Breakdown of Yourofsky's Georgia Tech Speech

In this article, we will be analyzing Gary Yourofsky's famous Georgia Tech speech. It is his most famous speech, and is regarded as one of the most important speeches in modern Veganism, reaching and converting millions of people.

We'll be looking at the good and the bad in Yourofsky's speech. If you're looking to get into vegan lectures, let this serve as a handy guide of dos and don'ts for when you're writing and rehearsing your speech. We'll be going section by section, and discuss what Gary does right, and what Gary does wrong. Just a note, the sections as presented here may not be how Gary intended to divide up the speech.

Gary's speech is primarily ethics-focused, with also a strong emphasis on health. While there are many problems present in the speech, it's overall a very compelling speech, a groundbreaking moment in Vegan activism, which has influenced hundreds of thousands to go vegan, as well as many others to go into Vegan activism.

The speech can be viewed here if you'd like to follow along.

Starting in 1997, Yourofsky embarked on a country-wide tour in the US, going to almost 200 universities and giving over 2600 lectures to over 60,000 students, and did this for about 15 or so years, for about seven and a half months a year, being funded mainly by donations. Before this however, his activism consisted of actions of civil disobedience, which overall are marginally effective at best. Shortly after being released from prison he realized that the best way to be an activist for the animals is to educate people about the issue. While we should be convincing everyone we can to go Vegan, probably the easiest group of people to convince are young, progressive people at urban universities, who are likely to be more sympathetic and responsive to the Vegan message.

Yourofsky's approach to get the ability to give these talks by contacting professors and asking them if he can give a talk to their class, the courses of which included ethics, women's studies, sociology, nutrition, and other humanities and social science subjects, which are appropriate environments to give such talks. Professors in STEM (physics, biology, calculus, engineering) have very strict schedules to adhere to, so don't bother trying to get into one of their classes where it's not relevant anyway.

Some have wondered why Gary didn't just set up a talk somewhere on campus, but the problem with that is, pretty much everyone who shows up is likely going to be Vegan or Vegetarian. Is it the healthy who need doctors, or the sick?

Anyway, presumably under the same circumstances that he gave almost every one of his other lectures, and on July 8th, 2010, he gave his most known and impactful speech, and easily one of the most important in modern Veganism. According to him, he never meant to have the speech taped and then uploaded to Youtube, it was filmed by a student at the university who wanted to share it, and the rest is history.

What makes Gary's speech much more impactful and probably a factor that helped it become more well-known was Gary's willingness to be more passionate and upfront. Seeing a Vegan who is an asshole is something a lot of people are going to flock to see.

Introduction (0:00-1:50)

Gary doesn't fuck around, he gets right into it. He immediately tells the class what the speech is going to be about, and to be prepared to hear things they may not want to hear, while also clarifying that he isn't trying to be enemies with the students. This is an important thing to clarify, that you aren't trying to start conflict, but are trying to reach them on an important matter, or in Gary's words, "the world's forgotten victims." He also clarifies that he isn't trying to challenge the audience's religious or political views, nor do they have to change anything else about themselves aside from how they approach the issue of animal ethics. This is important as well, to show that Veganism is something for everyone regardless of their ideological affiliations and personal interests, which helps a lot in decreasing alienation.

He then talks about the basic ethical principle of the Golden Rule, which is also good to put near the beginning, to remind your audience what the definition of morality is, and that there's no reason to exclude animals from it. But avoid using the "Thou shalt not kill" argument as Gary did, since historically it refers to murder, that is, the unlawful killing of another human being, so Gary's talk about how animals shouldn't be excluded from that is rather moot.

Overall though it's a fairly strong start; Gary is being upfront with what he's going to talk about, and how Veganism is something for everybody regardless of their political/religious leanings. And even though the "Thou shalt not kill" argument isn't valid, it's important to get your audience thinking right away on the topic.

Rhetorical Questions + Stats on slaughter in the US (1:50-5:05)

Some may view this as patronizing when Gary asks obvious questions, but it's important to get people to think about things they often don't think about, since even they know the answers to it. The audience is able to apply their basic sense of morality to other issues, which allows them to understand exactly why it's an issue we should be caring about, and that there is no reason to neglect this issue compared to all the other horrible things going on on Earth, and how animals are being oppressed just like other groups have been oppressed historically, and are being oppressed today. It's important to point out the similarities between the plight of animals and the plight of oppressed humans. He also makes them really think about what goes on in a slaughterhouse; Most people probably have no idea what goes on inside slaughterhouse, and they might not think what happens to the animals they eat is "really all that bad." If people understand why the latter is wrong, it makes it easier to see why the former is wrong. Making people think primes them for what's to come for the rest of the speech, and give them enough context.

Gary then points out that there are tens of billions of animals killed every year in the US alone, which is a pretty damning number. 95% of people likely do not spend any time thinking about exactly how many animals need to be killed to cater to the demands of hundreds of millions of Americans, so the fact that ten billion animals need to be bred and slaughtered might be something of a wakeup call for people. He also calls out the actual reasons people eat meat (habit, tradition, convenience, taste), and goes on to explain the difference between Vegans and Vegetarians.

Using the Holocaust analogy as Gary did is entering risky territory. Not because it's irrelevant or invalid, but because people might get the wrong idea when it's used, and will get offended if the industry they're supporting is similar to what the Nazis did. While you can have some success with this (as Gary did since this particular speech was very impactful in Israel), we would still advise to not use this analogy.

Something important Gary goes on to do: He explains how he was Vegan for 25 years, and comes from a place of understanding, since he was doing the same thing the audience is currently doing. This can help the audience not feel as alienated, and more open to what you have to say on the matter, instead of being viewed as a purist who is only coming in to preach.

Gary Introducing Himself (5:05-5:42)

It can be good to introduce yourself a little more if you want the audience to know you more, and again, be relatable.

Now there are some things Gary does here that you shouldn't do. Firstly, him stating that was banned from five countries, them being Canada, England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and highlighting his criminal record of being arrested 13 times.

Side note, this is a nitpick, but Gary's only been banned from two countries considering that England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland form the singular country of the United Kingdom (If Scotland decides to leave the UK this may change). It's unclear if Gary was unaware of this, or just wanted to pump the number up a little (in future videos and talks he corrects it to two). It's sort of like saying you've been banned from 50 US states.

Still, he's banned from two very significant countries, and his proclaiming of this fact seems more to boast than anything else (to be fair, it is kind of badass to be able to say you've been banned from an entire country, let alone two well-known and significant ones), and it doesn't really do anything but make Gary look like a crazy radical terrorist. Now sure, he does clarify later what he was banned for which makes him look not all that bad (freeing minks caused him to be banned from Canada, and some of his more extreme writings caused him to be banned from the UK), but still, not off to a great start.

Chances are that you haven't been banned from any country or gone to prison after performing acts of civil disobedience in the name of animal rights, but the point is, if you have anything that would make people perceive you as less than reputable, it's best to keep that on the down-low.

Something else to avoid, Gary refers to other animals as his "brothers and sisters." Don't do this, ever. It looks weird, and gives the impression that you connect more with animals than with fellow human beings. The last thing we need is to reinforce the stereotype that Vegans are a bunch of lame-ass New-Age tree-hugging hippies. Gary's baldness certainly doesn't help matters.

Guilt-tripping (5

Guilt-tripping can be very powerful here. Calling out people's slacktivism will make people feel inadequate and help compel them to actually do something very useful to help the world (Veganism). He does get back into this a little later in the speech too.

Slaughterhouse Footage (13:51-19:32)

This is probably the toughest part of the speech for your audience, but undoubtedly the most necessary and the most powerful. As stated earlier, most people don't understand how terrible slaughterhouses even are for the animals.

You may choose to exclude showing slaughterhouse footage if you're going for a more reason-based speech and argument, and that may be more effective if you know your audience are more hard-headed and practically-minded, but remember, most people are not. Unfortunately, most people are unlikely to be completely swayed by a rational argument since they're often thought of as being too abstract and convoluted to use as a basis for their moral decisions. Look at how few people understand why they take the ethical positions that they do and the reasoning for them, which often consist of post-hoc rationalizations when they're pressed on why they hold certain ethical views.

Ultimately, people are more emotionally minded than rationally minded, and a couple of minutes of the unpleasant truth can go ten times further for most people than the most rational argument that can be constructed.

Sometimes, giving people a good punch to the heart is a good way to make them reconsider their meat-eating. And it's important to note that just because the slaughterhouse footage may be seen as an appeal to emotion, it's still inarguable that any rational person who sees that will agree that what they're seeing is terrible.

Current affairs of animals (19:32-21:44)

This is just more of Gary's take on ethics, but we'll highlight this section to mention how you should add your own spin on explaining what's going on to the animals.

As long as it's logically valid and not based on any false or misleading information (and perhaps not overly emotional), feel free to express the current plights of animals, and how it's happening at this very second, and every time people choose to eat meat, they are complicit in the suffering going on. This is also a good time to explain some of the other horrible parts of animal agriculture that isn't shown in the slaughterhouse footage, such as how they're driven to the slaughterhouse, often in uncomfortable weather, how frightened they are when they arrive, and how they're forced into slaughter.

Humans are Herbivores (25:40-30:24)

This is the first really problematic part of the speech, considering it's a whole section based on an appeal to nature fallacy, and it goes on for nearly five minutes. While most of the science Gary is talking about is accurate, it isn't relevant to whether or not humans should be eating only plant foods. The penis evolved to rape, so should men be raping women?

Gary seemed to include this part as a sort of counter to people who say that we're omnivores/carnivores, but in a speech (where no one else is arguing against you) it just seems strange to put in a rebuttal of an argument with a fallacy in it, using that same fallacy. In a debate, it's valid to respond to a fallacious argument with the same fallacy (as long as you point out the fallacy), but Gary is using the argument as if it's valid either way. If you're in an argument with someone about this, and they make the argument that we're omnivores/carnivores, just point out the fallacy, and say whether or not it's true, we can thrive on plant-based diets, and be even better off on them than on ones with meat. That's all that's necessary.

There are many animals that are thought of as herbivores that have been observed to eat small amounts of meat on occasion, so the line becomes blurred there when he makes the claim that the human body is completely herbivorous, since very few if any animals are completely herbivorous. There aren't even any completely carnivorous animals either (the most carnivorous animal alive is the polar bear, with 90% of its diet being meat-based).

If you want to make the argument that the reason why we have so many diseases from animal products because we didn't evolve to eat the stuff, you'd first have to establish that it's causation, not correlation, which is a headache in and of itself. Instead of going through all those mental gymnastics, it's better to just show how animal products are the cause of these diseases and save everyone time.

Sources of Nutrients (30:25-31:45)

This section is overall not terrible. Gary is mostly correct when he says all of our nutrition can be obtained from plants, but this isn't entirely accurate, since B12 cannot be found in the plant kingdom, and must be supplemented (which Gary is against doing). It'd also be a good idea to supplement with Vitamin D, especially if you live far from the Equator like in Canada or the Nordics (Gary is from Michigan, which gets less sun than average than other US states).

This part segues into the next part of the speech which discusses health, and while the two issues are intertwined in many ways, talking about nutrition on a vegan diet is important, but Gary makes the mistake of not listing better sources of certain nutrients (for instance, protein is best found in legumes, nuts, seeds, and mock-meats, antioxidants are best found in berries and spices, vitamin E is best found in sunflower seeds, and almond milk etc.). This can give the impression that all types of plants are good sources of nutrients, which is not the case; It is essential to tell people to get a variety of plants in their diet, and to refer them to reputable nutrition sources, such as nutritionfacts.org, or Jack Norris. Being nutritionally deficient is a common cause of recidivism.

He also isn't correct when he claims that these foods can not harm anyone or cause disease. Excessive sweet-fruit intake (such as bananas and dates) can cause weight gain and tooth decay, and even diabetes. While you'd have to consume a lot more sweet-fruits than cookies and soda to experience these harms, they are by no means harmless in high amounts. Other foods such as coconuts, which are extremely high in saturated fat, can contribute to heart disease as well.

There's a bit in there about how eating "what walks, what flies, and what swims" is abnormal, which sounds like another appeal to nature fallacy, but we're not entirely sure what his point with that was.

Health and Diseases (31:46-38:29)

Talking about health is important, as it can help clear up any misconceptions about diet, and show how the standard American diet ain't doing anyone any favors either.

Gary begins this section by briefly discusses how animal agriculture causes issues with produce such as e-coli contamination, and he is right on this point. He also touches on the environment a little bit, but doesn't elaborate much further.

He then talks about non-communicable diseases; He is correct that most cancers, heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and the others are caused by high meat consumption (processed and red meats contribute much more to it, but other meats and animal products do as well). He is careful not to blame animal products for every non-communicable disease, which is an important distinction. While most of these diseases are in fact caused by poor diet, saying it causes all of them is espousing pseudoscience.

That being said, it would have been good to explain that a healthier diet can help relieve many of these diseases (not necessarily cure), and potentially put them into remission.

He then goes into the problem nutrients in animal products (being cholesterol, saturated fat, trans-fatty acids, animal protein). Any at all nutrition from animal products is at least negated by these, and there are better sources of these nutrients without the cholesterol and saturated fat. He is correct when he talks about any outside cholesterol being bad. Even a little bit of outside cholesterol can be extremely harmful, and it's completely eliminated on a vegan diet, as well as trans-fatty acids. He is also correct when he talks about removing almost all saturated fats (unless you're eating a ton of coconuts). Pretty much all food contains at least a little bit of it, but a healthy vegan diet brings them down to a minimum.

However he then goes back into a bad argument about how animal protein causes osteoporosis. It's probably not something known at the time, but recent literature shows that the science he's talking about isn't correct. Vegans can be just as much risk of calcium deficiency as anyone else (however given how everything is calcium-fortified these days it's pretty difficult).

Next part he discusses how pervasive all of these health problems are in society, and how it has affected pretty much everyone with meat-eating family members. It might be a correlation not causation argument, but it does fly in the face of cholesterol skeptic quacks, when heart disease is the leading cause of death in a country where everyone eats meat on a regular basis.

Rant about getting calcium from Dairy (38:29-42:10)

This part is a little weird.

Not that dairy isn't an important issue to discuss, it's just that when we're talking about the problems with dairy, it's more to do with ethics than with the health problems. It's hard to make a health case against dairy really since there aren't any health issues that can be significantly associated with it, it's more just that it isn't necessary in a healthful diet since there is nothing in dairy that can't be found in other sources (and soy milk for example is healthier across the board compared to dairy).

It is peculiar how there are any bone issues at all in a country that consumes so much dairy yes, and it's probably worth pointing out, but perhaps not dedicating several minutes to it. At the end of it Gary brings it back to why we're eating meat in the first place, to lead the audience to the next part.

Environment and World Hunger (42:10-43:02)

This section of the speech is far too short, considering how important these issues are.

Yourofsky makes the mistake of claiming that animal agriculture is the root cause of world hunger, but this isn't entirely accurate. Sure, it does bring problems with food security, but there isn't any incentive for these companies to give this food to third-world countries, and any food that is attempted to be exported is usually rejected by the countries due to the food being genetically modified. It's an important point to make, but it isn't as simple as Yourofsky claims.

The environmental issues are discussed in literally ten seconds (he just lists the issues, never elaborated on why they're problems or how animal agriculture causes them), which is insane. The environmental issues with animal agriculture are some of the biggest problems with it, and given how environmentalism is a huge thing at colleges, Gary made them look like they're trivial compared to everything else. Gary's like "Eh it's just a side-issue, it isn't THAT important." Sure, he tells his audience to go to his website to learn more about it, but it's unlikely that most of them went to the website to learn more about the issue.

Gary also makes the mistake of claiming animal agriculture is the number one cause of our environmental woes (Greenhouse emissions, water pollution, air pollution). While it's certainly the number one optional cause of emissions (emissions not needed to maintain our health and quality of life) and other environmental problems, it isn't the number one cause. Still a massive and unnecessary waste, but saying it's the main cause opens up potential for criticism since it isn't a valid claim. The number one cause is most likely infrastructure that relies on fossil fuels, which can only be solved by shifting it towards clean energy, mostly nuclear but renewables will play a part as well.

It's fine if you want to have a focus on animal ethics over the environment, and in fact we strongly encourage such an approach, but the environmental issues must be discussed more than in just ten seconds, since ultimately the environmental argument ties back to ethics, both human and animal.

In your activism, when it comes to food security, point out how ineffectively food is used, but don't say that it necessarily is the root of world hunger. Instead, talk about how unsustainable and wasteful animal agriculture is, and how meat consumption is why a higher population would be an issue, whereas feeding people Vegan is easy with the amount of crops we currently have.

Showcasing Vegan alternatives (43:03-51:22)

It may not seem like it, but this is one of the most important parts of the speech. A big reason why people are so daunted to go Vegan is that they feel as though they're sacrificing too much, and have to make huge adjustments in their diet. By showing the audience all of the vegan alternatives available, it makes the task look much more achievable, seeing how little is really sacrificed.

Also, the way Gary began the section, declaring how he also loves the taste of meat as well, can help people feel more comfortable trying out the Vegan meats, being recommended them by someone who used to eat meat.

The only issue that can be brought up with this section is that some of the products Gary recommends contain Palm oil (at least at the time some of them did), however Gary has (largely) corrected himself on the palm oil issue, and at the time of this lecture it wasn't brought up as much as it is today, so this issue gets a pass.

When talking about alternatives, you don't necessarily have to show all the products available as Gary did, but it is important to point out a few brand names, and saying how many are available in the grocery stores.

Gross-out Arguments (51:23-56:56)

Here's the other very problematic part of the speech. While Gary intended for this part to be more of a comedy roast, it isn't very useful considering how it isn't based on any rational argument. Comedy can be a very useful tool, but it has to be used more effectively.

Gary may have also intended to get back at the people in the audience who were grossed out by the alternatives he showed, but if it's just a handful of people (in his words) it isn't worth roasting the entire class for it.

The most unfortunate part about this section of the speech is that it took time away from Gary being able to talk more about the environment and sustainability, which is a much more compelling argument.

Ethics once more (56:57-58:22)

Gary brings it full circle, reiterating the arguments made at the beginning of the speech and giving them something of an ultimatum. It's important to do this, since now that the audience has more information, they'll now have a new perspective on the matter, and will remind themselves how they viewed what he was saying at the start.

Cruelty in the Dairy Industry (58:23-end)

Gary is particularly passionate in this part of the speech (even more so than after the slaughterhouse footage), but he doesn't overdo it. The cruelty in the dairy industry is often overlooked since cows aren't being killed, but that doesn't mean there isn't any cruelty happening.

Some may accuse Gary of committing an appeal to nature fallacy when he says we shouldn't be drinking cows milk since it wasn't made for us, but the argument he was making was that cows milk has no use for us, and what we're doing to the cows for milk is pointless. But if we really want some type of milk, there are plenty of vegan alternatives available as Gary highlights.

Overall Evaluation

So, while all in all it's a fairly compelling speech due to its main reliance on ethics, and discussion of health, a good amount of the speech consists of bad arguments and weird tangents. A good 15-20 minutes of the speech could have been cut out and it would've made the speech not only more succinct but more impactful.

You may think that even though the speech has bad arguments, it isn't really a big deal since there are enough good arguments to make up for it, and adding bad arguments is harmless, and possibly useful if it still convinces people. The problem is, when people justify their veganism with poor arguments, when they come across something that shows why that argument is invalid, or someone (non-vegan) explains why it is, or even just taking time to consider these reasons, their veganism will be shaken, even if they also justify it with rational arguments. One reason being dismantled can lead to them thinking that Veganism as a whole is pretty weak as a worldview, eventually leading to recidivism.

Gary probably doesn't think that they're bad arguments since he doesn't like criticism and surrounds himself with yes-men. It's an almost guarantee, especially after he became well known in the movement, that he was told either in person or online, that these arguments are bad and shouldn't be used, but he obviously ignored them considering that he still used them in subsequent speeches. Gary is a person who has much more passion than sense, so he isn't rational enough to consider the irrationality of his arguments.

What we're trying to get at is, while you can't be right all the time and it's fine to make errors every now and again, when you are corrected on something, you should adjust your activism accordingly. Make sure you use arguments based on science and reason. With ethics, appeal to people's intuitive understanding, and explaining why eating meat counts as unethical, and use evidence to back up arguments related to the environment and health. Just make sure not to exageerate these, since that can lead to the recidivism discussed earlier.

If you do a sort of lecture speech that Gary did, you should focus primarily on ethics, and have the other stuff in there as a sort of booster, to emphasize the lose lose nature of animal agriculture. Gary spends a little too much time on health related arguments (including the invalid "meat causes osteoperosis" argument), and barely any time on the sustainability and environment arguments, which are among the most compelling to make. Of course feel free to throw some comedy in there if you're confident in your humor as Gary did, and make sure to speak passionately and firmly, but not too emotionally.

Another problematic thing Gary did throughout the speech was applying the pronouns "somebody" and "someone" to animals. This also will come across as strange, and may give the impression that he's elevating animals as equals to humans. The terms "somebody" and "someone" specifically refer to a person, not any animal. Instead use terms like "another being" or even just referring to the species the animal belongs to is better.