3 ethical catastrophes you can help stop, right now | Peter Singer | Big Think

3 ethical catastrophes you can help stop, right now
Watch the newest video from Big Think: bigth.ink/NewVideo
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philosopher Peter Singer cites his top three ethical issues in the world today as: extreme poverty; climate change, which is related to poverty; and the way humans treat animals.
Any rational being should be interested in trying to understand how they ought to live, and whether they are doing things that are right or wrong. Singer suggests asking yourself important questions. When it comes to extreme poverty, ask: "Is it okay for me just to be living my life in my society and not doing anything for people who, through no fault of their own, are living in extreme poverty?"
For climate change, ask how you can put pressure on political leaders to take serious steps to prevent a climate change catastrophe that will disproportionately affect the poor. When it comes to animal cruelty, ask: "Am I complicit in the suffering that's being inflicted on animals, especially in factory farms but in other forms of farming as well? Am I complicit in that when I buy those products? And, if so, does that mean that I need to stop buying them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PETER SINGER:
Peter Singer is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University in the University Center for Human Values and Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne, in the School of Historical and Philosophical Studies. He is widely considered to be one of the world’s most influential living philosophers.
Check Peter Singer's latest book 10th Anniversary Edition The Life You Can Save: How To Do Your Part To End World Poverty
amzn.to/392NQyw
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
PETER SINGER: Great philosophers have tried to understand the world we're living in and have tried to think about how we ought to live. And I think these are really fundamentally important questions that any rational being ought to be interested in trying to find the answers to.
What are the fundamental principles about how we ought to act? Ought we to be looking at moral rules that we ought never to violate? Ought we to be trying to work out what rights beings have? Should we be looking at the consequences of our actions and use that as the ultimate criterion for deciding what's right and wrong? These questions are still questions we face today. They have no scientific answer; They're not about the nature of the universe in that way. They're about how we ought to live, which is a different type of question. And so I think it's particularly relevant to look at what philosophy and what philosophical discussions have contributed to our reflection and our thought about how we ought to live.
So my top three current ethical issues would be global poverty; climate change, which is clearly related to global poverty; and the way we treat animals, which I think is a hugely neglected issue that affects tens of billions of animals every year.
I think a question that you might use to shape your thinking around the issue of global poverty would be: What ought I to be doing to contribute to helping people in extreme poverty? Each person who asks that question, of course, is in a somewhat different situation, but I'm assuming that you're living in an affluent country and within that country you're not among the poorest in that country, so you're middle class in that country or above, so you have money to spare after providing for your all your basic needs and making some provision for the future. You spend money on luxuries that you don't need, if it ranges from buying a bottle of water when you could drink water that comes out of the tap and is free or maybe it's taking vacations or buying clothes when you've got plenty of clothes to keep you warm and decent. So if you're in that situation, then you can ask yourself: What ought to I be doing to consider myself an ethical person? Is it okay for me just to be living my life in my society and not doing anything for people who, through no fault of their own, are living in extreme poverty. And if the answer to that is no then you need to think about, well, what should I be doing? How much should I be doing?
With regard to climate change, perhaps the most pressing question is what can I do about this situation? I'm assuming that, like the overwhelming majority of scientists, you accept that climate change is real, that it's happening, that it is largely caused by human activities emitting greenhouse gases and that it's going to be catastrophic...
Read the full transcript at bigthink.com/videos/be-a-bett...

[@bigthink]

What ethical catastrophes should be put an end to?

[@timdowney6721]

Big Think In the US, ending the de facto system of health care only if you can afford it.Other countries have demonstrated in spades that it is entirely possible. To do so means breaking the stranglehold of corporate money buying government. And also, defeating the “not invented here” bias. The first ethical duty is to vote. Not just once, but in every election. Not a perfect solution, but a critical step.

[@jtoumai]

People like Roseanne having kids

[@ShankarSivarajan]

Abortion.

[@borninprovidence2965]

Big Think maybe a better question is: can or when can catastrophes be put to an end? What if catastrophes are simply symptoms of our individual and collective enlightenment? What if we viewed the acuity of our ignorance, consumption, suffering, greed, inhumanity etc. as again, markers of where we’re at in our path back towards utopia, wholeness, the garden etc. Micro and macro enlightenment. Like someday we’ll see how gross Cheetos are it for now...🤷🏻‍♀️

[@flyingmobias]

The slaughter of billions of animals yearly

[@EugeneKhutoryansky]

Lions have to eat meat to survive. We humans have a choice in the matter. And unlike humans, lions do not force their prey to suffer in tiny cages their entire lives. The number of animals which are bred, tortured, and killed depends directly on consumer demand. Over the course of a lifetime, every new vegan saves 2039 chickens, 3100 fish, 72 turkeys, 31 pigs, 10 cows, and approximately 10,000 shellfish.

[@DiamorphineDeath]

No thanks dude

[@christopherminge3558]

@anatoli p But now we have more advanced technology and nutritional practices so that we can maintain the healthy diet that gave us bug brains while forgoing meat. Also just because we created cows doesn't mean we are entitled to harm them. Certainly if we created an alien species incredibly similar to ourselves, raising and eating them would be unfair. There is a difference because they may be more capable of suffering, but that at least shows that your point about cows being created by us justifying their consumption doesn't make sense. Lastly, I would say parts of vegan groups are comparable to religion, but a substantial difference is that many vegans, including myself, independently came to the conclusion that we shouldn't harm animals unnecessarily, after firsthand witnessing animals such as pets demonstrate a capability to suffer. Nobody came up with the idea of Jesus or Mohammad and their teachings out of nowhere, they had to be taught about them. Of course, some vegans were convinced by others, but the fact that many came to the conclusions themselves highlights the difference between veganism and religion. Also I will say that I am very out off by overly subjective and unhelpful postmodernist trends (not all of them ofc, but very many), and that there are many objectively minded vegans and vegetarians such as Peter Singer and myself.

[@janemagpie9489]

@Rosanna Brazil What you say Rosanna makes no sense at all - this is all about kindness to ALL beings - including those who do not yet understand or agree

[@maxwellsequation4887]

Hey didn't expect you here! I love your channel. Apparently intellect does influence wisdom a lot.

[@N0Xa880iUL]

Surprised to see this comment. Respect multiplied by 100

[@MrFrak0207]

Difficult questions answered very simply. Still important to say the things you said. Thank you.

[@jackbrady9738]

Peter Singer what a classy dood.

[@aaronburratwood.6957]

Gorilla Team Tutors What?! He didn’t sing a single note though!

[@MartyInTheWoods]

dude* 😆 ... and yes he is!

[@cemerson12]

I would add: (1) truth-telling and (2) maintaining public access to truth-telling (i.e., 1st amendment type rights or access). Otherwise, yes, excellent 3 points by Singer: poverty, climate, animals. Survival?

[@Jtluhr]

Excellent, he is a tremendous influence for me

[@gandalfandferg280]

Agreed with everything there

[@JohnThomas]

It's easy to see why Peter Singer is such an influential philosopher. His arguments are clear, well reasoned and persuasive. I can't find fault with them.

[@louisehaley5105]

One of the best ways to help end poverty/climate change and alleviate animal suffering everywhere, is to have fewer children and go vegan wherever possible. Too many people on the planet put pressure on the environment, food production, habitat destruction.

[@ken4975]

Unles you can somehow convince others to think the same as you it seems to me rather unlikely that any of these catastrophes can be stopped. It is however very easy and practical to help the person you see in front of you.

[@dynamic9016]

Respect fully to Peter Singer.

[@chadreilly]

Population? Doesn't that drive the other three?

[@KundanKumar-uc2bi]

Peter singer is consequentialist in philosophical tradition of Banthem and Mill. That means, that he believes that moral worth of an action is determined by the overall consequence- happiness or welfare- it produces. But the traditional philosophers took into account the welfare or happiness of human beings only. Singer takes an alternative approach. He takes into account the welfare of animals also. Since, animals are sentient and could feel pain, any action that inflicts pain on them where alternative course of actions are possible, becomes wrong. That is to say instead of taking anthropocentric view always, we should start asking what intended or unintended harm I am causing to animals. He says, If we are not considering this then we are speciest- those that favor the welfare of their species only, in our case Homo sapiens.

[@FinalAvailableName]

Consideration of the interest of non-human animals has been part of the utilitarian / consequentialist tradition since Bentham. Singer may give it more emphasis than forerunners like Bentham, Mill, Sidgwick, etc, but it isn't true all earlier consequentialists were exclusively anthropocentric. See chapter 17 of Bentham's Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.

[@christopherminge3558]

@anatoli p If you had a better grasp of the philosophical landscape, you would know that Peter Singer is very much a part of a different philosophical group. He is an analytic philosopher, which immediately separates him from postmodernists. Even more, he is a moral realist who believes in objective morality, which is incredibly out of line with any sort of postmodernist philosophy. Of the different types of philosophy, Peter Singer fits into those who are the most different from postmodernists. You can still criticize him, but he is hardly a postmodernist, and doesn't take part in any of their practices which people criticize them for.

[@marco_mate5181]

@@christopherminge3558 it's not that hard to understand that morality is objective.

[@ShadowZZZ]

Actually living vegan solves these 3 ethical catastrophies the most efficient. 1. World Poverty: The reason why developing countries are hungering is not because they don't have enough food but because the food they grow they feed to cattle in order to then slaughter the cattle and sell it to 1st world countries. cattles are very inefficient at converting the calories they eat from plants into meat, the data suggests only 3% of plant calories that cattle eat end up in the meat prefered by humans. If the world was vegan, we would thus not need more plants to grow but actually way less. The remaining plants we could then use to feed starving humans. A calculation says that if we gave all plants we feed to animals simply to humans, we could feed a sum total of 12 billion humans, yet we live in a world with roughly 8 billions humans and half a billion starving at a daily basis. 2. Climate change: Cows emitt methane, CH4, which is at least a 20x times more efficient green house gas than CO2. Theres other problems that come with animal aggriculture, like lots of fresh water usage, pollution of rivers and oceans from the wastes, ocrean dead zones from overfishing, and most vitally 91% of amazon rainforest deforestation is due to cattle farming. Looking at the data it's no surprise why a comprehensive oxford uni meta analysis concludes that seizing to purchase animal products is the single best decision one can do to prevent climate change catastrophes and environmental destruction. The U.N. concludes similarly. See tge documentary "Cowspiracy" 3. Animal Rights: Animals can suffer as much as we humans do and they have a strong tendency to avoid it. Dairy cows are forcefully impregnated to give milk, the child is taken away from her after birth, the machienes suck the milk and usually lead to inflamation on the utterus, and when the cow is exhausting from a life full of prisonment, slavery and exploitation, she is sent to a slaughterhouse where her throat is cut with a knife until she bleeds to death. Young pigs have their testicles and tails cut off without anesthesia, and are usually kept in a stall so small that they cannot even more around. Many suffer from depression and infected wounds, until they're sent to a gas chamber where they're gased alive and their internal organs begin melting. Since only female chicken lay eggs, male chicken babies are thrown into shredders and shredded alive. The female chickens will be sent to a factory farm battery where they're cramped for months into cages so small they can't open their wings. Their beaks are cut and many have osteoporosis because the hundrets of eggs they lay takes calcium from their bones. I think just 5 minute optional sensory taste pleasure is not worth causing a living being to experience immense suffering, exploitation and murder their entire life, especially when it is not necessary, i.e. just eat vegan burgers, vegan sauages, vegan pizzas, vegan ice cream, what ever concentional fast food substitude with 90% the same taste... Also every argument against veganism is suffering from at least one logical fallacy. I recommend watching the doucmentaries "Dominion", "What the health", "The Game Changers", and the Speech by Gary Yourofsky. Earthling Ed is also a wonderful channel I can recommend. Thank you for listening to my Ted Talk.

[@aysoodaagh4000]

Wow thank you for writing this.

[@maxwellsequation4887]

That's a fricking essay

[@maxwellsequation4887]

Good job

[@juhalahdenoja2245]

" The reason why developing countries are hungering is not because they don't have enough food but because the food they grow they feed to cattle in order to then slaughter the cattle and sell it to 1st world countries." First world countries have agricultural subsidies, which incentivize local production and reduce the incidence of this scenario. Do you support them, seen as in the case of the 1st world, production is far more ecological? "91% of amazon rainforest deforestation is due to cattle farming." This is in order to produce soy. If we all went vegan soy would be consumed nonetheless. "every argument against veganism is suffering from at least one logical fallacy." This is the "fallacy fallacy" which says that just because there's a logical fallacy in an argument, the argument is invalid and the conclusion doesn't follow.

[@Lfppfs]

Such a wise man!

[@spodergibbs5088]

He’s talking nonsense

[@BrianMcInnis87]

1:18 What else is there to treat?

[@heracles2626]

He makes the distinction between human, person and non-human animals

[@DaveDorenbergVeltman]

One big problem with food is distribution. Why send a potato to a other country or states and vice-versa? (and other stuff) This would definitely help reduce our carbon footprints!

[@tejnooraneja2039]

That's stupid when there is surplus in one state then there might a famine in the other

[@DaveDorenbergVeltman]

@killbotone growing food outside the season isn't that of a problem. Distribution is. We should learn to keep things locally and only distribute if a location does not have the resources themselves. This is important for a lots of stuff.

[@DaveDorenbergVeltman]

@@tejnooraneja2039 it's not. Then it's OK to distribute. Don't be so closed minded. Lots of stuff gets distributed to a location while the same stuff gets distributed back. This is unnecessary and inefficient.

[@DaveDorenbergVeltman]

@killbotone it's not only food I am talking about. It's with lots of other products and resources.

[@tejnooraneja2039]

@@DaveDorenbergVeltman a better way of reduce the carbon footprint is to use better medium transportation not stopping transfer of essentially commodities

[@juliocesar4442]

Peter Singer is much more of a legend than Peter Parker o/

[@__effe_]

Going vegan = sparing innocent lives Supporting the animal agriculture = supporting unnecessary suffering

[@DiamorphineDeath]

Get a haircut and a job

[@SolitaryReaper666]

@@DiamorphineDeath adhom

[@DiamorphineDeath]

@@SolitaryReaper666 And

[@SolitaryReaper666]

@@DiamorphineDeath not an argument

[@DiamorphineDeath]

@@SolitaryReaper666 Correct, it was an observationally based statement. No argument was presented on my part in relation to his comment. Logic a rough one for you? Or is everyone automatically guilty of logical fallacy's just cause?

[@airingcupboard]

I'm a vegetarian, but even so I'm not sure affording other species rights is particularly clear cut. Although factory farming is about as cruel a system as we can imagine, traditional societies care deeply about their animals they depend on. Likewise, we have afforded some species more rights than others already, leading to environmental degradation (killing predators that keep say species like deer in check). Saying that the deer need to be picked off by wolves to keep them at their top level of fitness and prevent them ruining the environment isn't palatable to most people. The danger is we project human values onto the natural world. On the flip side, those factory animals are effectively slaves. It demeans them and us. Meat consumption is at a level unprecedented in human history. Returning it to something occasional would be a fair aim (in the West). The problem comes when telling 'other people' say in continents like Africa that they should do X or Y. Why should they? Another issue is that farming itself is a form of exploitation and either forests are felled or pollinators are decimated (Almond milk being the worst dairy alternative for bees). My point is that yes we westerners should reduce meet consumption (since we have the luxury of choice), but we need to fess up to the fact one way or another we are still exploiting nature for our own ends.

[@killerbean5006]

@IdleBigots There's no need for meat to have enough protein. also most land is used for farm animals. by eating animals we over farm a lot more.

[@killerbean5006]

@IdleBigots Bruh, you said we need more farm area and stuff. and I just said that it wasn't true because most land used for farming is used to feed farm animals. so we already have a solution. I tried pointing it out, but you completely ignored it. I can give you source if you want

[@airingcupboard]

@IdleBigots Poultry are only just above Soya beans in terms of their impact. Although the conditions those birds are kept in are hardly ideal. The real issue is the cows. In the UK, most grain grown is fed to animals for meat production, when it could just be eaten by humans. In terms of energy in, that's incredibly inefficient land use. Returning red meat to occasional consumption as it was before the 20th century is a real option over merely going vegan.

[@killerbean5006]

@IdleBigots yes yes, all you said there is correct. So we agree on overfarming being bad right? Im just saying that most farming is caused because we eat animals. so if we eat less animals, there's less farming.

[@killerbean5006]

@IdleBigots OK, so we know meat is bad for environment. so shouldn't we eat less of it? I don't get what you're trynna say

[@erwinjessealjas2826]

All three: poverty, destruction of ecology and cruelty to other creatures are all products of state-capitalism. Peter avoids this because he doesn't want to be murdered by his state. Smart move, Peter!

[@MartyInTheWoods]

*Speci-ism* I like the word 👍

[@PatrykKarter]

I believe it's Speciesism :)

[@MartyInTheWoods]

@@PatrykKarter Yes, thanks, looks better than my version 😆

[@MyplayLists4Y2Y]

VEGANISM IS ETHICALLY ARBITRARY in that it involves picking and choosing which life is worth bending over backwards to save (cows, pigs, sheep, chickens, fish) and which life is worth turning a blind eye to in the name of “convenience” and “practicality” (bugs, insects, field animals, vermin, aquatic life, dogs, cats, humans, etc). The fact that there is NO VERIFIABLE CRITERIA TO JUSTIFY making such a distinction between these two aforementioned groups makes the drawing of ANY LINE between the two a completely subjective and arbitrary act, therefore ethically/morally worthless.

[@SolitaryReaper666]

@@MyplayLists4Y2Y causing much less suffering than previously by abstaining from directly sponsoring it while also being logically consistent is morally worthless, got it.

[@MyplayLists4Y2Y]

@@SolitaryReaper666 ​ SAID: "causing much less suffering than previously by abstaining from directly sponsoring it while also being logically consistent is morally worthless, got it." REPLY: Apparently you don't "got it." If veganism was actually about “minimizing pain and suffering of animals and the impact on the environment and one’s health” then a person who minimizes said pain and suffering with a profoundly simple off grid lifestyle, but whose only deliberate act toward animals is occasionally having pasture raised eggs should be considered a "vegan" even more so than someone living in a city that eats no animal products, but consumes fruits and vegetables grown by big agri-business and shipped from around the world, drives a car, uses a cellphone and other tech, uses plastic, eats Oreos, chips, soft drinks, Beyond Burgers, etc. --- such a scenario illustrates a fatal flaw in the logic of the vegan philosophy. VEGANS PICK AND CHOOSE THE "PAIN AND SUFFERING" THEY ARE WILLING TO "MINIMIZE" AND RATIONALIZE AWAY THE REST ALL WHILE POINTING A JUDGMENTAL FINGER AT OTHERS FOR NOT DOING IT THEIR WAY. Sad really.

[@catudalnguyen7964]

Most of the things he stated can be reduced into one word: think. If only people stop and think, they'll realize how much food they're wasting, how much money they're spending on unnecessary goods, how much of the race to richness and prosperity are only a joke to the grandiosity of the universe and one's life itself. Do I agree to him? Yes, I agree that we need to take a step back sometimes and reflect on our lifestyle. However, I disagree completely that those three things he mentioned in the video are what one should think about in this moment. There are so many different aspects to a human's life that thinking about the well-being of others (a utilitarian perspective), especially the ones who live...thousands of miles away from them, is nearly impossible. People go through life, struggling with depression, physical health, interpersonal communication, and many more. It would be lying to say that you always care for others more than yourself. There's a saying that, "You cannot love anyone else until you love yourself." Therefore, I think something like virtue ethics may be more helpful in this situation. As long as every individual improves oneself, trying to be a better person, fulfilling his potential, reaching and spreading eudaemonia, then the world will eventually fall into harmony as people start to understand themselves and others, be more humble and thoughtful. That's why I agree to Peter Singer that one should stop and think, but not his utilitarian perspective that one must always choose to help more people as quantity does not always mean good quality. Who would walk around the house during a Sunday afternoon wondering how to properly treat an alligator? In their head, possibly, they're thinking about what to cook tonight, or how to resolve the argument they have with their spouses, or what to buy for their child's birthday etc. It always direct inward, our attention. So, let it be...

[@christopherminge3558]

How do you think the starving people feel when you say first world people just need to be nicer, and shouldn't push themselves to save the lives of those dying of disease and hunger. Just being nice people isn't enough when there are incredible atrocities in the world of extreme proportions.

[@ShadowZZZ]

Actually living vegan solves these 3 ethical catastrophies the most efficient. 1. World Poverty: The reason why developing countries are hungering is not because they don't have enough food but because the food they grow they feed to cattle in order to then slaughter the cattle and sell it to 1st world countries. cattles are very inefficient at converting the calories they eat from plants into meat, the data suggests only 3% of plant calories that cattle eat end up in the meat prefered by humans. If the world was vegan, we would thus not need more plants to grow but actually way less. The remaining plants we could then use to feed starving humans. A calculation says that if we gave all plants we feed to animals simply to humans, we could feed a sum total of 12 billion humans, yet we live in a world with roughly 8 billions humans and half a billion starving at a daily basis. 2. Climate change: Cows emitt methane, CH4, which is at least a 20x times more efficient green house gas than CO2. Theres other problems that come with animal aggriculture, like lots of fresh water usage, pollution of rivers and oceans from the wastes, ocrean dead zones from overfishing, and most vitally 91% of amazon rainforest deforestation is due to cattle farming. Looking at the data it's no surprise why a comprehensive oxford uni meta analysis concludes that seizing to purchase animal products is the single best decision one can do to prevent climate change catastrophes and environmental destruction. The U.N. concludes similarly. See tge documentary "Cowspiracy" 3. Animal Rights: Animals can suffer as much as we humans do and they have a strong tendency to avoid it. Dairy cows are forcefully impregnated to give milk, the child is taken away from her after birth, the machienes suck the milk and usually lead to inflamation on the utterus, and when the cow is exhausting from a life full of prisonment, slavery and exploitation, she is sent to a slaughterhouse where her throat is cut with a knife until she bleeds to death. Young pigs have their testicles and tails cut off without anesthesia, and are usually kept in a stall so small that they cannot even more around. Many suffer from depression and infected wounds, until they're sent to a gas chamber where they're gased alive and their internal organs begin melting. Since only female chicken lay eggs, male chicken babies are thrown into shredders and shredded alive. The female chickens will be sent to a factory farm battery where they're cramped for months into cages so small they can't open their wings. Their beaks are cut and many have osteoporosis because the hundrets of eggs they lay takes calcium from their bones. I think just 5 minute optional sensory taste pleasure is not worth causing a living being to experience immense suffering, exploitation and murder their entire life, especially when it is not necessary, i.e. just eat vegan burgers, vegan sauages, vegan pizzas, vegan ice cream, what ever concentional fast food substitude with 90% the same taste... Also every argument against veganism is suffering from at least one logical fallacy. I recommend watching the doucmentaries "Dominion", "What the health", "The Game Changers", and the Speech by Gary Yourofsky. Earthling Ed is also a wonderful channel I can recommend. Thank you for listening to my Ted Talk.

[@MartyInTheWoods]

You can also buy animal products that are produced ethically by certain standard declarations. Or better even, directly from a producer at a farmers market where you know how the animals are kept and treated. Sure, that will be more expensive, but thus you value the product more and may eat a bit less ;-) At the same time you support those small producers, which helps a lot.

[@cultofscriabin9547]

It may be better than factory farming but even on ethical farms the animals are killed very Young with a knife across their throat.

[@MartyInTheWoods]

@@cultofscriabin9547 If we talk about ethics and animal farming, we should focus on whole life of the animals. Slaughter of the animals is only one small part of that life. I am not aware that ethical farms slaughter by cutting the throat of the animal. Usually it is done by a shot to the head, with a special gun. In Europe quite a number of Eco-farms (BIO=Eco) have started to slaughter on site, thus avoiding transporting the animals to a slaughterhouse which is rather stressful for the animals. As for slaughtering young animals: it is necessary for maintaining a healthy herd to take out a certain number of younger animals.

[@cultofscriabin9547]

@@MartyInTheWoods I grant you that the slaughter is one small part. That's not really my point. I say that we still kill the animals at a very Young age. Even if we do it as painlessly as possible, we are still taking away their right to live. Imagine it in a human context… And for the method of Killing, what ultimately kills the animals is as far as I know Always a knife across the throat. Now what you're talking about with the gunshot to the head is the only the stunning.

[@cultofscriabin9547]

@@MartyInTheWoods is only the stunning *

[@MartyInTheWoods]

@@cultofscriabin9547 Yes, I understand. The right to live is taken away. But look at this from a cultural perspective: herd animals have been raised for a long time to serve humans. We use their products like fur, skin and also meat. For example, the ecological sheepherder nowadays cannot survive if he does not also sell meat from lambs for example. This meat is high quality and expensive - as it should be. To value it accordingly and not eat it every day.

[@AlessioAndres]

I am not interested to help poor people as a from an ethics equation of three. I want to restructure a particular country from the core, in all directions. That's how you improve everything: altogether. Your thinking is linear and knited, ser.

[@HeroicAge616]

Study the Marxist school my friend, that’s their critique of this sort of argument

[@warpromo6636]

the prison system, the school system, and the treatment of animals

[@LWylie]

Could give up everything and go and live on a desert island, would do nothing to help people around the world. The problems are structural.

[@heracles2626]

Strawman

[@LWylie]

@@heracles2626 Extrapolation isn't a strawman. "What's the most you can do?" extrapolated to it's extreme does nothing to help people.

[@heracles2626]

@@LWylie true good point, but going to a desert island isn't the most you can do

[@Scott_Raynor]

The most you can do is be an activist against these problems, trying to convince others to act against them.

[@LWylie]

@@Scott_Raynor Perhaps. But that isn't a part of anything he says. His arguments are: live frugally, give charity; don't eat meat; walk more. And, like I said - I could give away everything I own, go and live 'frugally' on a desert island where upon I eat no meat, and give off no carbon emissions, and it would change nothing. The problems are structural. So, yes, perhaps activism is the best one can do - but the video isn't about that.

[@user-zc4yd9ss7h]

I'm assuming you are middle class living in an affluent country...with money left over after you have satisfied all your needs' Pretty big assumption, I'd say

[@MERLOW.]

Bold of you to assume I have extra money

[@Aquillyne]

MerLow what are you watching KZbin on?

[@MERLOW.]

Virgil Ierubino I could be watching KZbin on a gold plated, diamond encrusted iPhone, however, that doesn’t change the fact that I have no disposable income. I happen to be using the computer that my job and schooling requires. Computers are now a necessity for participation in our society. So long story short, no, the fact that I’m watching KZbin does not mean I have extra money.

[@throwaway3544]

@@MERLOW. The difference between your need for a phone or computer and another person’s need for water perfectly demonstrates the point.

[@howtheworldworks3]

I love people like you and I actually have solutions for all the problems you talked about. As soon as I publish the book that contains those solutions I will let you know. Or maybe I wont have to do any advertisement at all because my first readers will do it for me.

[@KGBos]

indiana201333 already read your book. Your solutions are mediocre at best.

[@howtheworldworks3]

@@KGBos You just lied. How can you read a book that is not done or public yet? Did you hack my computer or what?

[@KGBos]

indiana201333 How dare you accuse me of lying. You know there is no lying on the internet!

[@howtheworldworks3]

@@KGBos Enjoy your mute mister troll.

[@jtoumai]

He says i could drink tap water Come take a sip of my fine city tap water n I'll see how you liked it after you wake up in Emergency Center

[@hanskloss7726]

Just curious - where do you live? What are the poisons that are in tap water? I live in Germany here tap water is mostly drinkable to the point that it is not worth to buy bottled stuff other than for stockpiling in case of ever more probable grid failure. The same in the Netherlands although their water is terrible in taste. Few other places in Europe I have been to, are the same. I know in US it is much more variable and there are places where piping and water source make things very bad and expensive. Not sure how widespread that is.

[@jtoumai]

@@hanskloss7726 trenton NJ... The water dept shuts down every otger year for allowing too many pollutants in the water

[@hanskloss7726]

@@jtoumai Sorry to hear that but thanx for the answer.

[@jtoumai]

@@hanskloss7726 come take a sip if you like

[@carpenterfamily6198]

I have a home distillery to make my tap water.

[@glamdrag]

Stop spending your money on shit you dont need is the best advice. If you need less money to sustain your lifestyle, then you can work less. So you'll have more time to be helpful to others who need it. You'll reduce your carbon footprint in this process automatically and reduce animal product consumption as well since you don't need to be eating the amount of what you are eating now. this will reduce co2 emissions even further.

[@hanskloss7726]

You know - if not confronted with idiocy spread by different activists for last few years and not made to pay for them too through very high taxes I may have listened to you. BTW poverty is fought in my country by letting the strongest that can get over the Mediterranean full financial support and flawed justice system that makes their medieval habits (e.g. child marriage) legal. My understanding is that I do more than I can. Pity most of it is wasted but I have no influence how it is done hence I stopped support to all organizations that do work on poverty. Go figure.

[@mtumasz]

Hardly any revelations here. Why publish it?

[@BicycleFunk]

Sometimes you just need to hear it again.

[@1979ce]

Global poverty is getting better every year

[@efilwv1635]

Anti-Natalism (for humans and animals alike), the right to die on demand, and reducing harm for all sentient life is my 3 pillars of ethics. Nature itself is our sole oppressor. We are basically living on a spherical concentration camp where the death rate is 100%. I choose extinctionism over the continuation of 500 million years of perpetual suffering.

[@PatrykKarter]

Antinatalism is flawed. Have you ever considered what will happen once the last humans and animals die of old age? You can't stop evolution, intelligent life will evolve again and will go through all the suffering we went through before we discovered/invented medicine, technologies such as fridges for storing food, trains for travelling and so on. Antinatalism is basically giving up and allowing future sentient beings to suffer much more than we are suffering now. In my opinion the only thing we can do is continue inventing and discovering ways to keep reducing suffering.

[@PatrykKarter]

Btw I do agree with you second and third pillars of ethics you put forward. Are you vegan by any chance?

[@atypical_moto]

You're the guy that every planet has that is the reason we havent found intelligent life in space. They all keep killing themselves! Lol But in all seriousness, I believe that there might be an intelligence "ceiling" on the universe that always results in self inflicted extinction.

[@rashadpreston7389]

Right to die on demand would be awesome

[@glamdrag]

@@atypical_moto i think it isn't necessarily a ceiling, more like an obstacle. If we manage to pass that phase in intelligence, the next phase is of a great understanding where we don't have to worry about killing ourselves any more. For instance, if we survive climate change and manage to fix it, we don't have to worry about that again because the awareness will be embedded in our collective consciousness. Same has happened to slavery, and is happening to wars.

[@samuelaidar6881]

I am a brasilian guy ,i think that see that misery is a natural condition , The modern man is fool. Have more ilusions than ever , and think that is diferent of old generations. The world is The same of the Babylon , the world is until exploration, Dostoiévski, a christian writer describes the man with the best words : a ungrateful that walks.

[@neelamchopra3466]

Sir iam Siegel mother iam living in uk my son go to bimm music college i need help he is behind his work because he not have his reecutment recoding plz if u help him he is such a good in sing 😭plz help me i cnt afford the recumbent he need plz i ask u because iam mother iam think about his future plz sir help me .

[@markkravitz4678]

✊ Try and fail, but don't fail to try. The best young entrepreneur ever @evenkingsfall (his insta) says you have to THINK BIG to WIN BIG! Always keep that vision! Good content as always ⚡️

[@quietspark2368]

Regarding the meat thing: a small handful of people, percentage wise, choosing a plant based meat over beef is not going to cause the slaughter house to slaughter one less cow, the slaughter house continues as normal because over production is the norm within most capitalist economies. This means the meat you don't buy when you go plant based goes into the trash instead of feeding someone. Like it or not that is probably closer to the truth than the idea that not buying meat will hurt the industry in some way.

[@vickypedias]

Yes, the first rule of economics, the demand doesn't matter XD For real though, of course reducing meat consumption will hurt the industry in some way. The less meat is consumed, the less will be bought, the less will be sold, the less will be produced, and fewer animals will, therefore, be bred and killed overall. It's simple supply and demand economics. Also, helping others around you to make those choices so as to increase your impact, that's important. Start by making the change in yourself, live a good healthy life, and the rest will follow.

[@christopherminge3558]

No economist agrees with you lol. They may the impact of consumer choice is overstated in some cases, but what you've said is completely out of the question.

[@kalmanbic2721]

A Christian millionaire is a oxymoron

[@uberboytube]

So woke ....... can’t think !

[@nicofonce]

First for the 1st time!

[@Sheeshening]

Problem; His solution; my opinion Extreme poverty; give some of your money to Africa etc; foreign aid is a story of failure, your government already does that. What really helps is promoting capitalism, not helping them feed another round of 10 babies that will then need aid once again. Extreme poverty is the natural state of all animals, if they don't build capital. Climate change; avoid using energy, ride your bike, don't use aircon, force others via government; terrible advice, he should basically interchange the first and the second argument. Donating/venture investments are ridiculously low in many green energy areas. Cars and aircon make life tremendously better and you shouldn't plan a future that depends on regressive asceticism if actually clean scalable nuclear solutions are just waiting for funding. Animal abuse; don't sacrifice other species interests, because that's speciecist; to the contrary of what he has said, animals do have rights which you can either expand or you could just hold yourself accountable for your actions. Go for the ever so slightly more moral option until you arrive at a point where the animals life is at or above natural levels in the wild. Sadly I once again have to disagree fundamentally with his notions. Pigs do not have "interests" any more than hyenas have an interest in violently slaughtering fully conscious meat providers. In other words, industrial meat production is animalistic, whereas conscious consumption is humanistic. He ascribes goodness to beings which is neither justified by evidence, nor does it conform to his worldview. He is emblematic of the male sophists version of "Not religious, but spiritual lol". If it weren't for a few lucky strikes, like formidable cognitive abilities, he'd be writing horoscopes.

[@Nat88123]

A guy that supports an industry of infanticide telling me how to be moral. How do people fall for this.

[@freeandcriticalthinker4431]

How about those in poverty “Thru faults/actions of their own”? Or on Climate change, “what exactly CAN we do about it, HOW will it be done, DO we REALLY know enough to proclaim in a 100 percent way that YES it WILL be catastrophic, ARE we stifling some that are trying to do research that conflicts with the majority? To WHAT extent is the massive conflict of interest of climate research producing inaccurate conclusions...., etc. etc.....”.........

[@christopherminge3558]

Well for one, even an incredibly mild climate change will absolutely fuck over Bangladesh, which is massively geographically vulnerable. So even if we've overestimated it, it for sure will substantially affect the hundreds of millions who live there.

[@deannausernametaken]

Clearly you don’t hold these questions seriously or you’d have researched them by now. These are more *protests* than genuine *questions.* Just because you put a fucking question mark doesn’t mean we’re that dumb.

[@olajankowska1408]

start with going vegan it is the simplest thing an individual can do

[@kazkk2321]

I hate this idea of animal rights. If hey must not have any rights and if they do they t should be limited

[@Victor-it6bv]

Try eating bugs. Theres plenty of bugs.

[@scottanno8861]

You WILL eat ze bugs! You WILL own nothing and be happy!

[@1979ce]

USA doesn't kill animals for no reason. We have some of the most strict laws in the world.

[@patrickwithee7625]

Chris Ericksen not nearly strict enough.

[@alwells5779]

It's not just about slaughter. The slaughter is and should be regulated. But, the living conditions up until slaughter is another matter. We now grow chickens that grow so fast that within a few weeks they cannot move and their bones litterally break. We care too much about money and not enough about what we do to each other or other species for our pleasure and advancement. We need to take into account how we go about life, not just living as cheaply and as richly as possible at the detriment of everything around us.

[@christopherminge3558]

We have some of the least strict among first world countries when compared to Europe.

[@jamesbeemer7855]

Green house gases . Population control. Paying taxes . You have to do your duty's . Your complaining too much .

[@Carnivorousplantyum]

The global temperature has been 25 degrees warmer in the past. The earth has also been in periods of ice ages. Can anyone tell me what temperature the earth is "supposed" to be? This guy is just peddling a humanistic religion. No thanks.

[@stianen]

We are humans, and we are interested in keeping our home livable for humans. If the mean temperature were 15 degrees warmer, there would be no humans on Earth.

[@Carnivorousplantyum]

@@stianen of course there would still be humans if the earth were warmer. We would just live in different areas of the earth.

[@AGFuzzyPancake]

Humans aren't "supposed" to be on Earth as we have no divine claim to it, but can you not agree that while we are here we should do what we can to ensure that we can continue to live here without vast coastal lands being underwater and forcing billions of people away from their homes and ruining farmlands we depend on for food? Not to mention the countless animal species that would go extinct as a result... That's all fine to you? We don't need to change anything to avoid that?

[@scoople6]

The world has been warmer and colder in the past, the worlds temperature does naturally fluctuate. But we know based on a variety of evidence (one being glacial layers in the arctic) that human activity is RAPIDLY accelerating that rate of change to levels that WILL be catastrophic to human civilization if nothing is done. It's not that the temperature of the planet changes over time that's the problem it's the RATE of change that implies more extreme weather changes.

[@chrismeys4791]

@@scoople6 "WILL be catastrophic to human civilization”. “From what we know today, climate change in the future almost certainly won’t be a catastrophe.” - Dr John Robson. - Look up - "The Catastrophe Question"

[@rich8304]

Self responsibility taught by Doctor Jordan Peterson has it right.Your way out of bounds and to impose this since of guilt on society is BULLSHT

[@christopherminge3558]

Would you be willing to say that to the faces of people starving to death in undeveloped countries? You may think he's overreacting, but to think this isn't a problem is definitely a view you wouldn't have if you witnessed it experienced this suffering firsthand, and truly understood what it would be like to be in their shoes. Jordan Peterson respects Christian morality very much, so bear in mind that one if Jesus' primary doctrines was on helping the poor.

[@maxwellsequation4887]

Another Peter's son

[@Victor-it6bv]

Let me guess. We need more socialism.

[@kemicalhazard8770]

Since when does: Treating others and animals morally = socialism ?

[@Impeldown77]

No?? Did we watch the same video??😂

[@djfassler]

Another “philosopher” who thinks he knows best how everybody else should live their lives.

[@aprilhart4810]

"Through no fault of their own are living in extreme poverty." But this isn't true... it IS their fault, objectively.

[@KGBos]

April Hart are you saying they choose to live and poverty? And it’s easy for them to not live in poverty?

[@aprilhart4810]

@@KGBos Yes, by their low-intelligence and high time preference actions, they choose paths in life that continue to lead to poverty generation after generation, as opposed to building up an estate of wealth they pass onto their children and continue cultivating until it becomes civilization. "Should I save up some grain so I can survive a difficult time and/or sell it and elevate my position in the world? Nah I'll just eat it now." "Should I dedicate time to improving myself and climbing the social ladder? Nah I'll just drink instead." These are just a couple specific examples of what not to do, obviously not representative of everyone's situation but you should nonetheless understand the kind of choices I'm talking about now instead of coming back with a petty "not all people drink!" duckspeak reply.

[@KGBos]

April Hart but do they choose to have low intelligence? What if they’re not intelligent enough to become more intelligent to get out of poverty.

[@aprilhart4810]

@@KGBos In a larger sense, an ethnic group is an organism that makes choices across time when governing itself, what genes it will select for and what genes will be weeded out. When you look at a population today and observe it has a low average IQ, know that it's because of the choices that living organism made as a collective gene pool in the past, it is not the fault of other gene pools in the world.

[@christopherminge3558]

@@aprilhart4810 Firstly, there is very little concrete evidence that poor people in undeveloped countries have genetically lower IQs, because we haven't been able to control for the environmental impact on IQ, and they don't yet have a good schooling system. Americans' IQs were also way lower in the past when we were less developed. Admittedly, there may still be some disparity once countries are on equal footing, but the vast majority of the disparity is explainable by environmental factors. Also, an individual is not at fault for what their ancestors have done. It's not a babies fault when they are born with AIDs because their mother had it. You may say that it can be an ethnicity's fault, but that's irrelevant (I personally disagree) because Peter Singer is referencing the current generation of people who were born into poverty with no opportunity to fully escape in their own lifetime.

[@lorcanmacmathuna]

Trite and simplistic and cliched

[@somastic69]

Can we have some videos with non Jews please ? Thanks.

[@michaelgibbons7014]

That's gonna be a yikes from me

[@timdowney6721]

somastic69 Can we remove bigoted fools.....starting with you?

[@aryanprivilege9651]

@@timdowney6721 you don't know him, your the pre judging prejudiced bigot. Good idea, jews have been called out by every great thinker as a disease. Look at expulsions, all fears, warning. This speaker in video is a smooth brain.

[@aryanprivilege9651]

ALL questions are valid, those shutting down speech are dead inside, the cause of suffering.

[@aryanprivilege9651]

Clearly readers, Jewish strategy O.P. Revilo! Is a word or historical leader gets us incorrect? Author? You'll speak dozen languages, PhD. It's fact, go verify in London museum stacks, on monuments. Greek still Greek, latin...issue? All wrong ...kings emperors Ceasars, presidents, history, all greatest thinkers. YT 🥜 heads? Stop, he got a differing opinion, flat erf!