Brian Cox presents Science matters - Feeding the future 

"critical thinker" Brian Cox supported war criminal Tony Blair and his right wing takeover of the Labour Party. Remember brit pop Cox and his song" things can only get better"? Only they didn't , they got WORSE. Top notch my arse.

@@oldbrasso808 , what??? Even if that was completely as you say, which I rather doubt, does that offset the contribution he has made to particle physics and the spread of the interest of science among the youth?

impressive....? XD what an interesting choice of words

luxannna crownguard Hello, Thanks. Yes I really appreciate his mind-set. That's always an attractive trait.

​​@@saintofchelseathomascarlyl5713 fr I agree

They don't need to be and there is also veganic farming which is more sustainable. 🙌👍

Human overpopulation and let's not forget that we grow about 60 BILLION animals just to kill them for consumption so that's a very expensive way to try and convert them to calories. When we technically grow more than enough food to feed the world many times over, we choose to feed these poor animals rather than feed all humans. I guess the other "elephant in the room" is animal agriculture and how it destroys our planet, how it's not an efficient way to feed humanity. When you couple that with the fact that a whole foods plant based way of life is the healthiest, then we have a solution here. Plus, I agree that we have to talk about the problems of human overpopulation, but I think you're right, that's not a PC topic. Not sure if or when we'll be ready to openly talk about it.

@@mariaangelova8275 FYI: From Ecology, food is the number one driver of population growth in all species. Pollution is a limiter.

It is. What does it represent?

@@scottishwoodart call the boys from tatooine, they know that its not impossible because they know how to hit the swomprats.

That's because the land isn't suitable for agriculture. Cattle, sheep and horses is making best use of the land. Humans are primarily hunter gatherers, there's a reason hunting came before gathering as gathering was seasonal. Through eating meat and fish our brains grew. Perhaps people have become more gullible since eating predominately vegetables and grains?

@@another2462 very good pont 👍

I don't see the point of labelling food, because you'll have to label everything as GMO.

Amir Bright I'm certain you are absolutely correct, as horrifying as that may be :/

Not everyone is born the same abilities to regulate hunger and same metabolism. Those people literally have a physiological harder time than others.

All our modern creature comforts don't help with obesity. We surround ourselves with devices that encourages lazy behavior. One good example is research. I can do that with any one of my electronic devices; learn about anything at a whim spending zero energy. There was a time, in my life, where I would physically go to a library to do same research - expending much much more energy. At the end of the day, there are many reasons for the obesity trend we are seeing.

Withholding information for the sake of withholding information is a curious thing to do. The information is being withheld for ulterior motives.

Yes, let's import lemons from the united states of america, just so we can stock an abundance of perfectly symmetric lemons, because hey, no one counts the emissions from global trade routes, so why not? why not.

That tomato looks like a pumpkin

Is that an anagram joke??😆

Yes

Yes

debates over scientific issues should take place among scientists, not ill informed people from totally different disciplines

What do you even mean by that? I said nothing about the topic, i said that experts should discuss it not ignorant people from other fields. Do you think that you can't say that experts should discuss topics, not ignorant people, without being an expert? An expert in what?

@@WorthlessWinner There're people too emotional to engage in debate, as you can clearly observe here.

@@AnaVerona_ - unclear. Are you saying I am too emotional to debate? I don't know what is emotional about "debates over scientific issues should take place among scientists, not ill informed people from totally different disciplines" or "Do you think that you can't say that experts should discuss topics, not ignorant people, without being an expert?" If I am the one you were accusing of being overly emotional, which parts of those comments do you think are too emotional?

Sorry...but I must take issue with your entire point here. Firstly...the "sociologist's BS" conclusion was entirely incorrect. In her introduction she states that she started her career as a biologist involved in the early research on the development of GMO food crops which lead to her present position as a sociologist researching the societal impact of the way we are developing this industry. To characterize her as an ill-informed "anti-vaxer" who "muddied the waters" is completely wrong...as a "scientist" she is more than qualified to offer "expert" opinion on this subject. Secondly...restricting public discussions solely to "experts" in a narrow field of expertise is not the best way to further knowledge or understanding of anything...in fact it's the worst way. Specialization in any field has its inherent advantages (allowing increased focus on the subject by individuals and groups etc.) and its disadvantages (excessive "group-think" and ignoring externalities...the real world consequences of their work). Thirdly...all of your comments here are based on missing an important detail (and clearly seeing and hearing through your biased filter) from which you then make arguments based on false premises concerning the socioeconomic implications of any field of research and then arbitrarily qualifying how and by whom it should best be discussed and presented. Thankfully this important discussion was presented by the Royal Society and not you.

beans! yes! fuckn ! talking of SHELF LIFE! BEANS

"Beanz there, dones that" *washes hands with F@H*