Let Them Eat Meat: There is Nothing Wrong With Rearing and Killing Animals for Human Consumption
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 12. 2016
- Want to join the debate? Check out the Intelligence Squared website to hear about future live events and podcasts: www.intelligencesquared.com
__________________________
Filmed at the Royal Institution of Great Britain on 31st October 2016.
Fancy a nice juicy steak? Most of us do from time to time, and we don’t trouble our consciences too much with the rights and wrongs of eating meat. Others, while vaguely aware that we ought to go vegan, just can’t face the rest of our lives denying ourselves bacon, beef, butter etc. But once we start looking into the arguments for veganism (and it has to be full-blown veganism, because eggs and dairy are all part of the animal food production line), it becomes difficult to justify the omnivore diet. Take the environment for starters. As polemical author and commentator George Monbiot will argue in this debate, livestock farming has a massive impact on the planet, producing around 14% of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions according to the UN. That’s roughly the same as the total amount of global transport emissions. Animals are extremely inefficient processors of the maize and soya that farmers grow to feed them. If we ate those crops ourselves instead of feeding them to livestock, we could free up hundreds of millions of hectares of rainforests, savannahs and wetlands where wild animals could flourish instead. And then there are the arguments about animal welfare. Recent scientific research indicates what many of us feel we already know - that animals have complex emotional lives not dissimilar to our own. Intensive farming - the kind that confines hens, pigs and cattle to squalid indoor pens - thwarts their instincts to move around freely and build social bonds with their group. Tens of billions of animals exist in this way, and that’s before their short lives are ended in the horror house of the abattoir. As for those who say a vegan diet isn’t healthy, elite athletes who have made the switch, including world tennis No 1 Novak Djokovic, prove you don’t need animal protein to excel at the highest levels in sport.
On the other side of the argument, making the case for the meat munchers, will be sharp-tongued Sunday Times food critic AA Gill. The fact is, he will say, we developed as omnivores and every human culture has its culinary traditions, based on the taste and aesthetics of meat and dairy. Do we really want to live in a world where there is no beef Wellington or cheese soufflé? As for the environmentalist arguments, omnivores now have some serious eco-credentials behind them. A study at Cornell University shows that a diet that includes a few small portions of grass-fed meat a week may actually be greener than eating no animal products at all. And when it comes to animal welfare, rather than abandoning animal products altogether, couldn’t we do more good by pressing for genuinely transparent labelling of our meat and dairy? If consumers really know what they are getting, fewer people might be willing to buy the £3 chicken produced in the barbaric conditions of the agricultural industry. As for a vegan diet being healthier, we should stop giving airtime to self-appointed health experts and lifestyle bloggers. Some dieticians argue that there are nutrients we need that we just can’t get from plants alone. Yes, we can get calcium from kale and iron from beans, but the quantity, quality and bio-availability of such elements are far better when we get them from animal rather than plant sources.
How do we pick our way through these thorny arguments?
Hands down, some of the worse arguments I've ever heard to defend the meat-eating position. This guy would have converted me to stop eating meat long ago if I had heard this nonsense years ago. Can't these formal debate events choose more capable people? Is it a budget thing?
This debate was so bad lol - you can't be x% vegan: we're lucky that this Adrian guy was much worse!
Learnt absolutely nothing from this debate, poor host and poor debaters. The intellectual equivalent of a junior high school assignment . Thumbs down.
Meat man's first point about the livestock's relationship with humans being symbiotic I thought was kind of a strong argument in a way, but it was downhill from there for him. To me he seriously lost me when he wasn't remorseful about foie gras. I actually looked this up to find an excuse to eat what I'm craving right now, lol I am struggling to pare down my animal consumption, but the arguments are undeniably stronger for veganism.
I believe that as a western society we farm too much meat but I strongly believe in not getting rid of it entirely.
I also believe that we are quite capable of farming humanly and keeping an omnivorous diet.
One argument I see a lot of vegans put out is that they are trying to do as little harm to the environment as possible my counterpoint would be that if humans are the problem then surely we should manage our own population before deciding what to do with other species.
His point about symbiosis was ruined by his insinuation that it was a choice on the part of the animals. For example he said the guinea pigs stay in the kitchen because there’s dogs outside, so it’s beneficial for them. But who put the dogs there? Humans. Seems to think the cage is a fact of life for reared animals when it is something we have imposed upon them. Even beyond that it is our selective breeding that has made them reliant on us.
@@AreMullets4AustraliansOnly his point about guinea pigs is kind of like saying the same thing for people in prison. people in prison are in a safe environment where they are given food that dosent mean they have symbiosis with their wardens
When one side is exclusively murdering the other side, it's not symbiotic.
Yes, don’t we just love the idea of a living creature literally being force fed so we can savour the delights of its liver?
I listened to this man'a arguments with an open mind, but I wholly disagree. You simply cannot say it's a mutual agreement between humans and factory farmed animals, or even the Guinea pigs in Peru, for them to be fed, 'looked after' and then killed and eaten. This man hasn't interviewed this animals, he hasn't given them any voice to confirm this 'mutual agreement' so how *dare* he speak on behalf of them and say they're fine with this? All beings, whether human or non-human have a right to life.
And a general right to not be forced to suffer.
What is wrong with u people? Everything dies, animals eat animals or eat( kill) plants.
@@biibris9950 So nature is brutal... That means it's OK to add to the cruelty? I don't see that as logical. It's cognitive dissonance so you don't have to stop eating meat. That's all.
@@biibris9950 Heyenas eat their prey alive from the ass first. It can take hours for the prey to die, in excruciating agony. But seeing as that's just nature, let's all eat cows alive while they experience the worst pain imaginable... Right? I mean... If your gonna use the "animals eat animals" argument, you gotta at least be concistent.
What els happens all the time in nature...? Ohh... Rape. Sooooo let's just go out raping people because "animals do it all the time".
Dont be an idiot. If you want to defend eating meat, you have 1 argument, and only 1... You like meat... That's it. To try and pull the wool over people's eyes with red herrings about nature is ridiculous.
Indeed. Symbiotic it is not, is it?
This is full of logical fallacies right from the start.
Worst debate I’ve ever listen to, pair of clueless mates talking about half baked ideas
Gill just wants to appear trendy and avant garde...... not funny to my ears and one of those people who don't worry about something until it affects them
just a fatuous overpaid Sunday times magazine coresspondent. Want you to snigger at his wit.
Grosgster2007.
Agree with you. This is a pathetic debate! AA Gill is a profoundly sloppy thinker, a glib, lazy mind - cheaply appealing to the lowest common denominator in society.
If you want to see a solid speech in an IQ Squared debate see
czcams.com/video/uQCe4qEexjc/video.html
I got 10 minutes in and gave up. AA Gill is unpleasant to listen to. I'm not prepared to listen to arrogance combined with ignorance wrapped up with insolence.
The discussion lowered my IQ by a factor of a square root.
Wow genius.....only factor of a square root is 1. So it got lowered by just 1. Not bad🤣🤣
Himi Kr yep! Your IQ getting lowered by 1 point is not bad! You heard it here first, folks.
AHahahah what an idiot.
I mean with an already low IQ, losing just 1 more I guess is alot.
sucks to be you?
Why say something like that if you clearly don't understand the math?
“I trust farmers more than a trust nutritionists” I think the ‘pseudo-intellectual-ometer’ just blew out when he said that.
Why even get AA Gill on a debate like this. His one answer/argument is 'I don't give a fuck'. And his couple of jokes get old very quickly. He also contradicts himself numerous times throughout the debate
They both contradicted themselves. He's bringing levity to the debate. And come on! Can you really expect more than a blunt one word answer when someone equates farming to slavery? Many of the questions are utterly ridiculous. The slavery question, the xenophobic question about stopping the Chinese from eating beef, the question about farming humans, etc. etc.
Evil One
Of course it's easy to portray farming as slavery if you take the very definition of farming out of the equation as you did. Eating them-- that's different from slavery so we'll take that out. They're not human-- that's different so we'll get rid of that too.
Your statement is akin to calling a dog a dolphin. What's the difference between a dolphin and a dog besides the fact that one has fur and legs and lives on land?
Geez! You really are a twisted individual, first slavery, now the Holocaust. You equate eating animals to two of the greatest atrocities in human history. There is absolutely no comparison.
Of course when you pick and choose tiny, irrelevant similarities and ignore everything else they can seem similar. Kangaroos have two legs, ostriches have two legs, that doesn't make a kangaroo an ostrich.
Animals do have less rights than human beings, but maybe I've just been going to polling stations at the wrong time to see the alligators voting.
But let's go along with this ridiculous assertion of yours that animals have the same rights as humans. Should we then arrest, put on trial and jail a wolf for eating a rabbitl? Does that not make sense? If we're going to prevent human consumption of animals, should we not also prevent animals consuming each other? A wolf that eats a rabbit should be incarcerated for murder by that logic. That wolf is depriving the rabbit of his life, infringing on Mr. Cottontail's rights and should be incarcerated.
``You have chosen to be at a more rudimentary stage of human development.`` Go tell that to a black man white boy. Vegan are rich urbanized white people who are bored out of their mind having all of the comfort in the world. Right are a human construct they come with duty and are not made for animal period. Some human on this planet are struggling for real, don't make an ass of yourself by talking about the holocaust and slavery as a parallel to animal it's lack of empathy on steroid.
Animal do not share the same pain, fear and misery than human. You have anxiety problem linked to food (eating an animal would cause you emotional trauma) they don't ! Ever seen a moose having fear of going in public on a bad hair day ? Don't think so....
People like me are more rudimentary form of moral development. You are right but it's also about 97% of the people on the planet....what you gonna do about it ? Save them from their sin ? Jesus was brown soo it's a good start i guess.
I have killed animal and their is no voice in the back of my head since i have seen nature outside of a zoo and know how it work. Physical pain is not the only pain that human live. You would surely live ''pain' if you where to see a human hunter be successful do you.. It's not the same thing as the physical pain of an animal, and before you start no there is no scientific evidence that they have emotion.....
Right is a human construct for human since right come with duty. I do not know how you will explain the right to live of a baby moose to the bear or wolves pack who will eat it (painfully since the moose is extremely robust, he most likely still be alive when they start to snack on him). What is the duty of the seal to the cod ? Can a duck is able to represent itself in court. Of course denying right to let see 5 millions white slave taken in the ottoman empire is wrong. There is right now in Africa more slave than ever in the history of slavery, 400 000 childrens restavek in haiti. It's cruel and innaceptable. You should not compare them to chicken.
The only reason I started watching this video because I wanted to find some "reasonable reasons" and research that can justify meat eating. An entire google search did NOT find me anything even close to a reason. So I will keep being a vegan until the day I die. Thank you for reinforcing my beliefs over and over again with your lack of logic and poor judgement, gentlemen and "ex-vegan" miss.
Bianca Eat what the fuck you like!! Now fuck off!
Read some of the literature, with actual science. Failing that, read "Sacred Cow". But you won't, will you? You just want to be confirmed in your view. Good luck. Just make sure you take supplements, especially B12.
@@T-aka-T Don’t worry, I take plenty of B12 from seaweed, marmite, tempeh, chlorella and nutritional yeast, thank you for worrying about me! I did read that book. I actually went vegan only after doing my research. Still, to this day, nothing has convinced me to not be vegan. Have a nice day!
"So i will keep being a vegan until the day i die"
well you won't last long for sure
@@T-aka-T Most omnivores are also B12-deficient due to the modern degradation of our soil systems, so you should be checking your B12 levels as well.
Can we get an actual vegan to debate?
Then the debate would be lost. Vegans are pompous and dislikeable.
Chickens didn't originally have the ability to lay an egg a day. They were bred to do that. If this guy had the slightest clue.
Right! Their bones suffer as a consequence. They have been selectively bred to lay an egg a day.
So we cannot breed animals either? Are you one of these 'horses are enslaved' types?
Chickens naturally lay 1 egg every 24-26 hours- thats how long it takes to produce an egg. There's nothing un-natural about it. Twit.
@@jayz8839 They, living sentient feeling creatures, are forcefully bred , into abject captivity, and are exploited for our pleasure & profit. From their day one they have no choices whatsoever, even in their daily lives When they are no longer profitable to their OWNERS, they are unilaterally killed off.
Sounds like slavery to me.
Meat guy answers are all basically: “I am a psycopath, so I don’t care” - that or just changin the question
'Meat guy' has a name, incidentally. Rude, whether you like him or not.
@@jonathanwalker8730and all animals are individuals with different personalities! :)
That meat guy (AA Gill) is dead, died in 2016.
@@jackmagnellthey are just bunch of meat and bones. not saying that humans are different in a way
31:47 'I think the obsession with the last 2.5 seconds of an animals life, which is what the argument always comes down to, is again a desperate vanity.' -AA Gill
I think AA completely misrepresents what the philosophy of animal rights invites us to consider. It's not solely about their final moments, it's that all animals are unique individuals with a valid claim to basic moral rights. Specifically, when other animals are killed it's a completely unnecessary violation of their right to experience life between that day and when they would have died otherwise.
(This excludes other animals who do not exist yet, who the philosophy of animal rights suggests should not be bred in the first place)
If the idea is that we cannot or should not interfere with another species' "right to experience life" would it also be incumbent upon us to ensure that other carnivorous animals do the same to respect such rights? Or if a lion is about to chase down and eat a zebra alive should we allow it to simply do so? The argument seems to fail under simple analysis.
If the secondary rebuttal to it is that we are omnivorous and don't NEED meat, there are two problems:
#1 we are not sure that meat or animal products in general are not necessary for optimal growth and development. In fact, a lot of research seems to indicate the opposite, particularly that meat itself is highly nutritious and pretty much the easiest thing for our bodies to digest.
#2 We are not the only omnivorous animals, should we ensure that bears stay away from rivers to preferrentialy eat only berries, even if such interference may hamper the development of said animal (even if it does not outright kill it)?
@@jchil5087 If we look to lions to shape our morality, then we may as well start sleeping naked outside and be indifferent about sexual assault - both things lions do. The simple fact is we are not lions (Or bears) and we have no biological requirement to eat or use other animals, as confirmed by all the major dietetics associations. So why would we violate others' rights when it's completely unnecessary?
www.bda.uk.com/resource/british-dietetic-association-confirms-well-planned-vegan-diets-can-support-healthy-living-in-people-of-all-ages.html
Gill is just being boorish and condescending to the point that he feels he doesn't need to answer the question, but instead questions the question.
Agree with you. This is a pathetic debate! AA Gill is a profoundly sloppy thinker, a glib, lazy mind - cheaply appealing to the lowest common denominator in society.
If you want to see a solid speech in an IQ Squared debate see
czcams.com/video/uQCe4qEexjc/video.html
This is the most unintelligent, reductive script I've ever encountered.
it's like 2 slave owners arguing about the validity of owning slaves with a former abolitionist but now slave owner adjudicating.
Extremely frustrating, indeed.
@@disconouvo3037 it's nothing like that... At all. There are Major differences. You are wrong.
@@maikeruasmr8591urgh 2 years on you have an opinion but you don't state it. fuck off
@@disconouvo3037 You're cranky, have some protein...
Logic arguments: Am I a joke to you?
(Not a vegetarian or a vegan here)
This man's general point of view for the whole argument: "There's nothing wrong with eating meat and forcing others is wrong!"
This man's general answer to a moral questioning regarding meat consumption: "Leave me alone! I love meat and you are wrong!"
To be fair, there's no flaw in this argument. He's just a child.
Uh there is a flaw when you tell people what they believe that "nature is perfect"
A 1 hour 23 minute video has this many dislikes (23 minutes after uploading).
Vegans are ALWAYS right, no matter what. So no need for having arguments or listening to arguments of others. ;)
***** Downvoting before the video is over seems like a sign of closed-mindedness.
*****
sorry but there is not a single argument in your answer. "He's an absolute moron." explains or proves nothing.
solokom it proves that appeal to emotion fallacies are alive and well!
***** Triggered.
For such a perfect argument as George's i have to wonder if it's better not to smile and just be straight faced, so people will understand the pure reason and logic
1:05:59 best question in the whole "debate".
I wish Earthling Ed could have been here to properly hold down this debate 😤🌍
All you have to do is replace the word animal in the title with "human babies" to see how demented of an idea it is to continue to eat meat.
Agree with you. This is a pathetic debate! AA Gill is a profoundly sloppy thinker, a glib, lazy mind - cheaply appealing to the lowest common denominator in society.
If you want to see a solid speech in an IQ Squared debate see
czcams.com/video/uQCe4qEexjc/video.html
If you have to copletely change the motion being discusse to prove a point, you don't have one.
@@charleshowie2074 Analogous comparisons is how you discuss ethics mate.
"If you have to compare gay rights to civil rights, you don't have an argument" is what you sound like. 🤘🏻
@@NoInjusticeLastsForever Interesting! And here I have been considering principles, facts and analysis all my life. Thanks for setting me strait, using an inexplicable emoticon really makes you seem like an authority.
@@NoInjusticeLastsForever Most vegans support and encourage abortion, overpopulation theory is their justification.
“Cows are the most successful animals in the world because of farming” i mean this guy has completely lost it
Animals struck up a deal to be farmed, how the hell can anyone take this guy seriously after that?
@@johnxenakis2817 did slaves strike up a deal to get free travel and board across the ocean? are you a complete or half a buffoon?
This guy's a great example of either narcissism or psychopathy. Meat is murder, period. That we consider ourselves moral obligates us to not harm others, to act to reduce harm, and as we do not need meat to sustain life or health, there is no valid reason to end the life of another sentient living being to satisfy a mere desire. Choosing to exalt oneself above accountability for the harm one causes those he or she doesn't value is the definition of evil. This guy is evil.
Wow, this man exhibited a psychopathic lack of empathy for living beings!
You don't seem to care about my life and wouldn't solve my problems either. Instead you decide to care about cows that you don't even know.
@@kissme1518 large assumption, wouldn't you say? 🧐
He doesn't even know you either, so why be selfish?
@@isaiahreno Doesn't know those cows either. The fact that he acts like he knows all these cows is pretty disrespectful to these cows like all cows are the same? Racist. Cow stereotyping
@@kissme1518 I can see you're not serious. Do discussions of veganism concern you, or are you apathetic to the whole situation?
@@isaiahreno Why should I sympathize over cows. It's not like you have done anything for short men or autistic men which I am a part of.
I was compassionate for a while but then I got bored and gave it up. But let’s face it, compassion has become a celebrity thing in recent years.
Did anyone notice it says "Partner: Vanity Fair" on the screen?
What is absent from this conversation is the question of economic justice. If access to the earth's resources were distributed in a fair manner; if the price of beef and lamb at the point of sale corresponded to what its production costs, including damage to soil and water - then how much profit could be made eating meats; how much could consumers afford to have, how much would they want to have?
Gee, I hate to be upbeat--it's not my forte, but I enjoyed and learned from this dialogue. But I'm American: we get so few intellectual and mature discussions worth listening to.
There's an American version of these debate series on youtube also at the channel "IntelligenceSquared Debates" but their topics aren't nearly as good and often end up just being shouting matches like you'd expect on CNN.
jadger1871
I've seen the "Intelligence Squared" shows. They're okay, but, as you imply, Americans just can't disagree without being disagreeable. The Brits are masters at verbal fisticuffs.
James Muncy Agreed, but I find the American audiences to be slightly better. The settings for the British debates tend to draw only one side of the political and social spectrum and a lot of the questioners tend to be rather posh, holier-than-thou and rather closed minded city dwellers. This video is a perfect example. The angry ginger at 1:07:00, the woman who equates farming with slavery are just a couple examples.
there's plenty of mature discussions...not on TV though.
4 Eyed Animation
Where are they?
1:05:32 YESSSSS!!!!!! People have such a hard time looking at the bigger picture and how our choices affect more than just themselves.
Adrian is one of the most disrespectful debaters I have watched. Being highly unlikable is fine, but to dismiss honest questions around sentient creatures suffering makes him an absolute disgrace, as a debater and as a human.
I don't think he was rudely dismissing them, rather I think he probably truly believes that his responses were reasonable... He is fairly insane.
Is this debate a f****** joke or what?
It's not meant to be scientific or parliamentary..... It's literally just a discussion...
So no. It's not a joke
There is nothing wrong with eating or not wanting to eat animals. The problem is in meat industry.
Surely your attitude in this comment helps a lot to counter it.
Everyone can now easily buy meat for their own money from slaughterhouse without seeing the truth, without hunting the animal on their own, completely detached from the ritual. And thus some people are becoming fat meat over-eating machines unable to appreciate the given food or animal rights warriors, vegans, vegetarians. Both of those spectrums are degenerative. Both of those lifestyles are not healthy and lead to premature death, cancer, destruction of ecosystem etc. The solution is somewhere in between. Maybe we should go back to nature and hunt animals on our own. Natural selection style.
I can't hunt animals on my own. I don't have permission. I buy meat from slaughterhouse. Yes, I'm completely detached from the ritual (process in industrial factory) just like everyone else except butchers or hunters. And that's the problem. People have no connection towards the animal they eat. Can't appreciate his sacrifice, didn't hunted, fighted him. Don't know what it means. Eating more than they need and thus increasing demand for more processed meat. I, myself eat stable portions but some people eat like pigs. And I don't think those fat people would be able in nature to kill so many animals on their own. They can't even move on their own! lol Maybe we should introduce quotas of meat per person to stabilize the useless killings. But we need meat to survive, to be strong. If we only eated vegetables we would degenerate our genes, overpopulated earth with animals and destroyed ecosystem by planting, harvesting more plants. Also plants have feelings too.
It's scientificaly proven fact that Vegetarians are less healthy and have a lower quality of life than meat-eaters and by eating only more vegetables we would destroy the ecosystem more because we would need to cultivate more vegetables not only for animals but even more for humans. We would need to cut more forest trees for fields. This would probably lead to unnatural decrease of some animal species but also to overpopulation of free roaming farm animals thanks uncontrolled breeding to already overpopulated earth by humans.
xeraph02 bullshit
“Meat made us cooperative” the rest of the debate is a total joke after that
It was also entirely untrue... the exact same statements he used to back that up can be applied to plant food (fruit, grain, tubers, legumes, etc), and with less tools as well.
Agree with you. This is a pathetic debate! AA Gill is a profoundly sloppy thinker, a glib, lazy mind - cheaply appealing to the lowest common denominator in society.
If you want to see a solid speech in an IQ Squared debate see
czcams.com/video/uQCe4qEexjc/video.html
If it was true......
I've been a vegan for 10 years but i always like to keep up to date with both sides of the argument. Despite this being a very old video, i thought some good points may be presented due to previously enjoying IG2 debates. The meat eating man lol what on earth. Mutual agreement? Has he lost his mind? He lost me immediately. UTTER NONSENSE
Appeal to nature in a nutshell, non-starter. Though I'm not a vegan, more flexitarian.
wow, so many unintelligent comments on A.A.Gills death..
The first guy doubles as a stand up comedian
A pretty bad one though, I guess when you have no decent arguments, you need to try something...
Agree with you. This is a pathetic debate! AA Gill is a profoundly sloppy thinker, a glib, lazy mind - cheaply appealing to the lowest common denominator in society.
If you want to see a solid speech in an IQ Squared debate see
czcams.com/video/uQCe4qEexjc/video.html
Might be funny but dear god he is an idiot. The amount of bs that he spat out is probable the funniest part of his act.
AA Gil constantly using the past as an excuse to continue using outdated methods and diets.
Progress requires change!
A.A. Gill is one of the most out of touch people I've ever seen.
Whats more George Monbiot is not even a vegan! He is a plant based environmentalist. What a completely biased debate!!!
The inability of a single one of the veggies in the audience to articulate anything beyond an incomprehensible ramble, or even work out what a question is, must be the strongest argument for eating meat that I've ever heard.
Sure, having a couple of journalists have this 'debate' is pointless beyond just the pure entertainment of listening to a couple of blokes talk bollocks for an hour an a half, but the audience were a step down from cattle in their thought processes.
it was a downward spiral right when he started talking about guinea pigs???
I mean truly that we would, and have proven to defend ourselves better and that is a part of the food cycle.
I don't think this was a serious debate. I think he put forward such a satirical and at times comical argument because he actually, despite his privilege and bigotry, understands that the argument for eating meat as we do is extremely weak and set mainly in our Western culture, and as everyone knows, culture is always open to change.
1:15:46 YESSSS!!!
I think it would be great idea to have animals present in lectures, debates like this. To see what are human reactions?
I agree with vegans that animals should not be subjected to violence. The difference is that I think there is a way of taking excess milk from the cow in a non-violent way, whereas many vegans I have met think this to be impossible.
I doubt many people would agree with most things AA Gill said, I don't and I'm a meat-eater.
But he exposes an important argument on the morality of killing and eating animals, which I rarely see being discussed:
31:48 - 34:58 and 1:24:47 - 1:25:07
The same people who call meat-eaters out for being speciesist, often look at animal suffering from a human-centric approach. The right to an unadulterated life seems to be ranked based on how those other species resemble our way of interpreting the world - "intelligence".
It is usually focused on vertebrates, and them being sentient (able to feel pain). But what is pain? Is it not just a way of interpreting and responding to the environment? Who are we to say that this interpretation is more valuable and worthy of avoidance than that of plants, bugs, and oysters? We don't understand the nervous systems of these other species, yet we conclude that they don't deserve the same care or rights. Could it be that they are just different?
Go and read about the astonishing facts and complexities of termites and their hierarchical and collaborative societies. Then question, really, why they are not worth the same moral rights of chickens (because chicken's nervous system is closer to ours??)
I have strong doubts about the application of human morals to other species and the consistency of that process. I'm not making any conclusions, instead, I'm raising a point which I think is overlooked. I have not heard a single response objecting this point effectively.
Divergent opinions are welcome, and I would love to hear about a video/article/book that addresses this topic.
Out of all the garbage that was the debate, and this comment thread, this is actually a good thought. The reason I personally have so much trouble deciding the morality of eating meat is because I'm conscious of the fact that I have a ranking system in my head of which animals are 'worth' more, which makes basically no sense. Why does our subjective impression of other species intelligence have any bearing on whether they can be eaten or not? Or for that matter, what they look like. I find sea creatures strange looking and generally not very intelligent, and have basically no problem with eating them. Except Octopuses have been proven to be quite smart in their way, as have many others.
So given that there's really no coherent and consistent way for a human to decide what life has value enough to not eat it, it leaves the question of whether we should eat no animals, or just eat all animals regardless of their intelligence. I feel that in some ways, it's just the circle of life. A big fish eats a smaller fish. But I suppose we are different, since we have a choice whether to eat that smaller fish.
He talks about animals as if they consented to their treatment when they absolutely did not.
iliketotallyloveit true, who would consent to enslavement and death?
It's not enslavement, the fact that you agree with such a ludicrous claim as that nutjob questioner in the video says a lot about you.
Why don't all the dogs and cats run away from their owners if they're all enslaved? Every day I take my dog for an offleash walk in the woods, why has my four-legged slave never tried to escape? Cats are let free to roam around the neighbourhood but they almost always come back.
Does the bird have consented to be killed by your feral cat ? How come an animal consent to something ? Does he has to sign a form ?
Does the tree have consented to be cut to do a field so your earth food can grow ?
You are funny Lana you should go see nature for the first time, it has no soul, it was not designed for you....animal know that for sure.
What will happen to the human race if we control our instinct to reproduce ? Instincts are what they are instincts, they are not stupid in any way. Human are apex predator, the most successful specie on the planet. Some don't accept it....if your religion is environmentalism and veganism well prostrate my friend. But you will not be able to convert me. Of course having the wrong religion i'm morally inferior to you bla bla....i know (don't care)
Evil One vegans only have the moral high ground if the defined moral center of the discussion is predicated on the ideological foundations of veganism itself... so yeah, if you begin by accepting the premise that vegans are in the right, it is inevitable that you would come to the conclusion that vegans must therefore be in the right... so no, your argument is not rational, as the conclusion of your logical structure is dependant on a premise that is itself, identical to the conclusion. that is recursive and therefore illogical. additionally, it is a fairly weak argument to say that because humans are presumably so much more intelligent, they can (and should) make the decision not to eat meat, as a) human intelligence is itself a direct result of our species hunting and eating meat and b) it requires a separation of humans from their fundamental identity as a part of nature, and thus violates the premises/conclusions of the original argument, ie; that animals are equal to humans and therefore should be afforded the same rights. you can't have it both ways. also, rights are an entirely human construct. they are agreements made between members of human social groups for the sole purpose of facilitating cohesion within those same social groups. further, as an inescapable consequence of the very structure of a right as an abstract object, in order to be afforded any right, an individual by definition must at least accept the responsibility of observing that same right as it applies to the other members of the group that formed the initial agreement. so unfortunately, they can not be applied a priori to all animals, as no other animal explicitly states and observes the rights of other individuals. whereas it can be said that other social animals observe member rights within their own social groups, nowhere else in the animal kingdom does the explicit observance of any individual rights extend beyond filial group structures, let alone FORMALIZED personal entitlements, LET ALONE across the borders of speciation.
all of this being said, we ARE a part of the community of nature here on earth, and are thus beholden to its good keeping, if not morally, then pragmatically and as such, I am thus left to conclude that at the very least, factory farm practices as they currently exist are inexcusable and unjustifiable, from both an environmental and yes, even ethical standpoint. but ethics only apply to humans as they are a human technology designed for human ends and are only conceived of and utilized by humans. so the ethical argument against large scale factory farming is that it threatens the stability of the human habitat. also unnecessary cruelty is just spiritually unhealthy, for individuals, and societies. but eating meat is not in and of itself cruel and any argument that tries to make that point is, I'm sorry, just plain stupid.
Well done George for keeping calm, AA appears to be basically a posh clown here (sure he is not). Humans are successful due to cooperation FFS!
Does anyone know who the lady is?
I wonder if the fight of eating people, is that, if they thought you were going to eat them, they would be harder to kill than most the other meats available?
Vegan 3 years thanks to Earthling Ed
Bless you all
don't know what this guy is talking about it's hilarious he is kinda lost
He says we're all competitive and previously he said that meat brought us together...
Competition is not the opposite of 'togetherness' in fact having others around is a requirement of competition?
I think he means that all of the species are competitive and that we humans outsmart other species
@@katrienopsomer8012 by exploiting them
Intelligence Squared? I see the squared, where's the intelligence?
Yes, more meat and Soylent Green because it taste like Veal.
The world became a more compassionate place on December 10th 2016.
;(
You want to see who won? Easy. Just look at the first guy speaking. He insults constantly, he doesn't respect - This is the looser. He doesn't know how to have an argument... its lame.
Awesome video :)
I've seen a lot of pro-meat vs pro-vegan debates. This unfortunately is the worst of them all. For starters the pro meat guy doesn't seem to be interested in answering any questions at all and also he looks like a frikkin psycopath. I'd be uncomfortable if my kids even came in the aura of such a person.
The host tried her best but she had little to no impact of how to steer a conversation to a conclusion.
The only sensible person who calmly answered all questions is the pro-vegan guy. Hatsoff for your patience sir.
@nitesh poonia it later transpired that he was dying of cancer - he died within the year of this being recorded
Corona virus gonna give a good lesson
Yup, but that lesson will not be received by most.
@@monster762 wdym not eating meat is causing hormonal issues like pcos to rise in women!
I thought chickens came from dinosaurs.
Lol!
sheep are farmed for wool, primarily, not meat so his position is shakey
Maurice, what's your source for that claim? Sheep are bred specifically to create more wool, not to produce more meat. And the subsidies are so that they aren't competed out of the market by cheap foreign imports, not so that farmers can continue to live in an unsustainable lifestyle. Farming is not a welfare operation.
***** And what are those breeds as percentages of the overall stock? There are more than 90 different breeds of sheep in the UK and you list less than 10% of them. Your price listing is very misleading since you list price by kg but wool is sold most often in bulk tonnes. Also, you only list the lowest prices you could find for wool. The average price/kg for wool as a whole was more than double most of your examples... and that's from the same source you used. www.britishwool.org.uk/assets/uploads/2016_Summary_Accounts_Final_2.pdf
And again, your claim was that wool is worthless in comparison to meat. You actually have to provide a comparison in order to give that any credence.
You've never met a peasant with a wool rug because you've never met a peasant. We haven't lived under feudalism for hundreds of years. You might want to take a look on the label of your rug though, it's highly likely it has wool in it. You can get one at walmart for $10 if you want though.
I wish the second guy would speak up.
The cannibalism debate was going to be very interesting actually…
What did he mean when he said the bushmen have the widest variety of genetic diversity out of everyone on earth then said '...but it hasn't done them a lot of good...' - what does that mean?
Bushmen are (generally, or maybe I should say stereotypically-at least in this scenario) still in The Bush...and not out pillaging or pilgramming.
I've always thought AA Gill was a vile journalist, but I'd never seen him speak before. Simpering, malicious, elitist. He's completely toxic.
i wish Gary Yourofsky was there to debate and shut this guy up with logic and facts
This is the dumbest comment I have ever seen. That idiot is a sociopath and a liar.
My thought exactly! Or Earthling Ed. Or Joey Carbstrong. Not "mostly" vegan and ex-vegan moderator.
So she is just plain lazy then? isnt that what eating meat has always boiled down to? Taste and convenience?
56:50 poor old Gill totally out of his depth here - no analysis, no thought - just say the first thing which comes into his head refined into as few words as possible.
Agree with you. This is a pathetic debate! AA Gill is a profoundly sloppy thinker, a glib, lazy mind - cheaply appealing to the lowest common denominator in society.
If you want to see a solid speech in an IQ Squared debate see
czcams.com/video/uQCe4qEexjc/video.html
There's nature, having all the glory of the world. And then there's me..twat.. haha that's just brilliant
One of my favorite debates!
37:00 ''' most of India (vegetarian and live very healthy lives) ... yeah, no. HUGE issues with diabetes, obesity etc.
Excellent...George Monbiot.
Gill is talking such nonsense it is difficult to listen to. Monbiot is fantastic in writing but is not strong enough here - he should be pressing far harder on the basic facts. Eating meat in 2019 is totally unnecessary.
... does he really not know that we BRED chickens to lay one egg a day, which is WAY MORE than their bodies are supposed to be able to handle??.... They didn't walk onto our doorstep like that....
What is the name of the female host?
George was asked what he thought people should do short of stopping meat consumption. I liked his answer, but I would have emphasized which type of meat to eliminate. Beef is by far, the most damaging, in terms of greenhouse gasses, wasted fresh water, and deforestation. He suggested reducing. That is the most effective way to be a reducitarian aka flexitarian. As he said, doing that should be seen as a path to a fully plant based diet. czcams.com/video/ETpaLdi1aeA/video.html
I REEEALLY hate this ”almost a vegan” thing going on everywhere. Own what you are. If you eat fish ever, you are a pesco vegetarian. I would say, very very far from being a vegan.
It's like 2 slave owners arguing about the validity of owning slaves with a former abolitionist but now slaver owner adjudicating.
It's not like that.
It is that.
Fuck you.
VeganRevolution
awe Josh Randall, you needed to come and piss on my comment like an old tom cat. I'm kinda flattered.
VeganRevolution hey VR, like your channel.why the 'fuck you' though? he just pointed out something you agree with. yeah, he said it not in the exact terminology and good for you to point that out but that 'fuck you' was totally unnecessary. he clearly was trying to make a point that you and I agree with the main idea. it sounded really harsh, just correct him, no 'fuck you'... don't you think? idk, love your vids, anyways. salute from Israel :)
Exactly😪😪😪
Did he really say 'C*nts from the loonies' at the start???
Subtitle please!
AA Gill here argued here there is no reason to avoid meat or animal products for health reasons. And then a couple months later, he got cancer and died. Ironic.
I love this debate! I’m shocked to find that the likes and dislikes for this video is more or less the same. This means that these two people really are the best speakers for each side!
"If it (Chinese meat consumption) isn't sustainable, whose going to stop them"? It's not "who". It's what. Let me assure the gentleman, something will stop them (and us). And it will do it without any mercy.
Agree with you. It will be a zoonotic disease. 70% of ALL human diseases are spread from non-human animals to humans...... Sars, avian flu, Covid etc. The CDC predicts dozens coming at us in the pipeline. Shame on the organisers for inviting such an idiot on the program.
This is a pathetic debate! AA Gill is a profoundly sloppy thinker, a glib, lazy mind - cheaply appealing to the lowest common denominator in society.
If you want to see a solid speech in an IQ Squared debate see
czcams.com/video/uQCe4qEexjc/video.html
Why are we listening to a non academics debate?
vanity fair ;)
Wise comment
Go on, tell me. I listened for the entertainment value. Love me a bit of Gill.
no matter what is eaten something dies
The argument against veganism in this is so bad , I'm a full blown meat eater but this guy is crazy !
meat eating is your conscious decision, yet you oppose the argument supporting it? he gave it the best way and meat eater can give it, with a mouthful of bullshit
Loved AA Gill throughout this deabte, however his opinions on farming subsidies cannot be defended on classical libaral/libertarian basis. There is no reason why people should pay for farming animals if they do not consume the product.
I pay through taxes to subside people’s children through various benefits / handouts/ and the funding of schools; I don’t have kids and won’t be doing? That fair ?
@@serenityinside1 No
AA Gill swerving the moral considerations around using other animals for the entire hour and a half speaks volumes. At least the discussion seemed to get the group thinking based on the poll at the end.
@Jeremy The Ape (perhaps?) unknown at the time but he was in the early stages of terminal cancer - just look at the blackness around the eyes and terrible skin complexion - this may have affected his judgement and poor debating skills.
I think the panel should have been different. There should have been an ethical / based on moral philosophy vegan. Environmental / ecological arguments were good but could have been expanded more and on the opposition there should have been another moral philosopher and some medical doctors knowledgeable in nutrition on both sides. This existing debate sounds more like and uneducated living room chat with no thought behind it, mostly because of the choice in speakers and their background knowledge.
I think George Monbiot had to dumb down his arguments a lot to respond to AA Gill
Saying "this is a silly question" is not really an answer to a question
1:05:35 is the best question of the whole debate. That guy should have been on the panel
"They have to see a point in being a farm animal".
Is he serious?
And he died at the age of 62, I wonder if his voracious consumption of meat impacted his early demise?
simon early? Lots of people die around 60.
The woman in pink (not sure her role cause I cant make it past 3 minutes) desperately needs to hydrate. I can hear her dry mouth with the volume at the lowest setting.
90% Vegan and hunting/fishing or raising your own food is my stance on it. I've never killed an animal, so if I can't bring myself to do it, why would I go and buy meat. Especially with the variety of alternatives out there. I'm in fit healthy shape and I almost never eat meat. I do eat fish and eggs though, but no cow milk. Anyway that's my 2 cents.
Right or wrong, the reason the feed back on this is so negative is because mostly it's vegans watching.
If eating less intelligent life is okay let's just hope the aliens who night be more intelligent than us don't think it's okay to eat us
True, it's like trying to honestly get information about 9/11 or JFK, you can never get objective feedback in the comment section cause it's literally nothing but conspiracy theorists ransacking the comments.
The reason the feedback is so negative is because they are retarded
Its amazing how the guy for eating meat doesnt answer the hard questions.. im so flabergasted by how irational and narcisitic the arguments for eating non human animals are.. the whole concern seems to be they want to do what they like and nobody should stop them ... because.. they like it .. its so depressing
Sorry not sorry @Xante...I can't agree...I am flabbergasted by the arguments that we can now dismiss the diet that grew our DNA. There are essential fats not oils. Essential amino acids, meat. There are no Essential carbohydrates.
We as humans need protein not a supplemented vegan diet. We as humans are obligate carnivores preferential omnivores which means we will survive on a plant based diet for just so long.
Meat only, fat only, plant only, water only diets are more for medical reasons or detoxing...vegans after a certain point will consume their own flesh and fat...and often fail to procreate.
Jo-Anne Wright
Are you a scientist? My sources of information on diet are peer reviewed scientific studies over four decades ... see dr neal barnard etc if you are truly interested in nutrition .. in my experience people who defend animal agriculture have other agendas other than health ... as for what we are? , renowned paleontologist Richard Leakey after decades of studying human bones all over the globe disagrees with you .. i think ill take his word rather than yours on what the human species is and isnt.
Also i suppose you disagree with the world health organizations and the hundreds of scientists who all agree the vegan diet is good for all stages of life?
@@jo-annel.wright2975 what makes your statement ludicrous is the fact that proteins is found in huge amounts of vegetables, removing the need to eat meat. The animals you eat are given a supplemented diet, along with antibiotics. Also look at gorillas, and how strong they are, and they fact is they eat a plant-based diet. You can receive all your vital amino acids from plants.. you just need to read up a little more, as your statement full of errors, including the comment about our DNA.
Someone wanted to compare animals to slaves.
But if a person would rather die than be a slave and whose nature would resist all manner of enslavement he could not be a slave at all. If another person was servile in nature and thought he needed a master to survive he would be a good slave. Most people follow the herd, do the same as everyone else, feel very uncomfortable thinking independently and conform that person would be a great slave.
An animal whose nature is not servile and docile can not serve well. Such as a very aggressive natured animal that does not accept any master's authority could not be domesticated. One that requires the master's protection or believes that protection is needed and is docile enough to be trained to behave would be suitable for domestication.
Especially when it tastes so good.
1:05:33
what about it