Reading through this, some of these criticisms seem unwarranted. Like for problem 1:
The assumption that consumer willingness to pay slightly more will fundamentally change the deeply entrenched structure of this industry — and its merciless exploitation of animals — is absurd.
I don’t think Kurzgesagt ever made the claim that consumer preference would actually bring about change as described. When they detailed how small increases in the price of animal products could offset a dramatic improvement in the suffering of farmed animals, it wasn’t to suggest this was likely to happen or how. Rather, it emphasizes that the cruelty of factory farming is particularly obscene now. It points out that we as a society support insane cruelty even for very meager benefit.
Problem 2:
In the conclusion of the video, Kurzgesagt suggests that viewers should “maybe avoid the worst torture meat — at least sometimes.” … How can you recognize horrific violence — and then casually brush it aside?
A charitable reading could take that line to be cheeky and ironic, like A Modest Proposal. But if it is sincere, then I agree it’s much too compromising for something that demands much larger change. And if not, then it should be made more obvious.
Problem 3:
From start to finish, the video treats plant-based eating as unrealistic — and, absurdly, doesn’t even mention it as a possible solution.
Switching to a vegan diet is entirely reasonable to expect for an individual. But this video examined the current issue from a societal level, and expecting the majority of the population to change this much quickly is absurd to offer as a solution. The first problem in fact criticises the unlikelihood of a very minor change (from the consumer’s perspective) being achieved. Such a large cultural change would take generations of incremental improvement. The solutions to prevent the most egregious torture are focussed on because they could reasonably be done with a few targeted bills in a near-future political climate.
Problem 4:
Kurzgesagt has explored [topics on the broader destruction caused by animal agriculture] in past videos. So why ignore them here?
This seems to answer itself. The related topics are a part of other, more dedicated videos. A Kurzgesagt video is a short-form summary of an interesting topic or question, and much of their appeal is how approachable they are. They have a limited scope by design, and that is part of why they manage to be both accurate and popular. There are generally many resources available to people who would like to learn more after an introduction, and this is certainly no exception. It seems harsh to criticise a video for not being something it isn’t attempting to be.
Problem 5:
Kurzgesagt claims things are “getting better” — a feel-good statement that misrepresents reality.
I agree it’s too broad a claim to make, but they did go into by what metrics things show an optomistic trend. They should have mentioned these things and left overall judgement to the viewer.
Problem 6:
The video uses outdated and oversimplified price calculations
IIRC they stated how they came up with the values they had. These were estimates. Again, they are unjustifiably expecting too much depth for this format.
Problem 7:
The video defines “decent” conditions in a way that still includes these brutal practices — raising the question: what could possibly be considered decent about such treatment?
Again, they explain in the video how they determine their standards. Decent doesn’t mean good. Veganism is far from the consensus in society, so of course they allowed for more controversial practices. Meat eaters are going to care much less about exploitation, and I think this is meant more to meet them halfway and convince them that even if they are unwilling to abolish exploitation outright, they can at least afford to have a paltry minimum standard against basically pointless cruelty.
Overall it feels like the author wants more of a long-form video essay targeted at an audience already receptive to vegan ideas. The video was instead intended to be a short exploration into small steps society could make for considerable harm reduction regarding animal welfare in meat industries aimed at general audiences. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
This particular video seemed more like an educated opinion piece rather than a proper presentation of scientific facts. The usual Kurzgesagt video presents science in an accessible and fun manner (I think this is the explanation for problem 7: they didn’t want to be too dark.). This video, however, was just full of estimates.
This approach isn’t necessarily wrong. This video seemed like an attempt to highlight some of the injustices of the meat industry, and encourage people to reduce their meat consumption. I think that this is a noble goal.
Obviously, I’d prefer everyone to fully go vegan, but many people don’t want to do that. I’m fine with 50M people cutting their meat consumption in half rather than 5M people quitting meat.
Reading through this, some of these criticisms seem unwarranted. Like for problem 1:
I don’t think Kurzgesagt ever made the claim that consumer preference would actually bring about change as described. When they detailed how small increases in the price of animal products could offset a dramatic improvement in the suffering of farmed animals, it wasn’t to suggest this was likely to happen or how. Rather, it emphasizes that the cruelty of factory farming is particularly obscene now. It points out that we as a society support insane cruelty even for very meager benefit.
Problem 2:
A charitable reading could take that line to be cheeky and ironic, like A Modest Proposal. But if it is sincere, then I agree it’s much too compromising for something that demands much larger change. And if not, then it should be made more obvious.
Problem 3:
Switching to a vegan diet is entirely reasonable to expect for an individual. But this video examined the current issue from a societal level, and expecting the majority of the population to change this much quickly is absurd to offer as a solution. The first problem in fact criticises the unlikelihood of a very minor change (from the consumer’s perspective) being achieved. Such a large cultural change would take generations of incremental improvement. The solutions to prevent the most egregious torture are focussed on because they could reasonably be done with a few targeted bills in a near-future political climate.
Problem 4:
This seems to answer itself. The related topics are a part of other, more dedicated videos. A Kurzgesagt video is a short-form summary of an interesting topic or question, and much of their appeal is how approachable they are. They have a limited scope by design, and that is part of why they manage to be both accurate and popular. There are generally many resources available to people who would like to learn more after an introduction, and this is certainly no exception. It seems harsh to criticise a video for not being something it isn’t attempting to be.
Problem 5:
I agree it’s too broad a claim to make, but they did go into by what metrics things show an optomistic trend. They should have mentioned these things and left overall judgement to the viewer.
Problem 6:
IIRC they stated how they came up with the values they had. These were estimates. Again, they are unjustifiably expecting too much depth for this format.
Problem 7:
Again, they explain in the video how they determine their standards. Decent doesn’t mean good. Veganism is far from the consensus in society, so of course they allowed for more controversial practices. Meat eaters are going to care much less about exploitation, and I think this is meant more to meet them halfway and convince them that even if they are unwilling to abolish exploitation outright, they can at least afford to have a paltry minimum standard against basically pointless cruelty.
Overall it feels like the author wants more of a long-form video essay targeted at an audience already receptive to vegan ideas. The video was instead intended to be a short exploration into small steps society could make for considerable harm reduction regarding animal welfare in meat industries aimed at general audiences. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
This particular video seemed more like an educated opinion piece rather than a proper presentation of scientific facts. The usual Kurzgesagt video presents science in an accessible and fun manner (I think this is the explanation for problem 7: they didn’t want to be too dark.). This video, however, was just full of estimates.
This approach isn’t necessarily wrong. This video seemed like an attempt to highlight some of the injustices of the meat industry, and encourage people to reduce their meat consumption. I think that this is a noble goal.
Obviously, I’d prefer everyone to fully go vegan, but many people don’t want to do that. I’m fine with 50M people cutting their meat consumption in half rather than 5M people quitting meat.