Surrounded – “Why Are Vegans So Annoying?” | Jack Symes Surrounded Follow-up
Podcast: Surrounded (Jubilee Media)
Episode Date: April 8, 2026
Guest: Dr. Jack Symes
Host: (Not named in transcript, referred to as Interviewer/Host)
Context: In this follow-up episode, Dr. Jack Symes (philosopher, author, and vocal vegan advocate) returns to discuss reactions to his participation in a previous Surrounded episode where he debated 25 opponents of veganism. The conversation is wide-ranging, touching on the emotions tied to food, common counterarguments against veganism, cultural and economic factors, the challenge of changing one's lifestyle, and the philosophical basis for vegan ethics.
Episode Overview
This episode explores the heated and often personal debates surrounding veganism, examining why vegan advocates provoke strong reactions and pushback. Host and Dr. Jack Symes (with Nathan and John occasionally chiming in) reflect on arguments from the prior debate, break down objections, and get candid about the social, psychological, and ethical complexities of advocating for a vegan lifestyle in a skeptical culture.
Key Discussion Points and Insights
1. Why Does Veganism Spark Such Intense Reactions?
- Host notes the controversy: “For whatever reason, veganism is a topic that sparks a lot of fire and fury on the Internet, from my experience.” (01:50)
- Jack Symes’ take: People don’t like being told that their lifelong habits are wrong, which triggers defense mechanisms and emotional debate. (02:15)
- John’s evolutionary framing: Justifying eating habits is linked to group survival and evolutionary history: “If me and you were out hunting ... I want someone to act on reasons and be sensible...” (02:15–02:39)
- Jack on agreement among opponents: Even skeptics tend to agree on stopping factory farming — “I struggle to find anybody who says, no, I love factory farming.” (02:51)
2. Satirical Objections: “Plants Have Feelings Too”
- Nicole (opponent) pokes fun: Argues that eating plants is “murder,” suggesting a slippery slope if all suffering matters. (03:45–04:19)
- Jack’s response: Takes the point semi-seriously, noting that the argument is usually a “reductio ad absurdum” and there’s no compelling evidence plants feel pain as animals do.
- “I don't use any evidence to suggest that plants can feel pain or suffer.” (06:32)
- Cites Hannah Ritchie (2022): Going vegan dramatically reduces the number of plants consumed via animal agriculture. (06:32–06:56)
3. Personal Journeys Toward Veganism
- Jack’s initial skepticism: Used to mock vegetarians in his family, until persuaded by reasoned argument:
- “One, gratuitous suffering is bad. Two, animal farming causes gratuitous suffering. Animal farming is bad.” (08:39)
- Ethical/philosophical argument (not emotional) clinched his decision. (08:54)
4. Food, Memory, and Cultural Inertia
- Host on food/emotion: “One of the earliest memories I have is like, my dad making bacon in the kitchen ... it’s a very visceral experience.” (09:31)
- Jack: Rituals and nostalgia around food are powerful; these bonds partly explain resistance. (09:55)
5. Health, Supplements, and Accessibility
- Medical concern raised: Critique that vegan diets require many supplements; compliance may be low for average people. (11:16–12:18)
- Jack’s counterpoint: Only B12 is truly essential for most—and Americans are already deficient in some vitamins due to poor diet in general.
- “Did he say six or seven there? I don’t know where he’s getting that from.” (12:51)
- “Nearly everybody in the US is vitamin D deficient. So I’m not interested in arguments where it doesn’t track across them.” (15:39)
- Empirical research cited: Large cohort studies (EPIC, Adventist Health Study) show vegan overall health outcomes are generally better (less obesity, lower rates of chronic disease). (16:19–16:56)
- On tech and transition: “You can literally put into ChatGPT ... and it will give you a really good guide to it.” (17:17–17:31)
6. Why Hasn’t Technology Changed the Culture?
- Despite alternatives like Beyond and Impossible, meat consumption is rising—linked to meat industry lobbying and cultural ties (esp. masculinity).
- Jack: “Agricultural lobbying ... spends hundreds of millions to produce animals as economically as possible.” (19:35)
- “Meat eating can be very tied to masculinity ... there’s a sort of image to it.” (20:34–20:57)
- Nathan: “Veganism can get thrown in with wokeism and liberal values ... and the liberals and the woke ... lost the culture war.” (21:19–21:31)
- Veganism crosses political lines—some prominent conservatives and even extremists defend it for their own reasons. (22:13–22:32)
7. The Privilege / Accessibility Argument
- Fodei’s objection: Veganism is unrealistic outside the Global North, e.g., in regions like the Sahara.
- Jack’s response: Cites Oxford study—vegan diets are generally cheaper across Europe/US; true privilege is having the bandwidth to ponder these questions, not affording vegan food. (26:28–27:27)
- “I don’t buy that it’s a, a luxury...” (27:21)
- Notes animal agriculture in Africa often feeds Western nations rather than locals, contributing to hunger, not solving it. (27:50–28:49)
- “Meat eating is the luxury ... it depends on you having more money and being able to exploit other people...” (28:44–28:51)
8. The Moral Math: Animal Suffering vs. Human Suffering (Holocaust Analogy)
- Gerard’s provocation: “How many cows dying is as bad as someone getting gassed in Auschwitz?” (30:03–30:12)
- Jack’s reasoning: Asserts a “hierarchy” of value—consciousness, powers of reflection, capacity for pleasure all scale with moral worth. (31:49–32:13)
- Jack: “The pain of the cow is worth just as much as the pain of the human being. In terms of pain, it’s one for one.” (33:14–33:19)
- Threshold argument: There’s no precise number, but there is a point—say, 1,000–5,000 cows—at which the suffering equals that of a single human, “all else being equal.” (39:01–40:00)
- Host and Jack agree: It’s a fuzzy, not absolute, metric—an “intuition pump” more than real arithmetic. (40:15–40:29)
9. The Difficulty of Changing Habits
- Vidhir’s response: Intellectually convinced, emotionally or habitually unable to go vegan. (41:56–42:40)
- Host’s confession: Can see the logic, but it’s emotionally and logistically daunting due to relationships, habit, and culture. (43:10–44:37)
- Jack’s insistence: “People think they don’t have this power over themselves ... but once you’ve tried a week ... you commit to it and you don’t break it.” (45:58–46:11)
- Comparison to smoking or porn: “Quitting meat is a lot easier than ... not consuming pornography or not smoking.” (46:24–46:31)
- Host’s pushback: “Quitting meat sounds so much harder ... when I think of meat it’s like ... dinner with my family ... I gotta reinvent this dot. ... I don’t know how to untie that knot.” (47:07–47:57)
- Jack’s practical advice: Focus on easy substitutions—plant-based burgers, oat milk, tofu—“It’s not like your arm’s forced to pick up the other milk.” (49:03–49:17)
10. Why Veganism, Among All Moral Problems?
- Jack: Veganism has ripple effects—reduces animal suffering, child starvation, climate impact, personal health.
- “It probably is the best thing in my view that you can just sort of do today straight away to make yourself and the world a better place.” (50:45–50:47)
11. Grief, Pets, and Empathy for Animals
- Host’s grief after putting down a dog: “The level of grief I experienced ... was sort of the emotional indicator that there was more weight to that life than maybe I had previously thought.” (55:24–55:59)
- Jack’s reaction: “My grief comes like in the form of anger and injustice ... how dare I think it was okay to sort of put this creature down and then eat its flesh.” (57:03–57:49)
- On animal interiority: Host wonders if AI and science could eventually let us decode animal language, which would cause a cultural reframe in how we perceive animal suffering. (56:01–56:56)
12. Is “Natural” a Justification (Lion Analogy)?
- Common argument: Humans eating animals is natural, like lions eating prey.
- Jack’s response:
- Just because something is natural or instinctual, doesn’t make it moral (“naturalistic fallacy”). (64:14–65:15)
- We’re morally bound to use our reflective capacities to avoid harm where possible—unlike other animals.
- “Just because the world is a certain way doesn’t mean it ought to be that way.” (64:18)
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
- Jack on emotional vs rational triggers:
“People don’t like to be told that what they've been doing for their whole lives is wrong and why would they?” (02:09)
- Philosophical core:
“One, gratuitous suffering is bad. Two, animal farming causes gratuitous suffering. Animal farming is bad.” (08:39)
- On the pain of animals:
“The pain of the cow is worth just as much as the pain of the human being. In terms of pain, it’s one for one.” (33:14)
- On the ‘natural’ argument:
“Just because the world is a certain way doesn’t mean it ought to be that way.” (64:18)
- On making change:
“People think they don’t have this power over themselves ... but once you’ve tried a week ... you've got the habit and it’s there and you commit to it and you don’t break it.” (45:58–46:11)
- On inertia and moral fatigue:
“There’s so many massive problems for us to deal with. Like why veganism? ... Veganism has so many impacts beyond just the animals.” (49:30–50:37)
- On the meat-masculinity link:
“Meat eating can be very tied to masculinity ... there’s a sort of image to it.” (20:34)
- On the hierarchy of value:
“There are things that are valuable about being a thing in the world. Being conscious is good. Having a life is good.” (31:53)
- On animal empathy and loss:
“My grief comes like in the form of anger and injustice ... how dare I think it was okay to sort of put this creature down and then eat its flesh.” (57:03)
- Host's candid admission:
“I can acknowledge the suffering of animals, ... but then there’s this inertia. ... How do you choose which moral alley to fully commit down when there’s so many directions to be concerned?” (44:37)
Timestamps for Key Segments
- Veganism triggers “fire and fury” – 01:50
- Plants feel pain satire – 03:45–06:56
- Jack’s personal journey to veganism – 07:38–08:54
- Food, nostalgia, and emotion – 09:31–09:55
- Health/supplement argument – 11:16–16:59
- Lobbying/masculinity/culture – 19:35–22:32
- Veganism as privilege – 24:04–28:51
- Holocaust/cow suffering comparison – 30:03–40:09
- Can’t go vegan? Inertia and honesty – 41:56–44:37
- Quitting meat vs. other habits – 46:24–49:17
- Why veganism among many issues – 49:30–50:47
- Grief, empathy, animal consciousness – 54:23–58:01
- “It’s natural!” (Lion argument) – 60:46–65:25
Tone and Style
The conversation is consistently candid, philosophical, and self-aware. The host is empathetic, often voicing common doubts, confusion, and inertia around veganism, while Jack best combines rigorous philosophical reasoning and personal anecdote, always trying to gently but firmly debunk misconceptions, and keep the argument grounded in both evidence and empathy.
Final Thoughts
This episode provides a comprehensive, nuanced look at not just the arguments for veganism, but why those arguments so often fall on deaf ears—habits, emotions, cultural ties, and perceived practicality are all powerful drivers. Jack Symes addresses each challenge seriously but with a sense of humor and understanding. The episode ends with the host’s earnest commitment to “aim for 90% vegan,” illustrating how moral change is often incremental, complex, and deeply personal.
(For clarity, advertisements and non-content material have been omitted. All timestamps MM:SS refer to the approximate location in the original episode.)
