Відео

I am vegan. Personally I think it’s better to all just eat plants. That way we can reduce the land being used for all agriculture by around 70% because we no longer need to feed and have space for 75 bn animals. Also I think it’s important we actually use our jaws and teeth to chew food. Microbial drinks aren’t good for our instincts.

👏

No, you can’t sensibly use nuclear to fill in gaps in wind or solar generation. Because you’d have to throw away (or at least pay for) all the electricity generated by nuclear during the periods when wind or solar actually is working.

Self loathing is a mental illness and extremely common among religious people, socialists and environmentalists. In fact it's almost a prerequisite in order to be a member of these 3 cults.

This is the most disgusting thing I have ever heard. It's not banking on non existent technology that will save us, it is living simple lifestyle and sharing wealth. We have genocides going on everywhere and wealth inequality at its highest and you call us peacefull....

GMO's, nuclear, EV's, renewables and so much more are necessary Also Replannet was better in my opinion

Solutions and technology should give hope to solve our problems

Lame.

Unfortunately the polls show nuclear will fail and labor will get another term in government

At last, the objective truth! May I recommend checking out this insightful article: 'Global Population and the Nitrogen Cycle' by Vaclav Smil, originally published in Scientific American. It provides a balanced account of the indispensability of artificial fertilizer (synthetic nitrogen) and the problems associated with its inefficient use.

You still behave like a communist

Nice video.

Even if what you say is true you have oversimplified, the problem is not only the overuse of fertilizer. Besides there are a lot of other problems with intensive agriculture, floods, the freatic water tables that no longer fill up, because the water no longer infiltrates, the cut trees make that the rain no longer falls where it fell naturally before, and many other problems that must be solved with unnatural methods and which require even more energy... There is a lot of food waste in this method of production, proof that we have room. Besides we no longer lack natural fertilizer with the overproduction of meat... we have only decided that it was less complicated to produce energy with this new surplus. a lot of surface is devoted to biofuel and the worst is that it has a carbon footprint greater than that which comes out of the ground... We need huge surfaces to produce food for our livestock, while we do not need as much meat, so yet another way to reduce the cultivated surface. Meat produces 80% less protein than beans for the same agricultural surface. We spend our time solving problems that we have just created... It is possible to solve a lot of societal problems by reducing this practice as much as possible, both in rich and poor countries.

There is hope... Sadly, one of the biggest failures we made was not heading Father of the Green Revolution, Norman Borlaug's poignant warning. A warning he chose to make when he accepted his Nobel Prize: "There can be no permanent progress in the battle against hunger until the agencies that fight for increased food production and those that fight for population control unite in a common effort." What did he mean by this? Simple. Giving everyone free and easy access to family planning, the rights, freedoms, education, empowerment, etc, etc. We have a growing list of issues we face today. Climate change is just the biggest one. But ALL of them are helped, fixed, made possible to tackle, if we reduce our population size. We simply cannot support 8.1 billion of us. And it's really, really starting to show now. But i said there's hope? Yes. As we've seen almost everywhere in the developing world, parents, mothers really, really do prefer to have fewer kids. The fertility rate is mostly less than 2.1, the 'Replacement Rate' is the developed world... BUT. Almost all of this reduction has come without climate change, knowledge of our overpopulation, etc, being the main, or even a minor driver for choosing a smaller family size. This tells us one a couple of things: 1) the developing world would really, really be helped if we aided them getting their own family planning, etc, up to speed. It comes with the undeniable benefit that they'd accelerate their development! Win, win! 2} if we in the West can bust this stupid taboo, the fear of even mentioning population, our overpopulation, and challenging those nutter billionaires that scream that our population is collapsing! Pointing out that they're only thinking about their profits... Then we can all learn, understand the situation we're all in, and we can add the huge untapped 'resource' of so many more people choosing to have fewer kids, for these reasons. We simply can't support 8.1 billion of us, no matter how efficient we do everything, as there are so many limits of different and interconnected types that all need to be respected. We need to choose quality of life, over quantity of life. And choosing to have fewer kids addresses ever single issue we face today, simultaneously. And to the greatest extent possible. It's also exceptionally cheap! And fast.

Contributed to overpopulation. Unsustainable farming.

Nice artificial fertilizer.

I don't like these kind of wind-monsters machines..they scare birds ..not all that is green is right for the Planet..Areas without birds are dead ones..

I support the message, but sustainable jet fuel is basically impossible on a thermodynamic level. Fossil fuels are the kings of energy density and CCS is a waste of valuable electricity.

Clean abundant energy, let's do it!

Anything wrong with the phrase Historical Materialism?

So why do we need to do less beef if we can improve soil with them using regenerative agriculture? The simple fact is if we remove beef, we need more soy or other monoculture protein vegetable crops which is far more harmful to the environment. Yes the carbon gains can easily be reversed but so can literally every other carbon source in the soil with bad practices. There is also lots of land use potential for increased beef production using under utilized land (agro-forestry, or returning deserts to productive land for example) which can lead to further benefits.

The start of the video is just so freaking good

Thank you for educating people about this phenomenon!

Why we should not reduce human population , what is the need of increasing the numbers of population to billions and billions What is greater purpose in multiplying the mankind Is it not better that we should eat natural diet before the industrial revolution and have a population of less than billion , science and technology is complete failure it is in war with nature , please don't suggest us poisonous method of food by New and New technology ,technology is not God , you can not outsmart nature , please talk about reducing population because a time will come when even your technology will fail to feed ever increasing population and everything will collapse

I highly respect that you stated your environmentalism background while supporting nuclear energy. Nuclear is the cleanest energy so far. More than renewables even. But don't glue yourself to things, and cease your activism. It's stupid.

This is like eating sugar vs eating fruit. You cannot make meat in a lab because it's much more complex than 1 or 2 fermented compounds put together. I see this process working well for the things mentioned in the video like citric acid or renet because these consist of a single molecule that you can code a bacteria or yeast to produce. It can work for a single protein but not for actual meat. If you want to substitute meat, I'd look at what people eat in vegetarian cultures instead of trying to grow meat in a lab or make "milk" from soy.

Let's feed humanity and restore nature!

Sounds great in theory, but when most of the world doesn't even have labs or personnel needed to test for aflatoxins or precision pesticide residues, a relatively much easier task, this isn't gonna be a thing for centuries at least. Plus, just think of the political issues. States in the US are literally banning lab-grown meat. Let's say the EU or UK are actually successful in creating a lab grown meat industry...theres gonna be an intense backlash to trade when every country who is hesitant about the technology is worried that their Italian salami could actually be lab grown. Is this logical? No. Are humans logical? No. Case and point - the EU already does this with other agricultural innovations like GM crops. There's no proven negative effect on human or environmental health compared with a control yet the EU is banning GM crops with the arguement that boils down to "this is done in a lab and that's scary." I applaud the scientific innovation, but i don't see this being a plausible new sphere of agriculture any time soon. Then again, happy to be proven wrong...they said the same thing about cars back in the day.

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!

Thanks a lot for this!!!

There was a movie about this back in the 70"s. They called the stuff Brown25,,,

Nuclear energy and New nuclear power is the key to a clean energy future!!

The safety chart is out dated meme. As of 2015 UNESCO said no deaths followon in Fukushima, so that dropped to 0.0013 deaths/TWh for nuclear, and it has been decreasing as the TWh have increased in the decade since the 0.0013 deaths/TWh was determined.

I agree with all of your points, I've been broadly supportive of nuclear for a long time. But being in Australia, I have to ask an Australian-centric question. We often hear that nuclear energy can't work in Australia because we don't have a nuclear industry at all yet, and it would take too long to develop new plants and train a new workforce to meet our emission reduction targets, so the favoured solution tends to be some mix of gas, renewables, and battery. Do you think it's too late for nuclear in Australia, or could it serve a role?

The world needs more nuclear energy!

and thats why vegans want farms shut down

I just eat legumes and whole grains. 🤷‍♂️

If the door is opened, gigantic corporations will flood the market with patented varietes (proprietary technology product) in the shortest amount of time. Before you realize it, your food production will be in their control.

Yeah, the problem is not the modification, the problem is the technological advances are being enclosed and commodified. The endless enclosure of the commons has to be resisted.

I learned something today. Thanks!

Thanks for doing a video on this. Links to the research would be awesome as well.

Lies

Thanks. I guess they don't allow GM foods because they could potentially cross-breed into the natural ecosystem, though I don't know if they actually do. Would be good to understand where the scientific debate and legislation of GM foods is at in this regard. A big thing people want is just safe food to eat and food that doesn't harm pollinators, so ideally we'd have more diverse labelling schemes.

When did the entire UK not include northern ireland? Just had a nap what did I miss

Your "graphics" are great...your conclusion terrible. I totally agree with the other comment writer about Hinkley C being a real-life warning.

Hinkley Point is literally showing you right now that if you include nuclear into your energy mix then energy will simply become more expensive. Wind, solar, hydro and lithium or sodium based batteries are the way to go. And of course interconnection cables connecting all the north sea countries to shift around surplus energy.

The Ministry ho pressed for the ban in Italy is the dumb Brother in Law of Giorgia Meloni. He is famous for making stupid statements and bad impressions.

How much does a kilo of cultivated protein cost now. I know it may sound silly, but should we use the microbe grown protein to feed cattle. They give vegans the option to eat it. Then people like myself who would like clean food would probably buy it if they cost was okay.