😫🦠💩🍖🥓🍳🍕🍣🥩.. “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 👈😫🦠💩🍖....

We love you ed :)

This is the best response video I've seen for this video so far!

imagine being on the net for your pleasure at the cost of harm to sentient life disgusting D:

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.

Yep.

I figured it would be this week, glad it's here

Yes.

Yes, another awesome video from Ed!

Was going to message Ed but knew everyone else would lmao

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.

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.

@@AFastidiousCuber To be fair though, the vegan community is composed of infinitely more ideologues than non vegans

​@@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.

@@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.

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.

California is not fit to grow almonds and yet here we are :v

@@jjbarajas5341 nah it is that’s why they grow them there lmao, the problem is water not land

@@chimp09 yea we could do that but that’s not what this person is arguing

@@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.

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.

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?

Just leaving a comment to get a notification of the responses here :3

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.

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

My exact thought haha

Lolol

haha, just use chickpeas :)

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.

Mushrooms.

same buddy same XD

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.

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

@@joshsmith2075 Claiming George Orwell's Animal Farm is about communism is somewhat disingenuous..

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.

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.

@@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

@@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.

@@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

@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.

Yet all of the studies he mentioned weren't paid by vegan corporations. Facts don't care about your feelings.

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

👋

Because it’s ideological claptrap

@@Combinationlock the original?

@@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

Just comment the link to this video so more can watch it

Thank you for this!

@@jinwoo2038 you’re welcome. I consider his comment important.

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.

Spoiler alert: Earthling Ed is not objective either. After deep investigation, I discovered he's vegan.

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.

@@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...

@@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?

@@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.

That’s why we create fertilizer out of all the plants that don’t get fed to animals.

@@papascorch5215 or just feed it to animals. We have enough fertilizer . Our plants are also efficient with GMOs aiding them

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,...

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.

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.

@@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.

People who try to tell you that there is "grass land" for cows in the industry schould one not argue with. :D

@@hax7998 Hey, is english your first language?

@@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.

@@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.

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.

@@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.

He doesn’t say to swap out grazing land. He talks about swapping out the farmable land we use to produce food for animals.

Am I wrong here? Compare the graph from 3:53 to the one from 10:59. This illustrates the difference right?

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.

Thank you for the viewpoint!

More like: What I want to be true

He did exactly that with my comments.

@@ab-td7gq oh wow, not surprised, he knows his arguments are crap and has no shame and doesn't want rebuttals shown

@@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!

@@ab-td7gq agree, sounds good my friend !

Same

I've been told the original video has nice graphics. That's a good thing, isn't it? :-)

Wooow same

What did Ed impressively debunk in the video?

@@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.

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.

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

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.

@@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.

@@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.

So, so sad.... but true.

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

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

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

@@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

Lmaooo 😭 BYE ✋

.

😩😩😩😂

lmao

400th like for your comment

And what do you think of the response?

Yeah he made a response on Patreon so only he's fans can comment and blindly agree with he's claims :)

And Joseph is still dead wrong.

yeah a bad response

@@anonb0 Did you actually read the full response in the PDF? He does address it near the end.

Your onto something lmao

Disney would never allow it

That solution is like saying we can create world peace; just stop fighting. Or world poverty: just stop being poor.

@@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.

Haaaaa, if everyone is vegan the world would be screwed😂😂😂

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.

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

@@Kupsztat34 as if the plants grown for cattles don't also do photosynthesis of their own...

@@Kupsztat34 some lands are unfarmable

@@Kupsztat34 like Tibet and others

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.

Grasslands actually sequester a lot of carbon. This is usually less than forests, but is more resistant to wildfire.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

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.

first of all the wood manufacturers are more or less safe in this because they replant them

Yaaaass

Yes!

!

yes

Bahahahahah thinking KZfaq'll help out vegans with attention...

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.

@@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.

*natural ways, the ways our species always had. Yeah, I'm gonna continue those ways. Have fun starving.

@@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".

@@wtfronsson Humans have always tried to distance themselves from nature through scientific discoveries and cultural development. Something that is natural is not automatically ideal

@@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?

@@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.

Well said! I totally agree!

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.

Since more crops are farmed in order to feed livestock, it is still much preferable.

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.

@Shane Rutherford kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ZreEgcp81bzDe2g.html

SAME

Omg, SAME!

Exact same

imagine being on the net for your pleasure at the cost of harm to sentient life disgusting D:

Saaaame bro

Good job, Tane!

@@ChrisGaultHealthyLiving Thanks! 😃

Same!!

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

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.

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)

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.

Not always, but the majority of times... yes.

am an omnivore, can confirm that was my reaction

@Vegan Vamshi Krishnan not feasible for me right now. Would like to in the future.

@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.

@@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.

@@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

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.

@@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?

@@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.

@@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?

@@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

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

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!!🤯🤯

@@Testtew hard for vegans to understand I see

Well presented points, you covered everything and more of what I wanted to discuss.

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!

? ? ? ?

WILTTM: What I Like to Tell Myself

Exactly

Stupidity? Naaa, just vegan fanatism, maybe the same thing

TRUE sadly

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.

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

Ed doesn't get any money from anyone. Cattle farmers are worried and will therefore say anything to continue to stay in business.

Bc bias is the motivation on why they do it

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

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.

@@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.

Didn't seem like a personal attack. I agree though that they should debate. The back and forth is pretty pointless

Edemperor

imagine being on the net for your pleasure at the cost of harm to sentient life disgusting D:

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.

@@oatymilkshake Edperor*

@@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!

but there are ve-GAN sausage rolls??

everyone is an environmentalist till you tell them to move to the countryside and become self sufficient

Or just ask them to eat vegan sausage rolls that taste basically the same anyway.

​@@cynicalidealist11Honestly, they're better half the time.

Thanks! I'll check that out.

@@MukulVyas5 yes definitely

@@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.

@@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.

@@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

Only sane person here. Ppl will believe what they want

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

Organic fertilizers can be made from plant-based materials. It's known as veganic agriculture.

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!

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.

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

He must realize that it will eventually call his general credibility into question.

Agreed

Yeah the whole channel is sus. It’s one thing to get some facts wrong but this seems deliberate

Yes, be the example!

imagine being on the net for your pleasure at the cost of harm to sentient life disgusting D:

The world is changing! It is changing!

@Ali 💚🤣

❤️❤️❤️

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 👍

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

@@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

@@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

@@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.

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.

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.

yea attacking scientists based on who sponsored their research is not cool. That doesn't automatically make their research invalid

He does research to decrease the amount. They pay him and others researchers to find a solution.

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.

Underrated comment

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...

@A P I know where meat comes from, I consume it regularly, and I don't feel guilty at all.

@@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.

@@therockingvolbeat3630 wow you would hate any aspect of the natural world if you don’t like the fact that animals eat other animals

@@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.

@@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.

WIL is at least respectful with his arguments and just does the arguementing. Insulting the opposing side rlly is a douche move

He did, a PDF response yesterday, invite him to debate please!

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.

@@cualquierwea1 could you link the PDF response? I cant seem to find it

@@joshuamartinez8990 go to the original video and follow a link in the description

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.

Now I have no choice but to try it!! LOL Cannot argue with science.

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)

You guys, I know hazelnut is expensive outside of Turkey but it's so good in coffee

@@goji5887 soy milk is so good!!!! Yessss

I don't drink coffee, but I agree that oat milk and soy milk are both better than almond milk.

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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

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

no one has to change their diet

@@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.

@@mateusztgorak i just mean even if it would be better tp change it for the environment one still doesnt HAVE to. right?

@@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).

Talking, talking, talking... yo this is good video ai.

Yess

Watch time also till the end

@@miketaiwanwalkcity6355 does that help? I usually let it play while i do chores

@@stehplatzb.4310 yeah I think watch time is a big factor in the algorithm

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.

@@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.

​@@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.

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.

@@nyla2408 So where exactly do you think the water goes when they drink it? Does it get launched into outer space?

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.

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.

I'd like to see one of those, lol.

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.

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.

@@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.

> _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?

@@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.

Yeah but transportation is necessary unlike the right diet

@@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.

​@@casperdewithyeah car dependency is an actual plague

But why can't we address both problems? They aren't mutually exclusive.

@@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.

Did you read all the sources Ed cited all the way through?

@@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.

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...

imagine being on the net for your pleasure at the cost of harm to sentient life disgusting D:

@@jedex4645 blah blah

@@mumofmany7589 you just caused suffering to say blah blah, well done vegan XD

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?

@@arunsadanandabhat8518 framing climate change as being caused by food takes blame away from the oil industry.

@@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%

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.

@@arunsadanandabhat8518you can’t really use those oils for foul, only for cooking. They are no competition.

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.

You can read it for free. Where would you like him to post a large body of text?

@@brettgallagher5306 Where everyone on YT can see it? Is this a serious question?

@@tamcon72 it's too long bud

@@brettgallagher5306 how bout make a video arrest all the responses .

@Emmit G chill, slavery was abolished a long time ago so what’s the harm? He didn’t say he supported slavery or anything.

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

@@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”.

@@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

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

@@General_Fuck_Yeah_AnimeTitties "ban fuzzy drinks that are someone else's addiction, but don't interfere with my addiction to meat" Ok, Karen.

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

​@@lenguyenngoc479 I've never met a vegan not taking supplements conversely, I've never met an omnivore taking supplements source: going out

​@@kvolikkorozkovanecdotes are not evidence, try harder Source: not being ignorant

@@arisily so what are statistics if not people talking about their lives?

about half as much as dairy lol