Adam Ruins Everything - Why Trophy Hunting Can Be Good for Animals
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 сен 2016
- Turns out the real threat to endangered animals isn’t trophy hunters...
Subscribe: bit.ly/truTVSubscribe
Watch Full Episodes for FREE: bit.ly/1Rw2yzp
Check Adam’s Sources: bit.ly/1Q7MHpK
In Adam Ruins Everything, host Adam Conover employs a combination of comedy, history and science to dispel widespread misconceptions about everything we take for granted. A blend of entertainment and enlightenment, Adam Ruins Everything is like that friend who knows a little bit too much about everything and is going to tell you about it... whether you like it or not.
truTV Official Site: www.trutv.com/
Like truTV on Facebook: / trutv
Follow truTV on Twitter: / trutv
Follow truTV on Tumblr: / trutv
Get the truTV app on Google Play: bit.ly/1eYxjPP
Get the truTV app on iTunes: apple.co/1JiGkjh
Way more truTV! Watch clips, sneak peeks and exclusives from original shows like Comedy Knockout, Those Who Can't and more - plus fresh video from hit shows like Impractical Jokers and The Carbonaro Effect.
Adam Ruins Everything - Why Trophy Hunting Can Be Good for Animals 
Развлечения
Breed my little money bags, BREED!
That gets me every time.
Lmao genius
So trur
true
MeganekkoFury1126 SAME
And they are also breaking up the soil allowing it too stay frees and allow water too flow well and... fertilizing it.
"Why should I waste time protecting A-frican lion?"
Very nice
nice wordplay
Lol
2:07
Although trophy hunters have quite weird morales, every single trophy hunter would rather spent their money on keeping reserves than on poaching Lords.
How Do you know that?
+alphaghoul
Because of logic, poachers would simply kill all the game.
***** bruh, tespiri agrees with you I think. He says that hunters would not support illegal poachers (that are actually bad) but instead would rather give their money to governments who would protect the animals they also love (in their own way). It's alphagoul you're after.
Also I think people started thinking hunting is bad when hunting was axtually pretty harmful. For example hunters almost completely whiped out wolf populations in Europe and NA. I know hunting culture and rules have completely since but still.
I didn't say hunting was bad, I watched the video, I just thought you said something unusual is all.
They don't spend the money to preserve and save, they spend it to kill. If the wanted to preserve they'd just donate the money, for them its just a convenient by product.
I had this guy all wrong. I thought he was a big jerk who loved to ruin the things we love. But surprisingly enough he's a guy who cares deeply for animals. What impressed me was that he shared that fact with deep sympathy and empathy. Adam Conover, you have my respect.
You're deeply delluded.
So, sacrificing a few can save many? Huh. I never thought of it that way. Still, would've been nice if that dentist had shot what he was permitted to shoot.
Elizabeth Lingurar the only person who screwed that hunt up was the guide
Even if he did shoot the right animal, his money wouldn’t have saved any animal. In Zimbabwe, the system doesn’t work. The money instead goes to the government and never gets distributed to conservation programs and locals.
Elizabeth Lingurar where’s thanos when you need him the most
The Categorical Imperative
@@pisces2569 corruption
I remember someone pointing out, years ago, that cows aren't endangered -- because we eat them, and have a vested interest in ensuring there's a steady supply. The guy said we could probably save a lot of endangered species just by turning them into harvestable resources like cows.
This video makes KIND OF the same point... except the people who are trying to grow the animals aren't doing it for their own plates.
Yes.. and no. Yes, we could save, say, rhinos if we decide to eat them. The rhino population would grow steadily and soon enough they wouldn't be endangered any more. BUT, if you decide to eat rhinos you have to use a lot of terrain so as to contain them and a LOT more in order to grow plants to feed them. This, in turn, would mean the loss of habitat and the endangering of a lot more of species. So you end up saving one and endangering many. That's one of the main concerns which people who decide becoming vegetarian consider, because the loss of habitat due to farms is a major mediambiental issue.
I hope I was able to shed some light on the topic. :D
Very good point. Some animals just aren't as easily farmable. (It's not just land: "Invisible water" factors into the matter as well. And that's a precious resource in the areas rhinos thrive.)
I did appreciate something I read the other day: a whole article pointing out that vegans need to stop being all-or-nothing meat-is-murder (or, worse, meat-is-Holocaust) because it flat-out isn't working to win converts -- but that by pointing out some of the factors in a "less is better" fashion (eating less meat is healthier, cheaper, impacts the environment less, etc. etc.), they could definitely help change mindsets (statistically) to a world where a lot fewer animals get eaten.
That, and I kinda wish they'd put more energy and money into making meat substitutes cheap and TASTY. I donate plasma, I have trouble keeping my blood proteins up, I need more red meat in my diet. I love beans, but going mostly beans is uncomfortable for multiple reasons, and gets boring quickly. Cheese is too expensive to be more than a side dish / topping -- it can't be the main protein. I don't like milk enough to drink it regularly (though I do drink it, just infrequently). Yogurt is... weird, and I eat it only occasionally.
I've come across a type of veggie burger that was absolutely delicious... but too expensive to consume regularly. Other veggie substitutes we've tried have been bad enough we never bought them twice. Tofu just turns us cold most of the time, no matter how you try to disguise it.
Yesterday saw Good Mythical Morning try out the food substitutes like Soylent; I'd be willing to add some of those to my diet, but we're trying to work the food budget down to where $150/day buys food for our family of four for a whole week, and 20/day/person just isn't going to cut it. Plus, from their appraisal, the texture (glue, paste, etc.) still leaves a lot to be desired.
Yes, finding alternatives is a big problem. I, for instance, went full vegan for a year, but not anymore. I still do not eat so much meat as I used to, but I do eat some. There are some alternatives, of course, but the problem is that they are either too expensive or too difficult to find / too insider.
And the article does make a good point.
:D
My friend is vegetarian in the United States, but in Japan he found he can't afford to go meat-free. Since he's vegetarian out of an ethical obligation to not kill animals if he can survive another way, I find this an unexpected but interesting pragmatic solution.
I agree that vegans who promote veganism in a very aggressive, accusatory way tend to drive away potential converts and generally alienate people.
However, I do think that they (vegans in general) have a point when they call it a holocaust -- it's not even particularly extreme or exaggerated. Mass confinement and slaughter of beings viewed as being inferior is very holocaust-like, objectively. The main reason we don't talk about it that way is precisely because the majority of humans see animals as being intrinsically inferior, and their exploitation as being a normal part of life.
I have no interest in hunting but I really want a "I'm a rich jerk who shoots Rhino's" bag.
jaJA!!
So bottom line: Trophy hunting shouldn't be abolished _right_ _now_ but should nonetheless be abolished in the long run once better options arise.
Yep.
Until a better way to save them comes up, trophy hunting is our best option
me pike or like the sound of that sir
well staten ade an ase an literal format
or probable rather, or scropture or scripture whether
or, wjether whether, recent or whether writing ode or ofe'
(recent, or agree to recent ofe, or)
(recent, probable or rather, or
agree to recent or
recent, probable or rather, or
agree to recent ofe'
Is it the best option or the easiest?
"Why is killing them the only solution?"
Cuz hunters pay way more money on hunts than animal lovers contribute to conservation projects.
maybetoby Possibly because trophy hunters are usually very rich assholes who are used to wasting money on moronic things, while your average nature lover is a person on a lower wage who doesn't have heaps of extra cash to give to conservation.
why would they have to dump cash out for nothing ?
License fees and excise taxes add up. The biggest accomplishments of anti-hunting alphabet soup environmental groups is reintroduction of wolves and overpopulation of wild horses destroying the range.
And raking in equal access to justice funds.
The irony. LMAO It seems like the dumb ass animal lovers can't even one up on hunters.
And some of them are teens with no wages, lol
Even in the USA, 90% of the money that goes to looking after parks etc, apparently comes from hunters who pay ridiculous amounts to kill an animal to eat. Some pay up to $300,000 to shoot a sheep FFS.
Not so common ones, Big Horns.
There are no natural predators in the Midwest or East Coast so the deer, duck, turkey, etc populations rely on the hunters because without hunters their numbers will increase and there will be more accidents or animals will starve when winter comes. Also it's highly regulated, if a hunter is supposed to hunt a buck but hunts a doe, the hunter has to tell park officials or he will lose his license and permits and could face fines.
One word: coyotes
and in many places coyotes arent enough to keep populations in check, or worse, theres too many of them and are actively endangering populations, and as aa result are the animal in that area that needs to be hunted. We are a part of the food web, our intellect doesnt mean that we are suddenly not a part of nature. We are arugeably natural predators as well, the important thing is that we are wise about it however.
The biggest predator was the screwfly, a parasite that killed a huge number of fawns. The screwfly was also killing a huge number of calves as well, so now the screwfly is all but extinct.
It's like what Angelina said in Wanted "kill one, save a thousand" 🐘🔫 |🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘|
renji90998 That's just a water gun!
Nathan Eskin they changed the gun in the new update
I know it sucks
Did you know they said this when there were 30 white rhinos left in the wild? They started a hunting trip to 'save the population' by killing off some of the males. You know how many were left in the wild a mere 2 years later? 4.
***** Both white and black rhinos were being killed by poachers for their horns, until they became endangered. The remaining 30+ white rhinos were protected in conservation areas, until the 'controlled' hunting acts to 'help with their conservation' took place. During which too many males were killed off in less than two years. Now there are only 4 known to be left in the wild only one of which is male. If hunting had been made illegal in the areas where the remaining rhinos were being heavily protected, we would have far more left in the wild today.
Hunting season also keeps certain populations of animals in check. It stops certain ones from spreading too much and allows other animals to thrive. I also really like that Adam is also going after controversial topics. Time and time again, from what he says and the episodes he makes, he convinces me that he really does care about the truth and the facts.
Immunocontraception would be better for that. But in case of trophy hunting, Adam is _currently_ right. In the long run it should be abolished nonetheless once better options arise. But right now it is really better to have it.
lovingboarding You do know that the systematical repression of the id will only intensify it, right? from your comments you seem to speak from a moral standpoint
All of this is mute. In the long run there will be so many people and so little resource that there is absolutely no way the habitats of these animals can be preserved. Unless someone discovers an alternate energy/food source the only way to feed the increasing population is to increase farming, so most of them are going to be extinct anyway. Not to mention the change in climate patterns which is already causing havoc. Humans are the worst thing that has happened to this planet and we have to live with it.
Word, man... we have destroyed the most beautiful gift ever bestowed upon us.. and in such a small period of time. Makes me so damn sad
@@lovingboarding to be honest, we probably aren't going to find better options as long as either money, or the demand for ivory and such exist. If either of those die off then they'd be just fine. Money is certainly here to stay, but if we can hit Asia with a reality check that smelling your own fingernails won't cure your Cholera, then maybe we can lower demand for ivory and poaching will be too high risk for too little reward.
This is the first time Adam ruins everything has taught me something completely new.
Why is this so hard for people to wrap their heads around?
I know the girl in the video is a comedic representation but the amount of people that actually adopt that SAME behavior is baffling.
you act like you're educated on the issue. you understand this is propaganda also? this is presented one sided to get their point across... there are many issues for debate on the subject, predominantly that humans think we have the right to regulate other animals' right to live. Arrogant.
+pennydimedime Precisely this. It's "baffling" to me that people can't "wrap their head around" a very basic moral argument.
People blowing up the internet every time anyone kills anything because animals are cute.
They aren't bothering wit logic, they see that a cute thing died and immediately feel it was wrong.
And penny, we are sapient, and they are not. Even our dumbest, least qualified people are more qualified than those animals because those animals are incapable of thinking past their next meal while we are able to look at the bigger picture.
Weird Beard It isn't anything to do with animals being cute. That is a stupid thing to say. People obviously don't have to find something cute to feel empathy for it being killed.
_"we are sapient, and they are not. Even our dumbest, least qualified people are more qualified than those animals because those animals are incapable of thinking past their next meal while we are able to look at the bigger picture."_
So because they aren't as intelligent as us, that makes it okay to kill them and control their population? I'm not sure what "looking at the bigger picture" has to do with anything. Just sounds like you're talking humans up for the sake of justifying trophy hunting.
Welp! It worked for Jesus.
Hahahaha this is officially my favorite comment!
BB heinicken underrated comment
Lmao I can’t believe I’m laughing while reading this
BEST ADAM RUINS EVERYTHING EVER! Seriously love this stuff ^_^
Ikr
Same
#Rainbow Unicorn dude
Andrew Savage am I the only one who read your name as "Adam Savage" the host of myth busters? lol
why don't the rich spend their money hunting poachers? :3 sounds more of thrilling experience than targeting an animal
It's against several laws in most countries to perform Taxidermy on a human, so they don't get trophies of any kind when they hunt poachers.
Naked human skin does not take well to taxidermy. I'm guessing that taxidermied animals probably look horrifically wrong to living animals of the same species though not to humans, since they aren't that attuned to the subtle nuances that are lost during the process.
Rii Love "Predator" was a good movie.
Because hunting humans was something that used to be done during the times of slavery. You know when blacks (or any other slaved group, the Romasn enslaved white people as well) were considered property. I know you are not suggesting we go back to that system.
They do have wardens who often have gunfights with them.
With regards to the animals that are killed by trophy hunters:
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"
- Mr. Spock
That, "I'm doing this for your good," line gets me every time. XD
The sass of that Elephant though.
“I would like to bazooka one rhino”
*Far Cry flashbacks*
"I'd like to precision strike a rhino plz"
"It would be very appreciated if I we're to be allowed to fire a Long-Range ICBM at one rhino"
Wow, funny, informative and, provocative.
btw cocaine really does cure hangovers. i used to use that on occasion when i was hungover. for the record that was when i was young. i dont drink or do drugs anymore.
Ooooh.
So they can assign you a specific target, like an aggressive male that's not a limiting factor to the amount of offspring in the next generation, but who is in fact dangerous to local populations and other males...
and send you on an long journey to track it, following its footsteps, preparing an ambush...
And then have you fight it, defeat it and bring back a trophy?
That's interesting actually. What's the baddest biggest most dangerous animal that's also not cute and what's the least effective legal weapon to fight it with? Could someone fight a rhyno with a spear, if they payed for it?
Yep. They have primitive hunts as well. Bow/spear/ whatever crazy bladed object.
wow
Victor Matterstorm Do you see my points?
I would recommend a Marlin 30-06 or something, but you're if ballsy enough to go after a rhino with a spear then i'll salute you
I'd say a .375 H&H over a .30-06.
In other words: Sometimes we have to decide for the lesser evil and be open minded to look for solutions and partners that initially seemed to be an anathema. When it comes to nature conservation, there rarely is a solution that satisfies everyone.
But my boy Harambe...
We will never forget
He was useless anyways
Made my day xD HAHAHA still cant stop laughing xD
+MegaMGstudios KONO DIO DA
You thought it was a moderator, BUT IT WAS ME, DIO what?
excellent explanation which gives me a whole new perspective, ty
"I am frog man" lol! Love that quote
Send trophy hunters to shoot poachers. Sounds like a solution straight out of "The Most Dangerous Game". Who are we to decide what happens to the animals? Ask the northern white rhino, there are only 4 or 5 left in the world, so you shouldn't take long to find them all.
Left to the management of the locals, many populations of animals are either critically endangered or steadily progressing to extinction. Check the facts on elephants, giraffes, etc. I hate to say it, but Adam only gets half credit for this one. Let's just trust people to make the best decision based on economics. What could go wrong?
John Harrison that is what the number used to be they now have about 18000 because of this tactic
bastion the salt powered robot
I love people armed with half a fact. There certainly aren't thousands of northern white rhinos left.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_white_rhinoceros
John Harrison ok sorry thank you for giving me a source
poachers are just poor people satisfying the demands of dumb markets. Rhino and elephant ivory is made of the same materials as fingernails. But Chinese people think that it can cure poison. If you kill the poachers, the market will still demand the ivory. In fact, you might just get an influx of Asian immigrants poaching the animals themselves to get a stake in the highly lucrative illegal market.
Uhm well it is up to us to decide what happens to them since we are the reason their numbers have dwindled.
Why is the cow not endangered? Probably because we eat them?
More or less the same principle, I guess.
Because we do a lot to raise them for our selfish purposes rather than do it to morally preserve their species like we do for endangered species. Plus domestic animals such as cows can survive in a larger range of environments versus most endangered animals.
because there are hundreds of thousands of cows in the world (and other farm animals). endangered only means there are few specimens left in the world, it has nothing to do with how many are killed
Surprisingly, out of the millions of cattle we have in the world, only a small fraction of them get slaughtered a year.
It's actually more like in millions of cattle, but yeah.
PurpleWolfer Novody does something for nothing. If we did, then we'd be the ones to die out.
I did a project on Namibia in school, really opened my eyes to the issue
0:56 One of the best lines ever!!!!!!!
We recently lost the last male white rhino in south Africa.still think this works? I think not
Just imagine how much revenue we could make if we legalized human hunting? That could be profitable enough to end world hunger.
I would allow this, but only for people who really deserved it.
***** You've been moved to the top of the hunt list
***** We can't live without plants, animals, fungus, and bacteria. Conservation isn't about being a hippy, it's also literally about conserving our species.
Soil degradation, deforestation, wilfdlife mass extinction, global warming... Not political talking points... actual threats to humanity. Sure, it's not as immediate as a person with a gun in your face, or a country with nuclear plans, but still a real threat nonetheless.
Oh oh,let me add to that.We could separate everyone into 12 districts,choose two young adults from each district and place them in an arena to kill each other.That would help control our overgrowing population,teenage pregnancy,and solve world hunger.Heck we could even call it the starving games.
Yes, but the point of the video is that hunting can generate the revenue to address all these issues, and the incentives to keep wildlife as a land use rather than converting it to soybeans, corn, wheat, and all the other things vegans live on.
one of the best thing about this show is that it shows you it's sources
You help me sleep soundly at night thank you :)
it's like those hunting refuges in Texas that were so wildly successful in conservation that they were shipping animals back to their native habitat, but people like that chick are trying their damndest to shut them down. a quote, "i would rather they go extinct than live to be hunted"
Yeah I saw that video
I support texas ranches too
Adam is Dat Boi Confirmed.
needs the unicycle
Wow this has changed my perspective on trophy hunting it makes sense
3:02 Now that is a VINTAGE MEME
So Adam is a frog man, so that means he's a Rare Adam
Trying to explain this to people is.....such a challenge 😧
Most humans aren't actually capable of logical inference. It's probably only the top 20% highest IQ people that have that ability.
drewmandan Serious. That would explain alot...
Nope. I can't do it. I can't live on this planet anymore. If that's true, only 1 in 5 people are capable of logical inferences. Wait, what kind of logical inferences are we talking about? Complex ones, simple ones, or do you mean ANY logical inference at all.
Laura Boury
Stuff life A->B, B->C, therefore A->C. Most people can't do that.
Come on, that's easy. I thought you meant things like, fire gives off light, People will see light at night, therefore, do not light a fire at night if someone is looking for you.
Ive clicked on the link in the description box for sources, why does it only show this other website?
3:00 That was trippy.
Plus, a quick death by gunshot is way better than being mauled by a predator or disease or starvation.
Ilikadasauce I'd rather be mauled then shot,it seems more dignified
Okay, longterm pain that hurts more, or a quick *GOOSH!*
Would we systematically be doing this to humans?
+Samules199 That is a very strange and incorrect comparison to make. Armies don't round up large amounts of people and kill them for the sole purpose of reducing overpopulation. War is entirely different to culling species of animals. The question is: why don't we commit mass-genocide in overpopulated countries? It follows the exact same purpose of culling yet we don't do it because we have developed morals. Yet we throw up a double-standard that other animals besides us are any different and that it's somehow completely justifiable to kill them to reduce their population.
Some animals can be kept, some become pets, some species can be farmed, some more can be culled and a few can be organized to some extent.
I don't think morals really affect human behavior,
I think it's just a question of whether it's doable or not.
yep, it's called WAR. you can hunt people for free, hell they will pay you to do it, talk to your local military recruiter today! lol
Tony Bichler It isn't the same as war. A country doesn't involve itself in war for the purpose of reducing the human population. Wars come from threat, resources, political reasons and land. So the comparison of war and hunting doesn't make sense.
That thirsty joke!!! XD
6:30 LOL XD
i still hate trophy hunting as a principal but if it helps more than it hurts it should be allowed to go on
Your snowflake feelings should NEVER get in the way of facts and logic.
Animals will kill you without a second thought doe...
True.
If they have to, in self defense, or in necessity for their own survival.
In general, pretty much all animals, from herbivores to carnivores, do not regard Humans as a food source. Most of them perceive us as a threat, or...just not worth the effort in killing for food. Throughout human history, we have conditioned most predators to understand that Human's are dangerous to hunt. We fight viciously to protect ourselves, and our own, even long after an animals takes one of us. Unless a lion, tiger, bear, wolf, cougar, etc is starving, they would rather hunt other animals.
And they do. There are extremely few animal attacks that are initiated by animals looking at Humans as a source of food. Most animal attacks are performed in self-defense, defense of their young, or defense of their territory.
Not really. Most wont attack you unless you threaten them or unless they need to to survive (starving carnivore, for example). Take sharks. They are one of the most feared and hated creatures on this planet yet they kill just a couple dozen people a year. And thats WORDWIDE. More people are killed by lightning every year
KingTray only if they're feeling threatened or see you as their prey. Humans are the only animal that kill just for the sake of killing
Actually humans aren't the only animal to kill for the sake of killing. House cats for example are a huge problem when it comes to killing for fun. They threaten the population of many bird species and often kill even when they are fed regularly. They clearly do this with aggression and not for defense or survival. Some will say behavior like this is "instinct" but that word is basically a scapegoat in Biology. No one really understands how instinct works 100% and often when we see repetitive complex behavior that we can't explain in a species, we call it instinct and feel better having given the behavior a name.
thank you this really helped on a essay
Damn ,Adam finds the most one perspective people to convince,which must be hard since they are very committed to their idea of whatever they are talking about
"He keeping them alive so they can be hunted"
Yeah its not like they have been hunted for thousands of years by other predators, that would never happen
Adam you forgot to mention CANNED HUNTING. That contributes nothing to conservation and is a big part of the hunting industry.
Why would he mention that? That has literally nothing to do with the topic of conserving endangered species, you idiot.
20teamplayer I have a feeling if I look it up, I'll regret it.
Animals that i are bred to be hunted in a confine area.
Ha Vu that is not the same as this kind of hunting that is used more for funding and preservation
Love how the CH cast still get to cameo.
2:42 I love that clerk
Hunting saved wolfs in Spain :D now there are like 50000 wolfs
The absolute only way to generate money for conservation efforts is to let people kill one of the things you are conserving? I understand it's had a positive impact, but there should obviously be other ways to generate income for these projects, it's only due to the fact that unfathomable amounts of money sits privately owned, helping no one.
That's why there's constant effort to remove it as soon as they can. It isn't meant to be a permanent solution.
I guess if you wanted to you could pay for it yourself.
kraiZor With all my billions?
Yea your money is as good as any trophy hunter's. If they were getting the money it would not matter to them if you killed something. Our current problem is that a lot of rich people are crazy so if they're going to give money to animals then they want something out of it, like a head to mount on a wall.
I get that needing to kill in order to be willing to do an act of charity makes those people weird and crazy (the video kinda makes that point with how dopey the hunter is.) On the other hand though there is not enough money to protect these animals without taking some from these people. If they did not have to do it conservationists would not let people kill the animals, but as is there would not be enough money without trophy hunters.
我超愛這個系列!可惜沒中文版~只能來朝聖
🎶It's the circle of life 🎶
Wait when they first enter the rhino says that there are only 5,000 rhinos but towards the end they say it's 18,000?
There are two types of rhinos: black and white. Black are more endangered than white.
Eszter Kadar they should have clarified.
They did state that the first rhino was black in the video when mentioning there were only 5,000 left, and then mentioned that there were 18,000 white rhinos left when they gave us that statistic as well.
Robert McDootingson Where on the graph? Cause I don't hear them mention it.
the problem is not the hunting is....the inbreeding from this to keep the numbers up in south Africa we having problems with the canned Lion hunting bec they are being extremely in bred , same with rihno and elephants we have so many inbred eles that we have to kill them for over breeding and no money is generated from this Adam explain this plz ......bec what u think is going on in SA is not happening the way u made it out to be
+zeppelinRules
4:20 where? In the actual episode or this short?
Although the big goal is to have the number of animals rise, not create an animal with tons of genetic variation. Additionally, on parks where there is no hunting, I don't think that people inbreed them. But I don't know that much. Maybe Adam's sources (www.trutv.com/shows/adam-ruins-everything/blog/adams-sources/index.html) say something about this.
+Yang Wright I think he's referring to the comment on corruption. However, the point is that when the system isn't corrupted, it works.
The genetic bottle-necking you're referring to is actually much less of a human caused problem than you're making it out to be. The "bottleneck" you're referring to happened 12000 years ago. It may surprise you to know that you are likely to produce the most fit offspring by reproducing with your second cousin. Are we contributing to a loss of genetic diversity - most definitely - but the consequences of that aren't likely to appear for centuries or millennia in the future.
Benjamin Tomson Do you have a source you can reference for this claim? I'd like to read a little more about it.
Yang Wright
Did you drop out of school before taking a basic biology class? Species will eventually die off without genetic variation, dumbass.
Anyone know where I can get that tote bag with the pic of Adam holding the turtles?
I think Adam missed a part? (5 minutes in, haven't heard this addressed yet )
Also when a Rhino gets old an senile, it starts killing OTHER Rhinos, often ones who are young. By choosing to kill those ones specifically, not only are you saving OTHER Rhinos from getting killed by senile ones, but the money spent on hunting that Rhino, is put toward more Rhino conservation.
Also what he's addressing about hunting specific ones is similar to what wolves do in many cases that have helped habitats. Like when you have over-grazing of grass, and the wolves keep the herbivore population down. (basic example, its actually way more complex )
q: even If it causes something good why would anyone want to kill an animal??? a: becuz they taste delicious
I guess you eat Rhino or a Hippopotamus... :/
yeah theyre tasty af
And a nice thing too hang on the wall!
Why not charge money to pet it or spend time with a few hours?
Because rich jerks just like spending money on hunting more. 2:45
You can pay money to sit next to, pet and have your photo taken with Tigers in Thailand, but it's considerably less money than it would cost to go legally shoot one and mount it on your wall back home. Not nearly enough to fund conservation movements.
because i know i won't pay for it. and other people won't too.
i'd pay to kill some though. it's fun
Because that was boring and kablammin rare animal more exciting
"Some must die others will live" that's the quote I'm using in this video
can someone please tell me where can i buy the bag at 0:13
He needs to do one on drugs.
Andrew Holmes he should and the real medical uses of psychedelics and marijuana should be the topic. The reason being for them no being funded.
+Lysergic Austin or for the war on drugs
Andrew Holmes he has done many
You're right. Adam should do an episode while under the influence of drugs
Adam ruins vegans or vegetarians
and you comment that in a video in which at the end he literally states that 'killing hundreds of thousands of animals is bad'..
+Loo B vegetarianism has holes in it but veganism doesn't? are you sure you wrote that in the right order?
***** meaning it's easier to get protein and calcium with a vegetarian diet than a vegan diet. Where a vegan diet can cause malnutrition if you have a nut or avocado allergy, because there aren't many other plants that can substitute the nutritional value that is commonly provided in animal products.
+Grumpy Chicken yes there are still options in a vegan diet, it's just much more limiting than a vegetarian diet.(I'd like to point out I don't have a problem with either)
adam ruins U.S goverment diet guides
0:12 I need this bag !
forget about all of this well thought out, well worded discourse and the important debate that it brings up ...
...all I'm concerned about now is what happens when you bazooka a rhino
I'm sorry. This argument is just too dumb. I'm really sorry. Letting people kill animals so you can get money to protect animals? Like sacrifing 1 for 100? And what about just NOT killing them?
Poachers would kill them by the thousands anyway. Trophy hunting would kill them by the dozens. Poaching results in the death of animals, trophy hunting results in funding to protect animals from poachers.
This is pretty common knowledge at this point...
No, no it isn't.
Yes, yes it is.
(chill i'm joking don't unleash wrath on me)
I thought everyone knew common knowledge does not exist...
TigerBait2780 I thought one of the reasons of this show is to defy what some people take for common knowledge
So inspiring
To give money
This stuff is awesome
First
looks like donald trump pepe tbh.
I literally clicked this video thinking that was what it was about
Trophy Hunter "hello I would like to bazooka a rhino" haha lol that's is freaking hilarious.
2/3 animals suffer because countries are too poor or lazy do anything
No, they're just too *busy* doing other things.
It's called liberal logic. The logic part is an oxymoron.
You truly are Madness
*facepalm
and how is being too poor their fault?
"I just want to stop them from suffering." You better not be eating any animal products then, where you're indirectly causing them to suffer.
i am really surprised they didnt even mention that in passing. she's crying and worrying about few endangered animals being killed by trophy hunters and adam is not even giving a mention about the ammount of farm animals that she probably eats every year...
I wish he would do vegans.
killing vegans creates more vegans??? omgg!! 😱😱😱
I just want him to counter all the vegan myths. I don't want to kill them.
aww MAN!!...Not even 1?? But we've come all this way
BB heinicken
If they want to live without bacon and steak they are already suffering.
Yes, me too. This video was hilariously bad and I could use another good laugh - so I would love to watch him try to argue against veganism. That would be amusing. All the stupid comments are great too. Sad, but stupid people sure are funny.
"Breathe my money bags, breathe" hahahaha
"Here's your receipt and your I'm a rich jerk who shoots rhinos tote bag." XD. I'm dying! Though not in the same way as the rhinos in this video.
Adam is usually good at issuing challenges to conventional wisdom, but often he fails to consider rebuttals or counterarguments. In this case, what he's arguing for isn't even "unconventional," as legal trophy hunting is a common strategy for conservation groups and was even foundational to many older organizations' original intent. He's actually siding with the status quo here, and fails to consider that:
A.) Ethically speaking, the efficacy of hunting to generate revenue for conservation doesn't justify it in terms of individual animals' welfare. Conservation and animal rights are often conflated in the public eye, but there are major philosophical differences between the two movements, the former's focus on species and populations and the latter's emphasis on individual well-being being the most basic. If one believes individual animals' lives have value, then raising conservation revenue by selling hunting permits cannot be justified, any more than an orphanage would be justified in selling child slaves as a fundraiser.
B.) Legal hunting can itself encourage poaching in a number of ways:
* Encouraging perceptions of trophy hunting or wildlife products as luxuries in the public eye, thereby increasing demand for wild animals' products or the opportunity to hunt them beyond what the legal market can supply,
* Providing cover for smugglers to traffic illegal products under the guise of legal ones, using fake documentation,
* Exacerbating social inequities between wealthy foreigners and impoverished locals, leading to poaching out of economic desperation,
* Sewing resentment over the double standard that allows rich foreigners to kill animals while locals are punished for doing the same, sometimes leading hired guards to secretly allow or even collaborate with poachers as an act of political resistance.
Ofir Drori, the founder of the African conservation group EAGLE (Eco Activists for Governance and Legal Enforcement), addresses similar objections (both pragmatic and ethical) to the related issue of conservationists attempting to raise funds by selling ivory, in his article "Why We Should Not Sell Seized Ivory Stocks. Ever." He also offers a far superior approach to saving wildlife that doesn't require sacrificing them to trophy hunters, described in "Wildlife Protection - Fighting Back Harder."
+Animal People
I must ask, did you look at his sources? Maybe they address the points you gave.
Animal People well conventional wisdom in this case is "Trophy hunting is bad" and the challenge issued is "Trophy hunting can be good for x reasons". There. Problem solved.
So the prick dentist who shot the lion was HELPING lions? I think I just swallowed a hand grenade because my mind has been blown.
That dentist, lured that lion out of the National Park and then proceeded to shoot the lion. National Parks, protect the animals.
CobaltFox Plays... Ooooh.. Now I feel kinda stupid.
yeah, that dentist was kinda evidence that not all trophy hunting programs are exactly sound proof
CobaltFox Plays... No, he just shot a lion that was protected because it was studied. It was the park’s most important attraction, and the guy shot it because we wasn’t aware it was special. He never lured anything.
Well not quite. In Zimbabwe trophy hunting money doesn’t go to conservation
This is actually really true even in the US. In the midwest, deer, mountain lion, coyote and fowl hunting is strictly regulated by Game and Fish departments to keep the populations steady and healthy. It's the common problem of carrying capacity: if there's a large growth in deer population in Year 1, that population will eat all the food and lead to widespread starvation in Year 2, leading to a dangerous plummet in Year 3. So, when populations are too high the Game and Fish agencies give out lots of hunting permits, and when populations are too low they heavily restrict those permits.
that lion plushie is so cute >.
"Why is it good for them?"
Here's a high school biology book, read it.
That biology book better have a god damned sticker telling us that evolution is just a theory.
+Jacob Melanson I was referring to how a biology book explains why game hunting and hunting leases are a good thing by culling their numbers. Too much of an animal in an ecosystem with limited resources can put one helluva strain on it. And in turn, puts those animals in dire straights. Malnutrition, starvation which makes that population a hotbed for disease and infection due to their immune systems not being up to par and infighting over food, water and territory.
It is a theory, but I have a feeling you are not using the scientific definition of what a theory is.
And also it is true, animal ecosystems always tend to create more individuals that the habitat can actually hold, leading to a recession and eventual stabilizing at a carrying capacity, where numbers rise and fall from the line. Luckily, we have certain mechanisms in place to allow diversity of nature... but I don't think Jacob wants to hear about that mechanism.
Joke
--------
Your head
Jacob Melanson Considering that both I and Flammen did not get the apparant "joke" (and that the joke had no likes to even show anyone else got it) I think the root of the issue was that you just made a poorly executed joke.
Jokes are easy scapegoats for ignorance though, so I can't blame you for that.
It's called utilitarism.
Hehe.
I love the way he says "I am a frog man"
this blew my mind
it's a fact folks. Hunters are the biggest conservationists of them all. We work hard donate time, and money all for the admittedly selfish reason that we want to be able to continue to hunt for years to come. This year alone, I spent roughly $1,000 dollars out of my own pocket for hunting fees, park fees and donated time to maintain fences to protect habitat for animals that I want to be able to hunt. Have I killed a few animals in my day? You betcha. Have I saved thousands more? Yup, and I'm proud to be a part of it.
But you could also just donate the money....
@@katzenklo1936 yes so could you. Are you?
I understand the benefits, but its still irritating to hear hunters defend themselves with this argument as if they care. There are ways to fund conservation without pointing a gun at an animal.
It's true that if you hear someone who actually trophy hunts defend themselves, just smack them. This is more of an argument for people using money regardless of where is came from to do some good.
That depends, are you speaking as a hunter who hunts and eats, or one that hunts trophy kills.
ok, fine, shoot?
Alex Fink Nice to hear! So how much have you donated then?
I donate my money through hunting so my children will be able to see these animals, whether or not you like it, I have that right, and I also have the right to defend my views. Such as, did you know that trophy hunters in Africa can't take the meat home, it's all donated to local food banks.
One reason mentioned here is that the most dangerous animals that have killed and/or have injured others are the top selected animals to be hunted. That's the point.
SOMEONE REMEMBERS BABAR THE ELEPHANT. That was my favorite movie when I was a child.
The dislikes were probably vegans.
So bottom line: Trophy hunting shouldn't be abolished _right_ _now_ but should nonetheless be abolished in the long run once better options arise.
I don't think vegans would disagree with that.
lovingboarding It was a joke. Vegans have a stereotype of being obscessed with their lifestyle. The woman in the video kinda represented that.
IF they arise
I understand this is a joke.
I am a vegan, and agree with this. Reminds me of the "Trolley Problem" sacrifice one to save others and those to come. If trophy hunting was outright banned, poachers would annihilate the endangered species due to increased demand in the black market.
Or close minded people, who don't want to learn the truth.
while I like many of the videos from Adam, this one is not based in logic. Organizing trophy hunting to kill the endangered species because "they need the money" as they are "poor" countries is no excuse. It's unethical, to the same degree if they would sell their babies to foreigners, because "they are poor" and the foreigner would give them a better life. Adam, you just ruined your show, stripping it from logic, reason and ethics.
Logic, reason, and ethics dont direct this show. Facts do.
Adam directs this show. Facts are based on logic arguments, reasons and ethics.
+Dream Catcher# ethics have absolutely nothing to do with facts unless you're stating facts about ethics.
There's no fact on the argument "it's good to kill animals, for the good of animals".
That's just bs.
-#Dreams-- Catcher#- you do realize people do sell their kids in poor countries. unlike you or I they don't have the privilege to have ethics. they're worried about not dying. Ethics is for the rich to worry about.
Couldn't other users of parks and natural resources, such as hikers, bird watchers, wildlife enthusiasts, eco-tourists, etc., provide access to funds necessary for habitat restoration and wildlife management? What about the supposed money that the 1300 WAZA accredited zoos and aquariums worldwide raise for conservation? What about the millions donated annually to conservation groups like WWF and Born Free by non-hunters?
Robert
Imagine how many tourists will visit in one day . hundreds! This will cause a lot of inconvenience
For the wildlife and trash the forest(search damage by tourist in Yellowstone)
Where as mostly 10 hunters per year trophy hunt in a park
And yes the money does reach conservation but it's not focused on one are
But the money is given to the government (some are corrupted,so😒)
Where as most trophy hunting operations are privately owned so the money directly reaches the area
And you can make sure of it
Hope you understand ❤️
Why can't truTV be like this here in Colombia