Neil deGrasse Tyson’s dumbest anti-vegan arguments — and how to kill them
1) “Vegans are species bigots”
He argued on Joe Rogan / in Starry Messenger that vegans selectively care about certain animals and therefore are hypocrites or “species bigots.” He used examples like ticks, parasites, bugs, and mice vs. trees to imply vegans only care about “cute” animals.
Why it’s dumb
It misdefines veganism.
Veganism is not:
“protect every life form equally”
“save all organisms”
“never cause any biological harm”
Veganism is:
avoid unnecessary exploitation and cruelty to sentient beings, as far as practical and possible
That means:
not paying to forcibly breed, confine, mutilate, and slaughter animals
not pretending a parasite = a cow = a mosquito = a human baby
Dear Neil,
“Veganism doesn’t claim all life has equal moral value. It claims sentient beings deserve moral consideration, especially when the harm is unnecessary.”
“Calling vegans ‘species bigots’ because they don’t campaign for ticks is like calling you a hypocrite for loving children but not donating to tapeworm conservation.”
2) “If ticks were endangered, would vegans protect ticks?”
This was one of his Rogan examples. He framed it like a gotcha: if vegans really cared about animals, they’d fight for ticks too.
Why it’s dumb
He confuses:
animal rights / anti-exploitation
with
species conservation / biodiversity policy
Those are not the same ethical framework.
A vegan can say:
“I oppose unnecessary exploitation of sentient beings”
and also
“I’m not launching a PR campaign to preserve disease vectors”
That is not hypocrisy. That is basic moral category distinction.
“Vegans oppose unnecessary exploitation. That’s different from saying every species must be protected in every context.”
“That’s not a contradiction. It’s just you confusing ethics with wildlife management.”
3) “You care about mice more than trees because the mouse has a heartbeat”
He reportedly contrasted mice and trees, implying vegans make arbitrary emotional choices based on crude biology like heartbeat. Plant Based News summarized that he compared mice to trees and suggested vegans prioritize the mouse for simplistic reasons.
Why it’s dumb
Vegans do not say:
“heartbeat = moral worth”
They say:
sentience / capacity to suffer matters morally
That means:
nervous system
pain response
subjective experience
fear / distress / suffering
Plants are biologically alive.
That is not the same as being a conscious subject of experience.
Earthling Ed–style rebuttal
“The relevant difference isn’t that animals are alive and plants aren’t. Both are alive. The relevant difference is that animals are sentient.”
That’s the entire thing.
And if Neil doesn’t understand that, he’s either being sloppy or theatrical.
Best short comeback
“No vegan says ‘heartbeat.’ That’s a fake argument he invented because the real one—sentience—is harder to mock.”
4) “Plants are alive too” / “What if plants are intelligent?”
This is one of the classic Tyson-adjacent pseudo-deep detours people reference in clips and reaction videos. It’s basically:
“How do you know plants don’t matter?” or “What if plants are intelligent too?”
Why it’s dumb
Even if you granted some plant sensitivity (which is not the same as sentience), eating animals still kills more plants, not fewer.
Because:
farmed animals consume huge amounts of crops
then humans eat the animals
that’s a trophic-loss disaster
So if you care about:
animals or
plants or
land use or
crop deaths
…you still generally land closer to veganism.
Rebuttal
“If you cared about plants, you’d go vegan faster, because animal agriculture destroys vastly more plant life than eating plants directly.”
Best short comeback
“‘Plants feel pain’ is not an argument against veganism. It’s an argument against feeding mountains of plants to livestock first.”
5) The mouse trap basement argument
This is one of his most ridiculous ones. He said something like:
People use a humane mouse trap
They release the mouse outside
Then predators tear it apart
So maybe the mouse was better off in your basement, where it could live longer
A version of this was quoted and criticized after his Colbert appearance and in discussions around Starry Messenger.
Why it’s dumb
This is an absurd straw man because it pretends the options are:
Keep rodents living in your house indefinitely
You are morally guilty for nature existing
That’s not how ethics works.
Humane exclusion / relocation ethics are about:
minimizing harm in an unavoidable conflict
not deliberately inflicting unnecessary suffering
It does not require:
converting your basement into rodent hospice
Rebuttal
“A humane trap isn’t a promise of immortality. It’s an attempt to reduce the harm you intentionally cause.”
Huge difference:
not killing on purpose
vs.
being responsible for all future events in the universe
Best short comeback
“By that logic, if you help a homeless person and they later get hit by a bus, you should’ve left them in the alley.”
6) “Vegans are hypocrites because houses, roads, and agriculture kill animals too”
This is the “you exist in civilization, therefore veganism is fake” argument.
Why it’s dumb
This is the nirvana fallacy:
“If you can’t eliminate all harm, reducing harm is meaningless.”
That would also destroy:
recycling
anti-racism
anti-child abuse
seat belts
medicine
literally all ethics
No one serious believes:
“unless you can do perfect, don’t do better”
Rebuttal
“Veganism isn’t about purity. It’s about reducing unnecessary exploitation where we have a choice.”
Best short comeback
“If unavoidable harm cancels intentional harm, then every moral system on Earth collapses in 10 seconds.”
The strongest Earthling Ed-style master response (all-in-one)
If you want the single clean rebuttal to Tyson’s whole anti-vegan routine, it’s this:
“Neil’s entire argument depends on pretending veganism means ‘never harm any life form under any circumstances.’ It doesn’t. Veganism is about avoiding unnecessary exploitation of sentient beings where practical and possible. Once you use the real definition instead of his cartoon version, almost every one of his gotchas collapses immediately.”
That’s the heart of it.
My blunt take on why his argument feels so irritating
Because he uses:
category errors
straw men
semantic tricks
fake edge cases
‘cosmic perspective’ theater
…instead of addressing the actual claim:
“Is it morally justified to pay for sentient beings to be bred, confined, exploited, and killed when you don’t need to?”
That is the real question.
And he keeps running away from it.
10 brutal one-liners you could use on your Dairy Kills / anti-hypocrisy angle
Neil can map galaxies, but somehow gets lost between “alive” and “sentient.”
He treats vegan ethics like a logic puzzle because the real issue—animal suffering—is harder to laugh off.
“Plants are alive too” is what smart people say when they want to sound deep without saying anything.
Calling vegans “species bigots” because they don’t protect ticks is like calling firefighters hypocrites because they don’t rescue mold.
He mistakes edge cases for arguments and smugness for rigor.
It’s amazing how quickly “science communicator” becomes “confused uncle at Thanksgiving” once animals enter the chat.
He can explain black holes, but not the difference between a carrot and a calf.
If your anti-vegan argument starts with ticks, you’ve already lost.
He built a whole moral philosophy out of pretending mosquitoes are a gotcha.
Cosmic perspective, basement-level ethics.
Best 3 if you want maximum punch
Sharpest:
“Neil deGrasse Tyson can explain the birth of stars, but somehow not the difference between being alive and being able to suffer.”
Meanest:
“His anti-vegan arguments sound like what happens when intelligence outruns honesty.”
Most elegant:
“He doesn’t refute veganism. He refutes a fake version of veganism he invented because the real one is harder to defend against.”
If you want, I can do Part 2 next:
“10 exact Neil deGrasse Tyson anti-vegan quotes with savage rebuttals under each”
— in the sharp, DairySucks / article-ready style.