0:00 - Intro 0:47 - Who is Dr Frank Mittloehner? 1:50 - Humans can't eat the food that animals eat? 5:20 - Greenhouse gas emissions/2.6%/methane 18:49 - Food waste 19:44 - Water consumption/almonds/rice vs beef/liver 24:35 - Joseph's intensions with this video Whilst my response is focussed on responding specifically to the points that Joseph makes, what he fails to mention is as equally important as the flawed arguments he makes. He ignores the deforestation and habitat loss caused by animal farming, the decimation of wildlife and species extinction being caused by animal agriculture, the water pollution and agricultural run off that causes eutrophication and dead zones, and the soil erosion caused by animal farming, as well as other negative impacts. My next video is going to be a comprehensive guide to the impact that animal farming has on the environment, so stay tuned for that. I hope this debunking is helpful. Make my work possible by becoming a supporter of my activism here (thank you!): www.earthlinged.org/support Make the switch to vegan & get all of the support you need: switchtovegan.co.uk
@VeganV59123 жыл бұрын
😫🦠💩🍖🥓🍳🍕🍣🥩.. “Everyone is doing it, I’m going to do it because everyone else is doing it. Because I’m scaared. Cult following”. 🤦🏼♂️ Normal. I’m vegan. I don’t hurt animals. That’s that ✅👍. It’s normal for me. Everyone else follow the leader 👈😫🦠💩🍖....
@staceycain3083 жыл бұрын
We love you ed :)
@Shreyaa813 жыл бұрын
This is the best response video I've seen for this video so far!
@jedex46453 жыл бұрын
imagine being on the net for your pleasure at the cost of harm to sentient life disgusting D:
@georgewashingtom65163 жыл бұрын
I've read about the wonders of the Mediterranean diet. Fish, eggs, olive oil, and of course vegetables, are the optimal combination for a nutritious diet.
@hyrtzhyro54973 жыл бұрын
Let’s be honest, we were all waiting for this.
@birisi78403 жыл бұрын
Yep.
@veganfortheanimals69943 жыл бұрын
I figured it would be this week, glad it's here
@Phaseriffic3 жыл бұрын
Yes.
@ChrisGaultHealthyLiving3 жыл бұрын
Yes, another awesome video from Ed!
@DeBeOtaku3 жыл бұрын
Was going to message Ed but knew everyone else would lmao
@jh46843 жыл бұрын
I think being aware of who funds Dr. Mittloehner is absolutely necessary but I do not think that on its own should blanket disqualify what he says. Many of the sources you cite are funded by or are from organizations that have a pro-plant based view. That doesn't mean people should assume whatever these sources find is right or wrong based on that. The merits of the studies and findings should be the determining factor. If we're to write off Dr. Mittloehner's research then the same standard should apply to pro-plant based research funded or produced by those that are pro plant based, which would be dumb.
@iraholden36062 жыл бұрын
To add to this many scientists themselves have specific beliefs about climate change and a morality which likely includes seeing minimisation of animal suffering and ect as an ends in itself and this will bias, at least unconsciously but also often deliberately their research. Will to power is greater than will to truth even in scientists. The scientist we must remember is not some objective perfect android but instead flawed as any other human.
@AFastidiousCuber2 жыл бұрын
He didn't dismiss their research offhand because they are funded by the meat industry. He discussed issues with their research and then argued that it might be due to a financial and ideological bias. I agree with what you're saying, but you are straw-manning Earthling Ed's position.
@Pinkie0072 жыл бұрын
@@AFastidiousCuber To be fair though, the vegan community is composed of infinitely more ideologues than non vegans
@AFastidiousCuber2 жыл бұрын
@@Pinkie007 Is it really though? The only reason you don't think believing that eating meat is morally okay makes someone an "ideologue" is because the belief is so prevalent that it seems like the default.
@Pinkie0072 жыл бұрын
@@AFastidiousCuber Well no I’m only saying it because 90% of the time when someone tries to tell you what to eat, it’s a vegan. No-one else cares about what you eat. But almost every single time someone is shamed for their diet, it’s vegans shaming them. Like no-one really can disagree here, it’s where the whole stereotype of the “annoying vegan” comes from. And that’s just classic ideologue behavior. It’s their way or the highway. So while not all vegans are like this, they are infinitely more like this than any other diet community to the point where even chill vegans are annoyed by them for giving vegans a bad reputation.
@marianandnorbert2 жыл бұрын
4:34 one piece of criticism, not every place is fit to grow a particular thing, you can’t just plant whatever you want anywhere you want, I live in the Netherlands where we have polders (which you can look up if you want) that have silty soil thanks to how they are created, and that doesn’t let much grow other than grass and conveniently also tulips
@chimp092 жыл бұрын
That is of course correct, but no problem if you want the world to go vegan. You can just take all the land that is currently occupied by farm animals and give it back to nature and take some of the land that is currently used to grow crops for the farm animals and grow food for people instead. The rest you can again give back to nature.
@jjbarajas5341 Жыл бұрын
California is not fit to grow almonds and yet here we are :v
@admirablerook3619 Жыл бұрын
@@jjbarajas5341 nah it is that’s why they grow them there lmao, the problem is water not land
@admirablerook3619 Жыл бұрын
@@chimp09 yea we could do that but that’s not what this person is arguing
@chimp09 Жыл бұрын
@@admirablerook3619 it perfectly addresses his point. You can't grow human edible crops everywhere, but it's not a problem, since you don't need to.
@jjeedd0072 жыл бұрын
Interesting video, but I want to point out couple of thing. It would be great to see more details on them: 1. It's vary common that studies and research is funded by the companies, that have direct interest and investment in that area. Who should be funding the "meat studies" the soybean producers? Or maybe fishing industry? There always be a problem of who funded the studies, but by itself it's not the proof it was correct or wrong. Also the fact one scholar made bad research, does not mean automatically the others do. You need to prove the certain research is incorrect. Sorry, but this is not an argument. 2. You say the metrics are important and we should use calories instead of weight, but then you say it is irrelevant. It's very confusing. 3. The main rule of research is that you study one factor only at a time and assume everything else stays the same - ceteris paribus. So it means that research, that only accounts the direct emissions of meat is correct. If it would try to calculate the changes in other productions in chain, it would make it very inaccurate. Also you say it like, the change from farming for animals to farming for humans automatically means that farming will be emitting less greenhouse gasses. 4. The Lifecycle approach to product is very problematic, which was shown in many studies, including the ones that say meat is responsible for over 10% of emissions. The lifecycle approach includes energy, water, transport, labor, secondary emissions. But those will be there if you switch from meat to soy, corn or other products. It's also problematic, because one truck can transport multiple types of goods. They still need to be there, in other proportions, but it's impossible to accurately say how they will change. And if the transport sector and energy sector changes, that will decrease the emissions of lifecycle of all products. Taking this, we should use direct emissions for comparison. 5. Point on blue water consumption - I think in both videos it presented in wrong way. You state that it is important how much blue water is used in total and that calories matter. So you should use how much water per calorie is used. In case of beef it's 0.36, so twice as much as in case of vegetables (0.18 l/kcal), but eggs use 0.17 and pig meat uses 0.16 l/kcal, so it's not that all good for plant based farming. (not only nuts are using a lot of water per kcal 0.55 but also fruits use 0.32 l/kcal almost the same as beef). So the question you should really answer is, how much water would be used when we would switch to plant based food, but maintaining the same caloric production.
@davethomas20892 жыл бұрын
Great comment. That would be awesome to hear. For me it would be the first time to hear a cost benefit analysis before making drastic changes to society.
@KIPeR97eS2 жыл бұрын
1. But how it is that research funded by the meat industry always favours meat industry, and at the same time is completely opposite to the rest of the research? 5. Why do you average the amount of water for every vegetable and compare it to the amount only for one type of meat? Of course lettuce is going to have more water per calorie, as it has barely any calories. Compare meat to the soy as it is the main source of protein and calories in plant based diet. Also, did you took into account the proportions of certain meats and vegetables in an average diet? Which diet uses less blue water per calorie?
@elizabetharias69892 жыл бұрын
Just leaving a comment to get a notification of the responses here :3
@calumacky2 жыл бұрын
In response to your third point, I think that's fair for a study to do that, and the results are interesting - but the results are absolutely being misinterpreted now they've made it into the real world to fit people's agenda. Many people won't understand that all other variables are being kept the same so It should be made clear that it is a scenario that would never exist if people were to switch to a plant based diet. The inefficiencies that would lead to us eating 4700kcal per day of mainly cereals and soy, could be cut out leading to far better outcomes. That's not what is presented when people refer to the numbers in that study so it's important to point out it's not representative of any real change that would occur.
@francespetryshyn4392 жыл бұрын
You know, there's always the ethical point, that shouldn't be ignored. I very unfortunately ended up in farming animals, not my choice. I was horrendous
@Swishead3 жыл бұрын
My immediate thought with the beef rice comparison: 'Hmmmm, I've just become vegetarian/vegan, I used to have a beef cassorole with rice for dinner, but now I must replace the beef with something else. What substitutes could I make? How about m o r e r i c e?
@gillian37083 жыл бұрын
My exact thought haha
@dimanaboytcheva70783 жыл бұрын
Lolol
@theoblanc24443 жыл бұрын
haha, just use chickpeas :)
@ninjaplease3833 жыл бұрын
If you're wanting to replace the taste, texture and protein from beef then the closest I've used is seitan that I make myself.
@benton-benton3 жыл бұрын
Mushrooms.
@britishsoldier11863 жыл бұрын
Okay... Remember the book Animal Farm, where the two pigs are trying to convince the rest of the farm animals of their own point, and the animals are always convinced by whoever is speaking at the time? I feel like the farm animals. How does one solve this conundrum, without being any good at researching?
@pushpitsrivastava57963 жыл бұрын
same buddy same XD
@bloodwolf26093 жыл бұрын
you don't have to be good at researching to accurately inform yourself. There's plenty of academic research that you can find and read without needed a background in research.
@joshsmith20753 жыл бұрын
That book is about communism my guy, doesn’t quite apply here, but I guess I get it a little, when watching videos like this, don’t trust what anyone says, science as a whole is biased, you are taught fair tests at school but in life it is extremely hard to make a fair test, so in other words, your mind makes your own opinions, if you can’t decide who to trust, trust neither
@pedro8998953 жыл бұрын
@@joshsmith2075 Claiming George Orwell's Animal Farm is about communism is somewhat disingenuous..
@midnattsol62073 жыл бұрын
This is one of the reasons why economic power breaks democratic systems. You can use money to create a false standpoint between which and reality people start looking for the middle ground to believe in. In a democracy, all power has to root in the voters. Every one of the voters has to have an equal share of power. There is no power left over which could be distributed according to capital. In a well functioning democracy, all channels in which money can be turned into political power have to be closed. That reaches from examples like influence on the voters directly to corruption and economically rooted lobbyism to unequal political advertisement.
@TheClandestineDuck2 жыл бұрын
The biggest lie the industry is telling us is that *we’re* the ones who should change our ways and go green
@skeletorrocks24522 жыл бұрын
I always find it funny when they talk about methane production.. and yet they never bring up the fact that the Earth used to have far more bullvine running around and it does today. For instance the massive herds of Buffalo across America. Or the reality that 1 dairy cow today produces four times the milk of one in the 1960s. Or the factor that they've discovered that by feeding seaweed to cows. Even only 1% of it they're getting 40% less methane per animal. overall though I kind of think would be kind of cool if people start eating more fish. Way easier to raise.
@Dell-ol6hb2 жыл бұрын
@@skeletorrocks2452 I mean these are good points but I'm pretty certain that there have never been more cattle than now, there's literally over a billion cows on earth rn, even the bison herds in NA at their peak wouldn't even come close to that number. And even if they did it wouldn't matter because the Earth naturally needs SOME greenhouse gases to maintain its climate but human industrialization is really what threw this entire thing out of balance with us dumping an unimaginable amount of carbon into the atmosphere
@skeletorrocks24522 жыл бұрын
@@Dell-ol6hb You do have a point. But then add on all the other grass eating animals that used to exist in large numbers in the wild. So ultimately we replaced a large number of wild animals with domestic ones. Domestic ones that can literally be bred over time to produce less methane. Along with better feed options. It's a problem that will probably be solved in our lifetime. I mean consider that they've bred milk cows that produce four times the milk then the average cow 70 years ago. If anything the people shouldn't be so worried about cow methane.. Really they should be concerned about if the climate does warm. All the methane trapped in the tundra and under it. There's a documentary on Tundra sinkholes. If you consider all the Ancients ancient stored methane that could be slowly released from the Tundra melt. It kind of makes the cow thing look like a joke.
@Dell-ol6hb2 жыл бұрын
@@skeletorrocks2452 you're right, I'm not disagreeing that there are other more pressing issues, we need to tackle this issue on every front we possibly can which includes domesticated animals and the industrialization of livestock as well as all other aspects of our lives. Ultimately the easiest way to vastly reduce our fossil fuel consumption (and by extension our excess c02 production) is by transitioning to fully renewable energy production
@skeletorrocks24522 жыл бұрын
@Road Hobbit Start with yourself ☠️🤭 But on a serious note. Most of the problems that people claim are the problem could easily be slowly changed. And if you want to reduce the population. Stop giving food to the third world. And stop giving tax benefits for morons pumping out children in the first world. And simply slowly change over to better technology. But realistically. All these common-borns always talking about humans are the problem. I happen to take up the George Carlin outlook on this. When this planet wants to it will shake us off with a meteor or something.
Жыл бұрын
1. Whether a study was paid by someone, does not imply the study itself is incorrect or fake. There are a lot of pro-vegan studies for example sponsored by beyond meat etc., which you don't question. 2. Organic animal foods are a magnitude more nutritient dense, so you're not comparing apples to apples. 3. Water usage is only relevant while comparing all output nutrients, including all micronutrients. Beef for example has a wide range of micronutrients, that corn does not have. 4. There are no doubt inarable lands, where you cannot grow anything you want, but it's fine for goats for example. So these lands should be excluded from all comparisons accordingly. 5. We should talk about green water usage as a global problem and not cherry-picking the meat industry. The food industry altogether uses significantly less green water than other industries, so I'd completely exclude this topic and get to the points where the most difference is made. 6. To the comment section: I firmly believe that eating meat is way healthier than not eating meat. And my belief is based on scientific data and personal experiences. What's good for someone might not be good for someone else though. We all have different microbiomes. Don't be a cult.
@alexanderbarrientos8800 Жыл бұрын
Yet all of the studies he mentioned weren't paid by vegan corporations. Facts don't care about your feelings.
@valerabaglej7437 Жыл бұрын
What I'd also recommend to the author of this video is to move his gay butt over to the countryside and see that composting capacities are very limited and people actually do burn residues seasonally
@watchdominiondocumentary2663 жыл бұрын
It's annoying that this video probably won't get as much visibility as the original. Good job nonetheless Ed!
@LouisGedo3 жыл бұрын
👋
@Combinationlock3 жыл бұрын
Because it’s ideological claptrap
@JamieSTW3 жыл бұрын
@@Combinationlock the original?
@contoon15633 жыл бұрын
@@Combinationlock ah yeah because it is so smart to believe that humans would eat all the animal feed if we stop farming animals, selfishness really makes people dumb
@DanielPereira44443 жыл бұрын
Just comment the link to this video so more can watch it
@LeanAndMean443 жыл бұрын
Someone called „Lucas Bleyle“ posted this under WIL‘s video: "As a student studying sustainable agriculture, I thought I would do my civic duty and shine some light on some of the misrepresentations or straight-up misinformation in this video. 1. The U.S. eats vastly more meat than most people around the world, especially those in developing countries. However, the position of the animal agriculture industry is to bring up all developing countries to a meat consumption level comparable to the US. This means expanding production significantly with the associated increase in resource use and GHG emissions. If we really want to maintain or even reduce emissions from animal agriculture, we can’t keep alive this notion that American meat consumption is sustainable if adopted by the whole planet. 2. Emissions from animal agriculture in the US are diluted by extremely high per capita emissions, so dietary emissions are a smaller fraction of the total. Attributing the small percentage all to increased efficiency in the US is misleading. 3. The U.S. has an enormous amount of cropland that is rain-fed and has excellent soil. Most of the midwest (currently growing predominantly animal feed and biofuels) could be used to produce human food. California isn’t particularly well suited for food production, at least not that much better suited than much of the midwest. This idea that there is all this land that can only be used for animal agriculture is a talking point I would be careful about using. 4. It is straight-up antiscience to suggest that methane doesn’t matter because it is part of a “natural carbon cycle.” We don’t care about where the carbon comes from, we care about its global warming potential. Non-ruminants don't produce a lot of methane so the carbon we eat is breathed out as carbon. Human respiration is carbon neutral. When ruminants convert it to methane, they multiply the global warming potential by a factor of 20 to 90 (depending on the time scale it is averaged on). This transformation of carbon to methane makes it irrelevant whether or not it will eventually be taken up again by plants. While it is in the atmosphere it is contributing to additional harm than if it had stayed as CO2 the whole time. 5. Also, enteric fermentation is only one source of animal methane. Manure management is another area of emissions so you need to add that when discussing methane emissions from livestock. On this same note, manure also leads to N2O emissions that you didn’t address at all. 6. Yes, there were a lot of ruminants in the past, but in the past, we didn’t have a climate crisis and the atmosphere was in balance. In a world with climate change, we have to do whatever it takes to reduce warming including diverging from what might be prehistorically true. This is an appeal to nature fallacy, that doesn’t hold up in the modern world. 7. Veganism is not the end all be all, but most vegans also take significant steps to address their personal carbon emissions across the board. You will never hear a vegan deny that fossil fuels are the main contributor to climate change. 8. Also, you never addressed livestock emissions from a land-use change such as land degradation or deforestation (especially in places like the Amazon rainforest). If so much land can only be used for animal agriculture why are we perpetually expanding into natural ecosystems to create more land for it? 9. What I’ve Learned, I beg you to stop presenting topics as though you have overturned the scientific consensus on a topic. You have a big audience who put a lot of trust in your content. You have a duty to present an issue accurately. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just simply misunderstand the food system and were hoodwinked a bit by Dr. Frank Mitloehner. What you’ll find is that the animal sciences are full of people who own animal farms. It often presents a clear violation of conflict of interest in research, because researchers have a vested interest in the outcomes of studies. This is particularly pronounced in studies that are life cycle analysis/modeling because there is an enormous amount of subjectivity that goes into the design of this type of study. The responsible thing would be to follow this video with another video discussing some of the ways you misrepresented this very important issue."
@jinwoo20383 жыл бұрын
Thank you for this!
@LeanAndMean443 жыл бұрын
@@jinwoo2038 you’re welcome. I consider his comment important.
@tamcon723 жыл бұрын
He reposted that under Mic the Vegan's rebuttal video as well; it's excellent and I hope it wasn't deleted by WIL under his original post.
@shantanukhandkar2 жыл бұрын
The fact that Dr. Frank Mitloehner works for the agriculture industry is not a secret. The original video clearly mentions it. Yet you choose to present this as some sort of a revelation and use innuendo and insinuations to engage in ad hominem attacks without addressing the actual arguments he makes. I'm sorry, this by itself has reduced the credibility of this video.
@ginabean94342 жыл бұрын
Spoiler alert: Earthling Ed is not objective either. After deep investigation, I discovered he's vegan.
@Powsimian2 жыл бұрын
Why should someone who works for the meat industry be taken as a legitimate source at all? He's 1000% biased, he clearly isn't getting that double chin from plant-burgers. He's a beef boy for life. It's called food-preference bias.
@ginabean94342 жыл бұрын
@@Powsimian _"He's a beef boy for life."_ Wow, quitting meat was THAT hard for you? I guess you grasp motivation wherever you find it, including being judgmental. Speaking of biases...
@Powsimian2 жыл бұрын
@@ginabean9434 I'm biased, yeah once you know the truth and you realize how easy it is to live your life aligned with your own values. I'm sure you cringe at the thought of kicking a dog, well I cringe at the thought of giving myself a heart attack or cancer by killing animals. You have cognitive dissonance if you draw a line of distinction between the two. Motivation?
@ginabean94342 жыл бұрын
@@Powsimian The motivation seems obvious: lecturing others. If the motivation was to save animal, there'd be no need to brag about it. Note that a dog is not raised to get kicked, while a farm animal purpose is to feed us. While refusing it you ensures it never gets born, so you don't save any live anyway. But again, it's not the motivation.
@Bammsaidthelady Жыл бұрын
A large percentage of agricultural land is pasture, which lends perfectly to grazing. In areas with light brown soils, and little rain where mostly only grasses grow, livestock is common. You can't just swap out pasture land and start growing tomatoes. In Alberta where we farm the south eastern part of the province and much of Saskatchewan is semi arid desert and large tracks of land are pasture because there's no irrigation, the soil sucks, and the rainfall is minimal. In agriculture you produce what the confines of your area allow. This is why agriculture is so varied around the world, in a single area the agriculture only 100 miles away can be vastly different.
@papascorch5215 Жыл бұрын
That’s why we create fertilizer out of all the plants that don’t get fed to animals.
@alterego8496 Жыл бұрын
@@papascorch5215 or just feed it to animals. We have enough fertilizer . Our plants are also efficient with GMOs aiding them
@idawild8541 Жыл бұрын
He talks about this around min 13:10 There are many things we can do with that land, that aren't suitable for growing vegetables, f.ex. let them get back to their natural state, grow trees,...
@metalbird8348 Жыл бұрын
Aggree, it seems the only way to make those lands fruitfull is with lots of chemicals. And yes we can wipeout all animal live and live purely on chemicals, but do we really want that? I prefer my cows eating natural grass and not some soja or what else.
@michaelpfundt3116 Жыл бұрын
Pasture land for ruminant grazing is amazing and more rotational grazing should be done as it can be a net carbon sink! Problem is most people buy cheap beef and that’s where the demand is. cheap beef is finished in a feedlot on feed that has been grown using damaging agriculture practices and dedicated to livestock. This is the problem, not beef production in general. We definitely can grow grass-finished beef 100% on pasture land but that is not what most producers do since you can’t pump out as much volume. With livestock you need a lot of volume to make money off cheap beef which the world loves.
@marsbolcan93113 жыл бұрын
-Is the livestock feed being grown on land that human edible crops can be suitably grown on? -Are the pasture and grazing lands suitable for human edible crops? -Cattle is not one food item, have you not heard of dairy? -You keep talking about beef being inefficient calorically when calories particularly in western countries are in overabundance -So now we're pivoting and acknowledging not all the land used in meat production can be used to grow food but instead talk about reforesting? Why don't we want to use it for food? You were just criticizing the agricultural land being supposedly wasted on animal feed. What even makes you think humans would reforest that land instead of finding a more economical use for it? You are correct about CH4 being a more potent GHG in that it has 21x more heat trapping ability, however CO2 once introduced remains in the atmosphere between 300 to 1000 years whereas for CH4 it's around 9 to 14 years. You say the short life cycle is a good reason to focus on CH4, I think that makes it a less important issue and a smokescreen deflecting from the real issue. -The difference between CH4 from cattle and food waste is that while both are part of the natural carbon cycle, we actually get way more out of cattle than food waste. He doesn't create a dichotomy that you can't be Vegan and care about food waste, he lays out the fact that humans tend to waste more plant based foods than animal based. Edit: Looking at your film-making work and Animal Rights Activist history, I'd say if you're going to criticize someone else for having ulterior motives, you're clearly also in a position to personally gain by misleading people on this topic.
@marsbolcan93113 жыл бұрын
@@theSafetyCar Theoretically you could reforest some of the land, key word here being some. One requirement for the land to be reforested is that said land has to be suitable for forests, and a lot of land used for animal agriculture was never forest to begin with. It was grassland and still is grassland today. The only "better use" alternative he proposes for the land is reforestation, to which I would oppose the claim that most of this land is even suitable for forest. I'm not convinced by the idea that meat production is a waste of land. If I go through the food present in my home (granted I'm not American) I can see according to nutritional information the meats are a more efficient in providing protein per calorie. With exercise and paying attention to my food intake I've been able to make myself way healthier than I was before the pandemic started, and a big part of that was meat being an efficient protein food. There's also the subjective that I enjoy meat and meat is incredibly important to the food culture where I'm from. As for the CO2 and CH4, could the situation be improved? Sure less CH4 means less heat absorbed, but the long-term impact of CH4 doesn't hold a candle to all the carbon we are introducing from the Geological Carbon cycle, which should be our focus. There's also the impact that CO2 has on our cognitive functionality. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere have increased from 300 ppm to 400 ppm in natural landscapes and 500 ppm in urban areas. Cognitive functionality has been shown to decrease by 15% in 1000 ppm. CO2 not only warms our climate but also reduces our Cognitive functionality and as a result ability to combat climate change. We can waste our time fighting over implementing veganism, but that's all effort that could be put into reducing fossil fuel emissions and other measures to reduce CO2 levels. Based on Ed's past work and moral stances on meat, I think it's possible Ed is more concerned with reducing meat consumption than he is with reducing the impacts of climate change, and that's why I think a lot of the points he makes are presented in the way that they are, without the context of how much more impactful Geological Cycle CO2 is than CH4, without the context that calories aren't an issue. Should we have more forests? Sure but let's not pretend that it's the meat industry standing in the way of that. Edit: It's also worth mentioning that even in a lot of lands suitable for human edible food, currently being used for animal production, fruits and vegetables aren't the kinds human edible crops that could be grown there, it's grains, and grains are a super nutrient inefficient food. A good vegetarian diet needs a lot of fruits and vegetables, which is not something fields only suitable for grain crops can provide.
@hax79983 жыл бұрын
People who try to tell you that there is "grass land" for cows in the industry schould one not argue with. :D
@oodaangel90793 жыл бұрын
@@hax7998 Hey, is english your first language?
@marsbolcan93113 жыл бұрын
@@hax7998 I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say, but the western prairies and grasslands exist and there is a lot of meat production coming out of those areas.
@ASMRyouVEGANyet3 жыл бұрын
@@marsbolcan9311 there is not a LOT of meat production coming out of these areas. Only about 1% of meat comes from grassfed cows. Grassfed is not sustainable anyway, not for the entire population.
@ViolentMonopoly2 жыл бұрын
Grazing land =/= farmable land. This is addressed in the video you are critiquing and you just ignore it. You frequently repeat "lets grow food on grazing land" assuming that is possible to just swap out land for any use case.
@mattruscoe43532 жыл бұрын
I noticed that too. However, what if the land used for growing crops for animals, double that of the land used for humans in the US, was used for human crops? That could work.
@kennethkho71652 жыл бұрын
@@mattruscoe4353 There are no economic incentives to do so. We don't have a shortage of carbs, in fact we have a very huge surplus of them. Theoretically, we have a lot of land that can be turned into flourishing forests using our industrial capacity. There's a proposal to plant 1 trillion trees that costs like $300 billion, the problem is no one is willing to pay for it. But I think we don't need to be carbon-negative to solve climate change although it certainly helps, and more biodiverse forests would certainly make earth green again. Still, we don't *need* to turn grasslands to forests. We only need to be carbon-neutral and stop using fossil fuels.
@juliensheets7852 жыл бұрын
He doesn’t say to swap out grazing land. He talks about swapping out the farmable land we use to produce food for animals.
@juliensheets7852 жыл бұрын
Am I wrong here? Compare the graph from 3:53 to the one from 10:59. This illustrates the difference right?
@SleepyMongoose2 жыл бұрын
He actually did address this, he stated that not all land used in animal agriculture can be used for farming. But it does not have to be, estimates show that if the US went vegan we could reduce our agricultural land usage by around 70%. Some of that 70% will be that land that is unsuitable for farming, and that 70% can be restored and rewilded to help sequester carbon.
@lucasdamask Жыл бұрын
as an Agro specialist i want to make some comments on your video, there is no farmer that would rather plant livestock feed other than proper crops, since the price per acre of animal feed is 5-8x less. the thing you gotta consider is much deeper than simply area of land, most crops only grow on certain types of soil, landscape, weather and many other variants, the size of the crop also depends on those variables and many others on top of that. simply come out with a number that an area would produce this much food to feed this much people then is impossible and completely absurd. Second, live stock feed is nothing more than weed. weed that grow anywhere but is used as a crop in commercial farming because it needs almost zero care, grows pretty much anywhere and it's hardly affected by plagues since it kinda is one, also consider this data, the area of human feed crops did not grow since the 70's you know why? you never considered one factor, efficiency, certain crops deliver 25x more per acre today than in the 70's because of technology, better crop handling, new techniques and so on, so there is no need to go after perfect farming grounds that usually means removing woods of a forest from where it is. second, composting has not even a fraction of the effectiveness that manure has in fertilizing crops, there is no organic crops without manure, and no organic vegetables for vegans to eat. there are only two kinds of effective ways of fertilizing commercial crops. manure blended with the soil by a truck that dumps it on a way and a tractor comes behind with a big rake and blends it with the soil. that is how 99% of commercial organic products are produced, with cow manure. the other alternatives are chemical fertilizers, what you think is best? in the end, all of this is hypocrisy, if all of you really wanted do help with the green gas concern we would not be discussing the 5% or 10% impact of cattle or agriculture, but the 65% impact of fossil fuels and energy production. for me this is all a smoke curtain. farming and livestock production never been as sustainable and green as it is today, and it will be much more in the future, this is not the problem that needs to be removed from the root to fix climate change, please stop being so naive. People need to eat. and if they want to eat meat they should, the same way if you want to be vegan you should, both productions impact the environment in their own bad ways, never think that your morning avocado is "green" it's as harmful as the cattle is. but we need to eat, and the processes are getting better and better, and it will be perfect someday. lets focus on the real stuff, thank you for the video, you guys keep eating and we will keep producing.
@cekan147 ай бұрын
Thank you for the viewpoint!
@veganfortheanimals69943 жыл бұрын
"What I Learned" deleted all my rebuttal comments from 3 different YT accounts I used (I didn't use links)---- seems like a really shady dude. He's spewing dangerous misinformation and disinformation, and seems intellectually dishonest. Shame on him.....
@hnbrg61653 жыл бұрын
More like: What I want to be true
@ab-td7gq3 жыл бұрын
He did exactly that with my comments.
@veganfortheanimals69943 жыл бұрын
@@ab-td7gq oh wow, not surprised, he knows his arguments are crap and has no shame and doesn't want rebuttals shown
@ab-td7gq3 жыл бұрын
@@veganfortheanimals6994 Yes its sad but also kinda funny to know how dishonest that guy is and I'm happy with the response by Ed, take care!
@veganfortheanimals69943 жыл бұрын
@@ab-td7gq agree, sounds good my friend !
@Greennoob23 жыл бұрын
Wow. I'm extremely impressed Ed. I'm a bit disappointed in myself for thinking the video was fine
@evanthiakrassa91973 жыл бұрын
Same
@niek0243 жыл бұрын
I've been told the original video has nice graphics. That's a good thing, isn't it? :-)
@SantiagoAntonAlonso3 жыл бұрын
Wooow same
@Combinationlock3 жыл бұрын
What did Ed impressively debunk in the video?
@Kanzu9993 жыл бұрын
@@Combinationlock He pointed out several mistakes and also how some of the stuff WIL said can easily be misleading, and selectively went against some of his own points without us noticing. Obviously there's too much to mention in a short comment (the video is after all 26 minutes long). The study that WIL and the guy he interviewed refer to, saying that if everyone in the US stopped eating animal products, then it will only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2.6%, that's very wrong, and they make crazy assumptions, such as humans needing to eat all the food we currently give to animals and that everyone would eat 4700 calories a day. Even then there are other mistakes as well. Then there's the thing about the land that "would go to waste" if we don't use it for grazing livestock, since that is also wrong. It wouldn't go to waste, and we could in fact make a big, positive environmental impact if we did use that land better. There was also the stuff about how much water is used to make beef, and even if we use the numbers that WIL refer to himself, then it is very clear that animal products use much more water than crops for human consumption. WIL use the example of nuts as the only outlier, but even considering that case, then in California (I think it was that state, but I might be wrong), there is still much more water being used on animal products. WIL tried to justify some of the extra water use for beef by saying it is much more nutrient dense than white rice, which is also an incredibly bad example to use. It was easy to put together vegan food for the same amount of water use as the beef, and it being more nutrient dense. There were also a whole lot of other smaller points (and maybe bigger ones I missed too) that he mentioned as well, so I'd recommend watching it.
@Nielsbaum Жыл бұрын
When we speak about food efficiency I would love to know which way is the most efficient at providing all the 4 essentials: 1) amino acids. 2) fatty acids. 3) vitamins. 4) minerals. Only debating about macros and calories doesn’t do the discussion about sustainable health justice
@gur262 Жыл бұрын
It's dunked on for various reasons. I think some rather sinister, but the oil palm- palm oil,is incredible in the amount of oil it produces.
@TheReaverOfDarkness5 ай бұрын
cows that's the answer it's well studied by science the scientific consensus is that it's complicated and depends on many factors, but the overall top, if any one thing can be said to be, is cows
@mikafoxx27175 ай бұрын
1: humans need much less protein than they think thanks to marketing. Resistance training makes a bigger difference than anything else. Human milk is only 5-6% protein calories. Plus legumes are plentiful in protein, lentils are 40% calories from it. Fatty acids are more complex but omega 6 isn't a worry for sure and omega 3 we probably already don't get enough of. Eating greens and other plants gets us closer and algea supplements exist for those worries about it. Notable most animals don't need to supplement it. Vitamins much the same if you're eating a varies diet, and for B12 we even have to inject that into animals because their diet is deficient in it. And minerals aren't so difficult in practice.
@TheReaverOfDarkness5 ай бұрын
@@mikafoxx2717 Marketing isn't pushing the idea that people need a lot of protein. Vegans and bodybuilders are trying to get more protein, and we hear about it by word of mouth. Pretty much nobody is trying to get less protein, so the community consensus in most peoples' minds is that protein is something we ought to have more of if anything. Marketing just brags about anything people think is good ("our product contains protein!" "our product is gluten free!" "our product has low sodium!"). People don't need very much protein if they have a significant amount of animal products in their diet. Vegetarian diets require much greater amounts of protein because the types of protein and amino acids from plants are not right for the human body. The amount of protein in high-protein plants like rice or potatoes seems high enough if you look at how much beef or chicken a person needs to meet their protein requirements, but when you check how much protein a person needs when all of their protein comes from plants, suddenly the amount in rice and potatoes seems like barely enough.
@mikafoxx27175 ай бұрын
@@TheReaverOfDarkness You have some good points. Most people do get enough protein, short of eating processed stuff like just sugar wheat and oil. And exercise is too rare. Makes sense that bodybuilders want to get more protein, though it's inversely related to longevity to eat a high protein diet. Up to 1.6g/kg lean bodyweight is about the maximum protein that can be utilized, even under huge desire to use it. But even a kilo of muscle mass is only 230g of actual proteins over maintenance need. One could build a lot of muscle on just 80g a day of protein from any source. Prisoners gain a whole lot on even less than that.
@dombarton24837 ай бұрын
Calories are not important. It's about the nutrients that are provided. Mass in mass out! Calories mean nothing to any animal. We cannot consume calories, as calories are heat. Calories are mass less and only pertain to the energy released in a bomb calorimeter on a sample of food. Humans are not bomb calorimeter. Look at India for eg. Over 305 million cows, yet in the US their are 9 mill. Yet in the US , 1 cow produces as much milk as 11 Indian cows. This is called efficiency. This reduces so much resources. India and Brazil have over 80 per cent of the total cow population in the world. The problem with methane emissions is largely with developing countries. Developed countries have very efficient and maximize yields using the least resources. India is basically a vegan country. Pasture grass is upcycled to high quality protein and fat not to mention vast amounts of minerals and vitamins. Vegan food is all carbs, which no human actually needs. Yes food is grown exclusively for animals, on land animals which include cows dogs, cats, horses, pigs, chickens. These animals include pets. Yes pets. Pets do not upcycle or give back anything. It's obvious that you need larger areas of land. What would you do with grazing land Ed? Its hilly, very difficult terrain, very hard to irrigate. Machines could not operate in these conditions. You merely state something else with? Tell us. Compost...that is what cows and ruminants do every day. They poo and urinate wherever they go. This is some of the best natural fertilizer you can have. Organic farming which vegans support can only be organic if natural fertilizer like manure is used. Yes biogas. That is methane. The stuff that nearly every household using natural gas uses to cook with. This is what Prof Frank is doing in California now. By 2027 they will be in a negative warming scenario. Methane is sequestered meaning it's in a cycle. Reusing it does not add more to the environment. Yet fossil fuels which is the real problem here constantly adds to the environment. Wetlands for eg produces more methane worldwide than any other source by a large margin. Never hear you complain of that. Crop residues given to ruminants would go to feed people not make paper. The environment needs ruminants. They have existed on earth for millions of years contributing in huge ways. They have been emitting methane for millions of years. Global warming has become a big issue only in the last 50 years ed! 50 years. Yet you are blaming ruminants that have occupied earth for about 40 million years for our pollution problems today. Not once have you mentioned electricity, heat, transportation or manufacturing. You want to wipe them out of existence. It's like wiping out bees, or any species just for your agenda. If the environment is so important. Let's stop electricity, heat, transport and manufacturing. That will wipe out 80 per cent of the worlds greenhouse gases. What about fish. It's by far the largest of all slaughter of sentient animals many times over. They produce negligible emissions, yet they provide food for even the poorest nations in the world with essential omega 3s something which plant food cannot in meaningful quantities that can sustain life. Where did you get that figure of feeding 350 mill people ed? That would also increase deaths of more animals, indirectly or directly, more fertilizer, meaning more nitrous oxide emissions, herbicides the list goes on and on. Yes ed in the production of vegan food. Look at the amount of processing involved in making vegetable oil, cereals, meatless burgers, the rest of your vegan mush. Meat doesn't require much processing. That table of emissions shows nitrous oxide to be even more of a problem. This is even more potent than methane. Look at those numbers. Food Waste is proof that all those resources used for food was for nothing. Most were vegetables and fruits. Animals also urinate. They give back water to the land and it comes with added benefits. Compare beef to any legume. It beats it hands down. Remember when eating ruminants you never need vitamins or minerals. Facts are the facts. A vegan diet cannot sustain life without supplements. Humans do not require plant food, nor do they need carbs.
@user-js2nm6gn9r3 жыл бұрын
Make a video telling people that they don’t have to change their behavior and they‘ll eat it up :/
@halfaperson89673 жыл бұрын
So, so sad.... but true.
@stehplatzb.43103 жыл бұрын
It's the 100 companies or whatever that make all the bad things. That means I can do no wrong. I'll just burn my trash in a garden because veganism is classist or racist or sexist I forgot. But its definitely bad. Fishing is awesome tho. It definitely helps the oceans by killing everything in it. The oceans are overpopulated anyways. Or was it the world overpopulated
@Narko_Marko3 жыл бұрын
he is saying that we should focus on bigger problems, meat consumption is not going to make the planet so hot we cant live here anymre but burning fossil fuels will
@collamus69013 жыл бұрын
I mean that's just psychological bias that we are all privy to. I bet every person owns or uses something that directly harms the environment that they wouldn't want to give up, such as cars, cellphones, most forms of clothing, etc. My biggest gripe with the vegan community is how they demonize people who eat meat, and claim that non vegans are evil people who hate the environment, while they drive off to work in a fossil fueled car. I do agree that vegetarianism is an effective way to reduce carbon emissions, but there are other ways as well. Edited for grammar
@stehplatzb.43103 жыл бұрын
@@collamus6901 ed always says nomvegans are not evil. He often tells the story of how he became vegan. And concludes I wasnt evil when I wasnt vegan. I dont know what vegans you are talking about. This guy is someone that most vegans agree with and he doesn't act in the way you described
@Cody-mg7gq3 жыл бұрын
I haven't seen this much destruction since Thanos snapped his fingers
@YeonGi_Lover3 жыл бұрын
Lmaooo 😭 BYE ✋
@todoroni4life3 жыл бұрын
.
@mimilife61183 жыл бұрын
😩😩😩😂
@ozancanca97403 жыл бұрын
lmao
@audittharun18043 жыл бұрын
400th like for your comment
@conorcroskery61952 жыл бұрын
Ehhh there's a lot of land that's used to produce animal feed that can't be used for human food. For instance, I live in an area with really high levels of arsenic (this is naturally occurring, not bc of pollution) in the soil and the crops produced from it would not be considered suitable for human consumption because the crops uptake the arsenic. This is a complex issue and you can't just assume that you can use all animal feed land for human crops. For as much as he is biased towards one side, so are you. The problem isn't in if someone is vegan or not, but with how our agricultural system functions.
@truongsinh99552 жыл бұрын
For those interested, What I've Learned responded to this video. You can see the response by going over to What I've Learned's video - Eating less meat won't save the planet. The link to the response is in the video's description.
@laman0122 жыл бұрын
And what do you think of the response?
@BallCant2 жыл бұрын
Yeah he made a response on Patreon so only he's fans can comment and blindly agree with he's claims :)
@blakewillson182 жыл бұрын
And Joseph is still dead wrong.
@exiledkenkaneki701 Жыл бұрын
yeah a bad response
@abrararifify Жыл бұрын
@@anonb0 Did you actually read the full response in the PDF? He does address it near the end.
@anandhua.b45893 жыл бұрын
when you realize that thanos could have easily solved the resource problem by making everyone go vegan
@nathill75173 жыл бұрын
Your onto something lmao
@oluwaliblack47153 жыл бұрын
Disney would never allow it
@aristotlespupil1363 жыл бұрын
That solution is like saying we can create world peace; just stop fighting. Or world poverty: just stop being poor.
@zacharyshort3843 жыл бұрын
@@aristotlespupil136 Eh? The OP post is not talking about the underlying process of going vegan - therefore what you're saying is not analogous. The impracticality of convincing everyone to stop fighting to achieve world peace is irrelevant when there is a power invoked to instantly make it happen.
@user-sx2hy8zf5r3 жыл бұрын
Haaaaa, if everyone is vegan the world would be screwed😂😂😂
@samuelelias51153 жыл бұрын
Well, just stumbled across both videos and this one seems to be grossly misinterpreting some things said by Joseph/Wil which makes me wonder if we saw the same video. One of the major points of what Joseph was bringing is that things aren't exactly what they are shown and some points brought up by vegan activists aren't what they say they are: 2:07 the charter - Well uh yeah the nutricional value is important, yes but in Joseph's video he was talking mostly about how the food given to the cows are things that humans don't eat. Then in around 3:08 you make a good point about how a lot of that non edible human food is farmed specifically for the cattle to eat, a point which you come back to a few times later. In Joseph's video he talked about that argument and how a lot of the land people talk about isn't proper for farming other things due to several reasons, and that isn't debunked here. The argument in here remains that the land could theoretically be used for planting food for people, but doesn't consider whether the land is proper for farming other types of crops. There are some very valid things in this video, and also some things that annoy me on Joseph's video like how he doesn't talk about animal cruely, which isn't the point of his video. As I said above, the point of his video was to say that a lot of the arguments people give aren't really true and that is a fact. The morals of the researcher aside, a lot of the things he said were true and proven, by the way I find it very distasteful to attack the person and not the argument, which you started the video doing. Again in 5:40 attacking the author and not the argument. People that work for meat company also research about such topics. Aditionally, when speaking about the greenhouse methan emission compared to animal emissions. He didn't use one to excuse the other, he used one to put the other in perspective. That the number of 14% emissions is for GLOBAL and not for the US, which has only about 8% of the Cow's populations and that other countries like india has 100x more cows.
@howudoinmun3 жыл бұрын
Pointing out how the science has been funded is absolutely relevant and not ad hom in itself. He also brings up several problems with the studies and how they have been criticised. It isn't about the "morals of the research", it is about their credibility. If his only argument against the authors were their ties to the meat industry and how their research was financed I would be inclined to agree with you.
@Kupsztat343 жыл бұрын
He actually is refering to the studies cited by the author instead of attacking the him. I also eisagree with part where you said that he does not answer the point of Joseph aout the lands that are insufficient for geowing crops. He suggests to grow forrests and give the nature back what's her
@HMSNeptun3 жыл бұрын
@@Kupsztat34 as if the plants grown for cattles don't also do photosynthesis of their own...
@zhangkevin67483 жыл бұрын
@@Kupsztat34 some lands are unfarmable
@zhangkevin67483 жыл бұрын
@@Kupsztat34 like Tibet and others
@CSDragon Жыл бұрын
medium nitpick, What the US uses for agricultural land is naturally pairie and steppe land, not forests. Returning it to nature would not have any significant tree growth and carbon reduction. It is mostly useless for anything but farming or city development, and both of those require massive abuse of water
@eragon78 Жыл бұрын
Another issue I have with this video is that if we DID switch to 100% Veganism, things like Nuts would need to be produced in a much larger quantity as they are one of the best sources of protein (as well as other nutrients) among plants. Since nuts consume a HUGE amount of water, this may change the equations for how water intensive each diet is. I dont know what the numbers would show, but if your goal is to remove all meat, you HAVE to account for what the new diets people will eat to replace that meat would actually look like. Also, another factor is, Cows also produce Milk. Milk is mostly water that is drinkable. This means while cows do consume a lot of water, they also PRODUCE drinkable water. Some plants also contain a lot of water in them as well. Meat as well contains quite a bit of water. I wonder what those charts of Blue water consumption would look like if you actually accounted for the water that ends up in the final product. There are quite a few things in this video that I feel could be expanded upon more.
@user-ci5it7gw1d Жыл бұрын
Grasslands actually sequester a lot of carbon. This is usually less than forests, but is more resistant to wildfire.
@jorgejustin461 Жыл бұрын
@@user-ci5it7gw1d this is carbon that naturally exists in nature/atmosphere and would end up back in nature/atmosphere if all humans died literally tomorrow. Because eventually it will be eaten, burnt or just rot and turn back into a greenhouse gas before being absorbed back into the earth in a new plant.
@aenab.4596 Жыл бұрын
@@eragon78 Beef cattle is not producing any milk that people consume. And dairy cattle has an atrocious water to milk conversion, 628 liters of water are required to produce one liter of cow milk. While just 28 liters of water are used to produce soy milk. Also nuts are NOT the main source of protein for vegans, beans are. And if you want to eat nuts, you can skip almonds and pistachios to really lower your water footprint.
@eragon78 Жыл бұрын
@@aenab.4596 Again, you also have to consider how much of that water is actually wasted though. Cows peeing that water back out means its not wasted. Pee will get filtered and enter back into the water system. I mean Humans consume vastly more water than cows do, but its not an issue because the water we excrete goes back into the water cycle. This has been the case for all life on earth pretty much. And my point was stuff like this still wasnt BEING considered. 28 liters out of 628 liters is still a significant portion. Thats nearly 5% still from just that alone. This also isnt considering again the usage of where that water comes from. Green vs Blue vs Grey. Most of the water cows consume comes from their feed. Its "green" water. This is water that already wasnt being used by humans. It was water that was already being used by plants in the water cycle and not water we added into the system from elsewhere. Blue water is the water you dont want, because this is human consumable water that we are taking out of the system of things like aquafers and providing to animals. So if you compare the BLUE water usage to milk production, im sure the numbers are much closer and its a much larger percentage. Green water usage is hardly a concern because its just part of the natural water cycle. This is the stuff that basically most wild animals consume as well. So when this stuff is actually all taken into account, im sure the numbers look far less extreme than theyre trying to portray it as. It may still not be great, idk what they are. But people acting like we're dumping hundreds of gallons of water from our water supplies like aquafers for each cow over its lifetime isnt accurate. Most of their water is coming from the food they eat, it returns to the water cycle, and they also for SOME cows at least, they also produce fluid back into the system. You are right that dairy cows and beef cows are different, but dairy cows still make up a sizable portion of the cow population which is why its still something to consider.
@abhinavjain29856 ай бұрын
Bro, I have watched many of your and other vegan youtuber's videos but this is the first time I've laughed so hard 😂. That research - 4700 calories, growing animal feed OMG 🤣. This is how easy it is to fool people by putting the barrier of boredom in front of information. Nobody would go through the research, let alone fact check the numbers and logic. Hats off to people like you.
@TheSilverGate3 жыл бұрын
In other news, the Wood Product Manufacturers sponsored a study to support the claim that buying less wood products won't save the forests
@FloydFreud3 жыл бұрын
There were people claiming in the '90s that there were more trees in the US at that time than in the 1800s. Not sure where that claim came from, but yeah, that's about the size of it.
@LeoLau-ip9bv2 ай бұрын
first of all the wood manufacturers are more or less safe in this because they replant them
@captainsubway0073 жыл бұрын
Let's get this recommended on the sidebar for all who watch the original vid :) Pump the algorithm!!!!
@nadiamarquez59733 жыл бұрын
Yaaaass
@nathill75173 жыл бұрын
Yes!
@l.91443 жыл бұрын
!
@todoroni4life3 жыл бұрын
yes
@Seltkirk-ABC3 жыл бұрын
Bahahahahah thinking KZfaq'll help out vegans with attention...
@brianhginc.2140 Жыл бұрын
Most of what you say is correct, however, all that pasture land will never be used or farmed for anything else. If that pasture land was viable for crop farming, then we would be farming it right now just to add to our feed for beef and with that higher yield, we would have plenty of area left to farm bio-fuel crops.
@JohnMoseley Жыл бұрын
Presumably you're responding to the bit at 2:35 where he compares how many calories you can get from oats to how many you can get from the equivalent weight of pasture grass. That's the only bit I can find where he refers to pastureland. But the point he's making is not that you could simply convert from pastureland to oat or other crop farming, he's debunking a point of WIL's that's based on a simplistic comparison of crop weights. He immediately goes on to say that 10 times more land is used for animal agriculture than growing crops for human consumption and that a great deal of that could be put to better use. But given that animals - even so-called grass-feed cattle - are not for the most part being put out to pasture, the majority of that land is currently already crop land being used to produce animal feed and could be used for different crops. And while some pastureland might not be suitable for growing crops, a lot of it could, as Ed's comments suggest, be rewilded and reforested, providing habitats for diverse species and better carbons sinks.
@froniccruxis10497 ай бұрын
@@JohnMoseley As someone who worked in wildlife conservation and even as a ranch hand on occasion. A vast majority of cattle are on land unsuitable for large scale farming and that is why it is mentioned that in the US 2/3rds of the land is not arable while 1/3 is mostly farmland if it hasn't been taken over by human settlement. Usually ranchers will grow crops but only as a nutritional boost to animals and it is usually in small patches that wouldn't be useful for distribution. Most of them don't even do more than plow and plant(not even fertilizing) . They also tend to have their own gardens for their own vegetables. However most of them still buy produce because not everything is sustainable or even growable in their climate. Something like 98% of cattle spend most of their lives on pasture before they are sent for fattening in a feedlot for a few months, where most of the food is remnant waste from human food farming. Cattle do NOT typically need massive deforestation as they work in natural pastures and are moved from one to another as needed. The idea the reforestation is needed in the US is a joke too because we have programs where every tree cut down usually involves 2 to 3 new trees cut. On average we gain forestland by 1 million acres each year. The funny thing is that agriculture for farming does need massive deforestation as the machines used and the land use increases dramatically.
@qazizarifulislam65683 жыл бұрын
Don't really care who Dr Frank is. Could you just talk about the material and not the person? This is classic ad hominem. For someone spouting about 'anti scientific' methods, that's not a good start lol
@djash71613 жыл бұрын
People embrace anything that says I can continue my Bad ways
@wtfronsson3 жыл бұрын
*natural ways, the ways our species always had. Yeah, I'm gonna continue those ways. Have fun starving.
@laranipic36063 жыл бұрын
@@wtfronsson i'm sorry but killing 70 billion animals in a year is not natural nor sustainable for the planet. Besides, the living conditions of those animals are far from "natural".
@oivanurminen89463 жыл бұрын
@@wtfronsson Humans have always tried to distance themselves from nature through scientific discoveries and cultural development. Something that is natural is not automatically ideal
@wtfronsson3 жыл бұрын
@@laranipic3606 Plant agriculture is killing animals too. Smaller animals, but I don't believe the principle of minimizing harm says anything about the size of the harmed animal. Rodents and insects are dying because of your soy and grain fields. Cows on a pasture are not killing anything, unless maybe they step on something. The cows don't need to die until they stop milking, which is a healthy age. This is already the standard in my country. We have no beef cattle, only milk cattle that becomes beef once the milk stops. 97% grass fed. No problems here. If some other country can't do the same, don't blame us. There is plenty of room on Earth for free range meat, dairy and eggs for all who want it. Of course there is, look at all the empty room! And also, the only effective way of reversing desertification is to make it a cow pasture, and let the cows keep dumping there for a while. Presto, desert is turned into land you can even use for farming your precious plants. Isn't that something?
@wtfronsson3 жыл бұрын
@@oivanurminen8946 Science doesn't have to be distancing from nature. Discoveries and advancements can be used to be more in line with nature instead of less. Something that is unnatural is by default more likely to harm your body. Because that body was not evolved eating _anything_ unnatural, only natural. There is no natural culture that made it this far without heavy emphasis on meat. India figured out they can enforce the cast system more effectively, if the low cast thinks meat isn't good for them. So they were probably the first veggie propagandists, starting thousands of years ago. Plato said don't feed your slaves meat, and they will be easier to control.
@Lactoferrina3 жыл бұрын
WIL loves telling his followers that they shouldn´t feel guilty about their lifestyile. That is what gets him most likes. And I would even say he should have written "paid promotion" as caption in his video.
@magnus10433 жыл бұрын
Well said! I totally agree!
@etymos66443 жыл бұрын
He provides excuses for those who want them. The video was clearly tailored for them. The false choice fallacy between almonds and beef instantly gave it away.
@Lactoferrina3 жыл бұрын
Since more crops are farmed in order to feed livestock, it is still much preferable.
@Lactoferrina3 жыл бұрын
Omg. Really, just read, or watch the video. Go to the statistics of how many calories livestock need for raising and how much comes from grain. I have no time to endlessly discuss with anyone who is unable to challenge its own beliefs. It is so ludicrous when meat eaters criticize vegans as if they held a dogma. When vegans are the ones who challenged their own preconceptions about the way we treat animals and decided to change, regardless of how much they could miss eating chesse, etc. Really, how much more intellectual honesty can you ask for to someone who already changed a lifestyle after realizing it was a mistake.
For all of what is said here, if you're unserious about Nuclear power, you're unserious about the whole thing. After all, only 10% energy total consumed is for food production. Also, do you want to reforest or change the animal agriculture to human agriculture. What do you pick? What proportion should it be split? If you're doing lifecycle analysis, I encourage the electric car enthusiasts to do the same.
@mxBug2 жыл бұрын
these are good counter-arguments, but don't address what i think was the most important argument: that arguments over food choice and other consumer-end choices are very often a smokescreen for fossil fuel use. obviously climate change has multiple causes, but politicians and executives especially love to narrow the focus to any cause that can be pushed onto the end consumer, instead of the larger-scale decisions they are responsible for.
@Danni62303 жыл бұрын
Never clicked so fast.
@avacaza78513 жыл бұрын
SAME
@Frenchblue83 жыл бұрын
Omg, SAME!
@jeremiahbaxter68873 жыл бұрын
Exact same
@jedex46453 жыл бұрын
imagine being on the net for your pleasure at the cost of harm to sentient life disgusting D:
@megadeathspike13 жыл бұрын
Saaaame bro
@tanerobertson68963 жыл бұрын
I'm one of the people who messaged you to do this video!! So happy, lol.
@ChrisGaultHealthyLiving3 жыл бұрын
Good job, Tane!
@tanerobertson68963 жыл бұрын
@@ChrisGaultHealthyLiving Thanks! 😃
@andrewbromhead-deljo6933 жыл бұрын
Same!!
@axel.lessio2 жыл бұрын
When I watched Joseph's video I wasn't too convinced, but I thought arguments from the opposite side are good for a healthy conversation about the matter. That is, if the science is proven and the data is accurate, which doesn't seem to be the case. This video isn't that convincing either, you're still trying to "win" the argument and I really don't believe in the type of science that aims at proving one extreme is better than the other. From a nutritional perspective, it's obvious that plenty of people can live a long, healthy life with different types of diet, that's not the point. The real problem is it's clear that, from an environmental perspective, we're doing things wrong and that the food industry is screwed up, regardless of which diet you choose.
@Val-wf6mg2 жыл бұрын
Maybe the solution to all these problems is not eliminating a whole nutritional group from our diet, whatever that is, but just make more efficient systems for growing crops and farming
@dystropyko2 жыл бұрын
Yeah he makes a lot of assumptions like the forest restoration things, he denies its a closed carbon cycle, but yet again proves in his rebutal that it is a closed cycle, his arguement is less convincing then todayilearned but it at least bought some points.
@r0bt93 Жыл бұрын
Plant based foods are far better than meat based ones for the environment though. See Our World In Data - Environmental Impacts of Food (KZfaq deletes comments with URLs annoyingly)
@matthew13579 Жыл бұрын
I don't know why we are even listening to meat and dairy industry people, just ask the environmental scientists. They don't have the vested interest.
@samuelzakrisson97913 жыл бұрын
Every industry pays scientists to make research that supports their cause. The meat industry, the vegan industry, the marijuana industry, and much more
@Pablo450a3 жыл бұрын
Not always, but the majority of times... yes.
@Freakyjohnsson13 жыл бұрын
The worst thing about the video is that it has made such a large impact on a lot of omnivores. So many people in the comment saying " finnally and unbiased video on meat" meanwhile the video is insaly biased towards meat. Tons of conformation for their bias.
@everflores94843 жыл бұрын
am an omnivore, can confirm that was my reaction
@everflores94843 жыл бұрын
@Vegan Vamshi Krishnan not feasible for me right now. Would like to in the future.
@everflores94843 жыл бұрын
@Vegan Vamshi Krishnan i live in a third world country with 40% annual inflation and I'm a student. It would bankrupt me to go vegan while getting my nutritional needs met.
@Freakyjohnsson13 жыл бұрын
@@everflores9484 Sorry if this is ignorant but isnt plants like beans and rice quite cheap? I see meat as something expensive, at least thats how its been historically and currently in first world countries.
@everflores94843 жыл бұрын
@@Freakyjohnsson1 white rice? Yeah. Beans not so much. I practice a very intensive sport and are on my feet for most of the day. Meat here is not as expensive tbh and it covers my caloric and nutritional needs very well. I don't even eat that much but according to my nutritionist, it wouldn't do me any good to go veggie right. Not on my budget at least lol
@zandokanism3 жыл бұрын
You can't ever trust someone that takes the fact of just one source, especially if that source it's compromised.
@wtfronsson3 жыл бұрын
Yeah, plant based research is never compromised. But when the meat industry has to fund research (for there to be actual meat research) then it's compromised. The sign of a true vegan is that you denounce the meat industry for doing the exact same thing that the plant industry is doing. Never mind that the meat industry is doing it far less.
@jenuism85063 жыл бұрын
@@wtfronsson do you really believe that all studies done in favour of plant based diets are driven by some desire to make everyone vegan?! Surely no one would want to fund that, large majorities of plant based product is bought for animals to eat, almost every industry should be against this movement. Another alternative is perhaps there is truth to the papers in favour of plant based diets and the agriculture industry are throwing their toys out the pram. It all sounds very much like big Tobacco, you think the meat industries wouldn’t put up a fight?
@wtfronsson3 жыл бұрын
@@jenuism8506 Yes, anything that says you should eat a diet mainly consisting of plants is BS. This is my stance on the matter, and many doctors and other experts are also trying to bring light to this. Actual comparative studies to a carnivore diet barely exist. You have to look at how many carnivore studies exist vs plant based studies. And this tells you a whole lot about which diet the establishment is trying to hide. Yes I know you disagree, but that's fine. Let's disagree. You can call the meat industry out for acting like Big Tobacco, and I will call out the plant based cult for the same. There's also the matter of organ meats not being promoted, and pretty much all meat being cooked instead of raw. Our bodies evolved with raw meat, including lots of organ meat. So it's just clear what we should be eating. Organ meats have incredible nutrition to weight ratios. Even if you did everything else wrong, you'd be quite healthy just eating a pound of raw beef liver every week. And maybe some fat from another source.
@OptimisticApocalypse3 жыл бұрын
@@wtfronsson I was going to laugh and call out the fibre deficiency backing up into your brain space, but now I am genuinely scared. Eat raw organs? Are you a movie monster or an terror from some legend? Windigo? Chupacabra? Do you drink the blood of infants as well?
@thijssmudde3 жыл бұрын
@@wtfronsson "And this tells you a whole lot about which diet the establishment is trying to hide." You sound an awful lot like a conspiracy theorist
@WarLoqGamer2 жыл бұрын
First time watching yout videos, and i dont like the way you constructed this video. I get it that you disagree strongly with joseph, but the way you present your arguments isnt constructive. Rather they're aimed at an already biased audience that favors your point of view. Furthermore a lot of your points are as easily challengeable as josephs are. Assuming farmers will let the unused farmland just "go to nature" is as absurd as assuming that we would just burn the food, and assuming ill-intention of the scientists just because of who's paying them. I'm not discrediting said claim that they may have ulterior motivations, but you make nothing to "give them a second chance". Didn't try to contact them or anything, or if you did you didn't disclose it at all. And even if you increase the estimated emissions to 7%, i'm pretty sure there are other, more dangerous sources of greenhouse emissions at hand. (I apologize beforehand for any incorrect word usage, even though i'm pretty fluent in english i sometimes mess up)
@pumpkinpie46832 жыл бұрын
13:27 Because of the error, the authors did not recognize the true scale of the carbon sink and therefore only included it as a sensitivity in table S16. They have added a sentence to the main text [“In addition to the reduction in food’s annual GHG emissions, the land no longer required for food production could remove ~8.1 billion metric tons of CO2 from the atmosphere each year over 100 years as natural vegetation re-establishes and soil carbon re-accumulates, based on simulations conducted in the IMAGE integrated assessment model (17)”]; adjusted the text describing the second scenario [to read “This achieves 71% of the previous scenario’s GHG reduction (a reduction of ~10.4 billion metric tons of CO2eq per year, including atmospheric CO2 removal by regrowing vegetation)”]; and changed the sensitivity in table S16 to report a sensitivity on the carbon sink, rather than reporting the sink itself. In accordance with these changes, they have also replaced reference 146 and added a new reference, numbered 151. An unrelated error in the legend to Fig. 3 has also been corrected, replacing “The gray line represents 10th-percentile emissions” with “The gray line represents average emissions.” www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw9908
@sarahcollins1903 жыл бұрын
Both of these videos have serious flaws. So here are the flaws in this debunking video. 1) calories are not the only essential nutrient, protein is as well. So when measuring water usage and green house gas emmisions you need to look at both the calorie and protein requirements of the average diet and calculate water usage and green house gas emmisions when compared to various diet choices eg, vegan, vegetarian, low meat, high meat. You also made a false comparison of meat calories to plant based calories as if people that eat meat ONLY aquire their calories from meat, which is absolutely false, people that eat meat are omnivores and also get calories from plants. 2) Land usage is complex. Marginal land cannot be used for crops that is a fact but crop land is and can be used to grow animal feed. What this video is neglecting is the grading system used to sort crops. Most crop farmers seek to produce the best quality crop for human consumption because that crop get the highest returns. However, the quality of the crops are graded, for example a crop of wheat high in protein is typically graded for human consumption while low protein wheat crops get down graded as animal feed. Rarely do farmers want to grow crops for animals because they have lower returns, but that seasons weather conditions as well as market forces means they will sell what they can to whomever is buying. 3) Crop residues can be used for compost, but then you need to get it to the place where the composting is done at scale, compost it for up to 6months and then distribute it to the relevant crop farms. On the other hand crop farmers typically don't just crop, they rest their field with a rotation of grazing. By delivery the crop residues straight to the animal, the animals then process and distribute the 'waste' across the field at no cost and prepare the soil for the next crop. This dramatically cut transport and CO2 emissions and returns vital nutrients to the soil, something that using it for paper or other uses wouldn't do. 4) Neglecting to site sources was wrong but let's not forget the cereal industry i.e. kelloges has it's own scientific propaganda arm. and the AHA take sponsorship from not only the cereal industry but also the pharmecutical industry too, which have a vested interest in selling pharmaceuticals to people with poor diets that are high in calories and low in nutrition. 5) We probably would have to consume what is grown for animals or watch the farmers whose very livelyhood depends on growing these crops fall into poverty and forced to sell their land at record low prices because it has no value anymore. So unless you have a profitable alternative for the land for these farmers (and the communities they support) then under current economic conditions you are left with consuming the crops or seeing a good segment of rural communities destroyed. (oh the alternative of growing fruits and vegetables that have incredibly short shelf is utter insanity, any benefits made would be eaten up by transporting perishables to the market of another 350 million people, that is assuming that the land is suitable for fruits and vegetables which need access to large amounts of water). And yes crop residues would be burnt, because the cost of transportation to a composting facility will probably be more than the residues will be worth under the current economic system. 6) Beef may make up only 3% of the calories but yet again protein requirements is ignored.(and yet again extremely few humans would be completely carnivore) Full life cycle green house gas emmisions must be taken into account, but if we compare protein requirements met by a meat based or vegan diet which will have the greatest life cycle greenhouse gases, especially when you consider the high levels of processing needed for 'alternative meat'. I want to see the study on that. 7) 20% land mass for beef production in US...let not forget this is primarily marginal land not suited to crops 8) the major thing you need to understand about meta analysis is that they can only compare like with like. As such they would only compare one conventional farming systems with other conventional farming systems. Alternative farming grazing systems by default would not be included in the study. A comparison of conventional farming systems to regenerative agriculture /grazing systems would be much more informative. 9) Alternative uses of this agricultural land is indeed rewilding, but let's not forget that is land is already marginal (not suited to crops) and typically not suited to forests, which leave grassland which would require the reintroduction of bison, deer, elk etc which are guess what... ruminates. That's right ruminates that can sequester CO2. Something that regenerative grazing practices actually mimics. 10) the average US citizen may have the most 'agricultural land per capita' but I bet you bottom dollar they are not eating all the food that comes from their 'allocation' how much of that is exported food I wonder. 11) Both videos have the carbon cycle very wrong. Both neglect how ruminate animals manure actually sequester carbon into the soil. Grasses that are not grazed oxidise returning all the CO2 to the atmosphere. It's interesting that Ed previously said that rewilding this land (with ruminates) can sequester CO2 but apparently using ruminates in agriculture will just add to greenhouse gases. 12) The methane from the food waste is a problem because it's not being offset but carbon being put into the soil by the ruminate carbon cycle. Nor is the carbon that makes it into the food waste dumps where it needs to be which is on the grassland where it can help build a spongy soil profile that absorbs and stores water. 13) So let's go back to protein, what is the blue water consumption of vegan protein sources and what is the blue water consumption of meat based protein. Last I heard vegans still need protein in their diet and I bet a lot of it comes from nuts. In Conclusion...no human strictly eats only meat as this video implys, and Ed doesn't in anyway understand agricultural economics and natural systems. And finally the blame for greenhouse gas emissions is not with having any particular diet but in an economic system that priorities profit over the environment and the wellbeing of people.
@Testtew3 жыл бұрын
Ouuhouuhouhh ohh slow down.Your conclusion just sounds as if you wanted comunism.That terrain is steepyyyy.and if i continue like this my brain is going to BUM!!🤯🤯
@Lazyspaceout2 жыл бұрын
@@Testtew hard for vegans to understand I see
@superxbetatester2 жыл бұрын
Well presented points, you covered everything and more of what I wanted to discuss.
@Andrea-movies2 жыл бұрын
You’re curling the curl here! Both parts might have missed a few details, as you pointed out, but it seems Ed is presenting more scientifically proven facts. He can’t possibly cover all the details in a 30 minutes long video. I do want to touch base on your fifht point though . You mention farmers might lose their jobs if we go vegan. These farmers could still grow crops for human consumption (if we switch to a plant based demand will inevitably grow). Besides, it wouldn’t be the first time an industry has to adapt to new societal changes. As an example: there have already been several cheese production firms which have switched successfully to soy or cashew cheese productions. I any case, while the environmental benefits of a plant based diet might be debatable (to some extent) there is no argument to defend the cruelty we inflict to farm animals. That alone, should be argument enough to change to a vegan lifestyle. Thanks for sharing your views btw!
@katlunascoven79323 жыл бұрын
what I've learned should be renamed to "what I want you to believe"
@mumofmany75893 жыл бұрын
? ? ? ?
@welcomeback2mychannel3 жыл бұрын
WILTTM: What I Like to Tell Myself
@audittharun18043 жыл бұрын
Exactly
@factudocs3 жыл бұрын
Stupidity? Naaa, just vegan fanatism, maybe the same thing
@Steenabiez3 жыл бұрын
Like any video on this topic, bias to counter bias. There are no neutral comparisons when it comes to this topic sadly
@doorify3 жыл бұрын
TRUE sadly
@WeasleyTwiins3 жыл бұрын
I agree. I do like MicTheVegan, but I realise he is also biased. However, he does present the science for each of his claims. Kurzgesagt is pretty unbiased imo, but they only have one or two videos on the subject.
@goldenroses19113 жыл бұрын
what? that is not true, the way to go about not being biased is using objective data, it is just that because it is an economy based subject people have a hard time being objective , and unfortunately a lot of average people do not understand or know if the data presented is correct or not so they decide that it is ultimately an ethic or moral choice , when it should just be a logical one based on the fact that if we do not take better decisions we will all die
@ASMRyouVEGANyet3 жыл бұрын
Ed doesn't get any money from anyone. Cattle farmers are worried and will therefore say anything to continue to stay in business.
@simpsbelongtothegulags37023 жыл бұрын
Bc bias is the motivation on why they do it
@JonesJensen2 жыл бұрын
It's so abundently clear you have no real counter-argument with any real life data supporting your claims, when your move is a direct, personal attack. I mean, the title says everything about your credibility. I honestly think you should have a sit down with Joseph, so we could hear both sides at the same time. Maybe read his response to this video. Ho-Ly-Shit. Your argument at 18:40. Did you even care to read the other numbers in the statistics you put on screen? Because I did. And your argument right after about foodwaste. The point isn't that the CH4 was already a part of the plant, but that we spent RESOURCES transporting it, cooling it, packing it and then throwing it out. Imagine if that food was never produced, but instead used for growing trees! Wauw-e.
@wraith98692 жыл бұрын
agreed 2:30 says 7billin vegans will be enough big assumption that everyone in the world will help sorry ppl are to greedy for that
@biggiesmol2 жыл бұрын
There's no sit down, there's no strawman, there's no character assassination. The majority of plant produce goes to animal livestock. End of story. Go live in your Jordan Peterson echo chamber where you can argue yourself out of facts.
@JonesJensen2 жыл бұрын
@@biggiesmol And that is why I buy free range, grass fed. No need for produce from farming if the cows just eat grass. But maybe your plant lifestyle had made your brain fact repellent. Do not try to insult me on a personal level, that is just childish. Grow up. And look at the report from the ICCP about cows and GHG. They say, that it has been overstated by a factor of 3-4. Besides, regenerative agriculture does not introduce new carbon into the atmosphere, like ..hmmm let's see.. oh right, like unsustainable agriculture that requires manure from, you guessed it, livestock to keep the soil at a gold enough quality to be used for plant produce. Besides that, your argument is completely invalid if you have thrown out any food in the past 5 months, because I have not, since i portion everything I eat. Go live in your turd-throwing ignorant bubble of vegans, believing that they are the solution. 84% revert back anyway, when they realise they get sick from eating wrong. Go put your focus into something that doesn't mean humans dying out, something that actually puts out NEW carbon, instead of being part of a cycle. And no, I will not reply when you think you come back with a brilliant answer, because you won't ever change your mind, because you only want to believe what makes sense to your incredibly deficient knowledge.
@angelocarantino48032 жыл бұрын
Didn't seem like a personal attack. I agree though that they should debate. The back and forth is pretty pointless
@frankiefernandez52528 ай бұрын
The tallest, strongest humans on the planet have been meat eaters. (See native Americans pre-European).
@WTFisMYname243 жыл бұрын
I actually used to like that channel :(. The amount of ignorance and misinformation in that meat video kind of changed my mind about the channel.
@lolly54533 жыл бұрын
Can’t we put you in charge Ed? The world would be a much better place if you were running the show! 👑🌍💚☮️🌱
@oatymilkshake3 жыл бұрын
Edemperor
@jedex46453 жыл бұрын
imagine being on the net for your pleasure at the cost of harm to sentient life disgusting D:
@stephss3 жыл бұрын
Ed is already working really hard to get the message out. We need to pressure our elected members, who choose to be in politics, to do better.
@labangrankvist29933 жыл бұрын
@@oatymilkshake Edperor*
@AA-jt5hg3 жыл бұрын
@@stephss there is someone that has got the message! I can not count how often somebody told me: "So why don't you run for president then?" . I just wanna live my life man! With my family, my friends and my (imaginary) dog. All I ask is that you guys don't murder the planet and all life on it, while I'm chilling in my bed! Thank you, Please!
@nach11133 жыл бұрын
* ~.FACT CHECK.~ * 4:16 Not all the land used for growing food for animals is suitable for people food agriculture use. 5:01 Ethanol based fuel doesnt have a net positive impact on carbon emissions. And just a little percentage of crops are usable for this. 5:06 If it isnt proffitable to make paper this way, who is going to pay for that labor? unreallistic. Again, a dream where maybe a couple crops could be used. Basically, most of the residues of the crops arent nearly as profitable or useable as he preaches. That would be amazing, but thats not the reallity and the research for those kind of technologies were that system could be used is just a wild dream -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now about the carbon emissions: 5:27 Again, not all the farmland used to grow food for cattle is suitable for any use, including gigantic forests full of life and secluders of carbon. Thats not reallistic at all, indeed maximizing the margin for unreallistic values. The owners of those farmlands wont be happy to give up their properties and stop producing anything at all. People are conducted by profits, and so that wont happen unless the Federal govmt stops the "freedom" of civils. No Give me a real number please! 14:00 Perfectly fine for the most part, but the comprenhension of this topic is highly biased. All that explanation ultimatly means is that ALL the carbon that cattle produce by eating grass, is the net amount produced by the cattle consumption of plants for the past 12 years. Yes, 12 years is the average lifespan of methane. TWELVE. Not 10 nor 20. Afterwards that carbon dioxide is the same as what the plants used to grow to feed the cattle, cancelling each other. Not all the livestock has the same carbon cycle neither. Cows are the worst on this regard, but this doesnt mean all livestock are the same. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for your attention. Hope this could prove some facts. IMO on a climate change perspective, the effect of cattle is highly lower than the rest of factors in our lifestyle. If you trully want to save the planet, eating vegan isnt even a tenth as usefull as using a bycycle, lower your energetic consumption, etc. And all that is thanks to the carbon cycle. People are used to separate those two (emissions vs carbon capture) which shouldnt be the case, at least on this matter. *You dont feed cows with fossil fuels, just your car.*
@AbeAAdekunle11 ай бұрын
The whole world will not go vegan. Get over it and stop whining.
@prehistoricworld_3 жыл бұрын
everyone's an environmentalist until you ask them to give up sausage rolls smh
@vaurien36943 жыл бұрын
but there are ve-GAN sausage rolls??
@govegannotfeegan48543 жыл бұрын
everyone is an environmentalist till you tell them to move to the countryside and become self sufficient
@cynicalidealist113 жыл бұрын
Or just ask them to eat vegan sausage rolls that taste basically the same anyway.
@mikafoxx27175 ай бұрын
@@cynicalidealist11Honestly, they're better half the time.
@veganfortheanimals69943 жыл бұрын
I was waiting for Ed and his team to address this. The channel "Veganism Unspun" did a particularly good job of debunking the What I Learned video too....
@MukulVyas53 жыл бұрын
Thanks! I'll check that out.
@veganfortheanimals69943 жыл бұрын
@@MukulVyas5 yes definitely
@LeanAndMean443 жыл бұрын
@@veganfortheanimals6994 I already watched it, and agree with you - the video from „Veganism Unspun” was very informative and revealing. I find it very expressive that both Ed’s and Veganism Unspun’s video manage to debunk Joseph’s video with both studies and incredible humor and funny comparisons.
@MukulVyas53 жыл бұрын
@@veganfortheanimals6994 Dr. Gil Carvalho from "Nutrition Made Simple!" did a review of the video too and explained the flawed studies that WIL cites and even mentioned that the study about 2.6% GHG reduction had received major kickback from a lot of peers when it was published and he basically said that it's a very misleading video but he was very polite about it. And he's not even vegan! WIL even responded in the comments and was literally grasping at straws.
@veganfortheanimals69943 жыл бұрын
@@MukulVyas5 yes, I saw that video too and called out WIL for deleting my rebuttal comments....the WIL guy seems really intellectually dishonest with his video and with rebuttal comments disappearing
@w0wguy Жыл бұрын
One of the main and less talked about problems when it comes to environmental impact of meat/crop is the use of fertilizers. It is scientifically proven that synthetic fertilizers contain much more nitrous oxide and phosphates than organic ones leading to much more environmental pollution (increase in N20 air emissions and groundwater pollution) while reducing soil quality. Cutting meat production to zero, as this video suggests, will lead to greater synthetic fertilizer usage to offset the loss of organic fertilizer production. This in turn will reduce the impact of removing animal agriculture land on emissions. My point being that being extremist and advocating for total elimination of meat production is largely unbeneficial. Optimizing parts of the production chain (balance of meat vs crop production) is in my opinion a much better way forward than altogether removing the production of one food group. Humans have evolved as omnivores and eating both meat and plants alike constitutes a balanced diet.
@gandalfthegrey2699 Жыл бұрын
Only sane person here. Ppl will believe what they want
@alterego8496 Жыл бұрын
This is misleading because nobody can eat what cows and animals eat. It's not edible. Unless you are saying we should start eating crop residue
@Memes-xk6xe Жыл бұрын
Organic fertilizers can be made from plant-based materials. It's known as veganic agriculture.
@JanM457 Жыл бұрын
I don't know a lot about fertilizers. I will take for granted for this argument that animal-sourced fertilizers may be superior to synthetic fertilizers in terms of environmental impact, as you say. I want to point out though that in the US about 2/3 of all crops are used to feed animals. We would need only a fraction of these crops to make up for the lost calories. Not having to feed the animals with crops in the first place would therefore massively cut the overall amount of fertilizer needed for crops. Does that make sense to you or am I missing something? Let me know, happy to learn!
@Cancellator5000 Жыл бұрын
Even if there wasn't such a thing as vegan organic fertilizers, currently we produce 20x the animal waste than can be used in manure. It's actually an ecological disaster, so another reason to stop relying on animals for food. We can keep them around in diminished populations if necessary, but to get to the point where there is even a problem 95%+ of current meat eaters would have to go vegan.
@spymatt8521 Жыл бұрын
I have some questions about a point that, in my opinion, wasn't addressed enough in this response, and that is about Marginal land. A lot of the points made in this video are heavily US-centric, and the problem is that the same conditions that exist in the US don't necessarily apply to other countries. Take tropical countries for instance. Brazil is the 2nd largest producer of livestock but ranks 18th when it comes to vegetables. This is due to the fact that, being a tropical country, it contains heavily weathered soil, and thus growing a large and varied amount of vegetables is rendered near impossible. A shift from meat and plant-based produce to just plant-based produce would imply a drastic decrease in local products with an increase of imports would it not? Another example is Greece. 70% of the land cannot be used for agriculture, due to it being forested or incapable of bearing agricultural plants. And even in that third of the total landmass that can be used for agriculture, not everything can be grown there, thus we see Greece producing mostly maize, wheat and barley as well as cotton and tobacco leaving the rest of the essential plant products to be imports. Additionally, being a country with a Mediterranean climate, almost no plant-based products can be produced during the colder months thus further increasing the need for imports. And Greece is not the only country that is like this, which begs the question: Can the main exporters of fruit and vegetables, such as Argentina, supply a drastically expanding demand for plant-based products?
@Stadno8 ай бұрын
The vast majority of evidence is concluding the same around the world. The largest and most comprehensive study on the environmental impacts of our food system to date. University of Oxford found that by ditching animal products your dietary carbon footprint can be eliminated by 73% -reviewing data from nearly 38,700 factory farms in 119 countries. -In addition to greatly reducing your carbon footprint, researchers found that if everyone went vegan, global land use could be reduced by 75%. - 40 products representing ~90% of global protein ad calories consumption. -the study confirmed that a vegan world would save countless animals, including wildlife, since factory farming is one of the main causes of wildlife extinction. -Lead author of the study Joseph Poore explains: "A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use. It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car." Joseph went vegan based on found evidence. Article www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth "Biodiversity conservation: THE KEY IS REDUCING Meat Consumption. Consumption of animal-sourced food products by humans is one of the most powerful negative forces affecting the conservation of terrestrial ecosystems & biological diversity. Livestock production is the single largest driver of habitat loss, & both livestock & feedstock production are increasing in developing tropical countries where the majority of biological diversity resides." www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969715303697 Written by a 100 scientists of over 100 countries, International Panel on Climate Change --> Vegan diet is the single best way to save the environment. www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/4.-SPM_Approved_Microsite_FINAL.pdf www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/2f.-Chapter-5_FINAL.pdf
@HelloHello-zk4el3 жыл бұрын
Stuff like this makes me wonder how wrong that channel is about everything else they post
@tamcon723 жыл бұрын
He must realize that it will eventually call his general credibility into question.
@AllenPykalo3 жыл бұрын
Agreed
@taylor39503 жыл бұрын
Yeah the whole channel is sus. It’s one thing to get some facts wrong but this seems deliberate
@1endlesssoul3 жыл бұрын
We can’t expect to change the world. But we can be an example of a better world for anyone we come in contact with 💚
@ChrisGaultHealthyLiving3 жыл бұрын
Yes, be the example!
@jedex46453 жыл бұрын
imagine being on the net for your pleasure at the cost of harm to sentient life disgusting D:
@housevibez88283 жыл бұрын
The world is changing! It is changing!
@1endlesssoul3 жыл бұрын
@Ali 💚🤣
@mimilife61183 жыл бұрын
❤️❤️❤️
@okidoxb48462 жыл бұрын
i am not sure that comparing calories is very good analogy when you are comparing two different digestive systems, please correct me if I am wrong, but due to the cow's different digestive system they can actually get more "energy" out of pasture grass because they can break it down more. Human's can't eat grass and gain a lot of energy out of it bc our bodies can't break it down so it makes sense that we'd "lower" the amount of calories it provides to us, bc we simply can't access most of it like a cow can. However i do agree with the latter argument that the amount of land used is WAY more important. If we have terraformed the land for agriculture by reducing or replacing natives species that are efficient at GHG sequestering, then that is a BIG issue.
@ginabean94342 жыл бұрын
You're correct: cows are polygastrics (several stochas, literally) and their digestive system is capable of extracting nutrients from raw grass while monogastrics (like us) can't. ~70% of the agricultural lands are permanents pastures. Those surfaces are used for animal agriculture since they can't be used for crops for various reasons and in general they are pretty efficient at GHG sequestration. You're very right at posing the issue toward the croplands: no matter the destination (animal or humans), the improvement of the cultivation methods in order to sequester more carbon on those surfaces (no till, permanent cover, etc.) is key, in my opinion, to improve the agricultural GHG balance. Very good view on the situation imo 👍
@antioxidantfool73622 жыл бұрын
We do get nutrients from raw plants Humans are herbivores, and thus have the digestive system of one We are mongastric herbivores,.while cows are multi chambered herbivores You said humans can't eat grass. But we do. Wheat is a type of grass
@okidoxb48462 жыл бұрын
@@antioxidantfool7362 ik we can get nutrients from raw plants, but when it comes to some things like prairie grass, which cows eat, cooking it isn't goin to help much. Humans can choose to be herbivores, or omnivores, i mean since we have access to supplements and pills we can pretty much eat watever we want within reason
@antioxidantfool73622 жыл бұрын
@@okidoxb4846 I don't think you understand. Being an herbivore does not mean that animal can eat literally any plant on earth. And you are making a false comparison. A cow can eat praise grass, but a human can't, so that means we aren't herbivores? Humans and cows are both herbivores, but are still different species. Humans are anatomically herbivores. We have no business eating animals unless in a starvation situation
@ginabean94342 жыл бұрын
@@antioxidantfool7362 _"Humans are herbivores"_ No they're not. Gary Yourofsky is a pathological liar. It's important to avoid propagating this bs because some people could believe that and that could cause health issues to some. _"We are monogastric herbivores"_ No we're not. Horses, rabbits are. In any case their are way less effective at extracting effective nutriments from the grass than polygastrics. Most of them need to address this with different strategies: the rabbit eats its droppings back (don't try it). The horse has specific bacteria's in its digestive tube (we don't). Bottom line: you can eat grass but you can't digest it, you'd get almost nothing from it but undigested fibers. _"Wheat is a type of grass"_ And since we're not herbivorous, we eat the grain, not the straw.
@KawaiiCat23 жыл бұрын
Wait @4:09 you say the land is is used for growing food for livestock but in his video, he said that the food livestock eat can’t be eaten by humans such as corn stalks and grass… so this argument is invalid
@linkthepig42193 жыл бұрын
The argument still isn't invalid lol. Deforestation gives room for crop growth that is fed to cattle, and then humans eat the cattle. Humans cause the deforestation/natural land destruction to make room for cattle feed in the first place. Just because we can't eat cattle feed doesn't mean we should eat cows instead.
@Preservestlandry2 жыл бұрын
They don't just eat corn stalks though. There is feed corn for cattle, not just the stalks. And cattle feed has soy, not just stalks. If he said they only eat stalks, he lied. Some use barley as well. And beets.
@trilobiteerlive28733 жыл бұрын
The point of Dr Frank being paid by these meat companies to find the research is definitely true but you seem have not thought about how it’s probably the same on your side of the argument. That’s how research teams make money, they research things that people pay them to research.
@tahdiul2 жыл бұрын
yea attacking scientists based on who sponsored their research is not cool. That doesn't automatically make their research invalid
@JustsomeSpaceG12 жыл бұрын
He does research to decrease the amount. They pay him and others researchers to find a solution.
@grantbaker70622 жыл бұрын
What pisses me off is these very same vegans have NOTHING to say about the huge conflicts of interests and biases in documentaries like Game Changers, and they have no problem praising and recommending the documentary to everyone. Hypocrites, they won't question or criticise anything that supports their beliefs, but they're the first to criticise any research that supports meat in any way.
@ernestnicolvaldez14072 жыл бұрын
Underrated comment
@ElectronicCalifornia2 жыл бұрын
Both sides are not equal, which is why scientific consensus is how science is done, which Ed clearly talks about which you conveniently ignored. If 95% of scientists are saying humans are warming the planet, but the 5% who disagree are all paid by Fossil Fuel companies, is it really that hard to do the math? If 95% of scientists are saying veganism has a significant reduction in Co2, but the 5% of scientists who disagree are all paid by Big Agro, is it really that hard to do the math? Think about it...
@nicoleonfeels3 жыл бұрын
Some people will really go out of their way to feel like they’re in the right and that veganism is a wasted effort. And I really don’t understand why.
@georgewashingtom65163 жыл бұрын
@A P I know where meat comes from, I consume it regularly, and I don't feel guilty at all.
@therockingvolbeat36303 жыл бұрын
@@georgewashingtom6516 have you watched any slaughterhouse footage? It's one thing knowing your food is a dead body when we've been raised to believe it's normal, it's another to watch it die before eating it.
@graystone28023 жыл бұрын
@@therockingvolbeat3630 wow you would hate any aspect of the natural world if you don’t like the fact that animals eat other animals
@angelachappalarrea23233 жыл бұрын
@@graystone2802 wooosh what other animals do is irrelevant to humans killing sentient beings without any need for it. We have moral agency and we can generally live perfectly fine without animal products.
@therockingvolbeat36303 жыл бұрын
@@graystone2802 I think Angela explained it pretty well. Meat isn't a requirement so the mass genocide we commit is purely recreational. We have moral agency, we understand that killing is wrong and feel empathy for the victims whilst actually predatory animals don't.
@joffreybluthe79063 жыл бұрын
Assuming that the person you disagree with is acting in bad faith right off the bat is so low, even if you were right that puts you in the same boat as the person you’re accusing What about simply going over the points you don’t agree with and those you do agree with?
@yamaneru67602 жыл бұрын
WIL is at least respectful with his arguments and just does the arguementing. Insulting the opposing side rlly is a douche move
@GeneKoss2 жыл бұрын
Starting out a video with an ad hominem attack doesnt make me feel confident about the rest of this video. Attack the argument, not the person. Instead of asserting that a researcher is corrupt or incorrect, show where and how his conclusions are in error.
@intraspecies51203 жыл бұрын
Thanks, Ed! The creator of that video said he might make a response to you. I wonder if it would be worth it to reach out for a live debate or discussion with them.
@cualquierwea13 жыл бұрын
He did, a PDF response yesterday, invite him to debate please!
@SigmaElement3 жыл бұрын
A Debate would be great, because both sides seem to be picking and choosing and glosing over a bunch of things acording to.... well... both sides.
@joshuamartinez89903 жыл бұрын
@@cualquierwea1 could you link the PDF response? I cant seem to find it
@joshhanretty90653 жыл бұрын
@@joshuamartinez8990 go to the original video and follow a link in the description
@codypennington80703 жыл бұрын
I read the entire PDF that WIL responded with and I have to say it was actually incredibly well put together. I hope that Ed does respond to the PDF because as of now WIL's responses to Ed leave me questioning a lot. This isn't to say i'll stop being vegan. At the end of the day I could not contribute to animal suffering, but WIL's PDF response makes me question whether Ed jumps the gun a bit with his responses before doing adequate research and leaning heavily on creating suspicion over the individual doing the research, rather than the research itself. Really hoping Ed does a response to the PDF.
@n1t_3 жыл бұрын
You forgot one important time stamp: 21:20 Oat milk latte > almond milk latte. 100% true. Scientifically based from my own anecdotal evidence.
@flattlandermontgomery15243 жыл бұрын
Now I have no choice but to try it!! LOL Cannot argue with science.
@goji58873 жыл бұрын
Have you tried soy milk? It also tastes pretty good imo. Its emissions are a little bit higher, but water use and land use are both lower. Especially water use, almost half the footprint. (Poore & Nemecek, 2018)
@stehplatzb.43103 жыл бұрын
You guys, I know hazelnut is expensive outside of Turkey but it's so good in coffee
@marshmallowcat70623 жыл бұрын
@@goji5887 soy milk is so good!!!! Yessss
@arty-AN56903 жыл бұрын
I don't drink coffee, but I agree that oat milk and soy milk are both better than almond milk.
@witmilk65272 жыл бұрын
Why does the assumption get made that the crop residues get burned? Because All the food that gets wasted, more then 80 of it, is plantbased food. Why is that waste not used already? How can anything else get assumed? Cus right now there's already not being done a really good job
@joncaro469 Жыл бұрын
I raise cattle on strictly grass. I’ve had salesmen call on me to try and sell me on their feed to boost my production; it’s a waste product and can’t be eaten by humans FULL STOP. And at the price they sell it there’s no way in hell it’s human edible. I couldn’t afford to feed my cattle human foods, it’s just not feasible. But the waste product they sell for cattle feed is so dirt cheap I’d come out financially better using it. It’s only for ethical reasons I stick with strictly grass because I could raise a lot more cattle on the same land if I fed them the trash that’s for sale. Water consumption is a dumb argument also. The water where I live is dirt cheap, my bill is $20 a month with sewage and trash in that price for my home. But even here, I’d go broke very quickly providing my cattle water out of the tap to drink. The only tap water used for my farm is to wash off the side-by-side I use to travel the property. Ranchers build ponds and utilize that water, not because of some environmental reason, but strictly financial reason; we can’t afford it. On my place I don’t even use mechanical means to move the water, I’ve built ponds at elevation and gravity feeds it into pipes. When the ponds are full I’ll even use it to hose down my cattle on a hot day. Beef is artificially cheap right now because ranchers are selling a lot of cattle because of draughts in the west. Why would they be doing that if they can just get water out of a tap, or get it trucked in? Because cattle ranchers can’t afford to spend money like that, we’re in a low profit industry where we have to wait 3 years for return on investment. I don’t have diesel equipment blowing, planting and harvesting my product. I have a tractor that I occasionally use to pull the cattle trailer around the property and a side-by-side to travel on. I don’t spray pesticides. Which is also a big deal because we (humans) have killed half the earth’s insect population through pesticide use. I don’t spray fertilizer, there’s no need. My crop is the grass that naturally grows, the cattle provide all the fertilizer I need. I don’t kill herbivores to protect my product like farmers do. When I was a young man I hunted deer in Alabama with friends. On 3 occasions farmers saw our hunting gear and requested we hunt their property to protect their crops. I don’t lose soil when it rains. I don’t feed mega corporations money for patent protected goods. The same can’t be said for farmers. Another thing, ranchers generally don’t buy land that can be farmed because it’s too damn expensive; big agriculture has chased us out into land that can’t be farmed due to hills, rocks or low production soils. I’m on some nice flat land that would make good farming, but I inherited. If I had to purchase it the cattle business could not have paid it off.
@cynicalidealist113 жыл бұрын
Yeah that silly video really needed to be debunked by someone with a platform.
@user-pq5ih9vg5w3 жыл бұрын
Main point about land is that you CANT just grow anything everywhere, its not debunking, its misleading...
@TsvetomirIvanov3 жыл бұрын
He also makes a point to get rid of all farm animals, which kinda contradicts most vegan views of life. At least my friends who are vegan seem to care more about animals than people (which I also do not understand). This dude here suggests wiping out several species.
@hippiegamer1123 жыл бұрын
@@TsvetomirIvanov The only reason that the farm animals exist is due to genetic manipulation and selective breeding (current dairy cows produce at least 20x the amount of milk than they should to keep up with the demands of the dairy industry, egg-laying hens produce 25 to 30x the amount of eggs their wild counterparts produce, and broiler chickens have been bred to grow to "edible" size within 3 weeks of birth)... these animals should never have existed in the first place. Not to mention that vegans aren't asking for these animals to be mass euthanized (even though that's what is currently happening, it's just that their flesh is going into the mouths of people and not staying on their bodies). The entire world won't go vegan overnight, so the ideal situation would be for flesh to be less of a demand, causing less animals to be born for slaughter (since a majority of animals born for slaughter are through artificial insemination done by the farmers), and then hopefully shifting many animals over to sanctuaries for them to live out the remainder of their lives. And honestly, current animal agriculture is already well on it's way to wiping out many species, not to mention the species that it's already wiped out. Animal agriculture already causes the deaths of many, many wild animals on the daily, with farmers shooting, trapping and chemically exterminating them to protect their product.
@TsvetomirIvanov3 жыл бұрын
@@hippiegamer112 most of what you said mainly happens in the US. In Europe, there are a bit more regulations in the food industry, so no, chickens cannot grow in 3 weeks here. Furthermore in less developed countries, animals are usually bred on small farms, grass fed, eco, bio, organic or whatever kind of label you use when buying more expensive produce. I live in a country where there are still sheep and cow herders and the animals usually feed off of land where nothing but grass can grow. The whole world will never go all vegan, nor all carnivore. Our planet cannot sustain an all vegan diet for so many people, even if it's only rice.
@hippiegamer1123 жыл бұрын
@@TsvetomirIvanov Actually, the world could sustain and would be far healthier and much better off with a vegan diet. I recommend this video from Mic the Vegan, it has many good points talking about the environment and feeding people: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/kKh3a717v8yUo6M.html And I'm definitely aware of those who are more dependent on animals for food in less developed countries, but does that mean we shouldn't change our ways to a far more healthy and sustainable lifestyle that would greatly benefit our health and the Earth just because people in other areas are unable to? Not to mention that the negative impact of their animal agriculture is far less than the impact of ours, and they actually have something of an excuse while we in first world countries have much easier access to a well-balanced vegan diet.
@rojo_88888 ай бұрын
he literally debunked everything you said in his video
@abrahanpinedo3 жыл бұрын
C'mon man! You said "funky science" and then started with an ad hominem
@IsmelinaCafuir3 жыл бұрын
What I've learned should rename his channel to What I learned According To My Confirmation Bias He doesn't really want to learn. He wants to establish what he thought he knows with "science" and fallacious logic so that he really doesn't have to change anything about himself when it comes to hid diet. 🤣
@ezo21613 жыл бұрын
It’s a clever name. Makes it sound like a scientific/educational channel with no particular bias, when in reality it’s a pro-meat channel
@lukasye34273 жыл бұрын
no one has to change their diet
@mateusztgorak3 жыл бұрын
@@lukasye3427 ('Academic philosophy answer' warning). There are two ways in which your statement can be correct: (1) under error theory - then ok but cringe; (2) Humean rejection of an ought - basically, there are some moral philosophers who would deny the sensical nature of "an ought" but still claim that moral statements are truth-apt and that some are in fact true. So in this view nothing changes that much because even though they can't say "someone has to (ought to) do smth" they still say "it would be better is sb did smth" and it's well-replicating psychological knowledge that if we have reasons to act (eg to not buy meat) and no overriding reasons to the contrary, then a mentally healthy human being would almost always act in this way. So if "What I've Learned" guy were to agree on everything with Ed (and with implications of matters agreed upon) then it would be very likely that he would take some actions to ameliorate the cognitive dissonance between those reasons and his action (maybe not being full vegan but at least limit or decrease animal products). // There's some chance that this comment is useful or smth so here you go.
@lukasye34273 жыл бұрын
@@mateusztgorak i just mean even if it would be better tp change it for the environment one still doesnt HAVE to. right?
@mateusztgorak3 жыл бұрын
@@lukasye3427 In formal ethics - see my previous comment (if smth would be better, but it's not true that sb has to do something that's the position "(2)" I mentioned), additionally, in human right ethics it's more complicated eg bc by contributing to climate change you don't *directly* harm anyone, just indirectly it's probable that you do harm some people in the future, so it's not so clear. In law - prohibiting eating anything would be ridiculous. It's not even illegal to eat sand (and eating humans is rarely *directly* illegal, in most countries acts of cannibalism are commonly charged not for eating but for murder or desecration of corpses). BUT I think one could make a good case for taxing more on things that have super high carbon emissions (like meat). And if we were in extremely bad situation like: meat industry causing global pandemic every 5 years bc of higher mutation rates or/and antibiotics resistance started to happen THEN I think it would be justifiable to make some legal restrictions on selling it (but not eating it).
@PulseCodeMusic3 жыл бұрын
The algorithm needs to recommend this in the side bar for the WIL vid! Like, comment share!
@stehplatzb.43103 жыл бұрын
Talking, talking, talking... yo this is good video ai.
@Soapss3 жыл бұрын
Yess
@miketaiwanwalkcity63553 жыл бұрын
Watch time also till the end
@stehplatzb.43103 жыл бұрын
@@miketaiwanwalkcity6355 does that help? I usually let it play while i do chores
@will5323 жыл бұрын
@@stehplatzb.4310 yeah I think watch time is a big factor in the algorithm
@Givemeliberty302 жыл бұрын
His argument doesn't take into account that Remnant animals like cows have replaced the millions of bison that used to graze on those same natural grasslands. Ruminant animals are a very important part to maintaine a healthy ecosystem. I bet vegans would celebrate the near-extinction bison because they're "destroying the planet".
@89technical2 жыл бұрын
I've listened to your stuff for a while and I've come to the conclusion that Veganism is the flat earth of food: Let's go through a few points: 1) The idea that cows and livestock contribute to greenhouse gas emissions is so ridiculous it should bar anyone who uses this as an argument from the conversation. It's extremely easy to debunk - humans started raising cattle in 10 500 BC and domesticated most of our other livestock within 2 000 to 3000 years of this period. We've literally raised billions of animals over the millennia with no measurable effect on the climate. The reason for this is because of the source of Carbon - animal carbons come from the carbon cycle as a part of the natural exchange between the atmosphere and living organisms. Anyone with a grade school knowledge of how the carbon cycle works and where climate change is coming from can recognize this. Animals get their carbon from the plants they eat, they then release it back int the atmosphere where the carbon originally came from. Your take that animal agriculture is somehow making this worse is completely aehistorical and glosses over the fact that the methane emitted from things like Fracking is so much higher and could be stopped tomorrow with the stroke of a pen. Your agricultural land idea sound impressive however, let's point something out: if you took all the Deserts on Earth, which is way more than the agricultural land used for raising livestock, most of which is not suitable for anything else, and planted them with trees you'd only sequester at most 20% of the total carbon in the atmosphere. So while 8.1 Billion tons sounds impressive it's a fraction of what's being emitted and not nearly enough to make an actual difference in the carbon being added by non-agricultural emissions which again, far exceed agricultural emissions. It's a band aid on a gunshot wound. Climate change and the mass addition of Carbon to our atmosphere started around the time of the industrial revolution, we have Ice Cores from Antarctica that prove this beyond the shadow of a doubt.To make the case that animal agriculture is somehow to blame is ludicrous - its' the billions of tons of CO2 and Methane being pumped into the air by the oil and gas industry, the millions of cars on the road and the mass use of oil in the production of plastic which is adding the carbon to the atmosphere, not the cows which again, we've been raising since the start of civilization with no measurable effect on the climate. Frankly blaming cows for climate change is a red herring and a canard. 2) Water use - I'm afraid the good doctor is right on all counts in his assessment of water use: Cows don't horde water in their bodies like a black hole absorbing matter. They urinate and defecate returning that water to the water cycle. The same way every other organism on earth does. What's a far greater waste of water is growing trendy foods like Almonds, Pistachios and Avocados in the middle of California's Mojave desert, or planting fields in the scrub land and prairies of the American Southwest - we tried this in the 1910s and 1920s, it lead to what was called the dust bowl. The fact of the matter is: these places despite making up a majority of the cash crops which people eat are totally wrong for growing food - it's too arid and needs water continuously pumped into it, whereby it then evaporates and leaves the environment since to no one's shock it doesn't rain much here already. This also leads to extreme soil degradation via salinization of the soil which then requires more water to fix it since the only way to desalinate is to the flood the fields with fresh water. Meanwhile the use of this same land and land like it for animals feed and fodder has existed against, for millennia since they can feed on this land with minimal damage. This vague notion of we would use it for something else is again misleading. It can't be used for anything else, and again you'd have to truck in water to make it viable as cropland. Beside this we waste far more water growing cotton for clothing, most of which is thrown away by the end of 1 year. Meanwhile, animal based clothing such as wool or leather not only lasts longer but rarely if ever gets thrown away, and is natural. Vegan fabrics are mostly made from Petroleum. A VERY small minority is made from plant bases. 3) Land preservation: I don't want The Amazon to be knocked down any more than the next environmentally conscious person but not eating meat won't stop that: I'm old enough to remember the 90s - we were logging the rain forest at a tremendous rate for Timber, not because we wanted to feed cattle. And that's still the main reason why the Amazon is being knocked down. Also I find it fascinating that vegans scream about the poor sentience of cows but don't seem to bat an eyelid at the destruction of habitat for actual sentient beings like Orangutans for the creation of palm and coconut oil in Borneo, Lemurs for vanilla in Madagascar or chimps in the Congo for chocolate. All of which are Vegan foods, palm and coconut oil especially. If we knocked down the Amazon for palm oil the results would be the same. It's less a desire for meat and more a desire for wealth driving the destruction of the Amazon as well as all the other world's rain forests. Now, if you can make keeping the Amazon and the other rain forests around the world in tacked more valuable than their timber and agricultural use then people will stop knocking them down. I also don't buy into this idea of eating animals as particularly cruel. The bison being eaten alive by wolves isn't exactly thrilled about being eaten but to characterize it as immoral is silly - every animal is food for something else regardless of it's sentience, and that includes us. We are a part of nature whether we live in cities or not.
@GoogleIsNotYourFriend2 жыл бұрын
I share the same frustration with these types of videos. It is always more about identity tribalism that objective analysis. I mean the guy made a video called "Eating less Meat won't save the Planet. Here's Why" he wasn't trying to "debunk veganism" it was just a video pointing out how irrelevant and misdirected the "environmental activism" focused on meat consumption is and for the most part his argument were sound. Instead of addressing that point these "debunk" videos go on tangents seemingly to obscure the main points in the video and going after irreleveant "facts". Like who fucking cares that the guy is paid by the meat industry, that we could use the land for something else or that we could compost waste instead...it doesn't mean anything unless your waving a stupid pro-meat or pro-vegan flag like an idiot.
@89technical2 жыл бұрын
@@Fishmans You're quite correct, one will make you immune, the other kills you. As for a lazy load of false equivalences, no? Global warming is caused by the additional tons of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. The entire history of humanity is proof of that and there's not getting around it. The Amazon as well as all the other forests in the world are being knocked down for profit, not patties. For example: there's a whole swatch of forests in Siberia being logged at a similar rate and they're not turning that into pasturage because it's unsuitable for it. To make the case that meat is killing The Amazon you have to ignore all the other factors going in to why it's being cut down, which is primarily the government policy of the Brazilian government seeking corporate profits. Eliminate meat, that need is still there and you're still going to have the Amazon being consumed at the same rate. You can't rebuttal because there is no rebuttal: the Vegan movement is built on the logical fallacy that all animal life is equal and therefore to eat any of them is immoral yet it's not immoral for animals to eat each other. Sentience is so much more than feeling pain. The Mona Lisa is the work of a mad genius and is beloved by all who know her story. A triumph of math, art and science working together. To a pig, it's nothing more than colourful wood. Something to scratch it's bottom on or sniff disinterestedly. Their peak intelligence is our base intelligence. Every other argument is scientifically bankrupt. And as for sustainability: again, we've kept animals for 12 500 years. Is 12.5 Millennia not sustainable enough for you? We've kept the oil and gas industry however for less than 200 years and we're on the brink of apocalypse. I think the evidence speaks for itself. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Veganism is The Flat Earth of food. It's a cope for the fact that the wheels are coming off our system of energy production and transportation: if I just don't eat meat everything will be okay. Never mind if you remove the oil and gas from industry, it means you also remove it from meat production and it's contribution to global warming decreases as well.
@89technical2 жыл бұрын
@@Fishmans Well it's nice to talk to someone who isn't totally indoctrinated by the Vegan mindset. Well met. Okay so let's start with this whole meat is unhealthy thing: That's patently untrue ~ a result of the sugar industry in it's effort to maintain it's image and industry starting in the 70s. If we look at a variety of diets around the world, we see meats paying a part of them without causing severe obesity, heart disease of any of the other illnesses associated with diet. That's all sugar. Sometimes being old works in my favour - I remember when fats were the bad guy and suddenly everyone was obsessively lowering their cholesterol. Now, is eating meat every day at every meal warranted: No, I agree that's crazy but the candy for breakfast we were fed as kids was equally unhealthy and probably worse in the long term for our health. Which brings us to point two: Eat vegetarian/vegan doesn't make you healthy. If you're consuming a ton of fried foods, sugar and everything else that's terrible for you but plant based, then you're just eating vegetarian you're not eating healthy. Eating Healthy, whether it be in the vegetarian or omnivorous lifestyles requires calorie counting and looking at what you're eating as bricks in the foundation of your body's health. Attuning your diet to your nutritional needs and also exercise ~ if you sit around all day you're gonna die from heart disease no amount of lettuce will cure that. If we look at the longest lived societies, such as Japan and Italy, their diets are just a small part of what they do to stay healthy and live well: these are very active people who still incorporate meat into their diets: The Japanese in fact loved fatty, marbled beef as opposed to the North American market which eats a lot more lean proteins like chicken. Now as to the amount of meat we eat: Yes, during the middle ages the peasants of Europe ate little meat and subsisted off a poor diet of grains and whatever vegetables they could grow. However, that's a VERY small sliver of human history from a single point on the map. I can point to dozens of times in human history where we not only ate meat like we do today but our societies were geared towards meat production. I can give an easy example: one of the little known facts is that the native peoples prior to the incursion of the Europeans into their territory ate about 20% meat as part of their diet either as fish or caught wild game. And it's a myth that our first nations brothers and sisters were nomadic hunter gatherers, that's what was left after the diseases wiped them out: a large portion of the native population that existed before 1492 did so in farming communities and cities which were so modern as to have running water at a time when the Europeans thought bathing was bad for your health and most were starving for want of food. And they managed to produce meat like that sustainably for thousands of years. When we look at their skeletons through archaeology and anthropology we don't see the same pinching of the body from lack of nutrients because by working with the land, they were able to maximize their meat production. The Great plains of North American, Argentina, La Pampas and Australia are not naturally occurring, they were engineered that way by the native peoples of the region so wild game would always be abundant. The Aztecs practiced aquaponics so they always had access to fish. The same is true in all the other historic places people have gathered. In fact in writing on the ancient Germans the Romans often highlighted that they lived mostly off of milk and cattle, consuming little if any grain as the forest they live are not conducive to agriculture. The Romans themselves would have had access to a lot more meat than their European descendant and even had modern vendors and street merchants with the equivalent of fast food. They would have looked upon the European diet after 473 as extremely poor. Humans have only ever refrained from the consumption of meat when it's not possible to have it ~ otherwise we do all we can to maximize it because we crave it as an essential part of our nutrition and diets. If you don't believe me we just have to look at places like Papua New Guinea and the other South Pacific Islands: they have no naturally occurring meat animals in these places. Some birds, access to fish, but nothing like the pig or the game animals of the rest of the wider world. When they were "discovered" in the late 1800s early 1900s, they were found to have Kuru or laughing sickness from the practice of cannibalism. People ate each other to have access to meat. That's how deep the desire runs. And you're right, I do like the 12 Millennia claim, one, because it's true and two because it shows the continuity of meat production and the effect on climate for far longer than the climate crisis has been going on. We managed to sustain meat production up to now, we just have to figure out how to continue to do so while maintaining the environment. I would suggest that all that desert land we have would make poor forest, but might make for excellent grazing areas if we apply our science to that. I'd also posit that part of the reason we're able to raise so many animals is because we're using land more efficiently to do so. Let me be clear, I hate high density feed lots and I think they're awful. So we really need to look at how we can raise the same numbers of cows and other animals through de-industrialized methods. If it means eating less meat and more high quality then so be it but that's a symptom of a much bigger problem: I also agree with you that there's not way we can feed a high meat diet to 10 B people: That's extremely unsustainable but just like with the amount of animals we keep as livestock the amount of people there are on planet Earth is unprecedented. For the entirety of human existence until the time of the industrial revolution there were less than 1 Billion humans on Earth. What you're seeing in the human population boom is exactly what we see when limiting factors are removed from any other species, a mass explosion followed by a crash when the environment can no longer support their numbers. The fact that our animals have boomed with us is therefore not surprising. Luckily, we don't have to worry too much about that for much longer: The places where consumption is highest such as North America and the other highly developed parts of the world such as Europe and the richer parts of Asia are for the most part in population deficit. They have a birth rate below 2.1 and in some cases as low as 1.1. If in addition to decarbonizing the energy economy we keep up the pressure to develop through the breaking of the condom/contraception taboo and increasing education and job opportunities, we will see these populations dip as well. And by the end of the century, as nature takes it course we will see the global population fall back to 6 Billion. We can't feed 10 B people all the meat we want but let's face facts, we can't feed 10 B people period without continued and significant damage to the environment. The Earth's carrying capacity for us is maybe 4.5 Billion if everyone lives comfortably. We're already well over the red line however, since even though the population is 7.6 Billion we probably consumer closer to the resources of 12 Billion. There are simply too many people. This is the point where I generally get written off as an eco-fascist, which isn't true, but in no ecological system can one species reproduce and have it's population increase indefinitely. Regardless of if they're herbivores or not. Whether it be through elevated birth rate or depressed death rate, the effect is the same: the environment is consumed, it's carrying capacity decreases and the population starves. I hate to say it but Malthus is about to be proven correct in shocking fashion. Yes, technology and the ability of humans to exploit the environment to make up the difference worked for a while but it won't continue to work into the future. We were aiming at Star Trek we ended up in Soylent Green. Also, my point in looking at the fashion industry wasn't that we should all wear leather and wool: while these clothes are more durable, I would say the better alternative is to give up the fast part of the fashion industry and stop looking at clothes as disposable. Buying higher quality clothes and simply not throwing them away, or deigning to be seen in the same outfits (gasp) more than once would go just as far for the saving of land and water use as eliminating meat. 99% of the clothing consumed every year is made of cotton. 95% of that ends up in a landfill after 1 year. Surely you must admit that's far too high.It's a waste not just of the cotton fabric but of all the land resources, water and energy that went into growing that fiber in the first place. People need to make smarter purchases and buy less. They can start with clothes. Cut that down to 50% at least. It's all impulse buying. Alright, let's talk about the palm oil: Okay, unfair shot I admit it but the point stands: our forests and wild places are being consumed by industry and the elimination of meat from our diets isn't going to stop that. The reason for this is because the forest has no value to the government that are allowing them to be knocked down as a source of revenue. Not eating meat will not stop that because the profits that are driving deforestation are still there. It's again a symptom and not a cause. Here too I can point to an easy example: the Americans wanted to strip mine The Grand Canyon. Crazy idea right? Well, by declaring these places protected and then building a tourism industry they're so much more valuable. This is what need to be done to the rain forests, or else nothing we do at the consumer level short of ceasing to exist will stop the destruction.
@nyla24082 жыл бұрын
You do know that 50% of California's water goes to the livestock industry don't you? If you really believe cow pee and poo replenish the water they use, you are downright scary.
@89technical2 жыл бұрын
@@nyla2408 So where exactly do you think the water goes when they drink it? Does it get launched into outer space?
@The8BitPianist3 жыл бұрын
I love how Ed at the end is like "If you've been sent this video by a vegan friend..." because that is exactly what I'll do if anyone sends me that WIL video
@aishra43633 жыл бұрын
I love this man. He explained all this topics so easily that Joseph’s video looks like a bad joke. Hope the algorithm works and more people listen to the actual truth!
@catjuzu3 жыл бұрын
You just have to listen to the first point. Greenwater really Made me tear up. How can someone say so many wrong stuff in such a short time.
@rocketsurgeon57583 жыл бұрын
I still don't understand how I can cancel fossil fuel induced climate change by becoming a vegan.
@ginabean94343 жыл бұрын
As long as we still measure emissions of living animals without any consideration of the sources, vegans can still assimilate it with direct pollution and pretend that stopping the 100% biogeochemical animal carbon recycling compensates for their 100% fossil carbon emissions. You can join too. Qualities required: loss of critical sense. Minimum education possibly with dropping in biology and science classes. Predestination for esoterism and "alternative" nutrition or medicine, a plus.
@gokouson1803 жыл бұрын
Eat less meat or use less fossil fuels? Really? Is this even a question for an intelligent person?
@andydutton4553 жыл бұрын
I'm glad you have a platform to speak.
@Brandi-V-Blazin3 жыл бұрын
Here early from discord! Thanks for everything you do Ed!
@nathangoedel87456 ай бұрын
1/3 of all farm land can not grow human edible crops. So in the first few minutes of the video he doesn't know that fact about farmland. This guy has no idea what he is talking about.
@ryanbutler42212 жыл бұрын
The free market decides how much land is used for human food. What's the point of growing more food if it is not sold. That would be worse for the environment surely
@PhilosophyOfNoa3 жыл бұрын
Can you address that fact that many people with auto-immune disorders can't seem to eat any plant based foods? What is their ethical obligation?
@insu_na7 ай бұрын
I'd like to see one of those, lol.
@Mkoivuka3 жыл бұрын
You didn't really go into depth here into the plant-based food waste argument. Here are a few variables you seem to overlook: 1. Food comes in packaging. Packaging tends to be made from plastics. 2. Plant-based foods are more difficult to store than meat. 3. Many fruits, such as avocados, bananas and apples for instance, are clones. This means that to make the fruit available, we tend to have massive monocultures (see, current favorite banana species going into extinction) which are uniquely susceptible to disease and parasitism. It takes, on average, 8000 attempts to come up with 1 good-tasting avocado, and to get the same fruit we need to clone the tree via grafting. 4. Calorie-for-calorie, due to meat being more dense, it takes more volume to transport the same caloric value overseas as plant matter. While meat can be readily produced just about anywhere, climate dictates where we grow our foodcrops. This means longer supply chains and more pollution. Plants might be part of the natural carbon cycle, but diesel-guzzling ships are not. EDIT: 5. In discussing caloric value per weight, we are ignoring density. A kilogram of meat is quite a bit smaller in terms of volume than a kilogram of [pick your favorite food crop here]. Shipping makes moving of weight extremely cheap, while the most expensive metric is volume.
@Hauntedundead3 жыл бұрын
I always found it strange how some people want to eat more veggies as a environmental alternative but then go and buy stuff that cannot be grown anywhere near the country they live in. On the other hand I totally understand this since, for example Northern countries, can have a large seasonal difference and just cannot grow almost any crop one 4th of the year if not half of the year. Perhaps the best would be to eat seasonally with added pickling, fermenting, salting to make sure the veggies can be eaten in the "bad" times of the year.
@damn21203 жыл бұрын
WTF meat is way more difficult to store than plants. Some plants don't need packaging and oats etc can be stored for months without cooling.
@HMSNeptun3 жыл бұрын
@@damn2120 you also have fruits(apples, oranges) that cannot be stored for more than a month or two without rotting even if you store them same way as meat, what's your point? Meat, when preserved correctly, can last just as long.
@Ronni3no23 жыл бұрын
> _Food comes in packaging. Packaging tends to be made from plastics._ So? Is meat packed in paper or something? > _Plant-based foods are more difficult to store than meat._ A dubious claim as meat is notoriously easily spoiled and requires refrigeration. > _Many fruits, such as avocados, bananas and apples for instance, are clones._ And hundreds of thousands of farm animals are offspring of the same male progenitor. > _It takes, on average, 8000 attempts to come up with 1 good-tasting avocado_ So? > _Calorie-for-calorie, due to meat being more dense, it takes more volume to transport the same caloric value overseas as plant matter._ Plant matter consumed by animals in this process is transported by diesel-guzzling ships, it's not magically summoned. Are you claiming that more GHG are released by transporting plants than by first converting them into meat at 25:1 calorie ratio and then transporting them?
@HMSNeptun3 жыл бұрын
@@Ronni3no2 >Is meat packed in paper or something? Is vegetables packed in paper or something? >Meat is notoriously easily spoiled and requires refrigeration So does vegetables if you want them to last longer than 1 week. >Male polonators And so are you. Many plants, on the other hand, are genetically engineered so that they give extra yield, and in many cases made so that they wouldn't breed on their own since seed companies want to see continuous income. The effect of this on human is currently minimal so this is not really a point to argue on. >So? It means at least 8000 avocadoes are wasted for that one. >Diesel guzzling ships They require the same type of transporting equipment, but since meat is more dense, it is more efficient to transport because it takes up less space. Please cite your sources for your 25:1 number.
@roastedcoffee66682 жыл бұрын
its crazy how people still debating what they should be eat when the most destructive way to destroy your earth is the pollution of transportation
@MasterKey20042 жыл бұрын
Yeah but transportation is necessary unlike the right diet
@casperdewith Жыл бұрын
@@MasterKey2004 Some forms of transportation are much more polluting (per kilometre per person) than others. It is better for the environment if a hundred people would be taking public transport than if the same number of people would drive the same amount by car.
@RoseCalyx Жыл бұрын
@@casperdewithyeah car dependency is an actual plague
@ItimDave10 ай бұрын
But why can't we address both problems? They aren't mutually exclusive.
@jasonhymes33827 ай бұрын
@@ItimDave Because compared to one, the other isn't even a problem. Create walkable cities before you even start to try and change a human tradition of eating meat for the last 5 thousand years.
@TheReaverOfDarkness5 ай бұрын
0:29 Earthling Ed: "Joseph ... makes so many ridiculous and anti-scientific points, and I'm going to go through and debunk each and every one of them" 0:47 poisoning the well, ad hominem (he explains that Dr. Frank Mittloehner is paid by the agricultural industry) 1:27 Earthling Ed claims that Dr. Mittloehner's points go against the scientific consensus but never demonstrates this. He also claims that Dr. Mittloehner has been criticized by experts and shows four quotes on screen criticizing him, but the quotes aren't labeled and no sources are given for them. They also appear to be lacking important context, but it's pretty difficult to find out for sure when he doesn't even say where the quotes are from. 1:51 red herring, motte and bailey (he points out that the weight of the food isn't necessarily the best metric, which is dodging the actual point being made which is that many of these crops aren't edible to humans in the first place) 3:01 he claims that foods being inedible to humans is not relevant, that it's all about how the land is used (ignoring the point made in the video that not all land can be used to grow human food crops) 3:19 Earthling Ed: "Now to give you a sense of perspective, in the US, animal farming uses ten times more land than plant-based farming for human consumption." completely ignoring that this point is addressed in the video in-depth and preferring to just toss it out there as one of the vegan favorite go-to quips that sounds like a good argument against meat despite it having been debunked so many times. 3:33 lie, Earthling Ed says that What I've Learned "conveniently glosses over" the following point that land which is used to grow animal feed could be used to grow human food. This is false. What I've Learned does indeed talk about this point, and demonstrates that much of this land cannot in fact be used to grow human food. There's nothing of value in this video. I'm four minutes in and have yet to see anything which isn't logically fallacious or an outright lie.
@ellaandgoldfish3 жыл бұрын
What I learned: Read the sources you cite all the way through to avoid being seen as a lazy idiot. Thanks Ed for pointing this out. It always amuses me when people cite a paper out of context, when in fact the paper argues against the very point they are trying to make.
@tedylaye3 жыл бұрын
Did you read all the sources Ed cited all the way through?
@ellaandgoldfish3 жыл бұрын
@@tedylaye No, but I'm not the one citing them in a KZfaq video. If I wrote a paper or made a video or some other piece of content, I would indeed read the sources all the way through before citing. That's the point I'm trying to make.
@yerazkaligian78623 жыл бұрын
lol had this happen with someone fighting there being more than two genders. the paper itself admitted that biologically there are more than just two sexes and this person was using that argument...
@AlyssonAugusto3 жыл бұрын
*I WAS WAITING FOR THIS*
@jedex46453 жыл бұрын
imagine being on the net for your pleasure at the cost of harm to sentient life disgusting D:
@mumofmany75893 жыл бұрын
@@jedex4645 blah blah
@jedex46453 жыл бұрын
@@mumofmany7589 you just caused suffering to say blah blah, well done vegan XD
@thejoesighuh2 жыл бұрын
I wonder how many scientists researching and advocating plant based diets to fight climate change are backed by the oil industry. I get whiplash trying to figure out what's going on with anything these days.
@arunsadanandabhat85182 жыл бұрын
why would they do that ? plant based diet have nothing to do with the oil industry as far as i can see. could you please explain?
@thejoesighuh2 жыл бұрын
@@arunsadanandabhat8518 framing climate change as being caused by food takes blame away from the oil industry.
@arunsadanandabhat85182 жыл бұрын
@@thejoesighuh Oh .. but they wouldnt be supporting the food industry as a whole, since there are vegetable oils too like olive and coconut oil . so they are selectively supporting the meat producing food industry... am i correct? as greenhouse gas emissions by agriculture are only 11%
@david4046642 жыл бұрын
Look into Alan Savory and the Savory Institute, he is an eye opener and shows we have got it all so wrong. He has transformed deserts with his methods and advocates more animals because cattle store carbon in the ground, amongst many more arguments.
@Really_cool_and_hot_person-fr11 ай бұрын
@@arunsadanandabhat8518you can’t really use those oils for foul, only for cooking. They are no competition.
@EinarrRohling2 жыл бұрын
You compared the nutrients in food that humans CAN digest to what humans can't but referred it to human dietary needs. That giant band across the U.S. west between the Rockies & the Midwest - you can't grow anything there but grass without MASSIVE irrigation but I guess since this video isn't about saving water. The ONLY reason California has such a large ag industry is because of irrigation, it's not naturally arable. You can use industrial corn to create green fuels and feed the waste to livestock. Veganism is simply not a long term healthy diet for humans - we're omnivores. I can go on but the fact of the matter is that you simply ignore reality & facts.
@VangoghM3 жыл бұрын
Pretty early, and honestly I was hoping to see this!
@jugbrewer3 жыл бұрын
I love that Joseph has edited the description of the original video to say "I've become aware that some people are trying to debunk this video. Here's my response" and then it's a link to his Patreon. What a grifter.
@goji58873 жыл бұрын
Also, he's only written a response to one of the weaker debunks imo. I bet he won't even dare to try to respond to the videos from Ed, Mic the Vegan, Unnatural Vegan, etc.
@brettgallagher53063 жыл бұрын
You can read it for free. Where would you like him to post a large body of text?
@tamcon723 жыл бұрын
@@brettgallagher5306 Where everyone on YT can see it? Is this a serious question?
@brettgallagher53063 жыл бұрын
@@tamcon72 it's too long bud
@dr.potat0_head9303 жыл бұрын
@@brettgallagher5306 how bout make a video arrest all the responses .
@meganaxeliar Жыл бұрын
No, I don’t think I will.
@janschulze68923 жыл бұрын
To produce one kilo almonds 16.000 liter water is needed but kilo almonds have 5000 calories meat 2000 calories.
@stevenhall87623 жыл бұрын
What I've learned is the type of guy who would make a video titled " Why ending slavery won't make black lives better".
@Dheops3 жыл бұрын
@Emmit G chill, slavery was abolished a long time ago so what’s the harm? He didn’t say he supported slavery or anything.
@OmicronAwesome3 жыл бұрын
You gloss over the huge point that you cannot grow all crops everywhere. It is ridiculous to assume that you can grow high value human edible food in all of the lands used currently to grow animal feed. I really like your point that returning farming land to nature can aid by recapturing C02 in the form of trees and other vegetation. One issue I see with this is that much of the farming land in the US was never forested but globally, this is probably something that we really need to consider. Not just with the case of meat farming, but plant farming too. Also, it likely takes a very long time to grow a forest to the scale that absorbs the amount of C02 that you cited there. The statement that we could just compost the material that animals currently eat is kind of confusing to me, because by having the animals eat the food, they compost it for us. I don't know the difference in emissions of the two, but I'd be willing to bet that composting that feed would release a similar amount of methane. Finally, I would have liked to hear what you think about the point being made in Joseph's video that not eating meat won't have as much of an impact on helping the environment than other means of going green like installing solar panels or something. Whether you or he are right about this, I think its clear that reducing emissions in other industries like the power industry would have a greater impact than not eating meat.
@General_Fuck_Yeah_AnimeTitties3 жыл бұрын
To add onto that first point: countries like Saudi Arabia and Australia are terrible for farming food. They’d have to rely on the rest of the world to pick up the slack if the world goes meatless
@mrhaz89393 жыл бұрын
@@General_Fuck_Yeah_AnimeTitties Eh, us Australians actually have an area in the Great Dividing Range where we grow a lot of crops, however we don’t grow enough elsewhere and we’d most likely full short as you said. We have lots of droughts that would make it difficult for crops to stay alive without an overuse in human supplied water, which even then wouldn’t be able to balance out with the extreme humidity and sun, so they’d all die. Our meat farms struggle if there’s droughts, so we have no choice but to bring in human supplied water, which probably adds massively to the statistic of “water being used too much”.
@General_Fuck_Yeah_AnimeTitties3 жыл бұрын
@@mrhaz8939 aye. So the situation is even worse when you factor all that in, not to mention we’d have to deliver more food out to the outback (as opposed to what we already do. Much more non meat products would be needed) I think what vegans need to focus on first is eliminating food and drinks like lollies and soft drink from our diet as well as the vast majority of vast foods. That’s far more harmful to both ourselves and the planet than meat farming
@enderneer16593 жыл бұрын
People seem to get confused by the whole "70 % of agricultural land is grassland" and "you can't grow human-quality crops on most of that land" statements. According to the FAO, 70 % of agricultural land is grassland, but that includes land where you have maybe 0.1 cows per acre. The Everglades, parts of the Sahara, etc. make up about 30 % of that grassland. Of the remaining 70 %, just over half could be used to grow crops. So only about 24 % of agricultural land is grassland that can be used for animal farming, but not for high quality human crops. Hardly any of that land is suitable for feeding animals all year round (even Swiss farmers import hay from Eritrea). On top of that, there's the 70-80 % of non-grass-agricultural land currently used to grow animal feed, much of which could be used to grow human grade crops (though we would only actually need about a third of it, if I remember correctly - don't take that exact number as a fact, as I'm recalling it from memory). Finally, many people don't realise that even if we can't grow high quality human crops everywhere, we don't need to. Processed food (for example pea protein extract) does not need to be made from high quality crops. So no, not even in Australia would getting rid of animal farming be even a minor issue. Source: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013
@kaythal17863 жыл бұрын
@@General_Fuck_Yeah_AnimeTitties "ban fuzzy drinks that are someone else's addiction, but don't interfere with my addiction to meat" Ok, Karen.
@thegarlicrollman Жыл бұрын
Still gonna keep eating meat because I really like not having nutritional deficiencies
@lenguyenngoc479 Жыл бұрын
interesting, I love how anyone become nutrition experts talking about veganism. Let's hear what experts say on this, oh they say: less sugar, less oil, less meat especially red and processed meat, less saturated, less refined carb more fiber, more fruits and vegetables, more legumes, more healthier fat option such as canola oil. Eat a variety of foods to have a better nutritional profile. Meanwhile people are eating more sugar, more oil, more refined carb, more meat, more saturated fat (carnivore and LCHF retards), less legume, less fruit, less vegetables Have u followed the guidelines? U haven't I bet
@kvolikkorozkov Жыл бұрын
@@lenguyenngoc479 I've never met a vegan not taking supplements conversely, I've never met an omnivore taking supplements source: going out
@arisily Жыл бұрын
@@kvolikkorozkovanecdotes are not evidence, try harder Source: not being ignorant
@kvolikkorozkov Жыл бұрын
@@arisily so what are statistics if not people talking about their lives?
@macheo6272 Жыл бұрын
How much water for almond milk? You’re just twisting and telling lies