Why I, as an Atheist, Am No Longer a Humanist

I no longer call myself a humanist. Here’s why.
In 2019, I was confronted with some ideas which lead to an ideological shift. Thanks to Carl Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot, Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind, and Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation, I came to see morality a bit differently. Rather than humanism, I’ve taken to sentientism and ethical veganism (and have for some time now). Ultimately, I don’t think labels are nearly as important as the principles they’re meant to communicate, so I don’t care to squabble over labels or definitions when I could instead cut directly to the issues at hand.
The Great Demotions often contribute to the cessation of various kinds of human prejudice. Speciesism, I think, should be the next to go.
**Click here to listen to the books mentioned in this video for free with a 30-day free trial from Audible**
audibletrial.co...
------------------------------------------FOLLOW------------------------------------------
Twitter: / gm_skeptic
Facebook: / gmskeptic
Discord: / discord
------------------------------------------SUPPORT------------------------------------------
Patreon: / geneticallymodifiedske...
PayPal: www.paypal.me/...
Sources and other links:
The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment
citeseerx.ist....
This Is Exactly Why I’m an Atheist
• This Is Exactly Why I'...
------------------------------------------Resources for atheists in need------------------------------------------
Find a Secular Therapist: www.secularthe...
Recovering from Religion helps connect those who are leaving or have left their religion with support, resources and community: www.recovering...
Resources for Ex-Mu’s: exmuslims.org/...
This video contains 100% therapeutic grade skepticism.*
*This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA

[@GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic]

Click here to listen to any of the books mentioned here for free with a 30-day trial from Audible. Thanks for the support, everyone! audibletrial.com/gmskeptic

[@WobblesandBean]

I highly recommend that you read "The Omvivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan. I think it will help you. It certainly helped me.

[@edivimo]

Had you hear about Mexie. She also has a vegan position but from the leftist perspective. Very good research. kzbin.info/www/bejne/pYrCdadnn8qsaq8

[@hallowacko]

I wonder what would be a better term for supporting not only humans, but other animals with nervous systems. Animalist? Animist? Neurologist? (watches until 13:50) AH SENTIENTIST.

[@disdanzafilm]

Given everything we know nowadays about sentient life your conclusion is natural and rational one.

[@oliviawolcott8351]

ok, so I'm reacting to the demotion, but what about our evolution as omnivores? is it unethical for other carnivores and omnivores to prey on herbivores? what about communities that base most of their survival on what they can pull from the sea? as I said, I'm reacting to the demotion, but would a plant based diet around the world be feasible? could we produce that many crops? and in those times that drought is bad then how do those people survive? what about indigenous people who rely on their herds for their clothing and food? please answer these questions as I need to understand more. I want to note though that I do agree that we should lessen suffering as a whole for all animals, but I lack the understanding of how that could be and how we could make such a food base successful. it seems to me that eliminating meat and animal agriculture is only feasible for more developed countries. poorer countries need to obtain their food in whatever way that is available to them. please correct my ignorance if I am wrong, but is veganism and vegetarianism a privileged position?

[@CosmicSkeptic]

Damn it man this was like the only think differentiating us 😡 Wanna just merge accounts? No one will notice

[@elijahtrent21]

Lol 😆

[@NotesFromAutumn]

Cosmically modified skeptic

[@joeljohnson896]

@@NotesFromAutumn hey I recognize you

[@blackswan8653]

Get a room, you two.

[@codyhanson1344]

Idk how people even confused you two in the first place, is this some kind of inside joke or something? I never really saw similarities other than that you were both "skeptic" channels.

[@GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic]

I can't wait to get mistaken for Cosmic Skeptic even more now

[@TurtleChad1]

*You are Turtle Approved* ©™

[@aerofiles5044]

lol

[@Τ́ξτ]

...wait you’re different people?

[@donsample1002]

You need to work on your accent to achieve true Cosmic Skepticism.

[@WireWhiz]

Easy, just listen to the accent

[@PrinzAviator]

Person: Steals my parking space at the last moment Me: "Why I, as an atheist, am no longer a humanist"

[@Debilitator47]

They will never find the bodies, if you dig deep in the wilderness. DEEP.

[@LeneChibi]

Hahahaha best comment

[@kaufmanat1]

Lolol.

[@almondgirl86]

Yes! yesterday I was pulling into a parking spot and me and another driver spotted each other. We made eye contact and then they honked at me and pulled into the spot I obviously was going to pull into 😂 Oh well, guess they really wanted that spot lol

[@aikou2886]

@@Debilitator47 Just to make sure get a dog or dear corpse that you can bury on top of the other body. Well that and make sure the body is buried vertically, that way it will occupy the least amount of space.

[@markmarco2880]

You can be a humanist and simultaneously burden yourself with compassion and empathetic thought for the rest of creation, including organic life forms other than our own. In fact, one could hardly call himself a humanist without holding close to his chest the concerns and the welfare of (especially) the animal kingdom. Which indeed includes humans, after all.

[@jacewright6428]

Thank you for this. I feel like this is where I want to lean

[@raf1717]

Sadly, some humanists wear that plastic badge to show off they hold the best view and ideology. 😔

[@MisterMikhail]

Are his prior views common among humanists? Maybe I just haven't spoken to enough of them. To me those views sound like human supremacism, I don't associate them with humanism.

[@Honeybee9630]

Yeah, he address this very thing towards the end and feels and expresses the humanist label just isn't for him even if he agree with most of the thing with humanists and prefers a different label to express himself.

[@ReverendDr.Thomas]

You are urged to become VEGAN, since carnism (the destructive ideology that supports the use and consumption of animal products, especially for “food”) is arguably the foremost existential crisis.🌱

[@PixelTrainer.]

I read the "Humanist" in the title as just "Human", and i was extremely intrigued-

[@danasettepani321]

😂🤣😭

[@Cringer77]

Did you expect him to come out as reptilian or something? 😂

[@travcollier]

I often catch myself thinking "silly hoomans" ;) I'm not exactly neurotypical, so most humans do seem pretty alien a lot of the time.

[@icel8828]

Otherkin moment

[@sigmascrub]

@@Cringer77 indeed I did. My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined. 😔

[@markholdahl6511]

""...man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much-the wheel, New York, wars and so on-whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man-for precisely the same reasons.” ― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[@beverly719]

LOL 😂....love that trilogy!

[@beverly719]

@@arthurvice503 that might actually be a sign of higher intelligence that they have NOT done the awful things that the human race has done.

[@emilygordbort7300]

@@arthurvice503 my boy, you are in for a massive surprise

[@DeathEatsCurry]

@@arthurvice503 Woosh

[@nickolausafon5458]

The problem with this thinking is that it assumes dolphins think they're better or happier than us. Happiness itself is an intellectual human construct. ... The man revels and contemplates his society's achievements, often unequally. The dolphin is ignorant but brainy and free.

[@cameronsingletary8941]

When I realized how insignificant we are, I found it soo comforting it felt like all possibilities and opportunities were open. We are not special, we are not perfect, and we can be soo much more

[@pureone8350]

And who said we were perfect?

[@lipton3120]

@@pureone8350 dk some people I guess

[@pureone8350]

@I want to suplex Joe Cecot Christians say we are made in the image of God but were corrupted by sin. According to them, everyone is a sinner and imperfect so we need to turn to God or go to hell. So again, who ever said we were perfect?

[@NayBuster]

Yeah i hate God too

[@lloydchristmas4547]

Poetry

[@Fonzzz002]

I never really understood where this entire "center of the universe" fantasy came from or why it's considered a good thing. I like how big the universe is. Brings me comfort thinking there may be many, many advanced alien civilizations out there who live (mostly) comfortable lives. But to think "nah, it's just earth and humans, forever" is kind of dull tbh. Not comfortable or an upgrade by any means, so I have no idea how people can be shocked or depressed when they find out the universe wasn't a creation for them specifically. I'm also fascinated by the many prehistorical creatures and how they used to live. Makes me feel grateful to live in a time like this as this species, if anything.

[@rico14]

I like this perspective, but I think ultimately most people get really cynical about this story not being about us. I honestly think that’s one of the reasons people cling to religion so hard. Ultimately, I think we’re lucky to experience anything at all. Were just an amalgamation of atoms that’s able to experience love, wonder and so much more 🥹.

[@melelconquistador]

With a little scope you can understand why. Here are some variables you can combine to understand. Beliefs reinforce to some human/earth centricity. Those around them also reinforce such ideas as not conforming would leave them in the outgroup and what consequences that entails like stigmas. Sometimes people are in alot of pain and conceptualizing a smaller reality can lessen the burden of feeling insignificant and worthless.

[@malk6277]

@@melelconquistador Yes, and if this crutch is given to a person at a young age, contemplating navigating the world without it would be understandably daunting. It is relatively easy for those of us who never had the crutch and who have embraced a more uncontrived mode of perceiving the world around us, to think our way is easily accessible to all... but it isn't. This is powerful stuff: literally the core of meaning around which humans construct their reality. Shifting it in ANY way takes effort, let alone in a way that demotes us from the leading, romanticised role to an ensemble cast of infinite scope. I feel an immediate respect and kinship for people choose to work on themselves in this way.

[@williampennjr.4448]

Seriously? You don't think you're the center of the universe? You think your back is against a giant wall? Who's controlling you? I dont let anyone or thing control me. Free your mind and your ass will follow.

[@lifeontheledgerlines8394]

I'm going to college soon as a chemistry student, and though my path may change, my ultimate goal right now is to become an astrochemistry researcher. Basically, studying the composition of stars and the atmospheres of distant planets, work which could aid astrobiologists in potentially finding life on other planets. I think it's fascinating that there is so much we don't know, and it'd be exciting to uncover new things about the universe that we never could've imagined were real! It'd give me more of an existential crisis to know that there was just one rock floating out here in space with things that live, but the uncertainty is what makes life exciting, right? There's so much out there that we don't know, and I feel like people need to embrace discovery rather than be afraid of our blind spots, because that's what leads to slowed progress and it leads to people being hurt when we're unable to acknowledge that we don't have all the answers.

[@GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic]

For those saying that humanism doesn’t necessarily entail human exceptionalism, I agree. Make sure to watch to the end to hear me say that in the video. Humanism isn’t quite an adequate descriptor for my ethical position, though, so I don’t use it. One could have the same ethics as I do and still wear the humanist label. I simply don’t.

[@MrFrog-rc3zx]

Can you make a video on Adam Ragusa?

[@tomoffel1963]

But what is wrong about human exceptionalism? Humans are the only moral agents and the only ones who are even able to care about the well being of other creatures. Stating that we are exceptional would be nothing but sincere in my opinion. Also how can we not be the most important beings in the universe when the very notion of importance and meaning is inherent to our perspective of the universe?

[@CynicalBastard]

For a good read on the "Inhuman perspective" see "Intelligence And Spirit" by one Negarestani.

[@tomoffel1963]

@@CynicalBastard from what i gathered just now on a superficial level it would be more of a post human perspective? Linke concious minds that we may or may not consider still human?

[@tsopmocful1958]

Perhaps we just need to not get too hung up on labelling ourselves as any kind of 'ist' in the first place. Humanism was a product of its time as a reaction against religiously centred mindsets and has been largely made redundant by our modern Western societies adopting secular underpinnings. That means that calling ourselves 'humanists' in this day and age doesn't really mean that much unless we are differentiating ourselves in a very specific way from only some types of religious people who think that our societies should revert to a mindset of a former time. But even then, the word 'secular' is a much more useful and applicable term to use in that situation anyway. And like others here have said, I don't consider either humanism or secularism to have anything to do with human exceptionalism, or to have anything to do with our relationship with other species at all. The words only describe our own social situations, and are not even moral descriptors of any kind. That's why I thought this video seemed to be you agonising over nothing.

[@stewhv94]

I just thought humanism was the idea that morality doesn’t need to come from a god. I never thought of it as human supremacy. Though I do think as humans it’s important and also hardwired into us that we take care of one another. Same is true for every species, doesn’t mean we’re better in any way.

[@cps_Zen_Run]

Fortunately morality doesn’t come from deities. So many millions killed by those who do. Scriptures is one of the absolute worst places to mirror morality.

[@sirmeowthelibrarycat]

🤔 Indeed so. I have never placed myself as any form of supreme being. Such would be a version of a deity. Ridiculous! We happened to be the one species of life on this planet to have an opportunity to apply our intelligence in a manner that ensured our survival against enormous odds. Unfortunately we have yet to develop the degree of self control necessary for the rest of life here to continue as evolution has worked over millennia.

[@hicknopunk]

You are correct Stew, humanism has nothing to do with humans being the center of the universe. Humanism doesn't even really say humans are important.

[@myopenmind527]

Humanism isn’t about human supremacy, that would be a perversion of what humanism stands for.

[@MohamedAdelSci]

Humanism is that morality is about the well-being of humans, it's not just "morality doesn't come from a deity". In saying that morality is only about humans, you are in fact saying humans are "superior" compared to other animals. No one is saying we shouldn't have moral concen for humans, so your second statement is kind of irrelevant. What is being said is that we should also have moral concern for non-human animals because suffering is what matters morally speaking.

[@JJMcCullough]

I'd love to see you do a video on the abortion debate.

[@jefferyjones8399]

Nice to see you here, J.J.!

[@joeljohnson896]

My second favorite canadian

[@marcodiaz7199]

OH SHIT ITS JJ

[@caimaccoinnich9594]

There isn't really a debate with abortion though... Foetuses are not babies - I think that's the whole debate right there.

[@d.profet5873]

@@caimaccoinnich9594 wym there’s no debate, one side says there should be no abortions one side says there should be abortions - tell me what I’m missing here

[@an.ode.to.beauty]

As a Christian, always trying to understand and learn new things and be open minded, I have found your channel exceptionally interesting. Thank u!

[@momsberettas9576]

Fetus's are in the human circle and anyone who says they aren't are guilty of the fallacy's he illustrated in this video

[@ComedianArchive]

@@momsberettas9576 No one is saying they’re not. Just as a caterpillar is also in the butterflies life cycle, yet we call them caterpillars and not butterflies:)

[@josephdavis3472]

@@momsberettas9576 This is equivocation. Most people are not of the opinion that a "fetus" isn't a human, but rather that an embryo that is only a few weeks old is not a human *yet*. You have no excuse for not knowing this and you *should* feel stupid. Something tells me you feel smugly superior instead though.

[@haleygray6443]

Human DNA means the embryo is human. It is never not Human DNA.

[@Nonamam]

How do u reconcile or explain that we all will burn in hell & slavery?

[@naomilovenpeace]

I mean technically speaking we are the center of the observable universe 😂

[@alessandrovigano8149]

That is only true if we are the only observers 👽

[@fearofaveganplanet8513]

* centre of the universe observable *by us*

[@brianhindman8260]

It's not true either way lmao

[@SeeAndDreamify]

@@alessandrovigano8149 every observer is the center of their observable universe.

[@RSAgility]

If I’m outside a box, I’m not inside of it. If we’re not the center of the “observable universe” then we are not. No matter how centered you might think you are in Spacetime, there is no center. even in our Galaxy we are very far from the center. That’s just the mentality of narcissists.

[@fefhydg6082]

i’m too drunk to watch this video but you have beautiful eyes

[@WobblesandBean]

As a fellow waterfowl, I agree!

[@lilsaam]

I'm jealous

[@acespiderqueen3630]

Yes

[@gelbadayah.sneach579]

Glad to know I'm not the only person watching this drunk (and not the only one fawning at Drew's eyes.)

[@PersePixels]

This comment is underrated... But hope you get the time to watch later 😆

[@matthewdancz9152]

Interviewer: "What will make you change your mind?" Bill Nye: "Evidence."

[@marieblackbird89]

Evidence for what specifically are you interested in?

[@jarodstrain8905]

@random videos nothing you just said is accurate. Even the 3230 genes is an estimated hypothetical based on modern humans. It also represents only 10 to 15 percent of our genes, and is included in the DNA we share with other primates.

[@kmndrs]

Your misunderstandings / misrepresentations from genetics and archeology are indeed evidence of something...

[@user-ny7sg9mz1v]

Wow, the gatekeepers of the evidence land

[@K3wlG33k]

@I want to suplex Joe Cecot Funnily enough that you mentioned Norse, it is quite possible that the story of Adam and Eve was invented to be more inviting for Nordic people or to entice them into Christianity (roughly around when tensions between the two were not great to put it simply; mind you this could possibly date the story of Adam and Eve long after much of Genesis was already written beforehand in the Torah). There are many similarities between the first story in the Bible with the Nordic myth. More specifically, Adam and Eve is quite an interesting and reasonable take on possible events post-Ragnarok. When the gods' were essentially dying, one god (I think it was Odin, but I could be wrong) hid 2 humans behind the world tree in order to at least save humanity: one man and one woman. Also, Christianity didn't make much of effort to differentiate itself from Norse mythology with the whole "Tree of Life" as it sounds familiar like, say, Yggdrasil. *Granted, a lot of this is just speculative,* but I wouldn't put it past the Catholic church to concoct this plan to ease tensions and convert the Nordic people over to Christianity. It just makes too much sense historically speaking in my mind.

[@blackrosenuk]

As a Christian, I became a vegan over a decade ago when I really checked my whole "pro-life" mindset -- and the cognitive dissonance appalled me. I really appreciate how thoughtful you are. It takes a strong mind to constantly question their biases and mindsets -- and then be able to explain it all! Really appreciate your point of view.

[@avivastudios2311]

There is no cognitive dissonance. We care for other humans we eat animals. There's nothing wrong with that.

[@JacobGrim]

Funny thing is that veganism is probably less pro-life than even the carnivore diet, because that kind of farming kills so many more animals than livestock does. I think the only reason people are vegans is because the animals that are killed simply aren't as cute and as livestock. A single cow can feed someone for a year, while a single person needs acres of land and hundreds of animals to be destroyed

[@Mujisu5102]

Plants' lives matter!

[@oliviastratton2169]

Interesting! As an atheist I had the opposite journey. I was a vegetarian and reflexively pro-choice due to being raised by liberal parents. But eventually had to square the fact I didn't eat fertilized eggs (because they were "baby chickens") with my dehumanizing view of fetuses. This moved me towards the pro-life position.

[@DanBeech-ht7sw]

What is your view then of God actively encouraging fishing, and God personally eating meat?

[@azminur1446]

Dang im muslim myself and i dont know how i got here but i already watch a few of ur videos. Im subscribing cause ur vids are actually interest me. Keep up with ur hardwork, you just gain a new fan

[@nrlw-77777]

@Yamnihc Ebmilaw 😂😂

[@nightsheran]

@Yamnihc Ebmilaw yet u here...

[@TheSlyWeeb]

@Yamnihc Ebmilaw nah, in america we atheists control Satan 😈

[@Taha-Aamamou]

i advise u to follow subboor ahmad, mohammed hijab, The Muslim Skeptic channels, they have much better content for u as a muslim also here is a video of subboor ahmad refuting this idiot for his miserable attempt to project a bad image of Muslims kzbin.info/www/bejne/q3y8maGZrbqki5I

[@akiraimison3322]

@@Taha-Aamamou went and had a look at your suggested video, I saw emotionally charged mockery based on racial differences. No proper rebuttal or response.

[@fredodonnell3323]

If you lived with an animal, as with a pet, even a "lowly" animal like a bird, you would realise that they're not that different to us. Most are able to love and enjoy a hug and have characters and personalities and have an instinct for survival. If you lived with one, you would realise you can't treat them much differently to humans.

[@CaptainTae]

Do you ask your birds for consent when you treat them as an equal in the bedroom?

[@genesisz1]

@@CaptainTae he said “not that different” and “can’t treat them much differently.” Not they are exact “equals” to us. Are you even reading?

[@CaptainTae]

@@genesisz1 So if there IS a difference... what are we talking about? Stop trying to proselytize for 5 seconds.

[@genesisz1]

@@CaptainTae are you seriously asking what the difference between a bird and a human is? I don’t teach first grade. Also it’s completely irrelevant, because the point that is being made is that they are sentient beings who feel pain, suffering and other types of emotions just like us human animals do, that’s why we should give them value over taste pleasures, just like you would a human animal.

[@CaptainTae]

@@genesisz1 No. I’m not asking anything like that. Did you misunderstand or is this a really bad attempt at a Strawman?

[@Danny-kk4nj]

I'm loving this trend of atheists becoming vegans, I hope it keeps going

[@isabelamuzzi3096]

me too! I did the opposite though 😂 I became vegan in 2019 and atheist now in 2021

[@poctordepper4269]

Hopefully Christians get in on the trend soon, gotta have our priorities straight.

[@Espaceespace9]

I became atheist and a few month later vegan, both in 2020 ^^

[@PopCultureFan_]

Just trading in animal rights instead of religous rights ( Both equally annoying) and majority havr extremist views, but anyways hope he sees the paralels, becuase therr are many🤔 and i csnt believe he joined this group., its not compatable at all. Veganism ruined my life, and sorry it is not sustable, it is also one big fat lie. But anyways he'll find out in a few years when his health begings to fail like mine did, and no amount of vagetables or special powder helped!. My eyeballs and skin started turnig yellow & i developed sever under eye circles so bad that people thought id been punched i the eyes, i had memor problems, i couldnt talk or form words it was really bad after 5 years. I was severly malnourished....but too stubborn too to stop bc of the BS lie veganism was telling me. I should have stoped that first week of giong vegetarian even, then i started getting severe brain fog , i chocked it up to nothing becuase i was fed a lie (I assumed it was detoxying my body 'detoxying is another lie they tellyou), truth is i was freaken killing myself and my brain slowly, depriving it of essential vitmains from not eating fish. Oh i forgot also.. i was even more paler than ussualy and i became tired all the time. I am sorry but we obviously need dairy, and meats to survive, there is nothing healthy or natural about getting the things we need from pill bottles also theyre plastic mind you, how is that helping?, and the first thing they tell vegans is to take b12 in pillform since they dont eat meat. I was lacking most of the essentials, B12 Iron K and D, and D you get from Milk! There is K1 in alot of green but it is not easily absorbed , K2 is easily obsorbed and only found it meats. Iron and b12 is found plentifull in meats too. Yummy yummy meats!. Btw and another pie they say is that once you go ex vegan meat is supposed to taste horrible, well thats 100 percent not true. The first week i went off i raided the fridge of all delimeat. I am still suffering with the ill effects 10 years after. He'll learn long enought..

[@k1a9l9i2]

Same!

[@markmarco2880]

The beautiful thing about this particular discussion is how the speaker keeps it in the context of his own, evolving consciousness in relation to (and I love this phrase) the stages of human demotions, beginning with the realization that the Earth revolves around the sun. “Nobility is not the comparison between the self and others; nobility is the comparison between who we are and that of our former selves, then recognizing the progress that we have made.” (-author unknown, but it wasn’t I)

[@trafficjon400]

Ya and your Animal instincts tell you so? Some day Knowledge will help us animals be Captain of an air buss 380 wont it. Grizzly bear Flying one soon to be. Animals are and all ways will be Animals whether atheist or theist its a Fact that Humans are gifted Knowledge and Animals are Not. We are Human Beings not animals as a proven fact by Knowledge its self. Not sure about history but no animals as of yet have Knowledge . get that facted through the thick Highly sophisticated Intelligent Educated College Graduate Heads.

[@RuneKillerz109]

Ernest hemming way and this quote is not the direct quote. "There Is Nothing Noble in Being Superior to Some Other Man. The True Nobility Is in Being Superior to Your Previous Self" is the correct version of it i think.

[@ArielPontes]

The title of this video should be "Why I, as an Atheist, No Longer use the label 'Humanist'". I understand what you're saying and I agree that the capacity for suffering is the condition for moral consideration, regardless of species, but suggesting that Humanism is speciesist is an unfair misrepresentation of Humanism. It is really a straw man attack (intended or not), since nothing in the Humanist worldview suggests this. On the contrary, Humanists International explicitly states in their website that humans are not the only species worthy of moral consideration. If you don't like the label "Humanism", that's fine, but then your problem is with the branding and marketing of Humanism, not with the ideology of the movement itself. The current title doesn't transmit this though. It transmits that you have a problem with the ideology itself, and that attitude is not justified by the arguments provided in the video.

[@mrvnoble]

You've articulated my own immediate response to the title. It could just be a question of degree and humanist moral considerations of other species just aren't up to snuff for him anymore. To some ethical vegans, a moderate humanist's response to the realities of the modern meat industry is not enough, and philosophy must be followed with action. And honestly, the label could use work. Humanist is useful but may be outdated soon if not now. The alternatives also don't strike well for me.

[@bb1111116]

@Ariel Pontes; Thank you for your comment which fits my view about humanism.

[@soulmechanics7946]

👏👏👏

[@soulmechanics7946]

This is not a genuine testimony though. Nonetheless, very well stated.

[@robinarkell7221]

I could be wrong, I'm not particularily well versed in humanism, but from the video it seems like the reason he's rejecting the label and the ideology is because of how it's actually undertaken, rather than what is presented as the principles? Also, the human centric worldview seems like it would lend itself to the valuing of human like traits above any others in animals? First of all, stating that other animals may also be worthy of consideration isn't the same as actually saying all animals (with the ability to feel pain, at least) are worthy of the same consideration. Recognizing the value of gibbons, dolphins, gorillas and other creatures that exhibit human like social behaviors and high intelligence is something that fits very well with the idea that human intelligence sets us apart. Valuing a chicken at the same level does not. While he's not saying he values every living creature equally or anything like that, the viewpoint he's espousing does seem to be a broader form of consideration for animals than humanism would promote and one that doesn't rely on similarity to us. Secondly, and perhaps more important, he explicitly mentions the behavior of humanists and their human centric point of view, while saying he still agrees with them on many points. If a large section of a community acts in a specific way you disagree with consistently then the publishing of more moderate viewpoints by people within the community doesn't come off as the truth- it feels disconnected or disengenuous. When a representative organisation for a group that is frequently xenophobic and hateful (let's say...the Republican party) publishes a diversity and inclusion statement on their website it doesn't make me think that's what the grouping as a whole believes and follows, it makes me think they're trying to soften their position to make people on the fence feel more comfortable. This is less severe than that, obviously, but the point still stands that if it's an issue with the community, even if the ideology doesn't support it, you still probably don't want the label. TLDR; When you use a label associated with a community you indicate yourself to be a part of that community as it actually is, reguardless of how different the community may be from the ideology it's named after.

[@MolterGames]

It takes a very brave person to accept that not only your thinking was flawed, but that you at first became angry when realizing why that it was flawed. Every time I watch one of your videos I realize I have so much to work on. Thanks for all this amazing content!

[@JariDawnchild]

I love this amazing creature's channel. :-)

[@therealatheistexperience7654]

@@JariDawnchild i love paltry amounts of poultry

[@eddybrevet6816]

Believed but never really liked it, can’t think why anybody want to

[@Timmeh_The_tyrant]

So.. you think people who are humanists have flawed thinking but the way you think is A O K.

[@therealatheistexperience7654]

@@Timmeh_The_tyrant meh...

[@animator765]

I’m pretty sure you’ve misunderstood humanism as human exceptionalism when that’s the not the purpose of the ideology, we are humans we can’t get away from that and we instinctively want to socialise and interact with humans hence the name. This doesn’t prevent us from caring for or relating to other species on this planet as we share common needs.

[@fordprefect1925]

Agree. Humanism does not preclude veganism at all for instance. It does not posit that human beings are an inherently superior species or that our wellbeing is more significant or that somehow we are cosmically paramount. It merely states that human philosophy, reason and emotion are the best moral, experiential guides we have. That means considering human well being and happiness and of course the suffering of other animals. There is plenty of reference to this on the humanists UK wesbite. Humanism has a scientific basis that recognises we are simply evolved mammilian apes and tries to get the best out of our impulses and consciousness.

[@AV57]

Unfortunately, there is a rather large segment of secular humanists that attempt to strengthen their opposition to veganism by pointing toward secular humanism. Matt Dillahunty, for example, has been doing this for years.

[@fordprefect1925]

@@AV57 Interesting. Would you mind posting an example of this? I would like to see it. I would not allow that to inform your understanding of humanism as a whole. That isn't a humanist principle nor a perspective I imagine most humanists take. Most definitions of humanism talk about placing all living creatures at highest moral importance.

[@AV57]

@@fordprefect1925, i can’t quickly get a timestamp of them. I’ve been listening to the Atheist Experience for probably 10 years now and when a vegan challenges Matt, he will occasionally point out that he is a secular humanist first and foremost and that the interests of nonhumans logically take a backseat. I’m not saying he’s correct in portraying humanism this way, but he and apparently much of his audience, think that argument holds water. It is a rather annoying argument that even people who don’t use the label “humanist” will trot out. They will insist that you have to choose between human rights and animal rights, otherwise you are some sort of species traitor.

[@fordprefect1925]

@@AV57 well that certainly isn't my view nor the view advocated by humanists UK for instance. Not sure whether it's an American thing but I don't think that the argument that I am a human therefore the suffering of my fellow humans and myself come foremost is logical except in cases of survival. Humanism advocates the basic scientific understanding that have the capacity to experience suffering and at a basic level instinctively avoid this and seek pleasure. Therefore it also logically argues that we should seek to prevent the suffering of animals as they are also sentient beings and they share our experience in this regard.

[@kapnkerf2532]

"Do you classify yourself as humanist?" "Negative. I am a meat popsicle."

[@impolitevegan3179]

in this case soy popsicle. Funny scene tho.

[@jackknife4547]

Big badda boom!

[@Meskuzze420]

Nailed it

[@MateDrinker33]

#fifthelementfansrepresent :D

[@UrgoMeister]

More like a bag of meet trying to avoid being consumed by other animals.

[@lucminax]

Yes! We really need to talk more about the ethical treatment of all animals. Your contribution is a joy to have ^^

[@MyNameIsChristBringsASword]

You need to focus on where you are going after you die. Enjoy the lake of fire Revelation 20:15 your suffering will be eternal. God wins.

[@gunnarroth2410]

@@MyNameIsChristBringsASword hell is made for Christians only, so enjoy.

[@bobross5716]

@@MyNameIsChristBringsASword if winning means most of your creation ends up in an eternal lake of fire, why would God want to win?

[@ryanolson2308]

@@MyNameIsChristBringsASword brainwashed much?

[@satishglad64]

@@MyNameIsChristBringsASword 🤦

[@cyyy]

you can be a humanist without being human-centric

[@LwJohnL]

Agreed! I've never really associated humanism with human egocentrism.

[@BoringTroublemaker]

I agree. Humanity has it’s own place, including its own unique flaws and strengths. And while I’ve never considered humanism as human-centric, there is a reality that humans are the only ones who can completely screw up our existence and we are also the only ones who can save us. With that is an inherent responsibility to be better. As far as the vegan argument- humans aren’t removed from the food chain and i wouldn’t expect a bear or lion or shark or whatever to consider my suffering before snacking on me.

[@adrianneavenicci]

I equated humanism with a belief in the power of humans rather than the belief in a god who could solve all our problems. I never saw it as so human centric that it forgot about the lives of other creatures.

[@AmberyTear]

Yea, I think that's the healthiest humanism.

[@pansepot1490]

Drew seems to imply that “humanist” is synonymous with “human supremacists”. I never knew that that was the case.

[@bubbleflix3641]

I'm interested what you think about antinatalism

[@TheFoxRIO]

I'm really glad to see more and more skeptics talking about animal abuse in animal agriculture. Especially channels I've been following for years. Thumbs up, I hope people will get your message.

[@ytunnuyt]

Animal suffering is an argument for reforming the industry, not an argument for veganism.

[@Joviaero]

@@ytunnuyt Still better than nothing

[@caseyjude5472]

I don’t see the word “vegan” in the OP. Nor is it referenced. Thus, I will say that animal suffering is an argument for reforming the industry, not an argument for home composting.

[@ytunnuyt]

@@caseyjude5472 Drew did mention veganism in the video, or are you commenting in the wrong video by accident?

[@hicknopunk]

What about vegans mass murdering plants? They are alive. Some communicate. Being a vegan is just another lie, a justification to kill to live.

[@Sk4lli]

I came up with a similar line of thinking a while back. But different books triggered this thinking process. Since I'm a software developer I read books about User Interfaces and User Experience. So I read "Don't Make Me Think" and then "Designing with the Mind in Mind". These books went into detail how humans see the world and how we work and process our surroundings. We have the "lizard brain" which handles more than 95% of our decisions. So most of the time we are acting as smart as animals. Thinking more about it made me change our mind that we are special. Then if looking at the animal world, there are many examples of animals acting very smart and showing "human" behavior such as compassion. So now I think human are just an animal with a tad bit more complex brains, but not by much.

[@bakarenibsheut12]

Thank you for sharing the names of the books. I'll give them a try.

[@Sk4lli]

@@bakarenibsheut12 I hope you enjoy them, both are good for software developers or designers. Don't Make Me Think references Designing With the Mind in Mind a lot, but Designing with the Mind in Mind dives much deeper into details, while the first has more practical examples.

[@bakarenibsheut12]

@@Sk4lli I think I'll start with the latter. As a beginning software developer, I should find this interesting.

[@Sk4lli]

@@bakarenibsheut12 Good luck and enjoy your journey then! 😀

[@duderyandude9515]

I LOVE THIS COMMENT!!!

[@american_jackal5956]

Damn man. This channel and these comments make me feel like a smooth-brain ape more than any other. I love it. Really gets the gears turning in my head and allows me to take a step back to appreciate the intricacies of this crazy, horrifying, beautiful world we live in. Have a good one y'all, and spread the love.

[@thomaskositzki9424]

Nice, humble insight, I really apreciate that. BTW are you by chance of the KZbinr OddBawZ? I ask because of your Avatar. It's from a music video but he uses it, too. :)

[@l33t9r0u93]

@@thomaskositzki9424 it's from pearl jam do the evolution around 2:50

[@thomaskositzki9424]

@@l33t9r0u93 That was the track! OddBawZ is a huge Pearl Jam fan. I got to admit, the artwork is super cool. :)

[@american_jackal5956]

@@thomaskositzki9424 I'm not familiar with OddBawZ, I just know the music video.

[@momsberettas9576]

Fetus's are in the human circle and anyone who says they aren't are guilty of the fallacy's he illustrated in this video

[@sun1one1]

Not sure I get the point of this, since humanism isn't against animal welfare.

[@kerwinbrown4180]

Humanism opposes civilization.

[@therealtulip]

No, but humanism does put humans above other animals in its moral consideration.

[@MossyMozart]

@@kerwinbrown4180 - I never heard that!

[@kerwinbrown4180]

@@MossyMozart It centers around humans. Humans by nature are animals. Civilization is fighting against that animal nature. That is why traditional morality is based on loving oneself and others.

[@crystalleyvonne818]

Remembering that humans are just mammals who make things too complicated is what keeps me humble..and frustrated

[@001-q1s]

I disagree , yes we might not be a divine race chosen by a flying man from the heavens but we really are an extremely intelligent race capable of doing extraordinary things. The pinnacle of mankind (General Relativity , Space exploration , Modern medicine,AI ) are truly remarkable achievements. If in solidarity , I believe mankind can truly achieve things which could be considered remarkable even in a cosmological scale.

[@user-hi2fp1he5g]

@@001-q1s arguing for the superiority of humans... Wow... it's not like there are animals going around, trying to oppress us or something. I'm not saying that what you wrote is inherently wrong, but why did you even feel the urge to write it in the first place? You don't have anything to prove, we're all humans here. It's like a bizarre reinvention of trying to defend your lifestyle choices, or everything you remotely identify with, for that matter.

[@crystalleyvonne818]

@@001-q1s I don’t wanna achieve remarkable things tbh. I just wanna coexist with the rest of the stuff on the planet man. That’s remarkable enough

[@001-q1s]

@hello 2.0 Mostly because I am fed up with people commenting everywhere "hUmAnS aRE jUst aNimAlS" or something along the lines of it. Do you really think a chimp could solve the Schrodinger equation or even comprehend it even in a thousand years? As far as we know mankind along with evolution, technology and science is a rare phenomena which might not even exist in our observable universe. We aren't just some mammals.

[@pureone8350]

@@user-hi2fp1he5g I agree with @001, it's simply annoying when people say "humans are just animals" and pretend that there is nothing different between a fish and a human. I have even seen some try to justify bestiality with this line of thinking. No one is arguing that humans have some transcendent superiority over other animals... we're just saying humans act, think and behave in a way that's very different from all other animals on earth.

[@Kaokidx10]

Me: "This is clickbait No way he's going backwards, it's gotta be veganism"

[@bariumselenided5152]

Thought the same thing lol

[@Mostlyharmless1985]

So he went backwards then...

[@bariumselenided5152]

Mostlyharmless1985 - In what way is veganism “backwards” from humanism?

[@rritobakdutta8730]

@@bariumselenided5152 It technically isn't backwards from humanism, but it certainly is backwards from human supremacy. I, for one, believe the latter. I shall be able to eat whatever I want unless it's a fellow human.

[@Mostlyharmless1985]

@@bariumselenided5152 so, if you follow the nonsense that follows your question, that’s why. Simply put, acknowledgment of a human as being an animal, acknowledging other animals as feeling beings, and failing to recognize humans as predators is a hat trick of stupid. No one gets angry at the lion for eating the gazelle, and humans are every bit as a lion. Sure you can live a half life without eating meat, but why should you deny your animal nature any more than any other creature? It’s a step away from Jainism, and every bit as ridiculous.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

We are animals. Who would have guessed.

[@Brooke-rw8rc]

Cellular biologists and taxonomists.

[@impolitevegan3179]

first it was obvious, then we started to feel very special and sopped being animals, now we're realizing it again.

[@brenthernandez6910]

Morality comes from objectivity. Morals come from truth. Is it bad to be slow to anger, be patient, be kind, be peaceful, be righteous, be honest, be truthful, have self control, put the truth first, don't be arrogant, don't have pride, don't let money be your god, don't brag, don't say evil and mean things, don't lie, don't disobey your parents, don't be ungrateful, don't be unholy, love others, forgive people, don't gossip, don't be cruel, love what is good, love your friends, don't be reckless, don't be conceited, don't let pleasure and feeling good become your god. Is any of what I just listed considered bad?

[@doctorheadblog]

Exactly. And one of if not the most detrimental animals in existence respective to the survival of all other earthly life. It is very easy to flip out perspective to see ourselves as a dangerous parasite.

[@doctorheadblog]

*our perspective

[@PujaWahi]

This argument works perfectly against veganism as well. If I, as a human, am very much an animal, I should accept my place in the great circle of life. Animals consume other animals, benefit from their by-products, and feed off not just plant but animal matter as well. So, what conceit would I as a human have to have to remove myself from the laws of nature?

[@avivastudios2311]

Nice one. When vegans talk about how humans and animals are all the same and how we should extend them more care they're proving that humans are better than animals. Because what animal considers that it can improve itself. Animals don't have regrets. They don't think, "I could have done better." And because of that we are better than them.

[@definitelynotcole]

Also consider that animals suffer by nature's hands as well. So if we state that, it is wrong for humans to kill more humanely than nature would kill an animal than nature itself is wrong. If nature itself is wrong we should be actively accelerating its demise or at least its relationship with all conscious things.

[@miss1of2]

Thank you!! I just don't understand the reasoning!

[@ObjectivelyDan]

Proud of you bud

[@CaptainTae]

ONE OF US ONE OF US WEEBLE WOBBLE

[@tuneboyz5634]

@@CaptainTae wtf

[@pastillascelestes4768]

Dan you are vegan too?? Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

[@bariumselenided5152]

Taylor Johns - Dan here said he was proud of someone challenging his own preconceptions and having the integrity to follow his reason in spite of his wants. You, in response and antagonism, said “weeble wobble” . Are you trying to look like a joke? Cuz ya look like a joke, my guy.

[@CaptainTae]

@@bariumselenided5152 Oh no!!! A cult member thinks I look like a joke! He’s showing me how toxic he isn’t! It’s SO DIFFERENT WHEN HE DOES IT! Lmao.

[@boouwhore122]

Ladies and gents, we got another one. I'm super proud, it seems like a lot of the skeptical community is going vegan 😅

[@ThePathOfEudaimonia]

+1

[@saganandroid4175]

A shame Sam Harris fell off the wagon, stupid pratt. I don't know what Dawkins is waiting for.

[@CaptainTae]

Thanks for making it sound like a cult. You’re helping me A LOT.

[@ThePathOfEudaimonia]

@@saganandroid4175 What do you mean by Harris and Dawkins in this context? Can you elaborate?

[@Evil_Vegan]

💪💚

[@almondmagnum8604]

I'll consider it when flies and mosquito come to the negotiating table. In the meantime, it's war.

[@kathryngeeslin9509]

And imported fire ants. Never forget imported fire ants.

[@atashgallagher1631]

I don't give a fuck how capable of suffering rats are, when they stop eating my plumbing I'll consider stopping feeding them neurotoxins and using cats as weapons of mass destruction. the cats and neurotoxin are used separately.

[@andrewharper1609]

Let's not forget bedbugs.

[@NairobyMS]

I mean i'm vegan but I still kill mosquitoes, don't wanna get zika or dengue (again)

[@dude124]

Don't forget the wasps

[@DJCYCLONE2]

So I wonder if an alligator feels sorry for the zebra he just devoured or the lion when he chomps the impala. The fact that we are not so instinctive by nature and we have compassion should tell you something. Doesn’t mean we should be put on a pedestal but I definitely believe we’re a bit more than a cow grazing on grass.

[@dnickarz]

I was convinced that animals were worthy of ethical consideration 30 years ago when I became vegan. Humans thinking that they're on top and above every other life form on the planet has lead us to the disaster we are experiencing today. Climate change, habitat loss, factory farming, pollution and more. Thanks for thinking this through.

[@NoSpam1891]

A lot of that is caused by stupidity, possibly wilful, and laziness.

[@aramdg]

As an ethical vegan for over 3.5 years and currently deconverting from Christianity, I agree with you 100%.

[@saganandroid4175]

Welcome aboard. Pass the hummus.

[@Kanzu999]

That's awesome. I've only been a vegan for about 2 months now, but I don't see myself stopping. When you say "currently deconverting from Christianity", that sounds really interesting, but what exactly do you mean?

[@aramdg]

@@Kanzu999 it’s been a process for the past year or so. Just reading a lot trying figure out if I believe at all. Looking for evidence and reading the Bible through the eyes of a skeptic. Reading it this way really shows everything that is wrong with it, so I pretty much don’t believe now, but I still want to learn and be able to defend my reasons why I no longer believe. Especially to my family since I haven’t been able to come out to them.

[@Kanzu999]

@@aramdg Yeah I think I get that, even though I can't say that I've been in the same situation, as I was never raised to believe in any faith. I think it's such a shame that it's difficult to come out to your family, but it's also very understandable. I don't know your family, but my guess is that they are just convinced of different beliefs than you, but they still want the best for you, and so it makes sense that they would worry, especially if they think you're going to Hell for not believing. I honestly think it's so sick that stuff like that is put in people's heads and that it actually makes sense to them that the most perfect moral, good and benevolent being would make it so that you get eternal suffering just for not being convinced of the right belief. That's something I truly have a hard time understanding. In any case, it really makes sense that you want to learn more to be able to defend your position better. I don't know if this is helpful to you, but I've worked just a bit with some highlights of the Bible that I find relevant in the religion debate. I haven't really shared this with anyone before, but with this link you should (hopefully only) be able to view it lol. You might already be aware of all this, but if it helps, that would be pretty cool. docs.google.com/document/d/13rYAe_9E2N-8lSYtgtadElxKHNHdAA5UcDn2ljctgSY/edit?usp=sharing

[@Kanzu999]

@@aramdg It's a work in progress and very messy though.

[@CraigJudd]

Without the "benefit" of a religious upbringing, I pretty much reached the same conclusions by my early teens. In a rural high-school in the 1980's, this did not improve my popularity among my peers.

[@CaptainTae]

So without a religion, you still found dogma to espouse and feel oppressed for? KEEN!

[@alessandrovigano8149]

Popularity in many cases only means being good at aiming at the lowest common denominator. I doubt this can be of much consolation to your younger self, but there you go anyway

[@jhunt5578]

Good on ya 👍

[@metsfan1873]

Congratulations, you've invented nihilism. Now come to grips with this: Humans have capacities - not entirely unique ones, not necessarily different from some extraterrestrial forms not yet discovered ("aliens" - itself an othering term) but at the end of the day, we have them. We have what we have, and that confers a special responsibility. Some "alien" (for lack of a better synonym) may have more of these, or less, or perhaps some capacities that earth-species lack entirely. Some other "alien" may have different responsibility from ours. If you have known a dog or a cat, you will know first-hand that they feel certain responsibilities. A mother animal of almost any kind, and quite often the fathers, defined by reproductive roles alone in this context, evidences responsibility towards their young and often towards their flock, herd, pack, whatever. Your realization that humans are nothing special doesn't change the fact that every species is special. This is even true when you come to understand that "species" is poorly defined and sometimes the distinction between species looks decidedly unscientific - or better said, decidedly subjective. Modern humans have some Neanderthal DNA? That means that maybe calling Neanderthals a different "species" is a suspect notion. After all, we are apparently all part-Neanderthal ourselves. Send in your spittle to one of those DNA companies. There's a pretty good chance that you have more Neanderthal in your DNA, than you have of some "ethnicity" which they can identify. Whatever the case, you are still you, and you still have your capacities, in whatever degree you have them. And therein lies your specialness because therein lies your responsibility.

[@Excultbaby]

Alright, I'm like 30 seconds into the video, and betting right now thay this is just Drew coming out as vegetarian or vegan 😝 you damn clickbaiter!

[@Excultbaby]

I fucking called it!

[@DonnieDarko1]

@@Excultbaby 😉

[@mrkay4757]

Saaaaaaame, presuming the circles Drew is in and knowing its improbable he’s found some flaws in what humanism is for humans, I was just waiting for it to turn to veganism

[@pansepot1490]

Yup. Clickbait. And quite frankly dishonest trying to disguise coming out as vegan as if it were something bigger and different. I never knew that humanism had dietary requirements. Religions on the other hand do.

[@GinEric84]

@@pansepot1490 with the exception of one vegan (who is a vegan because of a combination of food allergies) they all seem to be a part of a strange virtue signal religion

[@LwJohnL]

Although I use the term 'humanist', I've always considered myself on par with all other life; other animals and plants. I refer to my dog as "my little fellow mammal".

[@lucioh1575]

Use the term "sentientist" then, please.

[@0816M3RC]

@@lucioh1575 What will happen if he doesn't?

[@lucioh1575]

@@0816M3RC He would miss the opportunity of labelling himself in a way that is more accurate, making it more tedious for people to understand his views without extra explanations.

[@0816M3RC]

@@lucioh1575 Seems like a weird thing to worry about.

[@lucioh1575]

@@0816M3RC Proper communication and avoiding misrepresentation is worthy of consideration.

[@ryanolson2308]

Your transformation from a deeply religious person to an empathic and understanding atheist and now ethical vegan is so inspiring. Keep sharing and making the world a better place. You’re fighting the good fight

[@prayunceasingly2029]

Fighting the good fight is borrowed from scripture, the apostle Paul to be exact. "For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. From now on there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day-and not only to me, but to all who crave His appearing.…" To fight a good fight means there is something worth fighting for. If there's no God then there's no moral framework and the universe is essentially meaningless, and amoral. Therefore in the atheistic worldview there is nothing objectively good or objectively bad, and nothing objectively worthy to fight for. Your subjective perspective might view the suffering of animals as bad but there's no moral framework that objectively supports that view within your worldview.

[@ryanolson2308]

@@prayunceasingly2029 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

[@Jon.A.Scholt]

I wish I could go ethical vegan but I fully acknowledge my weakness as an omnivore. I don't think I have the willpower and discipline to forgo all animal products, not just meat. I did however go vegetarian for about 5 months while in college almost 20 years ago (yikes!!!) just to see if I could do it and while difficult at first (mostly out of habit more than anything else) it became easier as it went on. From that experience I now do not feel the need to have a meat portion with every meal (many if not most people feel that every meal needs a portion of meat or it's somehow "incomplete") and every week there are days where I have no meat at all. If people can go vegan or vegetarian I think that's great, especially concerning the ethical issues of massive meat factories and because of the terrible effect on climate change. However, if us omnivores simply went without meat for 3 or 4, heck even 2 days a week, especially beef, it would have a serious (and great!) impact on the aforementioned issues. So if you are weak and lack discipline (like me) when it comes to the consumption of meat consider just reducing instead of eliminating; you can make a difference.

[@Tore_Lund]

@@prayunceasingly2029 I totally agree, Ryan Olson is kidding himself. Empathy and Atheism doesn't mix. There is no purpose in concerning yourself with other people if there is no purpose. You do it only to feel good about yourself. It is the endorphine kick from helping others, which evolution has given you to enhance your family group's survival on the savannah. What he is saying is like a junkie claiming Heroin is the ultimate form of meaning and purpose. There is only biochemestry and elevating it to a purpose, is exactly like any other religion ever invented.

[@CaptainTae]

By deciding to adhere to a bunch of rules someone else came up with. To act morally superior based on the group you’ve decided to join. To tell people they are bad for how they live. He is still in a religion. This one is just more pretentious.

[@alexreid1173]

I grew up with a very similar belief system to this (in a vegetarian/animal rights family), so this video didn’t really challenge me a lot, but I love it. What you pointed out was a large part of the reason why I never really understood most mainstream monotheistic religions. It just conflicted with everything my parents taught me.

[@pomodorino1766]

Wellcome on board, I always liked your content and clarity, this is the cherry on top of the skeptic cake!

[@CaptainTae]

Confirmation bias is the best!

[@sm-zt4ut]

@dot yes

[@brenthernandez6910]

Morality comes from objectivity. Morals come from truth. Is it bad to be slow to anger, be patient, be kind, be peaceful, be righteous, be honest, be truthful, have self control, put the truth first, don't be arrogant, don't have pride, don't let money be your god, don't brag, don't say evil and mean things, don't lie, don't disobey your parents, don't be ungrateful, don't be unholy, love others, forgive people, don't gossip, don't be cruel, love what is good, love your friends, don't be reckless, don't be conceited, don't let pleasure and feeling good become your god. Is any of what I just listed considered bad?

[@saganandroid4175]

Nice to see I'm no longer the only sci-vegan. It's been lonely.

[@theprogressivewest]

Congratulations on overcoming speciesism brother

[@CaptainTae]

It’s always sad when religious people just find a different religion.

[@luzidd7414]

@@CaptainTae it's always nice seeing someone leave the animal killing cult

[@CaptainTae]

@@luzidd7414 That kind of language won’t sway non converts.

[@CaptainTae]

@@luzidd7414 Do you really think a very natural process of meat eating is cultured by a “cult” That’s insane. You need help.

[@luzidd7414]

@@CaptainTae i actually don't i just use the stupid rethoric that many speciecists use when they say veganism is a cult or religion it actually is more fitting for speciecists because they try to defend their moral choices with nonsense arguments like "we've always done it" "it's natural" or some other BS fact is: 1. we don't need to eat/harm/kill animals 2. animals have moral worth because they are sentient conclusion: don't harm them, be vegan the only valid reason to not be vegan is if you don't care about animals...

[@neller1995]

Really happy to see more and more of the secular community that brands itself on being rational start to consider the suffering of non-human animals. Good on you Drew 😃

[@saganandroid4175]

Long overdue.

[@liarwithagun]

Just give it a dozen decades till we can cheaply synthetically produce meat. Once people don't have skin in the game of meat, they'll turn and accept that we shouldn't eat animals.

[@momsberettas9576]

Fetus's are in the human circle and anyone who says they aren't are guilty of the fallacy's he illustrated in this video

[@67_GT_Kai]

Well thought out and disseminated. I was not familiar with Haidt but have the two books mentioned on order! Carl Sagan has been my personal hero since I was young. My son's name, is in fact, Sagan. Also, my 15 yr old daughter has been an ovo-lacto-pescatarian for two years now. I'm so proud of her. I have found myself eating much less meat since then due to varying reasons. My question is this: What is your reasoning behind ETHICAL veganism? Is it the suffering that happens in the process of raising meat/leather/milk animals? Is it ok to eat a cow that you cared for as a pet with love and kindness if her death was quick and painless? If we are not different than other animals except the way we view ourselves, why is it OK for a shark to tear apart seal lions in what must be a horrifically painful experience? I'm sure I'm missing salient points and will continue to research further. Also: our eggs are 100% from our own chickens which get better treatment than our dogs it seems. :)

[@DanDan-eh7ul]

This is the first video that actually got me to think about veganism seriously. I'm going to have some thinking myself. Thank you

[@333DOT.]

but bro my chick-fil-a spicy chicken sandwich

[@gabrielordonez8011]

plants have feelings too

[@adderjack4604]

"Post-hoc reasoning" is a pretty good term for something I've been wrestling with in the last year: recognizing that I and others kind of seem to think and feel in an animalistic/instinctive level, but that we just rationalize ourselves after the fact. We, as humans, are bullshitters. Lol. We spin our thoughts and feelings to have greater complexity than they ever needed, and then we congratulate ourselves for that greater complexity.

[@slevinchannel7589]

Got some atheist-watch-suggests?

[@antoniomv9444]

@@slevinchannel7589 Veggietales XD

[@starfishsystems]

Well, it's understandable. Consciousness arrived very late for us in evolutionary terms, and reason still more recently. What's remarkable is not whether we can do these things well, it's that we can do them AT ALL. What we in fact do, for example in the case of abstract reasoning and its application, is consciously practice the operations until they become unconscious habits of thought. Then our conscious awareness of this ability more or less goes to sleep until some situation activates it, and this much is simply pattern recognition. We're then able to some extent to react logically, albeit unconsciously, until we hit something sufficiently complex that we have to begin putting it into narrative order. It's no wonder that it feels post hoc at this point. It's as if someone else has set up the problem and part of the solution and dumped it on us. But that "someone else" is just our unconscious mind working at reactive speed, not narrative speed. Given the limitations of our cognitive hardware, it's a pretty good trick, to train our minds in this way. It exploits pre-existing capabilities (such as conditioned response, introspection, possibly basic storytelling) to support something completely synthetic that we variously call consciousness or abstract reasoning or theory of mind. You're right that we rationalize after our minds are made up, and that we are bullshitters. This is absolutely to be expected. First of all, storytelling is in our nature, even before language, even in our dreams. Second, given our architecture, the rationalization phase has to come AFTER the pattern recognition phase in order for us to have any hope of validating our instant, necessarily unconscious and primitive, impression of a given situation. The two phases can't take place in parallel, because narration is an inherently serial rendering of the situation. So we're really doing quite well with what we've got. Finally, let's look at rationalization for a second. What's specifically the problem? It's that we're only superficially applying reason while serving our unconscious emotions and biases, all of which ends up not serving our rational, abstract, dispassionate goals. Why does this happen, when at some level we don't want it to? Our unconscious minds are active even while we're preoccupied with conscious activities such as narration, and this activity of course directs our attention to some degree. We often want it to, just not always. What's the solution? We already know the solution: practice consciously until the desired patterns of thinking become "second nature," unconscious habits of thought. Specifically, be strict about your reasoning whenever it's not emotionally expensive. Make it a constant practice, and please make a point of finding joy in it. Reason is beautiful, elegant, powerful, calming, confident... so it isn't intrinsically hard to associate it with joy. But it goes so much better when you intentionally do that it's worth calling out. Practice often with topics that are easy to be objective about, and try not to worry or loop over the ones that feel like they invoke rationalization. Just take a break from them whenever you can. It's also very helpful to work on mindfulness practice. This is so that you can observe phenomena, in particular your emotions, without getting caught up in them. You're present with your emotions, whatever comes up, just observing, not seizing onto them or pushing them away, not even narrating them to yourself. Just sitting quietly is a start. There's ample literature on the subject. The point is, through practice you become more conscious of your emotions, and then they won't UNCONSCIOUSLY have so much influence over your attentional process, the one that drives you toward certain biased lines of reasoning, unconscious defenses and other patterns. Meanwhile, your objective reasoning skills are being exercised and integrated so that if a truly bad rationalization breaks through, you'll be more apt to catch it as something not quite right, recognize the emotional field or belief that preceded it, and gently let it go. That too is practice. It's all practice, man. Then you die. But not today.

[@SenhorAlien]

@@starfishsystems great comment. Been trying to automate as much logic as I can to be a subconscious framework, to relieve burden on conscious thought for new things, but it really takes a while, and is hard.

[@Flackon]

Just as common, if not more so is the tendency for humans to over-simplify things. The world is incredibly rich, complex, and nuanced, but humans have a baseline tendency to find the most cognitively simple explanation that fits their needs or worldview, which often leads to missing out on important considerations

[@dethspud]

Expanding your empathy range beyond human animals to non-human animals is simply another step forward in one's personal and society's moral evolution.

[@EvilSapphireR]

Then what do we eat

[@vncur]

@@EvilSapphireR Animals (?)

[@lonnpton5239]

@@EvilSapphireR animals

[@floof6896]

@@EvilSapphireR food

[@deeks86]

@@EvilSapphireR Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. -Michael Pollan

[@EvelynNdenial]

I always considered "human" with a much vaguer definition than what is strictly our species, I define it more as sapience and compassion. Sentience and then sapience is a very complex spectrum and being higher on that spectrum includes ever greater ability and responsibility to care for others on that spectrum.

[@hazelsunderstood6784]

My literal first "wtf" moment in church was when the lady told us kids that "animals don't have souls, that's why it's okay to eat them" Basically God created animals to be food. I had a pet, watches animal planet, and still ate meat. But even as a child I recognized that animals and humans both have all the emotions, reasoning, group/solitary behaviors (including morals/lack their of), and could be smart/dumb. The reason I had a hard time not eating meat is because you don't see the suffering so you don't know too much of the suffering. Not an excuse anymore tho.

[@saganandroid4175]

You're vegan now? (y)

[@mcgheebentle1958]

Animals don’t have reasoning though. They make choices, yes, but those choices are primarily informed by survival or hormonal instincts, classical or operant conditioning, or a combination of instinct and conditioning. Human logic is a lot more nuanced. Sure, our motivations include instinct and conditioning as well, but also encapsulate deduction, induction, and a distinctly human perception of self-awareness that animals lack. I’m not addressing your other points, nothing more and nothing less than just saying that the point on animals having logic is a shaky one at best, and you’d need to have more of a robust definition of logic, if that makes sense.

[@matthewdancz9152]

Morality does not have an central objective basis. Plants are just as alive as animals, why draw an arbitrary line about what can be eaten?

[@sridevikanduri654]

@@matthewdancz9152 Hi! The ethical reasoning behind veganism is not necessarily just whether something is alive, but whether a being has a central nervous system and is able to experience pain/suffering/love/excitement etc... I do think it's good that you are considering plants though. Even when we look at it from that view, most of the plants that humans grow is to feed and raise several billion animals for years before they get slaughtered for meat. As counterintuitive as it may sound at first, eating fewer/no animal products uses much fewer plants, uses drastically less water, produces less waste, and reduces carbon footprint. In animal agriculture, the tradeoff is between cruel (factory farming, cruel but efficient and profitable) and completely unsustainable (grass-fed animals). Sry to go off on the tangent, but just considering ethics, it is about the sentience and ability to suffer and feel pain rather than simply responding to stimuli like plants.

[@jhunt5578]

Is that even the case in the bible? Literally on the first page Genesis 1:29 God gives humanity plants for food. Its only later after the flood that animals are even granted by God as okay for food. So the notion that animals were made for the purpose of being eaten doesn't even follow. And later in Isaiah's prophecy of the new earth all animals return to living off plants as in Eden. Wolves sleep alongside lambs, lions eat hay like the ox, and the knowledge of the holy mountain flows through all the waters of the earth blah blah blah.

[@_Allen_Holmes_]

Oh my god a few weeks ago I watched your video of answering personal questions with your wife and in there you mentioned Alex's video's on Veganism and I gave them a watch and had the same thought process and mental gymnastics to jump through! Today is 2 weeks vegan and I could not be more proud to have you join us too 💕

[@alfredogonzalez8735]

Amazing, ive been vegan for 4 years just make sure you eat enough calories!

[@luzidd7414]

@@alfredogonzalez8735 i'd add to that to make sure u don't overeat on the vegan junk food, i sure love it lol and calories alone don't make u stay healthy obviously, get them greens, fruits, berries, nuts beans etc. also: eating a balanced plant based diet is only part of veganism

[@arronjames1338]

Plant Lives Matter!!

[@_Allen_Holmes_]

@@arronjames1338 awww did I trigger you?

[@hossamtarek2272]

may peace, blessings, mercy of God be upon you. All praise be to god as it should for the majesty of his face. My beloved researcher, I am inviting you to know him, worship him alone, read his holy book (the Quran) , and check out the evidence of his existence. creator’s signs in the holy Quran more than 1440 years ago: scientific miracles (expansion of the universe and etc.…), historical miracles, metaphysical miracles, numerical miracles, linguistic miracles, arrangement miracles, the unmet challenge of bringing something like it, the preservation miracle, and others. The prophet of Islam, Muhammed (may blessing and mercy of God be upon him) miracles: the prophecies of his advent in the religions, the historical miracles performed by him that we knew by narrators, the scientific miracles In his sayings, the metaphysical miracles and knowing some things in the future by the knowledge of the creator, and others. Logical proofs: Religious comparisons, Issues in the religions except Islam, The superiority of Islam over other religions to guarantee rights and the survival of life, the innate of worshiping a god (mentioned in the Quran), the illiteracy of the prophet of Islam and the Benefits of saying that this Qur’an is from him, the perfection of our creation (mentioned in the Quran), and others found in the links below. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eIDSfquEbbaVo5I www.islamreligion.com/en/articles For further information, don’t hesitate to reply. I ask our merciful God to guide your heart to the truth, enter you to heavens, and save you from the fire intended for non-believers who were arrogant to worship him! Thanks for reading😊.

[@AnthonyChinaski]

“[Why] can’t we all just get along?” - Rodney King Perhaps the most relative question ever asked by a human.

[@Mark-co8gt]

Did you mean 'relevant'? Or if relative, what do you mean? :) Edit: Oh, I got it now (I think), ignore me (or don't).

[@marionow6227]

I thought it was Jack Torrance who said this....

[@riches3581]

humans are chaos , that's why

[@dcxxxx]

@@riches3581 And this is why we can travel to the moon and back while not solving the homeless, drug, or violence problem.

[@albertjordan3249]

@@dcxxxx Nah we're highly ordered. Its just that we're (as a society) much more motivated by the threat of a foreign power controlling a new frontier and the potential suffering it might cause than actual human suffering happening here and now. There's a reason we haven't had a human on the moon in 50 years.

[@Mygoalwogel]

Major Premise: Amoralism is the only rational atheism. (see sub-premises). Minor Premise: (a) You believe in being rational. (e.g. "") (b) You reject amoralism. (e.g. "") Conclusion: You reject atheism. Sub-premise a: Hume's is-ought problem is unsolved (unsolvable?) in philosophy. Sub-premise b: Amoralism is the only Atheism that rejects ‘ought’, thus conforming to Occam's razor. Therefore: Major Premise

[@rsarto74]

Just as feminism is not about females taking center stage, humanism is not about humans taking center stage.

[@jacobmatthews6527]

Unfortunately, in both those cases, that is what ended up happening anyway.

[@MrSterlinglinford]

Just need to get rationality rules and then all the smart independent youtubers I listen to will have joined my club.

[@samvandervelden8243]

I think that he is a vegetarian who still wants to get rid of dairy and eggs but I don't know for sure you can watch the video of him with vegan gains and cosmicskeptic

[@rodshop5897]

" will have joined my club." Which club is that? Can anyone join?

[@AndrewJamesMcQuinn]

I call myself a humanist and never thought it meant 'human only' as I thought humanism means using our abilities for the betterment of all life and environment.

[@avivastudios2311]

All life? Why all life? Does it say that in the definition?

[@AndrewJamesMcQuinn]

@@avivastudios2311 why? Because of our environment and future of the planet, and the moral responsibility not only for protecting that, but the dignity and compassion for all living things.

[@bxp_bass]

My path approx 10-15 years ago. Except - I've never was a religious guy. Now, there's danger to swing to the other extreme - transhumanism and technofachism. That's when you start to plunge into some cargo-cult-ish thinking that people are "obsolete", "they're not needed anymore" and some funny stuff like "we don't need sex if we will be able to make children on factories". That dehumanized phase gave me serious existential crisis for two depressive years. But mow, with meditations learned (non-mystical of course) I feel such a freedom and content - it's even hard to describe! I don't need to hold on past or to listen to ANY moral authority - I an FREE. And then something magical happens - you find your own spirituality which has nothing to do with faith or mystical creatures. Whole life as it it - real life becomes deeply spiritual and deep.

[@bartdierickx5150]

Welcome to the dark side. We have oreos.

[@GrrMania]

True - but I wish Reese's Cups were dairy free too! :(

[@Seraphina-Rose]

@@GrrMania There are dairy-free peanut butter cups out there, my kid loves them. They're more expensive, though.

[@darkensdiablos]

I applaud you for challenging your own nature and thinking logical and sceptical 👍👍 All the best to you. Remember to take your b12 and omega3's 😉

[@ericreeves1342]

So crazy to see you going through the same internal struggles and reaching the same conclusions I did years ago! Hope your time of people finding out you're vegan goes better than it did for me as it was worse than when people found out I wasn't religious any more. Different times and different people I suppose. Still, good luck my friend, keep up the great work and never stop trying to be a better person!

[@kathryngeeslin9509]

As a lifelong Texan and vegetarian for half a century, I deeply understand the similarities and differences between religious and dietary disagreements. While I have been threatened and had a manager try to fire me for religious differences, I have been publicly and loudly verbally attacked (and had my food taken and dumped) for my quiet failure to order a meat entree (or light up a cigarette back when that was the custom). Strange how so many people see any difference in choices as a vile assault on their choices and character.

[@TheCarlHammond]

@@kathryngeeslin9509 Hi, Kathryn. In my experience, which admittedly, is limited by a mere 74 years of living among people on this one particular planet, it would appear that smokers and meat eaters, and countless others, know they are making bad decisions when they light up or chow down, but if you do it with them then they have your approval and agreement, and in their own minds it diminishes or eliminates the harm. If you don't do those things, then you haven't given them your approval, and consequently they lash out at you for being the villain of the piece in order to minimize their own cognitive dissonance, which they are consciously and unconsciously creating a lot of for themselves. I say this as an armchair philosopher/psychologist, and this mythological armchair is located in a cave deep underground where the entrance is blocked by rubble and where no light nor fresh air can enter. Please keep that in mind if and when you are evaluating the dubious worth of my comment.

[@benjamincreevy8447]

A fascinating and thought-provoking video that really made me interrogate my own position on the ethics of exploiting other organisms. At first glance your reasoning seems sound but I couldn't help but feel there was some irony in the fact that you seem to have swapped one form of human exceptionalism for another. As you noted yourself humans are just animals, and the category 'animal' is itself, an artificial arbitrary product of the linnaean system of classification, with some animals and even some chordates are scarcely more complex than plants. Humans are just a current iteration or rather a lobe of the ever growing changing mutating evolving mass of 'earth life' a snapshot in time that we make sense of by using the tools of phylogeny and nested hierarchies. We are a heterotrophic animal and like all animals (with rare autotrophic exceptions) we exploit coopt or consume other organisms, why should that be intrinsically wrong? Even if it causes some objective suffering to other species which have participated in this drama for millions of years?

[@blackswan8653]

When it comes to human to human interaction, I'm a humanist. When it comes to what's more important, I side with the habitats. The plants are important, the environment is very important, the animals are very important, but each organism is important because they all need each other. Habitat destruction is the ultimate evil because it ruins the land for all of the organisms that need the balance.

[@fozzsr]

Even the human omnivore that I am can get behind that. 👍

[@panulli4]

Just out of curiosity: Are you vegan?

[@panulli4]

​@@fozzsr Do you mean carnist when you use the term omnivore? Omnivore is just a biological term. After all also vegans could consider themselves omnivores. ;-)

[@fozzsr]

@@panulli4 i mean omnivore because I know what omnivore means: meat and plant. Carnist is not a thing as far as I know. Do you also believe that a humanist eats humans? 😄

[@panulli4]

@@fozzsr Thanks for the reply! haha Of course I wasn't too serious about my comment. But just to be clear: There actually is a resaonable distinction to be made between omnivores and carnists - just as between herbivores and vegans. One is the biological term and the other is a philosophical attitude.

[@esc952]

I'm curious...why is sentience the controlling criterion? If life evolved and one branch randomly led toward sentience while another led down a different path, what makes one branch of the tree of life any more deserving than the other? Why is a knowing response to pain any more important than some other response to that stimulus? I guess this is an "ad absurdum" question. Why is it okay to spend great effort to wipe out deadly bacteria, viruses or fungi, but not rats or Alex's dogs example?

[@matteo-ciaramitaro]

While this is a good objection when considering certain beings, for things like deadly bacteria and viruses, their existence is essentially the violation of the rights of others. For them to exist, they have to kill us. If we were to extend the right to life to these organisms they would lose it by harming others.

[@RosesAndIvy]

Matteo O’Connor but the same is true for basically all predatory animals as well. The existence of lions is a threat to the rights of antilopes and zebras. So are we justified in eradicating lions? If not, what makes them different from bacteria and viruses in this respect?

[@matteo-ciaramitaro]

@@RosesAndIvy We are always justified in self defense.

[@happyhamlet]

You are talking about justifying Secular Humanism from the outside in... I am a Humanist from the inside out... I dance with the ones who brung me. I know that Humans are not central to everything else but we are central to ourselves within everything else. There is no such thing as "Humanism" there are rather "Humanisms"

[@sart1348]

This is exactly how I feel about this

[@joaofarias6473]

I guess someone else could say something similar about racial separatism by using the same logical structure relating to in-group/out-group dynamics. Would you not consider this as a gap in your argument - same logical exercise, strange conclusion?

[@WorldGovernmentGeoInstitut]

@@joaofarias6473 Well, you could use that for class as well.

[@rsolo4770]

I agree with your basic premise, Drew. I disagree with your conclusion. I agree that humans are *just animals.* I agree we are not somehow above or superior to other creatures. I do not think we are "unique" in any special ways that other species are not also unique from each other. That is as far as my agreement goes. Allow me to explain: What is morality? What are ethics? Are they not merely an evolved capacity for behavioral modification to enable social cohesion among groups of humans? Morality is entirely subjective -- sometimes given relative significance by the socializing of moral principles, but no two humans share an exact set of moral standards. There is no such thing as an objective moral truth. To our knowledge, only humans have evolved this exact capacity. A few other advanced species have evolved some concept of fairness (chimpanzees, in particular.) And other social animals certainly have evolved other behavioral controls for social purposes that we do not have. But morality, as we understand it, seems unique to us. Given its purpose in providing an evolutionary advantage to our species, I propose that those who allow themselves to be swayed to the idea that we have a moral obligation to treat other species with the same principles we treat other humans have had their moral capacity corrupted by their emotionl. And to be fair, any human who would intentionally be cruel and cause suffering to another creature is betraying traits that make them dangerous to other humans as well. Our treatment of other animals should be tempered by compassion, not by ethical maxims. In conclusion -- the very fact that we are NOT special makes the animal rights movement problematic. If it is not wrong for bears or raccoons to eat other animals, why is it wrong for humans, who have evolved as omnivores since long before we were identifiably human? We do not have some special obligation to other species that other animals do not have. We are not special. And attempting to twist morality to something beyond its evolutionary purpose doesn't adequately support the opposite.

[@NerdyRodent]

Thank goodness humanism doesn’t just focus on humans!

[@MyNameIsChristBringsASword]

Creationism focuses on the creator. The creator does not tolerate humanists. Enjoy the lake of fire Revelation 20:15 your suffering will be eternal. God wins.

[@nordicfalcon]

If us atheists are going to the lake of fire, then you’ll be swimming in it with us, for your god also condemns hypocrites. Your words indicate that you are greedy for entrance to “heaven”, like it’s an exclusive club. You’d sooner push people away, than try to be a missionary and “save” people. You couldn’t be further from the teachings of your Jesus. Hope you brought some bottled ice water.

[@MyNameIsChristBringsASword]

@@nordicfalcon I'm only telling you what the Bible says. Don't blame the messenger. You mad?

[@smilerpunk922]

@@MyNameIsChristBringsASword blaming the messenger all I want lmao

[@chillinsquirtle]

@@MyNameIsChristBringsASword prolly about as mad as if you were sentencing them to Azkaban

[@zeldamorgan9260]

So beautifully expressed. When we expand our circle of compassion, we evolve a little bit, maybe? Vegan six years now, it gets easier the longer you do it. You've been a big part of the community that helped me leave religion, so thanks for that.

[@CaptainTae]

ALL LIVES MATTER!

[@epluribus591]

If the goal is to stop animal suffering...wouldn't the best course of action be the extermination of as many animals as the ecology can sustain? Animals who live in the wild all die horrible deaths, whether by starvation as they grow old, or by predators. As long as animals keep reproducing, there will be a never ending stream of suffering inflicted by nature.

[@CaptainTae]

@@epluribus591 I dunno. People who spent most of their life dedicated to religion disagree.

[@BingBongWasheeWashee]

@@epluribus591 The broad goal of veganism as I see it is to extend negative rights to other sentient animals. It’s not to end all suffering (while ideal I don’t know how thats possible to do while retaining wellbeing for creatures simultaneously). While suffering in the wild is morally relevant, it’s not immediately clear how we eliminate it, but it is clear that we have an obligation to avoid causing preventable suffering to animals directly, this we do when we buy animal products or animal skins. Instead we can just eat plant based

[@pureone8350]

If we were to release all the animals that we have ever domesticated for our benefit, then we have to prepare ourselves for a mass extinction. None of them would be able to survive without human help in the wild.

[@ryptoll4801]

I've always had a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of ethics and morals. They're value system, social constructs, not innate in any way. I think what really matters is empathy, but also common sense. Because we all have empathy, but it's not always an equal emotion. I may have empathy towards friends and family, and occasionally some strangers if I manage to emotionally connect with them in some specific situation. But I don't have empathy for all people, and I absolutely don't have empathy for all animals. And in cases I don't have empathy, I can instead apply common sense. Is it sensical to kill another person just because they annoy me, and I don't have empathy for them? No, obviously not. But it would be rather sensical to kill a mosquito for just annoying me. Killing mosquitos is just being practical and making my life more comfortable for myself, which is easy because I lack empathy for such creatures, and there will be no bad consequences for it either. The same goes for why I eat meat and dairy: making my life more comfortable, which I'm able to do in that way, because I lack empathy for cows, pigs and hens, and because my own appetite prevails their lives. That does not mean their lives are less valuable. It just means I am as much animal as they are. Valuing life is not something that really exists in the animal kingdom. They eat or are eaten. Omnivores and carnivores in nature do not lack empathy. They care for their own, especially their offspring, and sometimes even for other species which they don't eat. I have cats. I know they're not devoid of empathy. I've seen them show empathy to other cats, dogs, humans, etc. Just not to birds and rodents. My empathy as a human works in a very similar way to that. It's selective. And that selection... I don't think is a coincidence at all. Seems very much aligned with my instincts: to survive, stay healthy, protect my loved ones, and if I'd have children, to protect them extra much. Secondly I may care to protect humans I'm not personally invested in but I may most likely not, unless there's some kinda winning in it for me. Thirdly, I may care about individuals of other species, but only really if I can keep them as pets or if they're cute, and not if I'm hungry and they're edible. Forthly... we have plants and inanimate objects, which we may grow attached to as well, but empathy doesn't really extend to this category. All animals have that exact same prioritisation order, when it comes to empathy. Humans are no exception. This brings me to what you said in the beginning, that humans have a tendency to think we're special. Well we're not, as you say. So our consumption of meat isn't more special either. I've watched a lot of vegan propaganda videos (because let's face it, that's what they are) of animals being slaughtered and then some sobstory, but all that made me feel, was mad at the butchers and the meat industry in itself. It did not make me see any fault in my own actions. Because the fault of the industries is not the fault of the consumers. Veganism is like the ultimate self-flaggelation to me. It's like a patch on your self-perceived "sins." Kinda like saying you're more moral than animals who "choose" to eat meat. Like my cats, and many other animals. Eating has nothing to do with morals. Not for them, not for us. It's survival and health. We're omnivores for a reason. Like... how's your vitamin B12 deficiency coming along? If you have to take vitamins, your diet is insufficient, not the other way around. Setting your own health aside for such a cause isn't being altruistic. It's just plain dumb. There's no moral way to eat or not eat. Regardless of how you do it someone or something is gonna suffer. Whether that be the cows in terrible living conditions, or the soy bean farmers in terribly living conditions. I support your choice to eat whatever the hell you want. But I think it's sad, actually, that you think being vegan somehow makes you more moral. Or at least it sounds like you think that, which is quite a high horse to be on. I feel like veganism is becoming like a religion, and I don't even understand.

[@Kevorama0205]

The butchers and meat industry only exist because of all the humans paying for it, including you. Similar logic to voting for Hitler: sure, he’s the one doing the bad things, but that doesn’t make your vote morally acceptable. You can admit that you just didn’t have empathy for the Jews, as you do for animals here. But I am confused by your arbitrary and inconsistent empathy. As for health, vitamins literally solve that problem. If they didn’t exist, veganism might require deficiencies and your point would be valid, but the vitamins do exist, so it’s not a relevant consideration. We need to do things differently when we learn new stuff, not pretend the new stuff doesn’t count just as much as the old stuff.

[@idrunkid.705]

Well the biggest difference between you and a vegan philosophy is that you think morality is doing what you want to (compassion= don't kill, no compassion= kill if you want to) minus that which would in turn have harsher repercussions than you'd like to suffer (killing another human (you don't have compassion for) and you're arrested or killed in return) while vegans claim to adhere to principals like not causing any unnecessary harm.

[@AlGhoul]

@@idrunkid.705, It's at least disingenuous to tell someone else what they think morality is when they haven't expressed that notion. Your sentiment that they may be using two different definitions of morality may have merit, but telling a person that they're using a definition that they haven't said they're using isn't a good faith steel man of their position...

[@LiberacionIgualdad]

You are making the observation that we are biological machines, selected to be highly egocentric, chauvinistic and tribalistic because that's what increased the inclusive fitness of our genes in the ancestral environment. I don't think anyone's disagreeing with that observation. What's being discussed here is whether we have any rational and ethical grounds to justify these tendencies and the actions that follow from them. Just claiming that they are 'natural' doesn't cut it - the appeal to nature is a fallacy. Also, claiming that the issue here is about 'food' and that 'eating has nothing to do with morals' misses the point entirely. It is not the fact that you put something in your mouth and eat it what's ethically relevant. It's mainly the consequences of those actions what make this a moral issue (although deontologists and virtue ethicists might add other considerations beside just consequences). I think that when choosing between an action that a) causes someone to suffer (or causes X amount of suffering) vs b) one that doesn't (or causes 1/10th the amount of suffering), one is justified in claiming that the latter is the ethically better option. If one switches from acting regularly as in a) towards b), then one is acting 'more ethically' - at least in this particular realm. I don't think we should be offended by this simple observation.

[@AlGhoul]

@@LiberacionIgualdad "You are making the observation that we are biological machines, selected to be highly egocentric, chauvinistic and tribalistic because that's what increased the inclusive fitness of our genes in the ancestral environment. I don't think anyone's disagreeing with that observation. What's being discussed here is whether we have any rational and ethical grounds to justify these tendencies and the actions that follow from them." I think his point is that it's not a matter of whether it is right, just as we do not say that a lion hunting and eating prey is a matter of being right or reasonable. "Just claiming that they are 'natural' doesn't cut it - the appeal to nature is a fallacy." He never said that eating meat was right because it's natural (I don't know why you put it in quotes...it is natural...). Perhaps you weren't intending to misrepresent his argument as that, but bringing up an argument he hasn't made is a little disingenuous, and may be akin to poisoning the well. "Also, claiming that the issue here is about 'food' and that 'eating has nothing to do with morals' misses the point entirely." When the discussion is about whether eating meat is immoral, then no, claiming that the issue here is about food (again, why the quotation?) and that eating has nothing to do with morals is entirely the point. It's addressing an implied premise of any argument attempting to show that eating meat is immoral...namely that eating meat is a subject matter of morality. Sure, I may personally not challenge that implied premise, but I'm not a determinist and think everything can at least be looked at with respect to morality without accepting the premise that said something is a subject matter of morality, but challenging that assumption is valid. "It is not the fact that you put something in your mouth and eat it what's ethically relevant." So we're not talking about the consumption of meat? Then why are we talking about dietary restrictions? Because of a consequence of capitalism trying to maximize profits through supplying a particular dietary component? Then are you saying veganism isn't about not consuming animal flesh and animal products? Sorry, but the common rhetoric of "eating meat is murder" means that what is put in your mouth is absolutely what's ethically relevant. But sure, if you don't think eating meat is unethical, or ethically relevant, then all the people eating meat should be left alone, and you should be lobbying the meat industry and politicians to change the practices of the meat industry, not trying to convince individuals to become vegans, which is a dietary restriction... "It's mainly the consequences of those actions what make this a moral issue (although deontologists and virtue ethicists might add other considerations beside just consequences)." But you aren't discussing the consequences of a person eating meat; you're chastising the meat industry about how they accomplish meeting people's dietary demands. Humans had these dietary demands before the meat industry existed, so the meet industry isn't a consequence of dietary demand. This argument of "you're fueling the meat industry that is cruel to animals, oh, and is damaging the planet" is a shotgun approach of the appeal to emotions, particularly an appeal to consequences fallacy. Sure, those two subsequent clauses are accurate, but they're being used to say that eating meat is fueling an industry, and thus eating meat is bad. "I think that when choosing between an action that a) causes someone to suffer (or causes X amount of suffering)" Those are two different things, but okay... "vs b) one that doesn't (or causes 1/10th the amount of suffering)," So, you're setting up a false dichotomy that you recognize is a false dichotomy... "one is justified in claiming that the latter is the ethically better option." No one is saying you aren't justified in making a claim, but your claim isn't justified just by virtue of making it. Further, that's only if we accept the implied premise of suffering, which necessarily includes some subset of the population in question. "If one switches from acting regularly as in a) towards b), then one is acting 'more ethically'" Again, no. Since ethics necessarily are subjective, such a claim presupposes your conclusion in order to reach that conclusion. (See "begging the question".) "- at least in this particular realm. I don't think we should be offended by this simple observation." It isn't an observation; it's a claim, that you've now provided an argument that is circular. Further, it is irrational to say what people should or should not be offended by. They can be offended by whatever offends them. I personally don't think that vegans "should" be offended by others eating meat, and yet here we are. You aren't asking us to march with you to Capitol Hill to change the laws of the meat industry, or sign petitions to politicians...no, you're instead saying we're less ethical than you because we eat meat that you don't know from where we get it. Here's the point: *It is a fact that humans are omnivores, and do get a certain amount of nutrition from meat. Which may be an amoral (as in neither moral or immoral) behavior. *It is also a separate fact that capitalists have taken advantage of people's biological craving of meat through the industrialization known as the meat industry, that harms the planet and increases the suffering of the animals involved. *But these two are separate, so accusing someone of eating meat as supporting that industry, when you have no idea where that person actually sources their meat, is dishonest and unethical. Even if they unwittingly supported that industry financially, that's a far cry from supporting it from a morality perspective. (Is it unethical to financially support an industry that gives you the food you need to live because you cannot afford the more expensive vegan lifestyle?) So, if we're talking about the meat industry, and not what I put in my mouth, perhaps discontinue bringing up your claim that I'm less moral for what I put in my mouth.

[@kamnale1317]

without enjoying anyone's suffering, of course, but is it morally wrong to want to have benefits (nutritional, comfort or whatever) for yourself or your own group/species on the expense of others? All animals do that. I can understand and accept, that there were a lot of suffering involved in my eating meat, but i dont think i need to feel superior or special to continue to enjoy these privileges. Tigers are not superior to deer.

[@CJ-ck6kk]

Well, I'm happy to see both you, and CosmicSceptic, to have made the most logically progression one can, realising there's no inherent difference between human and non human animals and we ought to grant all animals at least one right, not to be considered commodities, which will have wast consequences and lead to what we, in colloquial terms, usually refer to as "veganism". The view that human animals are in some way superior and therefore have some kind of inherent right for dominion is not only illogical and flawed but also naiv and, I hope, a thing of the past. And as you said, we don't have to grant non human animals all the same rights as humans, as we don't do to all human animals, only one.

[@NJ-wb1cz]

But who decides which rights to grant each animal? Why shouldn't a polar bear decide which rights you should get and which rights should the bear have?

[@poctordepper4269]

Animals should not be commodities, and they have the same reasons to be free as humans do. But I would still say that humans have greater moral worth than animals. Naive? Maybe, but still logical. This shouldn't influence how we treat non-human animals and I wouldn't consider it humanism, but given the choice to save a human or a pig, I'd save a human.

[@brettski74]

What makes you think that people who use animal products consider themselves superior? Maybe some do. Maybe even most do, but the use of animal products does not require a sense of superiority over the animals that were used to produce them. I would suspect that most don't give the subjective question of superiority over animals any more consideration when eating chicken or wearing a woolen garment than a polar bear does when killing and eating a seal.

[@amirthavarshini5350]

@@poctordepper4269 the question is not saving a human or a pig but rather killing a pig for human pleasure or not .

[@poctordepper4269]

@@amirthavarshini5350 I know. We definitely shouldn't eat animals. But I still think humans have more moral worth than non-human animals.

[@xtieburn]

The logic you are utilizing here necessitates believing that the slaughter of animals is a crime equivalent to that of the holocaust. A comparison that Im sure will immediately enrage many of those who agree with the video, but on what basis? How are you differentiating those two things if you _dont_ consider human life to be inherently, inestimably, more important? and if you consider it to be inherently more important how is that not putting humans on a pedestal? - This equivalence is an abhorrent, and dangerous ideology, profoundly and disturbingly wrong. Someone who genuinely believes in the equivalent worth of animal and human life would do (and in some rare cases have done) horrifying things in this world. It is so morally bankrupt in its conclusions that I refuse to accept you believe in such a thing at all, that if ever given the choice you would never sacrifice a human life over the life of an animal or indeed many animals.* The alternative would be that I have to accept that you are a monster, which is ridiculous. - What you appear to actually be arguing here, is not that humans arnt more important than animals, but to what extent we should care about animals. Which is an ethical debate that almost everyone has, humanist or otherwise. - Implying that you can not call yourself humanist because you are concerned about factory farming, frankly implies humanists dont consider animal rights, and is consequently just a form of tacit moral self superiority. - *and your argument at 12 minutes in alludes to that very fact: You are trying to claim humans cant be put on a pedestal before shortly after explicitly saying that you cant treat humans and animals the same. (Though your comparison with how you dont treat all humans the same is vague and ill defined.) This is not the only contradiction in the video either, as you argue for sentientism, a perfectly reasonable extension of humanism, but one that earlier in the video you completely dismissed with reductive takes on what sentientism means. This really isnt well thought out.

[@Peasham]

If humans aren't better than animals then I unironically fail to see why people aren't arguing for animals to have human rights, or for humans NOT to have human rights. You would either have to start punishing predators for killing other animals, or stop punishing humans for killing other humans. If there is no supremacy, one should advocate for equality, but no one actually seems to want to do that. While humans are infinitely more capable of cruelty than any animal, the mercy they're also capable of is a trait not seen in any animal. While of course animals should not be tortured and killed en masse, to not see oneself as inherently better than them would be catastrophic for both oneself and the animals.

[@3333-d2l]

Clickbait. Blatant clickbait from you... I am disapointed...

[@ofconsciousness]

Hey thank you for your channel in general, you are brave af to talk about this stuff openly on the Internet and even leave your comment section open. Thank you for having such guts. Your content is a great benefit to me.

[@laurenkadlec659]

Thank you. This is exactly what I’ve been going through. Dang. Now I have to stop ignoring my morality too

[@michaelrch]

If you feel like it, try challenge22.com They will give you practical advice and encouragement on how to take out animal based products out of your life. It feels much better when you know you aren't funding cruelty and environmental destruction every time you go to the store. The thing I hear most vegans say about their choice to go vegan is "damn, I wish I had done it sooner." Good luck 😀

[@SauceMeGud]

Now, for fun, try to see how long you can go without uttering the phrase "As a vegan..." Cosmic Skeptic, whom I respect just as much, made it perhaps one video lol

[@panulli4]

Do you think it's wrong to say that? I'm confused?!?!

[@SauceMeGud]

@@panulli4 No. I think it is a term that some people have come to associate with perceived vegan pretentiousness. While many of us know better, it remains an amusing expression for me to hear, and I like to tease people about it.

[@panulli4]

@@SauceMeGud Ok, I see!

[@primitiveprimate5529]

I’m impressed that he used the word vegan ONCE on a video of understanding vegan ethics

[@SauceMeGud]

@@primitiveprimate5529 True

[@AmphiptereSiX]

As an ethical vegan of 6 years, I'm fascinated how many different approaches there are to veganism. Yours is by far the most intellectual I've come across. A lot of vegans come to this from a place of getting their heart strings tugged, not exactly giving it a huge deal of rational thought... but you reasoned yourself into it. Well done on gaining moral consistency. Subscribed

[@GuGus963]

Completely agree, this is also for me the right approach for veganism. Been vegetarian for 7 years and vegan for 4 years now.

[@andrewharper1609]

There are unethical vegans? Provide examples please!

[@AmphiptereSiX]

@@andrewharper1609 As in, vegan from an animal liberation starting point. There are health and environment based vegans.

[@Silkier]

You can still love animals without being vegan (which is not good for your health)

[@AmphiptereSiX]

@@Silkier Loving someone while simultaneously paying for their death isn't morally consistent.

[@nienke7713]

You may not harm the tiger out of moral considerations in which you regard it as your equal, but the tiger has no such morality when it comes to deciding whether to eat you. A non-humam animal cannot possibly be our moral equal when it lacks the very ability to even consider any sort of morality. That does not mean that we should act with complete disregard to non-human animals, but our relationship to non-human animals is fundamentally of a different moral nature than our relationship to fellow human beings who are capable of moral agency and individual autonomy. Infants may not be capable of agency and autonomy yet, but we have good reason to believe that they will posses that ability when they grow up; we therefore have a moral duty to aid this infant in its process of developing themselves and with it, their agency and autonomy, unless the autonomy of a moral agent is at stake e.g. abortions are justified because in the conflict between the pregnant person's autonomy and the foetus' future-potential to autonomy, the full autonomy is more important. If someone is only being kept "alive" by medical equipment and is in a coma where they are not expected to ever recover from, it is justified to stop the medical equipment keeping them alive, particularly if the equipment, or the money required to keep them running, can be used to keep someone alive who does still have the capacity for individual autonomy and moral agency, or for someone who has a chance of still recovering theirs. Non-humam animals, as far as we can reasonably expect, will not develop any sort of individual autonomy or moral agency; instead, they merely act on instincts. To morally engage with animals, we therefore need to act in considerstion of their instinct as well as our own. Keeping non-humam animals is justified, as long as their life is equal or better (e.g. longer live, less pain, less stress, better fed) than it would be in the wild. To have sex with a non-human animal is immoral because it serves neither them nor us in any instinctive purposes, whilst consent cannot be established; but to collect semen from a farm animal and then use it to insemimate another farm animal does aid the natural instincts to reproduce, and therefore may be justified. To kill an animal for fun similarly is immoral as it serves no instinctive purpose for humans whilst being counter to the instincts of the animal; but to kill an animal for food may be justified by the human instinct to eat. Whether this is still justified in an age where we can easily sustain ourselves and get the required nutrients without the consumption of animals, is a bit more of a grey area IMO. As for the environment, keeping it healthy serves us a humans, as well as contributing to animals having better chances at their instinctual survival, thus we have a moral duty to take good care of the environment. This in itself is a reason to at least cut back on the amount of animals that are kept for food production.

[@Lyendith]

I feel like "humanist" is one of those words that’s so overused its meaning has become very blurry… But on your explanation, I pretty much agree. I just find it ironic that the idea of valuing the well-being of other species as much as our own’s is very, well, human. All species do what they must to survive, after all, and we are no exception. Yet we (well, some of us) deploy quite a lot of effort into preserving other species, even when that’s not directly necessary to our survival. In that way, we _are_ an oddity.

[@darkensdiablos]

We are the only species to colonize the whole planet too 😉 So we are the only ones that really need to be aware of other species extinction too. But yes, we are the odd one out

[@rokko_fable]

i had to point this out to someone before. they were kept talking about their hippie view of living natural and finding harmony etc etc. i said that the more we push toward balance with nature and other creatures, the further we stray from 'natural.' nature is incredibly difficult and harsh and every creature fights for survival. taken as whole their is some balance. but the individual plants and animals themselves don't strive for harmony or balance. i'm not saying we shouldn't do that. in fact we definitely should. but that is unique among living creatures.

[@pureone8350]

I'd have to agree, lots of "humans are just animals" people make really bad arguments about human existence and life's mysteries.

[@darkensdiablos]

@@insomniad2514 hahaha.. I think you miss the point of this argument 😁 It's not that I (and others) don't know that you value human life more than a cow's. The point is why? Like religion, it is a product of your upbringing. Not that you wouldn't value human life more in another setting, you probably would, just like me, a vegan. It's just so funny, that otherwise sceptic people can't see, that in this case they think, that everything else can be seen in a sceptical light, but this 1 thing is exempt from this rule.. The fact that you can't answer the question should be a red flag for any sceptic. Even if you ask, why is 2+2 = 4, you can answer the question without saying something totally stupid, like "I just hate when people ask that question".. You are free to hate it, but the answer is pretty easy, because we have decided so. You are of course welcome to think what you think, and I'm likewise justified in thinking you don't even have an argument, just a feeling 😉

[@kathryngeeslin9509]

Many other species will risk their lives to protect/rescue/raise ect other species. We are not alone in favoring our own kind or favoring very different kinds, or in behaving in contradictory ways. Competition and cooperation are both part of life.

[@zacharybond23]

Even though I do care for animals very deeply, I do not have the financial stability to stop eating animal products, nor do I have the financial independence to cease such. I am 16, soon to turn 17.

[@phalangelicheathen1792]

this is fair. I only started being (mostly) vegan when i moved out about a month ago. I just tried to cut down on meat and dairy before that, but it's really hard doing that when ur with family. I've also found that a vegan diet isn't really that expensive at all compared to a meat based diet. In some ways it's kinda cheaper? Like ok maybe plant based milks are a teeny bit more expensive, but ur also cutting down on all the money you spend on meat, and stuff like soya and plant based sources of protein and iron are actually cheaper. At least that's what i found.

[@leahdragon]

I was vegetarian from the ages of 12-18 (even that was an uphill battle) and then when I moved out to my own place at 19 I went vegan. Don’t feel bad if you can’t do it right now. In fact, people shouldn’t really feel ‘Bad’ for eating animals/products. What they should do is consider both arguments (not the irrational arguments that people on both sides throw around) and make their own decision based on which side they agree with.

[@kennyholmes5196]

It is possible to have it both ways in this case. The trick is to make it non-personal and to be respectful when you do eat, and once you gain financial independence, to do your best to source your food from ethical sources when possible.

[@almpjepalmpjepepernoot]

That is completely understandable. I am 17 right now and plan to go vegan when I live on my own, because I don't want to make cooking more difficult for my parents (it is already quite complicated because my brother and father have to eat gluten free). I think it is completely reasonable to take your own situation into account when you are deciding whether you want to go vegan. Furthermore, I think that we often focus too much on the label, instead of our impact. I might not eat vegan right now, but I do try to consume less animal products when I can and that counts. I think it is awesome that you care so deeply for animals and I hope you will have the financial freedom to act in accordance with your beliefs in the future, whatever those beliefs might be.

[@zacharybond23]

@@almpjepalmpjepepernoot Thank you. I have also considered that if I am to continue using animal products as food, I would like them to be ethically sourced. Meaning, I would like for the animal to have lived a happy and healthy life, and to be killed in a humane way.

[@abu-fuckeral-punani6287]

So nice to know that this thought is also shared by other athiests.I have finally accepted myself as part of the animal kingdom.

[@lazypotatoes9844]

I remember as a child i often thought humans were animals and every time i said so people would always say im wrong and give a poor excuse why we arent animals. I always thought it was a unique thought that i had glad to see that im not the only one

[@loturzelrestaurant]

@Joe dirty71 Nah, those that say others are dumb for arguing about Semantics are dumb. And childish.

[@loturzelrestaurant]

@Joe dirty71 Imagine being such a little chil dyou come here and randomly insult-around.

[@clawthe]

@@loturzelrestaurant but you just said others are dumb

[@ahuman5772]

Biologically humans are animals. It's a weird christian mindset that seperates us

[@anewagora]

The fact that humans are animals is pretty straightforward, and I wonder what leads a person to believe otherwise. It's almost like saying we're not alive. Very unsettling.

[@lostone9700]

in ceasing exploitation of animals you rebuilt the pedestal you tore down and created a new one to bout. unless you can undergo photosynthesis you will have to feed on life. by excluding animals from your diet you created a new line placing all other life on the otherside. simultaneously animals don't exclude themselves from this mechanism of survival and thus you rebuilt a special case for yourself. the illusion of morality. you cannot eliminate suffering. all you did was transfer it. you will harm self for the idea that you are saving animals or at least can say you do not deliberately or actively contribute to their suffering. the truth of the matter is you will do so forever and ever as long as you exist. you take up space, your habitat reduces theirs, simply being alive will cause their demise. the agriculture required to sustain a person who has excluded animal protein from their diet will lead to the death of more organisms than simply eating the organisms would have and on top of that you will have deliberately cause the suffering of one animal in particular. yourself. it is much easier to eat leaves off of a tree and yet we saw the necessity to hunt and kill animals for sustenance. thats because our machinery required the nutrients and your deficiencies will pile up and cause much suffering. The logic that leads one to veganism is understandable. i call it yuppie disease. its what happens when you become separated from providing your own food.

[@ProfRonconi]

An excellent and well-argued video.I have, however, a few criticisms to make. As we all know, nature is red in tooth etc. No animal is exempt from this sad reality: either they eat or are eaten. Should we prevent the suffering of zebras and gazelles by keeping lions in zoos and feeding them mice? Or a cockroach extract? How far can we prevent the suffering of a species before we cause the suffering of another? Unfortunately, nature is not a moral realm: in fact, nothing could be closest to hell. I know you know about several species of wasps that inject their eggs into other living creatures so that the larvae can eat the alie from the inside. Should we try to prevent this? Is it even possible? How much effort should we put into it? How many billions od caterpillars are equivalent to how many billions of wasps? Are caterpillars more worthy of living than wasps? Are bacteria less worthy of life than we are? Why? Do we know for sure that they are incapable of suffering? How could we even in principle know that? Are cockroaches capable of suffering? It would seem so, but nobody seems to be utterly concerned about this. Nor there seems to be anyone concerned about the suffering of rats, maggots, flies, mosquitoes, ticks, vipers, scorpions, etc. In short. life and suffering are inseparable. Unless you are an amoeba that splits into two identical organisms and is thus, for all intents and purposes, inmortal(unless ih happens to invade your intestine, in which case it will be swiftly killed by antibiotics). We have been cursed with the knowledge that one day we will die, and this is the main characteristic that separates us from other animals. I don't want to justify unnecessary cruelty, such as that we see in chicken farms, but most other farm animals have a better life than they would have had in the wild. I don't know about you, but I'd rather die through a swift strike to my brain than through an endless gnawing by predators. There's not only suffering to consider: the length of the suffering is important too.

[@TheFriendlyAntinatalist]

This is the most reasonable and sane of all the comments. The more interesting question is will he create more suffering humans by procreating? Or will he except that human suffering as “natural” or “normal” to justify procreation?

[@ProfRonconi]

@@TheFriendlyAntinatalist That's a tough question indeed. I sometimes wondered whether my decision to have a child (the most wonderful human being, now 31 years old) was right. When she fell ill, I felt so guilty for not being able to alleviate her suffering instantly. Nevertheless, I believe now that human beings are the only creatures that truly understand suffering and are able to alleviate it, at least in part. We know how to put an end to the suffering of a dog with incurable cancer, and usually we do. Humans themselves are not so lucky, yet. Given this capacity to alleviate suffering through knowledge and science, I think having children is worthwhile: they will keep this hope alive.

[@TheFriendlyAntinatalist]

@@ProfRonconi Hopium is a powerful drug.

[@ProfRonconi]

@@TheFriendlyAntinatalist Hahaha! I agree wholeheartedly. But it's the best we've got. We could decide not to reproduce and leave the planet to its own devices; in that case, I am convinced that suffering would multiply a hundredfold. Just imagine what wold happen to millions of cows and billions of chickens.

[@AntiTekk]

Awesome to see that you’re also on board :)

[@bmohr1710]

Hmm. Well, titling it about Humanism rather than veganism did make me watch it when I otherwise wouldn't have. I wonder if that was calculated

[@atrixsauza2068]

@Mr. Rich B.O.B So you only listen to argument that suits your views, but not the arguments that challenges you ? That seems like a typical theist to me.

[@MrJacobegg]

@Mr. Rich B.O.B That was a lot of words just to say "yes." I mean, I'm no vegan, or even vegetarian, but you're making a silly argument against a video you clearly haven't even watched.

[@MrJacobegg]

@Mr. Rich B.O.B Wow, three more paragraphs, just to say "yes."

[@CaptainTae]

@@atrixsauza2068 Would you listen to videos by someone who converts to Born Again Christianity? Nope. Same with vegans. No one wants to hear their sanctimonious bs.

[@CaptainTae]

@@MrJacobegg But he’s not wrong. You seem to be trying to gaslight his point with bad wine aunt comedy.

[@hanskraut2018]

What u call rash human instinct is not so simple. It seems that all reasoning is grounded to at minimum some extent in emotions. Deal with it. See humans as advanced deep neural selfsupervised renforcement networks. Yes im a Genius

[@sylvaintaif8128]

The ending is more nuanced than the title . "I am no longer" had me thought you came from 100% to 0% humanist. I prefer the explanation at the end : you went beyond "just" humanism and share a lot but not all with it.

[@rohanhope9985]

It's interesting that when we find we're not that different to non-human animals, we bring them up to be equal with our feelings of other humans and not bring humans down to our feelings of non-human animals. Feels like becoming vegan promotes the idea that humans are superior and we need to protect other animals from us.

[@11ozzielover]

This is what I also struggle with. We’re simple animals, but with some of these arguments it seems almost as if we’re this enlightened bunch.

[@jaanrett]

So you still value humanisms ideals, you just want them to apply to all living/sentient beings? Makes sense.

[@CaptainTae]

ALL LIVES MATTER!

[@stylis666]

Only slightly. We will still have to favour humans merely based on the fact that we are humans and that for our benefit we should value humans over every other animal. Suffering is not really a good reason to abandon that necessity; it's a reason to embrace it as fact. If you have the choice to test potentially deadly medicine on animals or humans, you should still test it on animals, or you could volunteer of course, but no ethical committee would grant your request to take the place of lab mice or monkeys, nor should they.

[@jaanrett]

@@CaptainTae Of course they do. But do black lives also matter? Yes, black lives matter. But I'm not sure why you're pointing this out here. The black lives matter movement is the name of a movement that draws attention to the fact that a disproportionate amount of black lives are being killed by the po po.

[@jaanrett]

@@stylis666 What you said is basically how i embrace humanism.

[@fordprefect1925]

Humanism doesn't preclude that. He just doesn't like the term humanist. He conceded that humanism doesn't inherently mean human excepetionalism. Certainly not how I understand it as a humanist anyway.

[@marcdes6316]

When I learned I'm not really that special, that's when I became so free to explore the world, unburden by the need to keep up with my illusion of self-grandeur

[@peteracton2246]

How I feel. Shrink your ego and look outward, amazing world...

[@TriggeringOpinionsandFacts]

The next step is to dye your hair black. Then the last will be accents and the merging will be complete

[@tombumth7709]

they're OK the way they are. I can have Alex on my left shoulder (devil) and Drew on my right shoulder (devil #2). Wouldn't be the same if they were the same.

[@Pub2k4]

I love getting all these “PureFlix” ads in all my favorite atheist creators’ videos.

[@lunawolfheart336]

I get those in athiest and pagan vids I watch it's really funny like bro your not converting me

[@bryanaperry8760]

Same. I am like YES get that Christian AdSense.

[@oyblech8671]

I've stopped counting the times one of these videos started off with "shalom, friend". if they knew anything about anything they'd realise we are as far from their target audience as can be.

[@suchnothing]

@i o You can be pagan and also an atheist. All atheism is, is a rejection of the idea that a God or gods created the universe. Many pagan religions or ideologies don't have a creator deity.

[@irrelevant_noob]

or one can also just WATCH pagan (or even christian) videos without being convinced that they're true in any meaningful way. :-)

[@Coldtrojan]

I actually find myself in the same position, and I've also thought of sentientist as a better label haha

[@saganandroid4175]

Though then we see debate about what sentient even means, and who gets counted as such.

[@ppowell1212]

@@saganandroid4175 True. But we don't really spend that much time debating human animal sentience, that's a double standard. If human animals lives have moral value, then so should nonhuman animals.