What I've Learned or What I've Lied About? Eating less meat won't save the planet. Debunked.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 чер 2024
- 🌱 If you find my work valuable, you can become a regular supporter or make a one-off contribution through the following links (thank you!): earthlinged.org/support & / earthlinged
💌 Find out more about what I do & sign up for a personal weekly newsletter: earthlinged.org
📚 Download my FREE 122 page e-book: earthlinged.org/ebook
💡 Make the switch to vegan & get all of the support you need: switchtovegan.co.uk
TODAY'S VIDEO:
Fully debunking 'Eating less Meat won't save the Planet. Here's Why' a UA-cam video full of misinformation uploaded by the channel 'What I've Learned'.
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 intentions with this video
CONNECT:
👉 Find more content on Instagram: / earthlinged
👉 Follow on Facebook: / earthlingedpage
The Disclosure Podcast:
🎙️ iTunes: apple.co/3853BF2
🎙️ Spotify: spoti.fi/37ZtGVS
🎙️ RSS feed: feeds.buzzsprout.com/254157.rss
My Animal Rights Organisation/Sanctuary:
🎥 Surge: surgeactivism.org
🌳 Surge Animal Sanctuary: surgesanctuary.org
⚡ Unity Diner: (Non-profit Restaurant): unitydiner.co.uk
🎬 Land of Hope and Glory (UK ‘Earthlings’ Documentary): landofhopeandglory.org
SOURCES:
Dr. Frank Mittloehner paid by animal agriculture: www.theguardian.com/environme...
Dr. Frank Mittloehner criticism:clf.jhsph.edu/sites/default/f...
Land used for animal feed versus land used for plants directly for human consumption: www.bloomberg.com/graphics/20...
Crop land for animals could feed another 350 million people: www.pnas.org/content/115/15/3804
The US going vegan would reduce emissions by only 2.6% study: www.pnas.org/content/114/48/E...
Robin White quote: amp.realagriculture.com/2019/...
Debunking of the 2.6% study: www.pnas.org/content/115/8/E1704
Further criticism of the 2.6% study: gfi.org/images/uploads/2018/0...
Beef only provides 3% of calories and also uses half of agricultural land: wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-...
Half of agricultural land is about 20% of the entire landmass of the UK: www.bloomberg.com/graphics/20...
Life-cycle analysis shows beef is 3.7% of total emissions: www.sciencedirect.com/science...
Agricultural methane emissions could be being underestimated: www.issuelab.org/resources/36...
US agricultural emissions would be reduced by somewhere between 61% to 73% if the US went plant-based: science.sciencemag.org/conten...
Agriculture emissions in the US are 10.5% of total emissions: www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natur...
Restoring agricultural land could sequester 8.1 billion tons of CO2 each year: science.sciencemag.org/conten...
Per capita agricultural land is twice the world average: ourworldindata.org/land-use
Methane is 86 times more potent than CO2 over a twenty year period: unece.org/challenge
US agricultural methane emissions increased nearly 20% between 1990 and 2016: www.epa.gov/sites/production/...
Joseph’s source that shows crop farming uses less blue water than animal farming: www.researchgate.net/publicat...
Animal farming uses significantly more blue water in California: pacinst.org/wp-content/upload...
Joseph’s source that says that plant-based diets are better for the environment: waterfootprint.org/media/down...
Joseph’s source that shows how many tons of plants you could grow with the amount of blue water it takes to grow one ton of beef: www.researchgate.net/publicat...
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 👈😫🦠💩🍖....
We love you ed :)
This is the best response video I've seen for this video so far!
imagine being on the net for your pleasure at the cost of harm to sentient life
disgusting D:
I've read about the wonders of the Mediterranean diet. Fish, eggs, olive oil, and of course vegetables, are the optimal combination for a nutritious diet.
Let’s be honest, we were all waiting for this.
Yep.
I figured it would be this week, glad it's here
Yes.
Yes, another awesome video from Ed!
Was going to message Ed but knew everyone else would lmao
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?
same buddy same XD
you don't have to be good at researching to accurately inform yourself. There's plenty of academic research that you can find and read without needed a background in research.
That book is about communism my guy, doesn’t quite apply here, but I guess I get it a little, when watching videos like this, don’t trust what anyone says, science as a whole is biased, you are taught fair tests at school but in life it is extremely hard to make a fair test, so in other words, your mind makes your own opinions, if you can’t decide who to trust, trust neither
@@joshsmith2075 Claiming George Orwell's Animal Farm is about communism is somewhat disingenuous..
This is one of the reasons why economic power breaks democratic systems. You can use money to create a false standpoint between which and reality people start looking for the middle ground to believe in.
In a democracy, all power has to root in the voters. Every one of the voters has to have an equal share of power. There is no power left over which could be distributed according to capital. In a well functioning democracy, all channels in which money can be turned into political power have to be closed. That reaches from examples like influence on the voters directly to corruption and economically rooted lobbyism to unequal political advertisement.
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.
California is not fit to grow almonds and yet here we are :v
@@jjbarajas5341 nah it is that’s why they grow them there lmao, the problem is water not land
@@chimp09 yea we could do that but that’s not what this person is arguing
@@admirablerook3619 it perfectly addresses his point. You can't grow human edible crops everywhere, but it's not a problem, since you don't need to.
When we speak about food efficiency I would love to know which way is the most efficient at providing all the 4 essentials: 1) amino acids. 2) fatty acids. 3) vitamins. 4) minerals. Only debating about macros and calories doesn’t do the discussion about sustainable health justice
It's dunked on for various reasons. I think some rather sinister, but the oil palm- palm oil,is incredible in the amount of oil it produces.
cows
that's the answer
it's well studied by science
the scientific consensus is that it's complicated and depends on many factors, but the overall top, if any one thing can be said to be, is cows
1: humans need much less protein than they think thanks to marketing. Resistance training makes a bigger difference than anything else. Human milk is only 5-6% protein calories. Plus legumes are plentiful in protein, lentils are 40% calories from it.
Fatty acids are more complex but omega 6 isn't a worry for sure and omega 3 we probably already don't get enough of. Eating greens and other plants gets us closer and algea supplements exist for those worries about it. Notable most animals don't need to supplement it. Vitamins much the same if you're eating a varies diet, and for B12 we even have to inject that into animals because their diet is deficient in it. And minerals aren't so difficult in practice.
@@mikafoxx2717 Marketing isn't pushing the idea that people need a lot of protein. Vegans and bodybuilders are trying to get more protein, and we hear about it by word of mouth. Pretty much nobody is trying to get less protein, so the community consensus in most peoples' minds is that protein is something we ought to have more of if anything. Marketing just brags about anything people think is good ("our product contains protein!" "our product is gluten free!" "our product has low sodium!").
People don't need very much protein if they have a significant amount of animal products in their diet. Vegetarian diets require much greater amounts of protein because the types of protein and amino acids from plants are not right for the human body. The amount of protein in high-protein plants like rice or potatoes seems high enough if you look at how much beef or chicken a person needs to meet their protein requirements, but when you check how much protein a person needs when all of their protein comes from plants, suddenly the amount in rice and potatoes seems like barely enough.
@@TheReaverOfDarkness You have some good points. Most people do get enough protein, short of eating processed stuff like just sugar wheat and oil. And exercise is too rare. Makes sense that bodybuilders want to get more protein, though it's inversely related to longevity to eat a high protein diet. Up to 1.6g/kg lean bodyweight is about the maximum protein that can be utilized, even under huge desire to use it. But even a kilo of muscle mass is only 230g of actual proteins over maintenance need. One could build a lot of muscle on just 80g a day of protein from any source. Prisoners gain a whole lot on even less than that.
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.
@@AFastidiousCuber To be fair though, the vegan community is composed of infinitely more ideologues than non vegans
@@Pinkie007 Is it really though? The only reason you don't think believing that eating meat is morally okay makes someone an "ideologue" is because the belief is so prevalent that it seems like the default.
@@AFastidiousCuber Well no I’m only saying it because 90% of the time when someone tries to tell you what to eat, it’s a vegan. No-one else cares about what you eat.
But almost every single time someone is shamed for their diet, it’s vegans shaming them. Like no-one really can disagree here, it’s where the whole stereotype of the “annoying vegan” comes from.
And that’s just classic ideologue behavior. It’s their way or the highway.
So while not all vegans are like this, they are infinitely more like this than any other diet community to the point where even chill vegans are annoyed by them for giving vegans a bad reputation.
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?
My exact thought haha
Lolol
haha, just use chickpeas :)
If you're wanting to replace the taste, texture and protein from beef then the closest I've used is seitan that I make myself.
Mushrooms.
as an Agro specialist i want to make some comments on your video, there is no farmer that would rather plant livestock feed other than proper crops, since the price per acre of animal feed is 5-8x less. the thing you gotta consider is much deeper than simply area of land, most crops only grow on certain types of soil, landscape, weather and many other variants, the size of the crop also depends on those variables and many others on top of that. simply come out with a number that an area would produce this much food to feed this much people then is impossible and completely absurd. Second, live stock feed is nothing more than weed. weed that grow anywhere but is used as a crop in commercial farming because it needs almost zero care, grows pretty much anywhere and it's hardly affected by plagues since it kinda is one, also consider this data, the area of human feed crops did not grow since the 70's you know why? you never considered one factor, efficiency, certain crops deliver 25x more per acre today than in the 70's because of technology, better crop handling, new techniques and so on, so there is no need to go after perfect farming grounds that usually means removing woods of a forest from where it is. second, composting has not even a fraction of the effectiveness that manure has in fertilizing crops, there is no organic crops without manure, and no organic vegetables for vegans to eat. there are only two kinds of effective ways of fertilizing commercial crops. manure blended with the soil by a truck that dumps it on a way and a tractor comes behind with a big rake and blends it with the soil. that is how 99% of commercial organic products are produced, with cow manure. the other alternatives are chemical fertilizers, what you think is best? in the end, all of this is hypocrisy, if all of you really wanted do help with the green gas concern we would not be discussing the 5% or 10% impact of cattle or agriculture, but the 65% impact of fossil fuels and energy production. for me this is all a smoke curtain. farming and livestock production never been as sustainable and green as it is today, and it will be much more in the future, this is not the problem that needs to be removed from the root to fix climate change, please stop being so naive. People need to eat. and if they want to eat meat they should, the same way if you want to be vegan you should, both productions impact the environment in their own bad ways, never think that your morning avocado is "green" it's as harmful as the cattle is. but we need to eat, and the processes are getting better and better, and it will be perfect someday. lets focus on the real stuff, thank you for the video, you guys keep eating and we will keep producing.
Thank you for the viewpoint!
A large percentage of agricultural land is pasture, which lends perfectly to grazing. In areas with light brown soils, and little rain where mostly only grasses grow, livestock is common. You can't just swap out pasture land and start growing tomatoes. In Alberta where we farm the south eastern part of the province and much of Saskatchewan is semi arid desert and large tracks of land are pasture because there's no irrigation, the soil sucks, and the rainfall is minimal. In agriculture you produce what the confines of your area allow. This is why agriculture is so varied around the world, in a single area the agriculture only 100 miles away can be vastly different.
That’s why we create fertilizer out of all the plants that don’t get fed to animals.
@@papascorch5215 or just feed it to animals. We have enough fertilizer . Our plants are also efficient with GMOs aiding them
He talks about this around min 13:10
There are many things we can do with that land, that aren't suitable for growing vegetables, f.ex. let them get back to their natural state, grow trees,...
Aggree, it seems the only way to make those lands fruitfull is with lots of chemicals. And yes we can wipeout all animal live and live purely on chemicals, but do we really want that? I prefer my cows eating natural grass and not some soja or what else.
Pasture land for ruminant grazing is amazing and more rotational grazing should be done as it can be a net carbon sink! Problem is most people buy cheap beef and that’s where the demand is. cheap beef is finished in a feedlot on feed that has been grown using damaging agriculture practices and dedicated to livestock. This is the problem, not beef production in general. We definitely can grow grass-finished beef 100% on pasture land but that is not what most producers do since you can’t pump out as much volume. With livestock you need a lot of volume to make money off cheap beef which the world loves.
when you realize that thanos could have easily solved the resource problem by making everyone go vegan
Your onto something lmao
Disney would never allow it
That solution is like saying we can create world peace; just stop fighting. Or world poverty: just stop being poor.
@@aristotlespupil136 Eh? The OP post is not talking about the underlying process of going vegan - therefore what you're saying is not analogous. The impracticality of convincing everyone to stop fighting to achieve world peace is irrelevant when there is a power invoked to instantly make it happen.
Haaaaa, if everyone is vegan the world would be screwed😂😂😂
I'm one of the people who messaged you to do this video!! So happy, lol.
Good job, Tane!
@@ChrisGaultHealthyLiving Thanks! 😃
Same!!
The biggest lie the industry is telling us is that *we’re* the ones who should change our ways and go green
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.
medium nitpick,
What the US uses for agricultural land is naturally pairie and steppe land, not forests. Returning it to nature would not have any significant tree growth and carbon reduction. It is mostly useless for anything but farming or city development, and both of those require massive abuse of water
Another issue I have with this video is that if we DID switch to 100% Veganism, things like Nuts would need to be produced in a much larger quantity as they are one of the best sources of protein (as well as other nutrients) among plants. Since nuts consume a HUGE amount of water, this may change the equations for how water intensive each diet is.
I dont know what the numbers would show, but if your goal is to remove all meat, you HAVE to account for what the new diets people will eat to replace that meat would actually look like.
Also, another factor is, Cows also produce Milk. Milk is mostly water that is drinkable. This means while cows do consume a lot of water, they also PRODUCE drinkable water. Some plants also contain a lot of water in them as well. Meat as well contains quite a bit of water. I wonder what those charts of Blue water consumption would look like if you actually accounted for the water that ends up in the final product.
There are quite a few things in this video that I feel could be expanded upon more.
Grasslands actually sequester a lot of carbon. This is usually less than forests, but is more resistant to wildfire.
@@user-ci5it7gw1d this is carbon that naturally exists in nature/atmosphere and would end up back in nature/atmosphere if all humans died literally tomorrow. Because eventually it will be eaten, burnt or just rot and turn back into a greenhouse gas before being absorbed back into the earth in a new plant.
@@eragon78 Beef cattle is not producing any milk that people consume. And dairy cattle has an atrocious water to milk conversion, 628 liters of water are required to produce one liter of cow milk. While just 28 liters of water are used to produce soy milk.
Also nuts are NOT the main source of protein for vegans, beans are. And if you want to eat nuts, you can skip almonds and pistachios to really lower your water footprint.
@@aenab.4596 Again, you also have to consider how much of that water is actually wasted though.
Cows peeing that water back out means its not wasted. Pee will get filtered and enter back into the water system.
I mean Humans consume vastly more water than cows do, but its not an issue because the water we excrete goes back into the water cycle. This has been the case for all life on earth pretty much.
And my point was stuff like this still wasnt BEING considered. 28 liters out of 628 liters is still a significant portion. Thats nearly 5% still from just that alone.
This also isnt considering again the usage of where that water comes from. Green vs Blue vs Grey.
Most of the water cows consume comes from their feed. Its "green" water. This is water that already wasnt being used by humans. It was water that was already being used by plants in the water cycle and not water we added into the system from elsewhere.
Blue water is the water you dont want, because this is human consumable water that we are taking out of the system of things like aquafers and providing to animals.
So if you compare the BLUE water usage to milk production, im sure the numbers are much closer and its a much larger percentage.
Green water usage is hardly a concern because its just part of the natural water cycle. This is the stuff that basically most wild animals consume as well.
So when this stuff is actually all taken into account, im sure the numbers look far less extreme than theyre trying to portray it as. It may still not be great, idk what they are. But people acting like we're dumping hundreds of gallons of water from our water supplies like aquafers for each cow over its lifetime isnt accurate. Most of their water is coming from the food they eat, it returns to the water cycle, and they also for SOME cows at least, they also produce fluid back into the system.
You are right that dairy cows and beef cows are different, but dairy cows still make up a sizable portion of the cow population which is why its still something to consider.
I haven't seen this much destruction since Thanos snapped his fingers
Lmaooo 😭 BYE ✋
.
😩😩😩😂
lmao
400th like for your comment
Wow. I'm extremely impressed Ed. I'm a bit disappointed in myself for thinking the video was fine
Same
I've been told the original video has nice graphics. That's a good thing, isn't it? :-)
Wooow same
What did Ed impressively debunk in the video?
@@Combinationlock He pointed out several mistakes and also how some of the stuff WIL said can easily be misleading, and selectively went against some of his own points without us noticing. Obviously there's too much to mention in a short comment (the video is after all 26 minutes long). The study that WIL and the guy he interviewed refer to, saying that if everyone in the US stopped eating animal products, then it will only reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2.6%, that's very wrong, and they make crazy assumptions, such as humans needing to eat all the food we currently give to animals and that everyone would eat 4700 calories a day. Even then there are other mistakes as well.
Then there's the thing about the land that "would go to waste" if we don't use it for grazing livestock, since that is also wrong. It wouldn't go to waste, and we could in fact make a big, positive environmental impact if we did use that land better.
There was also the stuff about how much water is used to make beef, and even if we use the numbers that WIL refer to himself, then it is very clear that animal products use much more water than crops for human consumption. WIL use the example of nuts as the only outlier, but even considering that case, then in California (I think it was that state, but I might be wrong), there is still much more water being used on animal products. WIL tried to justify some of the extra water use for beef by saying it is much more nutrient dense than white rice, which is also an incredibly bad example to use. It was easy to put together vegan food for the same amount of water use as the beef, and it being more nutrient dense.
There were also a whole lot of other smaller points (and maybe bigger ones I missed too) that he mentioned as well, so I'd recommend watching it.
Most of what you say is correct, however, all that pasture land will never be used or farmed for anything else. If that pasture land was viable for crop farming, then we would be farming it right now just to add to our feed for beef and with that higher yield, we would have plenty of area left to farm bio-fuel crops.
Presumably you're responding to the bit at 2:35 where he compares how many calories you can get from oats to how many you can get from the equivalent weight of pasture grass. That's the only bit I can find where he refers to pastureland. But the point he's making is not that you could simply convert from pastureland to oat or other crop farming, he's debunking a point of WIL's that's based on a simplistic comparison of crop weights.
He immediately goes on to say that 10 times more land is used for animal agriculture than growing crops for human consumption and that a great deal of that could be put to better use. But given that animals - even so-called grass-feed cattle - are not for the most part being put out to pasture, the majority of that land is currently already crop land being used to produce animal feed and could be used for different crops. And while some pastureland might not be suitable for growing crops, a lot of it could, as Ed's comments suggest, be rewilded and reforested, providing habitats for diverse species and better carbons sinks.
@@JohnMoseley As someone who worked in wildlife conservation and even as a ranch hand on occasion. A vast majority of cattle are on land unsuitable for large scale farming and that is why it is mentioned that in the US 2/3rds of the land is not arable while 1/3 is mostly farmland if it hasn't been taken over by human settlement. Usually ranchers will grow crops but only as a nutritional boost to animals and it is usually in small patches that wouldn't be useful for distribution. Most of them don't even do more than plow and plant(not even fertilizing) . They also tend to have their own gardens for their own vegetables. However most of them still buy produce because not everything is sustainable or even growable in their climate. Something like 98% of cattle spend most of their lives on pasture before they are sent for fattening in a feedlot for a few months, where most of the food is remnant waste from human food farming.
Cattle do NOT typically need massive deforestation as they work in natural pastures and are moved from one to another as needed. The idea the reforestation is needed in the US is a joke too because we have programs where every tree cut down usually involves 2 to 3 new trees cut. On average we gain forestland by 1 million acres each year. The funny thing is that agriculture for farming does need massive deforestation as the machines used and the land use increases dramatically.
For those interested, What I've Learned responded to this video. You can see the response by going over to What I've Learned's video - Eating less meat won't save the planet. The link to the response is in the video's description.
And what do you think of the response?
Yeah he made a response on Patreon so only he's fans can comment and blindly agree with he's claims :)
And Joseph is still dead wrong.
yeah a bad response
@@anonb0 Did you actually read the full response in the PDF? He does address it near the end.
everyone's an environmentalist until you ask them to give up sausage rolls smh
but there are ve-GAN sausage rolls??
everyone is an environmentalist till you tell them to move to the countryside and become self sufficient
Or just ask them to eat vegan sausage rolls that taste basically the same anyway.
@@cynicalidealist11Honestly, they're better half the time.
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?
Just leaving a comment to get a notification of the responses here :3
In response to your third point, I think that's fair for a study to do that, and the results are interesting - but the results are absolutely being misinterpreted now they've made it into the real world to fit people's agenda. Many people won't understand that all other variables are being kept the same so It should be made clear that it is a scenario that would never exist if people were to switch to a plant based diet. The inefficiencies that would lead to us eating 4700kcal per day of mainly cereals and soy, could be cut out leading to far better outcomes. That's not what is presented when people refer to the numbers in that study so it's important to point out it's not representative of any real change that would occur.
You know, there's always the ethical point, that shouldn't be ignored. I very unfortunately ended up in farming animals, not my choice. I was horrendous
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.
Yet all of the studies he mentioned weren't paid by vegan corporations. Facts don't care about your feelings.
What I'd also recommend to the author of this video is to move his gay butt over to the countryside and see that composting capacities are very limited and people actually do burn residues seasonally
Make a video telling people that they don’t have to change their behavior and they‘ll eat it up :/
So, so sad.... but true.
It's the 100 companies or whatever that make all the bad things. That means I can do no wrong. I'll just burn my trash in a garden because veganism is classist or racist or sexist I forgot. But its definitely bad. Fishing is awesome tho. It definitely helps the oceans by killing everything in it. The oceans are overpopulated anyways. Or was it the world overpopulated
he is saying that we should focus on bigger problems, meat consumption is not going to make the planet so hot we cant live here anymre but burning fossil fuels will
I mean that's just psychological bias that we are all privy to. I bet every person owns or uses something that directly harms the environment that they wouldn't want to give up, such as cars, cellphones, most forms of clothing, etc. My biggest gripe with the vegan community is how they demonize people who eat meat, and claim that non vegans are evil people who hate the environment, while they drive off to work in a fossil fueled car. I do agree that vegetarianism is an effective way to reduce carbon emissions, but there are other ways as well.
Edited for grammar
@@collamus6901 ed always says nomvegans are not evil. He often tells the story of how he became vegan. And concludes I wasnt evil when I wasnt vegan. I dont know what vegans you are talking about. This guy is someone that most vegans agree with and he doesn't act in the way you described
"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.....
More like: What I want to be true
He did exactly that with my comments.
@@ab-td7gq oh wow, not surprised, he knows his arguments are crap and has no shame and doesn't want rebuttals shown
@@veganfortheanimals6994 Yes its sad but also kinda funny to know how dishonest that guy is and I'm happy with the response by Ed, take care!
@@ab-td7gq agree, sounds good my friend !
countered everyone of your points.
One of the main and less talked about problems when it comes to environmental impact of meat/crop is the use of fertilizers. It is scientifically proven that synthetic fertilizers contain much more nitrous oxide and phosphates than organic ones leading to much more environmental pollution (increase in N20 air emissions and groundwater pollution) while reducing soil quality. Cutting meat production to zero, as this video suggests, will lead to greater synthetic fertilizer usage to offset the loss of organic fertilizer production. This in turn will reduce the impact of removing animal agriculture land on emissions.
My point being that being extremist and advocating for total elimination of meat production is largely unbeneficial. Optimizing parts of the production chain (balance of meat vs crop production) is in my opinion a much better way forward than altogether removing the production of one food group.
Humans have evolved as omnivores and eating both meat and plants alike constitutes a balanced diet.
Only sane person here. Ppl will believe what they want
This is misleading because nobody can eat what cows and animals eat. It's not edible. Unless you are saying we should start eating crop residue
Organic fertilizers can be made from plant-based materials. It's known as veganic agriculture.
I don't know a lot about fertilizers. I will take for granted for this argument that animal-sourced fertilizers may be superior to synthetic fertilizers in terms of environmental impact, as you say.
I want to point out though that in the US about 2/3 of all crops are used to feed animals. We would need only a fraction of these crops to make up for the lost calories. Not having to feed the animals with crops in the first place would therefore massively cut the overall amount of fertilizer needed for crops. Does that make sense to you or am I missing something? Let me know, happy to learn!
Even if there wasn't such a thing as vegan organic fertilizers, currently we produce 20x the animal waste than can be used in manure. It's actually an ecological disaster, so another reason to stop relying on animals for food. We can keep them around in diminished populations if necessary, but to get to the point where there is even a problem 95%+ of current meat eaters would have to go vegan.
You can't ever trust someone that takes the fact of just one source, especially if that source it's compromised.
Yeah, plant based research is never compromised. But when the meat industry has to fund research (for there to be actual meat research) then it's compromised. The sign of a true vegan is that you denounce the meat industry for doing the exact same thing that the plant industry is doing. Never mind that the meat industry is doing it far less.
@@wtfronsson do you really believe that all studies done in favour of plant based diets are driven by some desire to make everyone vegan?! Surely no one would want to fund that, large majorities of plant based product is bought for animals to eat, almost every industry should be against this movement.
Another alternative is perhaps there is truth to the papers in favour of plant based diets and the agriculture industry are throwing their toys out the pram. It all sounds very much like big Tobacco, you think the meat industries wouldn’t put up a fight?
@@jenuism8506 Yes, anything that says you should eat a diet mainly consisting of plants is BS. This is my stance on the matter, and many doctors and other experts are also trying to bring light to this. Actual comparative studies to a carnivore diet barely exist. You have to look at how many carnivore studies exist vs plant based studies. And this tells you a whole lot about which diet the establishment is trying to hide.
Yes I know you disagree, but that's fine. Let's disagree. You can call the meat industry out for acting like Big Tobacco, and I will call out the plant based cult for the same.
There's also the matter of organ meats not being promoted, and pretty much all meat being cooked instead of raw. Our bodies evolved with raw meat, including lots of organ meat. So it's just clear what we should be eating. Organ meats have incredible nutrition to weight ratios. Even if you did everything else wrong, you'd be quite healthy just eating a pound of raw beef liver every week. And maybe some fat from another source.
@@wtfronsson I was going to laugh and call out the fibre deficiency backing up into your brain space, but now I am genuinely scared. Eat raw organs? Are you a movie monster or an terror from some legend? Windigo? Chupacabra? Do you drink the blood of infants as well?
@@wtfronsson "And this tells you a whole lot about which diet the establishment is trying to hide." You sound an awful lot like a conspiracy theorist
what I've learned should be renamed to "what I want you to believe"
? ? ? ?
WILTTM: What I Like to Tell Myself
Exactly
Stupidity? Naaa, just vegan fanatism, maybe the same thing
why counting calories for the food the life stocks eat? It's not like you are going to eat grass to extract the calories in the grass or something
For all of what is said here, if you're unserious about Nuclear power, you're unserious about the whole thing. After all, only 10% energy total consumed is for food production.
Also, do you want to reforest or change the animal agriculture to human agriculture. What do you pick? What proportion should it be split?
If you're doing lifecycle analysis, I encourage the electric car enthusiasts to do the same.
It's annoying that this video probably won't get as much visibility as the original. Good job nonetheless Ed!
👋
Because it’s ideological claptrap
@@Combinationlock the original?
@@Combinationlock ah yeah because it is so smart to believe that humans would eat all the animal feed if we stop farming animals, selfishness really makes people dumb
Just comment the link to this video
so more can watch it
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.
am an omnivore, can confirm that was my reaction
@Vegan Vamshi Krishnan not feasible for me right now. Would like to in the future.
@Vegan Vamshi Krishnan i live in a third world country with 40% annual inflation and I'm a student. It would bankrupt me to go vegan while getting my nutritional needs met.
@@everflores9484 Sorry if this is ignorant but isnt plants like beans and rice quite cheap? I see meat as something expensive, at least thats how its been historically and currently in first world countries.
@@Freakyjohnsson1 white rice? Yeah. Beans not so much. I practice a very intensive sport and are on my feet for most of the day.
Meat here is not as expensive tbh and it covers my caloric and nutritional needs very well. I don't even eat that much but according to my nutritionist, it wouldn't do me any good to go veggie right. Not on my budget at least lol
its crazy how people still debating what they should be eat when the most destructive way to destroy your earth is the pollution of transportation
Yeah but transportation is necessary unlike the right diet
@@MasterKey2004 Some forms of transportation are much more polluting (per kilometre per person) than others. It is better for the environment if a hundred people would be taking public transport than if the same number of people would drive the same amount by car.
@@casperdewithyeah car dependency is an actual plague
But why can't we address both problems? They aren't mutually exclusive.
@@ItimDave Because compared to one, the other isn't even a problem. Create walkable cities before you even start to try and change a human tradition of eating meat for the last 5 thousand years.
Grazing land =/= farmable land. This is addressed in the video you are critiquing and you just ignore it. You frequently repeat "lets grow food on grazing land" assuming that is possible to just swap out land for any use case.
I noticed that too. However, what if the land used for growing crops for animals, double that of the land used for humans in the US, was used for human crops? That could work.
@@mattruscoe4353 There are no economic incentives to do so. We don't have a shortage of carbs, in fact we have a very huge surplus of them. Theoretically, we have a lot of land that can be turned into flourishing forests using our industrial capacity. There's a proposal to plant 1 trillion trees that costs like $300 billion, the problem is no one is willing to pay for it.
But I think we don't need to be carbon-negative to solve climate change although it certainly helps, and more biodiverse forests would certainly make earth green again. Still, we don't *need* to turn grasslands to forests. We only need to be carbon-neutral and stop using fossil fuels.
He doesn’t say to swap out grazing land. He talks about swapping out the farmable land we use to produce food for animals.
Am I wrong here? Compare the graph from 3:53 to the one from 10:59. This illustrates the difference right?
He actually did address this, he stated that not all land used in animal agriculture can be used for farming. But it does not have to be, estimates show that if the US went vegan we could reduce our agricultural land usage by around 70%. Some of that 70% will be that land that is unsuitable for farming, and that 70% can be restored and rewilded to help sequester carbon.
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.
Well said! I totally agree!
He provides excuses for those who want them. The video was clearly tailored for them. The false choice fallacy between almonds and beef instantly gave it away.
Since more crops are farmed in order to feed livestock, it is still much preferable.
Omg. Really, just read, or watch the video. Go to the statistics of how many calories livestock need for raising and how much comes from grain. I have no time to endlessly discuss with anyone who is unable to challenge its own beliefs.
It is so ludicrous when meat eaters criticize vegans as if they held a dogma. When vegans are the ones who challenged their own preconceptions about the way we treat animals and decided to change, regardless of how much they could miss eating chesse, etc. Really, how much more intellectual honesty can you ask for to someone who already changed a lifestyle after realizing it was a mistake.
@Shane Rutherford ua-cam.com/video/0QTNgKpV_K4/v-deo.html
People embrace anything that says I can continue my Bad ways
*natural ways, the ways our species always had. Yeah, I'm gonna continue those ways. Have fun starving.
@@wtfronsson i'm sorry but killing 70 billion animals in a year is not natural nor sustainable for the planet. Besides, the living conditions of those animals are far from "natural".
@@wtfronsson
Humans have always tried to distance themselves from nature through scientific discoveries and cultural development.
Something that is natural is not automatically ideal
@@laranipic3606 Plant agriculture is killing animals too. Smaller animals, but I don't believe the principle of minimizing harm says anything about the size of the harmed animal. Rodents and insects are dying because of your soy and grain fields. Cows on a pasture are not killing anything, unless maybe they step on something. The cows don't need to die until they stop milking, which is a healthy age. This is already the standard in my country. We have no beef cattle, only milk cattle that becomes beef once the milk stops. 97% grass fed. No problems here. If some other country can't do the same, don't blame us.
There is plenty of room on Earth for free range meat, dairy and eggs for all who want it. Of course there is, look at all the empty room! And also, the only effective way of reversing desertification is to make it a cow pasture, and let the cows keep dumping there for a while. Presto, desert is turned into land you can even use for farming your precious plants. Isn't that something?
@@oivanurminen8946 Science doesn't have to be distancing from nature. Discoveries and advancements can be used to be more in line with nature instead of less.
Something that is unnatural is by default more likely to harm your body. Because that body was not evolved eating _anything_ unnatural, only natural. There is no natural culture that made it this far without heavy emphasis on meat. India figured out they can enforce the cast system more effectively, if the low cast thinks meat isn't good for them. So they were probably the first veggie propagandists, starting thousands of years ago.
Plato said don't feed your slaves meat, and they will be easier to control.
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
Bro, I have watched many of your and other vegan youtuber's videos but this is the first time I've laughed so hard 😂. That research - 4700 calories, growing animal feed OMG 🤣.
This is how easy it is to fool people by putting the barrier of boredom in front of information. Nobody would go through the research, let alone fact check the numbers and logic. Hats off to people like you.
Never clicked so fast.
SAME
Omg, SAME!
Exact same
imagine being on the net for your pleasure at the cost of harm to sentient life
disgusting D:
Saaaame bro
Let's get this recommended on the sidebar for all who watch the original vid :) Pump the algorithm!!!!
Yaaaass
Yes!
!
yes
Bahahahahah thinking UA-cam'll help out vegans with attention...
What's also another way to look at all the damaging things of our climate is: I don't want to have participated in it. It doesn't matter exactly how damaging some things are. Just because other people do it and tell you it's not that harmful, or that if you stop it doesn't help, doesn't mean that you have to participate. You can be the first one. Look at your own values, like: do you want to have participated in animal cruelty? Do you want to have participated in the waste of food or the waste of plastics? These are all things you can say no to, no matter what the actual damage might be.
I wonder how many scientists researching and advocating plant based diets to fight climate change are backed by the oil industry. I get whiplash trying to figure out what's going on with anything these days.
why would they do that ? plant based diet have nothing to do with the oil industry as far as i can see. could you please explain?
@@arunsadanandabhat8518 framing climate change as being caused by food takes blame away from the oil industry.
@@thejoesighuh Oh .. but they wouldnt be supporting the food industry as a whole, since there are vegetable oils too like olive and coconut oil . so they are selectively supporting the meat producing food industry... am i correct? as greenhouse gas emissions by agriculture are only 11%
Look into Alan Savory and the Savory Institute, he is an eye opener and shows we have got it all so wrong. He has transformed deserts with his methods and advocates more animals because cattle store carbon in the ground, amongst many more arguments.
@@arunsadanandabhat8518you can’t really use those oils for foul, only for cooking. They are no competition.
In other news, the Wood Product Manufacturers sponsored a study to support the claim that buying less wood products won't save the forests
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 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....
Thanks! I'll check that out.
@@MukulVyas5 yes definitely
@@veganfortheanimals6994 I already watched it, and agree with you - the video from „Veganism Unspun” was very informative and revealing. I find it very expressive that both Ed’s and Veganism Unspun’s video manage to debunk Joseph’s video with both studies and incredible humor and funny comparisons.
@@veganfortheanimals6994 Dr. Gil Carvalho from "Nutrition Made Simple!" did a review of the video too and explained the flawed studies that WIL cites and even mentioned that the study about 2.6% GHG reduction had received major kickback from a lot of peers when it was published and he basically said that it's a very misleading video but he was very polite about it. And he's not even vegan! WIL even responded in the comments and was literally grasping at straws.
@@MukulVyas5 yes, I saw that video too and called out WIL for deleting my rebuttal comments....the WIL guy seems really intellectually dishonest with his video and with rebuttal comments disappearing
Any recommendations for me? I am striving to consume less meat in my diet. My current challenges are that 1) reaching fullness without meat at lunch and dinner 2) having been diagnosed with IBS, issues digesting beans/legumes and soy.
Soak your beans and grains like wheat for a few hours or overnight. That will reduce the oligosaccharide content and help the IBS. Also, use Beano as needed.
Also, be sure to increase your fermented food intake, as this will likely help with the IBS long term. Aim to eat a serving or two every day of foods like yoghurt, kimchi, sauerkraut, fermented pickles, kefir, or kombucha.
Ehhh there's a lot of land that's used to produce animal feed that can't be used for human food. For instance, I live in an area with really high levels of arsenic (this is naturally occurring, not bc of pollution) in the soil and the crops produced from it would not be considered suitable for human consumption because the crops uptake the arsenic.
This is a complex issue and you can't just assume that you can use all animal feed land for human crops. For as much as he is biased towards one side, so are you. The problem isn't in if someone is vegan or not, but with how our agricultural system functions.
We can’t expect to change the world. But we can be an example of a better world for anyone we come in contact with 💚
Yes, be the example!
imagine being on the net for your pleasure at the cost of harm to sentient life
disgusting D:
The world is changing! It is changing!
@Ali 💚🤣
❤️❤️❤️
Thanks, Ed! The creator of that video said he might make a response to you. I wonder if it would be worth it to reach out for a live debate or discussion with them.
He did, a PDF response yesterday, invite him to debate please!
A Debate would be great, because both sides seem to be picking and choosing and glosing over a bunch of things acording to.... well... both sides.
@@cualquierwea1 could you link the PDF response? I cant seem to find it
@@joshuamartinez8990 go to the original video and follow a link in the description
I read the entire PDF that WIL responded with and I have to say it was actually incredibly well put together. I hope that Ed does respond to the PDF because as of now WIL's responses to Ed leave me questioning a lot. This isn't to say i'll stop being vegan. At the end of the day I could not contribute to animal suffering, but WIL's PDF response makes me question whether Ed jumps the gun a bit with his responses before doing adequate research and leaning heavily on creating suspicion over the individual doing the research, rather than the research itself. Really hoping Ed does a response to the PDF.
This response is so strong. I actually used to watch WIL all the time until he started going off the rails with keto and meat eating. It smelled of online misinformation, and I suppose it was.
No, it wasn't.
It wasn't
As if this video here is anything else
WhatILearnedToday is an imbecile. He uses the same 'logic' as the climate change deniers and flatearthers use to rationalize their bullshit and biases. He's following a fad diet and just tries to find ways to justify it.
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
I actually used to like that channel :(. The amount of ignorance and misinformation in that meat video kind of changed my mind about the channel.
I'm glad you have a platform to speak.
I don't think we should necessarily worship what WIL said. Nor do I think we should take what was said here as total gospel. However, it's very nice to get information from both sides. Like others said in the comments here, neither extreme is a perfect solution.
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.
You forgot one important time stamp: 21:20 Oat milk latte > almond milk latte.
100% true.
Scientifically based from my own anecdotal evidence.
Now I have no choice but to try it!! LOL Cannot argue with science.
Have you tried soy milk? It also tastes pretty good imo. Its emissions are a little bit higher, but water use and land use are both lower. Especially water use, almost half the footprint. (Poore & Nemecek, 2018)
You guys, I know hazelnut is expensive outside of Turkey but it's so good in coffee
@@goji5887 soy milk is so good!!!! Yessss
I don't drink coffee, but I agree that oat milk and soy milk are both better than almond milk.
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."
Thank you for this!
@@jinwoo2038 you’re welcome. I consider his comment important.
He reposted that under Mic the Vegan's rebuttal video as well; it's excellent and I hope it wasn't deleted by WIL under his original post.
The free market decides how much land is used for human food. What's the point of growing more food if it is not sold. That would be worse for the environment surely
Still not giving up steak
Can you address that fact that many people with auto-immune disorders can't seem to eat any plant based foods? What is their ethical obligation?
I'd like to see one of those, lol.
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. 🤣
It’s a clever name. Makes it sound like a scientific/educational channel with no particular bias, when in reality it’s a pro-meat channel
no one has to change their diet
@@lukasye3427 ('Academic philosophy answer' warning). There are two ways in which your statement can be correct: (1) under error theory - then ok but cringe; (2) Humean rejection of an ought - basically, there are some moral philosophers who would deny the sensical nature of "an ought" but still claim that moral statements are truth-apt and that some are in fact true. So in this view nothing changes that much because even though they can't say "someone has to (ought to) do smth" they still say "it would be better is sb did smth" and it's well-replicating psychological knowledge that if we have reasons to act (eg to not buy meat) and no overriding reasons to the contrary, then a mentally healthy human being would almost always act in this way. So if "What I've Learned" guy were to agree on everything with Ed (and with implications of matters agreed upon) then it would be very likely that he would take some actions to ameliorate the cognitive dissonance between those reasons and his action (maybe not being full vegan but at least limit or decrease animal products). // There's some chance that this comment is useful or smth so here you go.
@@mateusztgorak i just mean even if it would be better tp change it for the environment one still doesnt HAVE to. right?
@@lukasye3427 In formal ethics - see my previous comment (if smth would be better, but it's not true that sb has to do something that's the position "(2)" I mentioned), additionally, in human right ethics it's more complicated eg bc by contributing to climate change you don't *directly* harm anyone, just indirectly it's probable that you do harm some people in the future, so it's not so clear. In law - prohibiting eating anything would be ridiculous. It's not even illegal to eat sand (and eating humans is rarely *directly* illegal, in most countries acts of cannibalism are commonly charged not for eating but for murder or desecration of corpses). BUT I think one could make a good case for taxing more on things that have super high carbon emissions (like meat). And if we were in extremely bad situation like: meat industry causing global pandemic every 5 years bc of higher mutation rates or/and antibiotics resistance started to happen THEN I think it would be justifiable to make some legal restrictions on selling it (but not eating it).
What are the crops do they grow for livestock?
I raise cattle on strictly grass. I’ve had salesmen call on me to try and sell me on their feed to boost my production; it’s a waste product and can’t be eaten by humans FULL STOP. And at the price they sell it there’s no way in hell it’s human edible. I couldn’t afford to feed my cattle human foods, it’s just not feasible. But the waste product they sell for cattle feed is so dirt cheap I’d come out financially better using it. It’s only for ethical reasons I stick with strictly grass because I could raise a lot more cattle on the same land if I fed them the trash that’s for sale.
Water consumption is a dumb argument also. The water where I live is dirt cheap, my bill is $20 a month with sewage and trash in that price for my home. But even here, I’d go broke very quickly providing my cattle water out of the tap to drink. The only tap water used for my farm is to wash off the side-by-side I use to travel the property. Ranchers build ponds and utilize that water, not because of some environmental reason, but strictly financial reason; we can’t afford it. On my place I don’t even use mechanical means to move the water, I’ve built ponds at elevation and gravity feeds it into pipes. When the ponds are full I’ll even use it to hose down my cattle on a hot day. Beef is artificially cheap right now because ranchers are selling a lot of cattle because of draughts in the west. Why would they be doing that if they can just get water out of a tap, or get it trucked in? Because cattle ranchers can’t afford to spend money like that, we’re in a low profit industry where we have to wait 3 years for return on investment.
I don’t have diesel equipment blowing, planting and harvesting my product. I have a tractor that I occasionally use to pull the cattle trailer around the property and a side-by-side to travel on.
I don’t spray pesticides. Which is also a big deal because we (humans) have killed half the earth’s insect population through pesticide use.
I don’t spray fertilizer, there’s no need. My crop is the grass that naturally grows, the cattle provide all the fertilizer I need.
I don’t kill herbivores to protect my product like farmers do. When I was a young man I hunted deer in Alabama with friends. On 3 occasions farmers saw our hunting gear and requested we hunt their property to protect their crops.
I don’t lose soil when it rains.
I don’t feed mega corporations money for patent protected goods.
The same can’t be said for farmers.
Another thing, ranchers generally don’t buy land that can be farmed because it’s too damn expensive; big agriculture has chased us out into land that can’t be farmed due to hills, rocks or low production soils. I’m on some nice flat land that would make good farming, but I inherited. If I had to purchase it the cattle business could not have paid it off.
Does the calories comparison between oats and grass take into account that cows can digest grass (cellulose) much better than humans, therefore getting much more energy out of it?
No it doesn't... as far as human consumption is concerned, pasture grass has 0 calories because we can't eat it.
@@praveen25 But we can eat cows. Meaning, if cows were only fed with grass, we would have a gread upcycle.
@@praveen25 WOOSH
I love this man. He explained all this topics so easily that Joseph’s video looks like a bad joke.
Hope the algorithm works and more people listen to the actual truth!
You just have to listen to the first point. Greenwater really Made me tear up. How can someone say so many wrong stuff in such a short time.
these are good counter-arguments, but don't address what i think was the most important argument: that arguments over food choice and other consumer-end choices are very often a smokescreen for fossil fuel use. obviously climate change has multiple causes, but politicians and executives especially love to narrow the focus to any cause that can be pushed onto the end consumer, instead of the larger-scale decisions they are responsible for.
One thing i notice about vegans is that they did not take 4 seasons climate into account. In livestock, the cattle will still grow regardless of the season.
Not all crops are economic to grow in greenhouse and polytunnel, mind you
And neither do the soy crops we feed to animals. Conveniently, that very soy we grow just for animals is enough to feed the 8 billion humans on earth alone.
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
What I learned: Read the sources you cite all the way through to avoid being seen as a lazy idiot.
Thanks Ed for pointing this out. It always amuses me when people cite a paper out of context, when in fact the paper argues against the very point they are trying to make.
Did you read all the sources Ed cited all the way through?
@@tedylaye No, but I'm not the one citing them in a UA-cam video. If I wrote a paper or made a video or some other piece of content, I would indeed read the sources all the way through before citing. That's the point I'm trying to make.
lol had this happen with someone fighting there being more than two genders. the paper itself admitted that biologically there are more than just two sexes and this person was using that argument...
Some things might be obvious but I still think it's important to note that there is a direct link between meat consumption per capita to number of animals being raised for that purpose and then also the methane gas emissions.
Also, the most crucial part isn't only about a gas being potent or harmful but also that shift in balance of gas emissions. Toxicity of materials isn't a matter of yes or no but of how much is enough to be toxic.
In regards to global warming, the higher the percentage of methane gas in the atmosphere the closer it reaches the point of no return or the destruction of homeostasis of gases.
It means levels amount at a higher rate than they are disappearing, making the problem worse over time.
hey i have a question, anyone is free to answer. i learned in school that if u solely grow a certain kind of plan on a crop the soil loses quality and you wont be able to grow other kinds of plants there, at least not easily or fast. if we were to use the current crop which we use for animal feed to grow fruits and vegetables, we'd need to overcome that problem right? so my first question is, can anybody fact check what i just said cause i may have misremembered lol and secondly if it is correct can sb help me understand how we'd make that change?
Crop rotation and growing legumes to fix nitrogen
-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.
People who try to tell you that there is "grass land" for cows in the industry schould one not argue with. :D
@@hax7998 Hey, is english your first language?
@@hax7998 I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say, but the western prairies and grasslands exist and there is a lot of meat production coming out of those areas.
@@marsbolcan9311 there is not a LOT of meat production coming out of these areas. Only about 1% of meat comes from grassfed cows. Grassfed is not sustainable anyway, not for the entire population.
The algorithm needs to recommend this in the side bar for the WIL vid! Like, comment share!
Talking, talking, talking... yo this is good video ai.
Yess
Watch time also till the end
@@miketaiwanwalkcity6355 does that help? I usually let it play while i do chores
@@stehplatzb.4310 yeah I think watch time is a big factor in the algorithm
Hi,
I didn’t know your channel, but i came here, after watching Joseph’s video..
Firstly, thank you for the video, as you bring up very pertinent matters.
I must say that some of them are as biased and attached to what it seems as an ulterior motive, as you claim Joseph’s to being..
That though, doesn’t take them away from being useful to the discussion.
In the end, i retain my approach to these issues :
I follow a plant based diet, but i could never say consuming meat & dairy to being unfriendly to the Environment.
The Seas are, at least, in similar dire conditions as land use is.. Nonetheless..I tend to go with fish, rather than meat.. but my main go-to(s) are Vegetables and Grain on a daily basis _on all 3 meals; dairy on 1 of the meals; eggs on 1 of the meals, fish on 1 of the meals, pulses on 1 of the meals (every other day) and meat normally once a month.. (although i believe once or twice a week is fine) .
More important than WHAT i eat though, is the WAY i cook it, and the WAY i choose to consume it.
So i focus on an Organic based diet.
And that’s the way i believe it to being balanced. Being somewhat more expensive, it..nonetheless..uses no subsidized conventional products, either vegan or animal based, contributing to the growth of a TRULY sustainable and TRULY Original way of producing Food.
It is my firm belief that if the majority of the Food chain were to being fresh, local and organic based.. we wouldn’t be discussing wether it ought to being vegan or animal based…as the system, as a whole would be a LOT more sustainable and close to the Natural way of the Earth.
Again.. thank you for your contribution(s) .
PS> i’d really appreciate it if you launched a serious discussion on the Organic side of things.. grass fed beef, organic grains and fresh produce.. healthy and local oils and seeds.. and the diversity of the human individual micro-biome(s) which truly influences what each and single one of us, should eat.
One point about residues, I suspect that while there may be many other use cases for them, not all are likely to be economically viable. I would not be surprised if some residues that are well suited for livestock feed have no economically viable alternatives at the scale that they are produced.
Like any video on this topic, bias to counter bias. There are no neutral comparisons when it comes to this topic sadly
TRUE
sadly
I agree. I do like MicTheVegan, but I realise he is also biased. However, he does present the science for each of his claims. Kurzgesagt is pretty unbiased imo, but they only have one or two videos on the subject.
what? that is not true, the way to go about not being biased is using objective data, it is just that because it is an economy based subject people have a hard time being objective , and unfortunately a lot of average people do not understand or know if the data presented is correct or not so they decide that it is ultimately an ethic or moral choice , when it should just be a logical one based on the fact that if we do not take better decisions we will all die
Ed doesn't get any money from anyone. Cattle farmers are worried and will therefore say anything to continue to stay in business.
Bc bias is the motivation on why they do it
*I WAS WAITING FOR THIS*
imagine being on the net for your pleasure at the cost of harm to sentient life
disgusting D:
@@jedex4645 blah blah
@@mumofmany7589 you just caused suffering to say blah blah, well done vegan XD
So the land that is used to grow food exclusively for animals, the big soybean plantations, don't humans use those soybeans to make cooking oil? So even if the animals disappear, we'd still need those soybeans for the oil right? They press the oil out of the soybeans, and make the soy oil cakes, and that is what is given to the animals right? Could that be used to feed humans or is it simply waste that is given yo the animals to convert into food we can eat?
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.
Spoiler alert: Earthling Ed is not objective either. After deep investigation, I discovered he's vegan.
Why should someone who works for the meat industry be taken as a legitimate source at all? He's 1000% biased, he clearly isn't getting that double chin from plant-burgers. He's a beef boy for life. It's called food-preference bias.
@@Powsimian _"He's a beef boy for life."_ Wow, quitting meat was THAT hard for you? I guess you grasp motivation wherever you find it, including being judgmental. Speaking of biases...
@@ginabean9434 I'm biased, yeah once you know the truth and you realize how easy it is to live your life aligned with your own values. I'm sure you cringe at the thought of kicking a dog, well I cringe at the thought of giving myself a heart attack or cancer by killing animals. You have cognitive dissonance if you draw a line of distinction between the two. Motivation?
@@Powsimian The motivation seems obvious: lecturing others. If the motivation was to save animal, there'd be no need to brag about it. Note that a dog is not raised to get kicked, while a farm animal purpose is to feed us. While refusing it you ensures it never gets born, so you don't save any live anyway. But again, it's not the motivation.
Here early from discord! Thanks for everything you do Ed!
Unproblematic King 🌍
How about the point regarding marginal land (lands like grassline and hills, which are not suitable to grow human edible crops), turning it all back into forest to sequest carbon sounds good, but then are the crop producing lands able to take over the responsibility of global food production eneds? i think instead of going full on either direction, the approach given at the end of the what i've learned video is quite well thought out. We should focus on making the meat industry more sustainable, but going full vegan and cutting out all animal agriculture would also be detrimental. Any thoughts on this? Would love to have a discussion (in a civil manner please)
One question, are you eating B12 vitamins?
Pretty early, and honestly I was hoping to see this!
Thanks for doing this Ed. I'd imagine it could drive a person insane having to explain everything over and over but we need you and your manner of elaboration
imagine being on the net for your pleasure at the cost of harm to sentient life
disgusting D:
@@jedex4645 blah blah
@@mumofmany7589 cant handle the meat of the logic?
This is a great extract. this days lots of youtubers make money yous by making videos reasuring the beliefs of people that cant think by themselves.
@@jedex4645 Your whataboutism makes you sound like you feel inferior to vegans.
There are so many counterpoints in his video essay I could make.
But the biggest ones to me are:
-even if the land used to feed animals was put to a different use, this isn’t going to happen unless there is again a massive government protecting that land that the state would either have to buy from ranchers who may not sell or seize the land through eminent domain-and these are unrealistic scenarios that will just piss off half the country-and the working class as a political force is unlikely to get behind, especially if they draw employment from agriculture.
-the idea that crop waste will be used instead as biofuels and forms of less wasteful material still means industry has to create it-that industry will take up space, and will right now at least, in order to process that to scale, require fossil fuels. There also has to be a strong enough market to do this because the federal government is not going to. And this is more than doubtful but also silly when we should be focusing on nuclear energy to power industry; a national high speed rail system; solar, tidal and wave power for houses, and the complete electrifying of public and private transportation.
That’s how you make a serious dent in global warming and create solidarity movements from the working class that would pressure the state and business enough to make these necessary changes.
thank, for clearing this up for me… and probably many others.
also question: is there a vegan or vegetarian method to get something that at least tastes like lunch meat?
Do you mean vegan meat substitutes?
@@corvusmonedula I mean, dose a meat substitute exist that has the texture and taste of processed lunch meat.
@@trianglburger19 I don't think you can get 1:1, but I find that frying the ingredients and mixing them into things makes the taste difference indistinguishable.
Well, just stumbled across both videos and this one seems to be grossly misinterpreting some things said by Joseph/Wil which makes me wonder if we saw the same video. One of the major points of what Joseph was bringing is that things aren't exactly what they are shown and some points brought up by vegan activists aren't what they say they are:
2:07 the charter - Well uh yeah the nutricional value is important, yes but in Joseph's video he was talking mostly about how the food given to the cows are things that humans don't eat. Then in around 3:08 you make a good point about how a lot of that non edible human food is farmed specifically for the cattle to eat, a point which you come back to a few times later.
In Joseph's video he talked about that argument and how a lot of the land people talk about isn't proper for farming other things due to several reasons, and that isn't debunked here. The argument in here remains that the land could theoretically be used for planting food for people, but doesn't consider whether the land is proper for farming other types of crops.
There are some very valid things in this video, and also some things that annoy me on Joseph's video like how he doesn't talk about animal cruely, which isn't the point of his video. As I said above, the point of his video was to say that a lot of the arguments people give aren't really true and that is a fact. The morals of the researcher aside, a lot of the things he said were true and proven, by the way I find it very distasteful to attack the person and not the argument, which you started the video doing.
Again in 5:40 attacking the author and not the argument. People that work for meat company also research about such topics.
Aditionally, when speaking about the greenhouse methan emission compared to animal emissions. He didn't use one to excuse the other, he used one to put the other in perspective. That the number of 14% emissions is for GLOBAL and not for the US, which has only about 8% of the Cow's populations and that other countries like india has 100x more cows.
Pointing out how the science has been funded is absolutely relevant and not ad hom in itself. He also brings up several problems with the studies and how they have been criticised. It isn't about the "morals of the research", it is about their credibility.
If his only argument against the authors were their ties to the meat industry and how their research was financed I would be inclined to agree with you.
He actually is refering to the studies cited by the author instead of attacking the him. I also eisagree with part where you said that he does not answer the point of Joseph aout the lands that are insufficient for geowing crops. He suggests to grow forrests and give the nature back what's her
@@Kupsztat34 as if the plants grown for cattles don't also do photosynthesis of their own...
@@Kupsztat34 some lands are unfarmable
@@Kupsztat34 like Tibet and others
So glad you addressed his ludicrous video, thank you 🙏
Watchers both videos. Was almost convinced before. Not sure what to believe now.
Some points were refuted. E.g. coparing meat to white rice is not a fair comparison.
But what about land that can be used to grase cows but is unfit for human food growing? Seems like a good idea to use it for grasing then.
The point about methane: do we really have that much more farm animals to produce methane than animals which would naturally be there instead?
Sources?
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 UA-cam videos.
One thing you didn't address: isn't some of the land these cows are grazing on already in its natural state? (grassland)
Feels very helpful to get this perspective. I'd be interested to see a response from WIL.
There is.
But you have alot to read xD
www.patreon.com/posts/51285771
i get your point but almost no grassland is at its natural state anymore because of fertilizer etc, whenever you see grassland with just 2-3 types of flowers it is probably fertilized and thus not in its natural state :) because of the fertilizer there is a lack of biodiversity when it comes to the grass/flowers/herbs and thus also in all the insects etc, plus (too much) fertilizer an destroy the soil, groundwater nearby swamplands, forests and more. i hope this answers your question😊
@@debcress6718 "but almost no grassland is at its natural state anymore because of fertilizer etc"
Absolute nonsense. I have zero clue what you are talking about with "2-3 types of flowers" but you sound like someone who's from a large city, and doesn't go outside often.
This is my own personal opinion of course, but when an argument is as weak as yours I don't really need to spend my day trying to disprove all the nonsensical anecdotes you are pulling out of your ass. 😊
If you think the growing of natural grasses, and legumes for cattle feed degrades soil quality more than the highly competitive, chemical pesticide sprayed, and genetically modified fruit and vegtable markets, you are delusional.
And I really don't blame you for assuming that pastures are some kind of industrial horror to the environment, because the only resources on the topic of fertilization of pastures you find on the internet are extremely dry scientific analysis, or ones that debate the nesscesity, and cost efficiency of nitrogen/potassium fertilizers on pastures.
Just understand that for the most part, these large industrial scale cattle ranches, and dairy operations don't actually have the ability to spray a bunch of chicken/pig/cow shit over hundreds of square miles of grazing pastures, and they don't really need to regardless. for the most part, it's sun/rain grown grass and clover. Just as it was 60,000 years ago, before the humans showed up.
Here you go: ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/biomes/grasslands.php
"A third type of savanna, known as derived savanna, is the result of people clearing forest land for cultivation."
"Overgrazing, plowing, and excess salts left behind by irrigation waters have harmed some steppes..."
Not all grasslands are natural and cattle farming is often not beneficial to natural grasslands.
@@ericbuzard349 Some common sense among the mongs ;)
I thought in his video the guy talking about beef being only 2% emissions DID say that includes lifecycle emissions like from packing and transport etc.. are you saying that he just said that but his research showed otherwise?
Thank you!
The point of Dr Frank being paid by these meat companies to find the research is definitely true but you seem have not thought about how it’s probably the same on your side of the argument. That’s how research teams make money, they research things that people pay them to research.
yea attacking scientists based on who sponsored their research is not cool. That doesn't automatically make their research invalid
He does research to decrease the amount. They pay him and others researchers to find a solution.
What pisses me off is these very same vegans have NOTHING to say about the huge conflicts of interests and biases in documentaries like Game Changers, and they have no problem praising and recommending the documentary to everyone. Hypocrites, they won't question or criticise anything that supports their beliefs, but they're the first to criticise any research that supports meat in any way.
Underrated comment
Both sides are not equal, which is why scientific consensus is how science is done, which Ed clearly talks about which you conveniently ignored. If 95% of scientists are saying humans are warming the planet, but the 5% who disagree are all paid by Fossil Fuel companies, is it really that hard to do the math? If 95% of scientists are saying veganism has a significant reduction in Co2, but the 5% of scientists who disagree are all paid by Big Agro, is it really that hard to do the math? Think about it...
I originally was searching for a long furby video, but this was also recommended and since I watched the original video and had a lot of doubts about it, I'm very glad I landed here.
Joseph has a very long pdf on his patreon talking about this video, even though he doesn't refer to Ed by name, but by Gerald (to avoid youtube beef). I'd recommend reading it. It rebuts a lot of points here, agrees with some and identifies some points Ed that aren't entirely right.
I just finished watching the original video and auto play was on I was busy doing something and then this video just started playing and tbh I did have some doubts with the original
I think that the opinion of an unbiased expert (scientist) is worth much more than any influencer's UA-cam video with a specific agenda.
The problem is that you seem to lean towards the later.
Unbiased may not exist, but bias isn't innately a problem. It is difficult to get an "expert" to research and give an opinion or show results unless they have skin in the game. Either they care because there is money or they have a moral imperative, whether it is simple truth or a belief the world might be better if... I'm not sure why Ed scoffed at the notion that humans would be stuck with a big animal feed problem if animals were removed from the picture. It is a silly unrealistic problem. Removing animals would happen gradually and farmland not used by cattle would be converted slowly overtime. Two "biased" sides make extreme cases that don't hold water... one says humans would be stuck eating animal feed, the other thinks we can flip a switch by converting it or simply not utilize it. I suspect it might be a point you are searching to bring to light. Ed needs someone who can keep him rational, his larger message hopefully isn't invalidated just because his passion gums up some of his less ideal rebuttals.
@@benwetherbee🧢
I'm just here to remind people, the comparison between beef and rice being very different in nutrients was deliberate because the people advocating we replace all meat with growing plants, are acting as if all foods have the same nutrient value. You need to consider the resources used in comparison to the nutrients / resource density of the food consumed. Not all foods are equal and this is basic information that a lot of "global vegans" ignore. I bring this up because a lot of people criticizing the WIL video will make this exact same criticism of him, rather than recognizing he is criticizing the global plant advocates.
Ask the Japanese what a rice-only diet does for a body ...
@@sking2173 Rice is an energy type of a food. And you saying about a Japanese is wrong. Most Japanese EAT meat. Ask me or anyone from India and Bangladesh
@@SeptoScotius - You took that completely opposite from how I meant it.
1- I eat meat two meals/day ...
2- I live in Asia.
@@sking2173 I've been getting that too recently. It's like I can't agree or extend on what someone says without them thinking I'm attacking them 😭
The comparison is still idiotic because he comparing animal protein with refined carbohydrate.. School kids know the difference at least. Why not compare animal protein and plant protein where plant provide more varieties of nutrition compare to a steak. That shows how the comparison is dumb
Stuff like this makes me wonder how wrong that channel is about everything else they post
He must realize that it will eventually call his general credibility into question.
Agreed
Yeah the whole channel is sus. It’s one thing to get some facts wrong but this seems deliberate
Well i think you might have gotten this part wrong when you showed the graphic at 3:45 where 77.3M acres of land is being used for us to eat but 21.5M acres of land is also used for wheat exports that also feeds people and some amount of the 68.6M acres of land is used for other grain that is also used for human consumption. Plus out of the 51M acres of land that is kept fallow, that land is also necessary to grow crops since crops are cycled on different pieces of land throughout the year, which ultimately means that crops for human consumption are taking up more land than livestock feed
T h i s
I wan gone make a similar comment to this becouse the stats used is agriculture land and not crop land. Grasland used for animals is also in this. Graslands are generally graslands becouse they are bad for crops. Only in some rare occasions you see cropland used as grasland but most of that is close to farms so the cows can go outside or the chickens can go out side with free range eggs and (weide melk). If that data said crop land i would have thought wauw that is a lot of land being used for animals but it is agricultural. On a second note look at the biofuel that is all cropland.
And becouse of these mistakes at this point already two i still can’t get to watch this video
@@marcroelse9517 I believe the video he's trying to debunk mentioned that. How Farm animals are also grazing on land that CAN'T be used to grow crops.
Now, now. Don't start using inconvenient facts now.
You might hurt his feelings.
Most of the arguments in this video are him getting things wrong. Also check his 'sources'. most of them are not scientific for the least and even the scientific ones are questionable at best.
"Just stop growing feed"
But isn't 'feed' just inedible residues from stuff we DO eat like corn? You can't only grow half of the corn!
Also, about the assumption where the residues would be burned. Alright, you say they wouldn't be burned. What would happen then?
Indowud NFC makes plyboards from crop waste stuff. I am no farmer but I think it can be used in permaculture.
HE JUST SAID THAT YOU CAN MAKE ENERGY,PAPER etcetera.
It's funny how people think the pedulum swings one way or the other. Although I see your points made I also see that the truth is not where Mark Rober put it nor is it perfectly on the other side. It's somewhere in between. For example, if we would feed cows only what we can't eat - what is entirely possible, maybe not with the same cow population -, would we still have a discussion over the land that produce food for them?