0:00 - Intro 0:47 - Who is Dr Frank Mittloehner? 1:50 - Humans can't eat the food that animals eat? 5:20 - Greenhouse gas emissions/2.6%/methane 18:49 - Food waste 19:44 - Water consumption/almonds/rice vs beef/liver 24:35 - Joseph's intensions with this video Whilst my response is focussed on responding specifically to the points that Joseph makes, what he fails to mention is as equally important as the flawed arguments he makes. He ignores the deforestation and habitat loss caused by animal farming, the decimation of wildlife and species extinction being caused by animal agriculture, the water pollution and agricultural run off that causes eutrophication and dead zones, and the soil erosion caused by animal farming, as well as other negative impacts. My next video is going to be a comprehensive guide to the impact that animal farming has on the environment, so stay tuned for that. I hope this debunking is helpful. Make my work possible by becoming a supporter of my activism here (thank you!): www.earthlinged.org/support Make the switch to vegan & get all of the support you need: switchtovegan.co.uk
😫🦠💩🍖🥓🍳🍕🍣🥩.. “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 👈😫🦠💩🍖....
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.
I think being aware of who funds Dr. Mittloehner is absolutely necessary but I do not think that on its own should blanket disqualify what he says. Many of the sources you cite are funded by or are from organizations that have a pro-plant based view. That doesn't mean people should assume whatever these sources find is right or wrong based on that. The merits of the studies and findings should be the determining factor. If we're to write off Dr. Mittloehner's research then the same standard should apply to pro-plant based research funded or produced by those that are pro plant based, which would be dumb.
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.
@@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.
4:34 one piece of criticism, not every place is fit to grow a particular thing, you can’t just plant whatever you want anywhere you want, I live in the Netherlands where we have polders (which you can look up if you want) that have silty soil thanks to how they are created, and that doesn’t let much grow other than grass and conveniently also tulips
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.
When I watched Joseph's video I wasn't too convinced, but I thought arguments from the opposite side are good for a healthy conversation about the matter. That is, if the science is proven and the data is accurate, which doesn't seem to be the case. This video isn't that convincing either, you're still trying to "win" the argument and I really don't believe in the type of science that aims at proving one extreme is better than the other. From a nutritional perspective, it's obvious that plenty of people can live a long, healthy life with different types of diet, that's not the point. The real problem is it's clear that, from an environmental perspective, we're doing things wrong and that the food industry is screwed up, regardless of which diet you choose.
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 (RU-vid deletes comments with URLs annoyingly)
@@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.
I was waiting for Ed and his team to address this. The channel "Veganism Unspun" did a particularly good job of debunking the What I Learned video too....
@@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
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.
I love how Ed at the end is like "If you've been sent this video by a vegan friend..." because that is exactly what I'll do if anyone sends me that WIL video
I have some questions about a point that, in my opinion, wasn't addressed enough in this response, and that is about Marginal land. A lot of the points made in this video are heavily US-centric, and the problem is that the same conditions that exist in the US don't necessarily apply to other countries. Take tropical countries for instance. Brazil is the 2nd largest producer of livestock but ranks 18th when it comes to vegetables. This is due to the fact that, being a tropical country, it contains heavily weathered soil, and thus growing a large and varied amount of vegetables is rendered near impossible. A shift from meat and plant-based produce to just plant-based produce would imply a drastic decrease in local products with an increase of imports would it not? Another example is Greece. 70% of the land cannot be used for agriculture, due to it being forested or incapable of bearing agricultural plants. And even in that third of the total landmass that can be used for agriculture, not everything can be grown there, thus we see Greece producing mostly maize, wheat and barley as well as cotton and tobacco leaving the rest of the essential plant products to be imports. Additionally, being a country with a Mediterranean climate, almost no plant-based products can be produced during the colder months thus further increasing the need for imports. And Greece is not the only country that is like this, which begs the question: Can the main exporters of fruit and vegetables, such as Argentina, supply a drastically expanding demand for plant-based products?
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
@@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.
@@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.
Hi Ed. Someone told me about your speech, which I watched and also watched the video you claim to be debunking. It was a great chance to compare two arguments on the topic. Sorry, Ed, but you are missing the most salient point. Watch my, "Sorry, Veganism Won’t Save the Planet" and learn about the real issue. Peace. 🙂
Good response to this guy, Professor. This video is an emotional mess of half truths, omissions, and lies. Doubt he or his followers will watch your video, which contains reasoning about facts.
Wait @4:09 you say the land is is used for growing food for livestock but in his video, he said that the food livestock eat can’t be eaten by humans such as corn stalks and grass… so this argument is invalid
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.
Both his and Josephs VIdeo are informative, they both have very valid points and they both have cases of terrible interpretation of Data, somewhere in the middle lies the truth
Give the PDF debunking this debunk videon in the original WIL video! The more information and perspective we have, the better. :) (Not advocating or going against any certain perspectives, FYI.)
@@whitelotusmember8664 one example, Ed completely disregards capitalism, when he said that we could “give the land back to the nature, this would reduce emissions etc.” it’s an empty argument. Just because companies Or farmers don’t hold animals anymore, they wouldn’t give agricultural land away for free, most of them would grow crops and Pestizide the hell out of it (I come from Germany and over here that’s a huge problem in many regions)
@@whitelotusmember8664 bu far the biggest issue tho is that Ed doesn’t even acknowledge (maybe in 1 sentence idk but not in the structure of his video) that Joseph’s point was “Growing meat hurts the environment, but not as bad as people make it out to be, it’s neither the biggest nor the easiest to fix problem when it comes to environment” and that is 100% true To prove that let’s look at Ed’s stats for “Global Agricultural emissions”, in the US animals make up a few percent because cars and industries are way worse, the global number ist misleading because Malaysia emission are obviously 90% animals cause there isn’t much else, the global emission percentage is therefore a completely useless number to talk about. And while this doesn’t mean animal impact isn’t high in e.g. the us, it proves that the impact is quite less dramatic than Ed makes it out to be (so exactly Joseph’s point)
Last point is that Ed says “their numbers are wrong cause they come from meat companies” while his numbers are right cause they come from pro vegan companies? Just watch a video on how statistics are falsified then you know that most of the numbers are rigged in a way that fits ones agenda (Like with gender pay gap that exists but is pushed quite a few percent through convenient focus)
Every industry pays scientists to make research that supports their cause. The meat industry, the vegan industry, the marijuana industry, and much more
* ~.FACT CHECK.~ * 4:16 Not all the land used for growing food for animals is suitable for people food agriculture use. 5:01 Ethanol based fuel doesnt have a net positive impact on carbon emissions. And just a little percentage of crops are usable for this. 5:06 If it isnt proffitable to make paper this way, who is going to pay for that labor? unreallistic. Again, a dream where maybe a couple crops could be used. Basically, most of the residues of the crops arent nearly as profitable or useable as he preaches. That would be amazing, but thats not the reallity and the research for those kind of technologies were that system could be used is just a wild dream -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now about the carbon emissions: 5:27 Again, not all the farmland used to grow food for cattle is suitable for any use, including gigantic forests full of life and secluders of carbon. Thats not reallistic at all, indeed maximizing the margin for unreallistic values. The owners of those farmlands wont be happy to give up their properties and stop producing anything at all. People are conducted by profits, and so that wont happen unless the Federal govmt stops the "freedom" of civils. No Give me a real number please! 14:00 Perfectly fine for the most part, but the comprenhension of this topic is highly biased. All that explanation ultimatly means is that ALL the carbon that cattle produce by eating grass, is the net amount produced by the cattle consumption of plants for the past 12 years. Yes, 12 years is the average lifespan of methane. TWELVE. Not 10 nor 20. Afterwards that carbon dioxide is the same as what the plants used to grow to feed the cattle, cancelling each other. Not all the livestock has the same carbon cycle neither. Cows are the worst on this regard, but this doesnt mean all livestock are the same. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for your attention. Hope this could prove some facts. IMO on a climate change perspective, the effect of cattle is highly lower than the rest of factors in our lifestyle. If you trully want to save the planet, eating vegan isnt even a tenth as usefull as using a bycycle, lower your energetic consumption, etc. And all that is thanks to the carbon cycle. People are used to separate those two (emissions vs carbon capture) which shouldnt be the case, at least on this matter. *You dont feed cows with fossil fuels, just your car.*
An answer to that could be the same as the one he made with the normal grazing areas: Let them be reclaimed by wild nature, which would help retain carbon and increase bio-diversity. Another part of the answer could also be something he said about converting 100% of grazing to crops fit for human consumption: We don't need that much. The alps as you mention, are all part of countries that have farmland available to them off mountains. Even countries like Chile have farming lands near the foothills of the mountains. Though of course, there might be some places where you could mix both bio-diverse wild areas, and keep a smaller herd of animals, but if were to only have animals in those hard to utilize places, I don't think the entire industry of meat and diary would be a global problem. Mind you, I'm not a vegan, but I understand the points against the production of meat and dairy..
@@HAMalte Yeah, it probably wouldn't account for very much. We need some animals to graze areas because there are threatened species thay need them, but of course that wouldn't require an industry
Please do! It's important to always do your own research (through credible sources, of course) instead of listening to others who have malicious intent. Every human has some malicious intent in something, so basically, even if it's not a lot, you can't trust anyone without professional research to back their claims up.
Why does the assumption get made that the crop residues get burned? Because All the food that gets wasted, more then 80 of it, is plantbased food. Why is that waste not used already? How can anything else get assumed? Cus right now there's already not being done a really good job
"But almonds" is one of the dumbest gotchas against vegans. Like we just spend all day munching almonds and downing almond milk. I haven't had almond milk even once this year.
@@CeravvvEgan Same, it is the worst plant milk. Weird that it's the most ubiquitous considering it has the worst taste/texture, isn't the cheapest, and is the worst one environmentally. Soy and oat are sooo much better.
"But almonds" also is very funny because almonds are calculated to be the most nutritious food on our planet. So if we could afford to eat one food that's bad water-consumtion-wise, almonds would literally be the best choice. Meanwhile, beef isn't even on the list. And besides, who uses almonds (nuts or milk) as their only alternative to meat or cow milk? If we were to average what almonds can be an alternative to with other alternatives, we would again be in the realm of low numbers. Source: www.bbc.com/future/article/20180126-the-100-most-nutritious-foods
So what do You eat for Any of Your multiple meals per day that killed less sentient beings or brutally? More Protein deficient "vegan" brains needing strawmen. Then yall throw a hissy fit tantrum and run off. Meat eaters dont spend all day munching Meat nor does it kill as much
@@ValseInstrumentalistI think more the argument is that why would we consider almonds vegan as well as other large scale plant ag that causes so much damage.
I'm going to leave the same comment on both your video and his. Thank God that world-changing decisions are not being made by people who get their information by watching RU-vid videos.
17:38 That doesn't change the fact that methane emitted by cattle is carbon neutral. Plus, due to the sufficiently fast natural degradation, it is in a steady state: the amount of methane in the atmosphere originating from cattle will not change if we maintain the current amount of cattle. Therefore, from methane emission reduction alone, you will not slow down global warming, only set it back a bit. This is just a minor point I wanted to make, I agree with most of what you said in the rest of the video.
yes, and if the climate continues warming at the current pace the earth will become much less liveable soon? So, while I agree that the amount of methane will not change if we maintain current cattle, that's exactly the point? we want to reduce it not keep it the same?
@@muellernikolai8630 methane produced by cattle is still a really small amount when compared to that produced by industry, so yeah it would have an impact , but you would be 100x better off focusing on the other sources that are vastly more problematic
I saw that video in my recommended and I thought “yeah okay sure dude” and kept scrolling. I’m glad to see this debunked video :) Also commenting for the algorithm
So let me get this straight, you people are bragging about not listening to the other side? Brilliant. By the way, I have seen both videos and read the pdf response of the channel that made the original video - and I would urge you to do the same. WIL is extremely misrepresented here, and his points are missed.
@@alexm.2960 WIL's PDF response is not even to this video. In the comment section on his Patreon he says that he was referring to this: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ZI5NU34w5LU.html. In what way are his arguments extremely misrepresented here?
@@lion6134 You are looking at the wrong response. He has written multiple responses. Check again at the sidebar. He has written a 55 page response to this exact video.
Aside from me having any opinion in the discussion at hand, your argument is really stupid (sorry). The guy studies the effect of gaz such as methane in the atmosphere, measures it, and takes into account many different sources, such as, yes, cattles. You seeing a picture of the guy in a field with cows was an indicator, for you, to estimate he was shaddy? When he probably was doing his job and measuring things where he has to measure them? That's a terribly skewed and biased view of the world.
tbh I think we need to focus and minimizing fossil fuels from factories and cars as its a far larger number than what we eat as we're arguing over a small percentage instead of the larger one that's again cars from combustion and factories
I guess that would push the problem on to other people and doesn't require any change from us, so it'd be more palatable. Animal agriculture contributes 10 to 15% of global greenhouse emissions, which is a material amount, and there are already accessible alternatives to animal products in the developed world, just requires some personal responsibility.
@@Viiksis lol totally agreed. I just can't fathom how someone would not only prevent themself from meat, but only muster the lies they do to try to convince other people too.
I like that the debate rest very peacefull ,i can't wait for "What we have learned" ,ang hell ,maybe even thias response to that video .This is series material .
Neither of you are being completely honest. First of all, it's dishonest to talk at length about who's behind the funding for the research. Either there are methodological issues or not. Researchers advocating for a more plant-based diet are also, unsurprisingly, funded by big agriculture -- just not usually the livestock arm of it. They're both capable of just as much evil and land destruction. You didn't address the point that you can't simply convert ranch land into fully fertile arable land to grow more nutritious plants like pulses. You didn't even mention any kind of fruit in this calculation. Even vegans eat much more than soybeans, wheat and corn. You can't simply make an environmental argument for being "vegan". You have to say exactly what diet you're following and where it's coming from. Indeed, nuts are a dramatic example of excessive water usage but there's nothing about being a vegan that means you can't have nuts. If you don't grow your own food, you don't know what it took to get to produce it. Even organic farming involves shipping fertilizer and product with diesel trucks. And vegans don't necessarily say no to vegetables that come from the flooded central american markets.
I know. I like listening to both sides but the argument was that the land or a lot of the land used for grazing is not crop land. The land goes to waste.
Oooh! Thank you for this, Ed. I watched that video. Nothing rang true or made sense. Whole thing seemed like propaganda. Glad for your concise summing up.
Funny that many of the comments say "shows you can't always trust what people tell you" little bit ironic to me😂 not that these aren't good points but you have to take both videos with a pinch of salt
Thats is correct cuz both videos that's have big red flags they both are useing people who are paid off lol the same thing he is ringing the other guy for he is doing the same thing funny really
Thats how scientific research works. Its since the beginning of research that scientifics got sent on "exploration tours" by paid investors to research new more profitable ways to increase their income, like Christopher Columbus etc. Science is based around on our capitalistic system and needs the funds of lobbys to research their topics, but that does not mean that everything is manipulative information if its done correctly. Clearly the ressources this WIL-guy used where misinterpreted and knowningly manipulated, which is very dangerous to use in such an polarizing topic with such a huge and probably young audience. Most of them will never research the authors that are behind this articles and take his video as the truth, because it has "scientific ressources" by shady Doctors like Mr. Mitloehner.
your claims are mainly ad hominem and you are rarely attacking his arguments. not that WIL doesnt do that aswell with the american heart association, but it doesnt make a strong rebuttal to not go ad rem.
Playing devils advocate. I agree with most of your points, this might get lost in the sea of comments but here we go. 9:26 Crop residues when used for any other purpose will be carbon neutral, much like burning them. This is unless you have some kind of carbon capture mechanism in place. Yes a decent amount of carbon may get taken up by the plants you are growing, but cycle that a few times and it is obvious that it is more or less carbon neutral whichever way you look at it. 14:40 Reforesting only captures carbon for the lifetime of the plants in that system. Even if it is well maintained it has a limited carbon capture potential in short time scales. I would posite that using some of that land for some forms of CCS cycling (Like growing fast growing plant mass, burning it in some form of power station, capturing carbon and using the ashes as a fertilizer base) would be better use of that land. Of course this will take some time to develop and I don't think this is in place anywhere yet.
Well there’s vertical farming. Also it can be put to a lot of other uses than growing food. You can build houses or generate energy there. Also using ALL of the land that you use for animals is unrealistic. There will always be non vegans. You can save that land for them, and use the available land for plants.
How much times did you get wellackchuallied? Genuinely curious, since this is the first debunking video I watch after the debunked video I watched a few weeks ago.
@@Speykious It's hard to say as this concerns tons of videos like this as well as random comments from anyone anywhere. It's just that sometimes one of these things gets big. ...but these arguments aren't new. Nor debunked before.
1/3 of all farm land can not grow human edible crops. So in the first few minutes of the video he doesn't know that fact about farmland. This guy has no idea what he is talking about.
You're talking about removing ruminants from the carbon cycle because methane is a more potent gas than CO2. Instead you want to rewild the lands currently used for livestock. You seem to be forgetting that ruminants are not just farm cows but also deer, bison, wild horses etc. Rewilding will not remove that much methane from the closed carbon cycle.
Agree. quick google search says peak bison was 30 million, compared to 90 million cattle today. Not quite the same, but I agree, there was always a sizeable ruminant population, and they are important for those ecosystems. So recovering those land back to "natural' would not eliminate but reduce by 2/3.
dont believe this, I live in an agricultural area in Australia which grows wheat and other grains. The land has still been cleared of native vegetation, top soil runs off into our rivers. The river water is brown from run off caused by all the land clearing to grow plant based foods.
be honest, commercial agriculture is the most destructive use of land, there is absolutely no comparison to live stock and as i kicker if it was for ruminant animals many landscapes would be void of life
You say the land could be repurposed from animal feed to human food. But is that animal feed land suitable to growing human food? And does biofuel and bioenergy have downsides, like don't they burn the bio material and create air pollution?
If you follow the link of the source in the description, you'll see that the view presented is incomplete: croplands are only 30% of the agricultural lands. 70% (more than twice the croplands) are permanent pastures. It's the biggest share of the agricultural lands and it cannot, indeed, be turned into croplands. It's probably the lands you're mentioning. Bottom ~80% of the agricultural lands are used for animal feed, but 70% rely on animal farming to be turned into edible food.
@@antioxidantfool7362 Not ANY land. 70% of the agricultural lands are not suitable for crop production. Without the polygastrics, no edible food production from those lands.
@@antioxidantfool7362 I already saw a bunch of your comments on another comment. You're points are first of all: False. It has less to do with your knowledge about how we digest things but more about your utter misunderstanding of what a "herbivore" is or in this case what "Crops" are. Here's some advice. Get yourself a dictionary.
20:30 Joseph's intention was for us to look at the Nutritional content, he even has stated out in his video that animal's production does costume more blue water than plant's production. He said for better value of Nutrition... yeah why not ??
15:48 Stefan Gebhardt, Chemical Process Engineer Answered Jan 29, 2020 As others said because of the Methane they produce. If all cattle were to free roam on grassy pastures this would be diminished somewhat, as bacteria in the soil can absorb some of it. But having them stand in a barn all day makes this a lot worse. So to keep the environmental impact of cattle as low as possible, all cattle should be kept outside on a field, eating the grass that grows there, instead of keeping them inside feeding them grain that was produced for this purpose. This keeps the Methane down a little bit, but also reduces the impact that the grain farming for cattle has. I'm aware that it costs more, but it would help. So milk and meat prices would need to rise, but that's a smaller price to pay in the long run.
I think converting the current land to natural wildlife, growing fruits and vegetables, and places for sustainable paper are great ideas but I think in addition some of the land should be reallocated to animal rescues and sanctuaries. We've done enough to non-human animals. It's the least we can do.
@@flytrapYTP the situation is the otherwise, meat eater the 1 who always getting annoyed by vegans, i mean theres a lot of evidence of it,just let take the easiest 1, Vegan protesting on fast food,they will blocking ur line into the cashier/or even take your food so u wont eat it,or u can just simply open a social media that related with meats and u will simply finds it on comments
Phasing out animal agriculture represents “our best and most immediate chance to reverse the trajectory of climate change,” according to a new model developed by scientists from Stanford and the University of California, Berkeley (Source Stanford.edu) The Climate Healers report says the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organizations (FAO) has 'underestimated' the environmental impact of animal ag. Animal agriculture is responsible for at least 87 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new report. May 4, 2021
@@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
Interesting video, but I want to point out couple of thing. It would be great to see more details on them: 1. It's vary common that studies and research is funded by the companies, that have direct interest and investment in that area. Who should be funding the "meat studies" the soybean producers? Or maybe fishing industry? There always be a problem of who funded the studies, but by itself it's not the proof it was correct or wrong. Also the fact one scholar made bad research, does not mean automatically the others do. You need to prove the certain research is incorrect. Sorry, but this is not an argument. 2. You say the metrics are important and we should use calories instead of weight, but then you say it is irrelevant. It's very confusing. 3. The main rule of research is that you study one factor only at a time and assume everything else stays the same - ceteris paribus. So it means that research, that only accounts the direct emissions of meat is correct. If it would try to calculate the changes in other productions in chain, it would make it very inaccurate. Also you say it like, the change from farming for animals to farming for humans automatically means that farming will be emitting less greenhouse gasses. 4. The Lifecycle approach to product is very problematic, which was shown in many studies, including the ones that say meat is responsible for over 10% of emissions. The lifecycle approach includes energy, water, transport, labor, secondary emissions. But those will be there if you switch from meat to soy, corn or other products. It's also problematic, because one truck can transport multiple types of goods. They still need to be there, in other proportions, but it's impossible to accurately say how they will change. And if the transport sector and energy sector changes, that will decrease the emissions of lifecycle of all products. Taking this, we should use direct emissions for comparison. 5. Point on blue water consumption - I think in both videos it presented in wrong way. You state that it is important how much blue water is used in total and that calories matter. So you should use how much water per calorie is used. In case of beef it's 0.36, so twice as much as in case of vegetables (0.18 l/kcal), but eggs use 0.17 and pig meat uses 0.16 l/kcal, so it's not that all good for plant based farming. (not only nuts are using a lot of water per kcal 0.55 but also fruits use 0.32 l/kcal almost the same as beef). So the question you should really answer is, how much water would be used when we would switch to plant based food, but maintaining the same caloric production.
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?
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
The fact that Dr. Frank Mitloehner works for the agriculture industry is not a secret. The original video clearly mentions it. Yet you choose to present this as some sort of a revelation and use innuendo and insinuations to engage in ad hominem attacks without addressing the actual arguments he makes. I'm sorry, this by itself has reduced the credibility of this video.
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.
Okay... Remember the book Animal Farm, where the two pigs are trying to convince the rest of the farm animals of their own point, and the animals are always convinced by whoever is speaking at the time? I feel like the farm animals. How does one solve this conundrum, without being any good at researching?
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
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.
@@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.
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.
My immediate thought with the beef rice comparison: 'Hmmmm, I've just become vegetarian/vegan, I used to have a beef cassorole with rice for dinner, but now I must replace the beef with something else. What substitutes could I make? How about m o r e r i c e?
@@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.
Год назад
1. Whether a study was paid by someone, does not imply the study itself is incorrect or fake. There are a lot of pro-vegan studies for example sponsored by beyond meat etc., which you don't question. 2. Organic animal foods are a magnitude more nutritient dense, so you're not comparing apples to apples. 3. Water usage is only relevant while comparing all output nutrients, including all micronutrients. Beef for example has a wide range of micronutrients, that corn does not have. 4. There are no doubt inarable lands, where you cannot grow anything you want, but it's fine for goats for example. So these lands should be excluded from all comparisons accordingly. 5. We should talk about green water usage as a global problem and not cherry-picking the meat industry. The food industry altogether uses significantly less green water than other industries, so I'd completely exclude this topic and get to the points where the most difference is made. 6. To the comment section: I firmly believe that eating meat is way healthier than not eating meat. And my belief is based on scientific data and personal experiences. What's good for someone might not be good for someone else though. We all have different microbiomes. Don't be a cult.
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
"What I Learned" deleted all my rebuttal comments from 3 different YT accounts I used (I didn't use links)---- seems like a really shady dude. He's spewing dangerous misinformation and disinformation, and seems intellectually dishonest. Shame on him.....
-Is the livestock feed being grown on land that human edible crops can be suitably grown on? -Are the pasture and grazing lands suitable for human edible crops? -Cattle is not one food item, have you not heard of dairy? -You keep talking about beef being inefficient calorically when calories particularly in western countries are in overabundance -So now we're pivoting and acknowledging not all the land used in meat production can be used to grow food but instead talk about reforesting? Why don't we want to use it for food? You were just criticizing the agricultural land being supposedly wasted on animal feed. What even makes you think humans would reforest that land instead of finding a more economical use for it? You are correct about CH4 being a more potent GHG in that it has 21x more heat trapping ability, however CO2 once introduced remains in the atmosphere between 300 to 1000 years whereas for CH4 it's around 9 to 14 years. You say the short life cycle is a good reason to focus on CH4, I think that makes it a less important issue and a smokescreen deflecting from the real issue. -The difference between CH4 from cattle and food waste is that while both are part of the natural carbon cycle, we actually get way more out of cattle than food waste. He doesn't create a dichotomy that you can't be Vegan and care about food waste, he lays out the fact that humans tend to waste more plant based foods than animal based. Edit: Looking at your film-making work and Animal Rights Activist history, I'd say if you're going to criticize someone else for having ulterior motives, you're clearly also in a position to personally gain by misleading people on this topic.
@@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.
@@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.
WIL loves telling his followers that they shouldn´t feel guilty about their lifestyile. That is what gets him most likes. And I would even say he should have written "paid promotion" as caption in his video.
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.
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.
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
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
What I've learned should rename his channel to What I learned According To My Confirmation Bias He doesn't really want to learn. He wants to establish what he thought he knows with "science" and fallacious logic so that he really doesn't have to change anything about himself when it comes to hid diet. 🤣
@@lux_ye13 ('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.
@@lux_ye13 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).
Someone called „Lucas Bleyle“ posted this under WIL‘s video: "As a student studying sustainable agriculture, I thought I would do my civic duty and shine some light on some of the misrepresentations or straight-up misinformation in this video. 1. The U.S. eats vastly more meat than most people around the world, especially those in developing countries. However, the position of the animal agriculture industry is to bring up all developing countries to a meat consumption level comparable to the US. This means expanding production significantly with the associated increase in resource use and GHG emissions. If we really want to maintain or even reduce emissions from animal agriculture, we can’t keep alive this notion that American meat consumption is sustainable if adopted by the whole planet. 2. Emissions from animal agriculture in the US are diluted by extremely high per capita emissions, so dietary emissions are a smaller fraction of the total. Attributing the small percentage all to increased efficiency in the US is misleading. 3. The U.S. has an enormous amount of cropland that is rain-fed and has excellent soil. Most of the midwest (currently growing predominantly animal feed and biofuels) could be used to produce human food. California isn’t particularly well suited for food production, at least not that much better suited than much of the midwest. This idea that there is all this land that can only be used for animal agriculture is a talking point I would be careful about using. 4. It is straight-up antiscience to suggest that methane doesn’t matter because it is part of a “natural carbon cycle.” We don’t care about where the carbon comes from, we care about its global warming potential. Non-ruminants don't produce a lot of methane so the carbon we eat is breathed out as carbon. Human respiration is carbon neutral. When ruminants convert it to methane, they multiply the global warming potential by a factor of 20 to 90 (depending on the time scale it is averaged on). This transformation of carbon to methane makes it irrelevant whether or not it will eventually be taken up again by plants. While it is in the atmosphere it is contributing to additional harm than if it had stayed as CO2 the whole time. 5. Also, enteric fermentation is only one source of animal methane. Manure management is another area of emissions so you need to add that when discussing methane emissions from livestock. On this same note, manure also leads to N2O emissions that you didn’t address at all. 6. Yes, there were a lot of ruminants in the past, but in the past, we didn’t have a climate crisis and the atmosphere was in balance. In a world with climate change, we have to do whatever it takes to reduce warming including diverging from what might be prehistorically true. This is an appeal to nature fallacy, that doesn’t hold up in the modern world. 7. Veganism is not the end all be all, but most vegans also take significant steps to address their personal carbon emissions across the board. You will never hear a vegan deny that fossil fuels are the main contributor to climate change. 8. Also, you never addressed livestock emissions from a land-use change such as land degradation or deforestation (especially in places like the Amazon rainforest). If so much land can only be used for animal agriculture why are we perpetually expanding into natural ecosystems to create more land for it? 9. What I’ve Learned, I beg you to stop presenting topics as though you have overturned the scientific consensus on a topic. You have a big audience who put a lot of trust in your content. You have a duty to present an issue accurately. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just simply misunderstand the food system and were hoodwinked a bit by Dr. Frank Mitloehner. What you’ll find is that the animal sciences are full of people who own animal farms. It often presents a clear violation of conflict of interest in research, because researchers have a vested interest in the outcomes of studies. This is particularly pronounced in studies that are life cycle analysis/modeling because there is an enormous amount of subjectivity that goes into the design of this type of study. The responsible thing would be to follow this video with another video discussing some of the ways you misrepresented this very important issue."
It's so abundently clear you have no real counter-argument with any real life data supporting your claims, when your move is a direct, personal attack. I mean, the title says everything about your credibility. I honestly think you should have a sit down with Joseph, so we could hear both sides at the same time. Maybe read his response to this video. Ho-Ly-Shit. Your argument at 18:40. Did you even care to read the other numbers in the statistics you put on screen? Because I did. And your argument right after about foodwaste. The point isn't that the CH4 was already a part of the plant, but that we spent RESOURCES transporting it, cooling it, packing it and then throwing it out. Imagine if that food was never produced, but instead used for growing trees! Wauw-e.
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.
The worst thing about the video is that it has made such a large impact on a lot of omnivores. So many people in the comment saying " finnally and unbiased video on meat" meanwhile the video is insaly biased towards meat. Tons of conformation for their bias.
@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?
