What 99% of people don't know about Wild Animals

[@StantonLuke]

Really great area to discuss! Life is not without suffering, I think we should reduce suffering where possible. We are in a position to help others and we should do so. It is a moral obligation of those with the capacity to help, to help. Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is watching.

[@v.a.n.e.]

in principle, I agree with you, except for the part where you state that it is a matter of moral obligation. what's your claim based on? how did you move from 'we should' to 'we must'? moreover, the context in which you placed the moral obligation is unclear. would you mind clarifying?

[@StantonLuke]

@ As thinking, sentient beings, humans possess the unique ability to reflect, empathise, and make conscious decisions that transcend mere survival instincts. This capacity not only defines our humanity but also places upon us a moral obligation to help others in need. The foundation of this obligation rests on three interrelated principles: the inherent interconnectedness of human existence, the ethical responsibility derived from our shared humanity, and the transformative potential of compassion in shaping a better world. Moreover the moral obligation to help others should not be limited to humans but extended to non-human animals, as they too are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, suffering, joy, and contentment. Our capacity for rational thought and moral reasoning demands that we include animals within the sphere of ethical consideration. This extension of moral responsibility is justified through a further three extended principles: the recognition of animal sentience, the interconnectedness of all life, and the transformative potential of compassionate stewardship toward non-human creatures. All humans have a choice and every choice has a consequence, to not choose is to chose the side of inaction and therefore perpetuate the suffering that could be avoided if we choose to intervene.

[@ruun-z5w]

How do you even go from we could to we should without it being an opinion that's just as arbitrary.. ​@@v.a.n.e.

[@beefmeatloaf]

We have zero obligation to 'save' nature- utopia will never exist - you can feel bad but to get rid of suffering its to put all animals down - its a wildly foolish concept- life cannot exist without suffering

[@pambennett8967]

I've thought this since I was young.

[@distantuncertain630]

This is the perfect video to share with people, thank you!

[@altrufisica]

Excellent talk. This is one of the biggest, and most neglected issues of our time. Thank you for making the case for wild animals so clear.

[@DieMilitanteVeganerin]

thank you so much! I get the chills every time I think about wild animal suffering.

[@v.a.n.e.]

not chills; it's a lack of B12. neurology 101

[@beefmeatloaf]

Okay and - there's nothing you can do about it - death is a part of life

[@PabloPerroPerro]

Fantastic work

[@Sergio2006A]

If there is a god, what on earth was he thinking? And if he's almighty and benevolent, how can he let these things happen?

[@user-gu9yq5sj7c]

God created the earth as Eden the paradise and utopia. The bible said they were vegan. The end of the bible said that the lion shall lay down with the lamb. The bible said Jesus would return and end the suffering and evil on earth. It's was sin that brought corruption into the world. God gave people free will. There is a fine line between interfering and respecting people's free will even if it's for their own good. But people can pray to God for help. And of course if people wanted to sin then they would abuse the animals too. Making animals and other people have to defend themselves, be in fear and paranoia, be taught the same selfish corruption, and create a false scarcity that caused people and animals to fight over resources or eat each other. Some ways false scarcity was created was a few people hoarding so much and destroying and causing desertification to a massive amount of land. Which causes famine. Even if people don't believe the bible, I was just telling the story of what the bible said and answering the OP. Check out Christspiracy. Watch videos of Kameron Waters and Kip Andersen. Such as on David Ramms. Kameron spoke with Lifting Vegan Logic.

[@elainebraindrain3174]

Exactly😢😢😢

[@dansmith8174]

The concept of god. Was defined to support the monetary system(tax).. Religion was a deceptive tool.

[@JanetStarChild]

This is exactly the kind of world that would exist in a godless universe. There's no magic sky-daddy, people; it's just us.

[@tanelehala6422]

If he exists, he must be a sadist. If we're all one consciousness, he must be a masochist.

[@samuelmiensinompe4902]

There should be programs to help animals during drought or hurricanes. After all, climate change is our fault.With so many billionaires in our planet, and no one seems to care. In Australia during the fires, there were a lot of people helping animals, but not too many vegans were even interested in saving them. Our group is weak. We need to become much much stronger.

[@LB-uo7xy]

Vegans only care about the harm we do to domesticated animals, not to the wild ones!

[@tanelehala6422]

The billionaires are billionaires in the first place because they don't care about humans, let alone non-human animals. You have to think further though, no individual life can be "saved", only prolonged. If animals are "saved" from one method of horrible suffering and death but left in the wild, it will just be postponed and replaced with another method of horrible suffering and death. If not sterilized, exponentially more suffering and death would have been created, most dying as infants.

[@appaloosa42]

So… aside from your notions about climate change… what are you doing to help ANYBODY OR ANYTHING affected by climate castastrophe?

[@samuelmiensinompe4902]

@@appaloosa42 unfortunately, I feel like I dont exist. Right now I am being persecuted in an doomsday republican town in Florida. I would like to get out of here. When I was in Miami I was always active. I have not been active for years. And I can't find one vegan that would help me get our of here. This is how amazingly organize we are. We re such a weak group. Yet some believe a vegan world is coming... That is laughable, dont hold your breath waiting for one.

[@appaloosa42]

@@samuelmiensinompe4902 try earing a complete diet instead of vegan. Even Adam after the fall drank milk and ate eggs and fish.

[@mablak2039]

Part of the blind spot is rights-based ethics, the idea that all this suffering in nature doesn't involve rights violations, so it's not a problem. Animals dying of disease or predation in the wild don't care whether a moral agent 'violated their rights' or not, they just want their suffering to stop

[@anthonydude]

I'm not sure about that. We're willing to expend a lot of resources trying to save humans from natural disasters which don't involve moral agents violating rights

[@mablak2039]

@@anthonydude I think a rights-based approach could just as easily say it's 'good' to do that, but we don't actually have an obligation to because of the lack of rights violations

[@anthonydude]

@@mablak2039 then couldn't a rights-based approach say its good to intervene in the case of wild animals? My understanding is that rights are generally meant to compliment other ethical considerations, they're not the only thing that matters. My point is that I don't think it's the rights that are getting in the way here. I think, as Jack said at the start of his speech, we have a bias in favour of nature, coupled with a deep-rooted speciesist culture

[@mablak2039]

@@anthonydude It's a case of moral schizophrenia to me; in my view what's good and what we should do are the same thing. But this case where there are sort of 'bonus' good things we can do--while at the same time we don't hold that we ought to do them--it's treated a bit like students doing extra credit on their homework, totally optional to save these animals and not obligatory.

[@jadeterrain4771]

King 👑👑👑 Thank you for your work

[@Bodertz]

I'm glad you continue to talk about wild animals.

[@tylerleswing]

Important discussion to have

[@Marine_Veteran_Vegan_Gamer]

Fantastic work.

[@NathanBlackberry]

Brilliant presentation! Great speech🙏 Nature is very interesting. Poor animals🥺💔🐘🐷🐛 Go vegan🙏💚

[@Trolloftruth]

Freak show

[@donutkillerassassin]

​@@Trolloftruth I know you are but what am I

[@Trolloftruth]

@@donutkillerassassin ahhh...typical vegan response..na na na boo boo

[@Trolloftruth]

@@donutkillerassassin who knows?

[@Jacob-jz1pc]

brilliant analogy with medicine and the body at the end!

[@JB-mz3qf]

Absolutely brilliant.

[@raph2550]

Nice ❤ I'm glad you added some concrete examples of improvements, like the screwworms.

[@Simon_Fridh]

Great talk Jack! Both in regards to content and execution. I don't dispute at all the empirical data you present, or the fact that wild animals are suffering unimaginably. It is a really important topic and we need to discuss it more within the vegan movement. However, I don't think that I agree with your crucial point half way thorugh, that we have an obligation to help wild animals. Your argument could be presented in the following way: Premise 1: I have a moral obligation to help people in need, whose suffering I did not cause. Premise 2: It is speciesist to not not help wild animals in need, whose suffering I did not cause. Premise 3: Speciesism is wrong; I have a moral obligation to not be speciesist. Conclusion: I have a moral obligation to help wild animals in need, whose suffering I did not cause. I agree with premise 3, but I think that I reject premise 1 (and therefore also 2 and the conclusion). Tentatively, I just think that premise 1 leads to practical absurdities. How would I even function in life? I am aware however that my reasoning here needs more thinking and elaboration. But even if premise 1 is false - this doesn't mean that it's not a virtue to help others who are suffering, it most certainly is! And even though taking care of wild animal suffering is no obligation, perhaps this virtue should guide our decision making in some way?

[@lionstho]

Thank you for continuing to argue this point, Jack, and arguing it so well. You convinced me immediately. It still amazes me how many of my fellow vegans (including my own wife) reject the idea of intervening to prevent wild animal suffering. The appeal to nature fallacy is a helluva drug.

[@lauratanln]

But isn't veganism an ethical stance to avoid causing suffering including reducing suffering where possible? People often mistake being plant based as being vegan.

[@lionstho]

@ LOL, my wife is not “plant-based”. I wouldn’t be married to her if she were! It is animal suffering that motivates her not to eat animals (she doesn’t wear them either, the way plant-based people do). She argues that because nature is such a “fine balance” (or whatever), it would be madness for humans to intervene in it. For the reasons Jack has outlined before, though, this seems like an unwarranted assumption, and a poor justification for inaction, especially given how much suffering is currently happening in the wild.

[@jprice_]

@@lauratanln What some people have defined certain word as has no bearing on the reality of being a compassionate person.

[@ruun-z5w]

Your position is an appeal to your opinion and feelings fallacy

[@catlyn777]

I became vegan for animals. Then I became whole food plant based for my health. Many plant based call themselves vegan but they aren’t really vegans. They make all kinds of “exceptions” and use any products and wear anything.

[@DieMilitanteVeganerin]

my heart breaks, it makes me feel to weak and helpless...

[@katipohl2431]

As a biologist from Germany I totally agreed to this content. Subscribed.

[@JanetStarChild]

I'm with you all the way. I think the greatest thing humans can do on this planet is become the custodians of all life. Going forward, hopefuly that will become the legacy of humanity.

[@jaymayhoi]

Just wanted to say that I'm new to this topic and thought this video was an amazing summary with your excellent pacing and choice of words, and most importantly, have given me a lot to think about. Thank you

[@Gwendolan]

Very important topic. So sad. Great presentation. Thanks for creating awareness!

[@themasculinismmovement]

People think of nature as something spiritual, romantic, peaceful, wise and idealistic, and it quite simply isn't. It also isn't conscious, it doesn't have a mind, it doesn't have ideas, and it certainly isn't a mother. This is just anthropomorphism, again, its thinking of it as a spiritual entity when it isn't. It isn't nurturing us like some sort of benevolent parent or spiritual guide, in reality it is hostile to life, and the only reason most people are ignorant to all of this is because we are the apex predator and don't even spend any time in nature these days but live in a societal bubble.

[@jprice_]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="1212">20:12</a> do we need that certainty though? Did we need it when we eradicated predators from our own, human environment? Is it not speciesist?

[@mithunbalaji8199]

Only when it comes to us, we see how horrible suffering is

[@tanelehala6422]

But then we would also need to sterilize prey animals because their populations would explode and as you hopefully learned, "thriving" of an ecosystem or species usually means more suffering for an individual within it. Also, eliminating predators would not solve all the other ways wild animals horribly suffer and die.

[@jprice_]

@@tanelehala6422 Of course. Suffering is a cycle and the only way to end it is to break the cycle. The circle of life is a scam, it doesn't lead to anything, it has no purpose.

[@beefmeatloaf]

​@@mithunbalaji8199cause we care about our own species - that's the case with all animals - to eliminate wild animals suffering means fucking up our planet were trying not to do that - especially just for our feelings

[@beefmeatloaf]

​@@tanelehala6422this whole argument is just shit - to eliminate suffering is to just sterilise all life - a pointless and impossible endeavour

[@crazykacsi2048]

This was so great. Amazing! Thank your for the speech! I highly appreciate it, this topic is so close to me :). When I was in high school, I talked about it a lot with science teachers and religious or atheistic teachers as well😅…. Interesting results came up with this topic 😬. Sometimes nice thoughts, sometimes ignorant cold reactions. The main problem is we can’t screw up food chain, bc it messes up the ratio a lot. But it doesn’t mean, we won’t ever have any option to reduce suffering in the wild or that we should leave a suffering animal in a fire(for example). Or it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t help a baby animal that’s stuck, nor to not feel compassion for them and talk about it like a natural nice thing….(this one is the hottest shit) The number 1 thing we can do is support climate justice and animal rigths ( go V :) ). To reduce our bad from it as fast as possible. And help where its possible with the least negative impact

[@catlyn777]

I’ve been sad for animals suffering since I was a little kid. As an adult, I don’t know how people can eat animals like the suffering of animals is meaningless to them. Natural? Bullsh*t!! It’s completely unnecessary for health.

[@goblin53gan]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="1320">22:00</a> humans can consent

[@tanelehala6422]

He did explain animals are deprived of autonomy either way when all the horrible things happen to them sooner or later.

[@goblin53gan]

​@@tanelehala6422 I just don't like the comparison in this instance

[@beefmeatloaf]

This Animals would far rather suffer an live to preproduce than be put down or sterilised by a guy who can't stomach the fact that bad things exist

[@tanelehala6422]

@@beefmeatloaf you'd seriously tell that to the baby elephant slowly eaten alive with no eyeballs left in the sockets? You environmentalists really have no empathy. Do you even know suffering? Do you know how asymmetrically intense and automatically progressively bad it can get compared to any kind of limited and unsustainable pleasure? How is it possible that after being presented with all the information, having it explained to you like a 5yo, you still argue in favour of wild animal suffering? No life can be saved, only prolonged.

[@beefmeatloaf]

@tanelehala6422 yes I would - it wouldn't understand any of it - would the animal live maybe I don't know - would it rather be dead - absolutely not animals are far more resilient than people are - especially privileged people sat on their phones watching another privileged guy whining cause he feels bad about the fact animals don't have the same cushy life as him It's not about environmentalism or having 'no emotion' it's just bot being blinded by naive idealism life requires death herbivores live of plants plants require dead animals - carnivores and detritivores are part of that process - killing all the carnivores and bacteria would just leave mass starvation for the herbivores you deep fine to live so unless you want to wipe all life on the face of the planet (which won't do shit for ending suffering) its a fruitless endeavour that will do nothing for anyone except rip all animals right to live away to save your feelings Life is shitty sometimes- get over it or drown in it cause that's just how it is

[@robertb6076]

Hi Jack, when you talk about "10 trillion wild vertebrates", presumably this is mostly fish? If you look at terrestrial vertebrate animals, humans make up 36% by weight and farmed/controlled animals around 60%, with less than 4% by mass being wild animals.

[@tanelehala6422]

@@robertb6076 most wild animals are therefore small. Up to some point, weight has nothing to do with sentience.

[@Benjaminimize]

Nature, red in tooth and claw

[@robbie3929]

Thank you dear ❤ great video

[@harrynac6017]

I won't watch the video, but thank you for talking about this. In my country and in the EU we have the Party For the Animals who get my vote during elections. More rights for animals, and stop factory farming.

[@appaloosa42]

Please learn that this is a FALLEN world. Not as Creator intended. The only hope is the Return. MARANATHA!

[@user-gu9yq5sj7c]

Anyone who thinks we shouldn't help wild animals, like people, should think about if they can just watch animals suffer without wanting to help like how Michael Poliza wanted to desperately help the baby elephant that was being eaten. It's kind of not consistent if vegans say animals are not food, but thinks it's ok for predators. It's still suffering.

[@lorah3005]

*Compassion for all!* 👍 Whole food plant based for the environment and health; vegan for the victims! *Ask your city government to sign the Plant Based Treaty!* 🖖

[@v.a.n.e.]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="57">0:57</a> hey! you promised to warn us before disturbing images!

[@harrynac6017]

He did.

[@v.a.n.e.]

well, this one deserves a special warning,

[@fordprefect.betelguese]

Very thought inspiring...

[@CEPHch]

once I saw a video of a zebra's face being ripped in half by a crocodile.. Yeah nature is brutal...

[@vegangames3468]

💙

[@theqdie]

It sucks being the 1 percent

[@luminousparadox7529]

We separated ourselves by evolving opposable thumbs.. i suggest the other species do the same. Like the universe nature cares not if you live, die, hurt or suffer. The most natural thing on this planet is suffering. Once you understand that youll stop having an emotional response to animal suffering. Had we not removed ourselves it would be us, but we are not responsible for animals like we think. We are an animal. A sibling. You wouldn't ask a baby to raise another. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't care. Mindfulness of our impact on an environment is probably the best way to care for our fellow family. We are all of earth. And although it may not be nice to eat animals, It just so happens to be the way nature set things. If you do feel some way just be thankful as a human you can choose what to eat. As many animals have no choice. One disingenuous part of this talk is the farm side.. in the wild alot of these animals would suffer alot more. Farmed animals even the chickens wouldnt have the luxury of falling over and dying like that. When they would most definitely die in a much worse maybe wuicker way. But for some time they were safe compared to being wild. The nuances in this is much more extreme than he makes out. You cant look at nature through the moral lense of humanity as it built us. Think of the hubris it takes to state if an animal is happy or sad. Nothing is constant especially feeling moments like happiness. Happiness has nothing to do with survival.

[@l.slayer551]

Ever since childhood I’ve had an issue with the scientific orthodoxy of non-interventionism. This value is neatly nested within an ethos which generally devalues interpretations and actions which could be categorized as anthropocentric. I find the concept utterly contradictory and itself representative of a form of anthro-exceptionalism which places the value (and values) of one biotic organism (Homo sapiens) over all our sentient and non-sentient planetary cousins. A hierarchical construct which so elevates the worth, sovereignty, and ethical supremacy of humans is reminiscent of certain religious impulses. I don’t say this to condemn religious people or scientists, but merely to demonstrate what I perceive as similarities. And if you think I’m wrong and are so inclined, please don’t hesitate to disabuse me of my interpretations. Given the rather bleak quality of my assessment, I would love to be wrong.

[@jakeastonfta]

Well said Jack! It may be difficult to convince people of this but we need to stop romanticising nature. Suffering is suffering, no matter where it happens. ✌️

[@KrwiomoczBogurodzicy]

[<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="590">09:50</a>] [<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="782">13:02</a>] [<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="1003">16:43</a>] Dawkins

[@alx4animalss]

❤❤❤❤

[@marshallwiebe5761]

how are we supposed to warm the planet so emperor penguin babies dont freeze their butts off

[@serena6740]

I can't bare to listen to those sad stories but I hope a lot op non vegan ppl will

[@marshallwiebe5761]

we cant fix society so i guess we should fix nature. seems right

[@roku3216]

Admirable concern, but let’s keep our eye on the ball too.

[@katherine-rosefrank4596]

I thought the biggest amount of animals on earth are farmed? Not wild?

[@katherine-rosefrank4596]

Re: 12:55

[@NAWWMANNN]

Was some of this supposed to be like a comedy bit? Because if so my man is BOMBING here

[@KrwiomoczBogurodzicy]

WILD ANIMAL SUFFERING playlist : [ kzbin.info/aero/PLIacjWbHUdUA-uzJ0fjL1yfhyKywldpO9 ]

[@CDAActivism]

1st 😿 😿 😿

[@BillCoz]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="50">0:50</a> GOOD GOD THAT IS TERRIBLE

[@AwakeMillennialThinker]

Sadly you have to let preditors eat other animals because they keep the numbers down of herbivorous

[@donutkillerassassin]

I say the Predditors should stay on Preddit

[@AwakeMillennialThinker]

@donutkillerassassin lol your on about the Internet. I'm on about the natural real would, it's that way for a reason. I wish it didn't have to be but that's how God created the world and he did that for a reason. Nature is cruel polar bears eat cubs to survive that's the harsh reality of the wild

[@Nick-o-time]

​@@AwakeMillennialThinkergod didn't create anything. If there were a god, they're a sadist.

[@ryanwelsch9384]

Jack, how can you say that it is natural for children to experience the health condition known as CANCER? Is it natural for children to be killed when hit by a car?

[@mattakudesu]

Because cancer is a natural malfunction of our DNA. Even wild animals get cancer all the time. It's just a matter of chance and circumstances.

[@user-gu9yq5sj7c]

I think a better example would be that germs are natural so would that be a good excuse to let people die from germs? Because that's the excuse some people use to let wild animals suffer. It's double standards and specicist if people help people from germs but not animals. If people use "natural" as a excuse to support suffering, than people can say that people getting eaten by predators is natural too. The point is if people can help people then they can help wild animals.

[@ryanwelsch9384]

@@user-gu9yq5sj7c You did not seem to get my point. It is not natural for anyone to experience the health condition known as CANCER. This is a condition created by consuming unnatural foods.

[@donutkillerassassin]

@@ryanwelsch9384 Errrm.. animals get cancer too

[@Eva-ez1ks]

Cancer is one of the oldest diseases to plague multicellular life. Any organism with tissue differentiation could be capable of getting cancer. It is not only natural but inevitable that it exists.

[@LouisGedo]

👋 hi

[@Masilya111]

👋 hey

[@LouisGedo]

@Masilya111 👋

[@donutkillerassassin]

👋 hello

[@LouisGedo]

@donutkillerassassin 👋

[@scar445]

Thats quite a logical fallacy. Animals in small numbers in nature, pitted against factory farmed animals. Thats like judging a fish for its ability to walk upright. Come on, if you want to talk about suffering animals, lets talk about all the millions of insecr that has tondie so vegans can get more food. Or the damage to the environment caused by the oil i suck out of the ground to fuel planes and boats to transport veggies not native to differing nations, to said nations

[@alx4animalss]

go vegan PLEASE fight against injustice to animals

[@Laiton_et_Celluloid]

Emmm, i dont think the example of the child starving is, fair, to say the least. The conditions that cause things like that to happen are not natural, they are the result of systemic oppression and abuse. Also, i dont think that have, more empathy? with our own species is speciesism, is just another way we can survive as, well, as a species. Also i dont get the point of the comparison between humans making themselfs damage with their recreational activities and the suffer that wild animals cant control or make anything about it. There are a lot of docummentated cases of animals getting high (elephants between them) and making a lot of things that are cruel and damage themselfs and other animals without any other purpose that, recreation, to say Emmmm Idon't think the example of the child starving is, fair, to say the least. The conditions that cause things like that to happen are not natural, they are the result of systemic oppression and abuse. I don't think having more, empathy? for our own species is speciesism, it's just another mechanism through which we survived in the past as, well, as a species. Also, I don't get the point of the comparison between humans harming themselves with recreational activities and the suffer that wild animals can't control or do anything about. There are many documented cases of animals like, getting high (including elephants), and doing many things that are cruel and additionally harm themselves and other animals for no other purpose than, recreation (I'm not trying to be mean, these are points that I genuinely think are somewhat biased or out of proper context and that i think it would be good to address further)

[@user-gu9yq5sj7c]

Wild animals and the starving child is comparable because both are just suffering and it's just helping about the suffering. It doesn't matter how the suffering came to be, man-made or not. And there is so much man-made suffering to animals too, like pollution. And what if the starving child was just a result of nature and lived in nature? So you think people are less able to help that child? No. Then what's the difference with wild animals? Cause humans are a part of nature too. And people can say that's "it's natural for humans to be treated like wild animals by wild animals too". Even if poverty was from systemic issues it's still feels beyond the reach of people to solve it just like how helping wild animals feels out of reach. Some people even have given up solving poverty because of that too. And the point is that if we can help we should. Which we can. The point was that specicisim is just having double standards and being prejudice to animals. Why do we have to be specicist? Just because you or others said so? Did you not hear Hancock talk about how it's terrible to just talk in terms of people or anumias just a species too much? Because you're then reducing people or animals to just a number quota to attain and causing people to not care about individual suffering and helping about that. Elephants would not make alcohol on purpose or know what that is. If they drink it it would be a accident. So idk why you mentioned it. Elephants would usually not drink alcohol and get high. The point of the recreation comparison was that it's not a good excuse for people to use that to let wild animals suffer or to pretend that animals (or people) want to suffer when no one does. Recreation is also not comparable to suffering especially if it's forced on a animal (or human), like predation. Honestly, you were just making excuses to not care about and help about the suffering of wild animals. Why would you do that?

[@user-gu9yq5sj7c]

People have been able to help people in a enormous way. Look how millions of people are not just living like wild animals in the wild when that's where humans started.

[@based-p2b]

he's an attention seeking zoomer, his arguments are exaggerated so much that you should basically just ignore his entire speech. people like the average joe are ALREADY helping animals that are observed suffering in the wild, I don't have any statistics obviously, but I'd bet that 9/10 people would help a suffering animal in any way possible, either by treating them or taking them out of their misery. he only highlights cases that are caught with camera by organizations... not the average joe taking a walk in the forest

[@user-gu9yq5sj7c]

@based-p2b You didn't understand what Hancock was saying. Most people in their daily lives are separate from wild animals and don't see them suffering. So how would people be helping them? There are millions of wild animals who suffer, such as from predation. Everyone knows that. Why did you lie about that? How did Hancock exaggerate about that? Hancock was talking about taking a proactive role to go out and help wild animals. Like how people go out and defend wild animals from preachers. Not just wait around until they see an animal in trouble in their cities. Which would be rare. If you look at the comments on videos of wild animals suffering, like from predation, there are many callous comments that said "it's just nature". So there are a lot of people who don't care about wild animals suffering and would not help those wild animals. Many people are even callous to people and won't (proactively) help them, like with poor people. There are even people who fight against helping poor people. Such as just blaming poor and homeless people for their situation and saying therefore "they deserved the poverty". So having compassion and caring about and wanting to help animals is just narcissism? You're messed up and you contradict yourself. What does this have to do with zoomers? Is that just another way you try to silence people you disagree with?

[@marshallwiebe5761]

cringe argument

[@Yavor-Karapetrov]

I stopped the video around minute 20 to comment! "Vegan Gains" is Absolutely Right! To Remove Predators is a Must! Why wouldn't you suggested!!!? And then we can Balance the population of the plant eating animals. You know that, right! NO worries for predators! P.S. I am not sure, that there is No Malice in cats' behaviour! I personally saw how the cat is playing with mouse before she kill the mouse. At least we can see, cats have Pleasure in Torturing the mouse. Would she do it, if she understands better? Well, we do it, so... Yes! And who knows, perhaps the cat understands something! P.P.S. No predators on the planet; one way or another - End of story!

[@marshallwiebe5761]

im sorry what, if you get rid of predators half the plant eating animals will still starve

[@webco-media]

Most humans are predators...

[@tanelehala6422]

Predation is only part of the problem. First, eliminating predation will cause the population of prey animals to explode and I hope you got the message that more "thriving" of a species means more suffering of any individual within it. Secondly, all the other ways wild animals horribly suffer and die would still stay unsolved.

[@yogiyoda]

What's the point of this presentation? All animals suffer. None of get us out of this alive. Why focus on suffering we can't control. Instead focus on what you can control. And don't forget the beauty of life either

[@Anom990]

We can control it though that's the point

[@vegangames3468]

We can control not causing animals to suffers through our dietary preferences and behaviours.

[@yogiyoda]

@@Anom990 - how can we stop wild animal suffering?

[@razmataz2823]

​@@yogiyodaIf we can get to the moon and mars we surely can make a start on a solution

[@based-p2b]

he's an attention seeking zoomer, his arguments are exaggerated so much that you should basically just ignore his entire speech. people like the average joe are ALREADY helping animals that are observed suffering in the wild, I don't have any statistics obviously, but I'd bet that 9/10 people would help a suffering animal in any way possible, either by treating them or taking them out of their misery. he only highlights cases that are caught with camera by organizations... not the average joe taking a walk in the forest

[@MrNick3742]

I believe the most significant thing we can do in the short term is to rewild the 40% of our planet currently being used to farm animals and their food, but do so intentionally in a way that prioritizes food-bearing plants that are appropriate for the ecosystem in question. This will provide habitat and food for animals, help prevent desertification, and increase the number of wild animals so they can survive at the very least. If we can begin eradicating some of the worse diseases, viruses, bacteria and parasites without endangering ecosystems then that would be a next step, but often the healthier an ecosystem, the less susceptible the animals are to disease in general. Maybe we can eventually help predators transition to plant based diets, but that would be a much more complex issue that would be much more likely to alter ecosystems negatively.

[@v.a.n.e.]

I'm sorry; I usually watch every video to the end, no matter how boring it is, but this time I couldn't even get through half of it. you have successfully refuted yourself several times, the video itself gives the impression of a nothingburger and actually raises doubts about the sincerity of the speaker's intentions.

[@based-p2b]

he's an attention seeking zoomer, his arguments are exaggerated so much that you should basically just ignore his entire speech. people like the average joe are ALREADY helping animals that are observed suffering in the wild, I don't have any statistics obviously, but I'd bet that 9/10 people would help a suffering animal in any way possible, either by treating them or taking them out of their misery. he only highlights cases that are caught with camera by organizations... not the average joe taking a walk in the forest

[@jprice_]

@@based-p2b Also most people would save a child from being raped, does that mean it's no longer an issue? What the hell you are talking about?

[@v.a.n.e.]

@@based-p2b yea, one of the first hilarious moments in this video is that, in 40,000 chickens, he found a couple of them on their backs, and presented it as the pinnacle of suffering. I really couldn't watch the whole video, who knows what else this genius said.

[@v.a.n.e.]

@@jprice_ why do vegans see strawmanning as the only way to communicate? you didn't, even remotely, address what based actually said.

[@jprice_]

@@v.a.n.e. He said some nonsense. Average people are not already helping animals in the wild, if you paid attention you'd know that the amount of wild animals suffering is so incomprehensible even if our entire civilization solely focused on alleviating it (as it should - suffering is pretty much the only thing that objectively matters in this universe) it would barely make a dent. We need to increase our capabilities several orders of magnitude to be even able to do something substantial about it.

[@Yavor-Karapetrov]

I'm halfway through the video so far. And I want to mention two things. You are talking about Numbers to prove that wild animals Suffering is maybe more Urgent than the Suffering of factory farm animals. But you don't provide data about the Duration of the Suffering of wild animals. Do they Suffer all the time, do they suffer for 2 minutes? How much of them suffer all their life? And can we say that the Suffering of factory farm animals is their entire life (it varies)!? So, I think it's Not only the number. More importantly, it is about Intensity and Duration of the Suffering. And you just show ONE Elephant was suffering - what the F! About the Turtles - Ok, they die, but do they suffer immensely for a relatively Long time, like factory farm animals? Tell us! 2. The second thing. I don't think there are 100 billion farm animals at every given moment. I admit, I don't have a statistics, but I think there are MUCH LESS animals at every given moment. Again, I don't know the number, but let's say 25-30 billion farm animals at any moment. But we kill 80 billion farm (land) animals for one year! Or did you mean also fishes from fish farms? If that is the case, you could be totally Right! I thought only for Land (farm) Animals.

[@vegangames3468]

💙