could preferentially value non-existence/complete absence of value. I think it's a genuine error in judgement. And how can we even claim to care about animals if we prefer their nonexistence? How can we claim that is in their best interests? Carnies erroneously mention personal choice all the time, but procreation seems to be a case of genuine personal preference. No ones rights are being infringed on in procreation. Pre-sentient life do not get rights. It is not an inherently cruel or exploitative act. Bad parenting aside, we are not responsible for what our children do as adults. I wouldn't hold a mother accountable if her child murdered someone, and I'd say the same about a child becoming a carnist later in life. All said, I would agree there are circumstances where we want to avoid pregnancy. Life has unavoidable suffering indeed, that which I think we must accept as a consequence of having and experiencing value, which thankfully also includes pleasure.
And I mean what's even the threshold for this position? What would the universe have to be in order to find procreation acceptable to you? Do you need a universe of total infinite bliss in order to justify continuing presence of consciousness? What if it's like that but instead you also experience 3 seconds of discomfort from dust getting in your eye? Does any amount of suffering completely nullify meaningful procreation? Do you even want a universe of total bliss? How can you even know bliss without knowing suffering? Do you not value perseverance?
Anyway, I'll leave it there. Definitely Vegan, definitely have some problems with antinatalism in the Vegan community. FYI I have no children and am unsure if I ever will.
Zero value is better than experienced value in that it is simply 'not bad', whereas experienced value in this case is bad.
Personally, I am extremely thankful I didn't exist in all those horrific times throughout history. We are poor judges of our own current lives now and largely don't realise that future generations will look back and be thankful they weren't born as one of us, i.e. they will see now as we see Medieval times.
@@CarnismDebunked I suspected you feel this way but I fundamentally disagree. Having bad experiences is better than the complete absence of experience. Obviously I still care about rights and fundamentally believe animals are due rights against cruelty and exploitation because of their consciousness. Flourishing is in almost every respect better than experienced suffering no doubt, and I am also glad to be alive now compared to medieval times.
This seems to be you: any level of suffering < non-existence (and maybe < total bliss)
I am here: non-existence < any experience < experience approaching (but not reaching) total bliss
Would you push a button that ends all procreation, even without the consent of anyone you affect? Do you not value the right of others to procreate?
Would you reject procreation even in a universe of near total infinite bliss if mild discomfort was experienced for even a few seconds?
@@BonfireOvDreams I would press a button to end all procreation, yes, because I see procreation as a giant rights violation and the existence of humans as an awful thing. It would be a heroic act imo if someone were to push it. Then again, I understand I don't have all the answers and could perhaps be screwing something up.
In a universe of overwhelming bliss I wouldn't press the button, but at the same time there would be no point in creating life in such a universe. Creating wellbeing from nothing is utterly pointless; wellbeing is only good when converted from suffering.
@@CarnismDebunked on what basis do you value animals? Presumably their consciousness. But you are also saying their continued presence is inherently unethical. How then is it that you value animals?
Based on your answer for a universe of near total bliss, it seems there is some universe you would be fine with procreation existing. So there is some threshold. The problem I think then is that you are going to get into some weird classism, ableism, or eugenics stuff where only the hyperwealthy genetically 'superior' beings who could maximize the flourishing of their offspring would have any ethical basis to procreate. And maybe not now, but perhaps someday those very people would have access to technologies that give them that universe of near total bliss even if the universe doesnt inherently provide it. Maybe they have some kind of brain implant or brain chemistry alteration that guaruntees them those incredibly wonderful sensations and taking away the bad ones.
It just seems to be that a threshold on this topic is a very slippery slope. I think your best bet is to take the position that the slight discomfort of dust in ones eye for even a fraction of a moment completely nullifies reasoning in favor of conscious existence, and I think thats silly.
@@CarnismDebunked Agreed....... in a hypothetical universe.
Well, that was very disappointing. Went into this expecting to perhaps get my mind changed on the subject, but Benatar's arguments amount to "we should be humble and exclusively base our actions on the principles we intuitively adhere to", and "it is hubris to make big general claims, except if they're ones we intuitively adhere to (eg humans have increased suffering, farm animals suffer more than wild animals)". It's intuitive, for sure, but it's pretty limp, making for an intriguing but overall quite empty discussion (I think you led it quite well, though). I guess one of the main disagreements with his way of thinking here is that he barely ever seems to perceive non-action as a potential wrong, while he's quick to blame potential consequences of action. Of course, within such a framework, not much is justifiable and nothing can be attempted.
Very unconvincing for anyone who takes the subject seriously, I guess. There is scientific consensus that wildlife has been immensely reduced in the past hundred years, with estimates ranging to 14% to 40% less sentient minds (without even counting insects, if I recall ?). Even if it's only 14%, that represents quadrillions, if not quintillions, of avoided suffering in the present. Is it hubristic to say we should give this moral weight in our considerations ? Excessive modesty can be very problematic, in my view, and clear the space for more ruthless people who probably care very little about the overall reduction of suffering. Though, of course, it's no surprise that Benatar would be biased about this, as it would go against his philosophy. However, I still appreciate him, and I will obviously not reproduce - for even if I am to believe that humans can be useful in suffering reduction, even in was that are actually intentional (wild-animal sterilization, vaccination, etc.), any resources that could go towards "raising" one or two humans with this aim could be used to convince hundreds of humans to get interested and active within these fields, if they further develop.
[01:09:39]
Which one do you feel is a worse position, carnist antinatalist or vegan breeder (sorry, natalist vegan might be better phrased)?
@polydex108
As far as harm, I think the latter might do more because his/her children and then grandchildren and so on, might not even be vegan.
@@barbaraibielThanks for the reply!
Both cases would greatly depend upon the higher-order consequences. A quiet carnist is very different from a Joe Rogan carnist. A vegan breeder who's an excellent parent and has a good chance of raising abolitionists, is very different from an unskilled, self-centered vegan breeder who has a good chance of alienating their children and creating anti-vegans.
Last
"hOw CAn yOu tELl WHeN sOMeOnE'S aNTinAtALisT? dOn'T WoRRy. THey'Ll tElL yOU!" - à-bas-le-ciel
Great discussion George and David 💯🙏🏻💚🥗🤠 It's nice to FINALLY have an intelligent response to the whole asinine killing predators nonsense. Not only with UA-cam debate bros but just humanity in general our species overestimates our intellectual abilities. Just s single discussion regarding our personal responsibility and relationships with our nonhuman brothers and sisters with any non-vegan and anti-vegan instantly debunks this belief that humans are the smartest beings on Earth.
5:37
Zzzzzzzzzzzactly! 👍 I've been making this crucial point to Consequentialists and they NEVER have a reasonable response.
I think I addressed the calculation objection to you personally in our conversation! If not, here's the primary response: actions and policies which are implicity founded upon enormously complex calculations are already widely accepted and are essential to our complex society. For example, speed limit laws trade off a direct benefit in time spread across very many individuals (with all of its quickly branching effects) against rate of death and serious injury to a much smaller number of individuals. The same holds for safety and effectiveness testing standards for pharmaceuticals, amount of training required for professional licences, calculation of deterrence in criminal law, and countless other things (some currently done well and others poorly).
The supposed opposition to consequentialist decision making in the face of enormous complexity is shot through with status quo bias. What you're really objecting to isn't complex consequentialist decisions, but rather *weird* complex consequentialist decisions. And look, risk aversion is a perfectly sensible principle, to a degree. The really weird-sounding proposed consequentialist tradeoffs are generally ones that really, really have yet to be tried. But if that's, as I argue, what's truly underlying the objection, then we ought to talk about reasonable rate of risk aversion directly instead. Many of the controversial proposals being discussed could easily be tried at small scale first.
@@indef2def
Unfortunately for you, that's definitely not anywhere close to a satisfactory answer except in certain examples where the differences are extremely obvious and intuitively accepted as such.
@@LouisGedo I don't find your response consisting of nothing but saying that my response is not satisfactory, satisfactory. ;-)
@@indef2def
Touche 👍 💜
You seem like an unusually good guy, and people here in the comment section seem like relatively good people also :)
So I encourage you all to become sperm donors (or egg donors, for those among you who are so endowed).
Specifically encouraging the people who care most about reducing suffering to take themselves out of the gene pool seems to me like not the greatest of strategies toward making the world a less bad place.
It's hard to guess net consequences. But in some sense, there is no alternative to doing so (implicitly or otherwise). If you are a bad driver, then you should try to drive carefully and conservatively, but simply not trying to steer would not be a good idea.
You could have the perspective of trying to take actions where, if you are wrong, the consequences are less likely to be really bad. But that sort of perspective would not let anti-natalism particularly off the hook IMO.
There is no "compassion gene" or "good gene". And as pages like Vegan Army Fails shows, vegans routinely birth Carnists who think veganism is a joke. Some world-renowned AR activists (who I won't name) even now have grown-up sons and daughters who go against veganism.
Vegans ourselves are not even from vegan parents. All of us here in the comments came from Carnist parents.
Even Bin Laden or Hitler himself could donate sperm and it could be the most angelic child in the world, and vice versa with good people donating sperm and spawning evil people.
Hell, I'm even related to one of the most evil men in the UK who there was a documentary about recently due to his vile crimes.
There is no "compassion gene", but there are genes and clusters of genes that make people more and less likely to be disposed toward compassion.
There is no "height" gene either, but if you select for height you will get taller people over time. And if there is selection against compassion, we are likely to get less of it (on average).
I mentioned sperm donation in particular, as there you have to a much lesser degree the factor of causing there to be more people (although there is a bit of that there as well - more supply of sperm donors does likely lead to a bit more children).
Anyway, I can see how people may end up with different final guesses/conclusions. But genes seem to me like a central consideration.
@@TorBarstad but your comment once again erronously assume vegans not procreating is "selecting against compassion". It's a rather pompous-sounding argument vegans use that infers we have some kind of "compassion" gene that Carnists don't. Again, if the most evil man in history donated sperm, his child could grow up to be the most compassionate human ever. A capitalist sperm donor could create a communist. A slaughterman who abuses and tortures animals could create the next Gary Yourofsky. And Gary Yourofsky's sperm could create a psycho kid who tortures puppies...he doesn't have some kind of "compassionate DNA", it's nonsense.
@@CarnismDebunked I don't see any other purpose behind the term "compassion gene" than straw-manning. There is of course no "compassion gene", "intelligence gene" or "tall gene". And yet, selective breeding works the way I would expect.
You seem to imply a false dichotomy here. But surely you must understand that personality and moral inclinations are influenced by genes (even if you suspect me of overestimating the importance of genes).
@@CarnismDebunked > your comment once again erronously assume vegans not procreating is "selecting against compassion"
If that's an erroneous assumption, would the following assumptions also be erroneous?:
* Psychopathy being heritable (but also influenced by environment of course)
* IQ being quite heritable
* Traits relating to non-brain body-parts being heritable
I intend that question to be rhetorical.
I don't think my assumption is erroneous (in fact, I think seeing it as erroneous would require some vigorous mental gymnastics). But I guess it's not an either-or sort of thing, but more a question of degree. And it is possible to hold a true assumption but give it too much weight.
Why didn't you expand "red button experiment" on all biosphere?
George what do you think about dysgenic selection?
If you are talking about the idea many vegan natalists have that "we need compassionate, vegan, intelligent genes in the gene pool", I think it's an arrogant load of bs lol!
@@CarnismDebunked oh c'mon George. Are you telling me vegans aren't special? 😂
🎉🤟✨ Efilist Vegan ✌️🆙🖤🟠✊☮️
💙🤍💚💚💚🤍💙
💙💙🤍💚🤍💙💙
💙💙💙🤍💙💙💙
🤟🤍✊🖤✌️✨
#AnimalRights #Antinatalism #Efilism #JusticeForTheAnimals
#Love #Compassion #Respect
Efilism includes veganism. In other words, if person is efilist, it is vegan too.
You are too nice George. Because Benatar was playing hypothetical dodgeball with u the entire podcast. 😂
Disappointing to see a professional philosopher dodge hypotheticals.
As for the non-meta, you're raising a good point against a sort of universal natalism by pointing out that humans as a collective conduct atrocities such as animal abuse and so on. Now, what I want to suggest here is a form of discriminatory natalism where we would promote the reproduction of virtuous people and discourage the reproduction of the vicious people. Would you see a problem with such a view?
There is a huge problem with the view, because that's what natalism already is in its current state. It relies on optimism bias ("my child will be a good person and do good in the world"). We can see that this has catastrophically failed and that there is far more violence in the world than good.
@@CarnismDebunked So, the view I'm proposing here is not natalism in its current state. The disanalogy will come apparent once I say that this view would generally encourage the reproduction of ethical vegans and discourage the reproduction of carnists. That's obviously not a mainstream natalist view, right?
As for whether my view and the mainstream natalist view are analogous in the sense of both relying on an optimism bias, I'm not sure my view relies on an optimism bias, but before I get there, let's just throw a hypothetical out there to see where your values lie:
So, suppose we know (say God gives us the knowledge) that by encouraging ethical vegan reproduction and that by discouraging carnist reproduction, this will further animal welfare in the world. Would you be in favor of this view under such a hypothetical?
As for why I'm not convinced my view relies on an optimism bias, the view is not even saying that I should be able to reproduce as an ethical vegan because I might just be a really fucking shitty ethical vegan who should not be allowed to reproduce. So, the view would actually encourage the reproduction of people that can reasonably be expected to raise decent human beings and discourage the reproduction of people that can reasonably be expected not to raise decent human beings.
Please debate or have a discussion with Avi on anti-natilism and culling predators. He would like if you'd do that.
Overall it was an interesting conversation. But even, if I agree that we "greatly increased suffering in the world", there's just no way of proving that the anti natalist world would be better.
@bedtimestory1318
Better for whom? Anti-natalist world would lead to human extinction.
A world where there is no suffering whatsoever at the "expense" of no one enjoying their lollipop seems better
Excellent talk!
It may be overly nitpicking, but I hate the expression "the ends justify the means" as a description of consequentialism, because it implies that consequentialism places special importance on the agent's primary intention, which is the opposite of the case. From a consequentialist perspective, the disinction between end and means is meaningless to the moral calculation; acting to bring about rationally expected positive effects is justified if they're more good than the rationally expected negative effects are bad, and vice versa, regardless of which if any the acting agent considers to be their 'ends".
I don't accept Benatar's asymmetry conclusion, but current facts certainly make the misanthropic argument quite compelling. It seems that in order to justify a birth with respect to the net expected affect on other sentient beings, it would have to be at least as likely that the child would grow up to be effective activist as that they would become an average carnist, which seems quite implausible.
@indef2def What is wrong with Benatar's asymmetry conclusion?
@aibiel There's my shorter answer and my longer answer, neither of which I can really address in a single comment, but:
The short answer is that the intuitions about specific cases he invokes, such as our not feeling bad about the lack of an island with extremely happy people and our lack of regret over not having had an extra happy child, seem like self-serving dispositions allowing us to feel more comfortable, but the more carefully I think about them, the more the uncomfortable truth seems to be that on a moral sentiment best calibrated to reality, we in fact *ought to care* about all of the happiness we fail to create.
The long answer would go into the view of persons as somewhat vague strands built out of interwoven experiences, such that the moral calculus of positive and negative experiences is primarily a fact about the universe as a whole. Adding happiness makes the world state better, whether it takes the form of "an additional person" or adds to "an existing person". (And, just to be clear in a vegan thread, I think members of many nonhuman animal species have personhood in this philosophical sense.)
@@indef2def "we in fact ought to care about all of the happiness we fail to create." You are assuming that the children will be happy and will not create any suffering. That is an assumption that cannot be guaranteed. And are you saying that childfree by choice people are immoral? Where do you get the obligation to care about creating happiness for others? I did not even ask to be here, and now I have some work put on me? How is that fair?
@@barbaraibiel Not at all. I didn't say that we shouldn't care about anything else, which would be crazy. We should obviously also care about the suffering we create. And I'm not assuming anything about specific cases of reproduction. I'm claiming that whatever the reasonable expectation of outcomes is in any specific decision, we're responsible for all of those outcomes, both suffering and happiness, both "actively" created and "passively" prevented.
@@indef2def Ok then, I would rather not take the risk of creating suffering, so I won't create any new people. What is wrong with this decision?
Spazzed out on the redbutton question
I dont get why he's so reluctant to just roll with the "red button" hypothetical. Lack of balls or just afraid of societal repercussion?
Lack of balls.
I'm at best a soft anti natalist. But pragmatically I'm a transhumanist and eugenist.
What do you think about this: 1. Reproduction - evil. Any pleasure is just diminishment of pain. For example, you will not get a pleasure from drinking water if you do not have desire to drink water (unsatisfied desires are painful, especially if they strong ) ( pleasure is only valuable because it is diminishment of pain, otherwise the absence of pleasure would not be a problem). ,
2. The world has huge problems: predation, accidents, parasitism, diseases, misery, etc.
3. Suffering - is the only thing that matters ( therefore, suffering is bad, regardless if who suffer), anything other seems to be important, because it influences amount of suffering, for example, food decrease suffering, deceases increase suffering.
4. Good or evil god could not have been reason of life appearance ( Moreover, there are no concrete evidence of their existence and existence of other supernatural things). An intelligent or good god would not have created a source of senseless suffering (life does not solve any problems other than those it creates itself), and a stupid god (being evil is stupid) would not have been able to create life due to the fact that life is a very complex thing, and for creating complex things requires a high level of intelligence. Therefore, I believe that life did not happen as a result of some design, but as a result of the chaotic, blind forces of nature, coincidences, chemical reactions and physical processes.
5. Humanity have to switch to veganism, to make available euthanasia , to unite, to eliminate wild life, and finally to make whole life extinct completely.
EFILism
One hour of nirvana fallacies, great
From whom?
🏃 "Promo SM"
He did not answer which normative theory he holds. Probably some form of threshold deontology.
With regards to the red button hypothetical, I am not sure why he demands infallibility and omniscience. Surely, decisions can be made if they are thought about. It is a fact that humans will be frustrated in their interests and will be annihilated. It requires no omniscience, however, to also argue that all sorts of torture, war, suffering and agony are after that abolished.
If you do press the button, you commit murder and frustrate interests, sans suffering. If you don't press the button you respect the autonomy of people, but who will ignorantly procreate because they, unlike you, have not given the idea of procreation little to no thought.
I would argue that the benevolent exploder has probably more epistemic knowledge than most procreators, but maybe this is my hubris speaking.
I find Benatar’s pleas for epistemic humility in this video to be very selective. He pillories the vegan natalists for confidently making claims about how continued human existence and habitat destruction reduce suffering given how difficult it is to make such determinations, at one point even calling these sorts of things “impossible calculations”.
Only for him later in the video to confidently assert that climate change increases suffering. Then at the end of the podcast, he states that humans have “definitely” increased the net-amount of suffering in the world. These are similarly complex questions, and yet Benatar has no problem making such confident statements (in the latter case expressing near certainty) about them. It’s a stunning display of hypocrisy and a total lack of the epistemic humility he was previously calling for.
Also the hypothetical dodging is uber-cringe.
35 minutes in it is at this moment the student is now teaching the teacher his own philosophy. it is at this moment... the teacher... doesn't even believe his own philosophy.
🔥💯👍
Is this Dr vegan?
Yep!
yunno