Humane, H, the zen Buddhist that, an example of peace and mindfulness, had deep insights regarding humans and harmony . . Saying all nature is within humans. If you connect this with the true meaning of dominion i in spiritual matters. We can find real clues to how responsible are role is on this planet. When humans are seen as the real " gardeners" on all nature, then a vision of real harmony appears. Awareness of the vast potential of humans to change themselves, and animals towards individualism , .all animals look to this Human potential. So we have huge responsibility !?
Good speech 👍 *but shifting the focus from focusing on the suffering and exploitation of purpose bred animals for human instrumental uses (such as farming and animal experimentation as just the first 2 that immediately comes to mind) to focusing on wildlife suffering can be a very detrimental opportunity cost to the immense suffering all the animals humans are CHOOSING to breed, exploit, abuse, and in some cases torture.* We can hypothetically abolish permanently humans CHOOSING to needlessly engage in the exploitation of animals; we cannot abolish wildlife suffering hypothetically or otherwise unless you CHOOSE to mass murder all wildlife. I definitely choose to maintain focus on affecting change to human perception and behavior in my goal to hypothetically end (and in the process, reduce) the amount of humans CHOOSING to exploit animals or support the exploitation of animals with their purchases. 👍 *But I won't stop you from choosing not to.*
Jack, wow. This presentation was really, really good. You explained your points amazingly well and in a captivating manner. Good job! Thank you so much for speaking up for wild animals.
Thank you for patiently dragging me through this paradigm shift. It has not been long since i became vegan. That was also a tough pill to swallow. I am now existentially miserable. It feels like my soul has been torn apart. But i wanted the truth and you gave me the truth. For a long time humans have increased animal suffering in all kinds of ways. Why this non-interference rule with nature? We can only harm or allow harm to animals when it benefits us? Why not use our power to relieve all creatures of their suffering in the most careful and responsible ways possible. More than ever, i want to help make things better for all experiencers of this earth.
Really the best video on wild animal suffering I've ever seen. I cried, and I can see this is not just a talk to you that you've rehearsed and don't feel anymore. You're there wholeheartedly, co-suffering while you're talking about it. Thank you, Jack.
This was a fantastic speech. I find many vegans are uncomfortable talking about the plight of wild animals or don't take it seriously. You presented a solid case for why we should be talking about this and got a few of my friends thinking
It's not that vegans are uncomfortable talking about the "plight of wild animals" but rather we should not compare what they do with what we do. Animals are like 2 to 3 year old kids and if they fight over food, it doesn't justify humans fighting over the same. We as a technologically advanced species, should try to reduce suffering instead of increasing it, when we can, to show we are really civilised as we think we are.
@lauratanln Where did I compare our actions to the actions of non-human animals? As you said, the whole point of Jack's speech was to highlight why we should seek to help wild animals, despite not being responsible for their suffering
First to comment! Will take this opportunity to say this, I showed my best friend your videos on wild animal suffering and even though she's quite conservative, your videos have genuinely made her question. Thank you for that. Love you for being Humane, Hancock! 💖
That was an excellent presentation! Great job, Jack. You're making a real difference. I wish to contribute to raising awareness about wild animal suffering too, and you're an inspiration!
Thank you for posting, and thank you for doing the presentation. This is for me the best presentation on wild animal suffering addressing a vegan audience so far (with some other options being quite impressive already).
Thank you for talking about this & not giving up on them. Thank you for speaking boldly for them. This needs to be discussed. You are making a difference. Thank you.
It's speeches like these that give me a glimmer of hope that I (27yo) may live to see a world with a prevailing view of sentientism before I die. I don't think it's likely but this speech gives me dose of actual, realistic hope.
Great job man! Such an original approach. Edit: I’ve wrote this while watching but after seeing the whole thing I can say that this is different than any Veganism speech I’ve seen in the last 10 years.
Glad to see people pointing out how natural does not equal good, nice, perfect or "as it should be". One thing I always hated is people pretending they do not intervene with wild animals like the example with the poor elephant baby. That is furthest from the truth. When we CAN save, we do not intervene, but sure as hell will go hunting if we want to kill, will kill them so they do not enter our yards, will poison and plant traps. Hypocrisy knows no mercy, only evil.
I don't think that poor individual could be saved in that situation 1. how do 2 people get them out of the bog? 2. I don't think even with the best vetinary care available that those injuries were anything other than terminal. To leave him like that though was incredibly ruthless.
@@3CVeganHuntSabs I don't think the request was to save the baby elephant, but rather to end his suffering because, as you say, his injuries were too extensive.
@@3CVeganHuntSabs I was trying to make a point they could have ended the suffering but they have chosen not to until it got to the point they could not look at that anymore. Usually, in Documentaries, they would name the same reason for not getting involved. But then you remember we kill them for fun and that is literally us getting involved. When they can actually kill to save a baby from suffering, then they have to debate should it be done or not. The suffering of baby elephant didn't make the nature any more natural because the baby ended up dead anyway.
2 entirely different things. Hunting can create huge environmental damage (and suffering). Saving is intervening by default - it might be a good idea on a small level but disastrous as a general principal. What happens to the predators, for example? I am vegan b.t.w., not a hypocrite!
@@spiral-m I agree. Carnivores eat meat and if they are prevented from hunting, however cruel and shocking that may be, they will die. So, to save one animal means the death of another. Nature is cruel and that is a fact. We as humans can avoid massive cruelty issues by not consuming animal products simply because we don't need them. We cannot rid the animal kingdom of cruelty, but we can intervene if an animal is in difficulty or injured, but not in cases of predators hunting prey. I am also vegan and do not consider this to be hypocrisy. It is simple fact.
Practical solutions to those things that we can help would make a great presentation. For example, donating to the Tolga bat hospital, your local bird rehab, rewilding some paved lots, and providing water stations at ground level. (I used to enjoy going along the Yellowstone river in my teens and springing leg hold traps with a stick, although I got shot at once, so that might be a bit next-level for many of us.). These things make a big difference to individual wild animals.
@@RuberSocks Ecological destruction (lack of green corridoors and wild places) means even MORE suffering than exists in nature because of added pressures of starvation. That's why biodiversity is collapsing. Are you arguing for the elimination of nature? That would be pure insanity. You want to help wild animals yet you don't want to help wild animals obviously suffering from thirst?
@@spiral-m Animals starve to death regardless, among the other horrible ways they die. Removing their source of food and water is the most effective way to end the cycle
Love how you start raising your voice at 9:31 and at various other times throughout this speech and start speaking with passion on behalf of those individuals who are suffering in nature. More people need to stop romanticizing nature. We need to stop glorifying the balance of ecosystems. Nature and ecosystems are *NOT* intrinsically good. The experiences of sentient individuals *ARE.*
There's nothing funny about vegans wanting to intervene in Nature and start killing animals to save other animals. Nothing funny or "humane" about it at all. I find the whole topic very suspect, as if there's an element trying to spin and destroy the very ethics of veganism, which is No Killing of Any Sentient Being except in self defense OR in the direct defense of a loved one/family member. I promise you, this insanity will end just like the nightmare that animal agriculture has become today.
I've developed a similar perspective in recent years and do believe a more civilized humanity will eventually alleviate all possible suffering on earth. Of course as you point out this future only happens if awareness is raised along the way. It is very brave to lay the ground for it in these yet primitive times. We are still far from civilized but I have hope the rapid rise of technology will accelerate our cultural progress with it.
You people are insane. The only possible way to eliminate suffering is to eliminate life. Suffering is a fact of life. It's inescapable. You live, you will suffer at some point in your life.
Whenever we bring up this subject with other vegans, most of them either get defensive or try to change / avoid the topic altogether. A really well presented speech, everyone needs to watch this! 💚💚
It would depend on how you bring the topic up for me. I consider it to be a separate issue to veganism. So it’s not really a vegan blind spot; it’s an everyone blind spot. I think most people would support putting the elephant out of its misery. It’s the preemptive killing of predators where I (and I think a lot of other vegans) take issue. I know Jack didn’t specifically say this but it’s where a lot of people go with the topic.
@@gg2950 I totally agree and am very surprised by this comment section. Let's concentrate on stopping the suffering WE cause. I find it actually shocking that anyone thinks preemptive killing of predators is a just idea. Nature is nature, it is not 'good' or 'bad'. There is such a thing as the food chain.
@@bengilkes7676 Yeah, I feel like most people in support of this haven’t really thought it through. It wouldn’t just be carnivores, but omnivores you’d have to be preempting, which is about 2/3 of the animal kingdom. And what about herbivores that fight for mating rights or territory. And how would you choose which species to help; the one you liked the look of the most? It’s an absolute minefield!
@@gg2950Heavily disagree. This is the speciesm that's being spoken about specifically in this presentation. The logical entailment of veganism IS caring about wild animal rights. To not do so is a logical contradiction. Rights are deontological and they exist to stop exploitation from those that wish to take away others autonomy. Serial killers running around killing people; "oh man that's a rights violation, you can't let them kill others even if they're hungry, kill them, imprison them, stop them at once!" We don't let homeless people who are starving run around killing cos they need to eat, there's even cases of people trapped at sea murdering people to eat them to survive that are imprisoned for murder once getting back to land. We don't accept murder to eat people. We don't even accept wild animals killing people despite them just trying to survive because they NEEDED to kill someone. They're hunted down and executed for our safety despite those same people claiming it's natural and carnivorous animals should have the right to execute others and take their autonomy to live. Double standards. What about the wild individuals safety? Rights allow suffering to protect individuals from exploitation. If more suffer to protect an individual that is good. You can't take someone's organs to save 5 more people. Rights allow all 5 of them to die to save that person from being violated despite their death having more utility. But when it comes to wild animals all those victims are left to suffer and die, like that elephant. So a bunch of serial killers can persist and keep killing. In an idyllic world there would be no one living in fear of being murdered. That's what moralities goal is. Why should we get to live happily and execute our predators? Why can't the elephants live freely and have their predators executed? We care about rights violations. Killing to eat someone's body is exploitation. Wild serial killers need to be stopped as well. Like Jack said a species cannot suffer, we do not care about groups. Morality exists to protect individuals. It is a huge blindspot and speciesism to suggest only one species deserves protection from killers but all others don't. This applies to all the types of killing and oppression shown in the last part of the video too. Anything that we stop happening to even human moral patients should be applied to animal moral patients that need protection too.
@@80slimshadys Ok then; so I’m interested in whether or not you’ve thought it through. Veganism is a philosophy which means it only applies to beings that have moral agency; agree or disagree? I mean how many times have you argued with a non vegan that we don’t behave like lions because they have no moral agency. But it seems like in this instance you want to behave like animals do have moral agency and that we should hold them accountable for their actions. Would you tell a non vegan that tells you lions also eat meat that you think the lions should be executed? Let’s say we had a human that couldn’t discern right from wrong; would we execute them if they posed a threat to others? Wouldn’t we be placing them somewhere that they couldn’t cause harm to others? I could keep going but for the moment I’ll let you respond.
Very interesting and informative talk. However, many vegans are involved in wildlife protection and are very much aware of what you are saying here. The Hunt Saboteur's Association is the oldest direct action animal rights group there is at 60 years of being out in the fields. Paul Watson and others have been on the high seas protecting and rescuing wild beings. many of us work in wildlife rescue and rehabilitation. To my mind re wild beings the priorities are as follows; 1. stop humans in the industrial complex directly harming them through hunting, habitat loss, poisoning of waterways etc, that's a HUGE one, 2. help where it is possible so for example raising abandoned babies, splinting broken bones, giving antibiotics, nurse them back to health before releasing them OR bring a swift end to a being in agony who is beyond help. These two things are I think so huge that we would be hard pressed to reach both goals. many wild beings die long drawn out deaths. The young elephant you mentioned would have had a much longer drawn out death if those hyenas had not eaten them. The only thing in that case would have been to have shot them as anything else would have just led to more suffering. And yes that would be the end I would choose for myself if my injuries were so extensive and we were such a long way from medical help. The lesser of two evils And there is the very difficult moral maze that follows helping wild beings, for example insectivorous species eat live insects. Some birds eat only fish. Some beings are obligate carnivores. As present I believe that our relationship with other animals stops at not harming them on purpose and helping the minority who need help when we come across them. Once I saw a hawk fly off with a baby blackbird who was screaming. Both parents were distraught and chasing the hawk. I could do nothing as this was all above my head. If I could have rescued that baby it is unlikely that they would have survived re the extensive injuries already sustained but the parents would still suffer even if the baby survived as the baby would have needed vetinary care and rehab', they would still suffer as they lost their baby. The hawk would kill another to feed their chicks or they would all die so horrible but in this case should we interfere? Morally we should 1. tread as lightly as possible on the earth, reduce, reuse, repurpose, recycle limit things like flying etc etc. 2. do things such as feed the birds, allow wild places to be left alone, litter pick. 3. Assist any individual we come across who needs help by either taking them to a wildlife hospital/vet/other person who is the best available to help, act on advice given e.g leave a fledgeling alone and see if the parents come back or wait for assistance e.g someone to shoot a badly injured deer. More discussion very much needed on this.
But what more thought is there?By his own analogy the scale of the task is inconceivable. And we humans can't even get our own shit in order. Following his logic, we would want to kill off what, all the predators as they inflict the most suffering. Not to mention all the murder, infanticide and rape that occurs intra species. How would you mitigate that in nature? All this is impossible. Humans have a horrible tendency to make things worse when we get ideas above our station. Civilisation has already fucked the planet in terms of climate change, which all species are starting to feel. We can't end suffering, it's inevitable. I think the moral thing to do is do everything we can to ensure other species continue to have equality of opportunity for life and evolution, not equality of outcomes. And act with as much compassion as we can on the individual level. The role of stewardship and curiosity I think is the meaning to life, as they represent the absolute best, and at times worst, of us.
@@nicbongoI don’t think the point of it is to end suffering in the wild forever. That is probably impossible. The point is to change our attitudes about nature, recognize it is awful, and that we ought to intervene if we can in order to improve the lives of wild animals. If we can come up with technological solutions to such problems, it will be good. The problem is also that we just aren’t talking about the issue, it isn’t even on the radar. If we talk about the issue more and have more minds taking this seriously, it will increase the probability that new and innovative methods and technologies will be invented that we could use and apply to intervene in nature. Yes, it might seem impossible to think we can make a difference, but it also seemed impossible that we would ever get to the moon, or invent cars and airplanes to travel quicker. Technology and science is advancing at an exponential rate, and every time we are baffled at what humans can do. When the Wright brothers invented the plane, no one ever thought they would even be able to fly across the ocean in a million years, yet just 30 years after a man flied across the Atlantic, and 20 years after that we landed a man on the moon. Whose to say the technology of a hundred years in the future won’t help improve the lives of wild animals in ways that we today would think impossible?
@@RuberSocks Preventing habitat loss is away to ensure that humanity is not responsible for suffering within the ecology. Nature itself, is savage. Suffering will still be rife.
@@johnchesterfield9726 I'm confused by the intent of this presentation. I'd agree that we should show compassion to other species, as part of a role of stewardship. Save the penguins if you see them shivering alone whilst filing a documentary, execute that elephant that had it's trunk eaten whilst alive. Sure. That's not too controversial. But who honestly says or thinks that nature is benign? It seems he's having an argument about a non-issue. Or have I missed something?
This is what I've told to idiots who have too much Disney under their belt: a species doesn't suffer, sentient individuals do. Remember what Richard Dawkins said: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Jack for some time I've considered you the human I admire and align with the most. I want you to know that yes you are at the pinnacle. To me you opened up this greatest source of suffering as well as other moral severities all of which are least addressed. You're the person I can rely on to bring up about the most important matters, needing to be said, that barely anyone touches. and the level at which you work for the most in need. As an AR activist albeit currently struggling I hope to one day work towards these solutions together. ~Eudaimonia until efilism~
The story about baby elephant was absolutely heart-breaking and shattering, I broke into tears. And how many stories like that occur every day? We should absolutely care about any animal suffering and as a humanity strive to do our best to alleviate it. As we do for ourselves we should certainly do for the animals, as much as is (and will be) in our capabilities. Those who disagree should really imagine him/herself in a place of starving/deseased animal or being eaten alive. If you still think it's ok for them, but not for you, then you're a massive hypocrite.
In a 100 years when we live in a tech utopia (hopefully) and have dealt with wild animal suffering to a good extent, you’ll be remembered as a figure of ethical enlightenment
Especially in the sense of popularizing the view and putting in the effort. After all the position is trivially entailed by utilitarianism and some forms of deontology
Worth noting that this idea didn't originate with Jack, that he is an active member of the Effective Altruism community (check it out!) where it largely originated, but I 100% so see him as the most effective direct educator and influencer in regards to it!!
This actually sounds very much like the biblical eschatological vision of peace within all creation (Genesis 1:29-30; Isaiah 11:6-9; Romans 8:19-22; Revelation 21:1-4).
Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food.” - Genesis 1:29-30 Sounds pretty damn vegan to me!
Wonderful presentation and taking empathy to its logical conclusion I was on Safari recently and saw some of these horrors in the flesh, male lions trying to finish a reluctant buffalo Marlon du toit a South African photographer and Sony ambassador thought it was a great opportunity to photograph a baby elephant being eaten alive in similar circumstances. He was surprised at the backlash he got from social media. His lame defence ‘it’s Nature’ I no longer contribute monies to the preservation of struggling or any other species if it means perpetuating this carnage
@@davebritton7648 Where animals have already been extirpated, no need to bring them back. Also this crazy funding of ‘saving species’ from extinction is cruel and serves the needs of humans, not the individuals within a species. Also the nonsense of ‘Rewilding’ etc
@@davebritton7648 I think the part of your brain dedicated to compassion has been surgically excised Why don’t you leave all your creature comforts behind and get ‘back to nature’ Perhaps that would trigger an epiphany
@@bornufree You are literally calling for nature to be somehow stopped from doing what it has been doing for hundreds of millions of years, and snivelling about predators killing and eating the prey they have evolved to hunt. What are you going to do about it? Persuade the lions to turn vegan?🤣🤣 I think the part of your brain dedicated to sanity and common sense has never developed. You must have the emotions of a six year old girl. I have compassion for suffering animals, but nature is harsh and there's nothing you can do about it but accept that there's nothing you can do about it. Grow up FFS.
Such an important topic, so eloquently delivered and presented by you. Lots of vegans don’t realize they’re blinded by speciesism and appeals to nature in regard to wild animal suffering.
Great speech. I think it’s definitely something we can all lose sight of sometimes, but their lives are just as important as any other life we share this planet with.
I think this is a super interesting idea and it's a very bold one. I think most people would have a hard time grappling with the idea of intervention for various reasons, and I could see a case by base argument being made for intervention. But on the case of predation, these animals must eat to survive. It's necessary for them to do so. As a fellow vegan I see the merit in reducing suffering of as many beings as possible, I guess my brain is getting roadblocked by not immediately knowing a solution. You're proposing we act as the shepherds of this planet and all of it's inhabitants. I agree this isn't a bad idea considering we're currently acting as it's destroyer instead. But are we not applying our moral compass to nature? Often times people argue, "morality is subjective" when it comes to veganism and I struggle with that as well. Isn't that argument even stronger when it comes to intervening with nature? Help me figure this out.
REMINDER! The NYC Animal Liberation March is on Sept 2! Come show your support for our non-human animals, and if you can, promote the event on social. Let's do this!
Best speech at vegan camp out, best speech on wild animal suffering. Jack you killed it! Thank you on behalf of the animals and for spreading awareness about this important and neglected area ❤❤
Hero. Thanks for a great speech. Of course, in order to maintain the human creativity needed, we also have to consider sustainability and therefore habitats, but yes values should come before actions.
Great talk, it should be considered, we can do something directly about suffering in the wild. I think the only force that we have that can solve this problem at a significant scale is a super intelligent AI. The sheer amount of animals that exist makes it impossible for humans to directly have a large scale impact, even if we are all hands on deck. Indirectly though with a vastly advanced AI, ending that horror show can actually be achieved.
Though it should be noted that we currently don't seem to know how ta align a super intelligent AI with our values, so speeding up its development could be very dangerous
@@unbekant5432 We can't mess it up indeed, we really should avoid failure there. That's our only real shot to make a significant difference for such a massive endeavour though.
@@joannot6706 Thanks for the response! What makes you so confident that it is our only real shot? Predicting the future is very difficult and I don't see what makes non-super-AI solutions impossible. We might just not have found them yet.
@@unbekant5432 I think that ASI is our only real shot because as we all know after watching this video, this problem of suffering and death in nature is not only massive but most importantly massively complex. A high level of adaptative problem solving (intelligence) is required for that mind boggling complexity and it needs to be done at a crazy crazy scale. Humans might have the intelligence to deal with that complexity, but even if there was a will from every single human in the world to actively help other species of animals, we just aren't enough humans, we can't scale. So what could solve this problem if not ASI or at least AGI?
@@joannot6706 Good question. I don't really know what else could solve the problem. But I don't think that automatically means an ASI is the only option. A person from the middle ages would not have been able to imagine any way for smallpox to disappear from the world except for devine intervention, but that doesn't mean that's true. It's just very difficult to be certain that something won't be technologically possible except for one specific way.
You make incredible points and this was very emotional for me too hear regarding the baby elephant and hearing the koala, thank you for speaking for them I appreciate what you do.
Thank you so much for this! You were one of the people who made me passionate about the issue of wild animal suffering, and I now plan on pursuing a career in it! One response I’ve gotten from a vegan family member is that while it is important, veganism is already viewed as radical and introducing W.A.S to people has the potential of further radicalizing the vegan community. Do you have thoughts on this?
I think the main question should be not about if it's radical or not, but if it's reasonable. And it is. It means people will follow, no matter the pace
Allowing that to happen to a elephant, when in a position to end it, should be an arrestable offence. Yet another example of the danger of ideological entrenchment.
A great presentation. Though, I don't think it's a blindspot. Vegans talk about this a lot. It seems the most pressing issue is animal exploitation at the hands of humans, so it makes sense that's our focus. And conservation has always been a concern for even nonvegans. It's a wonderful thought that humans might make positive impacts in the lives of nonhuman animals, but doesn't this amount to wishful thinking?
I hope we will discover technological solutions to wild animal suffering. It just seems so insurmountable an issue at this point bar vaccines and aiding animals suffering from famine, drought, fires etc. How do you solve predation, large quantities of offspring, sexual abusive and violent behaviour?
We might not ever be able to solve the problem of wild animal suffering and predation, but I think the point isn’t to eradicate the problem forever. It’s to intervene where we can and lessen the suffering if possible and practicable. Hopefully we will be able to find technological solutions and improve the lives of many wild animals.
Very interesting and important video, and I agree in principle... the only real concern I have is that we refer to predation as if we only take the prey animals' perspective into consideration... What do we do about predator animals, then?? Are they in "the wrong" for being carnivorous? I am being completely candid here, no sarcasm... it is a real question I have regarding animal suffering in the wild.
@@moesia6588 Punishing carnivores for being carnivores is the dumbest idea I've ever heard in my entire life. It sounds like something a 4 year old would come up with, and it's terrifying to watch this cult-like following of this hare-brained idea, which would cause a holocaust of carnivorous animals all over the world just so that egotistical human beings can feel better about themselves. You might as well eradicate all animals, that way there will be zero suffering!
9:10 - 14:28 has no animals except a seemingly healthy pig, and has some of the more important content, if you'd like to watch. To not catch you off guard, 14:28 is a picture of a starving child
@@Brandon-os3qr Thank you so much! I do find these subjects incredibly important and I think shutting oneself off from it is not going to help. But sometimes I feel my empathy is starting to work against me in even being more helpful about these issues.
This was a really good talk by Jack, however it’s not really a vegan blind spot because it’s a separate issue to veganism. I’m still unconvinced of realistically how much we should interfere. Something like the baby elephant I think you should euthanise, but preemptively killing predators I don’t agree with.
A lot off wildlife's suffering is down to what we humans are doing to our & their world. Changing their environment/habitat faster then wildlife can evolve. What humans choose to eat & wanting more & more ' things' . This mind set needs to change. What happens to wildlife & Earth depends on IT. As do Humans. We are ALL connected.
really great. calling factory farmed chickens the greatest feat of conservation in human history is genius and creates the impact necessary for this pursuit. I have shared this conviction with you Jack for quite a while now, and as I have been studying ethics I have found that it is likely symptomatic of a maximising ethics. I find these compelling and most likely to be true, but can sympathise with people who reject them on grounds of demandingness. how you respond to the demandingness objection with reference to speciesism is compelling, but I struggle to resolve myself of the paralysis that comes from the notion that there are things that morally matter that we are nevertheless vastly unequipped to adequately deal with - it makes the good we do throughout our lives - going vegan, for example - feel weak in the face of it. I understand that this is an appeal to futility, and I often point to the allegory of the beached starfishes (just because you will not manage to save all of them this does not mean that it would not be good to save as many as you can) to console myself of these convictions, but even in this scenario the state of things is depressingly bleak.
This is not likely to change until people come to realize that they're powerful beings, capable of manifesting any kind of world that they can imagine. The only limitation to our power to manifest a gentle, kind world is our belief that we can't manifest anything that we can imagine.
Just yesterday I saw an Instagram Meme with +50.000k likes of the format *Is depressed* -> *Sees nature, no longer depressed* To so many people nature is a beacon of meaning and happiness This makes it psychologically very difficult for me to bring up the subject Also interesting utilitarian considerations regarding the net psychological effect of convincing a person and the odds of it helping wild animals in the long run
So what EXACTLY are the proposed measures? I for one haven't heard any yet as a recommended standard procedure. It's all so vague it is suspiciously ideological and has no scientific backing as a hypothesis for reducing suffering. Who is quantifying the suffering in the WHOLE system and how are they measuring this? Humane Hancock and most if not all vegans appealing to welfare biology are not trained in ecology so many huge mistakes can happen by interfering. I am not against help here and there, like in the bush-fires, or the case of the elephant, but I don't believe, how ever well-meaning, the proponents have the wisdom and knowledge to understand the interrelated implications of removing or messing up someone else's food - on a grand scale. I presume there is no clue about population dynamics and species competition dynamics over time. We simply currently have neither the knowledge or resources to do this. It would even be an insurmountable challenge for ecologists. I think the scope is severely limited of this idea, except perhaps for species on the verge of extinction. There is also a danger of arrogance entering this bizarre "movement" at a later stage, when far more are vegan (but still ignorant about ecological complexities and overly ideological). I know a bit about ecology as I studied it and worked a bit in the field. I.m.o. on the issue of nature esp., it is important to let go of things we cannot control to a large degree. Scenario: "let's rescue all the prey" → starvation of the predators. "ok let's rescue the predators and sterilise them". I foresee even more tipping points due to simplistic stupidity.
![[4K] Watch SpaceX Catch A Starship Rocket From Space!!! #IFT5](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pIKI7y3DTXk/mqdefault.jpg)
If you want to see more, check out my playlist here: ruclips.net/p/PL3DYHJ1o1Q0z5Np9lR2BGl4_QqP2SLw5c
Humane, H, the zen Buddhist that, an example of peace and mindfulness, had deep insights regarding humans and harmony . . Saying all nature is within humans.
If you connect this with the true meaning of dominion i in spiritual matters. We can find real clues to how responsible are role is on this planet. When humans are seen as the real " gardeners" on all nature, then a vision of real harmony appears.
Awareness of the vast potential of humans to change themselves, and animals towards individualism , .all animals look to this Human potential. So we have huge responsibility !?
Good speech 👍 *but shifting the focus from focusing on the suffering and exploitation of purpose bred animals for human instrumental uses (such as farming and animal experimentation as just the first 2 that immediately comes to mind) to focusing on wildlife suffering can be a very detrimental opportunity cost to the immense suffering all the animals humans are CHOOSING to breed, exploit, abuse, and in some cases torture.*
We can hypothetically abolish permanently humans CHOOSING to needlessly engage in the exploitation of animals; we cannot abolish wildlife suffering hypothetically or otherwise unless you CHOOSE to mass murder all wildlife.
I definitely choose to maintain focus on affecting change to human perception and behavior in my goal to hypothetically end (and in the process, reduce) the amount of humans CHOOSING to exploit animals or support the exploitation of animals with their purchases. 👍 *But I won't stop you from choosing not to.*
@@yogaofhealth1800
How is watching a baby elephant being eaten alive and the subsequent emotional response from the non-psychopathic, projection ?
Jack, wow. This presentation was really, really good. You explained your points amazingly well and in a captivating manner. Good job! Thank you so much for speaking up for wild animals.
Thank you for patiently dragging me through this paradigm shift. It has not been long since i became vegan. That was also a tough pill to swallow. I am now existentially miserable. It feels like my soul has been torn apart. But i wanted the truth and you gave me the truth.
For a long time humans have increased animal suffering in all kinds of ways. Why this non-interference rule with nature? We can only harm or allow harm to animals when it benefits us? Why not use our power to relieve all creatures of their suffering in the most careful and responsible ways possible.
More than ever, i want to help make things better for all experiencers of this earth.
Excellent, Jack. Thanks for your relentless engagement in this blind spot!
Really the best video on wild animal suffering I've ever seen. I cried, and I can see this is not just a talk to you that you've rehearsed and don't feel anymore. You're there wholeheartedly, co-suffering while you're talking about it. Thank you, Jack.
Did you also cry about the baby elephant? 😭
This was a fantastic speech. I find many vegans are uncomfortable talking about the plight of wild animals or don't take it seriously. You presented a solid case for why we should be talking about this and got a few of my friends thinking
It's not that vegans are uncomfortable talking about the "plight of wild animals" but rather we should not compare what they do with what we do. Animals are like 2 to 3 year old kids and if they fight over food, it doesn't justify humans fighting over the same. We as a technologically advanced species, should try to reduce suffering instead of increasing it, when we can, to show we are really civilised as we think we are.
@lauratanln Where did I compare our actions to the actions of non-human animals? As you said, the whole point of Jack's speech was to highlight why we should seek to help wild animals, despite not being responsible for their suffering
First to comment! Will take this opportunity to say this, I showed my best friend your videos on wild animal suffering and even though she's quite conservative, your videos have genuinely made her question. Thank you for that. Love you for being Humane, Hancock! 💖
That’s very cool! Thanks Amelia 😊
Brutal, necessary, and well done. Thank you for your activism.
That was an excellent presentation! Great job, Jack. You're making a real difference. I wish to contribute to raising awareness about wild animal suffering too, and you're an inspiration!
Thank you for posting, and thank you for doing the presentation. This is for me the best presentation on wild animal suffering addressing a vegan audience so far (with some other options being quite impressive already).
Thank you for talking about this & not giving up on them. Thank you for speaking boldly for them. This needs to be discussed. You are making a difference. Thank you.
Now the RWAS (Reducing Wild Animal Suffering) movement will be stronger among vegans.
It's speeches like these that give me a glimmer of hope that I (27yo) may live to see a world with a prevailing view of sentientism before I die. I don't think it's likely but this speech gives me dose of actual, realistic hope.
As a Hindu sentientist, I hope for the same. 🙏🇮🇳☮️☮️
This was so powerful. Well done Jack you're a fantastic voice for the animals.
Great job man! Such an original approach. Edit: I’ve wrote this while watching but after seeing the whole thing I can say that this is different than any Veganism speech I’ve seen in the last 10 years.
Glad to see people pointing out how natural does not equal good, nice, perfect or "as it should be". One thing I always hated is people pretending they do not intervene with wild animals like the example with the poor elephant baby. That is furthest from the truth. When we CAN save, we do not intervene, but sure as hell will go hunting if we want to kill, will kill them so they do not enter our yards, will poison and plant traps. Hypocrisy knows no mercy, only evil.
I don't think that poor individual could be saved in that situation 1. how do 2 people get them out of the bog? 2. I don't think even with the best vetinary care available that those injuries were anything other than terminal. To leave him like that though was incredibly ruthless.
@@3CVeganHuntSabs I don't think the request was to save the baby elephant, but rather to end his suffering because, as you say, his injuries were too extensive.
@@3CVeganHuntSabs I was trying to make a point they could have ended the suffering but they have chosen not to until it got to the point they could not look at that anymore. Usually, in Documentaries, they would name the same reason for not getting involved. But then you remember we kill them for fun and that is literally us getting involved. When they can actually kill to save a baby from suffering, then they have to debate should it be done or not.
The suffering of baby elephant didn't make the nature any more natural because the baby ended up dead anyway.
2 entirely different things. Hunting can create huge environmental damage (and suffering). Saving is intervening by default - it might be a good idea on a small level but disastrous as a general principal. What happens to the predators, for example? I am vegan b.t.w., not a hypocrite!
@@spiral-m I agree. Carnivores eat meat and if they are prevented from hunting, however cruel and shocking that may be, they will die. So, to save one animal means the death of another. Nature is cruel and that is a fact. We as humans can avoid massive cruelty issues by not consuming animal products simply because we don't need them. We cannot rid the animal kingdom of cruelty, but we can intervene if an animal is in difficulty or injured, but not in cases of predators hunting prey. I am also vegan and do not consider this to be hypocrisy. It is simple fact.
Great presentation. 👍🏾
I have to watch this again.
Wow.
One of the best things I have seen from you. Well done HH.
Practical solutions to those things that we can help would make a great presentation. For example, donating to the Tolga bat hospital, your local bird rehab, rewilding some paved lots, and providing water stations at ground level. (I used to enjoy going along the Yellowstone river in my teens and springing leg hold traps with a stick, although I got shot at once, so that might be a bit next-level for many of us.). These things make a big difference to individual wild animals.
Rewilding and adding water stations is the opposite of helpful. That is just creating infinitely more suffering by allowing way more animals to breed
@@RuberSocks It helps the existing ones live a little easier during brutal heat too.
@@roku3216 Adding water will simply make life flourish and explode. Water is the main source of life. Bad choice.
@@RuberSocks Ecological destruction (lack of green corridoors and wild places) means even MORE suffering than exists in nature because of added pressures of starvation. That's why biodiversity is collapsing. Are you arguing for the elimination of nature? That would be pure insanity. You want to help wild animals yet you don't want to help wild animals obviously suffering from thirst?
@@spiral-m Animals starve to death regardless, among the other horrible ways they die. Removing their source of food and water is the most effective way to end the cycle
Thank you for this important talk.
Awesome talk Jack. Thanks for this
Fantastic speech! Thank you so much for promoting this crucial topic!
Love how you start raising your voice at 9:31 and at various other times throughout this speech and start speaking with passion on behalf of those individuals who are suffering in nature. More people need to stop romanticizing nature. We need to stop glorifying the balance of ecosystems. Nature and ecosystems are *NOT* intrinsically good. The experiences of sentient individuals *ARE.*
Amazing. I know this comment doesn't add anything, but he is one of the best of us.
thank you for bringing up something, that even vegan activists tend to wash over or laugh off
There's nothing funny about vegans wanting to intervene in Nature and start killing animals to save other animals. Nothing funny or "humane" about it at all. I find the whole topic very suspect, as if there's an element trying to spin and destroy the very ethics of veganism, which is No Killing of Any Sentient Being except in self defense OR in the direct defense of a loved one/family member.
I promise you, this insanity will end just like the nightmare that animal agriculture has become today.
this was so brilliant
I think about this topic a lot.
Brilliant speech. Showing clear examples is so important.
Thank you for your this enlightening presentation!
I saw you there mate. We had some really interesting conversations after 💚
What a fantastic ending, I got goosebumps
Thank you for opening my eyes.
I've developed a similar perspective in recent years and do believe a more civilized humanity will eventually alleviate all possible suffering on earth.
Of course as you point out this future only happens if awareness is raised along the way.
It is very brave to lay the ground for it in these yet primitive times.
We are still far from civilized but I have hope the rapid rise of technology will accelerate our cultural progress with it.
How? what is the actual plan?
You people are insane. The only possible way to eliminate suffering is to eliminate life. Suffering is a fact of life. It's inescapable. You live, you will suffer at some point in your life.
Whenever we bring up this subject with other vegans, most of them either get defensive or try to change / avoid the topic altogether. A really well presented speech, everyone needs to watch this! 💚💚
It would depend on how you bring the topic up for me. I consider it to be a separate issue to veganism. So it’s not really a vegan blind spot; it’s an everyone blind spot.
I think most people would support putting the elephant out of its misery. It’s the preemptive killing of predators where I (and I think a lot of other vegans) take issue. I know Jack didn’t specifically say this but it’s where a lot of people go with the topic.
@@gg2950 I totally agree and am very surprised by this comment section. Let's concentrate on stopping the suffering WE cause. I find it actually shocking that anyone thinks preemptive killing of predators is a just idea. Nature is nature, it is not 'good' or 'bad'. There is such a thing as the food chain.
@@bengilkes7676 Yeah, I feel like most people in support of this haven’t really thought it through. It wouldn’t just be carnivores, but omnivores you’d have to be preempting, which is about 2/3 of the animal kingdom. And what about herbivores that fight for mating rights or territory. And how would you choose which species to help; the one you liked the look of the most? It’s an absolute minefield!
@@gg2950Heavily disagree. This is the speciesm that's being spoken about specifically in this presentation. The logical entailment of veganism IS caring about wild animal rights. To not do so is a logical contradiction. Rights are deontological and they exist to stop exploitation from those that wish to take away others autonomy. Serial killers running around killing people;
"oh man that's a rights violation, you can't let them kill others even if they're hungry, kill them, imprison them, stop them at once!"
We don't let homeless people who are starving run around killing cos they need to eat, there's even cases of people trapped at sea murdering people to eat them to survive that are imprisoned for murder once getting back to land. We don't accept murder to eat people. We don't even accept wild animals killing people despite them just trying to survive because they NEEDED to kill someone. They're hunted down and executed for our safety despite those same people claiming it's natural and carnivorous animals should have the right to execute others and take their autonomy to live. Double standards. What about the wild individuals safety?
Rights allow suffering to protect individuals from exploitation. If more suffer to protect an individual that is good. You can't take someone's organs to save 5 more people. Rights allow all 5 of them to die to save that person from being violated despite their death having more utility.
But when it comes to wild animals all those victims are left to suffer and die, like that elephant. So a bunch of serial killers can persist and keep killing. In an idyllic world there would be no one living in fear of being murdered. That's what moralities goal is. Why should we get to live happily and execute our predators? Why can't the elephants live freely and have their predators executed?
We care about rights violations. Killing to eat someone's body is exploitation. Wild serial killers need to be stopped as well. Like Jack said a species cannot suffer, we do not care about groups. Morality exists to protect individuals. It is a huge blindspot and speciesism to suggest only one species deserves protection from killers but all others don't. This applies to all the types of killing and oppression shown in the last part of the video too. Anything that we stop happening to even human moral patients should be applied to animal moral patients that need protection too.
@@80slimshadys Ok then; so I’m interested in whether or not you’ve thought it through. Veganism is a philosophy which means it only applies to beings that have moral agency; agree or disagree? I mean how many times have you argued with a non vegan that we don’t behave like lions because they have no moral agency. But it seems like in this instance you want to behave like animals do have moral agency and that we should hold them accountable for their actions. Would you tell a non vegan that tells you lions also eat meat that you think the lions should be executed?
Let’s say we had a human that couldn’t discern right from wrong; would we execute them if they posed a threat to others? Wouldn’t we be placing them somewhere that they couldn’t cause harm to others?
I could keep going but for the moment I’ll let you respond.
Very interesting and informative talk. However, many vegans are involved in wildlife protection and are very much aware of what you are saying here. The Hunt Saboteur's Association is the oldest direct action animal rights group there is at 60 years of being out in the fields. Paul Watson and others have been on the high seas protecting and rescuing wild beings. many of us work in wildlife rescue and rehabilitation. To my mind re wild beings the priorities are as follows; 1. stop humans in the industrial complex directly harming them through hunting, habitat loss, poisoning of waterways etc, that's a HUGE one, 2. help where it is possible so for example raising abandoned babies, splinting broken bones, giving antibiotics, nurse them back to health before releasing them OR bring a swift end to a being in agony who is beyond help.
These two things are I think so huge that we would be hard pressed to reach both goals. many wild beings die long drawn out deaths.
The young elephant you mentioned would have had a much longer drawn out death if those hyenas had not eaten them. The only thing in that case would have been to have shot them as anything else would have just led to more suffering. And yes that would be the end I would choose for myself if my injuries were so extensive and we were such a long way from medical help. The lesser of two evils
And there is the very difficult moral maze that follows helping wild beings, for example insectivorous species eat live insects. Some birds eat only fish. Some beings are obligate carnivores.
As present I believe that our relationship with other animals stops at not harming them on purpose and helping the minority who need help when we come across them.
Once I saw a hawk fly off with a baby blackbird who was screaming. Both parents were distraught and chasing the hawk. I could do nothing as this was all above my head. If I could have rescued that baby it is unlikely that they would have survived re the extensive injuries already sustained but the parents would still suffer even if the baby survived as the baby would have needed vetinary care and rehab', they would still suffer as they lost their baby. The hawk would kill another to feed their chicks or they would all die so horrible but in this case should we interfere?
Morally we should 1. tread as lightly as possible on the earth, reduce, reuse, repurpose, recycle limit things like flying etc etc. 2. do things such as feed the birds, allow wild places to be left alone, litter pick. 3. Assist any individual we come across who needs help by either taking them to a wildlife hospital/vet/other person who is the best available to help, act on advice given e.g leave a fledgeling alone and see if the parents come back or wait for assistance e.g someone to shoot a badly injured deer.
More discussion very much needed on this.
But what more thought is there?By his own analogy the scale of the task is inconceivable. And we humans can't even get our own shit in order.
Following his logic, we would want to kill off what, all the predators as they inflict the most suffering. Not to mention all the murder, infanticide and rape that occurs intra species. How would you mitigate that in nature? All this is impossible.
Humans have a horrible tendency to make things worse when we get ideas above our station. Civilisation has already fucked the planet in terms of climate change, which all species are starting to feel.
We can't end suffering, it's inevitable. I think the moral thing to do is do everything we can to ensure other species continue to have equality of opportunity for life and evolution, not equality of outcomes. And act with as much compassion as we can on the individual level.
The role of stewardship and curiosity I think is the meaning to life, as they represent the absolute best, and at times worst, of us.
@@nicbongoI don’t think the point of it is to end suffering in the wild forever. That is probably impossible. The point is to change our attitudes about nature, recognize it is awful, and that we ought to intervene if we can in order to improve the lives of wild animals. If we can come up with technological solutions to such problems, it will be good. The problem is also that we just aren’t talking about the issue, it isn’t even on the radar. If we talk about the issue more and have more minds taking this seriously, it will increase the probability that new and innovative methods and technologies will be invented that we could use and apply to intervene in nature. Yes, it might seem impossible to think we can make a difference, but it also seemed impossible that we would ever get to the moon, or invent cars and airplanes to travel quicker. Technology and science is advancing at an exponential rate, and every time we are baffled at what humans can do. When the Wright brothers invented the plane, no one ever thought they would even be able to fly across the ocean in a million years, yet just 30 years after a man flied across the Atlantic, and 20 years after that we landed a man on the moon. Whose to say the technology of a hundred years in the future won’t help improve the lives of wild animals in ways that we today would think impossible?
Habitat loss is one of the best ways to prevent wild animal suffering. Just don't give them the land/food to procreate. Simple as that.
@@RuberSocks Preventing habitat loss is away to ensure that humanity is not responsible for suffering within the ecology. Nature itself, is savage. Suffering will still be rife.
@@johnchesterfield9726 I'm confused by the intent of this presentation. I'd agree that we should show compassion to other species, as part of a role of stewardship. Save the penguins if you see them shivering alone whilst filing a documentary, execute that elephant that had it's trunk eaten whilst alive. Sure. That's not too controversial.
But who honestly says or thinks that nature is benign? It seems he's having an argument about a non-issue.
Or have I missed something?
This is what I've told to idiots who have too much Disney under their belt: a species doesn't suffer, sentient individuals do. Remember what Richard Dawkins said: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Jack for some time I've considered you the human I admire and align with the most. I want you to know that yes you are at the pinnacle. To me you opened up this greatest source of suffering as well as other moral severities all of which are least addressed. You're the person I can rely on to bring up about the most important matters, needing to be said, that barely anyone touches.
and the level at which you work for the most in need.
As an AR activist albeit currently struggling I hope to one day work towards these solutions together.
~Eudaimonia until efilism~
"Eudaimonia until efilism", well said.
just as amazing as the infamous gary yourofsky speech. thank you!!
Very very well explained
The story about baby elephant was absolutely heart-breaking and shattering, I broke into tears. And how many stories like that occur every day?
We should absolutely care about any animal suffering and as a humanity strive to do our best to alleviate it. As we do for ourselves we should certainly do for the animals, as much as is (and will be) in our capabilities.
Those who disagree should really imagine him/herself in a place of starving/deseased animal or being eaten alive. If you still think it's ok for them, but not for you, then you're a massive hypocrite.
What a phenomenal speech 🙏
In a 100 years when we live in a tech utopia (hopefully) and have dealt with wild animal suffering to a good extent, you’ll be remembered as a figure of ethical enlightenment
Especially in the sense of popularizing the view and putting in the effort. After all the position is trivially entailed by utilitarianism and some forms of deontology
I don't share your optimism on that.
Worth noting that this idea didn't originate with Jack, that he is an active member of the Effective Altruism community (check it out!) where it largely originated, but I 100% so see him as the most effective direct educator and influencer in regards to it!!
@@Brandon-os3qr yeah I appreciate he’s not the founder of this
That’s why I added the second comment, maybe should have mentioned it in the original
Tech is driving a dystopian future but enjoy your fantasy..
Groundbreaking thought path
This actually sounds very much like the biblical eschatological vision of peace within all creation (Genesis 1:29-30; Isaiah 11:6-9; Romans 8:19-22; Revelation 21:1-4).
Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food.” - Genesis 1:29-30
Sounds pretty damn vegan to me!
Exellent! Thank you.
Thank you Jack for raising awareness about this
Truly eye-opening. Great speech about an important topic.
Wonderful presentation and taking empathy to its logical conclusion
I was on Safari recently and saw some of these horrors in the flesh, male lions trying to finish a reluctant buffalo
Marlon du toit a South African photographer and Sony ambassador thought it was a great opportunity to photograph a baby elephant being eaten alive in similar circumstances. He was surprised at the backlash he got from social media. His lame defence ‘it’s Nature’
I no longer contribute monies to the preservation of struggling or any other species if it means perpetuating this carnage
So what do you suggest, we should somehow stop nature 'perpetuating this carnage?' Any ideas how?
@@davebritton7648
Where animals have already been extirpated, no need to bring them back. Also this crazy funding of ‘saving species’ from extinction is cruel and serves the needs of humans, not the individuals within a species. Also the nonsense of ‘Rewilding’ etc
@@bornufree
I think this vegan is insane, and I'm not at all sure about you.
@@davebritton7648
I think the part of your brain dedicated to compassion has been surgically excised
Why don’t you leave all your creature comforts behind and get ‘back to nature’
Perhaps that would trigger an epiphany
@@bornufree
You are literally calling for nature to be somehow stopped from doing what it has been doing for hundreds of millions of years, and snivelling about predators killing and eating the prey they have evolved to hunt. What are you going to do about it? Persuade the lions to turn vegan?🤣🤣
I think the part of your brain dedicated to sanity and common sense has never developed.
You must have the emotions of a six year old girl.
I have compassion for suffering animals, but nature is harsh and there's nothing you can do about it but accept that there's nothing you can do about it. Grow up FFS.
Respect- thank you for sharing and educating on an important and I think very just cause dude 💪🏽✌🏽
Good Job Jack!
Such an important topic, so eloquently delivered and presented by you. Lots of vegans don’t realize they’re blinded by speciesism and appeals to nature in regard to wild animal suffering.
It isn't that we're blind to it. It's just that the cost of stopping it is too high.
Great speech. I think it’s definitely something we can all lose sight of sometimes, but their lives are just as important as any other life we share this planet with.
I've never seen a better presentation on this topic
good job Jack
Much needed ❤.
Impeccable speech, my friend! Vegans should care. 😢
I hope no one believes vegans ONLY care about domestic animals. A good number of us do rescues of wildlife.
I think this is a super interesting idea and it's a very bold one. I think most people would have a hard time grappling with the idea of intervention for various reasons, and I could see a case by base argument being made for intervention. But on the case of predation, these animals must eat to survive. It's necessary for them to do so. As a fellow vegan I see the merit in reducing suffering of as many beings as possible, I guess my brain is getting roadblocked by not immediately knowing a solution.
You're proposing we act as the shepherds of this planet and all of it's inhabitants. I agree this isn't a bad idea considering we're currently acting as it's destroyer instead.
But are we not applying our moral compass to nature?
Often times people argue, "morality is subjective" when it comes to veganism and I struggle with that as well. Isn't that argument even stronger when it comes to intervening with nature? Help me figure this out.
You're a brave man
That was powerful and absolutely convincing!
Really great stuff
fantastic talk on a critical subject.
Thank you
Very powerful speech. I am sharing
So I put this on in my car to listen to and it completely ruined my day. Can't stop thinking about the damn elephant.
REMINDER! The NYC Animal Liberation March is on Sept 2! Come show your support for our non-human animals, and if you can, promote the event on social. Let's do this!
Only 10 mins in but I can really tell how much effort you've been putting into learning effective communication. Amazing work sir.
Best speech at vegan camp out, best speech on wild animal suffering. Jack you killed it! Thank you on behalf of the animals and for spreading awareness about this important and neglected area ❤❤
Beautiful thank you for bringing awareness.
Hero. Thanks for a great speech. Of course, in order to maintain the human creativity needed, we also have to consider sustainability and therefore habitats, but yes values should come before actions.
Such a good speech
'had mother nature been a real parent, oh - she'd be in jail for child abuse!'
Great talk, it should be considered, we can do something directly about suffering in the wild.
I think the only force that we have that can solve this problem at a significant scale is a super intelligent AI. The sheer amount of animals that exist makes it impossible for humans to directly have a large scale impact, even if we are all hands on deck. Indirectly though with a vastly advanced AI, ending that horror show can actually be achieved.
Though it should be noted that we currently don't seem to know how ta align a super intelligent AI with our values, so speeding up its development could be very dangerous
@@unbekant5432 We can't mess it up indeed, we really should avoid failure there.
That's our only real shot to make a significant difference for such a massive endeavour though.
@@joannot6706 Thanks for the response! What makes you so confident that it is our only real shot? Predicting the future is very difficult and I don't see what makes non-super-AI solutions impossible. We might just not have found them yet.
@@unbekant5432 I think that ASI is our only real shot because as we all know after watching this video, this problem of suffering and death in nature is not only massive but most importantly massively complex.
A high level of adaptative problem solving (intelligence) is required for that mind boggling complexity and it needs to be done at a crazy crazy scale. Humans might have the intelligence to deal with that complexity, but even if there was a will from every single human in the world to actively help other species of animals, we just aren't enough humans, we can't scale. So what could solve this problem if not ASI or at least AGI?
@@joannot6706 Good question. I don't really know what else could solve the problem. But I don't think that automatically means an ASI is the only option. A person from the middle ages would not have been able to imagine any way for smallpox to disappear from the world except for devine intervention, but that doesn't mean that's true. It's just very difficult to be certain that something won't be technologically possible except for one specific way.
Good stuff.
You make incredible points and this was very emotional for me too hear regarding the baby elephant and hearing the koala, thank you for speaking for them I appreciate what you do.
What an amazing speech, it was a privilege to have seen it live!
Thank you so much for this! You were one of the people who made me passionate about the issue of wild animal suffering, and I now plan on pursuing a career in it! One response I’ve gotten from a vegan family member is that while it is important, veganism is already viewed as radical and introducing W.A.S to people has the potential of further radicalizing the vegan community. Do you have thoughts on this?
I think the main question should be not about if it's radical or not, but if it's reasonable. And it is. It means people will follow, no matter the pace
Incredible speech! Well done, Jack!
Thank you so much for this important speech!
As the Official Veganism Channel of RUclips, I approve of this video
Ur not
@@17thcolossus91 I am
Allowing that to happen to a elephant, when in a position to end it, should be an arrestable offence. Yet another example of the danger of ideological entrenchment.
A great presentation. Though, I don't think it's a blindspot. Vegans talk about this a lot.
It seems the most pressing issue is animal exploitation at the hands of humans, so it makes sense that's our focus.
And conservation has always been a concern for even nonvegans.
It's a wonderful thought that humans might make positive impacts in the lives of nonhuman animals, but doesn't this amount to wishful thinking?
Thank you 💫🙏
Horrific, but real
I hope we will discover technological solutions to wild animal suffering. It just seems so insurmountable an issue at this point bar vaccines and aiding animals suffering from famine, drought, fires etc. How do you solve predation, large quantities of offspring, sexual abusive and violent behaviour?
We might not ever be able to solve the problem of wild animal suffering and predation, but I think the point isn’t to eradicate the problem forever. It’s to intervene where we can and lessen the suffering if possible and practicable. Hopefully we will be able to find technological solutions and improve the lives of many wild animals.
Very interesting and important video, and I agree in principle... the only real concern I have is that we refer to predation as if we only take the prey animals' perspective into consideration... What do we do about predator animals, then?? Are they in "the wrong" for being carnivorous? I am being completely candid here, no sarcasm... it is a real question I have regarding animal suffering in the wild.
They're not evil but what they do is still bad.
These people are clinically insane, please run as far away as you can, your common sense and logic will make your their enemy before long.
@@Tyrell-d6o What's insane about acknowledging the horrible things of nature?
@@moesia6588 Punishing carnivores for being carnivores is the dumbest idea I've ever heard in my entire life. It sounds like something a 4 year old would come up with, and it's terrifying to watch this cult-like following of this hare-brained idea, which would cause a holocaust of carnivorous animals all over the world just so that egotistical human beings can feel better about themselves. You might as well eradicate all animals, that way there will be zero suffering!
@@Tyrell-d6o But fuck the herbivores that get tortured to death? Why does nobody care about them?
amazing speech!
I'm at minute 6 now, I'm not sure how much I can stomach of this.
So I'm just gonna leave this here for some extra engagement levels.
9:10 - 14:28 has no animals except a seemingly healthy pig, and has some of the more important content, if you'd like to watch.
To not catch you off guard, 14:28 is a picture of a starving child
@@Brandon-os3qr Thank you so much!
I do find these subjects incredibly important and I think shutting oneself off from it is not going to help.
But sometimes I feel my empathy is starting to work against me in even being more helpful about these issues.
the best diet is that which is the Least impacting on nature!
This was a really good talk by Jack, however it’s not really a vegan blind spot because it’s a separate issue to veganism.
I’m still unconvinced of realistically how much we should interfere. Something like the baby elephant I think you should euthanise, but preemptively killing predators I don’t agree with.
Eye opening. Thank you.
🔥💯👍
the world is terrifying
A lot off wildlife's suffering is down to what we humans are doing to our & their world. Changing their environment/habitat faster then wildlife can evolve. What humans choose to eat & wanting more & more ' things' . This mind set needs to change. What happens to wildlife & Earth depends on IT. As do Humans. We are ALL connected.
really great.
calling factory farmed chickens the greatest feat of conservation in human history is genius and creates the impact necessary for this pursuit.
I have shared this conviction with you Jack for quite a while now, and as I have been studying ethics I have found that it is likely symptomatic of a maximising ethics. I find these compelling and most likely to be true, but can sympathise with people who reject them on grounds of demandingness.
how you respond to the demandingness objection with reference to speciesism is compelling, but I struggle to resolve myself of the paralysis that comes from the notion that there are things that morally matter that we are nevertheless vastly unequipped to adequately deal with - it makes the good we do throughout our lives - going vegan, for example - feel weak in the face of it.
I understand that this is an appeal to futility, and I often point to the allegory of the beached starfishes (just because you will not manage to save all of them this does not mean that it would not be good to save as many as you can) to console myself of these convictions, but even in this scenario the state of things is depressingly bleak.
Extinction is the way out of this mindless suffering.
Suffering is a lesson.
Well presented 👏 what's your opinion of Zoos?
This is not likely to change until people come to realize that they're powerful beings, capable of manifesting any kind of world that they can imagine. The only limitation to our power to manifest a gentle, kind world is our belief that we can't manifest anything that we can imagine.
They are suffering because of mainly our doing. We are an appaling species, yet we are the only species that can change this.
"because of mainly our doing"
False.
Just yesterday I saw an Instagram Meme with +50.000k likes of the format
*Is depressed*
->
*Sees nature, no longer depressed*
To so many people nature is a beacon of meaning and happiness
This makes it psychologically very difficult for me to bring up the subject
Also interesting utilitarian considerations regarding the net psychological effect of convincing a person and the odds of it helping wild animals in the long run
So what EXACTLY are the proposed measures? I for one haven't heard any yet as a recommended standard procedure. It's all so vague it is suspiciously ideological and has no scientific backing as a hypothesis for reducing suffering. Who is quantifying the suffering in the WHOLE system and how are they measuring this? Humane Hancock and most if not all vegans appealing to welfare biology are not trained in ecology so many huge mistakes can happen by interfering. I am not against help here and there, like in the bush-fires, or the case of the elephant, but I don't believe, how ever well-meaning, the proponents have the wisdom and knowledge to understand the interrelated implications of removing or messing up someone else's food - on a grand scale. I presume there is no clue about population dynamics and species competition dynamics over time. We simply currently have neither the knowledge or resources to do this. It would even be an insurmountable challenge for ecologists. I think the scope is severely limited of this idea, except perhaps for species on the verge of extinction. There is also a danger of arrogance entering this bizarre "movement" at a later stage, when far more are vegan (but still ignorant about ecological complexities and overly ideological). I know a bit about ecology as I studied it and worked a bit in the field. I.m.o. on the issue of nature esp., it is important to let go of things we cannot control to a large degree. Scenario: "let's rescue all the prey" → starvation of the predators. "ok let's rescue the predators and sterilise them". I foresee even more tipping points due to simplistic stupidity.