This kind of all-or-nothing thinking is actually part of what keeps people eating so much meat. Instead of pressuring people to go fully vegan, why don't we normalize simply eating less meat and dairy? That approach is what finally worked for me.
I used to eat beef multiple times a week and go through a gallon of milk weekly. Now I have meat maybe once or twice a month total, and I've cut my dairy consumption by about 75%. The reduction approach worked because it felt achievable rather than overwhelming—and now when I do buy meat, I can afford the high-quality, ethically sourced options.
Imagine the collective impact if more people simply reduced their consumption by 50-75%. Actually, just imagine if more people reduced by 25%. It would be absolutely massive and likely more effective than the small percentage who go fully vegan.
I started small, very small. And the reduction became easier and easier - almost natural, like I wasn't thinking about it. I got to a point where I realize my body actually performs better with some meat at some regular interval, so I found a healthy but highly reduced balance.
The problem is that the "meat or no meat" binary dominates our cultural conversation about food choices. When that false choice is more often the only option presented—like in your question about Sam—most people don't even consider reduction as a valid middle path. This all-or-nothing framing in our zeitgeist actually hinders the significant progress we could make through widespread reduction.
Because animals are not commodities and eating less of them doesn’t make those fewer animals any less exploited and tortured. And if you feel guilty enough that you need to defend your animal eating with this long response you ought to ask yourself why
Given that you appear to have connection to the world of psychiatry, I'm surprised that your approach to winning people over seems so tinged with judgment and anger. You seem to be drawing out the defensiveness of the respondents, rather than winning anyone over. I think the issue of human behavior change is far more complex than you seem to wish. In the world of human-animal interface, I personally believe that steps in the right direction matter, and I have taken steps and have considered more steps at my age 71. Most of us are raised omnivore and are quite attached to deeply ingrained community habits. Change is hard. Reading your replies, I found myself defending my position of moderation and reflexively stepping backward toward grabbing a hamburger. Maybe you'd do well to rethink your approach if you actually want to save animal lives.
I’m here to voice my views and opinions, not to coddle meat eaters who would be so triggered by my responses that it drives them to eat more meat. I understand that people who eat animals and their secretions would *prefer* to not be faced with the truth and reality of what they contribute to and the industries that they support with their dollars. However I do not intend to adjust my tone to assuage that preference.
I don't need coddling or any pats on the head. Sorry to have triggered you. (I was joking about the hamburger.) The change in tone I was suggesting was not in order to assuage the meat eaters, but rather to increase your effectiveness with what you wish to achieve (that I actually admire, if I can tamp down the defensiveness that gets sparked by reading what you write). The reference to your line of work was not to police you - of course you're free to say whatever you want - but only to express some surprise that your strategy does not really take into account what we know of human behavior. Maybe I misjudged what you're hoping to achieve.
I used the word assuage incorrectly haha but you get my point. I’m not going to pat anyone on the head and say that’s great if they participate in meatless Mondays. And you bringing up my line of work to try to police my tone is just bizarre.
Why are you so vehemently opposing people who are speaking up for animals? Do you feel that strongly about continuing to participate in animal cruelty guilt-free?
That is another all-or-nothing scenario. Mike’s point is that we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If it is unrealistic to expect everyone to give up meat entirely, why not encourage them to eat less? Doing so would still reduce demand and lessen the suffering of many animals, even if it does not eliminate it altogether.
Obviously killing less animals is better than killing more. But people tend to make this argument when they are only thinking of their tastebuds and do not want to “give up” something that they enjoy, regardless of the havok being wreaked on their bodies, the animals, the planet.
The earth is an abattoir. I am an omnivore living on a planet where animals routinely eat each other; and, always will. I was raised on a small cattle ranch. My impression is that our livestock had lives that were worth living. Many of them living longer lives than if living in the "wild."
Ana, thanks for all you do for the animals. Being surrounded by so many unenlightened morons is not easy. They are responsible for well over 100 billion animal deaths per year and they do if for the taste. If that is not the ultimate definition of being a selfish, self-centered deviant, I don't know what is.
If an animal raised for food lives a life that is longer than what they might experience in the wild, in comfort, outdoors, with a healthy diet, and is treated well, does that alleviate your moral concerns?
Those animals are still being bred for food, forcibly impregnated and then killed way before their natural lifetime so not really. Also that scenario is like .001% of animals that are used for food (the percentage may be an exaggeration).
"Forcibly impregnated" as opposed to... Naturally impregnated? Like they do in the wild? And if they live a life as long or longer than their lifespan in the wild? I agree that the percentage of animals raised this way is vanishingly small compared to the horrors of factory farming, but they do exist, people pay a premium for animals raised this way, and I'm trying to find the core of your moral objection
Yes forcibly impregnated. And I’m not sure where your confusion stems from - if you read the many comments in this thread then the core of my moral objection should be crystal clear
I think it has to do with raising animals in conditions that cause suffering and killing them for food as a perceived immoral action.
Yes, eating meat three days a week is preferable to eating meat seven days a week. Hitting your child three days a week is preferable to hitting them seven days a week. Ideally, you're at zero for both because it's an immoral action to take. It's how you find yourself in "all-or-nothing" discussions with vegans.
If veganism is not on the table for someone, then I'll recommend the reductionist route because I want the child to be hit less often and not more often. I do think we'll get to a place where the path to veganism takes less effort (think cultivated meat, better tasting plant-based options, health optimization, easier access to vegan options) and with time, more people will hopefully begin to also perceive causing immense suffering to a pig for bacon as an immoral action when they can eat something similar and satisfy their needs.
That’s a false equivalence. Eating meat—even in reduced amounts—has legitimate nutritional and cultural value, while beating a child offers none. Choosing to cut back on meat is a pragmatic health- and planet-friendly decision; it isn’t morally comparable to merely “cutting back” on violence against a child. One behavior can be responsibly moderated, the other is indefensible at any level.
I promise you there are people who are happy to defend their choice to hit their child and will argue it was necessary to ensure their boy turned into a man. You might not see any potential upside, but that's because you perceive it as an immoral action.
Similarly, you have people who defend the practices of animal agriculture as necessary to meet their nutritional needs.
I'm here to say both are complete bullshit: you can raise a boy into a man without having to physically beat them when they misbehave. You can have optimal health outcomes without eating animals. Both are immoral actions to take when there are other avenues available.
Except that you don’t NEED to eat animals so it is also indefensible at any level. That is exactly our point. (You also don’t NEED to wear or ride any animal as well in case you’re unaware)
Thanks Paul, while it may be upsetting for you it doesn't make what I say any less true. There are many other examples I can point to in terms of actions we deem immoral now that were considered acceptable in the not-so-distant past.
Let me know if you're able to actually deal with the points of the argument and I'll be happy to respond.
Comparing beating a child to eating meat mixes two very different categories of moral concern and is not an apt comparison:
Type of harm –
Beating a child is an intentional, direct act of physical violence against a human being.
Eating meat typically involves indirect participation in harm — the person eating the meat is not personally inflicting pain but is part of a system that causes it.
Social and legal context –
Child abuse is universally condemned, criminalized, and morally considered beyond debate in most societies.
Eating meat is widely accepted, legally sanctioned, and often tied to cultural tradition, even though animal welfare advocates may argue it’s unethical.
Moral consensus vs. moral debate –
Child abuse exists in a realm of settled morality — there’s no mainstream disagreement.
Meat consumption is in a realm of active moral debate — many people still see it as morally neutral or necessary, even if others see it as wrong.
Because of those differences, using child abuse as an analogy risks being seen as an emotional escalation or a false equivalence, which can make listeners defensive rather than reflective.
If the goal is persuasion on meat reduction, analogies to things with more similar moral status trajectories — like smoking in public, leaded gasoline, or wearing fur — tend to land better. Those are examples where something once socially normal became seen as harmful over time.
1. Purchasing meat causes harm even if you want to try to wash your hands clean by calling it "indirect". If you hire a hitman to carry out a murder, you are culpable. If you pay for meat, you're creating a demand.
2. Just because farming animals for meat is legally sanctioned doesn't mean it's moral. We have done many immoral things in our history that were considered legal.
3. We can use examples other than child abuse if that makes things feel better for you. For example, it's better that you steal three times a week instead of seven times a week. Ideally, you're not stealing at all. You can try to justify your stealing, but in almost all cases it's not right.
Let me know what the LLM says in response to the points above.
To a vegan this is equivalent to being a paedophile and saying 'why hassle me, I used to fuck little boys everyday and now I only fuck one on Monday's, and your still giving me shit'.
Considering that your comparison involves someone who is mentally deranged, sure. Difference is, not all meat eaters are deviants...regardless of how vegans think of them.
Evolution created carnivores, herbivores and grazers. Altogether it makes for ecological balance; carnivores are necessary in the mix to prevent species overshoot and habitat destruction. The moral problem is not flesh eating per se, it’s the manner in which most of our meat is obtained via slaughterhouses.
The primary way that Homo sapiens harm fellow creatures is by destruction of their habitat. The vast numbers of our livestock are part of that equation, but so is agriculture! Bottom line: Homo sapiens are in overshoot—there are about 6 billion too many of us. Eating meat would have no negative effect on ecological balance and biodiversity if there weren’t so many—waaay too many—humans on this planet.
I’ve been waiting for yeaaaars to hear him say something about this. He talks a lot about morality and the way we treat animals on this planet is arguably the biggest moral disaster that has ever existed. Why the silence?
I’ve been listening to him for as long as he’s been around (or at least since 2010 when he wrote the moral landscape) and no, he has not talked about it extensively. All he said is that he feels torn about the issue but that at that time he didn't know enough about the nutritional safety of being vegan, so he was going to continue eating animals. We now know that humans thrive on a plant based diet. Many more studies have been done since then. Sam can do his homework and revisit the subject.
Yeah I vaguely remember these, thank you for posting the links- I’ll refresh my memory though I don’t think any of these have been him “speaking extensively” on the subject. In fact I remember him being fairly dismissive. My (and other’s) point stands. It’s been a long time since he’s spoken about it and it’s important enough to revisit. Just because he’s spoken about Trump 87544356 times does not mean that I’m no longer interested in what he has to say about the man now.
It's interesting how, to those in the religion of veganism, all other carnivores and omnivores except the human variety are given a pass on meat consumption.
I, too, eat much less meat than most Americans do. I'm realistic about it in every way. By that I mean that I know an animal died or was killed and that I am eating its flesh (and I always consider that every time I make the choice to eat meat). Well guess what? All animals die, and oftentimes, violently in the wild by way of predation, famine or disease. It's a fact of life. And in that spirit, I often eat game meat, but I also eat responsibly grown meats from farmers who are not doing what the large commercial operators are doing. Much of the venison I eat comes from a friend who, for every deer he shoots (that results in a very quick death), he harvests two that are roadkill. I have eaten a fair amount of his roadkill venison--meat that would have otherwise gone to waste.
As a consumer, by merely being alive, I am taking. Every creature on the planet is taking. It's the cycle of life--which is sometimes....no, often....brutal. And you vegans are taking, too. Certainly, you can bask in your moral superiority by not consuming animals. But it's generally a turnoff to people to act and speak in the way that you do. I know. I used to do it myself.
Absurd. Have you really thought about this for more than a second?
Why is it this one topic people feel the need to appeal to non-humans to justify their human actions?
We don’t put animals on trial for murder because we – no longer – give them moral agency. I say no longer because animals only a century also ago were indeed put on trial for murder.
If you believe that animals have moral agency then yes – you should consider their killing of one another to be an immoral act.
But seeing as you’re using the actions of non-humour animals to justify your human actions – why stop at murder? Non-humans rape each other as well.
Your first sentence means you've shown your cards. I can't have a reasonable discussion with a cult member. And nice job of jumping on a slippery slope fallacy. That's what idiots do.
It’s not a slippery slope fallacy. You justified present human actions by appealing to the behaviour of non-human animals. I pointed out that, if we accept that reasoning, it would also apply to other acts non-human animals commit, such as rape. That’s not “sliding down a slope” — it’s demonstrating that your justification, when applied consistently, leads to conclusions you likely reject.
By the way, I’m curious — if you had to determine whether an entity is a human based solely on observable physical traits, which traits would you choose?
Consider a being behind a curtain.
You do not know what kind of being it is — it might be human.
Without using any species names, what observable physical characteristics or measurable external conditions would you examine to determine whether it is morally permissible to breed, kill, or eat this being?
Be careful to consider if your criteria would also justify treating the unborn, infants, people with profound cognitive disabilities, or unconscious patients in the same way.
You have proven that you are, indeed, not only a zealot by virtue of your comment, but that you're a fucking bona fide asshole. You are on the worst kind of slippery slope in essentially suggesting that I'm capable of genocide. So just fuck off you prick.
“Animals killing each other” is not an “immoral act”! Carnivores are an absolute necessity for maintaining ecological balance and preventing overshoot of a given species. Evolution made it that way.
Except that we are herbivores just like primates and elephants. It’s why meat and dairy cause cancer. And you don’t have the teeth to tear at a deer’s flesh. But go on about how we are part of the “circle of life” pffft
Fer shit's sake, humans are omnivores. We've always eaten meat, grains, vegetables and fruits. But for somebody in a cult, you don't want to consider what the real world actually is, so you believe whatever it is you like.
Hey, let's all go into our yards and start grazing. We'll shut down the grocery-industrial complex in a matter of weeks!
Morality is a human construct. Veganism is not a moral concept accepted by most humans. You can argue that veganism should be part of our moral; but, it hasn't happened yet. When you take a position that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, you come off like a religious zealot; and, you lose credibility; and, your audience. Make your best arguments and people here will consider them, you'll have to do better than "pffft."
Ultimately we're just stardust. We can create a moral code; but, it isn't inherently true. (One of a couple of areas where I disagree with Sam.)
When you state that we are herbivores, you're starting with a false premise to justify your position. The science is clear, we evolved as omnivores. We have gallbladders because it allows us to eat large quantities of fat in one sitting, before the meat goes bad. When you cheat on the facts you lose credibility. Our moral code is continually evolving. If you argue with integrity you have a chance to persuade.
Then why has meat been labeled a carcinogenic by the medical community? And dairy- do you really think it makes sense for adult humans to feed off of a cow’s breastmilk? Use your brain. It’s no mystery why these things aren’t good for human bodies. And I agree that ultimately we’re all stardust. Nihilist here too. But that doesn’t mean that any human animal has a right to take whatever they want from nonhuman animals, even if it is the current ‘status quo’, though the tide is changing. Look around, vegan choices abound and will only continue to grow as people wake up.
Then why has meat been labeled a carcinogenic by the medical community?
That’s a flat earthier argument. You start with your premise and, then take words out of context to bolster your point. The human body has many traits that show we are designed to eat meat. You can argue that we would be healthier if we ate less or none; but, that statement is disingenuous.
And dairy- do you really think it makes sense for adult humans to feed off of a cow’s breastmilk? Why not. It’s an animal product that has nutritional value. Does it make sense that we should eat bird eggs, the unborn children of the wheat plant. It makes sense if it works for us. Don’t get hung up on the words.
Use your brain. This is one I see from flat earthiers all the time. It’s not an argument at all. It’s simply condescension.
It’s no mystery why these things aren’t good for human bodies. Here you’re assuming the argument. A lawyer would object, “Assumes facts not in evidence.”
And I agree that ultimately we’re all stardust. Nihilist here too. But that doesn’t mean that any human animal has a right to take whatever they want from nonhuman animals, even if it is the current ‘status quo’, though the tide is changing.
I understand that’s your morality; and, you hold it tightly. You can argue that non-human animals should have all the rights of humans. I don’t see it that way. I have a preference for the human species. Humans eating other animals won’t change the misery equation on earth by any measurable amount. Again, I’ve raised farm animals. They seemed pretty cheerful to me. (Probably more so than I am.)
Look around, vegan choices about and will only continue to grow as people wake up.
You’re so sure of your “rightness” that if only people would wake up they’d see things your way. It’s off putting; and, isn’t the empirical fact you believe it to be. The following statement has as much validity as yours: If you’ll only look a little closer, I know you’ll soon be eating meat-it’s the second awaking. Believing something strongly does not make it true.
I know nothing I’ve said will change your veganism; but, perhaps you could hold your value just little bit more loosely, to allow space for those who don’t share your moral convictions. One of the reasons I disagree with Sam on the moral landscape is that he creates an argument for morality being an objective truth. I do agree with him that we can create a morality based on things we perceive to be good; but, he has to make a small leap at the outset, which he fails to acknowledge. There are no ultimate values-the universe is completely indifferent to us. The only values that exist are those we choose to create.
Sam, I know you are persuaded by Peter Singer's arguments in favor of Veganism. And I know you have had negative health impacts during your past flirtations with Veganism/vegetarianism.
So why not get a Vegan nutrition expert on the podcast instead of a moral philosopher, or instead of someone like Gary Taubes? You're Sam Harris. You could get anyone you want on your podcast. I'm sure Dr. Michael Greger of NutritionFacts.org would be thrilled to speak to you on your podcast, and maybe he could impart some tips to help you get your actions in line with your beliefs without the negative effects you've experienced in the past.
Came here to say the same thing. Bring Greger on. Learn the science. Encouraging your children to eat vegan is not a “science experiment,” it’s just a healthy way of eating.
Wow. I just got to the end where Josh asks about Sam's mom and I just realized how little I know about Sam. Maybe Jaron (?) can do an interview with Sam that focuses more on his personal history. I just can't believe I know so little about Sam as a person!
Very elegant answer from Sam on the humility needed in the face of our ignorence of the universe. I especially enjoyed the last minutes of this converstation ! Great discussion.
Ok. Sam is not militantly certain that there is no god. He is an advocate for the notion that we simply do not know and cannot know, because the question asks something unknowable.
I agree with this and would not want to signal disrespect for Sam’s position on this important, but unknowable question.
It is a great trick of happiness to learn not to care about things that cannot be known. Things like is there life afterwards? Is there a god?
If these could be known, it would be important to know them. But it isn’t. So we make do.
Sam, as much as I love and respect you, I could not disagree more with your view on veganism.
You are a scientist and a truth seeker. There is so much high quality science out there showing positive health outcomes in vegans and vegetarians. It is deemed to be safe in all stages of life by our best scientific resources.
You are a staunch supporter of institutions when they align with your views, but you seem skeptical on this topic. The science however, is not confused here.
And although I totally agree, we need policy changes to make real systemic change on factory farming, it is ethically rather weak to use that as an excuse to continue contributing to this suffering and I am glad Josh pushed you on it.
The only reason I am vegan is from hearing amazing conversations and learning from the likes of podcasters, authors and scientists like yourself. I really think you should listen to and have a conversation with a field expert like Simon Hill @theplantproof.
I really hope you’ll reconsider this position and challenge you to seek out the latest evidence, because it is not something scientists with real credibility are discussing.
Even on the topic of plant based alternatives to meat (ie impossible burgers) vs 80/20 beef.. Christopher gardener and colleagues did a study on this in the SWAP trial and found that important health markers (blood lipids, blood pressure etc) improve when consuming plant based meats vs beef.
I'm not sure what Sam was doing on his Vegan diet, and I'm not totally opposed to the idea that there may be rare cases where, no matter how they do it, there are people who just cannot thrive on a Vegan diet. But there's this thing, where people want to insist it's unhealthy, and I can't help but think that the greatest tennis player of all time (Novak Djokovic, who still plays at the top level and is ancient by male tennis standards) and the greatest NFL quarterback of all time (Tom Brady, who retired in his mid forties) both ate Vegan diets during their careers because of how it improved their performance and longevity.
All of this is to say he really should consider having an expert on Vegan nutrition on his podcast.
I was very disappointed by what he said about the ethics of meat consumption in this conversation with Josh Szeps. His comments contradict many key aspects of his own work, and it appears that although Sam pledges ethics in his work, he does not follow them himself on this issue. It is remarkably easy to debunk most of what he said here using the framework of his own ideas, which is, frankly, absurd.
Sam has stated that in the Moral Landscape, the well-being of all sentient beings is taken into consideration. The assumption to make here is that mammals like pigs feel just as much, or almost as much, pain as humans, maybe even more (according to Richard Dawkins). Sam has actually acknowledged this in one of his Making Sense episodes, noting the similarities in the neuroanatomy of pigs and humans. He has also spoken with Peter Singer, who laid out the argument about the moral illusion of human beings that leads to speciesism. Given that 75 billion land animals are killed each year, including 1.5 billion pigs, factory farming is by far the biggest moral catastrophe currently happening. According to the logic of the Moral Landscape, this is an even greater moral low point than the Holocaust of the Third Reich, since all sentient beings are considered. The living conditions and deaths of factory-farmed animals are similar to those of Holocaust victims, but the scale is vastly larger, 11-17 million total Holocaust victims vs. 75 billion land animals killed each year. By that framing, it is difficult to argue that the latter does not cause more suffering annually, and yet many people remain blind to it or simply do not care.
At the start of this discussion, Sam admitted he is a hypocrite on this issue. If he had simply left it at that, I wouldn't have lost trust in him. We are all human, and I know how difficult it is to live up to one's own principles. I don't hold grievances against meat eaters, as long as they admit it is wrong. However, Sam's comments suggested that he does not believe he is wrong to eat meat. He went on to say that no one needs to stop eating meat because the only thing that can improve the situation is a 'system-level change' like cultured meat. While I agree that a system-level change is probably the only way to end factory farming on a large scale, this is only true because individuals are stuck in moral blindness. If the majority of people stopped eating meat today, the market for factory farming would collapse, ending most of this 'animal Holocaust.' The obvious moral stance is that anyone who can should stop eating meat immediately and wait for a system-level change that does not require animal slaughter, such as cultured meat.
Sam said his health deteriorated (e.g., he became anemic) whenever he was on a vegetarian diet, and from this, he generalized that it is not possible to be as healthy on a vegetarian diet as on a meat-based diet. As both a scientist and a moral philosopher, it is surprising that Sam would make such a simple reasoning error. I will finish my training as a medical doctor next year, and from my review of the literature, a well-planned vegetarian diet is generally as healthy, and in many cases superior, to one that includes meat. Some people might not be able to switch due to health reasons, and Sam might be one of them. But the mistake he makes is to then conclude that others should not 'enroll in this experiment,' to which there is actually a huge amount of data. He does not make such reasoning errors on other topics, for example, he wouldn't suggest avoiding statins just because he personally experienced bad side effects. The same goes for antidepressants he tried for Meniere's disease, which caused urinary retention.
So why does Sam slip so catastrophically on this issue? The only explanation I can find is that his lack of personal integrity blinds him here. Using his own moral reasoning tools leads to the opposite conclusion from what he expressed here with Josh Szeps, and even before that, for example at a live event with Brian Greene. I am well-educated on this topic, and Sam's flawed conclusions about what I consider the greatest current moral catastrophe make me question whether, on topics where I am less informed, I have simply missed other false reasoning.
I would genuinely like Sam to explain in what way my arguments here are wrong, because I am very curious to know.
I’ve listened to every single episode by Sam since 2011, and this is literally the first time I thought, “Wait, what the hell is he saying!?” It honestly feels a bit surreal and shocking to hear Sam of all people say something as epistemically insane as ~“you cannot be healthy on a vegan diet.”
I won’t argue the case, rather just leave a link to o3 answering the questions:
-Which is healthier: the average omnivore diet vs. the average vegan diet? (=vegan)
-Which is healthier: a well-planned omnivore diet vs. a well-planned vegan diet? (=tie)
(Not that we needed “vegan > omnivore” for Sam’s claim to be false… but still.)
@Jeron these are the kinds of rapid fire questions we're looking for. The bit about Sam's experiences with his parents are so humanizing. That's the side of him we'd like to see
Sam should have Lewis Bollard from Open Philanthropy on the podcast for a proper evidence-based discussion on how to solve factory farming, the current state of the alt-protein industry, and the vast human and planetary health benefits we could unlock through a food system transition.
It’s worth noting that while the meat industry has successfully embedded the narrative that plant-based meats are “ultra-processed,” this is increasingly being debunked. In fact, plant-based meats have been consistently shown to be both healthier and far better for the planet than their animal-based counterparts: https://bryantresearch.co.uk/insight-items/ultra-processed-myth/.
gotta love Sam. I buy the argument for humility. in that regard, his militant atheism is as offensive as the arrogance of the religionists. we simply do not know enough to even remotely claim that we have figured out the god or no god question.
you might be forgetting that atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief in lack. his militant atheism is exactly the sentiment he illuminates here. we don't know and we likely can't know, so those who profess to know are, by definition, wrong. there might be a god, obviously -- but religions don't say that. they say there is a god and it's this god and it behaves this way and wants these things and will do these other things. it's ridiculous. hence, atheism. and it's not militant, unless you think that Sam is disabusing the faithful of this notion by force. that's your term and not, as far as I know, Sam's.
You are probably right. It’s unknowable. That’s what Sam believes. Or so it seems.
His “militancy” is in rubbing the religionists nose in their unlikely beliefs.
Not sure how he might defend that. Voltaire and Epicurus argued it would be therapeutic to rid humans of religious belief. We could finally be happy. I don’t know where Sam’s ahead is at on that.
Sam hypothesizes that there is a Darwinian aspect to ideas and that the most mutually beneficial mindset or way of interacting (I.e., liberalism) will win out in society. I’m curious to learn what evidence there is to support this hypothesis? For example, why wouldn’t the most aggressive mindset win? Has anyone quantified this?
I wonder if you actually watched the full video you posted? The video explicitly states that the Prisoner's Dilemma assumes participants are rational. More than once, like here https://youtu.be/mScpHTIi-kM?t=216
"The prisoner's dilemma is a game theory thought experiment involving two **rational agents**, each of whom can either cooperate for mutual benefit or betray their partner ("defect") for individual gain.
Will Sam finally admit ethical cognitive dissonance and be vegan?
This kind of all-or-nothing thinking is actually part of what keeps people eating so much meat. Instead of pressuring people to go fully vegan, why don't we normalize simply eating less meat and dairy? That approach is what finally worked for me.
I used to eat beef multiple times a week and go through a gallon of milk weekly. Now I have meat maybe once or twice a month total, and I've cut my dairy consumption by about 75%. The reduction approach worked because it felt achievable rather than overwhelming—and now when I do buy meat, I can afford the high-quality, ethically sourced options.
Imagine the collective impact if more people simply reduced their consumption by 50-75%. Actually, just imagine if more people reduced by 25%. It would be absolutely massive and likely more effective than the small percentage who go fully vegan.
I started small, very small. And the reduction became easier and easier - almost natural, like I wasn't thinking about it. I got to a point where I realize my body actually performs better with some meat at some regular interval, so I found a healthy but highly reduced balance.
The problem is that the "meat or no meat" binary dominates our cultural conversation about food choices. When that false choice is more often the only option presented—like in your question about Sam—most people don't even consider reduction as a valid middle path. This all-or-nothing framing in our zeitgeist actually hinders the significant progress we could make through widespread reduction.
Because animals are not commodities and eating less of them doesn’t make those fewer animals any less exploited and tortured. And if you feel guilty enough that you need to defend your animal eating with this long response you ought to ask yourself why
Given that you appear to have connection to the world of psychiatry, I'm surprised that your approach to winning people over seems so tinged with judgment and anger. You seem to be drawing out the defensiveness of the respondents, rather than winning anyone over. I think the issue of human behavior change is far more complex than you seem to wish. In the world of human-animal interface, I personally believe that steps in the right direction matter, and I have taken steps and have considered more steps at my age 71. Most of us are raised omnivore and are quite attached to deeply ingrained community habits. Change is hard. Reading your replies, I found myself defending my position of moderation and reflexively stepping backward toward grabbing a hamburger. Maybe you'd do well to rethink your approach if you actually want to save animal lives.
I’m here to voice my views and opinions, not to coddle meat eaters who would be so triggered by my responses that it drives them to eat more meat. I understand that people who eat animals and their secretions would *prefer* to not be faced with the truth and reality of what they contribute to and the industries that they support with their dollars. However I do not intend to adjust my tone to assuage that preference.
I don't need coddling or any pats on the head. Sorry to have triggered you. (I was joking about the hamburger.) The change in tone I was suggesting was not in order to assuage the meat eaters, but rather to increase your effectiveness with what you wish to achieve (that I actually admire, if I can tamp down the defensiveness that gets sparked by reading what you write). The reference to your line of work was not to police you - of course you're free to say whatever you want - but only to express some surprise that your strategy does not really take into account what we know of human behavior. Maybe I misjudged what you're hoping to achieve.
I used the word assuage incorrectly haha but you get my point. I’m not going to pat anyone on the head and say that’s great if they participate in meatless Mondays. And you bringing up my line of work to try to police my tone is just bizarre.
Your line of work implied that you'd be less emotional and more reasonable about explaining your viewpoints.
This is the Nirvana Fallacy.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Nirvana-Fallacy
Going vegan isn’t an impossible standard for those who have the means to do so which is most of us in the developed world
Why are you so vehemently opposing people who are speaking up for animals? Do you feel that strongly about continuing to participate in animal cruelty guilt-free?
That is another all-or-nothing scenario. Mike’s point is that we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If it is unrealistic to expect everyone to give up meat entirely, why not encourage them to eat less? Doing so would still reduce demand and lessen the suffering of many animals, even if it does not eliminate it altogether.
Obviously killing less animals is better than killing more. But people tend to make this argument when they are only thinking of their tastebuds and do not want to “give up” something that they enjoy, regardless of the havok being wreaked on their bodies, the animals, the planet.
The earth is an abattoir. I am an omnivore living on a planet where animals routinely eat each other; and, always will. I was raised on a small cattle ranch. My impression is that our livestock had lives that were worth living. Many of them living longer lives than if living in the "wild."
Ana, thanks for all you do for the animals. Being surrounded by so many unenlightened morons is not easy. They are responsible for well over 100 billion animal deaths per year and they do if for the taste. If that is not the ultimate definition of being a selfish, self-centered deviant, I don't know what is.
“Animals” includes our species. Homo sapiens are animals.
If an animal raised for food lives a life that is longer than what they might experience in the wild, in comfort, outdoors, with a healthy diet, and is treated well, does that alleviate your moral concerns?
Those animals are still being bred for food, forcibly impregnated and then killed way before their natural lifetime so not really. Also that scenario is like .001% of animals that are used for food (the percentage may be an exaggeration).
"Forcibly impregnated" as opposed to... Naturally impregnated? Like they do in the wild? And if they live a life as long or longer than their lifespan in the wild? I agree that the percentage of animals raised this way is vanishingly small compared to the horrors of factory farming, but they do exist, people pay a premium for animals raised this way, and I'm trying to find the core of your moral objection
Yes forcibly impregnated. And I’m not sure where your confusion stems from - if you read the many comments in this thread then the core of my moral objection should be crystal clear
I think it has to do with raising animals in conditions that cause suffering and killing them for food as a perceived immoral action.
Yes, eating meat three days a week is preferable to eating meat seven days a week. Hitting your child three days a week is preferable to hitting them seven days a week. Ideally, you're at zero for both because it's an immoral action to take. It's how you find yourself in "all-or-nothing" discussions with vegans.
If veganism is not on the table for someone, then I'll recommend the reductionist route because I want the child to be hit less often and not more often. I do think we'll get to a place where the path to veganism takes less effort (think cultivated meat, better tasting plant-based options, health optimization, easier access to vegan options) and with time, more people will hopefully begin to also perceive causing immense suffering to a pig for bacon as an immoral action when they can eat something similar and satisfy their needs.
That’s a false equivalence. Eating meat—even in reduced amounts—has legitimate nutritional and cultural value, while beating a child offers none. Choosing to cut back on meat is a pragmatic health- and planet-friendly decision; it isn’t morally comparable to merely “cutting back” on violence against a child. One behavior can be responsibly moderated, the other is indefensible at any level.
I promise you there are people who are happy to defend their choice to hit their child and will argue it was necessary to ensure their boy turned into a man. You might not see any potential upside, but that's because you perceive it as an immoral action.
Similarly, you have people who defend the practices of animal agriculture as necessary to meet their nutritional needs.
I'm here to say both are complete bullshit: you can raise a boy into a man without having to physically beat them when they misbehave. You can have optimal health outcomes without eating animals. Both are immoral actions to take when there are other avenues available.
Except that you don’t NEED to eat animals so it is also indefensible at any level. That is exactly our point. (You also don’t NEED to wear or ride any animal as well in case you’re unaware)
I'm aware of that. But many people still make the choice to eat meat and wear leather. They just have no morals in your world.
I read a headline today and remembered this exchange, turns out the practice that "offers no value" is being debated on television in 2025: https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-appointee-ex-nfl-jack-brewer-demands-physical-punishments-for-schoolkids-we-gotta-get-the-paddle-back/
What a shit comparison. Shame on you. It's just that approach that makes so many people disregard you self-righteous vegans.
Thanks Paul, while it may be upsetting for you it doesn't make what I say any less true. There are many other examples I can point to in terms of actions we deem immoral now that were considered acceptable in the not-so-distant past.
Let me know if you're able to actually deal with the points of the argument and I'll be happy to respond.
Comparing beating a child to eating meat mixes two very different categories of moral concern and is not an apt comparison:
Type of harm –
Beating a child is an intentional, direct act of physical violence against a human being.
Eating meat typically involves indirect participation in harm — the person eating the meat is not personally inflicting pain but is part of a system that causes it.
Social and legal context –
Child abuse is universally condemned, criminalized, and morally considered beyond debate in most societies.
Eating meat is widely accepted, legally sanctioned, and often tied to cultural tradition, even though animal welfare advocates may argue it’s unethical.
Moral consensus vs. moral debate –
Child abuse exists in a realm of settled morality — there’s no mainstream disagreement.
Meat consumption is in a realm of active moral debate — many people still see it as morally neutral or necessary, even if others see it as wrong.
Because of those differences, using child abuse as an analogy risks being seen as an emotional escalation or a false equivalence, which can make listeners defensive rather than reflective.
If the goal is persuasion on meat reduction, analogies to things with more similar moral status trajectories — like smoking in public, leaded gasoline, or wearing fur — tend to land better. Those are examples where something once socially normal became seen as harmful over time.
Thanks ChatGPT.
1. Purchasing meat causes harm even if you want to try to wash your hands clean by calling it "indirect". If you hire a hitman to carry out a murder, you are culpable. If you pay for meat, you're creating a demand.
2. Just because farming animals for meat is legally sanctioned doesn't mean it's moral. We have done many immoral things in our history that were considered legal.
3. We can use examples other than child abuse if that makes things feel better for you. For example, it's better that you steal three times a week instead of seven times a week. Ideally, you're not stealing at all. You can try to justify your stealing, but in almost all cases it's not right.
Let me know what the LLM says in response to the points above.
You just responded!
Excellent point, Mike Hynz.
To a vegan this is equivalent to being a paedophile and saying 'why hassle me, I used to fuck little boys everyday and now I only fuck one on Monday's, and your still giving me shit'.
Considering that your comparison involves someone who is mentally deranged, sure. Difference is, not all meat eaters are deviants...regardless of how vegans think of them.
Evolution created carnivores, herbivores and grazers. Altogether it makes for ecological balance; carnivores are necessary in the mix to prevent species overshoot and habitat destruction. The moral problem is not flesh eating per se, it’s the manner in which most of our meat is obtained via slaughterhouses.
The primary way that Homo sapiens harm fellow creatures is by destruction of their habitat. The vast numbers of our livestock are part of that equation, but so is agriculture! Bottom line: Homo sapiens are in overshoot—there are about 6 billion too many of us. Eating meat would have no negative effect on ecological balance and biodiversity if there weren’t so many—waaay too many—humans on this planet.
I’ve been waiting for yeaaaars to hear him say something about this. He talks a lot about morality and the way we treat animals on this planet is arguably the biggest moral disaster that has ever existed. Why the silence?
You gotta go back circa 2016 (back when his podcast was called waking up) to get Sam’s thoughts on that. He has talked about it extensively.
I’ve been listening to him for as long as he’s been around (or at least since 2010 when he wrote the moral landscape) and no, he has not talked about it extensively. All he said is that he feels torn about the issue but that at that time he didn't know enough about the nutritional safety of being vegan, so he was going to continue eating animals. We now know that humans thrive on a plant based diet. Many more studies have been done since then. Sam can do his homework and revisit the subject.
Ana,
He spoke about this on his AMA #2 link here: https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/qa/ask-me-anything-2
Here he is also 12 years ago speaking about it directly (I’m not sure if this is the same exact ama):
https://youtu.be/mIZwXg3rzgg?si=5SFHltFv4JYFlZLI
On episode #28 February 2016 he spoke about lab grown meat and the ethical issues about eating animals
Here: https://samharris.org/episode/SEA451C9636
You seem to be very passionate about the topic and I hope you find the content useful.
Yeah I vaguely remember these, thank you for posting the links- I’ll refresh my memory though I don’t think any of these have been him “speaking extensively” on the subject. In fact I remember him being fairly dismissive. My (and other’s) point stands. It’s been a long time since he’s spoken about it and it’s important enough to revisit. Just because he’s spoken about Trump 87544356 times does not mean that I’m no longer interested in what he has to say about the man now.
It's interesting how, to those in the religion of veganism, all other carnivores and omnivores except the human variety are given a pass on meat consumption.
I, too, eat much less meat than most Americans do. I'm realistic about it in every way. By that I mean that I know an animal died or was killed and that I am eating its flesh (and I always consider that every time I make the choice to eat meat). Well guess what? All animals die, and oftentimes, violently in the wild by way of predation, famine or disease. It's a fact of life. And in that spirit, I often eat game meat, but I also eat responsibly grown meats from farmers who are not doing what the large commercial operators are doing. Much of the venison I eat comes from a friend who, for every deer he shoots (that results in a very quick death), he harvests two that are roadkill. I have eaten a fair amount of his roadkill venison--meat that would have otherwise gone to waste.
As a consumer, by merely being alive, I am taking. Every creature on the planet is taking. It's the cycle of life--which is sometimes....no, often....brutal. And you vegans are taking, too. Certainly, you can bask in your moral superiority by not consuming animals. But it's generally a turnoff to people to act and speak in the way that you do. I know. I used to do it myself.
Absurd. Have you really thought about this for more than a second?
Why is it this one topic people feel the need to appeal to non-humans to justify their human actions?
We don’t put animals on trial for murder because we – no longer – give them moral agency. I say no longer because animals only a century also ago were indeed put on trial for murder.
If you believe that animals have moral agency then yes – you should consider their killing of one another to be an immoral act.
But seeing as you’re using the actions of non-humour animals to justify your human actions – why stop at murder? Non-humans rape each other as well.
Your first sentence means you've shown your cards. I can't have a reasonable discussion with a cult member. And nice job of jumping on a slippery slope fallacy. That's what idiots do.
It’s not a slippery slope fallacy. You justified present human actions by appealing to the behaviour of non-human animals. I pointed out that, if we accept that reasoning, it would also apply to other acts non-human animals commit, such as rape. That’s not “sliding down a slope” — it’s demonstrating that your justification, when applied consistently, leads to conclusions you likely reject.
By the way, I’m curious — if you had to determine whether an entity is a human based solely on observable physical traits, which traits would you choose?
Consider a being behind a curtain.
You do not know what kind of being it is — it might be human.
Without using any species names, what observable physical characteristics or measurable external conditions would you examine to determine whether it is morally permissible to breed, kill, or eat this being?
Be careful to consider if your criteria would also justify treating the unborn, infants, people with profound cognitive disabilities, or unconscious patients in the same way.
You have proven that you are, indeed, not only a zealot by virtue of your comment, but that you're a fucking bona fide asshole. You are on the worst kind of slippery slope in essentially suggesting that I'm capable of genocide. So just fuck off you prick.
How embarrassing.
I don’t often use the word triggered but you’re my friend I triggered.
I’ve clearly touched a nerve.
Simply trying to understand what you justifications are and whether or not those justifications justify much more than you think they do.
I’d expect much more from a follower of Sam Harris.
It’s plain to see that my questions to you were nothing other than inquisitive and your reaction was hysterical.
To Ana Iceberg and Senescence Steve:
"To the zealot, everyone of his own sect is a saint, while the most upright of a different sect are to him the children of perdition." Henry Home
"Instead of trying to clear his/her own heart, zealots try to clear the world."
Joseph Campbell
Take your f*cking zealotry to the following US corporations (here is a short list):
Hormel Foods
Tyson Foods
Oscar-Meyer
ConAgra
Perdue Farms
Cargill Meat Solutions
....among many others. And leave us normies the f*ck alone.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/96BeC_3ZZD0
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/vIVedto8Auk
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GiVpuSVIKaU
Resorting to name calling, that’s what people who don’t know what they’re talking about do
Says the lady who insists that Homo sapiens is an herbivorous species!
You’re right we need meat to survive that’s why me and all of my vegan friends who haven’t eaten meat for decades are dying of malnutrition 👍🏼
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/vIVedto8Auk
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/96BeC_3ZZD0
“Animals killing each other” is not an “immoral act”! Carnivores are an absolute necessity for maintaining ecological balance and preventing overshoot of a given species. Evolution made it that way.
Except that we are herbivores just like primates and elephants. It’s why meat and dairy cause cancer. And you don’t have the teeth to tear at a deer’s flesh. But go on about how we are part of the “circle of life” pffft
Fer shit's sake, humans are omnivores. We've always eaten meat, grains, vegetables and fruits. But for somebody in a cult, you don't want to consider what the real world actually is, so you believe whatever it is you like.
Hey, let's all go into our yards and start grazing. We'll shut down the grocery-industrial complex in a matter of weeks!
Morality is a human construct. Veganism is not a moral concept accepted by most humans. You can argue that veganism should be part of our moral; but, it hasn't happened yet. When you take a position that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, you come off like a religious zealot; and, you lose credibility; and, your audience. Make your best arguments and people here will consider them, you'll have to do better than "pffft."
Ultimately we're just stardust. We can create a moral code; but, it isn't inherently true. (One of a couple of areas where I disagree with Sam.)
When you state that we are herbivores, you're starting with a false premise to justify your position. The science is clear, we evolved as omnivores. We have gallbladders because it allows us to eat large quantities of fat in one sitting, before the meat goes bad. When you cheat on the facts you lose credibility. Our moral code is continually evolving. If you argue with integrity you have a chance to persuade.
Then why has meat been labeled a carcinogenic by the medical community? And dairy- do you really think it makes sense for adult humans to feed off of a cow’s breastmilk? Use your brain. It’s no mystery why these things aren’t good for human bodies. And I agree that ultimately we’re all stardust. Nihilist here too. But that doesn’t mean that any human animal has a right to take whatever they want from nonhuman animals, even if it is the current ‘status quo’, though the tide is changing. Look around, vegan choices abound and will only continue to grow as people wake up.
Then why has meat been labeled a carcinogenic by the medical community?
That’s a flat earthier argument. You start with your premise and, then take words out of context to bolster your point. The human body has many traits that show we are designed to eat meat. You can argue that we would be healthier if we ate less or none; but, that statement is disingenuous.
And dairy- do you really think it makes sense for adult humans to feed off of a cow’s breastmilk? Why not. It’s an animal product that has nutritional value. Does it make sense that we should eat bird eggs, the unborn children of the wheat plant. It makes sense if it works for us. Don’t get hung up on the words.
Use your brain. This is one I see from flat earthiers all the time. It’s not an argument at all. It’s simply condescension.
It’s no mystery why these things aren’t good for human bodies. Here you’re assuming the argument. A lawyer would object, “Assumes facts not in evidence.”
And I agree that ultimately we’re all stardust. Nihilist here too. But that doesn’t mean that any human animal has a right to take whatever they want from nonhuman animals, even if it is the current ‘status quo’, though the tide is changing.
I understand that’s your morality; and, you hold it tightly. You can argue that non-human animals should have all the rights of humans. I don’t see it that way. I have a preference for the human species. Humans eating other animals won’t change the misery equation on earth by any measurable amount. Again, I’ve raised farm animals. They seemed pretty cheerful to me. (Probably more so than I am.)
Look around, vegan choices about and will only continue to grow as people wake up.
You’re so sure of your “rightness” that if only people would wake up they’d see things your way. It’s off putting; and, isn’t the empirical fact you believe it to be. The following statement has as much validity as yours: If you’ll only look a little closer, I know you’ll soon be eating meat-it’s the second awaking. Believing something strongly does not make it true.
I know nothing I’ve said will change your veganism; but, perhaps you could hold your value just little bit more loosely, to allow space for those who don’t share your moral convictions. One of the reasons I disagree with Sam on the moral landscape is that he creates an argument for morality being an objective truth. I do agree with him that we can create a morality based on things we perceive to be good; but, he has to make a small leap at the outset, which he fails to acknowledge. There are no ultimate values-the universe is completely indifferent to us. The only values that exist are those we choose to create.
Something to chew on:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/96BeC_3ZZD0
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/vIVedto8Auk
“Got milk?” Remember that commercial? Milk is my favorite food on the planet, it would be the last food I’d ever give up.
We are omnivores, not herbivores:
https://biologyinsights.com/are-humans-omnivores-examining-our-biology-and-evolution/
And two of our closest primate relatives, the chimpanzee and the bonobo, are also omnivores.
I’m going to have to strongly disagree with you on this one. Humans by any reason reasonable definition are omnivores.
We can extract sufficient nutrients from either a diet of exclusive plants or a diet of exclusive animals, or an arbitrary mixture of the two.
We have that choice.
Given we have that choice… This becomes an ethical dilemma about which path to choose.
Sam, I know you are persuaded by Peter Singer's arguments in favor of Veganism. And I know you have had negative health impacts during your past flirtations with Veganism/vegetarianism.
So why not get a Vegan nutrition expert on the podcast instead of a moral philosopher, or instead of someone like Gary Taubes? You're Sam Harris. You could get anyone you want on your podcast. I'm sure Dr. Michael Greger of NutritionFacts.org would be thrilled to speak to you on your podcast, and maybe he could impart some tips to help you get your actions in line with your beliefs without the negative effects you've experienced in the past.
Yessssssss
I second this!
Came here to say the same thing. Bring Greger on. Learn the science. Encouraging your children to eat vegan is not a “science experiment,” it’s just a healthy way of eating.
#74 - What Should We Eat?
A Conversation with Gary Taubes
edit: this is an inane reply due to my misreading of the comment. I'm leaving it though.
I was aware he’d had Taubes on the podcast. I’d like him to platform someone other than Taubes who is an expert in and advocate for Vegan nutrition.
I'm so sorry, I misread your comment and thought you had said, "someone like Gary Taubes". My mistake!
No worries! We've all been there.
Wow. I just got to the end where Josh asks about Sam's mom and I just realized how little I know about Sam. Maybe Jaron (?) can do an interview with Sam that focuses more on his personal history. I just can't believe I know so little about Sam as a person!
I loved the sentence- “I would be surprised if best ideas don’t ultimately win!!!” Brilliant!
Me too. I cling to that sentiment.
Shortest answers I've ever heard from Sam. :)
Very elegant answer from Sam on the humility needed in the face of our ignorence of the universe. I especially enjoyed the last minutes of this converstation ! Great discussion.
Someone tweaked me about this comment.
Ok. Sam is not militantly certain that there is no god. He is an advocate for the notion that we simply do not know and cannot know, because the question asks something unknowable.
I agree with this and would not want to signal disrespect for Sam’s position on this important, but unknowable question.
It is a great trick of happiness to learn not to care about things that cannot be known. Things like is there life afterwards? Is there a god?
If these could be known, it would be important to know them. But it isn’t. So we make do.
Sam, as much as I love and respect you, I could not disagree more with your view on veganism.
You are a scientist and a truth seeker. There is so much high quality science out there showing positive health outcomes in vegans and vegetarians. It is deemed to be safe in all stages of life by our best scientific resources.
You are a staunch supporter of institutions when they align with your views, but you seem skeptical on this topic. The science however, is not confused here.
And although I totally agree, we need policy changes to make real systemic change on factory farming, it is ethically rather weak to use that as an excuse to continue contributing to this suffering and I am glad Josh pushed you on it.
The only reason I am vegan is from hearing amazing conversations and learning from the likes of podcasters, authors and scientists like yourself. I really think you should listen to and have a conversation with a field expert like Simon Hill @theplantproof.
I really hope you’ll reconsider this position and challenge you to seek out the latest evidence, because it is not something scientists with real credibility are discussing.
Even on the topic of plant based alternatives to meat (ie impossible burgers) vs 80/20 beef.. Christopher gardener and colleagues did a study on this in the SWAP trial and found that important health markers (blood lipids, blood pressure etc) improve when consuming plant based meats vs beef.
Please, reconsider. 🙏🏻❤️
Thanks for this comment. Sam has an outsized influence on folks so his interest in veganism could change a lot of hearts and minds.
I'm not sure what Sam was doing on his Vegan diet, and I'm not totally opposed to the idea that there may be rare cases where, no matter how they do it, there are people who just cannot thrive on a Vegan diet. But there's this thing, where people want to insist it's unhealthy, and I can't help but think that the greatest tennis player of all time (Novak Djokovic, who still plays at the top level and is ancient by male tennis standards) and the greatest NFL quarterback of all time (Tom Brady, who retired in his mid forties) both ate Vegan diets during their careers because of how it improved their performance and longevity.
All of this is to say he really should consider having an expert on Vegan nutrition on his podcast.
I was very disappointed by what he said about the ethics of meat consumption in this conversation with Josh Szeps. His comments contradict many key aspects of his own work, and it appears that although Sam pledges ethics in his work, he does not follow them himself on this issue. It is remarkably easy to debunk most of what he said here using the framework of his own ideas, which is, frankly, absurd.
Sam has stated that in the Moral Landscape, the well-being of all sentient beings is taken into consideration. The assumption to make here is that mammals like pigs feel just as much, or almost as much, pain as humans, maybe even more (according to Richard Dawkins). Sam has actually acknowledged this in one of his Making Sense episodes, noting the similarities in the neuroanatomy of pigs and humans. He has also spoken with Peter Singer, who laid out the argument about the moral illusion of human beings that leads to speciesism. Given that 75 billion land animals are killed each year, including 1.5 billion pigs, factory farming is by far the biggest moral catastrophe currently happening. According to the logic of the Moral Landscape, this is an even greater moral low point than the Holocaust of the Third Reich, since all sentient beings are considered. The living conditions and deaths of factory-farmed animals are similar to those of Holocaust victims, but the scale is vastly larger, 11-17 million total Holocaust victims vs. 75 billion land animals killed each year. By that framing, it is difficult to argue that the latter does not cause more suffering annually, and yet many people remain blind to it or simply do not care.
At the start of this discussion, Sam admitted he is a hypocrite on this issue. If he had simply left it at that, I wouldn't have lost trust in him. We are all human, and I know how difficult it is to live up to one's own principles. I don't hold grievances against meat eaters, as long as they admit it is wrong. However, Sam's comments suggested that he does not believe he is wrong to eat meat. He went on to say that no one needs to stop eating meat because the only thing that can improve the situation is a 'system-level change' like cultured meat. While I agree that a system-level change is probably the only way to end factory farming on a large scale, this is only true because individuals are stuck in moral blindness. If the majority of people stopped eating meat today, the market for factory farming would collapse, ending most of this 'animal Holocaust.' The obvious moral stance is that anyone who can should stop eating meat immediately and wait for a system-level change that does not require animal slaughter, such as cultured meat.
Sam said his health deteriorated (e.g., he became anemic) whenever he was on a vegetarian diet, and from this, he generalized that it is not possible to be as healthy on a vegetarian diet as on a meat-based diet. As both a scientist and a moral philosopher, it is surprising that Sam would make such a simple reasoning error. I will finish my training as a medical doctor next year, and from my review of the literature, a well-planned vegetarian diet is generally as healthy, and in many cases superior, to one that includes meat. Some people might not be able to switch due to health reasons, and Sam might be one of them. But the mistake he makes is to then conclude that others should not 'enroll in this experiment,' to which there is actually a huge amount of data. He does not make such reasoning errors on other topics, for example, he wouldn't suggest avoiding statins just because he personally experienced bad side effects. The same goes for antidepressants he tried for Meniere's disease, which caused urinary retention.
So why does Sam slip so catastrophically on this issue? The only explanation I can find is that his lack of personal integrity blinds him here. Using his own moral reasoning tools leads to the opposite conclusion from what he expressed here with Josh Szeps, and even before that, for example at a live event with Brian Greene. I am well-educated on this topic, and Sam's flawed conclusions about what I consider the greatest current moral catastrophe make me question whether, on topics where I am less informed, I have simply missed other false reasoning.
I would genuinely like Sam to explain in what way my arguments here are wrong, because I am very curious to know.
I’ve listened to every single episode by Sam since 2011, and this is literally the first time I thought, “Wait, what the hell is he saying!?” It honestly feels a bit surreal and shocking to hear Sam of all people say something as epistemically insane as ~“you cannot be healthy on a vegan diet.”
I won’t argue the case, rather just leave a link to o3 answering the questions:
-Which is healthier: the average omnivore diet vs. the average vegan diet? (=vegan)
-Which is healthier: a well-planned omnivore diet vs. a well-planned vegan diet? (=tie)
(Not that we needed “vegan > omnivore” for Sam’s claim to be false… but still.)
https://chatgpt.com/share/68961ad3-8598-800e-8244-ebd42e9e53d3
I’m not vegetarian or vegan and I love Sam but the least coherent he ever gets is when trying to defend eating meat.
@Jeron these are the kinds of rapid fire questions we're looking for. The bit about Sam's experiences with his parents are so humanizing. That's the side of him we'd like to see
Sam should have Lewis Bollard from Open Philanthropy on the podcast for a proper evidence-based discussion on how to solve factory farming, the current state of the alt-protein industry, and the vast human and planetary health benefits we could unlock through a food system transition.
It’s worth noting that while the meat industry has successfully embedded the narrative that plant-based meats are “ultra-processed,” this is increasingly being debunked. In fact, plant-based meats have been consistently shown to be both healthier and far better for the planet than their animal-based counterparts: https://bryantresearch.co.uk/insight-items/ultra-processed-myth/.
Nice. Anyone here going to Sam Harris’s tour this fall?
gotta love Sam. I buy the argument for humility. in that regard, his militant atheism is as offensive as the arrogance of the religionists. we simply do not know enough to even remotely claim that we have figured out the god or no god question.
good to hear him clarify this point.
you might be forgetting that atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief in lack. his militant atheism is exactly the sentiment he illuminates here. we don't know and we likely can't know, so those who profess to know are, by definition, wrong. there might be a god, obviously -- but religions don't say that. they say there is a god and it's this god and it behaves this way and wants these things and will do these other things. it's ridiculous. hence, atheism. and it's not militant, unless you think that Sam is disabusing the faithful of this notion by force. that's your term and not, as far as I know, Sam's.
You are probably right. It’s unknowable. That’s what Sam believes. Or so it seems.
His “militancy” is in rubbing the religionists nose in their unlikely beliefs.
Not sure how he might defend that. Voltaire and Epicurus argued it would be therapeutic to rid humans of religious belief. We could finally be happy. I don’t know where Sam’s ahead is at on that.
Sam hypothesizes that there is a Darwinian aspect to ideas and that the most mutually beneficial mindset or way of interacting (I.e., liberalism) will win out in society. I’m curious to learn what evidence there is to support this hypothesis? For example, why wouldn’t the most aggressive mindset win? Has anyone quantified this?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mScpHTIi-kM
The problem with this is it assumes the participants are rational.
No it doesn’t, it relies on selection pressure.
I wonder if you actually watched the full video you posted? The video explicitly states that the Prisoner's Dilemma assumes participants are rational. More than once, like here https://youtu.be/mScpHTIi-kM?t=216
And the wiki on it... First sentence, with another entire page about 'rational agents' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
"The prisoner's dilemma is a game theory thought experiment involving two **rational agents**, each of whom can either cooperate for mutual benefit or betray their partner ("defect") for individual gain.
I was wondering the same thing. Initially, the statement sounds like hopium.