[Ed:] Jon Stewart, the ex host of The Daily Show, was recently on Joe Rogan's podcast. Now, Jon and his wife are both vegan and they own an animal sanctuary in the US together. So as you'd expect, Jon's veganism became a topic of conversation on the podcast. So I thought we'd go through the clips today, look through what it is that Joe is saying as a rebuttal to Jon, and go through Joe's arguments. Now, because it's Joe Rogan, obviously it's gonna be centered around hunting. So I'm gonna address the hunting arguments a lot in this video. So let's get into it. But before we do, I just wanna say that I don't have time to go through Jon's arguments, and he makes some good points throughout the clip. But the thing I think it's important to mention that Jon does state is that James Wilks, the producer of the Game Changers documentary, was also recently on Joe Rogan's podcast. Now, as a result of James Wilks being on the podcast Joe Rogan himself admitted that you can be perfectly healthy on a vegan, plant-based diet. Now that's really important to mention as we go into the video. But let's go into it, and let's see what it is that Joe says. [Jon:] Do you have moral qualms about meat, or do you not...? Like you say, you know, we're hunters and and that... like, is that ever an issue for you or is it purely a health issue? Or is it-...? [Joe:] Well, there's both things: there's a health issue. There is a moral qualms with factory farming. There's not a moral qualm with hunting, because I know the reality of the life of a deer. If you don't kill that deer it's gonna die a horrible death from a wolf or a coyote or a mountain lion or whatever the [censored] gets ahold of it. It's gonna freeze to death. It's going... you can either die quickly by the hand of a person; you'll respect that life and it'll nurture your body and the bodies of your family. Our problem is a disconnection more than anything. [Ed:] Okay, so straight off the bat, what we have is one of the biggest paradoxes in the arguments that hunters use. Because one of the main arguments that hunters use is the one that Joe's just used here; that, by killing these animals, he's doing an altruistic thing. He's helping them because they'll be killed by predators or die in not very nice ways. And so, in their eyes, it's morally preferable to kill these animals rather than let the environment and ecosystems do what they would normally do. But this then juxtaposes the second main argument that hunters use, which is that by hunting they're helping to try and restore the natural ecology because the food chains are messed up and the ecosystems are messed up. And so, by hunting, they're helping to deal with overpopulation and restoring the ecology, but those two ideas cannot be held simultaneously. Because if you're in favor of the ecology and conservation, then by default you want wild predators killing a wild prey which contradicts the altruistic argument which says that they kill his animals to stop them from being killed by wild predators. Joe also makes the argument that, when he kills these animals, they are nurturing and providing for him and his family. But what relevance does this have? Because, when a wolf kills a deer, or an elk, or a moose, the meat from the animals they've killed will also provide for them and their family, or their pack. And so, the dynamic of provision and nurturing as a consequence of hunting is the same for the wild animals as it is for Joe. And so, it doesn't provide any moral credibility for Joe hunting himself. In fact, it actually does the opposite, right? Because, these predators in the wild still have to hunt and kill. And so, when Joe kills an animal in the wild he's not stopping the predators from killing an animal. He's contributing an extra death, because the predators still have to hunt and kill themselves. But there's a big difference, right? Which is that, hunters will kill the strongest animals they can find. The most impressive animals. The animals with the biggest antlers. The strongest animals. But that's not what happens in the wild. Normally, predators would kill the weak and the sick animals. And so, actually, what Joe's doing is something really dangerous that's having a knock-on effect to the ecology and to the evolution of species. For example, bighorn sheep have seen the size of their horns decrease in the past 30 years, and there are now fewer Asian and African elephants that have tusks. But how does that make sense? Because these attributes are normally signifiers of a species that is being prosperous. Because these attributes would normally be beneficial for those animals. However, in the modern world, these attributes are seen as being detrimental to these animals because it makes them more likely and susceptible to be killed by human hunters. And so, actually, by hunting these animals Joe and people like him are doing the opposite of what should be happening in nature. They're creating a transgression in the development of animals rather than a progression. So hunting is incredibly detrimental to the natural ecology. And even if we take Joe's argument on face value, he killed a bear when he was in Canada. So let's take Joe's arguments on face value, that he's being altruistic to protect these animals from being killed by predators. What predator was Joe protecting that bear from when he killed them with a bow and arrow? Also, another important point to make is that when these animals are killed in the wild or die you create something called a closed metabolic cycle, and what that means is the animals aren't just eaten by the predators who've killed them; they're also eaten by opportunistic scavengers, by insects, and their bodies become part of the soil, and the vegetation. It creates a full cycle. But when hunters go into the wild, kill animals, and remove them from the wild, you have an open metabolic cycle which means that the natural ecology is suffering as a consequence of what these hunters are doing. But I think what's most disingenuous about the altruistic argument is just how deceitful and deceptive it is, because if you're being altruistic it's saying that you're doing something that maybe comes at a detriment to yourself but you've realized there's a beneficial purpose which makes it worthwhile, even if from your own individualistic perspective it hurts you and could be painful for you. An example would be people who euthanize dogs in veterinary clinics. So these animals come in. They've got terminal cancer. They're suffering, and the right thing to do is to euthanize these dogs. Now, no vet is ever going to claim that that's something they enjoy doing. But they recognize that it's an altruistic thing to do, because it reduces suffering. Now, imagine if at the end of a shift where a vet had euthanized several dogs who were dying from terminal cancer and couldn't survive any longer. Imagine if at the end of the day they posted a picture on their social media of a pile of dead dogs that they've killed, and they're smiling and talking about what a wonderful day that they've had. Because that's what hunters do. They say they're killing these animals for an altruistic reason, but they enjoy it. They look forward to it. They call it a sport. They glamorize it, and they take pictures smiling and beaming over the animals they've killed for "altruistic reasons"; to show the world how much they care about these animals they're killing. And plus, if we want to be morally consistent with the argument that Joe is making we could easily make the claim that most animals in the wild suffer, and most of them won't have nice deaths. In fact, we understand that nature is often a very cruel and horrible place. And so, to use Joe's argument we would say that it's morally consistent, therefore, to kill nearly every single animal in the wild because most animals in the wild will either suffer throughout their whole life, or at least for a predominant part of life. But we don't believe that we should wipe out all wild animals just because nature can be cruel and involves suffering. Of course we don't. And neither does Joe. But what Joe's doing is he supplying this argument very conveniently, just to the animals that he's interested in killing. He's not interested in protecting all the animals that he doesn't want to personally kill and eat. Their suffering in the wild apparently doesn't matter. But, when it comes to the animals that he personally wants to kill, all of a sudden he cares about whether or not they're suffering, and how they're going to die if he doesn't kill them himself. These arguments are simply a facade to try and mask the fact that hunters hunt because they enjoy hunting; not for altruistic or for beneficial reasons to the animals that they kill. Of course that's not true. And actually, in the society that we live in if people think that others are killing animals because they enjoy it, that's seen as being a wholly negative thing. People don't like other people that kill animals just for fun, or just for sport. But whatever way hunters want to dress it up, that is what they're doing. They're killing for pleasure and for sport, because they enjoy it. It's not because they're trying to be altruistic and they think they're actually doing something beneficial for the environment -- which we will come on to in just a moment. And just a final point on this section is it's also disingenuous for hunters to make the claim that when they kill the animals it's quick and painless, the animal knows nothing about it, because that's not true either. And hunters know that there are many times where hunters cause great suffering to these animals. It's not just this clean kill the hunters like to portray. That is not the truth. There are many ex hunters that talk about this as well. And so it's completely disingenuous for hunters to try and claim that there's this very simple binary that, when they kill the animals it's painless, and there's no suffering, and it's fine, and wonderful. [Joe:] And I think that there's a lot of people that share your position on animal death. And I think that's one of the more promising aspects of laboratory created meat, as long as it could be done in a way that's actually going to be healthy for us. It seems like there's some real science behind that and they're very, very close to releasing that on a large scale. So it would be actual meat that doesn't come with death, which is really fascinating. [Jon:] If you could still have the, the part of meat that you like, but it came without death do you think you would make that switch, or is that something that...? [Joe:] Well, I certainly would with domestic animals. The, the difference between that and hunting... there's, uh, there's a conservation aspect of it. One thing that leads to protection of wildlife habitat is actually the money that comes from hunting tags and hunting equipment. There's that. There's also the, the type of relationship you have with your food. When you actually work very hard and hunt it and kill it it's very different than buying food from a store. You know, if I shoot an elk I eat it literally for a year. So one animal death equals, like, a year of my meals. [Ed:] Now, it's really positive, undeniably, that Joe says that he would eat lab-grown meat over domesticated farmed animals, because what he's conceding by saying this is that, when you have the choice between not killing and killing, it is preferable to not kill in that situation. And the thing is, that's the situation that Joe lives in every day. As we've already established he admitted himself that you can be healthy on a plant-based diet. And so, there's no necessity for him to kill animals. And so, actually, he has that choice every single day. And even if we just take the hunted argument out of it (and deal with it in a minute) what argument therefore does Joe have for killing and eating domesticated animals? Because, he does eat and kill domesticated animals as well. But if he concedes that factory farming is morally a problem, or animal farming in general is morally a problem, and that we don't have to, and it's preferable not to if we don't have to, then what justification does he have to continue eating farmed animals? And so, now let's address the arguments that he makes about hunting in this bit as well. And so, the first thing I wanted to address is this idea that when hunters kill an animal, the animal provides them food for a year. And that's what Joe says. He kills an elk. The elk provides him meat for a year. But this is completely nonsensical, because hunters don't just eat the one animal for an entire year. They eat other animals they've hunted. They eat farmed animals, like we just said Joe does, and they also eat plants as well. And so this argument doesn't hold up, because it's not true. They don't just eat that one animal for an entire year. So again, it's just so disingenuous to make that claim. And then, the other claim that's made is that he has an affinity with the animal that non-hunters just simply won't understand. And, how often do we hear this from hunters? They say they have this relationship with nature, and with the animals, and they have a deep respect for them, as they hide in bushes, dressed in camouflage with a scope on a rifle, waiting for an unsuspecting deer to walk in front of them, so they can pull the trigger and show how much they respect the natural world, and respect the animal they just mercilessly gunned down. It doesn't matter If you think you have some deeper connection with the natural world or the animals. That is simply not true, and the argument that Joe's making here is that as long as you have a personal attachment to what you're doing and see some benefit for yourself therefore it's morally acceptable to do that thing. Which is, of course, something that none of us actually agree with. And I'm sure if the deer could talk to the hunters, they would probably say that maybe it's not the most respectful thing in the world that they could do, to kill them needlessly. These hunters drive to the middle of rural areas in jeeps and SUVs and pickup trucks dressed in camouflage with high-tech weaponry to go out into the rural area for a day to kill some animals, drive out again, go back to where they live, and claim they have some deeper connection with the natural world. It's so absurd, and it's so insidious they make this claim because obviously it's just completely nonsensical. Now, the hunting licenses funding conservation efforts is actually an interesting point, and it's a good point that Joe's raised except that amount of money that's given towards conservation efforts from hunting tags and hunting licenses is insignificant. It's so minuscule and small. In fact, it's predicted that only 3% or even less than 3% of the funding for the National Wildlife Refuges in the US comes from hunting tags and licenses, which means it's such a small amount. What we have to understand about hunting license is they exist to make people rich, and for people to make money from them. That's why they exist. The money's not pumped back into making sure conservation efforts are propelled and put forward, and that the interests of the natural ecology is placed as being the most important thing. That it's simply not true, and I'll show an example of why that's not true in just a moment. But actually, an interesting point is that Wildlife Watchers generate vastly more income for the natural world than hunters ever have or ever will. In fact, only about 5% of the US population claim to be hunters. And so, if you eliminated hunting and instead advocated for people to engage in more wildlife watching activities, you could easily raise the money that's lost from hunting tags and licenses for conservation just by encouraging more people to engage into the natural world in a way that doesn't involve killing animals. And also, again, it's really important to note that the conservation argument is juxtaposing the altruistic argument that Joe just made not so long ago. Because if you truly care about restoring the natural world then, by default, you want that relationship of wild predators killing wild prey to exist, which contradicts the altruistic argument of saying "I'm killing these animals to protect them from wild predators". Again, you can't hold both those ideas and opinions simultaneously because they juxtapose one another. But, to truly address the overpopulation argument that Joe and other hunters make, we have to look at the root cause of the problem. I mean, why is it that we now exist in a world where we do have overpopulation of certain species of animals? Because, that shouldn't happen naturally. It only happens when there's something taken place that's destabilized the natural world. And so there's 2 reasons why we have an issue with overpopulation. The first is that we've hunted so many of the predators either to extinction or at least as decimated their numbers. And the second thing is: we've destroyed huge amounts of the natural world, of natural habitats. And now the industry responsible for doing those 2 things the most is the animal agriculture industry. In fact, in the US about 50% of contiguous land is dedicated to animal farming, which means about half of the landmass in the US has been altered or destroyed to make way for animal farming. And also, the predators have been killed to protect farmers interests, because the predators would kill the farmers livestock which is, of course, bad for business. And, to illustrate just how bad this has got, there's a subset of the USDA called Wildlife Services. And, every single year, Wildlife Services place M-44s throughout rural America. Now, M-44s are cyanide bombs. They're cyanide bombs placed into the natural world to kill wild animals to protect farmers and ranchers. That's why it happens. It has got so bad that taxpayers are funding an industry that plants cyanide bombs to kill wild animals. It's so absurd and so misleading to claim that by killing these animals we're doing a good thing for the natural world as we plant cyanide bombs just to protect farmers interests. It is so nonsensical. And this is why it needs to be addressed, because if we actually cared about conservation and protecting population sizes of animals in the natural world, then the single biggest thing that we can do is eliminate animal farming. That frees up about 50% of the US, straightaway. And, with that land, what we can do is reforest and rewild that land. To provide habitats and homes for the wild animals. And we can also trophically rewild as well. Trophically rewilding is where we introduce natural animals back into those ecosystems. Predators, for example. And this happened in Yellowstone National Park. In Yellowstone, you're not allowed to hunt. But what happened in the 20th century is that hunters killed all the wolves, because they wanted to hunt the elk themselves. Now, without the wolves, the elk population started to increase. And, because the elk population increased, they started to have a negative impact on the wildlife and the ecology of Yellowstone. So, what happened is they introduced wolves back into Yellowstone National Park and, lo and behold, through doing so it balanced out the population sizes of animals within Yellowstone. And it's now created a much healthier ecosystem and environment as a result, and that's what we should be striving to do on a larger scale. Take away the problem, the root cause of the problem. Reintroduce animals, restore the natural world, and allow nature to do its thing. Because it's done its thing for millennia, and it's always working out just about right. But then humans come in and we mess it all up, and then think that we have to be the ones to take the guns and rifles to try and restore the natural world again. And, to bring it back to the hunting tags and hunting licenses arguments, the government also bails out and gives subsidies to the tune of tens of billions every single year to animal farmers. And so, with just a fraction of that money, you could easily make up any lost revenue from hunting tags and licenses. And think of all the good we could do for the natural world if we freed up tens of billions of dollars, just in the US alone. It would far exceed any possible notion of good that could come from the fees for hunting tags and hunting licenses. And so, if hunters really cared about conservation and protecting the natural world and fulfilling the objectives they claim they care about, then they would also be campaigning and advocating for destabilizing animal farming and restoring the natural world. And yet, that's not what they do. And if that's not what they do, then that means they don't actually care about dealing with the root cause of the problem. And they're using it, again, as a facade to try and mask the fact that they simply hunt because they enjoy hunting. That is the bottom line. On top of that, hunting as a means of population control has not worked. The issue is a cyclical problem. And because hunting is a sport that people enjoy, and it's also very lucrative for those who make money from it there's no desire for those involved to actually deal with the issue of overpopulation. Including the wildlife agencies themselves. They're not interested, because they make so much money from hunters and from hunting tags and licenses. And, this is shown by how the land is actually maintained and managed to encourage the deer population to thrive. An example is something called clearcutting. While the wildlife agencies will clear expanses of forest to create edge habitat that the deer specifically thrive in. And so, you see the issue of overpopulation is used again as a facade to try and justify the action. But actually, the action itself perpetuates the problem. Because people make money from the action -- that action been hunting -- and because they make money from it, they want the problem to continue. So the hunting continues. Also, unbelievably, there are around 4,000 deer farms in the US. Farms where deer are artificially bred into existence. And not only that, but many of the deer that are raised on these farms are killed by hunters. Canned hunting as an example, right? And so, some hunters, who are killing deer who claim they do so because there's an overpopulation of deer, are killing deer that have been bred into existence by humans in deer farms. Farmed deer are also strongly thought to be the reason why chronic wasting disease is such an issue in wild populations of deer, moose, and elk. Chronic wasting disease is like mad cow disease. It causes horrific brain problems for these animals. And it's thought to have spread because of farm deer being transported around. Also, another alternative that could be used to try and suppress deer population sizes, as of course we implement the destabilization of animal farming and all that other stuff that we just spoken about, is contraception. Now, contraception has been used to great success in many areas in the US. And, in fact, in many areas it's seen a reduction of 60% in the wild population sizes. Which is, of course, a remarkable thing. And there is a huge amount of scope to expand contraception for wild deer, mainly because a lot of deer stick in the same area which would make it a lot easy to administer the contraception. But it's not something that's done. And, mainly, because there's less money that can be made from it. Of course. And not only that, but why is a hunter gonna want to use contraception on a deer? Because, when they do that, they can't display the antlers on their wall, and they can't take a picture on social media of them smiling over the dead body. So again, like before, there are options for other things that can be used to actually deal with these problems. And yet, they're ignored or they're refused as an example of something that should be done, because there's not the financial incentive, or the personal incentive on behalf of the hunters who hunt because they enjoy it. [Joe:] I understand that there's people that look at life very differently than me. They maybe don't have the sort of fatalistic perspective. Even though it's respectful, I have a very fatalistic perspective when it comes to just all organic organisms competing for resources and for life. These animals... I mean I've run into them when they've killed each other. I've seen animals that have been taken out by other animals. I've come across their bodies torn apart by wolves in in the woods. It's a wild, wild thing out there, man. And, I think we're so insulated by it in our culture of today. [Ed:] Joe, again, makes the claim that other animals do terrible things to other animals and nature is cruel. But what relevancy does that have in determining how we should treat other animals? Just because animals in the wild do terrible things to each other does not mean that we are then justified to go and take life either, and become a part of that cruelty and suffering in the wild. Joe also makes some appeal to a philosophical belief system, fatalism. He says, because he's fatalistic that means it's somehow justifiable for him to do what he does. But being fatalistic just means that he thinks that he can't change something, and I presume what he means by this is that death is inevitable. He says all organic matter, but everyone knows that everyone dies. That's not a special belief system that Joe has. But again, what relevancy does that have to how he should operate or how he should live? We don't get to justify doing bad things by saying that you're fatalistic. He's using this argument as a way of trying to devoid himself of personal responsibility. But imagine if someone killed a dog, or a cat, or killed a lion, or a whale, or a shark, or a dolphin, and someone said: "Why'd you do that?", and he said: "Well, I'm fatalistic". [Joe:] We're talking about nature, Jon, and there's nothing natural about a farm. That's part of the problem. I mean, it's all... it's an animal prison and they're domesticated because we give them food and we kind of remove the, the natural fear that they would have of any, you know, eyeball facing forward predator, which is what we are. [Ed:] Joe also makes an interesting point, which is that animal farms at prisons. That's what he says. Animal farms are prisons and they're not natural. He's making an appeal to nature as a justification for him to hunt. And you're absolutely right, Joe, that farming animals is not natural. But it's also as natural as hunting deer with guns, and bows, and GPS trackers, and scopes, and driving SUVs into rural areas, and hiding in camouflage. It's as natural as those things, in the sense of it's not natural at all. It's not natural what you do either. And so, you can't make an appeal to nature. When you yourself are doing inherently unnatural things, when you're hunting these animals. It doesn't work. That's another thing that annoys me about hunters, where they say: "Oh, it's natural for us to hunt". Okay. So, why are you using all these unnatural devices and technological advancements to do something that apparently is oh-so natural for you to do? It's also irrelevant if we have forward-facing eyes, because gorillas and orangutans also have forward-facing eyes, but they're not vicious predators either. And in fact, what relevancy does it have, the positioning of our eyes, when it comes to how we should treat others? We're not allowed just to kill others and cause suffering because we have forward-facing eyes. Of course, that's nonsensical. And, there's many reasons why it's believed that we have forward-facing eyes. Yes of course, predation, but there are other beliefs such as it made it easier for us to swing through trees when we were primates living in the forests. And also, it meant that we could see through the leaves and the dense branches, when we lived in the forest. So basically, our forward-facing eyes are evolutionary traits from when we used to be primates in the forests. It doesn't mean that we're like lions, which is perfectly proven by the fact that you hide with a gun or a crossbow rather than leaping out to the long grass and jumping on top of a deer of your sharp claws and teeth. I think it's also important to make the point that hunters use their forward-facing eyes to look down the scopes on their rifles or on their crossbows. And so, let's end the video with another paradox in the hunting arguments, which is that farms themselves are immoral. Joe has said that animal farms are prisons. He's made that claim, that there are moral qualms with factory farming. But Joe himself and other hunters also make the claim that not everyone should hunt. They concede that it's not possible, and it shouldn't be possible for everyone to hunt, because that would be devastating. And so, it's not right to buy meat from animal prisons, but not everyone should also hunt. And so, where does that leave the majority of people? That obviously leads people to veganism. So Joe is advocating for the majority of people to be vegan, because it's not right to buy meat from animal prisons, as Joe calls them. But also, not everyone should hunt. In fact, the vast majority of people wouldn't be able to hunt in this world. Because, actually, there's about three hundred and thirty million Americans in the US, but only about 30 million deer and 1 million elk. And so, obviously, the numbers just don't add up at all. And, even if we take the one animal feeds one person for an entire year, we still have a big problem when it comes to the amount of animals that could be hunted and fed to humans as a consequence. And so, ultimately, hunting is not a good replacement for animal farming. The reason that we farm animals the way that we do is to meet the demand for the meat and animal products that we want, which could never be replaced by hunting. And so, the hunters arguments basically leave us with the majority of people being plant-based anyway. And that's the reality of it. And so, at the end of the day when we go through the arguments that hunters use, we realize that they're disingenuous, misleading or just factually incorrect and, ultimately, there are better solutions to fix all the problems that hunters claim they care about. And that solution simply is getting rid of animal farming, rewilding, reforesting, using contraception in suburban areas. There's so much more we could do, and hunting is not a fix to the problems that hunters claim they are hunting for. All right guys, thank you so much for watching this video. Let me know down below in the comments what you thought of my arguments and also Joe's arguments. I'm always interested to see if I've missed anything or if there was something else I should've included. So do let me know if you thought of something that I didn't include. But thank you again for watching, and I will speak to you all very soon. [Music]
