Founded in 1860 as the centre for scientific study at the University of Oxford, the Museum of Natural History now holds the University’s internationally-significant collections of geological and zoological specimens, as well as substantial archival material. Housed in a stunning example of neo-Gothic architecture, the Museum’s growing collections underpin a broad programme of natural environment research, teaching and public engagement.
Highlights in the collections include the only remaining tissue material of a Dodo, the oldest pinned insect in the world, and fossils of the first scientifically-described dinosaur, the Oxfordshire Megalosaurus.
I fully agree with Alan's work and believe his holistic method can save our deserts but he's such a weak debater I'm beating myself up listening to him
Many comments here suggest that Allan Savory didn't address the debate's title, but he actually did. It's just that George Monbiot, most of the audience, and I (for a while) missed it. I thought it worthwhile to post this a few times in a few different areas of the comments section because Allen's arguments are worth understanding. The debate's title is "Is livestock grazing essential to mitigating climate change?" It is not about: * Will livestock grazing reduce global warming? * Will livestock grazing reduce atmospheric carbon? * Will livestock grazing reduce greenhouse gases? George Monbiot conflated climate change with global warming and increased atmospheric carbon. However, these are distinct concepts. We notice climate change through: * Greater temperature extremes in various places (e.g., shifting from very hot to very cold), making them hard to live in * More extreme weather events globally * The inability to farm due to these changes * Loss of coastal land from rising sea levels Scientists have found a correlation between increasing greenhouse gases and rising global temperatures, linking these temperatures to climate change. They thus conclude that reducing greenhouse gases is crucial for combating climate change, a view George Monbiot supports. Allan Savory, however, disagrees. He believes that combating desertification is the key to addressing climate change, reasoning that: * Deserts experience extreme temperature swings (very hot days and very cold nights), making them uninhabitable * Desertification alters local weather patterns (e.g., reducing rainfall and creating conditions for extreme weather elsewhere) * Desertification reduces an area's resilience to extreme weather (e.g., deserts flood while grasslands absorb water) * These factors make the land unfarmable Desertification doesn't directly impact rising sea levels, but it can be argued that the loss of farmable or habitable land poses a greater threat to humanity than the loss of some coastal areas. This is why Allan Savory says "forget carbon." To George Monbiot, this equates to "forget climate change," leading him to accuse Allan of not addressing the debate's title. However, Allan was always focused on the core issue. Allan is not a trained debater or academic. He approaches problems differently. If I were him, I would frame the debate as follows: "Desertification impacts climate change more than greenhouse gases, and livestock grazing is essential to stopping desertification." Allan would then support this statement, while George would argue against it. George would then have to admit that even with negative carbon emissions, we are in serious trouble if our land becomes desert. The world becomes unlivable, people can't feed themselves, and extreme weather events increase. In other words, climate change would still be rampant. Therefore, halting desertification must be prioritized over concerns about greenhouse gases. To Allan, the most effective way to combat climate change is to graze animals on borderline desert land using his grazing management techniques, transforming it into lush grassland. George can contest this only by: a) Providing evidence that Allan's grazing techniques do not stop desertification b) Demonstrating that rising greenhouse gases cause more desertification than improper grazing and farming practices Since George's debate focused on carbon sequestration, he couldn't directly challenge Allan's point. Instead, he led the audience to misunderstand Allan's argument. You'll notice Allan began by saying, "let's assume the soil captured zero carbon and that animals released 20 times the greenhouse gases they actually do." This was a significant clue that Allan was presenting a different perspective. If Allan were more articulate or if George were more balanced and less angry, making an effort to understand Allan's point, the debate could have been more productive.
@@prettynoose888 You miss the fact that he spent a significant portion of his life trying to remedy that mistake. People are capable of change and growth. I am sure you've made mistakes in the past that you've learned from. Suppose society decided to reject you based on your mistakes without considering that you've outgrown the mistake. You wouldn't feel great, and society would miss out on the good things you have to offer. I myself don't condone the act of farming animals for meat. All animal lives matter. But I can still appreciate Roger Savory's findings on how managed grazing can remove desertification and reduce climate change.
@@tman250 Killing 40 000 elephants is unforgivable, it also proves he's NOT smart at all. There is nothing he can do to remedy that mistake. The thing is you (and most other humans) are anthropocentric and you see animals as mindless, unfeeling machines. You don't care about animals, nature or the planet and that is why you can so easily forgive the atrocities humans commit. Maybe you should watch channels like "HERD Elephant Orphanage South Africa" so that you can see how incredible elephants are, they are very complex, sensitive and emotional beings.
So siblings only have 50 percent shared DNA buteveryone shares DNA. That sounds like misrepresention and fraud. We are NOT ALL AFRICAN just because she is
Savory is a practical land restoration expert who has helped regenerate thousands of acres and has taught his system to thousands of people. I have personaly witnessed the positive results of what he proposes. Monbiot is an intellectual with nothing to show.
Savory managed to waste an hour and a half of everybody's time by refusing to engage with the terms of the debate which he himself had proposed. His only contribution was to pepper the discussion with a kind of grapeshot cannon of incoherent waffle about how the allies won the war by dealing with oxidation. By being as vague and obscurantist as possible, quacks like this are able to appeal to an audience who just read into their nonsense whatever they want to hear.
Excellent mini documentary, I'll have to ask the Peterborough Museum and Art Gallery if they would like to do one about the Plesiosaur I found from the same site a few years later. Which is now on permanent display in the Peterborough Museums marine reptile gallery 😊
Climate change is caused mainly by plaughs and machinery on the land spraying toxins and collecting junk cereals by the millions of ton. Not cow burping.
Well George, if you don't want to eat properly and let people bring up their children properly perhaps we should be stopped breeding like rabbits. We con't continue to explode out of control.
All you're doing with a plant based diet is growing plants with pesticides, herbicides and fungicides and I'm sure the chemical companies and oil companies love you sunshine.
Very poor debate. Old man waffling and an idiot displaying selective bias in the science that he quotes, yet claims to have read all the papers, obviously hasn't read any that I have.
George is the type of green ideolog who will only be happy when all animals roam free incl cats and dogs and ruminants are gone, we eat zee bugs and we are all sitting around fires coz the grid has collapsed under his green 'we are all going to die' utopia. Thank goodness there are practical people like Alan who ignore George's cherry-picked 'science'. Let George live his dream life alone and cold eating bugs. In a sterile environment destroyed by his pesticides herbicides and fertilisers. Not for me. Bring on the health giving red meat, proper sustainable farming and a happy bio environment.
Allan Savory doesn't explain HOW cattle remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it, he doesn't explain what process he used from the military to reduce carbon in the atmosphere, with respect he doesn't really make an argument at all? George Monbiot explained in reasonable and accessible detail how and why livestock and grassing are releasing more carbon to the atmosphere. After listening to this debate with an open mind, I am now more certain than ever that live stock agriculture must change if we are to save our environment from further disaster!
1- Most of the corn now goes into ethanol. Management of pastures and animals is what turns the animals from destructive to regenerative. ANYONE BLAMING THE ANIMALS INSTEAD OF THE MANAGEMENT OF SAID ANIMALS is an idiot.
It is important to understand that what Allan is saying is that beef production is NOT necessarily related to grazing! large areas of the world have evolved to support tens of millions of grazing mammals and is them that keep the ecosystem going! Think of the American bison, the wildebeest, the zebras, the buffalo, the auroc, the European bison! The point is to farm grazing animals in those places where they NATURALLY belong and do it in a way they will boost ecological processes. Yes, you can ranch cattle in some parts of north America with ecological benefits. Yes, you can graze cattle in Europe in wood pastures and shrub as it always was (the European mega forest is a myth). Yes, graze sheep and goats in middle east regions and Central Europe's mountains where they are actually from. But how do you erase 500 years of colonial efforts that took graziers all over the world.
George seems lost in fake or 'controlled ' science. Allan has history evidence that carbon is NOT the cause or cure to the proplem of desertification. North Africa used to be grasslands untill roman empire killed off the wild animals who were feeding the land is a balanced cycle
George appeared arrogant and angry and was attacking his opponent. It's not Allan's fault that his method has not been peer reviewed. In any case, Allan is just getting on with it and showing that carefully planned restocking that mimics wild animal grazing in the dry temperate to arid zones restores landscape biodiversity and reverses desertification. And carbon is also stored in the grasses, not just the soil.
성게 포유류등의 알은 등황란으로 난황의 양이 적어서 알 전체에서 난활이 일어나는 전활을 하며 동시에 난황이 전체에 균등하게 분포 되어 있어서 난활에 의해 생긴 활구의 크기가 같은 등활을 한다 이 등황란은 식물극과 동물극에서 항문이 먼저 생기는 후구동물 이다 등황란 뿐만아니라 중황란 단황란에서도 식물극과 동물극의 활구가 다 다르다 이것이 진핵생물이 동물의 난활의 방식으로 진화를 해온 유전자의 진홰를 보여준다 등황란은 모아동물에서 극피동물로 극피에서 원색 동물로 진화를 하였으며 등황란의 시작은 어떻게 되었는 가는 밝힐수 없다 이 등황란의 시작이 난의 시작이다 중황란은 난황이 비교적 많고 알의 중앙부에 모여 있으며 세포질은 그 바깥쪽을 에워싸듯이 존재하고 있다 이 난은 곤충 갑각류에 많다 말미잘의 강장동물에서 볼수있다 난활을 할때 알 중앙의 난황은 분열하지 않고 알 표면의 세포질 부분만이 분열하는 표활을 한다 즉 먼저 난황속에 존재하는 핵이 분열하여 증가하고 그들 핵은 알 둘레에 있는 세포질 속으로 이동하며 얼마후에는 핵과 핵사이에 격벽이 생겨 개개의 세포인 활구가 독립된다 말미잘인 강장동물에서 갑각류 곤충으로 진화를 한 것이다 단황란은 달걀과 같이 알의 한쪽에 다량의 난황이 치우쳐 있는 알을 단황란이라 한다 연체동물의 두족류및 연골어류 경골어류 파충류 조류 등에서 단황란을 볼수 있으며 난황이 식물극 쪽에 치우쳐 있으므로 난활은 세포질이 많이 포함된 동물극에서만 일어나고 따라서 배는 접시모양의 배반이 된다 어류 파충류 조류 등의 단황란은 난활면이 알 전체를 통과하지 않고 동물극의 일부에서 만 난활이 일어나므로 반활이라고 한다 개구리 도룡농 등의 양서류 알도 단황란인데 난황의 양이 비교적 적은 동물극 쪽에서 난활이 빨리 일어나므로 동물극 쪽의 활구가 식물극 쪽보다 작은 부등활을 하며 알 전체에서 난활이 일어나므로 부등활인 전할의 전활을 한다 연체 동물인 두족류에서 연골 어류에서 경골 어류로 양서류 파충류로 조류로 진화를 하였으며 파충류 조류의 반활과 양서류의 전활로 나누어 진것은 양서류 6:40 는 습지 생활을 하면서 유전자가 진화를 한 것이다 동물의 진화는 계통도가 아닌 난활만으로 알수있다 난활이 진화의 지문이며 유전자의 지문이다
이 지구상의 가장 원시 생물인 원핵 생물은 단세포로서 세균 남세균을 포함하며 뚜렸한 핵이 없는것이 특징이며 한 개의 DNA 분자와 작은 세포 소기관을 가지고 있다 그리고 진핵 생물이란 진핵 세포로 구성된 생물체를 말하며 진핵세포는 세포내에 유전물질을 포함한 핵을 가진 세포를 통치하며 진핵세포는 핵 외에도 다양한 기능을 수행하는 여러 세포 소기관을 포함하고 있다 이 진핵 생물은 원핵생물로 부터 오랜 세월을 그치면서 생성된 것으로 여겨지며 이 진핵세포의 식물계인 엽룩체와 동물계인 미토 콘드리아 합성은 진핵생물이 오랜 시간을 지나온 것이 라고 여겨지며 이 원핵 생물의 동물성과 식물성은 동물의 난황의 분열을 결정지으며 동물 세포의 시작을 결정 짖는 중요한 요소가 된다 알의 종류에 따라 난활의 방식이 정해지는데 이 닌활의 방식에서 모든 동물의 진화가 어떻게 진화 하였으며 어떤 계통으로 진화를 하였는지가 전부 여기에서 갈라져 나가는 것이다
The thing that I'm struggling to understand is that if we take Savory's assumption (at around the 19-minute mark) that the world has gone vegan and the cows used are not directly part of human food systems, then what makes that system "livestock" in any meaningful way, and why not do something similar with whatever large herbivores are native to the local ecosystem? If you honor the assumption that the world is vegan, then reintroducing grazing ruminants specifically for ecological value sounds... basically like rewilding. Prioritize native ruminants, allow large predators to hunt, and I bet Monbiot would be on board. But it's also getting away from the topic of the debate, which is livestock grazing. If the ruminants in the "everyone is vegan" hypothetical are livestock, then so is basically every animal in any park or wildlife reserve. But then that obscures the human/livestock relationship, which is about raising animals *for labor or resources*. The sustainability of that relationship seems to be an interest to Monbiot, who at one point (1 hr, 6 min or so) argues that if you're using these animals sustainably for ecosystem services /and/ as a food source, you're getting a negligible amount of food. My understanding of what he's saying here is that since these small-scale restoration projects aren't scalable as food production, they don't exist for the same purposes and are doing very different things from livestock production, and therefore shouldn't be conflated. So going back to Savory's suggestion that we assume for the sake of argument a world that's already gone vegan, then the topic becomes "are ruminants essential to mitigating climate change," because "livestock" as a concept have basically been abolished in the hypothetical. That feels disingenuous to me: the idea that ruminants provide essential ecosystem services in places that evolved alongside them is obvious to a point where it's almost tautological. It sounds like Monbiot's specifically against conflating "ruminant" and "livestock," given that "livestock" implies a relationship of food production that comes with a whole set of incentives and objectives. I'd love if anyone would have asked these speakers how they'd actually define the term "livestock," because I think that that would have been really illuminating. And if we're ignoring carbon dioxide, ignoring methane, decoupling the raising of cows from food demand and production, dismissing the value of the scientific method, and only talking about whether it's at all possible to use cows for good... accepting those terms would basically shut down all of the climate arguments against livestock production, but not in a way that leads to an interesting or productive debate. I don't think these speakers really agree deep down like some of the question-askers suggested, but I also don't think this debate actually got into any of the real differences in their approaches and ideology.
I find George to be very arrogant. Did you notice he went on a personal attack of Alan, unlike Alan who did not personally attack him. Frankly I’m so sick of the Vegan argument and attack on agriculture. Without Agriculture all the city people will have to move back onto land and grow your own food. Mono cultures that are producing vegetables and fruits and crops like soy would be way more destructive to the environment than a multi species grassland that has been managed well with livestock. Also if you “re wild” all the agricultural landscapes please explain where your magic food will come from, from laboratories 🧪 ? From industrial sheds with your plants not ever seeing sunlight? How will these thirsty crops be grown in places with low rainfall? No WATER !!! This George guy is an infuriating city, academic with no clue.
