What did he say
Comment on More than 15% of teens say they’re on YouTube or TikTok ‘almost constantly’
tekila@lemmy.world 9 months agoAs long as he sticks to subjects he clearly understands. Everytime I’ve read or watched one of his take on veganism/anti-specism I was left dumbfounded and ashamed for him.
Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 9 months ago
tekila@lemmy.world 9 months ago
There was a chapter in his book “Starry Messenger” dedicated to this subject. I unfortunately cannot reproduce the entire chapter here. However, here is a video essay on it that you can watch if you’re interested. www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbXw13Npvlg (25min)
One of his dumbest argument imho was trying to claim that vegans were specist towards plants, even though no scientific existence of sentience in plants exist which is the moral criteria used in most anti-specist philosophy. I will add that even if plants were all found to be sentient, we’d still kill less sentient beings by eating them directly rather than feeding them to non-human animals and then killing them.
Here is another video of him talking about this very chapter for example: www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9HrMdNEKPA (6min). I think this shows a complete misunderstanding of what vegans and anti-specism is about. To me it seems like he does not even consider the sentience of the animals and considers them as machines. He also seems to straw man the position to “vegans want to protect life”.
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 9 months ago
That is actually pretty hilariously stupid.
He 100% just doesn’t like vegetarians and worked backwards, coming up with some half-baked nonsense to back himself up.
Not exactly following the scientific method there.
tekila@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I guess we all have our blind spots :)
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 months ago
vegans were specist towards plants
they are. they’ve identified a whole group of species and decided to treat them differently.
tekila@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Again that’s a misunderstanding of the position. The discriminatory criteria is sentience. If a plant was found to be sentient, this plant would be included in the moral circle. You can make the same argument for things we consider animals but lack all of what we currently consider needed for sentience. An example would be a sea sponge. I personally do not include a sea sponge in my moral circle and I do not think they have any sentience even though they are considered animals. I would also consider someone that says sea sponge should be included in our moral circle just because they are part of the animal kingdom to be quite dogmatic.
And even if we want to debate on whether a sea sponge is sentient, there is absolutely no debate on most animals we currently kill for food or exploit for entertainment. They are clearly sentient.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 months ago
this is a problem for a LOT of public intellectuals/academics.