The problem with people arguing about specieism is that is that such people generally consider the suffering of animals in food production but pretty much ignore the other complex problems of food production (not saying everyone does this, but enough do for it to be frustrating). And shitty organizations such as PETA use the idea of specieism to try to argue that we shouldn't keep animals at all.

And the problem with the idea that everyone can just not consume animal products is just inherently untrue. There are plenty of people, myself included, who really can't subsist on a vegan diet, due to food sensitivities and other issues. (Of course, this would be alleviated a little bit if decent, fresh food was more accessible, but the US sucks.)

There's other things I could comment on, but I'm tired, so I'll just leave it at it being a complicated issue.

food production issues are often tied into capitalism in such a way that the two are inseparable, unfortunately. this wasn't so much a video about that aspect as it was about the philosophical implications of considering our actions and the suffering those cause.
also, did you watch the full video? i ask just because he mentioned that in cases of need and survival that the situation changes.

additionally, many of the largest international dietetic organizations - including the american dietetic association - have acknowledged a fully plant-based diet as healthy for the majority of people, including children and the elderly as well as those with many chronic diseases or other physical disabilities. i know a ton of poor vegans with food allergies, diabetes, asthma, etc.
that's not to say *you* can go vegan, as i don't know your situation, but *most* people in the us can, realistically, cut most if not all animal products from their diets without suffering health issues. many choose not to because of the very reasons he debunks in this video.

it *is* complicated, but the philosophical reasoning behind this video is very simple: if you can't do everything, do what you can, because to ignore the suffering of some creatures while bemoaning that of others is hypocritical and morally flawed.

Welp, I had a comment typed up but then the page refreshed, and I don't have the energy or focus to type it all up again. But I will say, yes, I know all that, about capitalism and whatnot. But that's also why I'm not too impressed with this philosophical stuff, he just fails to take into account a lot of things.

well, the point is more theoretical discussions of the basic morality behind such things. i think perhaps you're feeling hurt when there's not much reason for it?

although no need to continue discussion if you're that out of energy. this isn't necessary to focus on if you're drained.

No, not feeling hurt, just can't elaborate right now. I just don't think morality is so cut-and-dry.

with regard to certain things, i believe it is. when that thing is "do no more harm than you must," i'm pretty adamant. if you can avoid causing innocent nonhuman animals unnecessary suffering, you should. period. and if you can't avoid it altogether - because that's not feasible in today's society - you do your best.

I'm not arguing against that; I feel the same way. However, a lot of his discussion focused on the morality of eating animals/animal products, and I take issue with the idea that [mass] veganism does the least amount of harm...and this is from PBS too: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/e.....t-actually-th/ -- I think we should do the least amount of harm to both animals and the environment, so I feel like vegetarianism is better... Of course, there are still some of the same problems with, say, keeping chickens for eggs vs. keeping them for meat, which is why regulations should be in place to protect the animals. But some would argue it's morally wrong to keep such animals at all even if they're cared for properly, and I don't really get that.

here's the thing about that study: it's really really biased. scientists are just human beings like everyone else (myself included), with flaws and biased premises that they seek to confirm. taking a study like the one you've listed above at face value is short sighted and honestly quite foolish.
the study easily misses some of the biggest reasons that veganism would benefit the planet, opting to focus on inaccurate information about food productions. for instance, the biggest contributor to climate change is the release of methane and nitrous oxide - both of which are literally dozens of times worse for our planet than carbon both in short and long term changes to atmosphere - and that comes directly and mostly from cattle. keeping cattle in any way will contribute to this, and for the billions of humans on planet earth to be able to consume the products thereof (dairy, if not the meat), we have to keep too many to be feasible. plant based milks use far less resources and do far less harm to our planet.

here's a link to a debunk of some of the other details in that article: http://cryptocommie.tumblr.com/post/157409307427 as you can see, it's not exactly established, undisputed science.

there's also something to be said for the fact that we cannot exploit animals' bodily products without taking from them. see, chickens lay artificially high numbers of eggs. in the wild, jungle fowl lay maybe a dozen eggs a year, but we have laying hens popping out 2-3 a day. this is incredibly taxing on their bodies... even just forming one egg requires that hen to pull resources of protein, calcium, and other important nutrients from their systems in order to create this little, self-contained placenta, complete with bone-like shell. the only way to give those nutrients back, in full, is to feed the hen her own unfertilized eggs.
you also can't have dairy without dead calves (or a functioning veal/beef industry) and cows that die years too early for similar reasons.

animal agriculture is not humane. it is not moral. and it isn't the benevolent industry you've been lead to believe.

Okay, the study may very well be flawed. But I never even remotely suggested that animal agriculture is benevolent. I really don't know where you got that idea. I also never suggested everyone can eat animal products, or that everyone should. You're presuming things from my relatively short replies and it's getting ridiculously frustrating.

In any case, I guess just call me hypocritical then, since even if I could change my own diet, I'd ultimately still have to "support" animal agriculture since I have a pet cat. Which is something I do wonder about--if veganism did take off on a more massive scale, what happens to carnivorous pets...

no one's calling names or assuming anything; i was having a discussion. you're suddenly defensive and seemingly upset, but all i've been doing is expressing my position on this topic in a way i thought we could both parse. i never said you thought those things. i said you were lead to believe them, as we all have been. it's a critique of capitalist animal agriculture; not you, personally.
your frustration has been evident this entire time, and i don't honestly know why.

carnivorous pets have a need. that's different. also, since their foods are currently 100% a byproduct of human consumption of other animals, the purchase of pet food made from other animals is negligent and not really a moral issue here.
veganism will not affect the amount of carnivorous pets around anytime soon, so this is a bit of a moot point, in reality.

I wasn't making a point, I was legitimately wondering something out loud. But it doesn't really matter, so nevermind.

i mean, i was trying to have a conversation, but... okay. not sure why the sudden hostility.

also, with regard to "everyone can eat animal products," i meant specifically that. not that they should. i mean that we can't provide them for everyone, so only some people will be able to eat them, and that would likely be only the privileged who can afford it. which is a complex, but necessary criticism of eating animals and their byproducts.

also worth noting: not everyone can eat animal products, because we simply do not have the resources to raise enough animals to allow that without a) destroying the planet and b) abusing the animals in some major ways to cut corners because providing that kind of food supply to that many people is going to be so ridiculously complex. so not only will it be impossible for any organization to oversee it in any way that makes catching abuse feasible, but only the rich and wealthy will be able to afford and have access to those foods. which is... not ideal. obviously.

edit: plus, the usda is run by people from the animal agriculture industry, so they can just set whatever arbitrary regulations they want - which they currently do - and until we get shed of capitalism as a whole, that will not change... and being vegan now is easier, more effective, and less hypocritical than fighting capitalism as someone who supports these systems.

This was one of the best in his series, and came to me at a very important time while debating these ethical issues with people around me. Loved reading your responses above.

i really love this series to be honest. i will likely post more... specifically the "how words can harm" one. seems like a lot of folks need to hear that one

Absolutely!