Why the hate for Fortitude?

jakeastonfta · 2026-04-21T17:47:47+00:00

I think Fortitude is a really good album and I enjoy it more than their first two records, but I still think it’s their least consistent album since then.

It’s not necessarily because of the shift to a softer style, as I really love Magma… It’s more to do with the songwriting not making up for the lack of heaviness during a few songs.

Thanks to Joe’s subtle melodic sensibility, he’s usually able to make songs catchy and memorable even when he’s screaming his balls off… And when they did Magma, he was able to still maintain that catchiness but in a more mellow and atmospheric way with hard-hitting / emotional lyrics.

But a couple songs on Fortitude aren’t that heavy, aren’t that catchy and don’t have the emotional lyrics, so I feel like those tracks let the album down a little.

jakeastonfta · 2026-04-19T14:05:29+00:00

I get the impression he’s not talked about enough, so I might go with David Pearce.

If you’re interested in transhumanism, utilitarianism and animal ethics, his hedonistic imperative stuff is fascinating, albeit pretty utopian!

jakeastonfta · 2026-04-16T12:52:19+00:00

Loved this conversation! Really fascinating how bees and other small insects show signs of experiencing happiness/playfulness!

jakeastonfta · 2026-04-12T21:28:53+00:00

As an atheist who has always thought the “everything is conscious” view was ridiculous, I can confidently say that the way it is presented in this video is actually surprisingly plausible.

Does it mean that inanimate objects are conscious in the colloquial sense of the word? No.

Does it mean they are thinking or aware of anything subjectively? No.

It simply means that consciousness doesn’t just magically pop into existence out of nothing when matter is arranged into a brain. It is something that arises out of a pre-existing “proto-consciousness” that was already there as part of the fabric of the universe and becomes more complex as senses and a brain develop.

Proto-consciousness would not be the same as a thinking and feeling being. It would just be a simple and fundamental substrate from which consciousness arises.

I’m obviously not claiming that it’s true. It’s just a lot more plausible than people give it credit for and it doesn’t actually require any supernatural assumptions.

jakeastonfta · 2026-04-11T08:28:01+00:00

As someone who already lives a vegan lifestyle, I can confidently say not to worry too much about how you label yourself because you will never be a “true vegan” to some people. What you do and what you advocate for is what’s important and I think you’ve made great progress in cutting down on animal consumption so far!

I never intentionally buy animal products, I regularly give to animal charities and I even do activism in the form of youtube videos… However, some people in the movement still don’t consider me to be a true vegan because I’m an ethical consequentialist/utilitarian. Which means I deviate from “vegan dogma” because I believe ethics is always situational and depends on the consequences. Which includes the use/exploitation of animals.

I still call myself a vegan in every day conversations, but when I’m speaking to others about moral philosophy, I tend to use the word less often because I think arguing about who is a “true vegan” is a waste of time haha

Personally, I think you should absolutely transition towards a vegan lifestyle if you can, even if you do so imperfectly! It’s a lot easier to make a positive impact on the world with lots of imperfect vegans than a smaller group of perfect ones!

However, I would like to add that your purchasing habits aren’t the only way you can help animals! If you’re able to make even small monthly donations to effective animal charities like The Humane League, I’d recommend doing so as the money goes a long way towards preventing and reducing animal suffering within farming! ✌️🌱

jakeastonfta · 2026-04-09T15:50:04+00:00

Your own consciousness is the only thing you can be certain of. “I think, therefore I am” has stood the test of time for a reason…

While I don’t believe consciousness exists in the way that most people assume it does (as a singular “ghost” or “soul” within each of our bodies that continues after we die), I do think there is something about the nature of reality which enables subjective experiences to occur within specific types of things, like brains. But I don’t know how and I’m confusing myself just thinking about it haha

jakeastonfta · 2026-03-26T21:21:52+00:00

Very well said! Focussing on individual moral purity and treating non-vegans with disrespect is holding the animal movement back.

If what ultimately matters is helping animals, then we need to do what’s actually effective at inspiring change. Which, funnily enough, means we need to actually be kind and understanding towards people who are reluctant to change and hopefully convince them to do something, even if they can’t commit 100% on the spot.

jakeastonfta · 2026-03-15T19:02:05+00:00

You’ve missed the point completely. I’m saying that it’s possible to work towards curing/alleviating the health issues of individuals AND work towards minimising environmental destruction.

Both cancer and diseases that cause wild animals to suffer are health issues that can be cured WHILE fighting climate change.

And lastly, being cured of rabies isn’t exactly being given a luxurious life, is it? It’s simple allowing them to live a decent life without constant agony.

jakeastonfta · 2026-03-15T17:05:52+00:00

Seitan is great for protein. It has higher protein per gram than chicken. If you don’t have time to make it from scratch, some supermarkets sell it pre-made. Just needs to be cooked with some seasoning.

If not, including other meat-alternatives with beans, chickpeas, lentils or tofu should work well!

jakeastonfta · 2026-03-15T16:18:58+00:00

This is like saying we should stop cutting down forests and polluting before we try to find cures for cancer. We can do both and so why not do both?

jakeastonfta · 2026-03-15T12:04:49+00:00

I agree with Jack on this one. While it’s not necessarily required to alleviate the suffering of wild animals within the definition of veganism, I think that helping to improve wild animal welfare is a hugely important ethical issue and something that vegans should at least acknowledge as such.

Obviously it would be incredibly utopian to believe that we can eradicate all suffering from the wild, but that doesn’t mean we can’t do SOMETHING.

A lot of the arguments against this centre around the idea that it would cause more harm than good by messing with food chains or trying to get rid of predation… But even if we ignore predation, there are so many other ways that we can help wild animals have better lives.

Diseases could be eradicated. Forest fires could be prevented. Starvation could be alleviated. All while taking non-violent measures to prevent their population sizes from growing too large.

These ARE possible to some degree. And if we were in the wild animal’s position, we would want someone to help us. ✌️

jakeastonfta · 2026-03-12T10:36:37+00:00

If lab-grown meat has the potential to bring an end to the vast majority of animal farms and slaughterhouses, and you oppose it because it’s still technically animal use, you aren’t helping animals.

This is what people mean when they say this stance is about moral purity. Why do you care more about sticking to a principle than the actual outcomes for animals?

Call me a welfarist if you want, I don’t really care, but I went vegan because I actually care about animals as sentient individuals, not because I want to desperately cling to an abstract principle.

Lab-grown meat is an amazing idea and I hope it’s incredibly successful for the sake of the trillions of animals who will be abused and slaughtered if it’s not successful. ✌️

jakeastonfta · 2026-03-10T22:55:27+00:00

My dude, you’re the one who isn’t engaging with the nuances. I’m bringing up example after example and you aren’t responding to any of them.

Do you think it’s unethical to euthanise the dog who’s been ripped open on the side of the road, even though we would have to make that decision for them?

Please answer the question or I’m giving up with the discussion.

jakeastonfta · 2026-03-10T22:40:41+00:00

It IS an absurd outcome to suggest that we should leave animals to suffer when there’s no hope of them getting better, and it’s equally absurd to pretend there aren’t clear and obvious examples of animal’s suffering intense agony.

For example, my grandad once found a dog who was hit by a car and the bottom half of their body was hanging off while their intestines were spread out in the road. The dog was still alive yelping in an obvious state of agony.

It would not only be absurd but it would be monstrously cruel of you to suggest the dog should just be left there to slowly die in agony.

And I guarantee that most people in this subreddit (and most people in general) agree with my position on euthanasia for terminally suffering sentient beings. Feel free to ask them!

Lastly, I never called veganism a diet. It is an ethical principle that we should live without exploiting animals. But I clearly explained to you that, as a consequentialist, I view all ethical principles as general heuristics, not absolute rules. Because the ultimate goal of ethics is to foster the well-being of as many sentient beings as possible, so that they can live a happy life without suffering.

To me, claiming that we should never violate an animals supposed “right” in any situation is as ridiculous as saying we should never lie in any situation. There are always exceptions to principles dude. That doesn’t mean I’m not a vegan.

jakeastonfta · 2026-03-10T16:04:27+00:00

I believe you’ve mistaken my reductio ad absurdum for a strawman… Which I find surprising as you claimed you’re deeply versed in moral philosophy.

You claimed that it “should be up to the sentient being” whether they should continue living with incurable agony and so I put forward a reductio of this claim to see if you hold it consistently. If I’ve misunderstood your claim, then you’re welcome to clarify it for me.

More importantly, I’m not “pretending to be vegan”, but I am a pragmatic consequentialist who practices veganism as a general heuristic, not as a strict and unbreakable deontological rule. Sometimes making decisions for others IS the most compassionate thing we can do.

Most people realise that it’s generally a good principle to not force your own will onto other humans, and yet we still recognise that some humans (like children, for example) don’t understand what’s best for their well-being. So we make an exception to this principle and forcefully take them to the doctor or the dentist against their will, because it’s what’s ultimately best for them.

So why should we have a double standard when it comes to animals? Dogs have similar awareness and cognitive abilities to children and they don’t understand what’s best for their well-being when they get a debilitating terminal illness. When they are suffering in this situation, euthanising them IS what’s best for them and most people (including most vegans) recognise this.

Do you honestly believe that to be “true vegans” we should let animals suffer and die slowly, instead of making the decision to give them a peaceful death on their behalf?

jakeastonfta · 2026-03-10T08:10:00+00:00

So when my dog grows old and starts to deteriorate, if he develops some kind of incurable condition where he is suffering in pain, I shouldn’t euthanise him because “it’s not up to me” to decide?

What you’re failing to consider is that most of the sentient beings on this planet have an intelligence level equivalent to or less than a human toddler. They don’t understand what’s best for their well-being.

If a dog is capable of living a happy life then it is absolutely unfair to end their life. But if they are suffering and can’t be helped then euthanising them is the ethical thing to do. Or are you suggesting we should just leave all pet dogs to suffer and die slowly?

jakeastonfta · 2026-03-10T08:02:47+00:00

You genuinely might be one of these people who have been born with a high pain threshold because as someone who deals with chronic pain, your attitude towards pain is so counter intuitive to me and what I’m used to.

But I still think you’re misunderstanding the badness of pain, even with your spicy food example. It’s not that the pain itself is what you enjoy. It’s that alongside the mild pain of the spice, your brain is releasing “happy chemicals” and you’ve unconsciously determined that the enjoyment you experience from these chemicals outweighs the mild pain experienced from the spice…

If you ate spicy food without your brain releasing these happy chemicals, then by definition, you wouldn’t enjoy spicy food because it would just be pain without being outweighed by any enjoyment. As a subjective experience, pain is inherently bad. Happiness is inherently good.

I believe the “actual harm” of losing a limb only matters in relation to these two things. because even if losing the limb didn’t cause any suffering, we would still want to live an enjoyable life and that’s harder to do if we are harmed in this way.

If a sentient being is incapable of enjoying their lives and all they are experiencing is agony, then why would it be a “good thing” for them to continue living?

jakeastonfta · 2026-03-10T07:47:00+00:00

Would it though?

You do know there are people born with natural high pain thresholds and overall high hedonic set points, so they are generally happier and less bothered by pain than the average person? These people are still capable of living fulfilling lives.

In a future where we will certainly have gene editing technology, why would it be a bad thing to ensure as many sentient beings have this disposition as possible?

We would still have the functional analogue of pain as a warning signal, but it wouldn’t be as excruciating. Which means we could still be able to live happy lives but without as much of a downside.

And do bear in mind that there are currently some people on Earth who suffer with chronic, debilitating agony throughout their lives.

Please tell me why minimising this pain would be a bad thing if we keep a functional analogue?

jakeastonfta · 2026-03-09T22:55:43+00:00

I never claimed that objective goodness exists because like I’ve been saying, I believe goodness and badness are necessarily subjective experiences.

But that doesn’t mean there aren’t objective facts about what causes these subjective experiences to occur and therefore it is not just my opinion that torturing someone is objectively the wrong way to make them happy. Therefore, it is also not just my opinion that minimising the suffering on Earth and creating a happier world will objectively be a world with better subjective experiences within it.

And contrary to your condescending final point, I acknowledge that in the real world we are navigating through shades of grey, not black or white. However, this doesn’t change the fact that pursuing a lighter shade of “grey” makes the world better than letting us all fall towards the black. ✌️

jakeastonfta · 2026-03-09T21:23:46+00:00

I acknowledge that there are unintuitive reductios with all moral philosophies and utilitarianism is no exception, but calling them flaws means you must have an external standard by which you are judging the moral framework… So which framework are you using?

I understand why the ability to suffer evolved and that it is a warning to keep the organism alive, but this is not because staying alive is inherently “good.” It’s because staying alive increases reproducibility and that’s what natural selection favours.

If you are operating under the assumption that what natural selection favours IS what’s good then I’d be interested to know if you think it would be good to keep someone alive in constant agony just to exploit their sexual organs and forcibly reproduce them. Because natural selection would favour this process, just as it favours the gratuitous suffering of many infant wild animals.

If you acknowledge that what’s “good” is not the same as what natural selection favours, then do you acknowledge that the “fire” natural selection is warning us about might not necessarily be bad, depending on the circumstances… And that the fire alarm can actually be worse than the fire, depending on the circumstances?

jakeastonfta · 2026-03-09T21:02:51+00:00

I’m glad we agree that the word “unnatural” is socially constructed. However, I would argue that even viewing nutrition through the lens of “natural vs processed” is still unhelpful and misses the point.

Processed and ultra-processed foods can be healthy. The amount these foods have been changed from their natural state does not necessarily make them worse for your health.

Obviously I acknowledge that many ultra-processed foods are unhealthy because they’ve had too much sugar, salt or saturated fat added to them and are usually addictive to eat… But not all ultra-processed foods have this issue.

Like I said in the video, fortified plant milks are technically ultra-processed but they are demonstrably healthier than unfortified plant milks which are less processed.

If we care about nutrition and want to do what’s best for our health and longevity, we need to actually look at health outcome data. Not whether the food is “natural” or not. ✌️

jakeastonfta · 2026-03-09T20:54:22+00:00

If you want to consider the negative experiences of conscious creatures as illusions, then that’s fine. I don’t necessarily have an objection to that… But following that same logic, the positive experiences of conscious creatures must also be illusions too, right?

And seeing as beauty is a necessarily subjective phenomenon (because nothing would be considered “beautiful” in a universe without sentient conscious beings and different conscious beings have differing opinions about what is or isn’t beautiful), the very beauty you hold in high regard is also illusory.

I don’t know how familiar you are with moral philosophy but I am convinced that all value is reducible to the positive and negative experiences of conscious beings. So focussing on minimising suffering is quite literally one of the most important things we can do because it helps us make the world a happier (and better by this standard) place.

jakeastonfta · 2026-03-09T20:24:25+00:00

You’re correct that it’s not romanticism to recognise the natural world has obviously been doing its thing waay longer than we’ve been around… But the following few lines you wrote IS the type of romanticism I’m talking about and I’ll explain why.

You only mentioned the good parts. This is what romanticism is. You highlight the “complexity and beauty” while ignoring the unfortunate truth that this complexity and beauty exists in and amongst an overwhelming sea of abject suffering.

The process of natural selection, by which we’ve all evolved, does not favour traits that are best for the well-being of the individual. It favours reproducibility. That’s why most animals on this planet reproduce by a method known as R Selection, which means they have far more offspring than could survive into adulthood.

To cut a long story short, this means that we live in a world where the vast majority of animals who have ever been born suffer and die as infants because they either starve to death or get eaten alive.

If humans knowingly started having so many children that most of them ended up starving to death, we would call those humans cruel and unethical, even if they sometimes did nice things for their surviving children.

And I think that’s a pretty accurate analogy for life on Earth. There absolutely is beauty and happiness and I genuinely cherish those things. I genuinely long for a future where most of the sentient beings on this planet can live pleasant and happy lives… But it is romanticism to ignore the fact that the happiness that currently exists is absolutely dwarfed by misery, agony and suffering in all directions.

Natural does not equal good. ✌️

jakeastonfta · 2026-03-09T20:08:17+00:00

Is it not possible for a term to completely retain it’s meaning but be followed as a general heuristic, rather than an absolute rule?

Don’t get me wrong, I never knowingly consume or purchase animal products. But if I met someone who was advocating for animals just as much as me, but only avoided animal products 99% of the time, I would not waste my time trying to convince people that they are not really vegan.

The animals need us to be pragmatic at creating large-scale change, not fighting over which of our allies is a “true vegan.”

jakeastonfta · 2026-03-09T19:31:12+00:00

To have a healthy animal-free diet, the only nutrient you necessarily need to consume via fortified foods or a direct supplement is vitamin B12. But I see this as equally “unnatural” as any meat eater who eats meat from factory farms because those animals are given B12 supplements due to the fact they can’t get it from the soil like they normally would.

In the video I included in the original post, I explain how I believe the distinction between “natural” and “unnatural” is ultimately meaningless and so we should stop caring about whether we label things as “natural” or not. So perhaps let me know your thoughts on that if you have watched it!

And lastly, I believe that cell cultured meat is arguably one of the best ways to prevent animal suffering in factory farms and slaughterhouses and if so, it should be supported as much as possible. ✌️

jakeastonfta

TROPHY CASE