As an anti-speciesist person, I can say it is very hard to see how many people don't give a damn about animals. Wild, or exploited in human-built facilities, even in research. I decided to prepare myself to go and study biology and animal rehabilitation in order to help as many individuals as I can and dedicate an incredible part of my life and resources to help them and start an animal sanctuary. It is true we can't save everyone, but believe me, for that one animal you save that day... your effort is worth it in every way. I'm glad to have found Animal Ethics, which restores a bit more my faith in humanity (which is not great).
Extremely important video. Can't do much right now, but I am educating myself on this issues. I hope there are things I can help in the near future. All sufferings matter.
> One way to increase the chances that the suffering of wild animals will be taken into account in research and development is to challenge the biases and assumptions that make it so difficult for us to address it. Most important, perhaps, is the pre-Darwinian fiction that life in nature is harmonious, and that without human intervention, all is fine and good. If we imagined that from now on, animals started emitting a red light every time they suffered, then from space, Earth would no longer be a blue planet, but a red and glowing one. -- Ole Martin Moen, _The ethics of wild animal suffering_ (www.olemartinmoen.com/wp-content/uploads/TheEthicsofWildAnimalSuffering.pdf)
I’m sorry to disappoint you, but veganism doesn’t end animal suffering: ruclips.net/video/H0HUueRsBJ0/видео.html, ruclips.net/video/stfuoAgn-DQ/видео.html, ruclips.net/video/j6CX0TzJ7O4/видео.html, ruclips.net/video/UOWgORI9x08/видео.html, ruclips.net/video/_wSabaKvAuU/видео.html. As all these videos show, plant agriculture comes at a price: it costs a lot of wild animals their lives. And lots of them die painful and agonising deaths so that crops are not destroyed by them. Please watch these videos.
@@gooftree.7042 We already know that, we do our best to reduce suffering. What's your sugestion on what to eat which is better than not killing animals? Bivalves and vegetables is the best possible. Maybe growing some vegetables oneself but no more than that.
Animals who are exploited for their flesh are fed crops that are also harvested in ways that kill animals. Because most of the calories in the crops are not used to add to body mass, animals on farms are fed perhaps between three and 10 times as many crops as would need to be harvested if the crops were fed directly to humans as a vegan diet. This objection therefore does not make sense on its own terms, even if we grant your assumptions, because a vegan diet causes less suffering at this kind (in addition to the suffering of the animals directly harmed for food).
@@gooftree.7042 You're right, but veganism never was an end goal. It is just a necessary first step - one that enables a person to truly view animals as beings equal to humans. Without this first step, it's hard for one to start caring for animals hurt in ways other than factory farming (including wild animals). The psychological value of veganism is at least as significant as its direct causal impact.
1) First we need a campaign to raise widespread awareness that ppl must step up to help when they see wild animals suffering (and that it is not anti-nature to do so but our responsibility) 2) Second, we need a campaign for information to be widely available on what needs to be done when someone finds a wild animal in trouble (Safe First Aid, Local agencies to contact for Help, etc)
I see your point, but I feel like we should first, as you said yourself, help those animals who only exist and suffer because of humanity. Cows, pigs, chickens, etc.
We're glad you think it's important to help animals harmed directly by humans. However, wild animal suffering is on an even larger scale and we have good opportunities to prevent it as well. Each of us may prioritize a specific problem in our work based on our talents and interests, but it would be unwise for society to completely neglect important problems until it had solved other problems. An animal who is suffering does not care whether that suffering is human caused or caused by natural processes, she only wishes for the suffering to come to an end. If we are helping animals according to their interests we should pay attention to what they want and not automatically prioritize human caused suffering.
I cant help but feel it's a lost cause. The amount of suffering in the wild is so vast and inherent to nature, that any attempt to reduce it is a drop in the ocean.
We don't know what the future may bring :). Plus also, I think looking at relative numbers in terms of empathy is often misleading (scope insensitivity). For instance. If I tell you tomorrow that by donating 1000 USD you can prevent 5 people from suffering and dying of a new disease, you would be excited and probably feel proud. If I then proceed to tell you that there are 2 000 000 000 others at this moment suffering and dying from that disease, it feels a lot less remarkable than a couple of seconds ago. However, helping 5 individuals is still as important in the first as in the second case compared to doing nothing, especially to those 5 individuals. It changes their world. That's how I try to preserve my emotional stability when confronted with such massive amounts of suffering.
We do not need to completely solve the problem for our actions to be morally valuable. Our efforts to reduce suffering matter greatly to each individual who we help.
I agree, especially when you consider the vast vast quantities. I'd say it's best to preserve the ecosystems on a systematic scale rather than waste too much time on specific intensive interventions which will likely have huge side effects we cannot fathom. However life has adapted to many different situations and can probably deal with us poking around even more trying to help.
It is, but there's so much we can do to improve things over the long term. It's slow, but we can influence societal attitudes so that the wellbeing of all sentient beings is considered in our decisions.
Pretty naive to think we could ever solve this problem without blowing up the planet. Will you go out and single handedly pet, feed and console every wild animal? Lol
If we think that what happens to humans matters because their suffering is bad in itself, and that it matters when humans are by natural processes, such as diseases and disasters, then it is a contradiction to not be concerned about animals who are harmed by natural processes, because these processes also cause suffering to animals.
Wonderful video. Thank you for raising awareness about this important issue.
Thanks for watching!
Hey H.H. love your channel by the way.
As an anti-speciesist person, I can say it is very hard to see how many people don't give a damn about animals. Wild, or exploited in human-built facilities, even in research. I decided to prepare myself to go and study biology and animal rehabilitation in order to help as many individuals as I can and dedicate an incredible part of my life and resources to help them and start an animal sanctuary. It is true we can't save everyone, but believe me, for that one animal you save that day... your effort is worth it in every way. I'm glad to have found Animal Ethics, which restores a bit more my faith in humanity (which is not great).
Extremely important video. Can't do much right now, but I am educating myself on this issues. I hope there are things I can help in the near future.
All sufferings matter.
Thank you for bringing awareness to this underrepresented issue in our society. Wild animals are here *with* us, NEVER for us.
Probably most trascendental content on RUclips nowadays. Thanks for all your hard work.
Wow, thank you!
> One way to increase the chances that the suffering of wild animals will be taken into account in research and development is to challenge the biases and assumptions that make it so difficult for us to address it. Most important, perhaps, is the pre-Darwinian fiction that life in nature is harmonious, and that without human intervention, all is fine and good. If we imagined that from now on, animals started emitting a red light every time they suffered, then from space, Earth would no longer be a blue planet, but a red and glowing one.
-- Ole Martin Moen, _The ethics of wild animal suffering_ (www.olemartinmoen.com/wp-content/uploads/TheEthicsofWildAnimalSuffering.pdf)
Great ! Thank you so much for doing this ! We really have to show those videos to people not already convinced about this issue.
Absolutely, thanks!
It's really hard make people go vegan... Imagine how hard can be make them help or care about wild animals.
I’m sorry to disappoint you, but veganism doesn’t end animal suffering: ruclips.net/video/H0HUueRsBJ0/видео.html, ruclips.net/video/stfuoAgn-DQ/видео.html, ruclips.net/video/j6CX0TzJ7O4/видео.html, ruclips.net/video/UOWgORI9x08/видео.html, ruclips.net/video/_wSabaKvAuU/видео.html. As all these videos show, plant agriculture comes at a price: it costs a lot of wild animals their lives. And lots of them die painful and agonising deaths so that crops are not destroyed by them. Please watch these videos.
@@gooftree.7042 We already know that, we do our best to reduce suffering. What's your sugestion on what to eat which is better than not killing animals? Bivalves and vegetables is the best possible. Maybe growing some vegetables oneself but no more than that.
Animals who are exploited for their flesh are fed crops that are also harvested in ways that kill animals. Because most of the calories in the crops are not used to add to body mass, animals on farms are fed perhaps between three and 10 times as many crops as would need to be harvested if the crops were fed directly to humans as a vegan diet.
This objection therefore does not make sense on its own terms, even if we grant your assumptions, because a vegan diet causes less suffering at this kind (in addition to the suffering of the animals directly harmed for food).
@@gooftree.7042 You're right, but veganism never was an end goal. It is just a necessary first step - one that enables a person to truly view animals as beings equal to humans. Without this first step, it's hard for one to start caring for animals hurt in ways other than factory farming (including wild animals). The psychological value of veganism is at least as significant as its direct causal impact.
1) First we need a campaign to raise widespread awareness that ppl must step up to help when they see wild animals suffering (and that it is not anti-nature to do so but our responsibility)
2) Second, we need a campaign for information to be widely available on what needs to be done when someone finds a wild animal in trouble (Safe First Aid, Local agencies to contact for Help, etc)
Thank you for putting this together!
Thank you!
Thanks Animal Ethics
Thank you, Matias!
Thanks for making this video.
Glad it was helpful!
I see your point, but I feel like we should first, as you said yourself, help those animals who only exist and suffer because of humanity.
Cows, pigs, chickens, etc.
Why?
@@pveganismo I'd say just because it's easier, all you'd have to do is neuter all domestics and their suffering would be over in a couple decades
We're glad you think it's important to help animals harmed directly by humans. However, wild animal suffering is on an even larger scale and we have good opportunities to prevent it as well. Each of us may prioritize a specific problem in our work based on our talents and interests, but it would be unwise for society to completely neglect important problems until it had solved other problems.
An animal who is suffering does not care whether that suffering is human caused or caused by natural processes, she only wishes for the suffering to come to an end. If we are helping animals according to their interests we should pay attention to what they want and not automatically prioritize human caused suffering.
I cant help but feel it's a lost cause. The amount of suffering in the wild is so vast and inherent to nature, that any attempt to reduce it is a drop in the ocean.
We don't know what the future may bring :). Plus also, I think looking at relative numbers in terms of empathy is often misleading (scope insensitivity). For instance. If I tell you tomorrow that by donating 1000 USD you can prevent 5 people from suffering and dying of a new disease, you would be excited and probably feel proud. If I then proceed to tell you that there are 2 000 000 000 others at this moment suffering and dying from that disease, it feels a lot less remarkable than a couple of seconds ago. However, helping 5 individuals is still as important in the first as in the second case compared to doing nothing, especially to those 5 individuals. It changes their world. That's how I try to preserve my emotional stability when confronted with such massive amounts of suffering.
Better a drop than none!
We do not need to completely solve the problem for our actions to be morally valuable. Our efforts to reduce suffering matter greatly to each individual who we help.
I agree, especially when you consider the vast vast quantities. I'd say it's best to preserve the ecosystems on a systematic scale rather than waste too much time on specific intensive interventions which will likely have huge side effects we cannot fathom.
However life has adapted to many different situations and can probably deal with us poking around even more trying to help.
Will these be available on replay if we cannot attend each live presentation?
Yes, these are available as RUclips videos that you can watch whenever you like.
@@AnimalEthics Thank you
who is this lady ?
Well that’s depressing
It is, but there's so much we can do to improve things over the long term. It's slow, but we can influence societal attitudes so that the wellbeing of all sentient beings is considered in our decisions.
Pretty naive to think we could ever solve this problem without blowing up the planet.
Will you go out and single handedly pet, feed and console every wild animal? Lol
True just by making a video doesn’t change anything it can only raise awareness but it’s not helping
00:03:00 Where exactly is the contradiction?
If we think that what happens to humans matters because their suffering is bad in itself, and that it matters when humans are by natural processes, such as diseases and disasters, then it is a contradiction to not be concerned about animals who are harmed by natural processes, because these processes also cause suffering to animals.