Gary Yourofsky

WIP

Looks like he got rid of that old yee yee ass haircut. Good call. For the record I intentionally used the most embarrassing picture I could find of him.

Gary Yourofsky was (and in many ways still is) an immensely influential figure in the Vegan Community, and is credited with converting hundreds of thousands of people to Veganism. He initially started his activist career by engaging in acts of civil disobedience, however, he eventually abandoned this method of activism in favor of an education-based approach. He gave tens of thousands of students lectures across the United States, with some of them being recorded and becoming viral.

His Georgia Tech speech is said to have converted 8% of Israel's population to veganism (from 5% to 13%), however this claim is suspect; beyond being difficult to confirm causality in any case like this, it's particularly unusual because according to many surveys only 5% of Israel's population is vegan (up from 2.6% in 2010). This number doesn't take into account all the others he's convinced all over the world (as his speeches have been translated into dozens of languages), but that number likewise is unknown, and there are confounding variables in the form of people he has burnt out on veganism with misanthropy and isolating social teachings, or people who might have gone vegan who he has turned away due to portraying vegans in a very negative light through his behavior.

After his lectures became accessible to everyone, he stopped traveling the country to do lectures and did a quick stint on YouTube beginning in 2014 that helped people along with their Vegan journeys and countering typical anti-vegan arguments.

In 2017 he decided to retire from activism, citing his exhaustion with trying to get people to go vegan, combined with misanthropic views that ultimately burned him out. Despite this, his videos and essays are still available online, so even in retirement, he is still influencing people to this day.

In 2020 after the COVID-19 pandemic hit, he returned to YouTube to do a quick series of videos that were basically a collection of (unfunny) rants about why he hates everyone and why humans are the scum of the Earth and blah blah blah, typical r/im14andthisisdeep stuff. Somehow he managed to come back even more resentful and pissed off than he was before. He also did a video in response to the violence that happened on the Capitol Building but that video was taken down (likely due to him advocating violence against President Donald Trump). We'll dive into this all shortly.

While Yourofsky has done more for veganism than almost anyone else and has influenced many others to go into vegan activism, he is not without his share of faults... and there are many, many to list. Despite his huge contributions to veganism, none of us here really consider him to be a particularly reliable source of information, especially when it comes to science and philosophy (frankly, he's kind of an idiot). Gary doesn't seem to have anyone around him to criticize him when he's wrong, OR he refuses to listen to criticism and prefers to lock himself into an echo chamber. While we all have had our share of irrational beliefs, we eventually correct them once we have people who keep us grounded. Granted, they probably won't correct every single false belief we have, but they'd at least correct us on some pretty big stuff. Before he took down his social media pages, from what we remember and can dig up from archives, there was somewhat of a cult of personality around Gary, with people constantly praising him, and any and all critics shunned by Gary and his followers. There could be some narcissistic and resentful mindsets at play that cause him to be like this.

We can start with the good, but we really need to address the bad. And as you can see by the table of contents, there is a lot more bad than good. We're not going to do the minor stuff, this article highlights the biggest problems with Gary.

Please note that before reading, we do not hate Gary, nor do we wish him any harm. We would never want to hate someone who has contributed so much to the movement, but so many of his actions and things he has said have hurt the movement, and deserve criticism. We want Gary to be the best representative of Veganism that he can be, and be a positive influence to others looking to go into activism. Despite all of the issues we have with Gary, we know he's much better than this, he just chooses to be stupid.

Significance in the Animal Rights Movement

As mentioned, Gary Yourofsky is credited with helping roughly 8% of Israel's population to go vegan (though again this number is suspect), which equates to almost a million people, and his speeches have been translated into dozens of languages, influencing people around the world, which have been viewed by millions.

Even at his peak, even many Vegans in the animal rights movement may have at most only been vaguely familiar with his name. Despite his significance, he never achieved mainstream attention in the US for example (aside from a Penn & Teller clip that somewhat mischaracterizes him), to the levels of say Peter Singer, Earthling Ed, and even many Vegan Youtubers (although it's still fair to say he's contributed much more than all of them). He was never really a household name pretty much. His accomplishments for the movement should not be understated though, even if his name isn't universally recognized.

At this point, years after his retirement in early 2017, Yourofsky is pretty much completely forgotten about, both in the public conscience and in the movement, and this seems to have been done deliberately, with Gary deactivating all of his social media accounts except for YouTube and his website Adaptt, and even his email account, and also disabling comments on all of his videos. It makes sense why he keeps up his channel and website, since those are pretty much the only ways he's currently contributing to the movement (albeit passively), and they still attract about 10-25 thousand views on his videos every month, which are pretty decent numbers all things considered (he hasn't uploaded anything since mid-2020); Even going by extremely conservative estimates, he's probably still persuading at least a few hundred people a month to go Vegan, which is much more than 90% of activists have ever done in a lifetime.

Even with all that though, the movement has shifted to younger, more modern activists who use different approaches and outlets (particularly on social media). That said, there still might be a need for another Yourofsky-like figure to shake things up a little (though preferably not as misanthropic and quick to call for violence). But Gary himself is getting old, and doesn't have the same energetic demeanor he did when he was in his 30s and 40s. Frankly it's probably for the best that he stays in retirement, he's already done so much and is still contributing a little, but the last thing the movement needs is some asshole saying stupid shit about how humans are scum etc. (he's already done a lot of damage on that front).

The Good

Effective Means of Activism

While acts of civil disobedience show a strong dedication to the movement, it is rarely effective activism, and can potentially be counterproductive. Protesting in the street, or causing some (harmless) disruption does very little in way of good.

When it comes to animal rights, we have to get at the root of the matter, which is the consumers. Corporations are continually breeding, torturing, raping, and killing billions of animals every year only because people keep demanding the products. Once you stop the demand, that's when the corporations will stop breeding animals into a miserable existence.

The way you do this is via education; Teaching people why what they're doing is wrong is what gets people to stop doing it. As said, Gary used to engage in acts of civil disobedience for animal causes, but he eventually had a realization, seeing that in order to stop animal cruelty, we have to get people to stop demanding it. That's why he prepared several speeches and traveled the country giving them to tens of thousands of students, getting a message out there, and converting thousands in the process.

However, while the speech style is great and probably about as effective as you can get, Gary's a little different in terms of his personality; He doesn't have the compromising, laid-back attitude that many Vegan activists have (not that we're condemning them for having so), instead taking on an energetic and hardline view on it. While the message may be less receptive in terms of percentage, this type of provocative and controversial behavior gets much more attention. What we mean by this, let's say that you take a more calm and compromising approach, with a 90% success rate, and your message is heard by 10,000 people. Not bad right? That's 9,000 people. However, if you take a more controversial approach, you have a 10% success rate, yet your message reaches one million people; That's 100,000 people. Sure, the success rate is lower, but by reaching more people overall, you have in the end converted more people. That's one of the reasons why Gary was such an effective activist overall.

A bit of critique to make towards Gary about this is that he seems to think that his methods are most effective tactics available. When we was discussing the conversion statistics in an interview, he claimed that 20% of each class goes vegan, a further 50-60% do some form of reduction, with the other 20-30% doing nothing. It's a self-serving bias when Gary makes the claim that some people are "unreachable" when he discusses these statistics, as if he can't reach them with his methods, nobody can. This ignores the possibility that some people just didn't like how the message was delivered, and require some other form of convincing.

Promoting the purchase Vegan alternatives sold by non-vegan companies

A mistake many vegans make is refusing to buy vegan products from companies that sell non-vegan ones (for instance, buying the Vegan Whopper from Burger King) mainly due to not understanding economics.

Gary makes a point of encouraging people to buy the vegan items sold by these companies, as he understands that when we buy more of these alternatives, companies will dump more money into the vegan stuff away from the non-vegan stuff. Gary is totally wrong on a lot of things, but he definitely is spot on with the economics here.

Advocating for reducitarianism

Despite his extreme views, Gary has overall positive views on reducitarianism, understanding that while it isn't perfect, it's a step in the right direction and still leads to a huge reduction in animal suffering. It's pretty interesting how someone as radical as Gary understands that reducitarianism still gets results, and that a lot of people have trouble fully transitioning.

The Maybe Bad

Holocaust Analogy

This is more of a 'knowing your audience' thing. While no ethical vegan disputes that the conditions on factory farms are pretty much like concentration camps, your audience might not be very receptive to the idea and consider you (and by extension vegans as a whole) as extremely radical.

Gary also takes it to the level of animal agriculture being worse than the Holocaust in terms of suffering; Regardless of truth, this is a statement that should not be used lightly and without consideration (Gary however has no problem doing this).

Gary used this analogy when he was giving lectures to students, but since the Georgia Tech speech was recorded and put on the internet, the Holocaust analogy resonated with viewers in Israel, which is widely considered to be one of the reasons Gary's speech was so impactful there. So whether or not he should have used the analogy is a fairly hard call to make.

Opposition to animal farm Welfare Laws

There are good reasons to oppose these laws from an ethical perspective as the lesser of the evils. For one, more 'humane' treatment of animals is always worse for the environment and far less sustainable, and it also runs the risk of people who would have been inclined to go vegan for ethical reasons would continue eating meat if they know the animals were treated better on a factory farm with the new regulations.

On the other hand, opposing these laws can make vegans seem to uncompromising and radical to people, and could potentially alienate people when they think Vegans go too far on it. It's also plausible that these laws will reduce the number of animals being slaughtered, since more regulations will make meat more expensive, making Vegan meats and other plant foods more appealing, not to mention the costs that slaughterhouses will have to pay when they inevitably violate one of the regulations. On top of that, considering how many animals are in factory farms, one simple piece of legislation improving welfare in them would result in overall a huge decrease in suffering. All things considered, in terms of overall good, more humane agriculture is probably a huge net positive, but it's still an empirical question.

It's a pretty complicated topic, but while there is a debate to have on it, the arguments against these laws are probably not ones Gary espouses.

The Bad

Anti-B12 Supplementation

I have no clue why Gary is against B12 supplementation (by that I mean I know he gives reasons, but it's obviously from some underlying belief); I'm guessing it has something to do with the desire for all the nutrients you need all come from "natural sources" or some hippie BS like that, but regardless it's an asinine position to hold, and an extremely dangerous and irresponsible idea to promote. The consensus on the matter is clear; Vegans MUST supplement with B12 in order to get an adequate amount. This isn't even up for debate at this point.

Gary insists that you only need 3 micrograms of B12 a day, and while it is true that this is the RDA, it's an extremely low balling estimate. If you're only getting 3 micrograms (like from Silk soymilk) of B12 a day you are almost definitely deficient.

Gary also says just eat some dirty vegetables for B12, and this might be a decent source (that is, if you're fine with consuming other pathogens), but not everyone enjoys eating dirty vegetables. People have a hard enough time eating CLEAN vegetables FFS.

He also insists that your body makes all the B12 it needs (he can't really seem to make up his mind on whether or not you need to incorporate sources into your diet), and while it is true that your large intestine does make B12, it can only be absored in the small intestine. So unless you're consuming your own excrement you ain't benefitting from that B12. No, enough with the nonsense Gary.

You wanna know what sources Gary cites to defend his position against B12 supplementation? He cited John McDougall, a quack who promotes the starch solution diet which is notoriously nutritionally inadequate (McDougall is an MD, meaning he has no real training in nutrition, yet if you read the article Gary links, even McDougall mildly recommends vegans supplement, so I'm not even sure if Gary even read the whole thing), he cited a journalist (which can almost never be relied on for science), and most hilariously, he cited... NaturalNews. For those unaware, NaturalNews is a far-right and somehow New-Age anti-vax anti-science website that is probably the least reliable website on the internet (probably even less reliable than InfoWars).

To quote RationalWiki:

"If you cite NaturalNews on any matter whatsoever, you are almost certainly wrong as this website is so bad, so unreliable, and so dead-faced wrong that even other quacks think it's a quack site, a feat of stupid that truly takes talent."

In other words, if NaturalNews promotes a certain viewpoint, there's like a 99.99% chance it's wrong (and that's a conservative estimate). If it said 2+2=4, it'd probably be a good idea to be skeptical.

Wikipedia literally calls NaturalNews a fake-news site BTW. Gary, next time you make a scientific claim, you might want to cite something a little bit more reputable. Seriously, what kind of insane confirmation bias is this? This isn't any better than meat-eaters cherry-picking studies that "show" meat is good for you and vegan diets are unhealthy. Unlike Gary, in the B12 section of our Nutrients of Concern article, we actually cite reputable sources such as Jack Norris, RD.

He's against supplementation and the Vitamin industry for some reason (it's honestly mind-boggling), but whatever. Judging by his recent videos it seems as though the B12 deficiency is catching up with him given his fatigued demeanor (especially compared to his energetic self from years gone by), as a common symptom of B12 deficiency is constant fatigue. He's probably going to develop some sort of dementia very soon unless he begins supplementing (unless it's already too late to avoid irreversible damage).

Use of bad arguments

In his speeches Gary makes a lot of not very good arguments, and many of them are outlined in our Bad Arguments for veganism article. We're not going to retread that. Specifically, he makes the Gross-out, Humans are Herbivores, Thou Shalt Not Kill, Meat Causes Osteoporosis, and Animal Agriculture Causes World Hunger arguments. Heh, it's almost like we rewatched his speech just to get a list of bad arguments (because that's pretty much what we did LOL).

Gross-out arguments

Gary's particularly fond of using gross-out arguments, and he's sold on the idea that they're actually compelling, rational arguments against consumption of animal products, despite the fact that what's gross is what's subjective, and just because it's gross that doesn't mean it's morally or even healthfully wrong.

He doesn't just end using gross-out arguments at animal products though; In some of his newer videos he talks about how humans are disgusting because a lot of us have certain fetishes (such as scat or urine fetishes), and seems so convinced that this is actually a good reason to why to hate humans. Seriously. It's almost like he has the mind of a first-grader. I'm not even sure if he actually thinks it's a good reason to hate humans or if he's just being a judgmental asshole. I wonder if he realizes these things are just gross to HIM and not everyone else, and believing that what you think is gross is an objective standard and putting people down for it is a pretty narcissistic trait. Just sayin'.

None of this is even considering that using gross-out arguments and framing them as compelling is the same damn reason so many religious bigots are homophobic (since, at least with male homosexual sex, it's often done through the anus). Also, I'm not sure if Gary's aware of this but animals have fetishes too, and animals do things many people would consider gross (gorillas often eat their own feces for instance (which, interestingly, is where they and many other simians get their B12), dogs and cats lick their own assholes, hippos muck spread (that's when a hippo takes a shit, rather than allowing the shit to drop from its anus, it presses its tail against its asscrack, waving it back and forth shredding the shit all over the place), and of course dung beetles doing what they do best). But I guess it's fine when animals do it since they aren't humans?

He also condemns people for going vegan for health reasons (as elaborated on), but going vegan for gross-out reasons is better? If someone were to go vegan because they think meat is gross, it's great that they went vegan, but they aren't doing it for the most rational reasons (including health). Given that gross-out arguments aren't compelling in that there isn't any rational argument behind them, even people who give up animal products because they're gross will find it hard to justify their Veganism, and will very likely go back to eating meat. The gross-out arguments just don't stick with people as much as compelling, science and reason-based arguments.

What makes this even weirder is that he tells us we should eat dirty vegetables to get B12, which many people would consider gross, and even if you don't consider it gross, that actually carries some health risk. Oh, but I guess since he doesn't consider it gross, it's fine then.

It's important to add that in just about every speech he has given (even short ones) he makes a point of including these arguments, and considering that he only has so much time to speak, he has to condense other parts of the speech (such as the environmental arguments) just to make time for the gross-out arguments. Like in his Georgia Tech speech, the environmental argument was just a side note, and only discussed for less than a minute, whereas the gross-out section was about five minutes in length. Think; One of the strongest arguments for veganism, reduced to a mere footnote, just so you can tell people meat is gross. Ain't that dandy.

Limmy does a pretty good job explaining why gross-out in general isn't a good reason to hate people:

Not acknowledging recidivism

Everyone involved with Vegan activism knows that recidivism is one of the biggest obstacles we face in attempting to get veganism to be more mainstream. Whether we like it or not (and I'm assuming it's the latter), 84% of people who go vegetarian go back to eating meat within a year, and that number is 70% for vegans. These depressing stats show that it's not enough to just convince people to go vegan; Teaching people how to go vegan and explaining how to stick with it is just as important, and discussing recidivism in particular, the causes, and how to avoid it are subjects that must not be ignored. It might make us uncomfortable, but it probably isn't any less uncomfortable when we first realized what animal agriculture is really like.

Gary has done stuff in regards to transitioning to Veganism, but in all of his essays and videos we've seen from him, he has not once addressed the issue of recidivism and likes to operate under the assumption that everyone he convinces to go vegan stays vegan. In one interview he claimed that 20% of each class he lectures to goes vegan. That's a pretty decent stat all things considered, but taking into account recidivism diminishes that number to just 6%. Better than 0%, but still quite a far cry, and depending on the size of the class, that could be less than one person. There's no way Gary is unaware of this issue, but he seems to choose it ignore it, at the peril of the animals.

Yes, it is frustrating to think your activism is only 30% as effective as you think it is, but knowing this and doing your best to minimize it is essential towards a vegan world. Not acknowledging it obviously doesn't make it go away, and does nothing to solve the issue.

Boycotting of Sweatshops

As counter-intuitive as it may be, buying from sweatshops is actually the ethical thing to do, as it supports developing economies and raises living standards for their citizens. Sweatshop jobs are the best jobs available to these people (in terms of pay and working conditions) and not buying from sweatshops causes these factories to go out of business, and thus forces the workers to find work on a farm (which is even worse than a sweatshop job) or more illicit jobs such as drug-dealing and prostitution.

Anyway, Gary makes a point about not buying from sweatshops and claims he only buys fair-trade goods. The reason why we're bringing this up is because really, even Gary should know better than this.

Refusing to eat with non-vegans

It's understandable why a vegan wouldn't want to eat with people who are eating animal products, but making a "rule" and enforcing it so much so that you scream at the top of your lungs in a public place Gary, is incredibly harmful in terms of spreading veganism (that's the type of thing that'd end up on r/PublicFreakout).

If you really are bothered by this, it's better for YOU to make an effort not to eat with them. Otherwise, you look extremely petty and radical. Instead of taking on this alienating position, it's better to engage with food evangalism, which is basically just cooking vegan food and serving it to otherwise non-vegan people.

If you're expecting people to change their behavior around YOU, that's a textbook narcissistic trait. Yeah sure, others are wrong too for eating tortured sentient beings, but that doesn't excuse your behavior.

Condemning people going Vegan for Health Reasons

The health reasons for going vegan are among the strongest arguments to make, however, Gary is extremely critical of people going vegan just for health reasons, proclaiming them to be vegan for selfish reasons and not for altruistic ones.

Despite Gary's criticisms, it is possible and fairly common to be a health-vegan for ethical reasons; Being in good health and living a few years longer means you can enjoy more time on Earth with your friends and family, and be able to do more good in the world while doing minimal harm. Not to mention, caring about your health doesn't automatically mean you're a selfish person. Is a person who avoids drugs and smoking automatically a selfish person?

That being said, many health vegans eventually become ethical vegans (for the animals). It becomes much easier to be open to other arguments for veganism when you're not consuming animal products, and you'll find many examples of people who went vegan for health reasons who eventually became ethical vegans (examples include Penn Jillette, or... Gary's dad).

Either way, even if they are doing it selfishly, it's still making more vegans, meaning less animal suffering (and it's still a rational reason to be vegan), and remains one of the strongest arguments for converting people, if they aren't swayed by ethical or environmental ones.

The three big arguments for veganism encompass various interests (ethics covering animals, environment mainly covering humans, and health covering the self and his or her loved ones), so it's useful to deploy each depending on the person. People such as Randroids probably won't be convinced by the first two, but they will very likely be persuaded by the health argument, if it's the only way. Not everyone is a lost cause. Who knows, maybe when you convince a selfish person to go vegan for Health reasons, now that they aren't supporting the abuse of animals, they'll become less selfish, and value the lives of others more, which can make them more altruistic people in general.

Losing his cool

As we've explained, being provocative is good in some cases if it means free publicity and media attention for vegansim. However, when you react emotionally when people bring up bad and frustrating arguments (or just get overly upset in general) that creates the image of Vegans being emotional hippie crybabies (even if we are getting pissed off for good reasons).

Gary (or whoever else has a short-fuse), whenever you feel the need to just freak out in public or on live fucking TV, here's what you do: Calm. The fuck. DOWN.

Against Helper Animals

Gary's view on this matter actually doesn't come from Gary himself, but rather a friend and Professor of Philosophy Gordon Brown (Gary obviously endorses his position). You can find the essay defending this position on Gary's website, and while it is much more eloquent than anything Gary has written on the site, it's one of the most ignorant writings on there. We're not going to do a point-by-point breakdown of it (since we'd be here all day), but we'll deconstruct the main theme.

The essay's premise can be summarized as "While there are benefits to helper animals, it's still unethical because it's using them for our own purposes." It's a deontological position to take, and thus based on circular reasoning (i.e., Having these animals for human purposes is using them, and that's wrong. Why is it wrong? Because it's enslaving them. Why is it considered enslaving them? Because it's using them). It has absolutely no regards to the consequences of having helper animals. Does having them as helper animals harm their well-being? Just because they're being 'enslaved' (which is a bit of a loaded term in this context), it automatically regards all of the consequences as bad.

A common error many vegans (and other groups, such as anti-capitalists) make is equating use and abuse. Just because an animal or human being is used in some way that does not automatically translate to harm. Consequences are what ought to be considered.

The essay concludes that instead of helper animals for the disabled, they should replace them with some human companion, and tries to justify this by saying that people in society need jobs, which is similar to the Broken Window Fallacy. This doesn't take into account the opportunity cost of needing to train more people to do these jobs instead of training them to do other jobs that we need.

Failure to recognize Moral Gradience

We're not sure if Gary has ever even heard the terms "deontologist" or "consequentialist" but his positions on animal rights are a mix.

Perhaps his most deontological view is that there is no moral difference between species (although he probably views humans as having less moral value, but that's a different story), he places equal moral value and consideration on all animal species (including possibly non-sentient animals such as oysters). It's a naive idea, and ask any vegan who is familiar with ethics, they agree that human life has the most value, then followed by mammals such as pigs, dogs, cats, then followed by fish, then insects, then so on. Although Gary would disagree with this, human lives are of much more value to the world than other animals, as they contribute economically and socially to the world, while most animals do not play such a role. That doesn't mean they have NO moral worth or consideration, but realizing a moral gradience is necessary towards a consequentialist way of thinking.

He also doesn't seem to understand what speciesism even means when he claims that valuing human life over animal life is speciesist. How... embarrassing.

Alienating Views on Human Rights

Gary opposes human rights on the grounds that it distracts from the advancement of animal rights; He might have some insight on that, but opposing human rights is not the solution, and (as will be explained) will just put people off even more.

How about instead of condemning the advancement of human rights, how about you tell these human rights advocates that if they really want to advance human rights causes, they should also be Vegans themselves (as animal agriculture is also one of the biggest HUMAN rights issues of our time when it comes to the environment, food security, pathogens, antibiotics, water and land use, among other things)?

A problem you'll see is that Gary has no filter; He always speaks exactly what he thinks, and we're not necessarily condemning that, but for the sake of being a decent activist, he has to keep a filter of some sort, since some of the positions he holds are extremely alienating. We've talked about this in our Seven Deadly Sins of Bad Vegan Activism article, where we talk about how loudly advocating crazy ideas makes vegans look nutty and radical and thus turns people away from Veganism; He never considers how his words affect how people view veganism. Gary, if you're reading this, we don't care how right you think you are on these issues, YOU KEEP THESE IDEAS TO YOURSELF. Hell, even if you are right, these things should NOT be associated with veganism. I know you want everyone to know your views, but vegan activism isn't about you, it's about the animals. So when you say shit like "FUCK HUMAN RIGHTS!" you're putting so many people off of veganism (and thus contribute more to animal suffering). When you're in a position like this Gary, you have to be more responsible about what comes out of your mouth. If you just say all this without regards to consequence, it starts to become less about the animals and more about your narcissistic hatred of humanity. We believe this is one of the reasons why you retired in the first place; YOU were tired of humanity, while forgetting the long-term goal of helping the animals.

What Gary is seeking to accomplish with this is beyond me. Being controversial is fine, and in fact can be very useful in exposing more people to Veganism, but there are some things you just don't say.

Also Gary is a racist. He claims black lives matter more than white lives. I highly doubt the BLM movement would appreciate such a message being associated with them.

Not to mention, despite sweatshops being a good thing for human rights, Gary opposes them on those grounds. Why is he going out of his way to not buy sweatshop goods (he buys 100% FairTrade, which tends to be useless or harmful), since that's distracting from animal rights?

Anti-GMO

This one is pretty cringy.

When asked about his thoughts on GMO's, Gary's position is more or less an appeal to nature in the most embarrassing way possible. He says some stuff about how God designed food perfectly and we shouldn't interfere with it... Oh boy, where to begin.

Even if "God" did design fruits and vegetables, the ones you're eating are not how he designed them. Take a look at that unmodified banana if you want an idea of what I'm on about. The plants you're eating are artificial; man-made. They're about as natural as the device you're using to read this on, yet I'm sure you'd much rather eat a typical banana than... whatever that monstrosity is. It's not even edible to humans on its own, it must be softened through cooking first.

Yeah, God made fruits and veggies perfectly, hm?

Almost all plant foods are selectively bred (not genetically modified) versions of their original selves. You go to the produce section of your grocery store, probably over 90% of that is modified from its original version (again, not genetically modified, mind you). While there is an argument to be made about how the selectively bred foods have less nutrition overall (as they've been bred for taste, not health), they haven't become poison, they're just less nutritious (and they are tastier than their original versions; If them being tastier helps people eat more of them, they're probably healthier in that respect).

As for actually Genetically Modified Crops, they are perfectly safe to eat, and pose no health risk to anyone, and are a crucial tool towards sustainably feeding a growing global population. The fear-mongering on this is leading to more environmental destruction and greenhouse gas emissions (as GM crops are much more efficient than non-GM crops, and ESPECIALLY organic crops).

Gary has said in one of his speech Q&A's that he doesn't care if something's 'natural' or not, but this is highly doubtful, given all of this.

To make matters worse, he often says that animal agriculture is the root cause of world hunger (which is very likely isn't, though it does cause problems with food security), despite the fact that fear-mongering over GMO crops is probably a bigger cause; Wealthy countries have offered poorer ones food aid, but it's often turned down because it's genetically modified (again, thanks to promotion of fear-mongering around it), meaning food that would have fed their hungry population was rejected. This type of ignorant Western pseudoscience is making its way to the developing world and making citizens of these countries scared of technology that can save their lives. You'll see similar stuff like this with Nuclear Energy and Vaccinations.

Misanthropy

Gary has made it abundantly clear that he is an extreme misanthrope; He despises ALL of humanity, and believes that human beings are "a scourge on this planet." Ugh... let's try to keep this short.

In Gary's words, he claims that "humanity thrives on abuse, discrimination and injustice 24/7..." Yes, we just thrive on abuse all day every day, don't we? Nevermind the major declines in violence in the past several centuries, the decline of rape, murder, theft, and other crimes, nevermind the efforts to secure healthcare and education for all, the advancements in technology and medicine that maximize our quality of life and minimize our environmental footprint, nevermind the rise of humanitarian organizations, the abolition of torture and slavery, the institution of democracy, granting more rights and privileges to once oppressed groups, the fact that billions have been lifted out of poverty in the last few decades alone, hell, nevermind how there are so many vegan alternatives nowadays so we can have all the tastes we love without causing any harm, NEVERMIND ALL OF THAT, that all doesn't count. According to Gary, we just thrive on abuse all the time, don't we? Isn't it weird that even though we supposedly thrive on abuse, this age where the least amount of abuse is happening also happens to be the most prosperous? Huh. It's almost like we thrive when we DON'T abuse each other...

BTW Gary when you advocate for rapists and murders to be tortured in such comical ways you're supporting the thriving of abuse (next section). Just so you know.

Make no mistake, we have quite a ways to go; There are still animals suffering, environmental harms, wars, dictatorships, starvation, oppression based on religion, race, sex, gender, sexuality, etc., science denialism, and many, many other issues, but looking at all of this and ignoring all the progress we've made (and will continue to make) as a species is disingenuous at best. I know it's easy to say these types of misanthropic thoughts in your overly-privileged, ignorant, spoiled first-world perspective without realizing how shit things can be (and once were), but please Gary, take some time to realize how far we've come morally as a species.

Gary then goes on to say "...we are the nastiest, filthiest, deadliest parasitic-organisms to ever infect The Universe!" Oh my... dude, Gary, come on, mentally progress beyond high school for once. The reason why humans can be greedy, selfish, and do evil things is because in many ways we're still driven by our animal desires. If it weren't for humans, some other intelligent species would come along; They could be better, but they could also be much, much worse. Humans are probably a safe middle ground. If some other animal, say chimpanzees or something, were the dominant species on the planet, they'd probably be doing much of the same shit we're doing right now.

Other species would probably be doing the same things humans are right now if they had the capacity to do so. Animals engage in murder, rape, war, and infanticide often. Granted, it's a myth that nature is a cold, brutal place, but these types of things still happen. Are you just not aware of this Gary, or do you make a special pleading just because they are non-human?

Gary often says he's "ashamed to be a human being." Why? Are YOU the one doing the horrible things, or supporting them? No? Then it isn't your fault. None of this is inherent to being a human being, and this mentality isn't at all different from typical social justice warrior mentality. Should Germans be ashamed of themselves because of what their government did 80 years ago? If your answer is yes, you are completely ignorant of basic ideas of morality.

Gary also deploys his profound ignorance of ecology when he says how if you removed humans, every other species benefits, while if you remove any other species the whole thing collapses. If you were to say this to ecologists they'd laugh you out of the room. Firstly, 99.99% of all species that ever existed are extinct. Yet the planet's ecosystems are still here. Interesting. Humans have driven a few species to extinction (such as the dodo), yet the ecosystems that the species existed in are still around. Huh, it's almost like Gary has absolutely no clue about anything he's talking about.

Would every other species benefit if humans were removed from the planet? Possibly, but the issue is yet again more nuanced than Gary is making it out to be. Whenever one species is hindered, almost always another is helped (not just humans).

If you're concerned about humans destroying nature, keep in mind that most of nature, unless we're talking about deforestation, while it is beautiful and makes us feel at home, it's largely just sentimental value. This may sound chauvinistic, but nature, as beautiful as it is, doesn't bring any real value to the world. It's mostly just a bunch of fucking plants.

Also one more thing Gary, you believe in God, right? And not some Deistic God, you believe in Yahweh, and your personal theology is that God is in every living being (pretty nutty but that's beside the point). So are you saying that since God is in humans he's a disgusting parasite? Why would God design such a species in the first place? Like any other religion, your views on the matter make no sense.

I mean to be fair, I had pretty much the same views on the matter of Yourofsky... when I was fucking 15. You tend to outgrow these thoughts when you graduate high school and start looking at the big picture.

Advocacy of violence

Once again, the issue of making Vegans look like crazy radical terrorists.

No rational person disputes that violence is sometimes necessary to solve conflict, but remember, the reason why violence is needed is to fight off some other use of violence. If no one used violence, it wouldn't have been necessary to begin with.

The use of violence does not get at the root of the matter, which is to say, the consumers. Even if you engage in acts of animal liberation, that doesn't reduce the demand for the products of whatever animal you freed, since the demand for it hasn't changed. The animals you freed are in good shape, but the animals that are going to be bred to replace them just lead us right back to where we started. So, animal liberation is marginally effective at best in most instances.

I know you believe violence and breaking laws in the name of animal rights is useful Gary, but think about it like this: You did FAR more good for Veganism when you were using peaceful methods of activism and not breaking the law than you were when you were engaging in acts of civil disobedience.

Views on Justice

This highlights Gary's profound ignorance on morality. Long story short, he believes in taking the eye for an eye principle and amping it up like ten thousand (for instance, he thinks rapists should be raped and tortured themselves). As anyone who is remotely well-versed on this subject knows, vengeance does NOT mean GOOD. This is something Gary fails to realize, since he's letting emotions dictate what he thinks ought to happen rather than reasoning and evidence.

Here's what we mean:

"Sometimes I think the only effective method of destroying speciesism would be for each uncaring human to be forced to live the life of a cow on a feedlot, or a monkey in a laboratory, or an elephant in the circus, or a bull in a rodeo, or a mink on a fur farm. Then people would be awakened from their soporific states and finally understand the horrors that are inflicted on the animal kingdom by the vilest species to ever roam this planet: the human animal! Deep down, I truly hope that oppression, torture and murder return to each uncaring human tenfold! I hope that sons accidentally shoot their fathers on hunting excursions, while carnivores suffer heart attacks that kill them slowly. Every woman ensconced in fur should endure a rape so vicious that it scars them forever. While every man entrenched in fur should suffer an anal raping so horrific that they become disemboweled. Every rodeo cowboy and matador should be gored to death, while circus abusers are trampled by elephants and mauled by tigers. And, lastly, may irony shine its esoteric head in the form of animal researchers catching debilitating diseases and painfully withering away because research dollars that could have been used to treat them were wasted on the barbaric, unscientific practice of vivisection."

Not only is it immoral... It's pretty damn stupid too. This type of thinking is childish and lacks any sort of nuance in the topic. It also shows a blatant example of hypocrisy, since he seems to believe himself immune from this. For instance, he has claimed that people who buy fur coats should be raped (since the animals are anally electrocuted) , even though he once owned a fur coat. So, should he also be raped? By his logic, yes. He could make the defense that he was ignorant of it at the time and that's fair enough, until you consider that with this reasoning he's assuming EVERYONE ELSE is aware of the harm they're doing.

The problem of justice is pretty well-established in ethics, where deontological ideas of justice are harmful, whereas ideas of rehabilitation almost always works better. Wonder what his views on the Norway prison system are.

If we lived in a society where every misdeed was punished like this there'd be no moral progress. People can change. After all, he was a meat-eater at one point, no? And then he became one of the biggest voices for animal rights. Why can't this apply to other people, and other crimes and transgressions?

There's a chance Gary's just being stupid for the sake of publicity here. If he really believed that evil things should happen to evil people then why is he bothering trying to get others to go vegan? Shouldn't he be advocating for their deaths?

What's funnier is that he claims that he's shocked how people are calling him a rape supporter... even though he's literally supporting rape.

Trivia

Failed career as a rapper

In the early 90's Gary tried becoming a rapper and decided it was a good idea to post the rap he made online. It is by far the worst rap I've ever heard in my life.

Use of this article by Anti-vegans

This article has been cited in use by anti-vegans, as discusses [1].

See use of PV Wiki