 veganism is morally obligatory and we are starting right now. Our vegan team's opening statement from Brian and Ah, thanks for being here and the floor is all yours. So much for having us. I think we're going to begin by defining veganism. Now, veganism is most currently defined as a way of life that seeks to exclude all exploitation and cruelty towards animals, as far as what's possible and practically practicable. An older definition of veganism is the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals altogether. That is the key thing that veganism focuses on the most the exploitation of other living sentient beings for mere taste pleasure. For all the same reasons that we believe our fellow human beings deserve not to be exploited, vegans believe that our fellow non human earthlings deserve not to be exploited. And so for the same reasons that one would find it morally obligatory to not needlessly enslave exploit and murder our fellow human beings we believe that it is morally obligatory to not needlessly enslave exploit and murder cows pigs and chickens. Now that's not to say that cows pigs and chickens are the same as human beings, just as say children are not the same as adults. Men are not the same as women and dogs are not the same as pigs, but in all the ways that matter for moral consideration, we are the same. Just like human beings, all mammals all birds are sentient that means they have a subjective experience of life. The reason we care about sentences because in order to experience joy or pain, one must be sentient. Now rocks are not sentient. Clearly, and to the best of our knowledge, plants are not sentient either but we know for a fact according to the Cambridge Declaration on consciousness in 2012 that animals, the animals that human beings routinely consume they are sentient. And veganism is it's not a diet it's not a weight loss program. It's also not a competition to see who can like reduce the most harm or who can increase the most well being. Obviously, the ultimate way to reduce all harm and increase all well being would be to not exist, which is not a very practical message to spread when you're talking about veganism. And veganism, as Anna said it's about not exploiting fellow living beings, just as we do not exploit our fellow human beings. And to discriminate based on species which is what many people do. That's no different than discriminating based on race or gender or any other morally irrelevant trait that sentient beings happen to possess. Pigs, cows and chickens, they didn't ask to be born pigs cows and chickens. That's just a trait that they possess their species. So, if one actively discriminates based on species, then in order to be consistent. One would have to believe that it's also morally permissible to discriminate based on gender, for example. So, basically to summarize, you know, for all the right for all the same reasons that someone would consider it morally obligatory to not enslave, exploit or kill our fellow homo sapiens. That is why vegans believe it is morally obligatory to not enslave, exploit or kill our fellow non humans. Thank you very much. We will kick it over to our Omnivore team and want to let you know, folks, at modern day debate, we are a neutral platform hosting debates on science, religion and politics. And want to let you know no matter what walk of life you come from, no matter what your position is on all of the big questions that we debate here. We hope you feel welcome. We're glad you're here. And like I said, we'll kick it over to our Omnivore team. Thanks so much professor and Philip. The floor is all yours. Great. Thank you, James. I would like to go first if that's okay with professor. Sure thing. Awesome. Okay. Thank you for having me James and thank you to professor as well as Anna and Brian for talking with me. I am a vegetarian so hopefully I can bridge the two views a bit from the vegan side I am convinced that non human animals deserve ethical consideration. Therefore, I see factory farming as an issue that needs to be completely eradicated. From the meat eater perspective, I am convinced that veganism theory of accountability has never been fully substantiated. Vegans claim that veganism is morally obligatory because consumers are accountable for an industry's actions. One of the elements to being accountable for harm is that the harm needs to be properly attributable to the individual. If I throw a rock down a mountain and it hits someone, you can rationally attribute that harm to my action. However, I am unconvinced that all of the harm done in industries is properly attributable to the consumer. The law of supply and demand states that consumers provide demand for product X not demand for all actions that an industry performs X in a given market under given circumstances is what is intrinsic and necessary to procure. For example, in a market for avocados, what is intrinsic to procuring avocados is that the supplier must know what an avocado is, where it is located, and must physically obtain the item in order to sell it. These actions or properties are necessary in a given market and are entailed in the procurement of X. If there is a demand for an avocado and a supplier finds it, picks it up, transports it, then stabs someone on the street, we can say that stabbing someone on the street was not intrinsic or necessary to procure avocados. Therefore, I am unconvinced the consumer bears accountability for the stabbing, however, the supplier bears full responsibility. This is the same with dairy and eggs. To procure dairy and eggs, harm is not necessary or intrinsic to do so, as it is possible to procure dairy and eggs without harming animals. Therefore, accountability falls on the supplier for the harm and I'm unconvinced it falls on to the consumer. I am convinced that providing demand for items such as meat and leather is immoral because the consumer bears accountability. In these circumstances, dealing with live animals as we know them today, in order to procure meat from them, it is intrinsic to harm them. If I am put in a locked room with a cow and told to procure its meat immediately, it is impossible for me not to harm it. Therefore, consumers do bear culpability. Imagine that James is in a town square, placing $1,000 on a table and states that anybody who brings him a yellow shirt will get the money. The first man buys the shirt from a nearby store to sell back to James. A second man starts stitching a yellow shirt to sell to James. A third man goes to a home, kills all of its residents and robs them of a yellow shirt. I don't see a reason to blame James for the actions of the third man simply by providing demand for a yellow shirt because harm was not intrinsic in procuring a yellow shirt. However, sorry. If James went to a town square and declared he is willing to pay $1,000 for the eyeball of Kim Kardashian, I do see a reason to blame James if the supplier satisfies his demand because in present circumstances, taking the eyeball of Kim Kardashian entails unnecessary harm. I don't know whether or not it is morally permissible to buy dairy eggs, a t-shirt, or a new laptop, but I act in the hopes that it is. Just as I act in the hopes that the sun will come up tomorrow, even if I don't know for sure, it seems to me that there is a jump between the harm done and the responsibility of the consumer. If you were to say to me that because I played video games, some dude in Australia beat his family, therefore I am accountable for that, I would be unconvinced and I will need to see how the harm is properly attributable to my act of playing video games. Similarly, I don't see how putting male chicks in a blender is properly attributable to my demand for someone to pick up an egg from a chicken and send it to me. I don't see how branding and stopping on calves is properly attributable to my demand for someone to take the udders of a pregnant cow to milk it and send it to me. Vegans face inconsistency by claiming consumers are accountable for all harm in an industry. If a vegan does bodybuilding as a hobby and consumes a large number of calories, veganism will say that he is morally obligated to abstain from bodybuilding in order to reduce his crop debts, even though crop debts are not intrinsic to satisfy his personal demand. Vegans must also only buy foods from fields that minimize pesticide use and they must abstain from buying new clothing because of harm in cotton fields and sweatshops. For a new laptop, vegans are accountable for the harm animals harmed in clearing excavation sites and the harm done from 18-wheeled trucks that run over animals in transport. Vegans also have to minimize their impact on global warming from electricity and vehicle use. If the vegan purchases anything from companies in which wages are paid to non-vegans who use their wages to purchase meat, the vegan is now accountable for contributions to factory farming. If a vegan buys a movie ticket, they are now accountable for all the exploitative practices engaged in Hollywood. Their reasoning leads to, if you're not minimalist, you're not vegan. If vegans want to claim I am supporting animal suffering, then by their own reasoning, they better grab a paddle because we're on the same boat. I would agree that eliminating factory farming is a collective obligation. Just as it is a collective obligation to eliminate homelessness and establish world peace, however, I would not blame anyone for not donating to homeless shelters. I mean, we as individuals can make small incremental changes as we see fit to reach a collective goal. Yes, and I would be in strong favor of that being morally obligatory. However, I remain unconvinced that the line is drawn at veganism. Thank you. Thanks so much. We'll kick it over to professor. All right. So guess my stance is, you know, I'm an omnibore. So guess my stance is that ultimately, all morality is objective is really only one constraint on morality and that is social contract. When it comes to exploiting animals, everyone draws a line somewhere and sort of arbitrarily based on personal preferences. I think you guys are great examples of that. And Brandon Anna, you take very hard line on animal exploitation. Essentially, I think you believe it's essentially a moral unless it's absolutely necessary. Others like Phil are okay with being vegetarians. And some vegans think it's fine to have leather or kill other animals for some property rights. My view is that all of these moral systems are essentially equivalently good and bad. There's no way to rank moral codes because morality is just subjective. I think that that said, many vegans often debate this as though they're, they're moral objectivists as though they assume that we share the same values or they simply believe that the morality is superior to ours. I think because they'd like to claim moral superiority and essentially compare that compel their morality on us. Again, I think the only, the only constraint on morality is social contract. And that otherwise any given person's particular preferences on morality are going to be based on their nature and nature, basically their history. Because that, you know, many of the arguments I've heard are based on an axiom called minimized suffering. And I guess what I'd like to point out and hopefully you can talk about this later is I think that personal this axiom is not required to define a moral system. Secondly, I think you can come up with a bunch of really wacky scenarios. If you if you if you take this down to this conclusion I think I'm Brian hinted at this idea of, you know, the kill all humans button. I think you morally compelled to do that, because that is the, you know, the state of absolute minimal suffering zero. And anyone who who I think takes a step back and thinks about this for a moment thinks that we realize that if your moral system, if clinging to this idea of, you know, minimizing suffering is absolutely what you care about and something you're going to navigate all more quantities with, you know, sort of crazy if that also means that you should have to your morally compelled to hit the kill all humans other kinds of ways of defining morality around maximizing well being, you know, again, subjective you can use it if you want you don't have to. I think it can lead to wacky scenarios as well. It can even lead to omnivores and depending on how you do the calculation. I think all moral codes are essentially ad hoc. They're the result of history and cultural individual and cultural evolution. And that basically what we call good and bad individually are just a result of our cultural conditioning where we were raised by whom and the natural instincts that were bred into us. So basically I would say that it's pretty obvious to, I don't know honestly that's really necessary to debate the primary premise of this debate which is his veganism morality. I mean, what I would say is that no moral system is obligatory, because morality is subjective, and that includes veganism. So, you know, I think what way I would look at the way a lot of vegans think of things is that really they just care a lot about animals, which is fine, and they'd like to compel us to care as much as they do. But I just think we should acknowledge that not everyone feels the same way about these issues and that's also fine. Ultimately the way it's going to work out is everyone gets to vote over time. We're going to create a new generation of people, we're going to pass our morality onto them, they're going to be culturally conditioned, and they're going to come to think that what we pass onto them is absolutely good and bad, but it really is just another form of new morality that's going to emerge out of our culture. You got it. Thank you very much professor, and we will jump into the open conversation which will be about an hour folks, and I want to let you know we are pumped this Friday. For the first time in a while, we've missed Stevens, so folks, you don't want to miss it, it's going to be epic. This Friday, Destiny will be back. In particular, Destiny's moral system will be on trial. It's he'll be debating Brenton Langel, so that should be a juicy one, and hit that subscribe button and that notification bell for reminders so you don't miss that debate or other juicy debates live. And so, with that, we'll jump into the open conversation. As mentioned, the floor is all yours. Thanks everybody. Do you want to start? Well, I guess from, I mean, if you don't mind we can start. It sounds like Philip is in the same boat as a vegan would be, except you're unconvinced that buying dairy and eggs causes harm. Yeah, yeah, I'm unconvinced that the harms perpetuated by an industry, because at the end of the day we are talking about the actions of other people right how like where are we responsible for the actions of other people. And when like someone puts like a chicken and blender or stumps on a baby calf. I believe that's really just done for profit maximization, and it's not really done to satisfy a demand. So I don't see how that harm can be properly attributable to my action, my action of like demanding like dairy and eggs. So it's, it's, it would be like I would say the industry causes it not really the consumer. Well, so I guess I'm going to refer to you. You said when someone puts baby chicks in a blender. But unfortunately, that is standard practice. It's kind of a given when a chicken lays eggs. You don't know, you know, if they're in the egg laying industry, you don't know if the chicks born from those eggs are going to be male or female so the males are immediately discarded on day one because there's no use for them. So that is almost that's actually intrinsic in egg production. Yeah, I mean, and also, like we said at the beginning, like veganism is not really concerned with maximizing harm reduction we're concerned with exploiting sentient beings, not exploiting or not exploiting sentient beings and so when you, you know, you forcibly breed chickens over generations to produce an egg every single day. The egg laying process is very exploitative. The chickens get many diseases associated with over too many laying too many eggs. And then at about a year and a half 18 months two years old when the egg production slows, the chickens are discarded as well. So there is direct discarded they are killed for me usually chicken nuggets or you know ground up chicken patties and things like that. You know, they're, they're clearly exploited for their reproductive systems female chickens are exploited and then the male chickens are killed because they're there of the egg laying species they don't grow big and fast enough to be quote unquote neat birds. So when you buy eggs you are paying for animal exploitation and animal suffering directly. Um, yeah, I would, I would, I wouldn't really agree with that. So when you're paying, when you're paying for dairy and eggs you are paying for what's intrinsic and procuring dairy and eggs right and like all the things that you said is absolutely true like people throwing babies and blenders how they breathe these chickens in these harmful ways and that is immoral. My problem is how that is attributable to the consumer. Because in my opinion, the harm is not intrinsic to that demand because it is possible you can have like a chicken just as like a pet right and then you lays eggs and you just take it egg and then send it to me that's like satisfying my demand and I don't think there's any harm there. Where do you buy your eggs. I'm sorry. Where do you buy your eggs do you buy them from grocery stores restaurants. Oh yeah I do buy them from grocery stores but you're directly contributing to factory farmed eggs. Well, this is really the point. In my opinion, when there is harm you have to decide who is accountable for that harm right you are buying factory farmed eggs. So I wouldn't say that the harm is intrinsic to my demand that harm is culpable that harm is attributable to the industry wanting to maximize the profit and wanting to make sure that practices are as effective as possible right for me, what a demand is, is that you are paying for the procurement of eggs and if there's nothing necessary, if the harm is not necessary in the procurement of eggs, then that attribute that I don't see how that's attributed to my action. That's like kind of saying it can be we're like in the same boat right because you can say that pesticide use if you're eating maybe if you can cut 500 calories out of your diet every week, you should do that, you're obligated to do that because pesticide use is is pretty much a given right. So it's kind of like, I don't see how pesticide use because you can. There is, it is possible I will concede that it's probably never going to happen, but that really wouldn't refute my point it is possible. And it's not intrinsic in your demand for crops that animals are going to be harmed through pesticide use, because it is possible that you can get that crop and satisfied demand without any harm. And I don't see who actually conducts the harm. That's who I believe is attributable is accountable, not the consumer. Well, I don't. The thing is when it comes to the who is responsible. You know, in the case of slaughterhouse workers, for example, there's standard practice and then there's excessive abuse. Now both happen. And like we said, you know, it is standard practice to grind up baby chicks alive it is standard practice to if dairy cow gives birth to a male calf he goes directly into the veal industry and so our consumption of dairy is a direct directly supports the veal industry as well. We as consumers are the ones who with our wallets with our dollars, we vote with our dollars we decide what we want companies to continue to produce. So like, you know, when we lean away from those companies and from those industries, we are saying no that's not what we want. I can't say whether for example a slaughterhouse worker is going to smack a pig around or hit, you know, hit them unnecessarily. I can't say, but again, it is standard practice for example to with egg laying chickens. Once they're spent. They are used for meat. I mean that's it. That's money for the corporation. It's really kind of missing my entire point because I wouldn't say that interacting in a commerce engagement with someone means entails that you support every single thing that they do. That's like saying, if I talk with someone that means I support everything that they do right when I know it's I pardon for the interruption but if you're you drink milk and you butter and cheese and dairy products right. I'm not really dairy. Okay, so where does dairy come from the dairy comes from the cow. Okay, and why do cows, why do cows produce milk for their calves. Exactly. They have to be pregnant to produce milk they don't just make milk and leave it in buckets for us to pick up right. So if you want cow milk. You are paying for someone to come along and inseminate a cow against her will and take her baby when her baby is born because you want the milk that the baby supposed to be drinking. That's just how a dairy industry has to work. There's no way for a dairy industry to be profitable by waiting for cows to be impregnated naturally and then only taking the milk that the calf doesn't drink and then when the cow doesn't produce as much milk as we'd be feeding that cow for 18 years or 20 years and letting them die a natural death. It's just not that's not how the dairy industry works how the dairy industry works as you pay for some cheese. There is a calf out there who got killed and a mother cow who got killed and a mother cow who was inseminated against her will usually about four or five times before she's killed so she loses four or five children throughout her life. And then she's killed and grown up in the hamburgers. So you want to directly paying for that. Yeah, I don't agree that I'm paying for that when I matter if you agree like you are. I'm trying to explain to you why I don't I don't think so right so why I'm not really that convinced of that right because when you pay for dairy and eggs, you don't pay for the CEO to abuse is to abuse his daughters right you don't pay for the We're talking about direct Brian I let you talk and I please talk. Okay, so you don't pay for every single harm you pay for what is intrinsic and procuring that product and I will concede that waiting for a cow to be pregnant waiting for it to have babies and just milk it that's it's never going to happen in the industry right but that is still missing the entire point missing the entire what's my point is that what is intrinsic in your demand. When you're talking about harm you have to say who is accountable for that harm right you have to properly attribute that action to me as a consumer and what I am doing as a consumer is that I am supporting the procurement of dairy and there it's if there's nothing necessary harm is not necessary in the procurement of dairy and that means harm is culpable for the person who actually does the harm. The harm happens, whether you think it's necessary or not it happens as part of the industry I can't function without the harm. The harm happens all the time I just don't think it's attributable I just don't think it's attributable to the consumer the harm. In that case there is harm there is harm I concede there is harm. I just don't see how it's attributable to the to the consumer. So you concede that you cause direct exploitation and harm with your dollar but you're not convinced that you cause direct exploitation and harm with your dollar. No, I'm not convinced that I cause direct exploitation what I cause is the procurement of dairy and eggs anything else anything else any harm other than that is attributable to the industry. So when you when you are J. Brian let me ask you this. Do you do you engage in any type of hedonistic non essential commodity consumer consumption. He didn't like watching movies or something. Like if you want to like a new t shirt and you buy a new t shirt or if you want like a, like a, like a toy for your cat or something do you engage in anything like that non essential commodity. Everyone does that I mean we do try to buy used whenever possible. But yeah, I think so why are you morally obligated to extend from doing that where in order to get the cotton for your clothing you need to animals needs to be burned alive by pesticides where guts are literally turned inside out with these pesticides. So you can have a new shirt or these animals and insects that are run over by 18 wheelers every time you want to transport it. Why are you not accountable for that. We are accountable for those deaths but that's the best system that we have at the moment for procuring the goods that we need. It's not directly. I'm not saying that you need right I'm talking about something non essential just just to be sure that we hear from Brian to. I appreciate both sides, both passionate and they love it from both of you. I would say, yeah, we can replace it with want, but when you're eating like corn tortillas right you have to grow corn to make these corn tortillas. We are aware as vegans that there are crop deaths associated with growing crops, but the intention behind growing crops is to grow them and protect them so that we can make food. We know that we would have to protect these crops against insects in the same way that if a human being came over and threatened to burn down our cornfield like we would want to protect our crops from the human being threatening to burn down our cornfield. Right, we can't reason with insects and ask them hey can you please stay away from our crops. But we recognize that this is the best system that we have obviously there's veganic farming and more and more farms that switch over to veganic farming we will happily support those farms, but this is the best system that we have to cause the least amount of exploitation and suffering as possible. So, can I just interject for a second I think there's a little bit of loss and translation happening I think what Phil is asking is basically, aren't you according to this philosophy aren't you morally compelled to consume the minimum required for your survival. We understand that we understand that some degree of animal death is required exploitation is required for us just to live right need to eat. But if you want to minimize exploitation, which is your philosophy, you should consume the minimum number of crops to to to survive. Minimizing harm is not the philosophy of veganism the philosophy of veganism is exploitation exploitation, correct, and it's not intrinsically exploitative to grow tomatoes. There's no, even though, even though you don't have to kill animals will, even though you know that if you go to buy tomatoes at the grocery store, lots of animal deaths had to happen. That was the same argument you're making with Phil earlier. Yeah, we recognize that animal and insect deaths may have happened, but it is not part of the food product itself what we want are tomatoes. When you agree with me Brian. No, we don't because when you want a piece of cheese on your on your boca burger, you have what is required to get cheese is to forcibly impregnate a cow steal her baby and steal her milk. That is required Phillip that is required. It's not required. It's not necessary. You buy cheese at the grocery store you just said, hold on, but the way the way you get cheese is not a necessity. It's not intrinsic. Yes, it is. Is it, is it Brian, is it possible that you can get cheese without like raping it without harming its calf. Is it possible. It's called vegan cheese. I think Phillip is actually he's literally he's literally saying like you can wait for a cow to be naturally pregnant. But that's not the way. And then you can go. Right, right. Right, but you guys made the argument that you can eat tomatoes because you're not responsible for the animal that's required. We didn't say we're not responsible. We said we recognize that crop deaths occur, but intrinsically when you grow a crop, the point is to grow a crop. Intrinsically involved in dairy is raping an animal stealing her milk and stealing her baby. You have to do that to get the breast milk from the animal. She has to be pregnant. There's no way to get cow milk without a cow being pregnant. She's a mammal. It has to be pregnant, but you don't need to rape a cow for it to be pregnant because it is possible for it to be the other way. And that's not how most of the world acquires milk in order to work. It has to be acquired forcibly. I know and I know, but when you're talking about what is intrinsic, you kind of contradict yourself. You say that it's intrinsic, but it's not intrinsic. Then you accept that we're culpable for all extrinsic types of harm. So when you buy vegan products, your money actually goes to the wages of non-vegans who use their money to buy meat. Therefore, that means are you accountable for the meat that they buy as well? No, because we're buying the vegan product. What if I tell you, what if I use your own reasoning against you, right? What if I say it's some fantasy land where a company is always non-vegan, right? That's okay, fine. But in these companies, right, there are non-vegans who work there and they use their wages gained from your demand, from you profitizing that industry, and they use their wages to buy meat. That means that you perpetuate factory farming because you buy vegan products. That's the exact same reasoning that you use against me. That sounds like exactly what you said in your opening statement of if you pay someone for a yellow shirt and they murder someone, you don't feel like you're responsible for that murder because all you did was pay for a yellow shirt. So what we're saying is we're paying for corn tortillas at the grocery store. We're not responsible for the owner of the grocery store's meat purchases. We're showing demand for vegan products at his establishment. Right, and I'm furthering the demand of cheese and dairy. Now are they going to get more cheese and dairy? Not for raping a cow or putting chicks in a blender. I mean, I don't understand where we can go from here because if you're unwilling to concede that you must impregnate a cow in order to get milk from the cow, then I just don't know where we can go on this topic any further. Yeah, I agree. I think it's probably better we just move on and kind of going in circles. We haven't heard an argument from Professor yet. And so this is a great opportunity. I'll kick it right back to you, Professor. One moment. Just want to let you know, folks, we have updated. So the charity that we'll be giving to is Save the Children. Someone let me know. So sorry. This is like not at all, obviously, to have ever taken a stance. And that's why we actually changed the charity because I don't know for sure, but someone had said that they think that the original charity would be kind of partial in one way or another for this debate topic. So we have changed it to a like 99.9% guaranteed to be neutral regarding this topic type of charity. And so 100% of Super Chats will be going to that charity for today's debate. And so thanks so much for your Super Chats that have come in. Plus, we will jump back into, as I had mentioned, Professor. And I want to also mention really quick, our guests are linked in the description, folks. So if you want to hear more from our guests, please click on their links. They're waiting right there at the top of the description box right there for you. And that includes if you're listening via our podcast, folks. So we have a podcast now. If you have not heard, we are excited about it. And if you were listening via podcast, you can also access our guest links in the description box of the podcast. Ah, okay, so thanks so much. And the floor is all yours, Professor. Thank you. Yeah, so I have a question for those annoying vegans. I've heard you say in previous videos that you've uploaded that you're against animal testing for like pharmaceuticals. Is that true? Yeah, I haven't really made a video. We maybe mentioned it, but we haven't dedicated a full video to it. Yeah, I know. I mean, Anna did, Anna actually did a human trial for a particular medication at one point. Obviously, if animal testing can be avoided and you can still get a good product. We recognize though that we live in a non-vegan world and a lot of organizations require animal testing in order for products to make it to the market. So, right. What I heard in the video, I don't think it was a video specifically on animal testing. I think it was mentioned sort of offhand, just a comment, but I just wanted to confirm that you are against animal testing for like research and drug testing and so on. Yeah, I think we're at a point of evolution where alternate methods are being used, whether it's computer programs or human volunteers. So we're recruiting in that direction. So yeah, I guess I have a little bit just to say about that. I actually wonder if you might want to change your stance on this, but I actually know a thing or two about this based on my work. And I guess what I would say is that animal testing is not the only place where like animal testing for pharmaceuticals or like products that you might have to grocery store, whatever. That's not the only place where animals are used or exploited in science. In biomedical research, animals are the central tool that's used to do biomedical research. Almost every study that's done, if it doesn't directly require the exploitation of animal, literally the generation of a specific organism like a model organism on mouse, and then it's death. If it doesn't do that directly, it does indirectly essentially all biomedical scientists require their work is tangentially related to the work that people with animals do almost all of it. You know, the data scientists who basically take all the data that comes out and try to make sense of it, people that are building new model systems, people that are taking developing new measurement methods to make sense of what's going on the experiments. So I guess you don't have to take my word for it. You can look it up on the internet I think Stanford has a website basically talking about this, and you can talk to other scientists but basically I guess what I'd say is that if you truly did outlaw animal testing, you would basically stop biomedical research. Because it is practice today and again you don't have to take my word for it. I would be very, very bullish on that point. And so, you know, that also means that all of the drugs that we have today, right, that have been developed. They've all required a huge amount of animal exploitation. So all the cancer therapies, HIV drugs that people used to live basically HIV was a death sentence, when it was first developed and we now have these amazing drugs that allow you to live such with them, those require a huge amount of animal testing. The new antibody treatments for COVID, those are actually, I believe they actually come from animals, actually generated animals, or at least they were tested in animals, a vaccine that was developed. That was a body of work that took decades of animal based research to get to a vaccine. So, you know, if you really think that it's immoral to you to exploit animals in these instances, what you're saying is that all of this science has led to these amazing therapies and so on drugs was immoral and that we should stop it. And I know that you guys are against the needless suffering. We've been going for a while. I just want to give a chance for Brian and Anna to respond and then my friends will come right back to you. You know, the beauty of society and my hope is that we evolve and become smarter and find new ways and different ways. So yes, there are things that unfortunately we cannot change. And, you know, the only thing we can do is worry about what we're doing now. And are you using, I mean, because obviously like animal testing is a very, you know, it's a tricky thing. A lot of the times animal testing is required. It's part it's woven into our society. It's needed in some case, you know, like people need cancer medication, people need HIV medication, like you said, or the COVID vaccine. But what does that have to do with like needlessly impregnating cows for dairy? Like that's the problem. I'm talking right now. I'm just trying to, I guess my point is that you are for animal exploitation in some circumstances. Well, we've said that like as far as is possible and practicable is in the definition and we focus on needless, needless exploitation, needless harm. Eating a cheeseburger is needless. If you need that because you have cancer, you need it, but you don't need to eat bacon. Well, Brian, I'm sorry, what about like if you have a headache and you know you can like deal with this headache, right? So are you saying you're morally obligated to not take Tylenol because that money would go to a company that further animals testing? So are you saying that people should not have Tylenol if they feel like they can deal with the headache? I mean, that's usually my method is to not take medicine needlessly. Like if I can just drink some water and get over a headache, then obviously I would prefer that over ibuprofen or pain relief. But if someone goes in for surgery and they need pain relief, like this is all, it's all based on need. Like do you need it? And there are also like cruelty free generic versions of lots of medications available these days anyway. But I don't understand that in pregnanting cows. We're not talking about a pregnant cows are talking about developing drug, but I mean, do you not see that the definition of needless is subjective? Like what you might consider to be a necessary therapy, you know, HIV drugs is not necessarily considered to be necessary by everybody or cancer therapies or the code vaccine, right? Basically the point is that animal exploitation was required and is required basically to do biomedical research. So if you want biomedical research to continue, you need to accept the fact that animal exploitation is an enormous part of that. I would argue it is the central tool that we use in this in that science. To accept anything we can work towards finding new ways, different ways. I knew, for example, like, you know, back when I was in high school, our AP bio class was dissecting pig fetuses. Now they're using computer programs. I mean, there are different ways that where we can find a different way we should. Of course, of course, and I think there are many scientists trying to do that. But the fact is is that today there is no alternative to animal testing because animals are very complicated human beings are extremely complicated organisms. We don't have computer simulations that can accurately model humans systems based on like cells, individual cells and things non sentient beings are complicated enough. You absolutely need to need animals and like I said, you don't have to take my word on this but if you want to know whether or not you should support biomedical research and animal testing, I guess you need to determine for yourself whether it's truly needless suffering, needless exploitation and I would argue that it really is. And most people that I think are listening to this would probably argue that we need science to continue biomedical science to continue. And unfortunately we have to accept the fact that animal exploitation is a central part of that. But we don't need double bacon cheeseburgers at hearties to continue. Right. So, I agree that would be vegan in every other aspect of your life except for animal testing. And I guess my point here was just to say that. I guess my point was just to say that, you know, you guys don't point the finger at the on over here and say you're the only one interested in exploiting animals. Right. You are not saying animals under the right and I think many people do I think they, they boil this argument down to something very black and white and very simple, very simplistic I would say. And I think that if you want to really think about this clearly you know you recognize that animal exploitation is sort of, at least at this point in our, in our, you know, development as a species is just necessary. It's not a line of different ways of what they consider to be acceptable, and it's based on their personal preferences and there's essentially no objective standard to choose and so we just, I'll just get to choose. It's not necessary we won't we don't settle. I mean, again if we find a different way of doing things for example when we find out for like non related to animals but sort of indirectly I mean we've done our very best to minimize our you know if we find a product that comes in glass versus plastic we opt for the glass. It's, it's just, you seem to be taking the stance of, we just have to accept that that's the way it is, and it's going to be this way and, at the same time I think, I think it was. Sorry, Gracie is sitting on my notebook. I think it was. You who had stated, you know, the way the reason things are the way they are is because of the social contracts that we've created with which actually sure that's true but it ignores our evolution as a society because we were always evolving. So just because something is a certain way today doesn't mean it needs to be next year or tomorrow. You know that would be ignoring all the progress we've made it as a society regarding any other injustices that we've fought against. I mean whether it's women's right to vote or game marriage. You know once upon a time people used to say well that's just the way it is. That's the way it's going to be, and we just need to be okay with that. I mean I guess, could I could I respond to that or was there more. Yeah, yeah I mean, I guess what I'd say is that do I think of morality is sort of from like an empirical perspective which I think of morality as an evolved human trait. It's a trait that humans evolved because we live in groups, and there is no real direction to evolution, and evolution just just goes right. And if you think about the purpose of morality, it's a social contract, it's a naturally evolved social contract, and there's really only one constraint which is that for a moral system to continue, for a society with a given moral system to perpetuate itself, it must have stable social contract. Beyond that, beyond that mineral constraint, there's really no clear direction that the culture needs to go. I know that many people, I want to hear this from vegans that there's a clear trajectory where veganism is going to be the endpoint. And I don't know if that's actually true because human beings have multiple instincts that have been bred into us. We like to feel good. We like to be free. Indeed, we do feel empathy towards animals, right. The problem is that animals can't reciprocate social contract so the purpose of the evolution is actually sort of misguided in that sense. It was evolved in humans to make sure that we could understand how other humans, other people that reciprocate the social contract would behave in response to our behaviors, our actions, right. Animals can't do that. And so it's not clear to me that extending protections to them actually leads to a better moral system. But for sure, veganism does reduce individual liberty and well-being. And so maybe we'll end up as a vegan society. I agree it could be possible. But I don't think it's so absolutely clear that that's going to be the endpoint. And I don't think that it's necessarily the morally most righteous endpoint. What I want to do is I want to give Brian and Anna a chance to respond and then also want to jump back over to Philip eventually. So Philip, if you want to jump in after Brian and Anna have a chance to respond. I guess, well, two thoughts came to mind there. You say animals are incapable of reciprocating social contracts. That's true for some human beings like toddlers and infants are not capable of reciprocating social contracts or people with mental disabilities or there's, you know, people with dementia. There's a number of human beings that wouldn't fit into that category. So that can't be the common denominator, the core of your moral philosophy. I know the point is that the point is that you make a rule that says don't don't harm other humans, right. And that's the social contract. So even if somebody is mentally disabled and they can't reciprocate, they're still a human. Well, convince me why I shouldn't harm a human. Well, because of the social contract humans are moral agents, right. So, so you, you, you have to rely on other humans in order to exist in society. And so it's in your interest to treat them with the same respect you would like. You make a rule, you make a rule in society says don't don't kill humans. And that leads to a stable moral system and society perpetually perpetuates itself. And ultimately human, you know, people born into that society think, think killing humans is wrong. But it's not necessarily fundamentally wrong. It's just a condition of the culture that we're in that gave rise to a social, to a stable society. Well, it's also in our best interest as you know, in terms of our survival as a species not to kill each other. Yeah, but I would also, you know, well, I guess I would say so in your opinion, like slavery when it was common in the United States that was moral. Right. I mean slaves are human. So, if you want to maximize the well being of all humans, or give the maximally stable social contract, and you would want to extend moral consideration to all humans. Yeah, with confirmation bias, because people back then might have not thought that that slaves are human at all. In fact, even victims of the Holocaust. They were, they were dubbed, which essentially means vermin. I mean, the thing is, when you're speaking from the point of view of like several several decades later. That's an obvious position to take but from the point of view of the oppressor back in the day, that was not the belief then our morality does evolve. Absolutely. Yeah, and I think that's an interesting point which is how does it evolve right and I believe that the way it evolves is to generate maximum stability. I think that a slave owning society is as stable as the side that we have today, or society that perpetuates Holocaust on on people for very arbitrary reasons is stable society I think that, you know, clearly we have much more stable society today because we don't do these things. In addition, causing harm to humans as it comes with a great deal of empathetic pain towards the people inflicting the harm. And so you'd imagine that over time you'd expect cultures to want to minimize this harm that they're going to experience so I think there is a direction for societies for morality and societies that it does go. You want to want to very stable society, and you want to minimize the amount of harm that you for the amount of pain that you feel to inflicting pain on all beings I would argue all beings including animals, but that doesn't mean that you have to be vegan right because I guess the point is that since animals can contribute to the social contract. There's not actually a direct benefit by extending protections to those animals is sort of an indirect benefit by potentially leading to more stable society between humans, but my argument earlier was that that's so clear that that's actually going to be because that that extending those protections comes at major costs to many humans in the actual society humans like me, we like to hunt for eat animals right how do you justify to me that I should give up these these benefits in order to extend protections to an animal that can't reciprocate in any way. For the same reason we extend those benefits to humans who can't reciprocate in any way. But see I've been, I've been raised in a society where I've been culturally conditioned to believe that killing humans is wrong. That's not the case for animals. That's why I ask you so if you were raised in a society where beating women was okay you'd be okay with beating women. What do you mean by okay. You would find it morally permissible to beat women. If you grew up in a society like beating women really permissible in your view, if the society accepted it. What I would say is that you're inconsistent the way let me explain what I would say is that the way you determine whether or not an action is moral is based on the moral code the moral system of that society. So, being in that society, you would believe even if this is this goes for you to access me for any any human being in these societies. If you're a culturally conditioned to believe that that action is moral, you will probably think it's moral. But it is seen as moral in those societies because most of the people in those societies believe it to be moral. Now we can look 200 years later back and say, well those people were savages. But what's the point of doing that. Right, we experienced a different cultural conditioning from them. We've lived 200 years, society has advanced. And now we think that beating women is wrong and slavery is wrong and holocausts are wrong. And that's cultural conditioning. Well, we were conditioned in the same culture as you yet we believe that you shouldn't harm non humans and you don't so clearly there isn't a stable social contract that we operate by because there are millions of vegans the world over, who believe that that harming pigs is the same as harming dogs like if you saw someone kicking a dog would that bother you personally. Right, so this is an excellent point. So would that bother you personally to see. Yeah, it totally would totally bother me personally because I was raised in a society where kicking dogs is wrong and it feels wrong when I don't you extend that to pigs. Because pigs are food. I mean in my society pigs are not food pigs are living sentient beings who want to live the same as dogs, the same as dogs smarter than dogs. We created that difference we created that distinction that is an arbitrary distinction. You know what I mean exactly it is arbitrary. Our culture, the particulars of our culture arbitrarily know sentience is not arbitrary but you're saying you actively discriminate based on species which is arbitrary. I mean, all I'm saying is that there is no one perfect moral system there's no one superior moral system. The system that we have is the one that we inherited from our forefathers and mothers, and we are right and wrong. So you don't believe that you don't believe that with way the way you feel it's about certain things has to do with nature and nature like, you know your natural instincts and the culture that you were raised in. My family used to raise pigs for slaughter my whole family no one in my entire family is vegan except for myself. I reject that mentality. I don't want to be a part of needlessly abusing animals just because you like the taste of bacon or you like the taste of cheese. I think that that is a needless reason it's sensory pleasure. It's no different than saying I just really like to watch pigs get slaughtered I just enjoy the the ocular sensation of watching pigs die. It's the same thing as saying that I enjoy the taste of their flesh it's a sensory pleasure that you're using to justify harming a sentient being. So I think that is wrong and the reason I think that is wrong is because sentience is the ability to experience joy or pain or suffering. That is the common denominator. Yeah, I mean every animal experiences joy pain fear. So what I mean even if you don't care about animals. There is a degree of respect that that we owe them I mean you said to that as a species there is. We benefit from essentially exploiting them maybe and not in those words but we benefit as a society from turning some animals into food well I mean look what's happening with our oceans I mean. We are overfishing crazy amounts and and if we lose our ocean we die. And that's because people want to eat fish and and trawling is a thing and it's see spirits see by the way now on Netflix. Can I ask you guys another question that related to this which is, are you okay with lab road meat. We would prefer it over. Yes, as an UK with someone like like me eating lab and you prefer that over meeting. It's still an animal to get their cells and we know that you can get by you know you can by the way I mean it's still exploitative but it is an incremental it's a step towards just eliminating the full exploitation of death and torture of those animals. What about to appeal to someone like me so actually don't eat hamburgers you know if I'm going to eat me and I'm going to have, you know I do a cause benefit analysis only need something that truly delicious like a primal cut, probably a rib eye. I'm not going to be able to make that by doing a bunch of cells in a petri dish. So what if it turned out that in order to grow a steak right that I would eat that you needed to grow a whole pig. Right, you can make it not sentient right so we use the magic of science, the girl pig, and it's not sentient are you okay with me eating that. It's not sentient so I presume if sentience is your trade that it's not sentient you kind of don't care what it looks like I can eat it right. Yeah, if an organism is like carrots aren't sentient we'd carrots so. So what about what I'm going to ask you the same question that vegan gains asked me I might have been with them. What about a non sentient human. If they're not sentient it doesn't mean I don't want to eat a non sentient human that's on you but do you find it morally acceptable for me to get a non sentient human. I don't I don't see a you grew a non sentient human in a petri dish. No it's a it's a human it's a literal human, but he's not sentient like but humans are sentient. So you're there are examples there are examples of humans that are not sentient they have various kinds of genetic disorders disease can can eat your brain basically making out sentient this can actually happen. So there are examples of this where there's a human being has the sentience of a plant. You're saying your moral system means it's okay for me to eat that person kill me that person. I mean, I would need to I would need to see evidence that no family, an actual human being is capable of no longer being sentient I mean no longer being sentient means being dead. Like, they have a car crash a spike goes through their head, but they survive right this happens. So they're not so much they have no family no one cares about them. They're just a non sentient human. Well, I guess I'm just curious like, why are we talking about non sentient human beings and car crashes when you just said that you actively pay for sentient cows to be killed so you can eat their ass meat. Because I'm trying to understand. I'm kind of confused because you're okay with me growing up a pig it's not sentient because your trade of sentience. So that is logically to follow like you grew and you grew all the cells and has a mother you can't eat it that's the rule. It's a sentence. I thought we started to saying that your rule of sentence. I'm just saying it's a sentient human. It's a non sentient human. Can I kill any isn't morally justifiable. I don't know that a non sentient human exists. And that's the thing is we're talking hypothetics, like when there is the reality is you can just walk to the store and buy meat off the shelf or go into your the forest. Okay, so, Grammy does if let's say, say for a thought experiment. Let's say a non sentient human did exist. Okay, so just pretend that it is. Why are we bothering with this thought experiment when it's completely not relevant to the reality of the way you don't want to answer the question I guess I did mention earlier that I do want to because Philip has been left out for quite a while. Eventually me out guys. So, I'll kick it over Brian and on if you have one last kind of answer you want to give to professor. Otherwise, what will kick it over to Philip just to hear as we haven't heard from him for a while. I mean, nothing that would that wouldn't lead us down another. I had one more thing but I'll leave it till for later. Philip can go. Thank you. So, I just want to know. If you think of something as morally obligatory what are your standards for judging what is morally obligatory like why. Why is the harm done when like a vegan buys a new computer. Other vegans wouldn't say that that's, that's wrong. What even though you can trace back harm to like so sometimes in like even like African slave mines right for the cobalt in it, or like animals harmed in like the Asian sites or in the processing facilities, things like that. Why, why is that not like abstaining from buying a new computer when you could just use your old computer. Why is that not a moral obligation but other things are like abstaining from buying milk or eggs like what are your standards for dictating what is a moral obligation. What's intrinsic to producing eggs and dairy is animal exploitation. What's intrinsic to building a computer is assembling the parts and building the computer. When you buy a slice of cheese you know for a fact that a mammal was raped against her will, and her breast milk was stolen so you could have that piece of cheese. We don't know for a fact, what goes into other forms of, you know, building cars or building computers or making t shirts all the things that you've mentioned. Now personally Anna and I. We do try to buy used we do try to buy second hand. This laptop that we're talking to you on right now was pre-owned, you know on his laptop was pre-owned like we try to minimize buying new goods. But we're talking about direct animal exploitation and harm when you're talking about things like eggs, dairy and meat and leather and wool and all these other animal product based. Well, there are a couple of things I could say to that. I can agree that a lot of times with commodity production you don't know how much harm the extent to the harm is, but I think it's more reasonable to conclude that there is at least some harm rather than absolutely zero harm at all. We're not claiming that there's zero harm we've never claimed that. Well, you said you don't know right. I think it's reasonable to assume that you there is harm right but then you, you kind of said you don't know whether it is right but it is reasonable to conclude that no matter what commodity production you're gauging that there is harm and I can use the same argument I can say with a laptop right when you clear the the mines for the excavation so you're killing insects and animals right driving animals from their homes. I can say that that's also intrinsic and clearing the mines so you can get that new computer right so what would be your response to that. But that's the thing it's as far as is possible and practicable is literally part of the definition of veganism when we know better we do better. Okay, so if we know there is a better way to acquire you know if we, if we know that people are exploited for our laptops and we try to buy a second hand again you know all my clothes are literally out of mercury, which is like literally a second hand online shop. There is no way to eliminate suffering, unless you don't exist completely the air you breathe the footsteps you take outside but we do what we can. You know that's like that's what mediators use that's an appeal to futility there's no reason we there's like no way we can eliminate all harm. Therefore, I can buy that new teacher I can buy that new computer I can drive that car to the basketball court even though I can ride my bike right because you can't eliminate all harm doesn't mean you shouldn't try to eliminate the most harm. Yeah, but would you say it's morally obligatory like what if I want to go play basketball down the street and I drive my car which can contribute contributes to global pollution right, which actually harms animal and threatens the the all life on earth right. I can easily ride my bike would you say would you morally condemn me for not riding my bike would you say I'm obligated to ride my bike instead of take my car. That depends on how much of an emergency you think our environment is. I mean, I mean with the studies on global warming I mean didn't they say like by 2050 it's it's going to be pretty devastating and buying dairy and eggs yeah. Well, they're the burning of fossil fuels is actually much greater than animal agriculture so you can say that. No, it's not animal agriculture. It's the most carbon emissions even more than all transportation combined. What in say transportation I said the burning of fossil fuels right so I mean we can have a debate on that I'm not really I'm not into that. I'm not really on that because like we said veganism is about exploiting animals when you buy cheese you're exploiting animals when you drive your car, you're trying to get from point A to point B. It's reasonable to assume you might hit an insect in the car. It's reasonable to assume you might hit a human being by accident by driving your car, but it's still, you're just trying to get from point A to point B. If you buy a leather wallet or a piece of meat or an egg, you know, for a fact that either an animal or several animals were exploited and harmed needlessly for that product. I also know when I want a vegan vice corn I also know that a lot of animals were harmed for that and vegan can corn is actually one of the highest crops that use pesticide use as well so the vegan corn is grown to feed livestock animals, vegans don't eat that much corn or soy. But that's a too cool quay right that's like saying oh meat eaters eat corn they're from okay with eating corn right with that and I forgot where I was going with that but you claimed to care so much about insects. I mean it is it is we are most of our huge part of our land uses for animal agriculture rainforests are cleared for it and we won't and we grow most of our corn and soy to feed livestock like a single cow can eat 25 pounds of grain in a day that's one cow in one day and 10 billion cows are murdered every single year just in the US. Now that's like think of the bill that that's billions of pounds of grain. I agree. No, I agree there is harm in the world and that something definitely needs to be done about it just like how something needs to be done about homelessness or something needs to be done about child rape right but I don't see how it's attributable to the consumer. Philip, can we can I ask you a question, like, why do you believe, or why do you feel morally justified in raping cows for cheese that you don't need. Well that's a loaded question because I don't rape any cows for cows to be why do you feel it's morally justified to pay for cows to be raped in order to produce breast milk which then gets turned into cheese for you to buy at the grocery store. That's also a loaded question because I don't pay for cows to be raped. Yes, you do. No, I don't just like how you pay for animals to be killed and whenever you buy a t-shirt or food. Cheese comes from breast milk. You have to you have to impregnate a cow to get breast milk from the cow. No. Yes, oh my God. Yes, you do. You don't have to impregnate a cow to get breast milk from a cow. It has to be pregnant because you don't need to impregnate that's like saying a human needs to be raped in order to be pregnant. But in the industry we've already discussed in the industry it is not economically viable for farmers to just let cows breed. It is not what happens. Collectively collectively to fulfill a collective demand. It is not economically viable and you can and you can argue that collectively it is necessary but to satisfy I'm not responsible for the demand other people partake in I'm only responsible for my own demand right in order to satisfy my own. I'm sorry. You're part of the collective. Yeah exactly so I agree like as a collective goal we can make small incremental changes, so we can reach a collective goal, but I don't agree with morally blaming someone who buys milk and eggs when when a lot of commodity production there is harm entailed in that as well. Okay you do know okay so you're you say you're vegetarian that means you don't eat meat you don't eat the flesh of an animal correct. But in purchasing eggs and in purchasing dairy those animals that are that are used for the production of eggs and dairy still go to the slaughterhouse at the end of their of their reproductive cycles. They are still used for for meat. So you are indirectly supporting the meat industry by consuming eggs and dairy. No I guess I don't believe my demand for dairy and eggs supports that right. I don't believe the sky is blue. But it is. If you have to be able to prove that this guy is blue right and you are proving to you that you you like to eat butter and cheese and ice cream and other dairy products. Dairy comes from cow breast milk in order for cows to produce breast milk they have to be pregnant and the way they are impregnated is forcefully against their will. Yeah but it's not intrinsic that you need to It is intrinsic because the dairy industry cannot be profitable without forceful impregnation. Collectively it cannot be profitable but for my own personal demand. Yes you can do that to satisfy my own personal demand. Collectively you do have a point. But you don't. You're active. You told us you actively buy factory farmed products. Exactly right. So you believe in a moral framework that you don't follow. My moral framework to the dot. It's the vegans that really don't follow their moral framework because you just said it's possible for dairy to be acquired a different way but you choose to buy the dairy that isn't acquired in that way. Because the harm is attributable to the industry and I'm not convinced it's attributable to the consumer. Because it's not intrinsic. And if it's not intrinsic then my demand. Again I just I think you're being intellectually dishonest. No I just don't see it. If you say if you say I drop a comment. How do you not see it Philip how do you not see it cows have to be pregnant to produce milk to make cheese. It's not intrinsic. Okay let's say let's say I have two cows in my backyard right and don't have two cows in your backyard you go to the. That's not intrinsic because it can be another way it's not intrinsic isn't another way it isn't but it can be. But it isn't you pay for farm dairy. But then that's the point right I don't care about if it can be or not I'm talking about there is harm right and you have to show who is accountable for that harm and if it's not intrinsic I don't see how it's accountable to me it's kind of like saying I drop a quarter and therefore I'm responsible for some girl getting raped in Detroit right I there's a leap there dropping a quarter has nothing to do with a woman being right now. I don't see my demand with milk and eggs have anything to do with putting chicks down a blender. But if I so if you were buying human breast milk. Would you recognize that humans would need to be forcefully impregnated to get that breast milk if they didn't want to give it to you on their own accord. Well it depends because in the, if you assume like humans are being factory farms, they can express if they do express negative emotion and discomfort animals express negative emotion all the time. For other industrial practices that is not entailed with my demand. If I if I milk a cow in the, I live a bunch of near a bunch of different farms if I milk a cow they don't care if a chicken lays an egg I pick it up it doesn't care. It's not about whether the. Yes cows. Well first of all I don't know how you're determining that this cow doesn't care that you're stealing the milk that was expressed any negative emotion to me. When you separate a baby cow from a mother, there is a whole lot of emotion being expressed separating a baby cow from its mother is not entailed with my demand. How are you supposed to get the breast milk, if you let the baby drink it. How you get breast milk is you take your hands on an utter and you squeeze that's how you get breast milk. But what if the baby cow drinks the milk that you want, then you would have drinking the milk is not entailed with my demand. I don't know where we can go from here fill it because in order in order to produce milk you have to be pregnant and when you are pregnant you have a baby and that baby is meant for that milk so it seems like you're just ignoring the reality of the dairy industry because you like the taste of cheese or something I mean I can say the same thing about these I can say oh you're ignoring about cotton field debts because you like new t shirts. We're not ignoring those deaths. We're granting those deaths. So you're saying so you are saying that it's morally obligatory to abstain from buying new clothing when you don't need to. No, then. I don't know what to say Brian. I mean I love you guys I think vegans are great. I think it is virtuous to be vegan, but when when you when you do this when you play this game about it's not when they like these harms are okay and these harms are not and you don't have any fully grounding with that is just very unconvincing. Because you're refusing to accept that the harm and exploitation that you cause is direct in order to get eggs from a chicken in order to get milk from a cow. There is direct exploitation involved in that. There is direct harm with cotton. Those pesticides are direct. Those pesticides are direct. They're meant to kill. I want to hear from Brian and Anna if they want to respond and then we'll hear one last time from Professor and then after that we'll go into the Q&A. No I'm good I think we should move on. I'm honestly a little bit surprised because I think this is the first time we've been presented with this situation. It's common knowledge even among non-vegans that cows are exploited for milk and dairy. I mean milk and chickens are exploited for eggs so I'm not sure where to go from here. Let's move on. Oh that's right. I know you also wanted closing statements. That's fine I don't care. Okay well we'll give you a chance if you had something on your mind. Yeah because I wanted to ask another sort of a two part question. It sounds like you caught my debate with Vegan Gaines. So how would you answer the question I posed to him of eradicating rodent infestations? Are you guys okay with that? If you had a bunch of mice in your house would you be okay? Would you call it necessary to eradicate them? Oh like you're saying if you had a bunch of mice living in your house. If somebody not you guys let's say somebody had a bunch of mice living in their house and they wanted to get rid of them and the only way to do it are they try every possible method to get rid of them mainly but the only way they can do it is to kill them. Is it morally justified for them to do that? I think if you're worried about you know the mice giving you disease or harming you you know like biting you, biting your companion animals, spreading disease, eating your food like if you want them out of your home I think that that's okay because there is no way to like negotiate with them. Obviously like you said like we would try every other more humane method to handle it. Killing them is also not the best way to eradicate them. You can also trap them and get rid of them. Right I'm saying you exhaust every option. The only option left to you is like to poison them all to death. So I guess what you're saying is in that situation it's that's what it takes that's what it takes and I fully agree with you. But I guess I just want to point something out which is that you know rats and cows are not that dissimilar in sentience. Rats are actually incredibly smart animals. They're very small but they're very smart. And I guess what you can say is that hopefully this sort of points out why you might get a lot of pushback from omnivores like me who perceive hypocrisy in that because a single cow can yield 4 to 500 pounds of meat. Right, you know, normal, a large serving of meat is eight ounces. That's about 1000 meals. So one sentient being with the sentence of a mouse can yield 1000 meals. And you're not okay with that but you are okay with if necessary eradicating tens of mice to get rid of an infestation in your house. Because it's not necessary for you to eat cows. Well it's not necessary for you to get rid of mice either I mean, and theory they can give you diseases and things but in reality that almost never happens. I mean we live in a house that's a, you know, near a large field, and we have tons of mice. And we're so we're fine and you can actually look in the statistics that they can carry disease but it's not absolutely necessary to kill them. It's more a question of one. It's not necessary to kill them than we wouldn't. But if it is then it is people have to accept eroded infestations in their house. No, you have, you would have to present me with like a snakes on a plane situation where it's like I saw the walls. But I don't see that being. I see two people who remove ants and spiders and crickets from our house very gently and in glass. You know, I just, I don't know what that has to do with, like you said, like eating cows. I'm just trying to clarify, you know, what does your ideology lead to, and it leads to a lot of things and one of them is that you might have to accept living with eroded infestation in your house. Well, I mean, I think it's important for people to recognize. I don't think that we would accept it like we always move things over to the human context or the, you know, if it's a pig move it to a dog context. So like, if 12 human beings just came into our house and we're like, we live here now, we're going to live here now, we would want them removed from our house as well. So, of course, fine. And we're fine with it in the mouse context. But you had to remove them by killing. That was the only way to remove them. You think it's acceptable. Because they're threatening our lives. They're not threatening their lives are just squatting the mouse, the mice are just living right. I think you're creating you're sort of creating a scenario that's sort of self fulfilling like, if we need to kill them to remove them, then we will kill them to remove them but that's because we need to. So, no, you don't need to remove them. You could just exist with them. Or remove the source to remove the thing that is attracting them. I mean, why not. The thing is, it isn't it isn't that I don't think exhausting all possibilities is possible because it is possible to remove what is attracting them to your house. Not in my house. I mean you let me probably where do you live in the countryside. Well, I mean, again, it's not seems like a. The thing that we are presented with on a daily basis for breakfast lunch and dinner. Most of the world. I mean, much of the world has a choice to make every time they sit down to eat. It is the one thing we do consistently every single day that we know for sure we are going to do if we have the privilege to eat food. So, you know, we can make a choice as to what we put at the other end of the fork. And that is what we mean by possible and practicable. It's like if you if you have options that do not require to kill a sentient being, then why not go for those options. This might be an opportunity to jump into the Q&A want to say thank you everybody for your super chats as 100% of the super chats from today's debate will be going to save the children as they are focused on helping feed and provide clean water for and education for children across the globe that are impoverished. And so we really believe in this charity. By the way, this charity is highly rated by the charity watchdog charity navigator. We're always really picky about what we in terms of what we do our monthly charity stream for. And so that's linked in the description if you want to see that charity watchdog evaluation. And also, you guys, our guests are linked in the description. So check out our guest links and here is the first question. Nero, thanks for your donation to the charity. Appreciate it. No question attached. Let me know if you have one. Flat Earth Guy, thanks for your wrong topic, but love this channel. That's right. He loves Flat Earth debates. We'll get you here, Brian and Anna, for a Flat Earth debate sometime. But yes, Paradigm Shift Music, thanks for your question, says 75 billion land animals eat way more plant food than 8 billion humans ever could. So the crop's death though, quote unquote argument, is lame. Vegan equals most moral. Yeah, I guess that's for me. Well, that's a two quote quote fallacy. You can say that, oh, because meat eaters cause more therefore I can cause harm as well. The fact of the matter is you can minimize your calories. Everyone can have 500,000 calories. The bodybuilder can cut a bunch of calories and reduce crop deaths. Right. We do need crops, but we don't need the amount of land that we have for crops. If everybody reduces their calories, the crop land wouldn't be as big. And crop deaths wouldn't be as occurring, right? So to say that, oh, because meat eaters cause more harm, therefore I'm justifying causing my unnecessary one. By the vegan reasoning, that's inconsistent. Nikolai, thanks for your questions, says without the term obligatory, would you concede that a vegan diet is generally the most ethical mode of consumption in 2021? This is a question for everyone. Yes, I would say that being a vegan is really virtuous and I commend people for being vegan. I just don't think it's obligatory. I think the definition of ethical is based on the standards of the culture. And beyond that, it's personal preference. And since our culture allows non-vegans and finds that ethical, there's really no difference. No one is, quote unquote, more ethical than the other. There's simply different states of morality. Any thoughts about it? Yeah, I mean, assuming that you care about sentience and you care about not exploiting fellow earthlings, then yes, a vegan lifestyle is the most moral. Gotcha. And OSD says, I don't eat animal products. It's a no brainer, but things like pig heart valves save human lives. LCD screens, batteries, cars, etc. require animal products. Do you use those? It's animal exploitation. Well, as again, as far as this possible and practicable, our drywall contains animal products. You know, we must live in a house and it, you know, in this particular neighborhood, there must be drywall in the house. So we try to minimize harm as far as possible and practicable. But in as far as our food consumption goes, we hope to eventually eliminate harm completely someday, maybe. You got it. And thanks for your question. Will Stewart says, what moral authority do the vegans hold to? Otherwise, maybe asking like, what's your ethical theory? What moral authority? Well, they might also be. So I know that Will is a theist. So he might also be saying, like, who's morality? He's basically implying that he thinks morality is objective or dictated by religion, which it doesn't have to be. I mean, I don't even understand how religious morality is objective. I mean, I think morality is just subjective, full stop. But what we care about is sentience because sentient beings are capable of experiencing pain and joy. So we care about maximizing their joy and minimizing their pain. Gotcha. And thank you very much for your question. This one coming in from Ezekiel Huffton. Let me know if I pronounced it right. It says, if a cow falls, let's see, I can't tell if they I think they're being sincere. Like if a cow dies of natural causes, is it ethical to eat it? And that's for me. Yeah, well, what he's talking about, given what I said in my opening statement is that in a given market under given circumstances, right? So when you have a live cow, in order to procure its meat from it, it is necessary to harm it. If you're talking about cow like 1000 years from now that doesn't feel pain and regenerates its limbs every two seconds. And you're talking about a different thing. And if you're talking about roadkill or like a dead cow, then you are also talking about a different thing. I'm talking about in given circumstances as it is in reality with live animals, it is necessary to procure it. So if you do eat like live, like roadkill or anything like that, I wouldn't necessarily see a problem with that. You got it. And thank you very much for your question. This is a mouthful. So bear with me. The Craw Daddy 029 says, consuming meat has nothing to do with how said meat was obtained. If vegans have a problem with the treatment of livestock, targeting the consumer is the wrong direction to take. For all you know, the consumer eats roadkill or a Wonka vision type deal. Like when the candy bar was materialized and Willy Wonka. I guess that must be it. For all we know 75 again, the number was actually said earlier by one of your commenters, but 75 billion animals are killed every single year just land in that's just land animals, fish are counted in tons, not numbers. I think it is safe to assume these are slaughterhouse numbers. It is safe to assume that most people are not eating roadkill. Yeah, he seems to be doing is he seems to be quoting Matt Dilla Hunty there where he's saying like the act of eating meat isn't necessarily immoral. We're not talking about the act of eating meat. We're talking about the act of paying for meat at a grocery store, which requires animals to be killed for that meat. You got it and thanks for your question from Alan Green who says the vast majority of animals are killed for food, not for drugs. Killing animals for drugs is wrong, but killing animals for taste is much worse. I think that might be for you, Professor. I mean, I guess what you call worse is a matter of subjective subjective opinion, but you acknowledge that it's necessary to exploit animals to develop drugs and do research, you know, who are you to say that somebody can't feel that it's necessary for them to consume them. And thank you very much for your question. And OSD says it's a human issue to though health pollution resources tax money used as subsidies, animal waste dumped in poor communities, exploiting humans for labor, etc. Isn't that enough to say it's immoral. I'd like to just make a comment to that. I'd like to make a comment on that. A flight to Europe from from East Coast of America is about 1000 kilograms of CO2 just for one flight. A four ounce portion of chicken is about one kilogram. So if you truly think that animal agriculture is the only problem that we have, it's not right. In other words, one flight is equivalent in CO2 production to 1000 meals of chicken. Philip, do you have something to add? Yeah, I was going to say, um, yeah, no, that is a problem and is I believe it's a collective obligation to address that. But that can you can lead to some weird scenarios where you can claim that global global warming is a much more dire threat than animal agriculture because it not only threatens the life presently but also all life in all futures. So you can say that you cutting electricity use like lighting a candle and only having planes around your house and also never driving a car. Those are moral obligations as well, which I don't think a lot of people would want to admit to that. You got to thanks for your question. This one coming in from site show now. Good to see you says for the vegans. Is there a realistic vegan alternative to meet the nutritional needs of our society? If so, what is it? There's no nutritional need for meat. I mean, human beings can be perfectly healthy on plants alone. So I don't know why there needs to be a nutritionally equivalent meat. Meets actually not that great for you. It has saturated fat and cholesterol and I mean, it is a person. Yeah, it's for the world health organization. It causes like processed meat and red meat cause cancer. We know this. So I don't. Veganism is not about nutrition. But to answer the question, there is no nutritional requirement for meat for a homo sapien or primates. We can live on plants just fine. Gotcha. I'd like to make a quick comment on that. I more or less agree with you, although as a scientist I have to say, I study very complicated systems, you know, like humans, for example. And one of the things that you learn over time from doing that is that you have to have a lot of humility in what you believe you know, because you're often proven wrong at science advances we learn all the things we didn't know. And I think, you know, some people are going to be uncomfortable with that and having a diet adopting a diet that many perceive to be just not the natural human diet. I think there is some degree of validity to that concern. I mean, I think all the science that we have in the case that a vegan diet is perfectly healthy diet probably a more healthy diet on average, but at the same time we do know that you need to supplement right, which is an indicator. Maybe we know everything we know we need to know about supplements and maybe supplementing for beat 12 is all you need to do. But again, maybe you don't and think different people are going to have different tolerances for that kind of risk going forward. 30% 30% of the world population is deficient and be 12 so that's not necessarily a vegan problem. It's supplement aisles were a thing before veganism like really took hold in our society so I don't see anything wrong with supplementing when we need to like some people need to supplement vitamin D if they don't live in areas that are very sun, you know, if they live in areas where the sun doesn't shine. They stay indoors all the time. Yeah, like the reason people need to supplement is because we live unnatural lives. So claiming that you need a natural diet in an unnatural life is kind of contradictory. I don't know about that but I would definitely say that I think so I think supplementing with me 12 is probably enough but you know I hope that's true as a scientist that can't say for sure that it is. Yeah, I mean the the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics thinks otherwise and that's the largest body of health professionals on the planet. It's not necessarily vegan either. I'm just saying that don't discount other people's fear right Tom, but their fear is unwarranted. The professionals have weighed in. Hopefully they're right. They've never been wrong before right. We will jump into the next question. Let's see if you guys would like a chance to respond to that Brian and I do because the super chat was targeting you I want to give you the last word, if you have one. I mean the reason why we've we've specialized as a society is like I don't I'm not a plumber and that's okay because I can bring a plumber into my home to fix my plumbing issues so I don't need to be a health professional because health professionals exist. I trust their opinion more than my own because I'm not a health professional and to my knowledge which is their knowledge. You don't need me to be healthy at all and I feel like that's pretty well documented even the professor says that you can be perfectly healthy on a vegan diet. This one comes in pretty sure that's true. I love good to hear your question. Basically, this is interesting. He says I know a lady who raises chickens and treats them like her kids. They live happy lives and die naturally, but she also eats their eggs. Is that wrong as they so I guess they just naturally you know when they happen to have eggs she eats them but she doesn't. We have a chicken. We've had more than one chicken and we feed their eggs back to them. Because well one they come out of their but vagina. I don't want to put anything my mouth it comes out of a chicken spot vagina. The particular hens that this woman has. I don't know where she acquired them rescued them. What have you, even if they were. So there's two. Well, you can you can do it because I'm going to go. Well, usually, yeah, it's the backyard hens though argument against veganism. If you buy chickens specifically for eggs in your backyard, you buy them from a hatchery and at that hatchery meal chickens are killed because they're useless. Got again, it's an egg industry. So males are useless. They don't lay eggs. Furthermore, it's simply exploitative to take something from an animal that doesn't belong to you. It's it's her egg. We're commodifying them. Yeah, you're treating the animal like a commodity and it takes a lot of calcium and iron and other minerals to produce the egg. Most chickens will die from reproductive illness, especially if they were brought up or bred into that industry. Yeah, it's still exploitative way better than buying eggs at a grocery store, but still exploitative. You got it. And thanks for your question. Sigma any says vegans. Brian and Anna, what would be your approach to convincing indigenous peoples of the Arctic that they shouldn't participate in substance hunting to feed their families over the winter? I don't know that we would try to convince them of that. I mean, if they live in the Arctic and they have no other choice but to eat animals, then I suppose they have to survive. But that's not an excuse for people living in the United States to go to McDonald's. Like it's a weird fringe argument that has nothing really to do with the practical and possible part of the definition of veganism. I mean, we would hope like we wish it were possible that they that they could live a life without harming animals. But again, like it just goes back to the word needless versus need. If you need to do it, then you need to do it. But if it's needless, it's needless. And thanks for your question. Alan Green says, Professor, just because society thinks something is moral, it doesn't make it moral. Slavery is wrong, even if most of society used to think otherwise. I mean, I don't think I understood my argument, but I think the definition of moral is whether your society thinks it's moral. It doesn't mean that all societies will think it's moral, or that all future societies will think it's moral. Clearly, in the case of slavery, it was once considered moral, and now we consider it immoral. Gotcha. And this one coming in from the craw Daddy zero two nights is saying a pig is food and a dog is not is terrible counter to not being angry at the pig being kicked. I would be equally angry about both. However, I will also eat both pig and dog, as I am omnivore. So I think they're challenging. That's for me. I was asked that directly. Yeah, I mean, I guess, what I would say is that kicking a kicking a dog is not fundamentally like universally immoral, because there is no objective morality. The reason it feels bad is because we are conditioned in a culture where kicking dogs is wrong. The reason it feels fine for most people living in our society to eat pigs is because we are conditioned by our culture to think it's moral. So how you feel about an act doesn't determine whether it's moral or not, because I need to consult the moral standards of your culture. Gotcha. And thank you very much for your question. This one coming in from Pax Americana says just a hello. Hi James. Hope all as well. Thanks to you too, buddy. And then crowd day zero to nine. Will Stewart says, vegans, if your moral authority is not objective, then it is illogical and unreasonable to claim moral obligation. By what authority do you claim that there is obligation without authority? Are you not left with only opinion or subjectivity? Yeah, I mean, morality is sort of similar to preference. I mean, morality is kind of too pronged. Morality is the idea that there are right and wrong acts that exist. And also, we ought to do what's right and we oughtn't do what's wrong. That's kind of what morality is. But just saying that if morality isn't objective, it's useless. That's not proof of objective morality. And that doesn't disprove subjective morality. You can still have a subjective moral framework that works just fine. It doesn't need to be objective. I think he's claiming that for it to be obligatory meaning, can you compel another in your society to adopt your morality if they don't agree with you? I think you can't compel another, right? If you believe morality is subjective and it's your opinion, and if somebody has a different world code like I do, it's their opinion. So neither of us can compel the other to adopt our morality unless there is some higher authority, or if you could show that we actually have the same morality and one of us is ignorant, right? Like, for example, I actually think that I should absolutely minimize exploitation animals, and I haven't realized that. And your job is to educate me to that fact, and then maybe I actually should be leaving, right? I don't actually believe that, but there's no other way to compel somebody to adopt your morality. Well, there is because we were compelled. Yeah, I mean, we, I grew up in Costa Rica heavy, you know, not super heavy, not as other South American countries were mostly plant based but there's still some heavy consumption, especially now with the fast food popping up everywhere. But I, you know, I was convinced by who can make earthlings I mean watching the documentary earthlings at the age of 25. That's when I decided to make a change. There's the distinction between compulsion and convincing you can convince but you can't help. I want to give a Brian and honor the last word before we go in the next question. It sounds like you're using the word compel like force them to change or whatever I mean I can't we can't force anyone to do anything all we can do is point out inconsistencies in a person's existing moral framework like they care about dogs they don't care about pigs. Why, or they care about humans they don't care about animals. Why, we can point out the reasons why you should care about animals. And they're virtually the same reasons why you why you already care about other animals or humans. But no we can't force anyone to go vegan we're trying to convince people to change their hearts and minds. I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. It's short. Philip. Yeah, so of course just a quick question. Then if there's no objective morality why are inconsistencies bad then because an inconsistent moral framework leads to bad outcomes for society. So you could devise a moral framework that's completely inconsistent. Like you're allowed to you know you're allowed to kill children but not teenagers or something it would just lead to horrible outcomes for society. David asks for Brian and Anna why is it okay to wipe out animals that damage crops but not okay to eat animals. What crop crop debts. I think we covered that I mean there is that there is there's data we haven't even touched on the data but I'd have to find the. Yeah, the graphic. The number of animal deaths per 1 million calories in eight food categories. Yeah, but yeah, you care about crop deaths. Then don't eat meat because most of the livestock you consume. It's most of the crops that are grown on this earth. Juicy and supersonic fan says so Philip basically what you were saying is killing a cow or a chicken isn't a necessary process in order to get their milk or eggs. Anything else that happens to those animals are out of your control. I don't know if it's out of my control but I just wouldn't find it. I just don't see a reason why it's accountable to me. It's not intrinsic to my demand like harm is I don't believe I know and Brian disagree with me but I personally don't believe that harm is necessary or intrinsic in my demand for someone to pick up an egg or milk a cow to send it to me. Therefore, the accountability actually lies in the person who actually does the harm rather than the consumer. This question coming in from the craw daddy 029 says when I buy a phone or shoes, I'm not saying I support child labor. I'm feeling my need and still griping about child labor. I think they're trying to say that to you Brian and Anna like hey, you know, like, if we are not supporting it, namely child labor when we buy things that came from child labor, then isn't it the case that we're not? Yeah, I think again that goes that goes down to the intrinsic disagreement that Phillip and we have which is harm and exploitation is intrinsic to animal products. It's not intrinsic to non animal products. Thank you and then David says vegans why is it okay for you to exhale carbon dioxide contributing to climate change but not okay for a cow to exhale carbon dioxide. We've never made that argument. We humans exhale carbon dioxide because that's how human biology works and cows exhale carbon dioxide or methane because that's how cow biology works. You got it and the craw daddy 029 strikes again he is ferocious tonight he says you don't have to live in a house mud hut for the wind. I think they're sorry I didn't I maybe you've already made the connection if you did forgive you I'm not trying to but I think they're trying to allude to the idea of the animal products. It's sorry to interrupt you know you're good you got it. It's another appeal to futility like you don't have to drive a car you could ride a bike you don't have to ride a bike you could walk you don't have to live in a house you could live in a mud hut you don't have to live in a mud hut you could live in the woods. You don't have to exist you could not exist like you can just keep going down that rabbit hole until you know eliminating all harm would just be not existing. You got it and thank you very much for your question this one coming in from Dave or says vegans how does the slaughterhouse profit on the soul act of torturing slash harming animals. They kill them against their will so that's how they harm them that's how they profit off of harming them they kill them as babies I mean pigs are six months old chickens are six weeks old cows are one year two year old. And they're killed as babies because people want to eat their flesh. Torture is kind of a yeah it's kind of a slippery word I mean I would argue that cutting off a pig's tail without anesthesia cutting out of pigs testicles without anesthesia cutting off their teeth without anesthesia that's torture. And the reason they do that is so that the pigs don't cannibalize and pick on each other because they're very intelligent animals and when you can find them in a warehouse they literally go insane. Just like human beings would if you can find them in a prison cell. So yeah there's direct harm involved in slaughterhouse. Gotcha. Oh this is interesting ghost light asks question for Brian and Anna where do you draw the line between moral value and no moral value with animals I think they're meeting like for example like bacteria you probably don't sweat. But they're saying like what like maybe what's a general answer in terms of like where the boundary might be for like living organisms. I think it would be sentience like if we know being a sentient then we choose not to harm them and you know as if we can if we can avoid it so bacteria aren't sentient to our knowledge just like carrots aren't sentient but pigs are. So we try to maximize their joy and minimize their pain because they can experience joy and pain. Gotcha and they thank you very much for this question this one coming from Tuss beatbox who says if you have time for this. Professor what is your by the way Tuss thanks for all your support of the channel appreciate all your positivity says Professor what's your answer to name the trait you should have a talk to ask yourself or Dr. about it. What's your answer. Oh yeah I mean I gave my answer in my previous debate. I fully acknowledge it's totally arbitrary because I think reality is arbitrary. But essentially what I consider to be the trait is actually two traits that's essentially a species or it's a species capable of reciprocating a contract and high sentience. Kind of went off the rails with Richard began gains was he was trying to essentially argue it's a human but not a human by saying that you change the DNA slightly and I responded that. You know when we talk about an object like like a chair or humans defined by a single trait it's essentially a pattern match to brain does that you've seen a lot of chairs you see chair you know what a chair is. You've seen a lot of humans, when you, when you see a human you know what a human is. The other thing I wanted to point out and get time in that was that modifying DNA slightly is not a well defined term. There's no such thing as the human genome. There are many human genomes we have unique genomes. Exactly how far do you modify it and I try to get into it, and he sort of just laughed. I don't think you want to discuss it anymore. But I guess, you know, yeah I would say that when you encounter a moral gray area like that, you know, imagine that it's a human and not a human at the same time. I don't have a great response to that because the reality is that I haven't been culturally conditioned to have an answer to that question. I've never seen a human not human before and probably on the side of not eating it. But in general, you know if I'm given a kind of a more reasonable situation I'd say it's a really smart animal like a gorilla, you know, don't eat it and don't kill it. And if it's a human don't kill it. I mean, I disagree with Brian and Anna on the sentience of other animals. I mean, didn't get to go there but I think of sentience essentially as being an emergent phenomenon that occurs in certain species that only has only occurred in my mind in a handful of species. I would say high sent. So I think there's there's a level of sentience and that once intelligence and certain brain structures across a threshold, essentially what we think of human level consciousness turns on. And it's very it's an emergent phenomenon. So what this means is that below a certain level there's very little going on in the brain. Animals essentially have no idea what's going on they're living moment to moment you're mostly by instinct. And that's why I don't feel so bad killing them. Gotcha. And we want to remind you folks that our guests are linked in the description. We want you to check out their links as we really do appreciate our guests. As always, we want to ask you to be your regular friendly selves as well here at modern day debate or hey at their links as well in attacking the arguments rather than the people. We really do appreciate our guests. And so want to, as I mentioned, remind you that they are indeed linked below. And so we will in just a moment I will be back in a moment letting you know in the post credit scene of the debate upcoming debates that we have coming up. So for example, at the bottom right of your screen destiny will be back this Friday against Brent and Langle. That should be a fun one but one last thank you to our guests as we really do appreciate you. It's been a true pleasure to have you Brian on a professor and Philip. Thank you. Thank you. Everybody. It's so awesome that you provide this neutral platform James and we really appreciate the opportunity to get our message out there. So thank you. That's super encouraging. That means more than you know. And so also folks want to remind you that the we for accountability purposes we always and we now put it in the community tab on the YouTube channel. We put the donation receipt and so that'll be in the Google drive folder so you can look at it and it'll be on our community tab though. So just so you know we want you to be able to see that. And so like I said, I'll be back in just a moment with that post credit scene. Thanks everybody. And thanks one more time to our guests. Thank you. Thank you everybody. I'm super encouraged. That was really fun. I just love our guests want to remind you their link in the description. And yeah, we got to let you know guys I'm pumped about upcoming debates for example, this one right here that you are seeing. That's going to be fun. Destiny's moral system you could say on trial and so we're excited about that. That's this Friday you guys tomorrow. It's going to be fun. A debate on whether or not Moses existed. So that should be interesting. And then yeah we've had a lot of it's been a lot of time so when people come to us and they've already got like an opponent set up. Especially if it's like you know like a quality opponent. They're like hey you know I already you know I got Tom jump to agree you know can we come on and I'm like yeah like we try to schedule it like really quick because we really appreciate when people do that it's like hey that's awesome especially like tag team debates. And so we have a lot in the next week. We've got like yeah it's like a lot. So we've got a lot of debates coming up. I think we're trying to set up a one on one with Skyler Fiction and William Stewart on Monday. That should be a lot of fun. And then also though I'm excited because we are trying to set up. Let's see this Saturday Maddox and Randolph that should be an interesting one. So hopefully you tune in and don't miss that. That should be juicy. But yeah you guys I'm just pumped. I'm excited. And so thank you guys for all of your support. I am pumped about the future. You guys it does mean a lot. And also you guys I'm pumped that everybody together we are united no matter what walk of life we are from you guys. I know you come from all sorts of different walks of life. People disagree on the topic even being debated tonight and nonetheless super excited that we had raised the money that we did tonight in this charity stream all together. That's something we all agree on is making the world a better place such as basically giving to save the children a great charity with a great rating by the way in terms of their accountability and how well they actually use their funds to help people. They do a fantastic job and we together are united in wanting to make that cause you could say effective to make the world a better place together no matter what walk of life we're from. We're all in agreement on that and thanks all of you who have pitched in for that. And thanks even just for being here I want to let you know if you buy into the vision of providing a nonpartisan platform. So people can make their case on a level playing field if you believe in that vision we appreciate your support we are thankful you're here and just by being here you know that supports the channel and so. Want to let you know there are a billion different ways to support the channel one of them is just hanging out here it makes it more fun the more the merrier and so we do appreciate you. And human girl glad to see you in the chat shadow starshine thanks for being with us. Sideshow nav good to see you again my friend likely a zombie glad you're here tuss beatbox good to see you again argon the sad glad you're with us TJB. Thanks for that smile in the live chat appreciate that paradigm shift music says thanks again for the excellent content as always thanks for that friend I appreciate that that really does mean a lot. And Joey E good to see you and Don Kono glad you're here stuck in Florida man you're a long time viewer I remember seeing you here for a long time so glad you're here glad you're back I feel like it's been a while since I've seen you. Rut Rowena thank you for being with us as well. Club here my dear friend Damien Stoy glad you're here and earth man thanks for being with us as well as as Sigma any thanks for hanging with us Mashi M glad you are here and Nero thanks for your kind words seriously appreciate it. Fox sushi thanks for coming by my friend good to see you and Brooke Chavez glad to see you as always thanks for your kind words Brooke appreciate that support and Alex Shannon. Thanks for your kind words Alex says James thank you for providing this platform that seriously is encouraging I do appreciate that more than you know. Sigma and he says thanks James and guests and chat I know I do a lot of poking and prodding in the chat with many love much love to everyone on both sides of the argument thanks for that appreciate that my friend and. Let's see. Sideshow now says great debate while supporting a great cause thanks I am excited but yeah you guys for real I'm just pumped that it's like it gives me so much satisfaction I know that it's like. We only do it once a month and so you know it's but it nonetheless when we do it I do love when we get to do that the charity stream together and so thanks for your support on that Sunday worship good to see you thanks for coming by. And yeah I'm pumped though you guys I am really pumped with the future and thanks everybody is yesterday we just hit 44,000 subscribers which is encouraging thank you guys you guys make this channel awesome. Like you guys seriously rock and so we do appreciate you fairness Alice good to see you says caught this at the end again but killed it again James and modern day debate team thanks for your support my dear friends and. And route says it's not Rowett it's route thanks for letting me know that route and yeah I am pumped we are pumped you guys Nikolai says let's get James to 50,000. We are pumped you guys thanks for your support that is one way you can support modern day debate is just sharing the content for real. If you just share it on your social media like Facebook or Twitter or maybe you have a friend who you know loves debates like they're like oh yeah I listen to this and it's like it's great. I would highly encourage like that definitely does help us we really do appreciate when you do that and that's a great way to support us so thanks for that and. Brooks Chavez thanks for your support in the live chat that is a way actually I've got to say when you're in the live chat and you remind people to like and subscribe that definitely helps so seriously that I bet you a lot of people. They probably like they're just kind of peeking in and they're like what's this like modern day debate like what's going on in here and they're just kind of like sitting in the chat and you're kind of trying to figure out what the channel is. And they're kind of like yeah I kind of like this and then if they see somebody in the chat who's like hey hit that subscribe button like probably a reminder they're like oh yeah I'm sure I'll hit that subscribe button you know maybe I'll come back and you'll see what else they've got coming out. And so that really I think that does help and so it's kind of like they always say that. It's like I think they say that it's like seven times oftentimes you have to hear a message multiple times to either one like notice it or two maybe just for it to click or you know whatever it is and so I think that helps and so Huckleberry sin says. Modern debate modern debate loved it didn't even realize it was a charity stream you guys are the best thanks for your kind words my friends seriously that is encouraging and so we're excited you guys. We have two goals broadly speaking to make the world a better place than before you could say then then the way we find compared to how we found it you could say. Namely better than if we had never been here that's the way we do want to have that impact on the world I think that's something we'd all agree on to whether you be atheist Christian Muslim agnostic you know you name it vegan non vegan. We are confident you degree in valuing that and also the vision of providing a neutral platform so people can make their case on a level playing field that's something we value and we're excited about it and we really do have big aspirations you guys like we are absolutely. I am like determined and we're going to learn and just keep growing and learning and figuring out how can we keep doing better how can we keep learning and and providing a better show and better debates. And so we are working on that and we are confident it's just going to keep getting better and so we appreciate all of your support we honestly can't thank you enough and we are excited about that future and so. Let's see. Session F says in over 100 likes tonight rock on all that's great if you got 100 likes during the stream already that's excellent 103 that's cool and let's see. R F F E F C E says you made it to 44,000 we did we're excited about that we appreciate everybody's support seriously it's seriously exciting about the future you guys and we couldn't thank you enough you guys make it fun here you make it awesome and so we really do appreciate it and so let's see. Brooke thanks so much you're right Brooke says don't forget to check out the twitch chat that's true you guys we do have a twitch account and so let me link that oh you're right. Beast of cold thanks for being with us top so tops top thought sell thanks so much for your support seriously as we have these emotes now the emotes in twitch are awesome and so we appreciate it if you're watching via twitch want to encourage you to consider. Highly encourage you to consider following us on twitch and say hey we are always most of let's see we are trying to make it more consistent on twitch as I think I had heard that sometimes when praise I think it's because praise uses stream yards. Sometimes it doesn't what's the word I'm looking for sometimes it doesn't. Go on to twitch and so we're working on that and so thanks for that and so but yeah we totally appreciate you guys thanks so much. Thanks so much. Brooks Sparrow. Beast of cold poor Lucy everybody in the twitch chat we appreciate you just scrolling through here getting to see everybody and yeah I love those emotes those are super cool. Red Ashitaka. Am I pronouncing it right let me know. Thanks for being here with us. Lozenge. Thanks for being with us as cheers folks. But yeah you guys I I'm just pumped about the future we got a lot of big plans and I've got to say yeah we are pumped I also the 40 year old vegan thanks for being with us my friend we're glad you're with us and I also forgot if you didn't know this we are pumped you guys. Namely this has been something that I really enjoy because I've been like super encouraged a lot of people in the last like month. And surprise because I'm like oh well that's like super encouraging a lot have been a lot of people have been signing up for our patreon. And so I just put the patreon link in the live chat and so if you get a kick if you like patreon or you get a kick out of it. Encourage you to check it out we've got three tiers in patreon and one of them for example you can see on the bottom right or I should say the bottom of your screen see this little ticker. Chris Gammon right there see his name it's moving so that is one of the perks in the patreon is we have our thank thank you to all of our patrons in that bottom scroll on screen. And then we also have stuff like our monthly patreon meeting which kind of people just giving input on like new directions for the channel all that good stuff and we appreciate that. And so yeah we are excited about the future though we appreciate you guys so much for all of your support and thank you paradigm shift music who says I pay good money to see Dr. Avi and ask yourself debate professor oh maybe fun I'll try to set that up I'll see if he wants to do it that would be really fun. And so then Kono says the 40 year old vegan subbed thanks totally appreciate that the 40 year old vegan thanks for subbing. And yeah I'm just excited though you guys tell me how your lives are going I just like kind of like getting to hear from you and just reading through the chat. Hey you know you guys and shadow stars shadow starshine I don't know if you've seen you here a lot we hope you feel welcome glad you're here with us. But yeah I can reach out to Dr. Avi and ask yourself do you mean like a two on one debate or maybe like a how about could it work if it was like maybe professor and maybe even like a rematch to well roughly speaking. Like professor and Philip against Dr. Avi and ask yourself that could work like I'm open to it but yeah this one you guys I miss Steven. I know here's the thing I got to tell you I know not everybody agrees with all the different people we have on modern day debate and that's normal you can't agree with everybody and that's OK you can still be friends with them. And so but I I just I get a kick out of Steven. I just like I think Steven destiny is such I just he's got an easygoing just kind of like chill demeanor that it just like makes me I just like it. I love it it makes me kind of like laugh and not in like a mean way but like a way of just like there's just something that's so chill about destiny that is just so even keeled. And also I don't know if I had ever told you guys this story when Vosh and destiny debated in person and when we hosted it in Los Angeles it was a really fun debate. We the Wi-Fi in the building that we were in didn't work if I gave out and it started getting rough and patchy and we couldn't support a stream. The entire debate was using destiny's data from his phone so we could have that debate and Steven's like yeah sure I'll try and he set it up and we were like oh man thank you so much so that he saved the day. Tussbeatbox says either or preferably I think it would be great one on one maybe time for Avi to make his first MDD appearance from what I know. That's true and I honestly would love to have Dr. Avi and I feel like I've he's a busy man of course. And so that's like kind of the the only reason we haven't gotten them on it is that but I know that we can find a way because he told me I think he said Saturday is usually work and I I just have been behind. And so let me reach out to him and we'll try to get him to come on because that'd be a lot of fun. Brooke Chavez let's see a paradigm music paradigm shift music says yeah to V2 would be amazing and everyone would appreciate it. Yeah that would be cool and Brooke Chavez says I just signed up for Patreon yesterday. Modernity debate is my name going to be on the patron list on the screen. Oh you're right Brooke I'm so sorry thank you so much Brooke for becoming a patron and you were 100% right. And let me fix this right now because I can do it right now. And so I just appreciate it. Let me go to Patreon scroll and then Patreon patrons including Brooke Chavez Chavez. Let me know if I'm pronouncing right or wrong. I know you've corrected you told me how to pronounce it before so I'm sorry but let me see if I can read I'm going to what I'm going to do is I'm going to change this over. So what I'm going to do is first I'm going to switch here big James and then I'm coming back and it should start the Patreon scroll at the start. No it's not. Okay let me see is it we're going to have to get to the top like the front of the list again. Brooke for it to show sorry about that but it thanks for reminding me and then let's see I saw someone say something about the possible debate. Ryan Stephen says Darth vs Leo make it happen check out their recent talk. That's funny. Paradigm music shifts that to be do would be amazing and root says can we start a Patreon for me and my kids I have a 50 euro a week. I don't get it 50 euro a week like Patreon or that's how much it costs to like feature kids I'm confused but George VN. After being here says destiny is cool L says that's a girl's name it was like the funniest debate maybe ever was Jesse Lee Peterson against destiny. That was a super funny one and so yeah but yeah let's see where is it I have to update I'm so sorry let me find here. Thanks paradigm shift music says hoping for the best thank you very much for all your efforts I certainly hope to support you all with Patreon eventually thanks for that support seriously means a lot. And Brian Stephen says Darth vs Leon I don't know if it's going to happen try it ninja invisible ninja thanks for being with us a great debate while you're working I'll take that wrench looking sword. Yeah I can dig that and also want to let you know invisible ninja I responded to you in the Patreon messages just so you know and Brooke I responded to you to no joke. I'm not making this up I could have sworn I responded either this morning or yesterday or I was saying not responded but I reached out to you via Patreon messages and so thanks so much for your support Brooke for real. And I'm also going to quick update chat because I am a little you're right behind. Oh and yeah invisible ninja I actually message you as well. RFFF EF CE says is there any chance of getting Ray Comfort back there is somewhat of a chance I think that our new Kickstarter strategy could work. I think it's possibility. So we are right now I'm trying to set up a Kickstarter event with hopefully Richard Carrier against either Jeff Durbin or I'm trying to remember who else maybe James White I don't know. And so that could be epic that's something that's kind of like in the works I think that I'm trying to remember if Richard Carrier and James White debated before but that could be fun. So we are excited about that root says do that's that wasn't something to shout out haha anyway yeah when all the bills are paid. Oh sorry I didn't mean to shout out anything private sorry man or or ma'am but yeah I'm pardon me I'm just like reading the I don't always like process Nero says you could do elephant philosophy versus T jump. I don't know who elephant philosophy is or new to me I've got to check them out. Brooke thanks for sending a message back I will check it quickly shortly right now I'm having trouble getting my email to load but I feel like I've heard of elephant philosophy. Someone like kind of famous on YouTube but whoo two seconds so many burps you guys all my seltzer water nobody has more seltzer water than me believe me. And it's 838 already I mean I think oh yeah yeah okay Hunter my boy and did I already let's see there it is scroll two seconds I'm updating something Gerard and Lewis barn. So absolutely Brooke thank you for becoming a new patron as well as Sideshow Nav and Lewis Barnett and Gerard O'Reilly want to say huge thanks for becoming new patrons and Invisible Ninja. Thank you as well and so thank you guys for you for real for all of your support it means a lot and I've also wait a minute let me check on this Invisible Ninja. Sideshow Nav but yeah we are pumped about the future in particular I am super excited about hopefully in Epic Kickstarter next month so we're working on making that happen. I assume a lot of people are really busy because it's just been kind of slower responses and I'm just kind of like wonder what they're up to but I know that people have got a lot of projects and stuff like that so. Thanks Brooke for sending that message back and nuns of your business we are glad you are here my friend and let's see anybody that I missed skeptic 77 good to see you glad you made it Lewis Miguel thanks for being with us and glad you made it. But yeah pumped thanks guys I love you guys thanks for all your support seriously I'm excited about the future I'm encouraged and we are just going to keep it's going to keep getting more epic you guys all the time it's just going to keep getting better so thanks everybody. Keeps up to get the reasonable from the unreasonable and excited as it's either it's probably going to be converse moderating tonight on whether or not Moses was a hoax and then I'll be back Friday for this debate with destiny and Brenton and I'll be back Saturday night as well. And so thanks everybody for all your love and support appreciate you guys love you and have a great rest of your night or day depending on where you are.