Debate: We Should All Go Vegan with George Monbiot and Patrick Holden | Intelligence Squared
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- From the McDonald’s McPlant made with a Beyond Meat® patty to Sheese Dairy-Free Cheddar Style, there is a plant-based alternative for almost every food you can think of, making it easier than ever before to go vegan. No wonder the number of people in the UK following a plant-based diet has risen by 40% in the past year. Vegans claim their way of life is better for the environment, human health and animal welfare, but are they right?
Livestock farming contributes 14.5% of human-produced greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Farm animals belch out massive amounts of methane, one of the most harmful greenhouse gases. They are also extremely wasteful of resources, using up 83% of farmland worldwide while providing only 18% of our calories, guzzling soya and grain that could feed humans more efficiently, and requiring vast amounts of water.
As for our health, vegan sports stars such as Venus and Serena Williams and Lewis Hamilton prove that you can be superfit on a plant-based diet, and research has linked vegan diets to lower rates of some diseases. And when it comes to animal welfare, if you’re an omnivore, don’t kid yourself that you’re being ethical by eating only ‘humanely’ reared meat. Livestock on so-called high welfare farms undergo many of the same cruel practices that are inflicted on factory farm animals. If you really care about non-human sentient beings, don’t eat them or any food derived from them. That’s the argument made by the vegan lobby. But there are many experts who disagree on all counts. Take the environment. Few people realise the high carbon cost of growing crops - some 15-20% of the world’s CO2 output comes from ploughing - and that plants grown for food require vast amounts of fertiliser and pesticides that are derived from fossil fuels.
And while vegans like to demonise all forms of animal husbandry, traditional methods of cattle grazing can actually help the environment by fertilising the soil, capturing and storing carbon and increasing biodiversity. And then there’s human health. Not only is it difficult for those on a vegan diet to get enough of certain vital nutrients, but many of those convenient ready-made plant-based foods are packed with emulsifiers and other chemical compounds which have been shown to be harmful to our gut. As for animal welfare, is it obviously more ethical to be a vegan rather than eat fewer products from animals reared to the very highest welfare standards?
Who’s right and who’s wrong? Watch columnist and campaigner George Monbiot go head-to-head with founder of the Sustainable Food Trust Patrick Holden to debate the ethics of what we eat.
Want to see more videos and virtual events?
✅ Subscribe to this channel and turn on notifications: www.youtube.co...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligence Squared has established itself as the leading forum for live, agenda-setting debates, talks and discussions around the world. Our aim is to promote a global conversation that enables people to make informed decisions about the issues that matter, in the company of the world's greatest minds and orators.
Follow Intelligence Squared on:
👉 Facebook page: / intelligence2
👉 Twitter page: / intelligence2
📌 Website: www.intelligen...
#health #diet #vegan #veganism #environment #fossilfuels #pesticides #vegandiet #mcdonalds #livestock #intelligencesquared #intelligencesquaredplus #iq2
"the methane emissions of the ruminants can be more than offset by the soil carbon gain, i am really confident about this"That sentence sums up the entire argument for Patrick Holden.
It's just insane that people hear "sustainable", "happy cows", "local farming" and think it's good. Luckily science is on our side.
I agree. Holden has dome his best perhaps but it still doesn't stack up against the evidence George puts forward. It's insane his insistence to want Happy farming romantic idealism. It ain't really possible .
I agree with both of you and George's views have been similar to mine for many years. I grew up on the farm and generations of my family come from it, but it was not particularly difficult for me to change my views considering available scientific evidence.
This question boils down to the selfishness of our nature which allows people like Patrick to justify their position. (I'm not saying he is a bad guy) I've not been eating meat for many years now and for me the transition wasn't particularly difficult because for me food is 'a function' not 'ideology to build your churches on.'
Great, but it is not moral to kill someone unnecessarily who doe's not want to die.
Which foods are you eating where no animals die (that dont want to die) during the production of it?
@@HelenEk7
So if our food system can't be perfect and cause 0 deaths, therefore it is ok to kill billions of animals, eat meat, cause as much suffering as possible, and destroy the environment?
Monbiot: It is clear that animal farming is unsustainable and I can drown you in evidence to support that.
Holden: Yes, yes, but if you come to my farm you'll see the animals are happy and the people are happy and nature is happy HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY. I feed my animals only the finest feed which comes from somewhere WHO CARES and most importantly my animals DO NOT FART. They are civilized English animals who know better than that. WE ARE CARBON NEUTRAL GODDAMMIT LET ME FINISH.
That is not what he said. He said they are sequestering carbon and Monbiot said what happened can;t happen. So you decided to argue against your own straw man. That is why he switches to rewilding when he is caught in this lie. If you don't add carbon to the system and its building in the soil then where does the carbon come from , magic? The forest argument works better than just lying about carbon storage, because trees are a big carbon sink. So is live stock by the way so its not just the soil. Its soil plus live stock. However it does not work when most the the land can only support dry grassland and cannot be wild fertile land without ruminant. Is the argument that Europeans saved the planet by shooting bison from bison train or something? Good thing we stopped those native Americans I guess.
Is my reply to be blocked, too? .... Love it, yes, no farting allowed and we will all eat a vegan(what DOES that mean) diet, produced by many more tractors all burning fossfuel , and oysters? only, because all the Chineseum fishing fleets are plundering the oceans for anything that swims (or even doesn't) and will not leave any to regrow or for others! Hopefully their population and ageing demographics will lessen their impact, but NOT MUCH.
Then there is Africa, all of 'em, who are coming up fast to a Western way of life and will ransack it's continent !
😂😂😂👌🏼
Holden is upset with you commentary. AND LET ME FINISH GODDAMMIT!!1
I live in a climate where its challenging (or impossible) to grow most legumes, nuts, seed oils, quinoa, avocado, most fruits.. Its easy to grow grass though. Hence why meant and dairy has always been a very important part of our diet.
I love how Monbiot spoke about science throughout the discussion. Looking at data and numbers is the best way to get an overview of the situation. Holden wasn't ready for this? But he paints pictures and tugs at heartstrings while inviting us into tomorrowlands nostalgic beauty. That is what makes a great storyteller. He is selling us a future we want to believe. But it is a future that is very local (his farm, maybe his country) but the climate catastrophy is planetary. We need science. Optimism and hope will be weaponised against it because storytelling is great PR. Are we going to be smart enough to see through it and save ourselves, or will we die in fairyland while our children wander the scorched earth?
I have found this a common thing with George and "opponents" in climate, regenerative agriculture, and diet debates. He brings to the table a large quiver of research from credible institutions whereas the the other side "wank lyrical" with anecdotes, gossip, old wives tales, urban myths and industry propaganda. But these days a lot of people love to be seduced by BS, because it supports their conditioned, addictive lifestyle. Plus they can be justified by waffle from bobble-headed influencers on YT..... Change is painful.
@@ceeemm1901 Well said
@@ceeemm1901
All Monbiot does is say the studies exist. What does he actually prove? How many people even know how to conduct research methods? I do and I catch them lying and manipulating frequently. Apparently our own lying eyes that see carbon being sequestered in the soil is dis-proven by "science". Unless exogenous carbon enters the system the carbon must be coming from the air. Operating machinery etc could certainly enters the equation but cropping does the same if not more. He also just glosses over that 1/3 of all live stock feed is waste from cropping. He glossed over that even more cropping is not even appropriate because only dry grass land is even possible on 2/3 of the earth surface. Its also notable that the people that have funded these studies also talk quite openly about population control to levels well below what is actually necessary. In other words the other risk is putting more power in the hands of powerful sociopaths.
Speaking of just glossing over a thing he just says the the land in relation to the people needs to change without going into how exactly that is going to happen all while propping up a system of proprietary and monopolistic food supplies. .
You WILL get the scorched Earth as the burgeoning populations of Africa and China, Brazil etc. follow history and move from local village life, with its low scale production, to cities that require external industrial agriculture to survive ! So will the natural ecosystems fade, as currently witnessed by the plundering of the worlds ocean fish stocks by ravenous Chinese fishing fleets, stripping the seas of all wild fish !
it is truely difficult to accept science about harming nature through mobgrassing when you life income depends on believing the opposite. same for consumers of meat and dairy, if you like consuming this, and somebody comes along and tells a lovely story about how good this is for saving the planet you tend to want to believe it. BUT
This is not about religion and believes but instead about clearcut science!
the truth is bleak and dark:
WE are loosing the fight to save the planet and a liveable future for every living thing including us!
The PROOF:
Look at this: the climate sensitivity was severly underestimated with 3°C for each doubleling of CO2, it seems to be at 4,8°C! This new finding of James Hansen et al from Nov 23 in his newest paper "Global Heating in the pipeline" proves all IPCC models to be incacurate, the real models will lead to a hothouse earth with up th plus 8°C until 2100. The end of humans will therefore be before reaching 2100.
Now, lets rethink the question what we want to eat and how bad we want to stay alive?
The farmer said that they love their cows.
They love them to death!
At 1:00hr I heard the statement of farming in harmony with nature. Having worked in the environmental field for over 40 years, that statement is a contradiction in terms. To farm is to terraform. To terraform is to change the original natural state of what was there. That mentality, so well put by the farming spokesman does not help, anyone.
We should all go vegans if we want to restore the planet.
Oh man, this was like 2 against 1, but George kept calmly going back to the data. The farmer kept saying "I don't want to compare data." The farmer also kept appealing to emotion.
George was better prepared, but, alas, it was very biased debate
I agree
She was useless!!!!!!
Same impression here (also including time function), therefore making it more probable.
Agreed! Very biased moderator.
Three hours have passed after video has posted and nearly each comment is arguing against veganism, but none address anything in the video. All are merely preemptive attacks. Alex O’Connor noticed this in his comments, too, when he started posting videos on this topic from a philosophical bent; he was railed as preachy for talking about it, not for what he had said.
I have a theory that could explain some of it? We - as humans - are reluctant to change. I went vegan for health reasons and not so much choice. Although I am extremely happy with it, I can attest it is scary. How the heck to cook things without fat or dairy??? And I had successfully avoided beans up to that point. Beans are, to me, the only thing that truly fills you up for a long time like meat, but without the negative body sluggishness. I guess I'm saying: Maybe it's fear?
Bevause vegans have no substance.
People come to videos like this just to have a place to spout their opinion. Not to learn, unfortunately
What a shame that Alex quite on his beliefs, right?
Now try having to deal with that for your entire adult life.
Yes, we should all become vegan as it's the optimal lifestlye for humans and has the benefits of being vastly better for the planet, other humans and - of course - the other animals. If you like the taste of dead animals, there are substitutes around these days that you wouldn't be able to tell weren't the real thing and as time goes on, there will be plenty more coming. There's no need to harm or exploit any being that feels pain or suffers so let's stop the violence and live peacefully together as we should be doing.
It's a fantasy, of course. There are far too many apathetic people in the world who don't care about anyone but themselves and their purple circle so it's probably just a pipe dream. I'll still do my bit by living vegan and as ethically as I can so at least my contribution to the catastrophe that we're bringing on the earth will be minimal!
Why ruin your argument with a moral/empathetic stance towards animals? Just stick to the environmental arguments because any other argument is unconvincing and breaks down immediately.
@@burrybondz225 Why do you think that "any other argument is unconvincing and breaks down immediately"? The evidence overwhelmingly backs up all three points and they all seem to resonate with people I advocate to. Why would I leave out ones that work?
"there are substitutes around these days that you wouldn't be able to tell weren't the real thing"
lol. There really aren't. They're usually loaded with unhealthy fats and oils, and have to be smothered in spcies, salt and chemical flavouring because they are essentially tasteless. And you get to pay much more for the privilege.
@@burrybondz225
So do the environmental arguments. What is bad about shell fish farms? No vegan food comes close to being as benign as they are. You build habitat in the ocean , and let them grow. 1/3 of animal feed is simply agricultural waste and other places are only appropriate for pasture.. High water damns for irrigation to grow feed for cattle of course makes no sense. Low water damns would produce electricity but also salmon with o carbon inputs. In the high plans we should be grazing bison on blue stem and other deep rooted native grasses.. This can be expanded to other areas with small water breaks in desertified areas and the reintroduction of bison. Veganism is nothing but a moral argument , but also a Trojan horse for control of the worlds food supply.
@@gwynedd1 Yes, a new control, imposition, directorate for discipline of the populace! But all these various arguments are a bit pointless as none of this will be implemented; the corporate systems of the world, whether 'capitalist' or 'communist' will ensure nothing is left untouched ! Even currently 'National Parks' are being scouted for oil-drilling and exploitation, especially if even more valuable minerals/resources are needed/discovered !
I gave up eating meat at the age of 60 for my own health and for the health of the planet after reading the scientific literature. I too loved eating lamb and pork and beef and in particular cheese. I found the first month or so tricky but then my palette changed and I was able to enjoy the wonderful taste sensation that is an ear of corn without the butter and salt. If I can do it, after 60 years of meat and three veg, you can too! I now grow vegetables feeding over 50 families on our quarter acre garden on poor land. The rest of my farm is returning to forest after removing the sheep that previously grazed. Run an experiment. Give veganism a go. Give your palette a chance to re calibrate. You may find, like me, that you will never go back!
and by the way, my husband aged 64 is now off all his meds, that's asthma meds, blood pressure, cholesterol and acid-reflux meds. His PSA levels have been tracking down since becoming vegan 6 years ago
@@joannegamage4492
That is because a "meat diet" is actually a mixed meal diet which is a weight gain diet which quickly becomes a metabolic disease. The problem is on a vegan diet when the weightless stops you need to supplement with b12 almost universally. , and often vitamin A , EPA, DHA, creatine. iron, zinc become depleted. Zinc for older people is a very serious problem which will accelerate thymus involution.
@@gwynedd1 Over 7 years vegan, the ONLY thing needed is the occasional B12 a couple times a week. I'm not a young guy either, all bloods are good. Sorry, but you're wrong. I know 2 people of 40+ years vegan, perfectly healthy. B12 deficiency rates are not a vegan only problem, that's why all the farmed animals are supplemented. You keep believing the myths, but stop spreading misinformation 👍
@@gwynedd1 70% of the population in the UK is B12 deficient. Only 2% of the population are vegan.
B12 is added to cows' feed and get passed onto cow eating humans. It is also included in marmite, cereals and nutritional yeast which a lot of vegans eat. Sensible doctors recommend B12 supplementation as most vegetables are now devoid of soil which would carry the B12 microbes into humans.
@@charliepritchard1954
Nice try. While only 2% are vegan more and more plant food has replaced animal food in the standard diet. In your sources its supplemented. No thanks. It is ridiculously easy to get if one were to stay within a shadow of an historical diet. A can of sardines is 4X the RDA.
He's a practitioner! A Tory loving one?? A Brekzit voting one?? I have no evidence that farmers or fishermen are that enlightened or informed about their own industries.
Amazing George, as usual
Wish the host stopped interjecting at important points and changing the topic.
science vs emotion
"...otherwise we're just going to be trading facts & figures."
Sounds good to me.
Patrick Holden doesn't seem to know what a valid argument is. Just spouting anecdotes and fallacies.
They seem to be the only people George can get in the ring with him. Did you see his "debate" with Senile Savory the other week?.....
@@ceeemm1901 I don't know how George keeps his cool with these dishonest shills. It's insanity. The "moderator" here wasn't much better either. There was clear bias in her questions.
It's like they don't realise what's at stake here. People are currently suffering and dying from environmental catastrophe. It will only get worse. Don't they care? We can't keep producing food the way we are. Especially animal products.
And he doesn't seem to have done his homework by doing literature review. All he cares is his ideas without sanity check or peer-review, supported exclusively by anecdotes. He is classical pseudo-scientist.
I'm glad that methane is getting attention but there's also nitrous oxide from animal husbandry is a huge contributor to GHGs. It is 300x more potent than CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere.
Indeed!
Yep
... Patrick doesn't want to talk about that.
@@panes840 where as Monbiot does but lies about it 42:45 livestock produces more ghg emissions than transport, fact check: transport produces twice the amount of carbon alone than all ghg equivalent from livestock. Wah wuh
@petegreenway8953 resources and references please wah wuh to you
@@petegreenway8953 can you cite a study or research that makes up your claim? Even revised numbers from the UN's Livestock's Long Shadow shows that GHG emissions from animal husbandry is more than of all modes of transportation combined!
Strong vegan arguments, dairy guy couldn’t make a real argument, all are just fallacious or anecdotal nonsense.
Wow. George Monbiot is an absolute gem... a genius... and a true inspiration. The amount of passion, deep understanding of the statistical comparisons and evidence based research, as well as incorporation of historical influence on our current societal norms.... he truly sees the bigger picture. His talks have definitely renewed my motivation to advocate for legislative changes needed to revolutionize the food production & agricultural industry, as well as promote more plant-based diet from the perspective of a clinician.
I admire George Monbiot’s resilience in the face of anecdotal argument and an apparent ignorance of almost all the relevant scientific evidence on the global impacts of animal agriculture. A debate cannot be meaningful or insightful unless it is conducted within well-defined parameters governing the terms of engagement, notably the use of a common language and a shared understanding of what does and does not constitute robust, and therefore admissible, evidence. The role of the moderator is to ensure that these ground rules are set and adhered to.
So what does the audience get when such ground rules are ill defined? Answer: two incongruent narratives - one reliant on anecdote and confirmation bias which ignores or is unaware of the fundamentals of rational argument, the scientific method and pertinent scientific evidence; the other, an assiduous, objective analysis, compiled from decades of peer reviewed scientific research, presented by someone who is scientifically literate and well informed. The abject failure of the chair to rule out anecdote and unsupported opinion encourages the audience to draw the false conclusion that scientific evidence carries equal weight. Intelligence Squared should know better, or change their name to something more appropriate - Intelligence Squandered perhaps?
Yes, I agree - the moderator has failed spectacularly on delivering the bare minimum of what is expected from a competent moderator. She nearly attempted a couple of times equating poor responses and anecdotes of Holden and excellent competent presentation of Monbiot and accepting them as "equally valid". There is fundamentally no equality between these two speakers in terms of competence and quality of argumentation. She should have ruled out poor argument and anecdotes, not create the illusion of "balance" - which is classical approach, though. Similar to the one that have been creating the illusion of lack of scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. She, herself, seem to not know better, but she is not.
Good job George Monbiot!
GO VEGAN 🌱 吃素
No thank you
@@tankiebot704 you are welcome🍃
@Patrick Holden, despite your farming technique the land still is strong enough to survive, Problem is, you think it looks like this because you grassfed your lifestock- there is no cause - effect relation ship but you want it to be there. it is like smoking: the grandma died at 100 years of age not because of her smoking but despite. who knows how much more life quality she would have had without smoking.
There are a lot of disappointingly unintelligent comments on this video.
This farmer sounds like a lovely guy, but we have to start shifting our paradigms about food.
Also, does his wife sing to the cows and calves while they are waiting in line at the slaughterhouse, taking their lives well before their time?
I have a meat meal/day once a month. I try to eat a diet a vegan would eat for the rest of the time, though practical issues around my life sometimes mean I fall back to eating a vegetarian diet. It's not particularly hard. I've given up a lot of crap in favour of what's healthier. That decision was made on the basis of how I might minimize my personal impact to the environment. Of all the decisions to act it's been the easiest not least because I can't simply give up my job, a truth that anyone who's working class and trying to keep the wolf from the door will understand. The global figures on land use are what do the heavy lifting in this argument. Patrick needs to address himself to that more effectively. If his approach has merit, and he makes it sound good, then he really needs to double down on that point. It's not clear to me what might be a sustainable level of ruminants within a harmonic agricultural system nationally or globally. Patrick leans into the word harmony too heavily. I'd love to hear more from Patrick as the counterpoint needs to be made out in the open or the corporates will decide behind closed doors. I hope he will come back with more foundational arguments as I'm not lost to his position at least on some scale.
I am 30 secs in and I know already that this is a sham. No one will argue the case for veganism. Goerge Monbiot will make the case for a plant based diet and that will be the debate instead.
NOw I have watched it. Amd hey what> I was correct. Nothing to do with veganism.
Good question! I guess you're right...? If I, as a vegan, were advocating quitting animal products in a debate about the environment would it be considered a conversation about a plant based diet or about veganism? I'm vegan for animal rights as well as environmental reasons. So is George Monbiot, he often speaks out about animals rights too. I personally consider both topics part of my veganism, to me plant-based usually refers to health reasons. But I think you're technically right with your definition.
@@alexandrareuter327 Veganiusm is the philosophy of leading one's life to avoid the exploitation of sentient beings. It has nothing to do w the environment. If you were putting fwd the case for not eating meat in order to conserve the environment then you would be making the case for a plant based diet.
A 3rd reason many put forward is health - again, nothing to do with veganism.
Interesting that you say GM "often speaks out about animals rights too". I have heard him on YT many times and always he speaks of the environment. I would appreciate if you can point me in the direction of a speech where he made the claims for animal rights.
@@ZambeziKidohh so the reasonable (IMO) argument is the plant based one, while the unreasonable (TO ME) argument is the veganism ome. I learned something new today
@@ZambeziKidwell, animal rights for the poor animals in farm factories is reasonable, but does that still fit your definition of veganism. Since no matter how good of a life you give the animal, you are still going to eat it.
When Alice starts with "I have been a vegan and carnivore" I wonder where she's coming from! Certainly struggling to understand her ethics.
Side note.. shall we compare the data on percent INCREASE of new vegans post debate, in comparison to the percent increase on the meat eaters?
Now imagine the proportionate increase in believers if we gave Monbiot a platform that made the world hear what he has to say here
Yes we should all go vegan. I've been vegan since 2014, and vegetarian for 5 years before that. The idea that you need meat to survive is just ignorance!
The idea that you shouldn't eat meat or anything which comes from an animal is idiotic. We have teeth made for both vegetable and meat eating. While we don't "need" to eat meat to survive, we can and we do because it's delicious and plentiful in nature. Ignorance is exactly what you exhibited in your comment. People who don't like people just because they eat meat are idiots. I have a feeling you fall into that category haha
@@rockytoptom Don't be so quick to assume you are right. I hear the same arguments against veganism time and again and they do not show any deep reflection at all. You have presented a simple "appeal to nature" fallacy. You have not engaged with any of the relevant issues at hand here.
Are you deficient in vital vitamins and minerals?
If survival is sufficient, then supplemented, "vegan" diets appear adequate. However, dietary experience has me thriving as a WF omni. You do you. I'll do me. Okay?
No thank you, veganism is immoral and unhealthy.
Patrick Holden presents a lot of emotional personal anecdote.
The carnivore looks like 20 years older. He´s just a walking dead.
Dead meat begets dead meat....
The vegan will be dead at his age.
George Monbiot is a legend.
Plant based for the animals!
No, I will keep eating meat. get over it.
@@aristocraticrebel joke: how do you know someone is a carnivore?
Don't worry they will tell u its their whole identity.
😁😆🤣🤣🤣
@@aristocraticrebel So in the adoption of plant eating curve, you will be in the late adoption section while the rest of the world moves forward.
There is no plant eating curve. Meat consumption and demand keeps growing.@@BJAvegan
Wow. He makes sense. I was following the Gabe Brown folks but George has the facts.
When you say you're not a practitioner but I am you think what you're saying is you don't understand the situation as good as I do because you're not actually in it but he is a scientist who studies it and stuff like that so I think you could be missing that point but also you don't realize that what you're saying is I make a living off this so I probably have a stronger biased to protect it.. of course the farmers don't want their industry shutting down or switching in a way that would be radical to them and that's uncomfortable and could cause some distress worrying whether or not things will pan out good for them financially.. so I mean every farmer is going to be strongly biased on that I mean you could argue that do this guy's bias cuz he's begging but he only did that because of the evidence you know that's a way different thing...
Great, now all we have to do is figure out how to get the whole world to stop eating meat without using military or policestate tactics 😮
I always said that farmers are criminals and still strongly convinced. That guy is sick..☹️👹
George, go visit the farm; Patrick, go visit the facts.
Um . . . I thought in debates the moderator adopted a neutral position. Not the case here. The devastating impacts of animal agriculture far exceed GHG emissions. Patrick never did answer the question about the need to reduce meat consumption if the world was to be turned into one big pasture as he suggests. Canada's Food Guide, created by 37 scientists over 3 years of study advises the diet for optimum human and environmental health is one that is predominately whole, plant-based foods. Gone are the meat and dairy categories. Government subsidies should reflect that instead of giving billions of tax-payer dollars to animal ag. Small wonder so many vegan foods are expensive by comparison. What of the global majority who are lactose intolerant? What of the Indigenous people who were forced from their lands to make room for settlers' so-called "livestock?" Hmm. I wonder what song Patrick's wife sings to the cows while their babies are stolen from them shortly after birth? Does she also lovingly escort the calves who will become veal to the slaughterhouse?
Patrick is clinging on to his world to destroy his grandchildren's!
Beans, nuts seeds grains and fruits are very healthy and not that expensive. There are thousands of vegan recipes on TH-cam. Also save lots of money on hospital bills by eating properly
You cut down trees that destroy the capacity to absorb co2
I have a deep aversion to debates and discussions transpiring online. I'm dejected since I can't listen to such an enthralling topic.
No the reason you think livestock can carry on is because you are a practitioner not a scientist!
About three quarter way through. It is clear George is right. We all need to go vegan. I come close but I'm not there. I will need precision fermentation products to get over the line. This is surely true for most of us. This video is a little disappointing. Patrick keeps interrupting & taking over the show, The so-called moderator is blatantly on Patrick's side. This is not an even handed discussion. On energy I get all my energy from Ecotricity a renewable energy company I recommend. I'd like George to also talk for Nuclear Energy. I walk r take public transport to travel. Last at 81 I've seen 80% of all wild places destroyed and soiled by pollution. With 80% of Earth's creatures destroyed & so many rendered extinct. I urge George to bring out regular videos on the subject of our Earth's destructions every few months.
Monbiot Vs Smaje would have made for a better debate.
Well, that's been done...
@@roselleangwin8755 Oh really, is there a link to that discussion?
We can rewild the the planet by using the carbon sequestration and soil augmentation using rock dust, which we can do now techniclly, technicologically. Rewild the land by plantings too.
In my views it is relative, because it is depend on location and social status. For example nowadayas the poorest person in Bangladesh who were meat eaters has a lower carbon footprint on the planet than the rich who were live in luxuries in Developed Nations although the rich becamr vegan in their life style. Because the evidence is clear that the number of CO2 and the number of energy and materials (steel, concrete, plastics etc) percapita from the rich nations are higher than from the emerging world like Bangladesh, Niger and so on.
Trouble is population growth; where is the restrictions on human proclivity, reproduction? The only country to have one, a restriction on births, China, is now encouraging its populace to have more babies after seeing the demographics of the country heading elderly at a rapid rate !
But other Countries, Niger + Africa as a whole, South America as a whole, S E Asia generally, are all increasing their birth rates; no one is talking about reduction in National populations.
I think that people should no longer be able to be anonymous online, except in certain very moderated spaces like say…a sexual assault support group. Things that are sensitive and a person needs anonymity to feel safe. But on TH-cam, Reddit, etc…I think people would be a lot more civil and kind, and be a lot more productive in their discussions of laws were passed requiring any username be linked to an online “real id”
Does that apply to North Koreans too?
And your name is really Bryan Bryan?
Go vegan
Dont we need b12?
Yes we do. Vegans and people over 60 should take a supplement.
Farming and factories and pancakes ! Yet, none of you are talking about POPULATION growth; how 'big' is 'little ' Britain' , the size of Victoria, a southern state of AUS ! And its population? UK - 67 mill; VIC - 6.7 mill ! You are CROWDED
Yes "Beyond meat!" try it ummmmm!
The problem is not diet, but the number of people on the earth. Reducing the world population to a number between 2-4 billion will increase the quality of life and reduce the environmental impact on all people.
You are absolutely correct. There are too many people.
Guess what Chap You are right. Look at the Countries that have DOUBLED their population in the last 17 - 35 Years? Comments below.. ps It's not the West!
And you believe reducing meat consumption will change that. The man made covid virus was designed to reduce the pollution but some top physicians can up with cheep drugs to save lives. The establishment fought them but they refused to stop! They/ We are winning!
@@jarthuroriginalof the wrong kind.
Yes. Yes indeed.
So he is pro degenerative ag, pro monsanto/bayer
Humans have four types of teeth: incisors, canines, premolars, and molars, which each have a specific function.
Carnivores, like other mammals, possess a number of different kinds of teeth: incisors in front, followed by canines, premolars, and molars in the rear.
Our digestive tract closely resembles carnivorous mammals. The mammals we differ from the most, are herbivores. (large appendix, long large intestine, multiple stomachs/chambers for processing highly fibrous material)
Yes but we also have brains.
Yeah, sure, let's see you down a deer with those fangs of yours. I think it's only probable we were carrion eaters at most in any but our recent evolutionary past.
@@yogaofhealth1800 : You are totally wrong.
Most herbivores are missing canines entirely, and those that do possess them usually have very small or reduced canines.
@@Enormous866 : With vegans you have to wonder.
@@visage123456 : All primitive tribes hunted meat. The Eskimos lived almost entirely on meat. I can't believe you wrote something that stupid.
George starts with a patronising characterisation of people that disagree with him - they dont know enough and their thought processes are those of a child ("our idea of farming comes from children's books").
Really couldn't be more Guardian if he tried.
Well, it's true. Everyone I speak to, lives in a fantasy land with what animal farming ACTUALLY IS. So, sorry I agree with Mombiot.
Time for a bacon sandwich, Alexa, air frier on, please.
I've got an international comedy tour coming up, Seinfeld's dropped out, are you free?
Animal suffering denier
@@ultracobrax My bacon is as happy as a pig in mud. 🤔
@@ultracobraxanimal suffering is irrelevant. They do suffer but so what?
@@tankiebot704so edgy and mendacious, wow! 👍
Just one funny fact:
In all countries in history where the plant-based nutrition was dominant were the famines always returning phenomenon (for example in Russia).
err, not sure that's a good example
No, humans are carnivores!
Not obligate carnivores though
Omnivores.
Humans have four types of teeth: incisors, canines, premolars, and molars, which each have a specific function.
Carnivores, like other mammals, possess a number of different kinds of teeth: incisors in front, followed by canines, premolars, and molars in the rear.
Our digestive tract closely resembles carnivorous mammals. The mammals we differ from the most, are herbivores. (large appendix, long large intestine, multiple stomachs/chambers for processing highly fibrous material)
@@buildmotosykletist1987 Thank you! I eat mostly meat now and some vegetables and berries. I am thriving! From here on out, I listened to my body. Since I changed my diet I am thriving! I don't consume grains, root vegetables, and only low carb vegetables. I have started to eat just meat at some meals, and consume less vegetables. I feel great!
No, humans are herbivores!
Humans are Omnivores.
What if you don't like vegetables?
Or, what if you don't have any vegetables, eg. the Inuit?
If you don't like vegetables, 1) you can eat some 10 days and your taste buds change.
2) you can be a fruitarian
*BANANAS!*
@@djvincekline7338 the climate impact from remaining indigenous peoples is tiny (as the numbers of people are very small compared to world population). So let them do what they want to / have been doing; unhealthy as it is ("the cardiovascular risk of this diet is so severe that the addition of a more standard American diet has reduced the incidence of mortality in the Inuit population. Bjerregaard, Peter; Young, T. Kue; Hegele, Robert A. (1 February 2003). "Low incidence of cardiovascular disease among the Inuit--what is the evidence?". Atherosclerosis. 166 (2): 351-357.")
Ironically excepting that they won't be able to, as climate change & pollution causes collapse of marine ecosystems, so that there would probably be insufficient whales, seals etc for them to hunt.
Incidentally, although Inuit don't farm plants, they may gather seasonal berries, grasses, tubers, seaweeds etc, so their diets are not 100% animal based.
Then you'd better live very close to a hospital!!!!
Humans are omnivores
Humans can consume many different things!
Humans also rape and kill...Your point is?
True. My opinion is that we probably abuse animals now rather then naturally hunt them in smaller numbers. Human body can go with out food for 30 days and most animals possibly longer. What this means is that we use to eat when we could. Now we have breeding grounds and massive slaughter houses torturing animals so we can consume meat daily. And obviously drinking other animals milk has horrible effects on our hormones and stomach. It's a sensitive subject. I try to avoid meat, I will consume it once in a while now. Gave up milk which is like drinking liquid estrogen. My take on meat is purely out of sympathy for animal slaughter. But nature has its own ecosystem so I don't interfere to much on this matter. As it's how we where designed right. It would be kind if humans didn't consume as much, it may have an impact in the future who knows. It's just a matter of being more mindful..
And?
Funny argument🎉... Could have said/argued humans enslave other humans, always have always will till not so many years ago. Wile this is still happening around the world today, this its not really a debate that this isn't a good practice and that we have evolved past it....
Notice how we are being Nudged from vegetarianism to now veganism.
Please tell me all you who worship at the Alter of veganism give me a year in production for a vegetable that will feed millions up here in the North Northern Hemisphere 50degrees North Plus?
I WILL EAT WILD GAM! YUMO
Potatoes?? Don't get me wrong, I love meat. But I was taking a shot at your question. I think you can grow potatoes in very cold climates and you can make a lot out of them
They can nudge away, but I think we're over that particular psychological tactic. Lockdown was helpful for getting propaganda match fit.
@@advocate1563 Paranoia is not evidence of reality.
@@rockytoptom Rocky Top Tom. You're not wrong about being along way north 50 degrees to 58 degrees latitude. Scot's would eat turnips & potato. It was more like the cultivation costs in time and diesel to grow veg and the amount of fertilizer (f) to grow a vegetable crop (v). A rough figure is 1/2 f = v or you need 1 ton of fertilizer to produce 2 tons of a crop.
ps on Potato they need gallons of water. 1-2i nches 25-50mm per week. Love the metric system here 1000 litres of water over 10m2 at 50mm per week 100,000 litres per hectare 10690 gal per acre.
I’ll eat what I like!
I'll eat you.
Freedom!
You with me?
"Screw the future of the earth! I want what I want"
@@laurakelly631the future of the planet is fine.
@@tankiebot704 the planet surely has billions of years left. No worries. It is the ability of human life to be sustained on the planet that is the problem. Please avoid disinformation spread by fossil fuel industry political lackeys and instead go to proven science for more accurate info,
The planet for human habitation in the future is most certainly not 'fine'. We are in serious trouble (really, this should begin to be obvious to anyone lately). We need immediate serious change if we are to offer a future to our children and grandchildren. Time to wake up. Or... just 'don't look up' if that keeps you more untroubled. Maybe you live in a place safe from all the current climate-induced disasters and you don't have grandchildren or you just don't care.
@@laurakelly631 Just some questions. It's not to attack you in any way, I'm just curious. 1. Do you take airplanes so now and then? 2. Do you have a car, incl. electric ones? 3. Do you have children? 4. What is the size of your house and with how many people do you live there? (eg. in the Netherlands, the average living space of one person is 50m2, in the Philippines my wife's family lives also in a 50m2 place, but hm.... with 5 people in total....
To answer the question: NO.
To answer the question: *BANANAS!*
Could you imagine the joyless, bland, hectoring world we'd live in if George Monbiot and his fellow travellers were in charge?
God forbid we live in a world driven by data and logic rather than by our own selfish desires which we spin into fairytales that lull us into a false sense of comfort
@@Ehlodieyng134 Ooh, I bet you're fun at Christmas 🎄 🤣
Bland? Do you add herbs and spices to your meat? What do you think herbs and spices are?
@@fodsaks just being realistic.
Yes, it would be fantastic.
No thank you, but leaving you with your choices.
Ask the suffering animal farmed about their choices.
@@ultracobrax well, they cant think nor talk, so its just projections
@@ultracobraxno thank you
@@robertmusilbronson3118cows and pigs cant think? Do you have evidence of this claim?
I'd rather starve than be vegan
My experience in the KETO diet (a lot of meat) is that it is impossible to starve when you have your daily intake of animal products :-)
Good to see Mattel cashing in on the popularity of beef with the 'Barbie Burger'. Meat YUM !
There is nothing to debate here vegans are wrong by virtue of being vegans.
That is so convincing
@@laurakelly631 There is no convincing ideologues which is what vegans are.
Best to just mock vegans into oblivion which is what the internet does to vegans.
Stop trolling, listen to the arguments and respond in good faith.
@@visage123456 Nope, I am going to mock vegans as all people should.
Comedy gold! You must be the funniest kid in your kindergarten
I'm having a rare steak cooked on my charcoal BBQ. YUM !
I have a diploma in environmental sustainability. I been a vegetarian since I was 16. I'm 49 now. Farmers are part of my life. This dispute about vilifying farmers who look after their stock and land is rediculious and it sounds a lot like wef and who and UN and the other planet controller scum what want to reduce the world population. I support good farmers and eating meat. Not processed, artificial toxic food.
Conspiracy theorists ^
Fortunately there was not vilifying in this debate.
Environmentally, the amount of poop, the land being cleared many acres a second to feed animals we eat is facts.
Learning that we won't be able to survive on earth unless we stop animal agriculture. It doesn't mean we can't care for the farmers.
Any diet that you have to use supplements are not correct for humans UNLESS the body due to some endocrine issues or aging have surpluss /or lack of it. Humans are omnivores.
Not correct for what? Also how do I ensure the animals u eat are not given antibiotics and supplements? And how do I ensure all the other food u have isn’t fortified. Last how do u address those 70% meat eaters deficient in vitamin d.
@@MoistVegan Very interesting, I checked that claim. Seems ligit. However, they also say that meateaters lack calcium and magnesium.... Now, many omnivores also drink milk. One cup of milk per day already brings enough calcium for the day (not to mention other foods that contain calcium) and magnesium: I have a KETO diet. Therefore, I usually eat quite a lot of nuts. I dare to say that I don't lack calcium, magnesium, Plus, I cycle almost every day in sunny Spain. Just by cycling alone, I already get enough vitamine D. Ok, whatever, maybe I'm not the 'ordinary' omnivore....
@@djvincekline7338 those countries who consume diary has most hip fractures. Look that one up. Having calcium through dairy doesn’t work well. It’s leaches out. Most bioavailable form of calcium is kale a plant.
@@MoistVegan Okay. As mentioned before, maybe I'm not the average omnivore then. Because I'm doing totally fine :-) What you say though can certainly be correct. However, I know that I don't need to take any supplements whatsoever. I probably have too much of this and that then too less, even when I'm having IF (intermittant fasting) and my KETO diet (low in carbs, high in fats, including saturated and proteins). I follow the videos of Dr. Sten Ekberg and I eat have a very balanced diet. Even though I hardly use any staple foods. Anyway, for me, everybody is free to eat what he/she wants to eat and also for not eating what they don't want to eat. I applaud the people who are totally fair. Like another woman who I had a conversation with :-)
1 intercontinental return flight equals eating 7 years of beef, every single day.......The carbon footprint of my wife's grandmother of 80 years old, who is an omnivore in the Phillipines is smaller (in her entire life) than that of a 25 year old vegan (who is vegan for their entire life) in Europe or North America..... So please, cut the crap!
Its abit shocking to actually check Monbiot's claims. 42:45 he claims livetock ghg emissions is higher than all transport. Worldwide transport is 8.2 billion metric tonnes co2, livestock is 4.2 billion co2 equivalent, equivalent because methane is a significant factor from livestock which cycles at 8 years i.e. remains in the atmosphere for 8 years. Transport also includes other ghg emissions not counted in the 8.2 billion nitrogen oxides etc. and all of the sulphur particles and all the rest of it reducing air quality. Sure you can win an argument if you make up obscenely inaccurate facts and figures. He make others claims like ecological restoration can only occur when trees can regenerate . . . the opposite is the case for peat bogs, meres, wetland, sand dune systems and would need to be limited for rhos pasture and moorland. Monbiot is a better trained and informed ecologist than I, so he knows better than me how misleading the arguments he is using are. Its so disappointing to realise one of humanities heroes is knowingly decieving the public with his arguments. Another example is his claim about woodland being the ultimate carbon sink, its certainly sequestering more carbon than grasslands, but the crown of carbon sequestration and storage goes to peat bogs which store 30 x more carbon, these are an example of a habitat that needs to be maintained with livestock to prevent vegetation succession i.e. becoming woodland which would release 10 tonne of carbon per acre per year at its peak a woodland can only store 2.6 tonnes per acre per year. I heard Simon Fairlie coin the phrase Monbiotic to describe the rabbit hole George has gone down and think its appropriate such a disappointment after his excellent book Feral.
The moderator is annoying, she interrupts any moment of conflict that could get to the core of the sentiment exchange that would be truly transcending the obvious positions of the debate. Who cares about the chat votes, that's like 90s TV when they ask the audience to call a hotline number that ends with 1 for yes and two for no.