His not a just a random meat head but a highly educated former professor. I was surprised, but not that much as the philosophy of science, ethics etc is something you have to go trough and he probably has tought some philosophical courses.
Mike likes to LARP as a philosopher because he’s read Thomas Sowell and that makes him a genius and completely unique in the world of philosophy/politics
@@jaredbowen3527 yea. Basically he subscribes to Greger’s bogus heart disease reversal claims and when Avi offered to debate him on it hench made a video crying about Avi bullying him lol. Also culling carnivores
That's so funny because it was actually me before I went vegan. I remember trying to convince my friends to go vegan after we were done eating some chicken wings. :D
I think Mike tried to take a very practical analysis and keep morality separated to a few moral points. While Clarence is still looking at the moral implications of those practical considerations. I do find both of their videos very interesting and entertaining and will continue thinking about the subject.
oh ye, mike is a way too intelligent meathead that is entangled in numbers and statistics (and i mean that in a good way). first and foremost he always will argue with data, thats how he works. literally all his thousands of hours of content in the industry is pretty much no opinions where we have enaugh data
I'm very thankful that you're adressing the video and speaking out for the vegan lifestyle. You present your standpoints in a manner I can identify with and think you're a strong ambassador for the vegan movement - especially since there are very sensitive hindrances and a lot of opposition. So, yeah: Thank you, Clarence! Great video!
@@kevinlee4449 there’s hundreds of arguments against it...you watch these people like Clarence (who I respect the fuck out of) talk unchecked. There’s countless times in this video where I could interject with counterpoints and I’m not the most educated human for the debate. My interjections would take Clarence to his own and it’d be a whole different discussion.....I hate these videos where people just talk on a dab at bel topic completely unchecked. Clarence is providing those checks to mike right now, some of them valid some of them not. But most people who saw mikes video won’t see this.......this is why we have people who believe the earth is flat. Any intelligent person can talk for ten minutes and make a good argument for something if they go completely unchecked the entire time.
At the end of the day, amino acids are amino acids, aren't they? I doubt that the human body has some sort of intrinsic mechanism to differentiate between the sources of amino acids. If you get everything you need from plant matter, would your body even notice or even care?
@@toximan2008 I think as long as you meet your macros and micros in either diet your body wouldn't be able to tell the difference. If you're getting more of something in one diet than the other maybe there could be a small difference?
@@toximan2008 I feel like it does, even when meeting correct nutrients without meat at some point body feels like its lacking and unsatisfied ,unbalanced. Tho lately most food makes me sleepy so i eat very little mostly veggies bit of meat 1fruit and fast for most of time
I will never understand how up in arms people get about abused dogs yet they don’t gaf about abuse of the animals they eat, or people who think it’d be disgusting to drink human breast milk but drink milk from other animals. I asked my meat eating friend the other day if she would eat dog meat and she was disgusted and offended by the question. Where’s the logic?
Well it's because humans and dogs have had an extremely close relationship for thousands of years. Dogs have played the role of a companion to humans, other animals have played the role of food & sustenance.
It's not that confusing. Dogs are pets, most people have interacted with them a lot, sometimes daily, for years. They attribute meaning and personality and consciousness to the dog and they would do the same for a pig or a cow if they had the chance to interact with it as much. Most people honestly don't even make the connection that their bacon or burger used to be a living thing because society has developed in such a way that large denies the average person an avenue to develop that level of empathy for their food.
To me it’s like thinking people only have the capacity to understand that racism against groups they regularly interact with is wrong but have no reason to see a problem with racism against groups that aren’t represented in their community. Sure some people think that way but once their POV is challenged I don’t think it’s too much to ask that they be able to recognize a logical fallacy when it’s pointed out to them.
Clarence, would you ever eat lab grown meat if the environmental impact was on par with what it is for crop farming? Thanks for inspiring me to move towards a more plant based diet.
I presume he wouldn't have ethical concerns with it as long as it caused no harm to animals throughout the process. Same as if meat just magically materialisee out of nowhere, its not eating meat that's the issue, its how its produced, that's why leather, wool etc. arent vegan
@@landonp.4073 Neither of those are as bad as people claim they are tbh, eating food containing them every once in a while is benign. As the saying goes, it's the dose that makes a poison.
@@zephyrus3554No, he said that you could make a moral argument based on an animals lack of issue with eating meat to survive. That’s not a matter of respect it’s a matter of survival. The issue with this argument would be that we do not need to survive by killing animals.
@@clarence0 Just because as humans some of us do have the options of not killing and eating animals does not make it morally wrong to eat animals as long as we have a subjective reason to eat that animal whether it be taste, culture, or survival. The morality of eating animals is completely subjective and you can never compare that to the morals that we have for our own species.
I've been waiting for a video like this!!! It was refreshing to see Mike's video but there were some things in there that felt off to me as a vegan... Thank you for your great perspective as always Clarence
Idk why the breeding part is often missing in these arguments, we're talking about harming and killing millions of animals VS them not existing at all which to me makes the issue even greater.
Do you mean that if we stop eating meat then there'll be less farm animals alive, and that's a bad thing? If so then consider that an animal would never have to suffer to NOT come into existence, but would have to suffer to LEAVE existence. It's similar to saying condoms and other birth control is murder. If that's not what you meant then my bad
@@forerunner6629 I'm saying not inflicting an horrible existence meant only to end in misery to millions of beings is probably a good thing. We agree I think :)
@forerunner I like your argument, because I hate when people bring up the “they’d never get to experience life if we didn’t breed them for meat” argument. The birth control take is a good one that I hadn’t thought to use before.
Having only "humane farms" would make forests mostly disappear because of how much space you would need to feed cows for example. Which of course would make global climate change even worse.
I think you don't understand how much wide open, currently unfarmable land there is just in the US alone that would benefit from regenerative livestock practices
@@urgamecshk I think you don't understand how many square meters of native forests are being cut down each day to make space for many things including livestock.
@@CCSABCD You completely missed the point of Julius' comment. If you have ever been to the west side of the US, then you would know that there are millions of acres of unused land that NEVER have had forests on them. Not all land contains forests.
I think this is overcomplicated. If you need to spend an hour justifying something, it's probably bad. I don't want to pay people who kill baby animals so I don't eat eggs and dairy. I don't want to eat something that could cry or love, so I won't eat animals. Simple as.
@@leniobarcelos1770 Wow! A person on the internet giving their opinion which isn't supported by Science. I don't give a fuck about 'opinions'. Everyfucker out there has one. Plus, why would you trust someone's word when they don't reference a single scientific source that hasn't been sponsored by the meat and dairy industry. BS free Science supports the vegan diet, and it has been for decades.
@@zodd67 actually. It does. The problem is you listen to people like Clarence talk unchecked. I can provide counterpoints to every single one of his counterpoints. He’d then give his counterpoints. And we’d get somewhere. This is a dude talking completely unchecked, then another dude checking him while completely unchecked. Mike would have his own counterpoints to everything Clarence is saying and he’s mostly on Clarence’s side. Let an intellectual on the opposite side interject and suddenly you have a real discussion
You could care less? All we know is that you don’t care zero… meaning you could care from a tiny bit to maximum care’age. Maybe you meant you couldn’t care less? (Meaning you care zero)
It feels like as traditional religion, family structure and church attendance is declining in the West, more and more people are joining new age religions like Veganism, SJWism, Communism(tried and failed) as a coping mechanism to fill the void left by traditional religions to try and give some meaning to their lives and develop some sense of community. They're smart enough to realize that most religious texts are unscientific and even nonsensical as we now have the scientific understanding, data and evidence to disprove a lot of religious texts but the yearning for spiritual/moral codes and guidance(a role that was traditionally played by religion) propels them towards these new ideologies.
The opposite of veganism, carnism is the one that's like a religion. Is veganism based off an ancient belief system like religion? No, carnism is. Do vegans refuse to challenge the prevalent belief system? Yes, carnists don't.
@@hhfbko What's inherently wrong with the word carnism? What are the criticisms against such terminology? In my opinion, it's like saying the word "racism" is a cult buzzword. What word is better used to describe the opposite belief system of veganism? "Meat eaters" doesn't describe a set of beliefs, it just means someone eats meat.
@@Lb-ri5wr I've heard and dealt with many nonvegans on veganism, and imo his argumentation is a step or a few steps above most, but still there's no good justification for non-veganism.
@@yungains not really, he just uses red herrings "its wrong to kill humans trait equalised to animals because its impractical" literally just a red herring
@@Lb-ri5wr I dont think that's a red herring, a red herring is a distraction or some smokescreen to move away from something important. Mike's answer is direct - his answer is not that its impractical, its that if it were allowed society would collapse and many would suffer inequities. The response has its own reductios of course which make it untenable.
As a college ethics teacher (philosopher) great job! Excellent treatment of the arguments and attention to detail! Same to Israetel (even if I think your points are stronger)
On the last point, there needs to be a distinction made between advocating for not killing animals, and working towards reducing harm within pre-existing factory farms. Harm reduction can exist simultaneously with morality campaigns.
@@Lb-ri5wr Yeah, but Rome wasn't built in a day and when Vegans take an all or nothing approach, they push people away from taking there first steps. Should everyone be vegan because it's moral, yes. But way more people will go vegan and stay vegan if they are not confronted by people that want to gate keep the animal rights movement.
Unfortunately, Clarence overemphasizes the proliferation of factory farms. I grew up on a farm and most meat comes from family farms. Agreed factory farms should be outlawed. The climate change argument is moot. As a vegetarian, this comes down to these issues: - Humans are adapted to eat meat. There are Inuit whose only source of food is meat, for example. Like other animals, we are omnivores and this biological fact negates any argument about can we eat meat - Regarding climate change, the earth will decide when it has had enough of humans and there’s not a damn thing we can do about it. That’s not to say preserving and stewarding our planet isn’t a priority, but imo, the people who scream the loudest tend to acquit themselves of their own personal responsibility - Why go against your own self interests? Every animal does the same. The issue is when does it become a big enough problem that it alters society in fundamentally harmful ways? - Which leads to the most important point. No one should have the power others what to think, feel or act. This is modern progressive ideology currently. If you want to live a certain way, that is your right. If you want to inform others, that’s also fine. The slippery slope becomes when you believe your values trump everything else. At the core, this the biggest problems humans are currently facing. Once you start on a road to the stance that a certain ideology is the only valid one, it leads to places many can’t fathom. We have gotten to this point in history by refining our modes, institutions and behavior, but there are certain aspects that make us human that are currently under debate we need or not. To abandon these principles would no longer make us human. While I speak in generalities, it’s clear this is bigger than vegan vs carnivore. And most certainly you can straw man my arguments, but the last point is one few even consider
The main problem I have is the call of moral superiority. One should usually take someone for a grain of salt if they claim they are morally superior, their way of life is morally superior and/or that you should conform to their way of life. I understand that can be contradictory because we could say the same thing about how what we deem criminals should conform to our laws. It is undoubted that we live in a major tiered system. You can listen to Bill Gate’s Ted Talk about population management. _Elites_ don’t see most of the population as humans at all really. Just a combination of things to use and problems to solve.
"Humans are adapted to eat meat. There are Inuit whose only source of food is meat, for example. Like other animals, we are omnivores and this biological fact negates any argument about can we eat meat" Nobody is arguing that inuits should go vegan. The argument is that people in civilized western societies who are able to go vegan, should. "Regarding climate change, the earth will decide when it has had enough of humans and there’s not a damn thing we can do about it. That’s not to say preserving and stewarding our planet isn’t a priority, but imo, the people who scream the loudest tend to acquit themselves of their own personal responsibility" I don't fully understand this argument so no comment. "Why go against your own self interests? Every animal does the same. The issue is when does it become a big enough problem that it alters society in fundamentally harmful ways?" Because we are moral agents, meaning we can judge right from wrong. Animals can't do this, at least to the level which humans can. Animals are able to suffer, so why would we eat them if we don't need to? That's unnecessary. "Which leads to the most important point. No one should have the power others what to think, feel or act. This is modern progressive ideology currently. If you want to live a certain way, that is your right. If you want to inform others, that’s also fine. The slippery slope becomes when you believe your values trump everything else." If we followed this, we wouldn't even have a society. A society needs to set boundaries to what is okay and what is not. This is why we have laws for example. If we didn't have the power to affect how people think, feel or act, I could go around raping and murdering people and being a bigot. Fortunately this is not the case, as I will be punished. Now eating animals is not illegal, but neither was anything else before it was made illegal.
@@PauIdenino You misunderstood everything I said. It didn’t help that I wrote in generalities but I didn’t want to get entangled in semantics. Think about what you wrote about raping and murdering and then apply that to any ideology that forces those ideas unto others. You are coming from an emotional viewpoint. Please understand that is not a valid point on which to start. Reread my statements and then your responses and realize you’re making my argument for me
@@PauIdenino "Now eating animals is not illegal, but neither was anything else before it was made illegal." Dumbest comment I've seen all day yea guess what many things that were illegal (weed and alcohol) are now being legal so what? You explained the process of law
I respect the logic brought forth but I think pragmatism is heavily undervalued in the vegan moral conversation. The factory farming industrial complex makes so many valid points null because of how little impact words have on it. As Clarence said at the end, he believes its about 'advocating the right message' but how will that message apply to low income families/ citizens of third world countries? How relevant is that message to people that are not in a society that could support a vegan lifestyle? How valid is it when eating meat is desensitized through cultural traditions, media, and other societal pillars. Zoning in on factory farming disregards many vegan moral factors but it would disassemble the industrial complex enough to allow more individual choices to have a meaningful impact. We can't possibly have large numbers of livestock that are also treated well. It would immediately cause us to reduce the amount of harm done to animals since we cannot keep the population as large. This would intern make meat more expensive and deter consumption by a degree. With meat more expensive and in a smaller quantity, it allows more people to align their morals on eating meat with the factors of their every day survival. (example: "hmmm we haven't had meat in awhile but its really expensive. I didn't even really like the meat when we ate it last and that YT video I saw the other day grossed me out, Tofu it is...) Increasing more humane practices allows buffer time for the idea of veganism to come forth. Confronting people with moral conundrums that don't reflect their reality only causes people to ignore you from cognitive dissonance. Animals have been killed, are being killed , and will be killed. 'advocating the right message' in my opinion is the slowest most morally safe view in my opinion that won't get much done except for benefit on a personal level. Just saying "don't eat meat" leaves you with an all or nothing outcome. You either agree and stop or disagree and continue. Focus on factory farming on the other hand allows people with differing opinions to collaborate and reduce harm. Animals are still being killed but the alternative option does nothing in reality to confront this problem.
@Chidori457 your comment was incorrect. Plants contain phytoestrogens(plant estrogens), which can bind to your estrogen receptors, but can’t actually do anything. Animal products contain mammalian estrogen and oestrogen, which can bind to your estrogen receptors and function(because you’re a mammal). I can’t remember the study exactly but it looked average testosterone levels across meat-eaters, vegetarians and vegans. It found something along the lines of meat-eaters having the lowest average levels of testosterone, vegetarians 8% higher, and vegans 13% higher.
@Chidori457 The phrase is “couldn’t care less”, please don’t embarrass yourself. You just told me you do care. Have fun, random, angry stranger from the land of freedumb.
I think these discussions will be way more fruitful once people accept that nobody's really living their lives going by absolute moral values. That line of thinking may work when dealing with strictly defined philosophical concepts but not when we're talking about everyday lives because we're always balancing multiple values and making shoddy judgement calls by them. So no need to catch others about hypocrisy on every other sentence, it's a given. That's how people are. Wild animal population control is a good example. I wouldn't bat an eye if a die hard vegan was totally ok with shooting a bunch of deer because I understand that we're dealing with different issues, different values. Just like we care about a person next door dying compared to a person in a different country dying. Just like dog is in a different category than, say, a chicken. Again, that's how people are and it'll hinder communication if we pretend otherwise. This isn't specifically a critique of this video, it's just something I tend to think quite often when I see videos about veganism. Don't know if many actually relate.
Precisely. This was an underlying condition that had to be considered all the time in my engineering ethics class in college. As an engineer, you have multiple obligations. At times, these obligations can and will conflict. Compromises have to be made in these cases. This applies to everything in life because we do not live in a perfect philosophical world, obviously, otherwise there would be minimal if any issues in the world.
I don't think humane killing is an oxymoron. It simply means it is done to reduce or minimize pain in the process. For example, when someone has a pet put down, they kill them humanely.
@RipeApple Why can you not minimize pain and suffering in an animal meant to be eaten? Instead of an animal meant to be a companion? Animals can be killed without suffering whether they are a companion or livestock.
@RipeApple I never said anything about the animal suffering though. Pets get put down in pounds all the time even when they aren't terminally ill. It's still humane.
@RipeApple Being "terminally ill" is a form of suffering so yes, you did mention suffering and yes, you still brought it up first. You're trying to weasel out of the point by focusing on word games and it just makes you look like you don't have an argument. That point being that pets are put down humanely in situations that don't involve their suffering at all like when they're terminally ill as you said. The definition of being humane doesn't include all that you're adding to it. It simply requires minimizing pain. It's therefore by definition humane even if you don't like it personally.
Each day my belief that people should just step back a bit and listen to what the greatest geniuses in history (Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, among others) have to say about matters instead of blindly formulating their opinions is strengthened
This is fine in the gym and all, but in every fed I know of, the first 20 kg or 25 kg plates are put on with writing facing towards the middle of the bar and then the rest of the plates are put on in the opposite direction so the side judges can read them😂. This actually makes taking them off easier. Especially when they’re thin calibrated plates
Clarence, there is a very good thought experiment which I think can easily debunk a lot of carnist bullshit. What if instead of deriving joy from the taste of meat, people derived joy directly from the suffering of the animal? Would carnists be able to justify directly torturing animals for pleasure, instead of the roundabout method of consuming their organs? I don’t think any one would consider that moral and be able to justify it. Meanwhile these two propositions are essentially morally equivalent if you ask me (in most cases at least).
I like this argument. Cosmic Skeptic also has a good one, where instead of the taste of meat, it’s the sound of the animal being killed that people enjoyed.
@@kevinlee4449 yep I heard this argument from cosmic skeptic too lol, I think it's in a video called "why I eat dog meat". It's a good way to demonstrate how the "animal suffering is worth the taste pleasure to humans" argument only exists because of how big the disconnect is.
You are saying that any animal born to be eaten is suffering? And an animal born to be eaten can't live and die without suffering? If you are saying that just being born and living is suffering then we should self destruct/kill off all humans because we are all suffering by living, and considering humans have such high morality we can't let ourselves live because living is suffering.
What if the suffering of animals could sustain your body? People eat meat for pleasure but ignoring the historical precedent of survival as a driving factor and the economic reality of billions of people who eat meat for food not just for fun is also questionable. I think you’d still have people promoting the animal torture if it kept people fed.
@16:00 it's better than that: humans kill wolves and badgers and wolverines in order to range cattle, which need to move more frequently because herbivores explode cuz no natural predators
I feel like the worst part of Mike's argument was where he used the argument of the vegan and the pig locked in a room. It is essentially the same argument vegans hear all the time: "If you were stranded on an island with only pigs to eat, you MUST admit you would eat the pig". First, the dilemma is INCREDIBLY contrived: when has a vegan ever found themselves in that situation. It deflects away from the ethical dilemma that millions of people go through every day; "will I actively choose to buy meat at this grocery store when it is unnecessary or not?" The vegan-pig room dilemma also ignores that basically every vegan, when asked, says that in survival situations it is ok to eat meat, as per the moral hierarchy Mike himself mentions. Vegans are fundamentally concerned with the vast majority of the population that DOESN'T need meat for survival. Finally, his conclusion, that if the pig (or any omnivore/carnivore, for that matter) would eat the vegan, then it is justified for humans to do the same. This is essentially an appeal to nature. Personally I think that if humans are naturally more moral beings, it is imperative for us to rise to the occasion and not to stoop to the level of other, less morally equipped species. Really enjoyed your video Clarence, and I'm glad you and Mike are contributing to an actually constructive discussion about veganism in the fitness world.
This is a case of simple hypotheticals being taken literally. You do not need the extreme situation suggested to make the point, it’s just simpler. Choose like Clarence does a crocodile or alligator, both creatures will happily kill a human or other animal and eat it. The moral argument from this point would go something like, why should I respect this animals comfort and life if it would not respect mine? This isn’t to say I think this argument is flawless by any means but attacking the throw away hypothetical is a one off and meaningless way of rejecting it as we all know hypotheticals are meant to be simplified statements to demonstrate one thing to the exclusion of other nuances. Looking at a hypothetical and getting annoyed about the excluded nuances is ludicrous.
Interesting topic. Thanks for sharing your insights and Mike's vid. I have a few unanswered questions though: you mention there are no benefits from eating meat other than taste or luxery. However, I eat chicken, beef, fish and eggs to reach my recommended 200 grams of daily protein. I am not convinced I can get the same results if I only get my protein from broccoli, quinoa, zucchini, spinach and potatoes. I am also unsure whether I can get enough vitamin B12, omega 3, iron, calcium, zinc, by just eating naturally occuring vegtables, fruits, roots, nuts etc. And last of all, are all those meat replacers and plant based products actually healthy? I have eaten some veggie based 'chicken'-bits and even though they are not bad when mixed in my cooking and I am not convinced all the manmade products are any good.. At the moment, I eat meat 3 times a week (no pork), fish 2 times a week and 2 days vegan.
I understand the hesitancy to take supplements, but ultimately it is a bit unfounded because most farmed animals are given supplements (and worse antibiotics, hormones, etc.). For vegans, Vitamin B12 supplement is important. Also if living in a non-sunny climate, Vitamin D supplement is probably a good thing as well. All the other nutrients can be sourced from whole plant foods. For example, omega 3 is found in seeds (e.g. flax, hemp) or seaweed. Calcium is in green vegetables, but it's not just calcium that is important, e.g. magnesium is also important and that is found in oatmeal. When it comes to protein (and iron), legumes (e.g. lentils, chickpeas, mung beans, etc.) are an economical source. For fats, extra virgin olive oil is good as a dressing, while coconut milk/oil is good for cooking, and nuts for snacking. I haven't got much experience with meat replacers, but I don't know if they are meant to be eaten all the time (they are fairly expensive too). I think their main purpose is for people who get cravings -- it's kind of the equivalent of fast food for vegans so I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't healthy.
16:05 But reducing racism is exactly what we have done throughout the past 50 years, no? Unfortunately I don't think the human race is capable of making large leaps forward in terms of improving morals. The fastest way to see change it to take smaller steps first, realistically. If the end goal is to stop animal suffering then trying to advocate for more humane farming seems like a step in the right direction, even if its not ideal.
Why is the moral high ground always the number one concern? Does acknowledging something as morally correct mean that you have to abide by it? It would be morally good for me to donate my entire bank account to charity, but the benefits of having money in my bank account take priority over the moral high ground, just as the conveniences of having meat in my diet out weigh the moral high ground. However, if lab meat were to come about, having organic meat over lab meat in my diet is not so important that I wouldn't abide by moral conventions and go vegan then. I probably wouldn't tbh but you get my point. People can acknowledge that they aren't morally perfect and be okay with it, it seems like a tiring life to always be selfless. It's probably just as tiring to live a guilty life as I'm sure that's why many people go vegan. I think we all do things to feel better about ourselves at the end of the day, and some people simply do not care.
11:00 Lab meat is having the cow and eating it too. I eat meat while recognizing its inherently less moral than abstaining. The cultural factors and the effort it would take for me to change that aspect of my life outweighs the moral guilt, for now. I can see how that seems illogical in that I must not think its immoral because I continue to partake? I don't have a great answer as to why it's not, but I don't think it is. It isn't unusual at least. It's similar to driving a car, using unclean electricity, participating in consumerism and any number of activities that are common but have negative effects. Perhaps it hinges on the definition of "immoral"?
I think that's a fair point that is overlooked a lot, but plenty of vegans are optimistic that as it becomes easier more people will go vegan. I'm pretty honest with people that i'm not really a food person and i really enjoy controlling aspects to my life (restricting my calories, doing a vegan diet) and live in a country where it's relatively easy and has quite a high vegan population, so i really can't pretend me going vegan is as hard as it is for other people
That's called cognitive dissonance. It's a very normal part of human existence. Nobody's perfect. I think it's important to remember that an immoral action does not make you an inhertently immoral person! You've grown up in a system that normalizes this, and it's hard to get away from it. I respect your honesty :) hope one day the scales tip on that moral decision
That's very well put. I fall somewhere similar to you. I guess the positive thing for me personally is, I'm thinking about food choices more and more before I eat and eating less and less meat. It's going to be a journey but ultimately I hope to wind up totally vegetarian before long and maybe vegan down the line somewhere.
WOW! I'm a huge fan of both you and Dr. Mike and RP, and I've been basically addicted to everything RP for about a year now. You made some very strong arguments, and as always, you are just pure class, intelligent, gentle and respectful. I'm very interested to see Dr. Mike's response. Can you please recommend some low-calorie high-protein vegan foods - I'd like to either go vegan or at least live more sustainably, but I haven't found vegan sources of protein that come close to egg whites, cottage cheese and chicken breast... I'm super open to suggestions. You and Dr. Mike should do a collab on that topic, maybe. :)
@@silasnew15 Haven't found tofu I liked yet. I found soy isolate and other vegan protein powders to be pretty good. Also, I kind of learned how to eat better over the past year.
Why would you switch to lab meat when it become available if you don’t have no moral problem with eating meat? I’d say that because a lot of meat eaters are aware that the meat industry creates problem, but they simply love too much their chuck eye or sirloin steak to give it up. Being aware of an issue isn’t enough to get people to change their habits.
I disagree with the argument that sentience = moral value. If that were true, we would be morally obligated to kill a 4 year old child before an adult or an older child or even a crow since crows have actually the mental capacities of older than a 5 year old child. So I very much disagree that you can determine someones moral value based on their assumed level of sentience.
Arguably a child is less of an issue to kill than an adult, since the child has 0 present loss from the greater pool of 'things done'. An adult is already developed, so requires less fuel/effort to get to a useful (assuming general loose definitions of utility) point of development point of development than a child would. A child offers little vale besides your emotional attachment and potential ability, but that ability comes at the cost that the adult's already gained ability does not. This is assuming the two models are identical other than periods of development. Obviously some children will be more useful and able at a later stage than the adult already there, again depending on your definition of utility. So logically (whatever that means) killing a child rather than an adult makes more sense. To say either is more or less moral is messy. What do you mean by morality? Is it something fixed, variable across participants? Using the term 'morality' or 'moral value' as an all powerful, immutably defined term whilst actually having no objective meaning for the term is silly.
You could just as easily argue the opposite - that killing the child is worse because they have more of their life to lose, more unfulfilled potential, etc. than the adult. Whereas a pig’s or other animal’s ultimate faculties/potentials are much lower than a human child’s would be. Hence they have less to lose by dying, although they still shouldn’t be wantonly killed or abused, since they still obviously have a capacity for suffering and it is ontologically good for them to exist.
It's great to see more and more people in the fitness youtube/industry talking positively about veganism. I bet that at least some of Mike's viewers will try going vegan. It's also great to see you making more videos of this type.
He thinks if you put two humans in a room and don't feed them some won't kill each other either lol? people will beat the shit out of each other for a TV on black friday or if there's toilet roll shortages.
I think the fact Mike made a video on the topic mean Avi and VG planted a seed in his head, he's trying to play some mental gymnastics to rationalise what he's doing. I think with enough rebuttals like your video he may eventually just change his mind.
rationalize behavior of humans eating meat for literally thousands of years. You seem to want to beat the "nature of the animal" out of humans. How about people still judging other people by looks? Again, it's human nature just like eating meat is human nature. You made a choice to not eat meat, that's your right. Just like it's mine to eat meat. The question should be how do you best organize such an industry that animals have good lives (best possible) instead of denying its existence.
@@Cenot4ph You're using an appeal to nature fallacy to justify this though, have you looked around lately? Cars, mobile phones, houses, microwaves etc nothing we do in modern society is natural or resembles other animals there's no "nature of the animal" to beat. We don't act like other animals in modern society. How about using your intelligence to make the optimal choice in life ideally one without enslaved victims knowing you don't have to.
@@zodd67 oh okay so love is just something unnatural, attraction is unnatrural, eating vegetables IS natural, but eating animals is unnatural. It is you that picks and chooses for convenience. You can't ignore that we're omnivores and as such have a mixed diet. Now use your intelligence and try again
@@Cenot4ph Love and attraction do not have victims, eating animals when you don't have to does. We don't need meat to live and be healthy. What evidence do you have we're omnivores I don't want anecdotes or canines as a reason, there's videos of deer eating birds, doesn't mean we consider them omnivores.
I think a big problem is when something is tied to the economy, regardless of how unethical and harmful it is, it will always be justified by people (especially Americans) who value profit and capitalism more than anything else. So as meat free products become more profitable and accessible, you will see a bigger cultural trend towards veganism. I get why vegans go straight for the ethical argument, but unfortunately the world is driven by money and not by morality
For me, I have no objections to going vegan. I currently am not because 1. I like meat. 2. Vegan and vegetarian meat substitutes are more costly. 3. I ain't made of money. If and when meat substitutes cost just as much if not less, are just as easily accessible, and have similar enough macros, I'll start buying them. I have thought about the ethical argument of veganism and I simply don't care enough at this point. It isn't a strong enough argument alone to convince me.
@@sergiocalderon6325 I agree! I think it takes a bit of a shift in mindset tho in terms of the food you’re eating. Maybe look at cheaper alternatives first like lentils and beans? I know their macros aren’t the same as a chicken breast or a steak but if you just tweak your meal a tiny bit you won’t be missing out on much. On your last point, when I first stopped eating meat it was purely for the health reasons after I read ‘how not to die’ and ‘proteinaholic’, the ethical and environmental arguments only really appealed to me a year after being vegan. My advice to anyone who asks me about it is just to switch a few meals a week to meat free and progress from there :)
I've been vegan for seven years for health, ethical and environmental reasons. Cured my high cholesterol and pre diabetes. I eat a high quality vegan diet and not a junk food vegan diet. I've been working out for the last 8 or 9 months with the primary focus on getting stronger with really good results. My shoulders are outgrowing my shirts and I turn 65 in about two weeks. Go vegan!
Are plants alive and do they have a inteligence. How much land do you need to feed the entire populace(deforestation). Is it better to eat everything created in a lab then eating it naturally. Is it better to do nothing instead of doing things a bit better
You were never vegan if you currently eat animal products, its not a switch that you can turn on and off at will. Stop thinking about yourself and think about the victims of your choices
Boars and other wildlife especially in Australia and Texas like ferrel pigs cause an enormous amount of damage to land n plants from them rutting around, in Australia Kangaroo populations if not controlled will end up getting to a point where they trample down all the vegetation and starve. Imo it's all about balance. The ammount of land alot of these farms take completely takeout the wildlife and make the ecosystem unihabitable for just about everything. The industrialization of the way we get our food causes the most damage. Livestock grazing at least leaves the rabbits bird's insects, n all that with a complete ecosystem. There's no perfect solution where food prices would skyrocket and people would go hungry with alot of the other options, so it's just kinda wingin it with what we got.
@farorin I was more bringing up the point that it's a complicated problem and there's no real good solution besides trying to figure out a balanced approach. Soybean field displace so much native wildlife, which is "harming" way more animals, so which is a better way? Imo there's isn't really a perfect solution, but we could be doing better if we took a more balanced approach and uses all methods vs goin at each other over "who harms the most animals" I think we can all understand no one likes havin to kill things, but it's a part of nature and people need to take the whole picture into account
@farorin also it's easier you just kill em vs sterilization especially with the boar problem since they reproduce so quickly. I'm not super informed on alot of the subjects, but I just roll my eyes when one side goes in on the other when they both are doing the same thing in different ways as far as it goes for "harming animals"
@farorin I'm not talking specifically soybeans, im more just talking areas full of just 1 type of vegitation. The amount of animals farm land displaces. I'm not trying to say eating meat is better if that's what you think I'm saying. I'm more just talking about being Vegan isn't perfect, and it matters where your veggies come down to it. If you are Vegan mainly for the animals, and that's something you care about, it should be more in the conversation because more n more habitats are bein taken out for more n more things, not just farm land, and it's not as talked about, and I think if it was more would be done about it
People need to get over using the theoretical perception of pain as a scale for how moral/immoral killing animals is. Pain is not simply the ability to sense noxious stimuli. There are complex cognitive processes which influence how that stimulus is interpreted. Humans quite obviously have very different experiences of pain from one another. Even the context in which a noxious stimulus is perceived will greatly effect the interpretation. Thats why a rugby player can walk off the field feeling great and then find bruises all over their body the next day. If you learn a little about chronic pain you realise pain is multifaceted. Animals have very different social constructs and cognitive function. I don't think it is valid to assert that any animal experiences pain in the same way we do. It is of course possible that animals have a worse experience when perceiving noxious stimulus. I would argue that a wild animal that is shot by a hunter through the lungs or heart and dies within a couple of minutes probably doesn't feel what we would think of as pain. They would be thrust into a sympathetic response and have a dump of adrenalin. Very quickly they would be losing blood pressure and going into shock. The world would go black. Realistically this is a better death than most of us can hope for. That doesn't mean it is right to shoot a deer. I'm just saying that the method of dispatch and the supposed pain the animal experiences is bad reasoning to say that it is wrong.
Hey Clarence, I think you could make some of the same arguments that you are making more hard hitting. Humans want to think as little as possible while listening which makes it really important to stay simple with the arguments and even the sentences. Im not a native english speaker so for me those "problems" are getting amplified. Like the argument with the pig that would eat the Human, you went even further by opening another hypothecy which makes it harder to follow. Nevertheless all your arguments were logical and i hope i could help.
@@thunderball11111 I notice you didn't say what the difference is, or why it's relevant, but the point remains: believing or judging something to be wrong but doing the wrong thing anyway is weakness of the will.
@@doubleoblit The difference is between emotion (in my opinion usually due to experience or conditioning) and a more detached reasoned conclusion. Mike could have decided that eating meat is morally inferior but not truly feel that way emotionally yet or perhaps ever. The reason I call the difference big is because if you feel something is wrong emotionally you’re very unlikely to do it but if you have just decided it is wrong you’re quite likely to still do it. You could argue that not acting on that rational conclusion is weakness of will but personally I view it as a lack of any will at all. Therefore he may not truly believe his conclusion yet and consequentially have no true desire/will to act on it. I would view it as a weakness of will if he felt emotionally that what he was doing was wrong but then continued to do it despite this feeling for say the sake of pleasure.
Ive never understood the hunting argument and the culling, it's the complete opposite of the natural process where the weakest don't survive as hunters tend to kill the largest and biggest animals.. this tends to destabilize populations causing unintended side effects...
Culls kill everything, cull hunting doesn’t target prime animals unless there is a reason to do so such as them being the breeding population. The point is simply to reduce the animals numbers as they are destroying their environment.
I mean... that's not really a good thing. You're basically saying that you are more concerned about your relationship to an individual than the individual itself. That's egoism.
@@doubleoblit It is however more accurate to how normal human morality functions and there are numerous philosophical arguments that revolve around it and support its validity as a form of ethics. So your opinion that it is bad is just that, your opinion.
@@thunderball11111 lol what are you talking about? Egoism *is* a moral philosophy; there are not multiple forms of ethics *around* egoism because any egoistic form of ethics is contained *within* the category of egoism. Your statement is even logically coherent. As far as human morality goes, the idea that it is egoistic is bullshit. Philosophers like Hobbes and Bentham built their theories on top of different forms of egoism but they simply don't work. Egoism isn't taken seriously by contemporary philosophers because it doesn't work. I also want to point out that you said there are multiple theories in support of it and you named none of them. Do you think this is an intelligent way to argue? If so, there are numerous philosophical theories saying that dragons exist, so your opinion that dragons don't exist is just that, your opinion. Please don't respond until you think of something smart to say.
@@doubleoblit How people act in day to day life proves that relational morality is how humans operate. We care more about those we are familiar with and see regularly and will treat them better than others. Whether that is logical to you or to me isn’t my point. It’s a simple observation. I’ll bother addressing the rest of what you’ve said once I’ve heard back regarding your views on this.
@@thunderball11111 lol Jesus fuck... First of all, a statement about the way all humans operate morally is not "a simple observation" unless you are God. You are making a universal claim about moral psychology. Such claims are neither simple nor observations. Second, observations of a physical state of affairs are compatible with numerous mental states of affairs. Example: I raise in a hand of poker. You observe this act. You cannot deduce from this whether I am bluffing, semi-bluffing, raising for value, mistaken about the cards I am holding, etc. Third, it is not in dispute that people care more about the individuals in their lives than about individuals they don't know or know about. Absolutely nobody disputes this fact.
With lab made meat, i still dont understand why everyone just asumes it will be better for the enviorment etc, compared to what we do now. Maybe it will, but if the whole world would switch from real meat to lab made meat, id asume their would have to be gigantic factories to make that lab meat, still needing supply chains of recourses send to those factories and packaging it and sending it back around the world again. Now i understand that that stays the same the packaging and shipping of recources but to just asume that the process of lab made meat will be better then real meat, to me it just sounds like gospel that everone believes before its even tested or reality.
Lab grown meat is utter crap, in terms of nutrition and for the environment. We need organic, regeneratively raised ruminants on the land to create healthy soils. Nature has the answer, and will always be the way
@@Connor6569 Lab grown meat is just as "natural" as any selectively bred Frankenstein cow or sheep. What we need is to preserve natural habitat so that WILD ruminants, predators, insects, etc. can repopulate and balance the ecosystem.
@@mistahkurtz2351 How is something grown in a lab natural? That's completely unnatural. Through regenerative ag we can repopulate and balance the ecosystem, while providing a high quality food source
@@Connor6569 Lab grown meat is just a technology, and domesticated ruminants are also a man-made technology. The word "natural" only makes sense when discussing natural habitat, reserves, etc. "Regenerative agriculture" still requires farmers to kill wild animals (e.g. deer, leopards, tigers, wolves, etc.) that are competition or threaten their artificial herds. Wild animals make up less than 5% of mammalian biomass, so anyone with the slightest concern about ecology would be advocating FEWER domesticated animals so that wild animals can repopulate.
@@mistahkurtz2351 Actually completely the opposite. Go watch someone like Greg Judy. He kills no wild animals, and has now more diversity in terms of plants and animals than ever before. Before there were ruminants the land was in disrepute. Selective breeding for traits is not the same as chemically grown crap
I respect the content and values in this video fully. Having said that I did not find a single squat in this video which caught me off guard.
you actually believe in climate propaganda lol
And THIS is discussion , not a drama
That’s what we like about good ol’ Clarence. He respects opinions but offers his side for perspective
@@aidans_journey02 I agree not a lot of people do this.
I would eat just broccoli alone if it made me squat like Clarence
Don't know until you try. Gorilla like diet 5kg green veg + 5kg fruit.
Probably take a while to get used to. Juicing would make it easier
@@ksitigarbha9787 Imagine the shi#s from that! 😳
roids would help
@@Shagley at least you wouldn't have to push lol
It won’t lol, only roids will make you squat like this roid junkie
Mike went way deeper into the philosophy of the whole thing than I expected.
Did you see his debate with Avi?
This is why I respect Mike because he's ready to challenge his beliefs and look at the science
True but he still needs a bigger shovel
His not a just a random meat head but a highly educated former professor. I was surprised, but not that much as the philosophy of science, ethics etc is something you have to go trough and he probably has tought some philosophical courses.
Mike likes to LARP as a philosopher because he’s read Thomas Sowell and that makes him a genius and completely unique in the world of philosophy/politics
Didn't expect to see a kenny vs spenny clip here
Only one way to settle it. Huge leg workout. Winner takes all.
🤣🤣🤣😂😂 It'd be unfair. We have hydraulic fork lift vs a regular guy
There will be some huge quads
@@MrSamoannn wouldn't call Dr Mike average lmao
Great stuff, Clarence 👏
@The Horny Vegan's Little Brother people are not herbivores
Now quit being a coward and debate Avi
@@ve_rboof there’s some drama between them? Is it about veganism or some other topic? What’s the proposition?
@@jaredbowen3527 yea. Basically he subscribes to Greger’s bogus heart disease reversal claims and when Avi offered to debate him on it hench made a video crying about Avi bullying him lol. Also culling carnivores
Me, watching this video while eating chicken breast: "Excellent point Clarence... flawless argument."
The cognitive dissonance is real.
That's so funny because it was actually me before I went vegan.
I remember trying to convince my friends to go vegan after we were done eating some chicken wings. :D
Too real
Dude, same. Gotta take that last step and be about it instead of just talk about it
That's really funny, now that you're done joking around, maybe consider stop funding animal abuse?
@@Lb-ri5wr No.
Really appreciating this discussion.
Go on Clarence!!! Was waiting for this. My G.
I think Mike tried to take a very practical analysis and keep morality separated to a few moral points. While Clarence is still looking at the moral implications of those practical considerations.
I do find both of their videos very interesting and entertaining and will continue thinking about the subject.
oh ye, mike is a way too intelligent meathead that is entangled in numbers and statistics (and i mean that in a good way). first and foremost he always will argue with data, thats how he works. literally all his thousands of hours of content in the industry is pretty much no opinions where we have enaugh data
I didn't expect to be convinced, but I can't really argue with any of your points. Thank you.
I'm very thankful that you're adressing the video and speaking out for the vegan lifestyle. You present your standpoints in a manner I can identify with and think you're a strong ambassador for the vegan movement - especially since there are very sensitive hindrances and a lot of opposition. So, yeah: Thank you, Clarence! Great video!
@@BluePlanet1337 Glad you took your time to let me know
I wouldn't be surprised if he just decided to go vegan even before lab grown meat
Yeah, it’s obvious he sees there is no real argument against it and he’s slowly working his way towards it.
Agreed I can totally see Mike going vegan within the next several years if not months.
@@kevinlee4449 there’s hundreds of arguments against it...you watch these people like Clarence (who I respect the fuck out of) talk unchecked. There’s countless times in this video where I could interject with counterpoints and I’m not the most educated human for the debate. My interjections would take Clarence to his own and it’d be a whole different discussion.....I hate these videos where people just talk on a dab at bel topic completely unchecked. Clarence is providing those checks to mike right now, some of them valid some of them not. But most people who saw mikes video won’t see this.......this is why we have people who believe the earth is flat. Any intelligent person can talk for ten minutes and make a good argument for something if they go completely unchecked the entire time.
@@youretotallyrightbut463 Please give a couple of those interjections. I have not seen a good argument for eating meat outside of survival situations.
@@youretotallyrightbut463 The counterpoints are always fucking ridiculous. Let’s hear some
I get all my nutrition from Clarence's PR videos
Thanks for this. I feel like Mike is pretty close to going Vegan imo. It sounds like he has thought about this a lot
At the end of the day, amino acids are amino acids, aren't they? I doubt that the human body has some sort of intrinsic mechanism to differentiate between the sources of amino acids. If you get everything you need from plant matter, would your body even notice or even care?
@@toximan2008 I think as long as you meet your macros and micros in either diet your body wouldn't be able to tell the difference. If you're getting more of something in one diet than the other maybe there could be a small difference?
ruclips.net/video/A7sHlB4Yxb8/видео.html
@@toximan2008 I feel like it does, even when meeting correct nutrients without meat at some point body feels like its lacking and unsatisfied ,unbalanced. Tho lately most food makes me sleepy so i eat very little mostly veggies bit of meat 1fruit and fast for most of time
@@leniobarcelos1770 that's just and opinion, means shit
Is this a dream! Clarence finally talking about vegan ethics!
Well done Clarence, solid points nice work!!👊🏼🌱❤️
3:18 Animals may be capable of experiencing more intense levels of pain than humans - this is not talked nearly enough
who cares?
@@fornever5656 i dont know man , you ?
@@fornever5656 What a disgusting thing to say.
@@fornever5656 the animals themselves and decent people
@@fornever5656 the animals and the people who care about them...
I will never understand how up in arms people get about abused dogs yet they don’t gaf about abuse of the animals they eat, or people who think it’d be disgusting to drink human breast milk but drink milk from other animals. I asked my meat eating friend the other day if she would eat dog meat and she was disgusted and offended by the question. Where’s the logic?
Social conditioning
It really is mind boggling
Well it's because humans and dogs have had an extremely close relationship for thousands of years. Dogs have played the role of a companion to humans, other animals have played the role of food & sustenance.
It's not that confusing. Dogs are pets, most people have interacted with them a lot, sometimes daily, for years. They attribute meaning and personality and consciousness to the dog and they would do the same for a pig or a cow if they had the chance to interact with it as much. Most people honestly don't even make the connection that their bacon or burger used to be a living thing because society has developed in such a way that large denies the average person an avenue to develop that level of empathy for their food.
To me it’s like thinking people only have the capacity to understand that racism against groups they regularly interact with is wrong but have no reason to see a problem with racism against groups that aren’t represented in their community. Sure some people think that way but once their POV is challenged I don’t think it’s too much to ask that they be able to recognize a logical fallacy when it’s pointed out to them.
Clarence with the 200 IQ analysis. Every point was well thought out and made complete sense.
Clarence, would you ever eat lab grown meat if the environmental impact was on par with what it is for crop farming? Thanks for inspiring me to move towards a more plant based diet.
Probably not because of saturated fat, cholesterol, and heme iron
I presume he wouldn't have ethical concerns with it as long as it caused no harm to animals throughout the process. Same as if meat just magically materialisee out of nowhere, its not eating meat that's the issue, its how its produced, that's why leather, wool etc. arent vegan
@@landonp.4073 Neither of those are as bad as people claim they are tbh, eating food containing them every once in a while is benign. As the saying goes, it's the dose that makes a poison.
Clarence said in the past that his main reasons for being vegan is due to health reasons. So probably not.
@@64wy4x8s nah he said ethical
Mike basically just said why should we show respect to things that can't respect us. lol
Yeah. Hes right.
@@ArisenMind So I shouldnt show respect to my pets? or a toddler? They cant show respect.
@@zephyrus3554No, he said that you could make a moral argument based on an animals lack of issue with eating meat to survive. That’s not a matter of respect it’s a matter of survival. The issue with this argument would be that we do not need to survive by killing animals.
The Kenny vs spenny clip 1:58 had me in tears 😂 your a man of culture Clarence
That was a great episode lol
We do cull humans. We just call it war.
Yep, for fundamentally the sane reasons too.
You have something I want or you are a threat to something I own.
Mike is definitely wrong about the ethics of eating animals.
Not entirely, he made good points in his video
Vay kral hangi argümanları etik açıdan yanlış buldun
@@clarence0 Just because as humans some of us do have the options of not killing and eating animals does not make it morally wrong to eat animals as long as we have a subjective reason to eat that animal whether it be taste, culture, or survival. The morality of eating animals is completely subjective and you can never compare that to the morals that we have for our own species.
@@Sean-ev7tu Why cant we compare?
CLARENCE UPLOADED GO GO GO
moral absolutism and lack of coherent understand of consciousness, including how consciousness exists in plants, renders these points invalid.
Plants aren't conscious and even if they were it takes a lot more plants to feed to lifestock than eat it directly
I've been waiting for a video like this!!! It was refreshing to see Mike's video but there were some things in there that felt off to me as a vegan... Thank you for your great perspective as always Clarence
I’m glad my computer doesn’t have any moral values 🙄😬
Idk why the breeding part is often missing in these arguments, we're talking about harming and killing millions of animals VS them not existing at all which to me makes the issue even greater.
Do you mean that if we stop eating meat then there'll be less farm animals alive, and that's a bad thing? If so then consider that an animal would never have to suffer to NOT come into existence, but would have to suffer to LEAVE existence. It's similar to saying condoms and other birth control is murder. If that's not what you meant then my bad
@@forerunner6629 I'm saying not inflicting an horrible existence meant only to end in misery to millions of beings is probably a good thing. We agree I think :)
@@dubsteak Oops, I misunderstood, sorry! 😅 I agree with you completely
@forerunner
I like your argument, because I hate when people bring up the “they’d never get to experience life if we didn’t breed them for meat” argument. The birth control take is a good one that I hadn’t thought to use before.
I lost it at "Grandma ages into low IQ: She Goes?" lmao
Having only "humane farms" would make forests mostly disappear because of how much space you would need to feed cows for example. Which of course would make global climate change even worse.
I think you don't understand how much wide open, currently unfarmable land there is just in the US alone that would benefit from regenerative livestock practices
@@urgamecshk I think you don't understand how many square meters of native forests are being cut down each day to make space for many things including livestock.
@@CCSABCD You completely missed the point of Julius' comment. If you have ever been to the west side of the US, then you would know that there are millions of acres of unused land that NEVER have had forests on them. Not all land contains forests.
I think this is overcomplicated. If you need to spend an hour justifying something, it's probably bad. I don't want to pay people who kill baby animals so I don't eat eggs and dairy. I don't want to eat something that could cry or love, so I won't eat animals. Simple as.
I have never considered going vegan until this video
That's how it gets you, the logic simply doesn't add up when trying to justify it in modern society.
ruclips.net/video/A7sHlB4Yxb8/видео.html
@@leniobarcelos1770 Have already disliked that one, but thanks for the reminder.
@@leniobarcelos1770 Wow! A person on the internet giving their opinion which isn't supported by Science. I don't give a fuck about 'opinions'. Everyfucker out there has one. Plus, why would you trust someone's word when they don't reference a single scientific source that hasn't been sponsored by the meat and dairy industry. BS free Science supports the vegan diet, and it has been for decades.
@@zodd67 actually. It does. The problem is you listen to people like Clarence talk unchecked. I can provide counterpoints to every single one of his counterpoints. He’d then give his counterpoints. And we’d get somewhere. This is a dude talking completely unchecked, then another dude checking him while completely unchecked. Mike would have his own counterpoints to everything Clarence is saying and he’s mostly on Clarence’s side. Let an intellectual on the opposite side interject and suddenly you have a real discussion
Great video, excellent rebuttal without being rude/ misrepresenting Isratel’s arguments.
Haven’t clicked so fast on a topic I could care less about. But it’s Clarence so
Same lol
You could care less?
All we know is that you don’t care zero… meaning you could care from a tiny bit to maximum care’age.
Maybe you meant you couldn’t care less? (Meaning you care zero)
@@matster77 Nobody cared I guess.
It feels like as traditional religion, family structure and church attendance is declining in the West, more and more people are joining new age religions like Veganism, SJWism, Communism(tried and failed) as a coping mechanism to fill the void left by traditional religions to try and give some meaning to their lives and develop some sense of community. They're smart enough to realize that most religious texts are unscientific and even nonsensical as we now have the scientific understanding, data and evidence to disprove a lot of religious texts but the yearning for spiritual/moral codes and guidance(a role that was traditionally played by religion) propels them towards these new ideologies.
You're an incredibly unintelligent individual.
The opposite of veganism, carnism is the one that's like a religion.
Is veganism based off an ancient belief system like religion? No, carnism is.
Do vegans refuse to challenge the prevalent belief system? Yes, carnists don't.
@@clarence0 dude, I like your videos and you as a person but did you seriously use the word carnism? That's like the most typical vegan cult buzzword
@@clarence0 please don't turn into a cultist
@@hhfbko What's inherently wrong with the word carnism? What are the criticisms against such terminology? In my opinion, it's like saying the word "racism" is a cult buzzword.
What word is better used to describe the opposite belief system of veganism? "Meat eaters" doesn't describe a set of beliefs, it just means someone eats meat.
Why does mike look like an infant sitting on a tall baby chair in this video?
I always thought this too LMFAO
Because thats the level of his argumentation when it comes to this topic
@@Lb-ri5wr I've heard and dealt with many nonvegans on veganism, and imo his argumentation is a step or a few steps above most, but still there's no good justification for non-veganism.
@@yungains not really, he just uses red herrings "its wrong to kill humans trait equalised to animals because its impractical" literally just a red herring
@@Lb-ri5wr I dont think that's a red herring, a red herring is a distraction or some smokescreen to move away from something important. Mike's answer is direct - his answer is not that its impractical, its that if it were allowed society would collapse and many would suffer inequities. The response has its own reductios of course which make it untenable.
Animals eat each other based on strength, not morality.
By this argument, Clearance can eat just about everything and everyone.
As a college ethics teacher (philosopher) great job! Excellent treatment of the arguments and attention to detail! Same to Israetel (even if I think your points are stronger)
On the last point, there needs to be a distinction made between advocating for not killing animals, and working towards reducing harm within pre-existing factory farms. Harm reduction can exist simultaneously with morality campaigns.
Veganism is about abolishment of animal abuse, not about making their abuse less bad
@@Lb-ri5wr Yeah, but Rome wasn't built in a day and when Vegans take an all or nothing approach, they push people away from taking there first steps. Should everyone be vegan because it's moral, yes. But way more people will go vegan and stay vegan if they are not confronted by people that want to gate keep the animal rights movement.
@@JamieLynnSelman 3 years later, I agree with this!
Unfortunately, Clarence overemphasizes the proliferation of factory farms. I grew up on a farm and most meat comes from family farms. Agreed factory farms should be outlawed. The climate change argument is moot. As a vegetarian, this comes down to these issues:
- Humans are adapted to eat meat. There are Inuit whose only source of food is meat, for example. Like other animals, we are omnivores and this biological fact negates any argument about can we eat meat
- Regarding climate change, the earth will decide when it has had enough of humans and there’s not a damn thing we can do about it. That’s not to say preserving and stewarding our planet isn’t a priority, but imo, the people who scream the loudest tend to acquit themselves of their own personal responsibility
- Why go against your own self interests? Every animal does the same. The issue is when does it become a big enough problem that it alters society in fundamentally harmful ways?
- Which leads to the most important point. No one should have the power others what to think, feel or act. This is modern progressive ideology currently. If you want to live a certain way, that is your right. If you want to inform others, that’s also fine. The slippery slope becomes when you believe your values trump everything else.
At the core, this the biggest problems humans are currently facing. Once you start on a road to the stance that a certain ideology is the only valid one, it leads to places many can’t fathom. We have gotten to this point in history by refining our modes, institutions and behavior, but there are certain aspects that make us human that are currently under debate we need or not. To abandon these principles would no longer make us human.
While I speak in generalities, it’s clear this is bigger than vegan vs carnivore. And most certainly you can straw man my arguments, but the last point is one few even consider
The main problem I have is the call of moral superiority.
One should usually take someone for a grain of salt if they claim they are morally superior, their way of life is morally superior and/or that you should conform to their way of life.
I understand that can be contradictory because we could say the same thing about how what we deem criminals should conform to our laws.
It is undoubted that we live in a major tiered system. You can listen to Bill Gate’s Ted Talk about population management. _Elites_ don’t see most of the population as humans at all really. Just a combination of things to use and problems to solve.
"Humans are adapted to eat meat. There are Inuit whose only source of food is meat, for example. Like other animals, we are omnivores and this biological fact negates any argument about can we eat meat"
Nobody is arguing that inuits should go vegan. The argument is that people in civilized western societies who are able to go vegan, should.
"Regarding climate change, the earth will decide when it has had enough of humans and there’s not a damn thing we can do about it. That’s not to say preserving and stewarding our planet isn’t a priority, but imo, the people who scream the loudest tend to acquit themselves of their own personal responsibility"
I don't fully understand this argument so no comment.
"Why go against your own self interests? Every animal does the same. The issue is when does it become a big enough problem that it alters society in fundamentally harmful ways?"
Because we are moral agents, meaning we can judge right from wrong. Animals can't do this, at least to the level which humans can. Animals are able to suffer, so why would we eat them if we don't need to? That's unnecessary.
"Which leads to the most important point. No one should have the power others what to think, feel or act. This is modern progressive ideology currently. If you want to live a certain way, that is your right. If you want to inform others, that’s also fine. The slippery slope becomes when you believe your values trump everything else."
If we followed this, we wouldn't even have a society. A society needs to set boundaries to what is okay and what is not. This is why we have laws for example. If we didn't have the power to affect how people think, feel or act, I could go around raping and murdering people and being a bigot. Fortunately this is not the case, as I will be punished.
Now eating animals is not illegal, but neither was anything else before it was made illegal.
What a bunch of bullshit counter "arguments"...
@@PauIdenino
You misunderstood everything I said. It didn’t help that I wrote in generalities but I didn’t want to get entangled in semantics. Think about what you wrote about raping and murdering and then apply that to any ideology that forces those ideas unto others. You are coming from an emotional viewpoint. Please understand that is not a valid point on which to start. Reread my statements and then your responses and realize you’re making my argument for me
@@PauIdenino "Now eating animals is not illegal, but neither was anything else before it was made illegal."
Dumbest comment I've seen all day yea guess what many things that were illegal (weed and alcohol) are now being legal so what? You explained the process of law
I respect the logic brought forth but I think pragmatism is heavily undervalued in the vegan moral conversation. The factory farming industrial complex makes so many valid points null because of how little impact words have on it. As Clarence said at the end, he believes its about 'advocating the right message' but how will that message apply to low income families/ citizens of third world countries? How relevant is that message to people that are not in a society that could support a vegan lifestyle? How valid is it when eating meat is desensitized through cultural traditions, media, and other societal pillars. Zoning in on factory farming disregards many vegan moral factors but it would disassemble the industrial complex enough to allow more individual choices to have a meaningful impact.
We can't possibly have large numbers of livestock that are also treated well. It would immediately cause us to reduce the amount of harm done to animals since we cannot keep the population as large. This would intern make meat more expensive and deter consumption by a degree. With meat more expensive and in a smaller quantity, it allows more people to align their morals on eating meat with the factors of their every day survival. (example: "hmmm we haven't had meat in awhile but its really expensive. I didn't even really like the meat when we ate it last and that YT video I saw the other day grossed me out, Tofu it is...)
Increasing more humane practices allows buffer time for the idea of veganism to come forth. Confronting people with moral conundrums that don't reflect their reality only causes people to ignore you from cognitive dissonance. Animals have been killed, are being killed , and will be killed. 'advocating the right message' in my opinion is the slowest most morally safe view in my opinion that won't get much done except for benefit on a personal level.
Just saying "don't eat meat" leaves you with an all or nothing outcome. You either agree and stop or disagree and continue.
Focus on factory farming on the other hand allows people with differing opinions to collaborate and reduce harm. Animals are still being killed but the alternative option does nothing in reality to confront this problem.
Clarence's views in this video IMO are logical ,heart felt and make complete sense.Thanks for laying it out exactly .
My testosterone increases by just watching his videos
@Chidori457 your comment was incorrect. Plants contain phytoestrogens(plant estrogens), which can bind to your estrogen receptors, but can’t actually do anything. Animal products contain mammalian estrogen and oestrogen, which can bind to your estrogen receptors and function(because you’re a mammal). I can’t remember the study exactly but it looked average testosterone levels across meat-eaters, vegetarians and vegans. It found something along the lines of meat-eaters having the lowest average levels of testosterone, vegetarians 8% higher, and vegans 13% higher.
@Chidori457 your anecdotal evidence is worthless
@Chidori457 The phrase is “couldn’t care less”, please don’t embarrass yourself. You just told me you do care. Have fun, random, angry stranger from the land of freedumb.
@Chidori457 who told you this
@Chidori457 clarence is also vegan and he is too strong
I absolutely love the way you say ‘athletes’ love the Irish accent
That vegangains debate really stuck with Mike lol
I think these discussions will be way more fruitful once people accept that nobody's really living their lives going by absolute moral values. That line of thinking may work when dealing with strictly defined philosophical concepts but not when we're talking about everyday lives because we're always balancing multiple values and making shoddy judgement calls by them. So no need to catch others about hypocrisy on every other sentence, it's a given. That's how people are.
Wild animal population control is a good example. I wouldn't bat an eye if a die hard vegan was totally ok with shooting a bunch of deer because I understand that we're dealing with different issues, different values. Just like we care about a person next door dying compared to a person in a different country dying. Just like dog is in a different category than, say, a chicken.
Again, that's how people are and it'll hinder communication if we pretend otherwise.
This isn't specifically a critique of this video, it's just something I tend to think quite often when I see videos about veganism. Don't know if many actually relate.
Precisely. This was an underlying condition that had to be considered all the time in my engineering ethics class in college. As an engineer, you have multiple obligations. At times, these obligations can and will conflict. Compromises have to be made in these cases. This applies to everything in life because we do not live in a perfect philosophical world, obviously, otherwise there would be minimal if any issues in the world.
That guy is full of bs. He plays smart but isn't, and his video on genetics was even worse than this one.
why its ok to eat Mike Israetel
I don't think humane killing is an oxymoron. It simply means it is done to reduce or minimize pain in the process. For example, when someone has a pet put down, they kill them humanely.
@RipeApple Sure, but that difference doesn't change the fact that you can minimize the pain in killing an animal and thus do it humanely.
@RipeApple Why can you not minimize pain and suffering in an animal meant to be eaten? Instead of an animal meant to be a companion? Animals can be killed without suffering whether they are a companion or livestock.
@RipeApple I never said anything about the animal suffering though. Pets get put down in pounds all the time even when they aren't terminally ill. It's still humane.
@RipeApple You brought it up originally though. You have the first response in here.
@RipeApple Being "terminally ill" is a form of suffering so yes, you did mention suffering and yes, you still brought it up first. You're trying to weasel out of the point by focusing on word games and it just makes you look like you don't have an argument. That point being that pets are put down humanely in situations that don't involve their suffering at all like when they're terminally ill as you said. The definition of being humane doesn't include all that you're adding to it. It simply requires minimizing pain. It's therefore by definition humane even if you don't like it personally.
Each day my belief that people should just step back a bit and listen to what the greatest geniuses in history (Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, among others) have to say about matters instead of blindly formulating their opinions is strengthened
Based Aquinas appreciator
Wassup with kosher slaughter, Mike?!
Based and greenpilled
This is fine in the gym and all, but in every fed I know of, the first 20 kg or 25 kg plates are put on with writing facing towards the middle of the bar and then the rest of the plates are put on in the opposite direction so the side judges can read them😂. This actually makes taking them off easier. Especially when they’re thin calibrated plates
FINALLY ty Clarence !!!!!
Excellent points Clarence.
Clarence, there is a very good thought experiment which I think can easily debunk a lot of carnist bullshit.
What if instead of deriving joy from the taste of meat, people derived joy directly from the suffering of the animal? Would carnists be able to justify directly torturing animals for pleasure, instead of the roundabout method of consuming their organs?
I don’t think any one would consider that moral and be able to justify it. Meanwhile these two propositions are essentially morally equivalent if you ask me (in most cases at least).
I like this argument. Cosmic Skeptic also has a good one, where instead of the taste of meat, it’s the sound of the animal being killed that people enjoyed.
@@kevinlee4449 yep I heard this argument from cosmic skeptic too lol, I think it's in a video called "why I eat dog meat". It's a good way to demonstrate how the "animal suffering is worth the taste pleasure to humans" argument only exists because of how big the disconnect is.
You are saying that any animal born to be eaten is suffering? And an animal born to be eaten can't live and die without suffering? If you are saying that just being born and living is suffering then we should self destruct/kill off all humans because we are all suffering by living, and considering humans have such high morality we can't let ourselves live because living is suffering.
What if the suffering of animals could sustain your body? People eat meat for pleasure but ignoring the historical precedent of survival as a driving factor and the economic reality of billions of people who eat meat for food not just for fun is also questionable. I think you’d still have people promoting the animal torture if it kept people fed.
Bro, this is prose. This was one of the most eloquent, articulate take downs ever. I'm not even a vegan. This is artful, and you're an artful dodger
@16:00 it's better than that: humans kill wolves and badgers and wolverines in order to range cattle, which need to move more frequently because herbivores explode cuz no natural predators
I feel like the worst part of Mike's argument was where he used the argument of the vegan and the pig locked in a room. It is essentially the same argument vegans hear all the time: "If you were stranded on an island with only pigs to eat, you MUST admit you would eat the pig". First, the dilemma is INCREDIBLY contrived: when has a vegan ever found themselves in that situation. It deflects away from the ethical dilemma that millions of people go through every day; "will I actively choose to buy meat at this grocery store when it is unnecessary or not?" The vegan-pig room dilemma also ignores that basically every vegan, when asked, says that in survival situations it is ok to eat meat, as per the moral hierarchy Mike himself mentions. Vegans are fundamentally concerned with the vast majority of the population that DOESN'T need meat for survival. Finally, his conclusion, that if the pig (or any omnivore/carnivore, for that matter) would eat the vegan, then it is justified for humans to do the same. This is essentially an appeal to nature. Personally I think that if humans are naturally more moral beings, it is imperative for us to rise to the occasion and not to stoop to the level of other, less morally equipped species. Really enjoyed your video Clarence, and I'm glad you and Mike are contributing to an actually constructive discussion about veganism in the fitness world.
A dumb argument to sooth his conscience.
Good post
This is a case of simple hypotheticals being taken literally. You do not need the extreme situation suggested to make the point, it’s just simpler. Choose like Clarence does a crocodile or alligator, both creatures will happily kill a human or other animal and eat it. The moral argument from this point would go something like, why should I respect this animals comfort and life if it would not respect mine? This isn’t to say I think this argument is flawless by any means but attacking the throw away hypothetical is a one off and meaningless way of rejecting it as we all know hypotheticals are meant to be simplified statements to demonstrate one thing to the exclusion of other nuances. Looking at a hypothetical and getting annoyed about the excluded nuances is ludicrous.
Interesting topic. Thanks for sharing your insights and Mike's vid. I have a few unanswered questions though: you mention there are no benefits from eating meat other than taste or luxery. However, I eat chicken, beef, fish and eggs to reach my recommended 200 grams of daily protein. I am not convinced I can get the same results if I only get my protein from broccoli, quinoa, zucchini, spinach and potatoes. I am also unsure whether I can get enough vitamin B12, omega 3, iron, calcium, zinc, by just eating naturally occuring vegtables, fruits, roots, nuts etc. And last of all, are all those meat replacers and plant based products actually healthy? I have eaten some veggie based 'chicken'-bits and even though they are not bad when mixed in my cooking and I am not convinced all the manmade products are any good.. At the moment, I eat meat 3 times a week (no pork), fish 2 times a week and 2 days vegan.
I understand the hesitancy to take supplements, but ultimately it is a bit unfounded because most farmed animals are given supplements (and worse antibiotics, hormones, etc.). For vegans, Vitamin B12 supplement is important. Also if living in a non-sunny climate, Vitamin D supplement is probably a good thing as well.
All the other nutrients can be sourced from whole plant foods. For example, omega 3 is found in seeds (e.g. flax, hemp) or seaweed. Calcium is in green vegetables, but it's not just calcium that is important, e.g. magnesium is also important and that is found in oatmeal. When it comes to protein (and iron), legumes (e.g. lentils, chickpeas, mung beans, etc.) are an economical source. For fats, extra virgin olive oil is good as a dressing, while coconut milk/oil is good for cooking, and nuts for snacking.
I haven't got much experience with meat replacers, but I don't know if they are meant to be eaten all the time (they are fairly expensive too). I think their main purpose is for people who get cravings -- it's kind of the equivalent of fast food for vegans so I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't healthy.
16:05 But reducing racism is exactly what we have done throughout the past 50 years, no? Unfortunately I don't think the human race is capable of making large leaps forward in terms of improving morals. The fastest way to see change it to take smaller steps first, realistically. If the end goal is to stop animal suffering then trying to advocate for more humane farming seems like a step in the right direction, even if its not ideal.
Why is the moral high ground always the number one concern? Does acknowledging something as morally correct mean that you have to abide by it? It would be morally good for me to donate my entire bank account to charity, but the benefits of having money in my bank account take priority over the moral high ground, just as the conveniences of having meat in my diet out weigh the moral high ground. However, if lab meat were to come about, having organic meat over lab meat in my diet is not so important that I wouldn't abide by moral conventions and go vegan then. I probably wouldn't tbh but you get my point. People can acknowledge that they aren't morally perfect and be okay with it, it seems like a tiring life to always be selfless. It's probably just as tiring to live a guilty life as I'm sure that's why many people go vegan. I think we all do things to feel better about ourselves at the end of the day, and some people simply do not care.
11:00 Lab meat is having the cow and eating it too. I eat meat while recognizing its inherently less moral than abstaining. The cultural factors and the effort it would take for me to change that aspect of my life outweighs the moral guilt, for now. I can see how that seems illogical in that I must not think its immoral because I continue to partake? I don't have a great answer as to why it's not, but I don't think it is. It isn't unusual at least. It's similar to driving a car, using unclean electricity, participating in consumerism and any number of activities that are common but have negative effects. Perhaps it hinges on the definition of "immoral"?
I think that's a fair point that is overlooked a lot, but plenty of vegans are optimistic that as it becomes easier more people will go vegan. I'm pretty honest with people that i'm not really a food person and i really enjoy controlling aspects to my life (restricting my calories, doing a vegan diet) and live in a country where it's relatively easy and has quite a high vegan population, so i really can't pretend me going vegan is as hard as it is for other people
That's called cognitive dissonance. It's a very normal part of human existence. Nobody's perfect. I think it's important to remember that an immoral action does not make you an inhertently immoral person! You've grown up in a system that normalizes this, and it's hard to get away from it. I respect your honesty :) hope one day the scales tip on that moral decision
That's very well put. I fall somewhere similar to you. I guess the positive thing for me personally is, I'm thinking about food choices more and more before I eat and eating less and less meat. It's going to be a journey but ultimately I hope to wind up totally vegetarian before long and maybe vegan down the line somewhere.
That only will happen the first month, once you have adapted is just so normal
Why is eating your natural diet immoral? The plant industry destroys the environment, while killing animals in their crops so the humans can eat it
Amazing video man! Never expected you to make such an intellectual video, intellect comparable to an equivalent of your squat weights 😛
Love you big man
If a cow ever got the chance, he'd eat you and everyone you care about.
yeah but what kind of moral value do i have, clarence
Had to tune out at the mention of climate change. Sorry.
Love your vegan content clarence, you turned me vegan almost 3 years ago now. Thanks for this!
Same story for me bro!
Great content Clarence
WOW! I'm a huge fan of both you and Dr. Mike and RP, and I've been basically addicted to everything RP for about a year now. You made some very strong arguments, and as always, you are just pure class, intelligent, gentle and respectful. I'm very interested to see Dr. Mike's response. Can you please recommend some low-calorie high-protein vegan foods - I'd like to either go vegan or at least live more sustainably, but I haven't found vegan sources of protein that come close to egg whites, cottage cheese and chicken breast... I'm super open to suggestions. You and Dr. Mike should do a collab on that topic, maybe. :)
Tofu is great.
@@silasnew15 Haven't found tofu I liked yet. I found soy isolate and other vegan protein powders to be pretty good. Also, I kind of learned how to eat better over the past year.
Why would you switch to lab meat when it become available if you don’t have no moral problem with eating meat? I’d say that because a lot of meat eaters are aware that the meat industry creates problem, but they simply love too much their chuck eye or sirloin steak to give it up.
Being aware of an issue isn’t enough to get people to change their habits.
He does have an issue with eating meat.
I disagree with the argument that sentience = moral value. If that were true, we would be morally obligated to kill a 4 year old child before an adult or an older child or even a crow since crows have actually the mental capacities of older than a 5 year old child. So I very much disagree that you can determine someones moral value based on their assumed level of sentience.
I'm vegan btw
Arguably a child is less of an issue to kill than an adult, since the child has 0 present loss from the greater pool of 'things done'. An adult is already developed, so requires less fuel/effort to get to a useful (assuming general loose definitions of utility) point of development point of development than a child would.
A child offers little vale besides your emotional attachment and potential ability, but that ability comes at the cost that the adult's already gained ability does not.
This is assuming the two models are identical other than periods of development. Obviously some children will be more useful and able at a later stage than the adult already there, again depending on your definition of utility.
So logically (whatever that means) killing a child rather than an adult makes more sense. To say either is more or less moral is messy. What do you mean by morality? Is it something fixed, variable across participants? Using the term 'morality' or 'moral value' as an all powerful, immutably defined term whilst actually having no objective meaning for the term is silly.
You could just as easily argue the opposite - that killing the child is worse because they have more of their life to lose, more unfulfilled potential, etc. than the adult. Whereas a pig’s or other animal’s ultimate faculties/potentials are much lower than a human child’s would be. Hence they have less to lose by dying, although they still shouldn’t be wantonly killed or abused, since they still obviously have a capacity for suffering and it is ontologically good for them to exist.
This is a very good video of yours video where you express your opinions greatly, but the squats are missing.
It's great to see more and more people in the fitness youtube/industry talking positively about veganism. I bet that at least some of Mike's viewers will try going vegan.
It's also great to see you making more videos of this type.
He thinks if you put two humans in a room and don't feed them some won't kill each other either lol? people will beat the shit out of each other for a TV on black friday or if there's toilet roll shortages.
The cognitive dissonance is so strong with this topic it’s funny seeing Mike admit to veganism being correct but still not changing his ways.
It takes a while. I was like that for like a good 6 months before finally going plant-based.
@@krishnagodale3200 same I ate meat once a week for months before stopping altogether.
@@kimborampage Same here, I thought that I needed it. Which sucked, since after about a month it didn't taste good anymore and made me nauseous.
A hypocrite is just a person in the process of change. Mindset changes before action.
That dude is wrong about a bunch of stuff.
Great vid clarence..great counterpoints
I bet Clarence's total would be higher if he ate ribeyes.
I'd also argue plants and rocks are not identical on the moral scale, but obviously the ordering is still correct there!
Neither are sentient, its the exact same morally to kick a rock and pull some petals off flower
I think the fact Mike made a video on the topic mean Avi and VG planted a seed in his head, he's trying to play some mental gymnastics to rationalise what he's doing. I think with enough rebuttals like your video he may eventually just change his mind.
rationalize behavior of humans eating meat for literally thousands of years. You seem to want to beat the "nature of the animal" out of humans. How about people still judging other people by looks? Again, it's human nature just like eating meat is human nature.
You made a choice to not eat meat, that's your right. Just like it's mine to eat meat.
The question should be how do you best organize such an industry that animals have good lives (best possible) instead of denying its existence.
@@Cenot4ph You're using an appeal to nature fallacy to justify this though, have you looked around lately? Cars, mobile phones, houses, microwaves etc nothing we do in modern society is natural or resembles other animals there's no "nature of the animal" to beat. We don't act like other animals in modern society.
How about using your intelligence to make the optimal choice in life ideally one without enslaved victims knowing you don't have to.
@@zodd67 oh okay so love is just something unnatural, attraction is unnatrural, eating vegetables IS natural, but eating animals is unnatural.
It is you that picks and chooses for convenience. You can't ignore that we're omnivores and as such have a mixed diet.
Now use your intelligence and try again
@@Cenot4ph Love and attraction do not have victims, eating animals when you don't have to does. We don't need meat to live and be healthy.
What evidence do you have we're omnivores I don't want anecdotes or canines as a reason, there's videos of deer eating birds, doesn't mean we consider them omnivores.
@@Cenot4ph Name the trait animals have that makes it okay to kill them for meat in modern society.
Lab grown faces the same problems with mineral depletion as plant products.
I think a big problem is when something is tied to the economy, regardless of how unethical and harmful it is, it will always be justified by people (especially Americans) who value profit and capitalism more than anything else. So as meat free products become more profitable and accessible, you will see a bigger cultural trend towards veganism. I get why vegans go straight for the ethical argument, but unfortunately the world is driven by money and not by morality
For me, I have no objections to going vegan. I currently am not because 1. I like meat. 2. Vegan and vegetarian meat substitutes are more costly. 3. I ain't made of money. If and when meat substitutes cost just as much if not less, are just as easily accessible, and have similar enough macros, I'll start buying them. I have thought about the ethical argument of veganism and I simply don't care enough at this point. It isn't a strong enough argument alone to convince me.
@@sergiocalderon6325 I agree! I think it takes a bit of a shift in mindset tho in terms of the food you’re eating. Maybe look at cheaper alternatives first like lentils and beans? I know their macros aren’t the same as a chicken breast or a steak but if you just tweak your meal a tiny bit you won’t be missing out on much. On your last point, when I first stopped eating meat it was purely for the health reasons after I read ‘how not to die’ and ‘proteinaholic’, the ethical and environmental arguments only really appealed to me a year after being vegan. My advice to anyone who asks me about it is just to switch a few meals a week to meat free and progress from there :)
I've been vegan for seven years for health, ethical and environmental reasons. Cured my high cholesterol and pre diabetes. I eat a high quality vegan diet and not a junk food vegan diet. I've been working out for the last 8 or 9 months with the primary focus on getting stronger with really good results. My shoulders are outgrowing my shirts and I turn 65 in about two weeks. Go vegan!
He is like me in the pre contemplative stage. After a year of trying to reason my self out of turning vegan I went vegan at the beginning of the year.
Proud of you man
Are plants alive and do they have a inteligence. How much land do you need to feed the entire populace(deforestation). Is it better to eat everything created in a lab then eating it naturally. Is it better to do nothing instead of doing things a bit better
This video is heavily pushing me back towards becoming a vegan again.
You were never vegan if you currently eat animal products, its not a switch that you can turn on and off at will. Stop thinking about yourself and think about the victims of your choices
@@Lb-ri5wr just for that statement I'm about to go eat me a cow.
@@jodencro literally proved my point 😂
@@Lb-ri5wr Haha! 😂
@@jodencro Give it another shot dude 🤙
YO CLARENCE, I EAT MEAT BUT IF YOU DID A VEGAN COOKBOOK ID BUY IT. THE MEATHEADS NEED YOUR HELP.
Boars and other wildlife especially in Australia and Texas like ferrel pigs cause an enormous amount of damage to land n plants from them rutting around, in Australia Kangaroo populations if not controlled will end up getting to a point where they trample down all the vegetation and starve. Imo it's all about balance. The ammount of land alot of these farms take completely takeout the wildlife and make the ecosystem unihabitable for just about everything. The industrialization of the way we get our food causes the most damage. Livestock grazing at least leaves the rabbits bird's insects, n all that with a complete ecosystem. There's no perfect solution where food prices would skyrocket and people would go hungry with alot of the other options, so it's just kinda wingin it with what we got.
@farorin I was more bringing up the point that it's a complicated problem and there's no real good solution besides trying to figure out a balanced approach. Soybean field displace so much native wildlife, which is "harming" way more animals, so which is a better way? Imo there's isn't really a perfect solution, but we could be doing better if we took a more balanced approach and uses all methods vs goin at each other over "who harms the most animals" I think we can all understand no one likes havin to kill things, but it's a part of nature and people need to take the whole picture into account
@farorin also it's easier you just kill em vs sterilization especially with the boar problem since they reproduce so quickly. I'm not super informed on alot of the subjects, but I just roll my eyes when one side goes in on the other when they both are doing the same thing in different ways as far as it goes for "harming animals"
@farorin I'm not talking specifically soybeans, im more just talking areas full of just 1 type of vegitation. The amount of animals farm land displaces. I'm not trying to say eating meat is better if that's what you think I'm saying. I'm more just talking about being Vegan isn't perfect, and it matters where your veggies come down to it. If you are Vegan mainly for the animals, and that's something you care about, it should be more in the conversation because more n more habitats are bein taken out for more n more things, not just farm land, and it's not as talked about, and I think if it was more would be done about it
People need to get over using the theoretical perception of pain as a scale for how moral/immoral killing animals is.
Pain is not simply the ability to sense noxious stimuli. There are complex cognitive processes which influence how that stimulus is interpreted.
Humans quite obviously have very different experiences of pain from one another.
Even the context in which a noxious stimulus is perceived will greatly effect the interpretation.
Thats why a rugby player can walk off the field feeling great and then find bruises all over their body the next day.
If you learn a little about chronic pain you realise pain is multifaceted.
Animals have very different social constructs and cognitive function. I don't think it is valid to assert that any animal experiences pain in the same way we do.
It is of course possible that animals have a worse experience when perceiving noxious stimulus.
I would argue that a wild animal that is shot by a hunter through the lungs or heart and dies within a couple of minutes probably doesn't feel what we would think of as pain. They would be thrust into a sympathetic response and have a dump of adrenalin. Very quickly they would be losing blood pressure and going into shock. The world would go black.
Realistically this is a better death than most of us can hope for.
That doesn't mean it is right to shoot a deer. I'm just saying that the method of dispatch and the supposed pain the animal experiences is bad reasoning to say that it is wrong.
Hey Clarence,
I think you could make some of the same arguments that you are making more hard hitting.
Humans want to think as little as possible while listening which makes it really important to stay simple with the arguments and even the sentences.
Im not a native english speaker so for me those "problems" are getting amplified.
Like the argument with the pig that would eat the Human, you went even further by opening another hypothecy which makes it harder to follow.
Nevertheless all your arguments were logical and i hope i could help.
Clarence, you inspire me.
How can he not already be vegan if he believes his own argument
Akrasia: knowing what is wrong but doing it anyway. In other words, weakness of the will.
@@doubleoblitThere is a big difference between deciding something is wrong and feeling that it is wrong.
@@thunderball11111 I notice you didn't say what the difference is, or why it's relevant, but the point remains: believing or judging something to be wrong but doing the wrong thing anyway is weakness of the will.
@@doubleoblit The difference is between emotion (in my opinion usually due to experience or conditioning) and a more detached reasoned conclusion. Mike could have decided that eating meat is morally inferior but not truly feel that way emotionally yet or perhaps ever. The reason I call the difference big is because if you feel something is wrong emotionally you’re very unlikely to do it but if you have just decided it is wrong you’re quite likely to still do it. You could argue that not acting on that rational conclusion is weakness of will but personally I view it as a lack of any will at all. Therefore he may not truly believe his conclusion yet and consequentially have no true desire/will to act on it. I would view it as a weakness of will if he felt emotionally that what he was doing was wrong but then continued to do it despite this feeling for say the sake of pleasure.
@@thunderball11111 a feeling is not the same thing as a moral belief, but good try.
Ive never understood the hunting argument and the culling, it's the complete opposite of the natural process where the weakest don't survive as hunters tend to kill the largest and biggest animals.. this tends to destabilize populations causing unintended side effects...
Culls kill everything, cull hunting doesn’t target prime animals unless there is a reason to do so such as them being the breeding population. The point is simply to reduce the animals numbers as they are destroying their environment.
Personally, my attachment to a sentient creature is more important to me than its moral value
I mean... that's not really a good thing. You're basically saying that you are more concerned about your relationship to an individual than the individual itself. That's egoism.
@@doubleoblit It is however more accurate to how normal human morality functions and there are numerous philosophical arguments that revolve around it and support its validity as a form of ethics. So your opinion that it is bad is just that, your opinion.
@@thunderball11111 lol what are you talking about? Egoism *is* a moral philosophy; there are not multiple forms of ethics *around* egoism because any egoistic form of ethics is contained *within* the category of egoism. Your statement is even logically coherent.
As far as human morality goes, the idea that it is egoistic is bullshit. Philosophers like Hobbes and Bentham built their theories on top of different forms of egoism but they simply don't work. Egoism isn't taken seriously by contemporary philosophers because it doesn't work.
I also want to point out that you said there are multiple theories in support of it and you named none of them. Do you think this is an intelligent way to argue? If so, there are numerous philosophical theories saying that dragons exist, so your opinion that dragons don't exist is just that, your opinion.
Please don't respond until you think of something smart to say.
@@doubleoblit How people act in day to day life proves that relational morality is how humans operate. We care more about those we are familiar with and see regularly and will treat them better than others. Whether that is logical to you or to me isn’t my point. It’s a simple observation. I’ll bother addressing the rest of what you’ve said once I’ve heard back regarding your views on this.
@@thunderball11111 lol Jesus fuck...
First of all, a statement about the way all humans operate morally is not "a simple observation" unless you are God. You are making a universal claim about moral psychology. Such claims are neither simple nor observations.
Second, observations of a physical state of affairs are compatible with numerous mental states of affairs. Example: I raise in a hand of poker. You observe this act. You cannot deduce from this whether I am bluffing, semi-bluffing, raising for value, mistaken about the cards I am holding, etc.
Third, it is not in dispute that people care more about the individuals in their lives than about individuals they don't know or know about. Absolutely nobody disputes this fact.
Agree with you 100%. I liked your reply about hunting over populated species.
With lab made meat, i still dont understand why everyone just asumes it will be better for the enviorment etc, compared to what we do now.
Maybe it will, but if the whole world would switch from real meat to lab made meat, id asume their would have to be gigantic factories to make that lab meat, still needing supply chains of recourses send to those factories and packaging it and sending it back around the world again.
Now i understand that that stays the same the packaging and shipping of recources but to just asume that the process of lab made meat will be better then real meat, to me it just sounds like gospel that everone believes before its even tested or reality.
Lab grown meat is utter crap, in terms of nutrition and for the environment. We need organic, regeneratively raised ruminants on the land to create healthy soils. Nature has the answer, and will always be the way
@@Connor6569 Lab grown meat is just as "natural" as any selectively bred Frankenstein cow or sheep. What we need is to preserve natural habitat so that WILD ruminants, predators, insects, etc. can repopulate and balance the ecosystem.
@@mistahkurtz2351 How is something grown in a lab natural? That's completely unnatural. Through regenerative ag we can repopulate and balance the ecosystem, while providing a high quality food source
@@Connor6569 Lab grown meat is just a technology, and domesticated ruminants are also a man-made technology. The word "natural" only makes sense when discussing natural habitat, reserves, etc. "Regenerative agriculture" still requires farmers to kill wild animals (e.g. deer, leopards, tigers, wolves, etc.) that are competition or threaten their artificial herds. Wild animals make up less than 5% of mammalian biomass, so anyone with the slightest concern about ecology would be advocating FEWER domesticated animals so that wild animals can repopulate.
@@mistahkurtz2351 Actually completely the opposite. Go watch someone like Greg Judy. He kills no wild animals, and has now more diversity in terms of plants and animals than ever before. Before there were ruminants the land was in disrepute.
Selective breeding for traits is not the same as chemically grown crap