Academics Argue: (1) Do Not Save Drowning Children Because Meat, (2) Food Will Destroy The Planet

Academics Argue: (1) Do Not Save Drowning Children Because Meat, (2) Food Will Destroy The Planet
Science Gone Wild with William M Briggs
Science Gone Wild with William M Briggs
Academics Argue: (1) Do Not Save Drowning Children Because Meat, (2) Food Will Destroy The Planet

You cannot listen at YouTube, because Reality censors banned me for at least one week for yesterday’s video. But you can listen at BitChute.

I have long distinguished the difference between those who engage in productive thought, and those who practice something that only appears to be useful thinking, using the words scholars and professional academics.

They are not mutually exclusive, of course, and are only rough guides. A scholar can be an academic in the employment sense, but not all professional academics are not scholars.

Many professional academics are like Michael Plant, our first of two examples today of what passes for anti-meat thinking, a growing area of “research”.

Plant wrote the peer-reviewed paper “The Meat Eater Problem” in the hilariously named Journal of Controversial Ideas (motto: don’t blame us!).

Plant—you have to laugh at his name—wrote:

First, we must save strangers’ lives, at least if we can do so easily: you would be required to rescue a child drowning in a pond even if it will ruin your expensive suit. Second, it is wrong to eat meat because of the suffering caused to animals in factory farms…

I argue that, if meat eating is wrong on animal suffering grounds then, once we consider how much suffering might occur, it starts to seem plausible that saving strangers would be the greater evil than not rescuing them and is, therefore, not required after all.

More hilariously, Plant, who admits he eats meat, and is at the Wellbeing Research Centre, University of Oxford and the Happier Lives Institute.

The Happier Lives Institute. I laughed, and thus was made happier, at seeing this. Good jobs, fellas.

Plant in the article thinks this a new version of the Trolley Problem. I wasn’t clear about what he meant. Something like a drowning child on one track, and a crispy, slathered-in-butter full-pound medium-rare ribeye on the other?

That problem is incomplete. The ribeye might have been raised on some horrible factory farm, or it might have been from a free-range grass-fed hormoneless farm owned and run by a non-conglomerate. Or the kid, if it lives, might turn out to be a professional academic—or a scholar.

Hard to know what to do!

Depends on how horrible the factory farm is, how much you loathe academics, or how hungry you are, I suppose.

Incidentally, one to think about saving strangers is treating them medically, and not just from a burning ditch. The practice of medicine, and every single other program that helps people live, would be out because meat.

Another thing is, or should be, clear: humans before animals every time. Thus, if you saved your kid from a miserable death by drowning, only for that kid to go on to become a McDonald’s habitue, then you rescue the kid every time. Even if it isn’t yours. And even it is destined to become an academic who consider peer-reviewed papers the apex of human thought.

Our second examples are George Monbiot, who is neither academic or scholar, but is a propagandist, and Gunhild Stordalen, who is a physician academic, and who founded something called the EAT Foundation.

These two are holding an event next week to waken people to a most terrible scourge. A thing so destructive that if it is not controlled by caring academics, it will destroy us all.



What’s the biggest cause of the sixth mass extinction of species?

What emits more greenhouse gas than all the world’s cars, aeroplanes and ships put together?

What kills 75 billion animals a year?


It’s time to face the facts. Our food system — dominated by meat, fish and dairy — is devouring the planet. If we want to leave a liveable world for the next generation, we need to reboot food.

I’ve learned one amazing thing about academics who don’t want the lower classes to eat meat—Experts and rulers will always be allowed—and it is this. None of them, and I mean not one, know that animals eat each other.

Rather, they might know this simple fact, but they have not assimilated this knowledge. It has not affected their thinking in any way. Isn’t that something?

Somehow they have convinced themselves that only man eating other animals matters, and that animals eating other animals does not. Animals eating other animals is never seen as harmful, or “unsustainable”; it does not contribute to “climate change”, or “systemic racism”, or anything bad. It is natural.

Whereas man-the-animal eating other animals isn’t natural. And to be discouraged. If one is not in the Expert or ruler class.

The argument of these people is not religious, say, against the killing of other beings (though you must kill something to eat, and live). But because they believe if there are too many men, there won’t be enough meat for them. This is backwards. It is because there is so much food there are so many men.

You must admit, though, that the idea of eliminating food to solve “climate change” is as pure a professional academic idea as you can find.

Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. For Zelle, use my email:


  1. daiva

    Nominative determinism scores a strong ball courtesy Plant-the-professional-academic 😉

  2. Kenan Meyer

    NATO general secretary Jens Stoltenberg at COP27: “… But in the future, the most effective military capabilities will be the green and environmentally friendly ones…”

    I sometimes wonder whether planet earth has been taken over by space aliens in human meat suits

  3. awildgoose

    Stoltenberg sounds like he’s on the same IQ-tier as Fetterman.

  4. Joao Martins

    Briggs, a “not” in excess:
    ” … but not all professional academics are NOT scholars … “

  5. Hagfish Bagpipe

    Briggs: “The Happier Lives Institute. I laughed, and thus was made happier, at seeing this. Good jobs, fellas.”

    Clown World’s narrative is written by a writer’s room of coked-up comedians laughing insanely at the crazy stuff they’re coming up with.

    Speaking of comedians, was listening to Owen Benjamin yesterday and he read a sharp little story, “The Money Myth Exploded”, written in 1936, on the sinister nature of compound interest. Makes the point that all the crazy corruption we’re seeing has its genesis in the seemingly unlimited money generated by a corrupt financial ponzi system. Excellent stream, highly recommend.

  6. L Ron Hubbard alias John B()

    It’s time to face the facts. Our food system — dominated by meat, fish and dairy — is devouring the planet. If we want to leave a liveable world for the next generation, we need to reboot food.

    Might I suggest Soylent Green?

    And people laughed at L Ron Hubbard

    Monbiot was a UK Minister or BBC guy, right? Maybe both?

    What ever happened with 10/10 12 years ago? 12 years has always been the magic number.

    Almost 3 (12 years) since James Hansen’s infamous Congressional testimony

  7. This is just more malthusian delusion – based, surprisingly enough, no misinterpretations of Malthus by German luminaries like Hegel, Nietzche, and Engels. If you want to agree that the world would be better with fewer people, try explaining to some of the believers that (no of cattle) x (ave years of life for cattle) is about 3 orders of magnitude greater now than it would be if we didn’t eat them.

  8. Johnno




  9. Hagfish Bagpipe


  10. John W. Garrett

    “There are millions of wildebeest on the African plain.
    Not one of them will die of old age.”

    -Nature (PBS)

  11. Cary Cotterman

    I’m still laughing at Monbiot and Stordalen for writing “aeroplane”. What is this, 1914?

    What these clowns and their ilk always fail to address is the fact that we evolved (or were created, for you Christians) with the teeth, digestive system, and metabolism to process both plants and meat. We’re omnivores, not herbivores.

    Gonna have me a big cheeseburger for lunch!

  12. Until these people are in the Gulags breaking rocks this will never end.

  13. N. Ominous

    Cary Cotterman, I don’t like to defend Monbiot, but here in the UK aeroplane is the normal word. If a Briton used airplane it would be regarded as an affectation.

  14. Cary D Cotterman

    N. Ominous, that’s interesting, because it’s just the opposite here in the U.S. “Aeroplane” seems like a quaint affectation, conjuring an image of a Sopwith pilot about to take up his kite to meet von Richthofen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *