What he is describing is Permaculture. It is a compilation of many techniques such as storing water in the ground so irrigation is not always necessary and creating food forests with a wide variety of trees, shrubs, plants, vines from which you can eat and, once established, lives without human input.
Yes, exactly: And food waste MUST be addressed. Nearly HALf the food we grow is wasted and dumped. So we could double our food supply simply by cutting out the waste! Of course it is not that simple. But it is a good place to start. This film does not even mention food waste. I love permaculture.
Exactly. But notice that he does not mention permaculture, carbon sequestration, rotational grazing, relocalization of food, or regenerative agriculture (all of which are different perspectives on the same thing)--and why? Because this guy is a shill for Big Ag--he wants to eat his cake (industrial-scale monocultures that grow a lot of money for their investors, while depleting topsoil, spraying pesticides, and enriching Monsanto) and have it too (i.e. an intact biosphere that supports humanity). Permaculture has been shown to work magnificently in simultaneously restoring topsoil, preserving and enhancing biological diversity, and producing abundant yields, yet it is still invisible to the corporate media--because if it ever truly caught on, THEY would end up losing a lot of money.
Indeed, this is the problem I have with big oil... not the use of coal fired power, but the mono-cropping model, and the shipping of food on such a mass scale. Of course, spills, etc. are not helping, either. Greed is the problem, not global warming.
Permaculture is the answer! It unites agriculture and ecology in such a simple and beautiful way; it provides more food, more health, more biodiversity, more natural resources with every year of practice.
We not only need solutions to the agricultural crisis, we need to have a global discussion on global population growth. Growing more food just means more people and the cycle will continue.
One of the suggested improvements is to end the ability of men to direct women's lives. But it is one of the worst consequences both of religion and tribalism.
That's not true, the issue is that not enough has changed. The common sentiment that "nobody is doing anything" is an insult to the thousands and thousands of farmers and researchers doing all that they can to be more sustainable. The problem is that there are still too many who aren't on board.
The failure of environmental science is studying on the wrong object, describing not prescribing, and not telling a story. These problems are caused by humans, impact humans, and are solved by humans. What he’s not saying is that capitalism and its imperatives of growth fail to price the true value of resources, out the pressure of survival on individuals causing them to do anything, and the structural condition of inequality. This is the story that needs to be told, and focusing there is how we solve our problems.
He held a lecture at my university in Sweden today! He was such an inspiring person, albeit I did leave the lecture hall with a slight feeling that, well, we're fucked..
What I resent is that he exagerates the scale by orders of magnitude. I am from Bolivia, I do know the enormous area of the Beni, the Departamento, which is mostly Jungle in the west. (Less than one person per square kilometer) That village he shows (Santa Cruz) was for me as pilot hard to find, given the expanse of the land, navigating without the GPS system at the time. Especilally at night, when there are no lights and the risc of laterally missing that village is too high, without an alternate city, and the additional fuel required. Speak of dishonesty! From the air a single light is visible for a long distance, but not when surrounded by Jungle. During the day, you follow the rivers.
I run a small farm in Massachusetts part-time. There are ways to heal the planet with agriculture through systems like permaculture but it requires knowledge and participation. As long as people think they make the food at the supermarket and agriculture is run by corporations, there will never be a solution......Until its forced on us.
Corporate farming is a major problem. They are just there to maximize profits for shareholders with no concern for the environment, or the nutritional needs of the consumer. The ethical argument against meat is nonsense if the farming is done right. I don't like so-called factory farming, but grass-fed open range cattle, the way farming used to be and should be, there's nothing wrong with that.
I remember reading a newspaper article about a man who had developed a strain of bees over 20 years which was resistant to modern pesticides, which would provide a solution to the colony collapse disorder problem: the bees had a more active chemical defense system than a typical bee, giving them resistance to commercially used levels of pesticide. He had an EPA inspection which claimed he had an infestation of Varroa mite. The queens were destroyed preventing him from proving otherwise.
That's pretty much the history the 20th century. People stick their head in the sand until the problem is directly and severely effecting them personally. Until then, they don't care and don't want to hear about it. It's not just agriculture. It's everything. You can see the same thing in infrastructure. People don't even want to pay to maintain it, they definitely don't want to pay modernize it, even though it will be far more expensive to build it over again when it inevitably fails. And when it does, people will say "How could this happen? Why didn't anyone do something about this earlier?""
This guy is absolutely right, we need every possible resource to fix this, there is not ONE single solution, but rather taking the best from every production system that we know today.One example: Replace rice and corn in our diets with crops that generates up to 5 times more carbohydrates per hectare, such as potatoes and cassava. That is, feed 5 times the number of people from the same land! This crisis can be solved, it just require 100% commitment from politicians, consumers and business.
One great thing about a vegan diet is I can do it without limiting my life in any real way, and still make a big impact on reducing animal suffering and climate change.
What is not mentioned is the amount of food that is produced and them wasted and in america alone. America Produces tons of food but tons of food gets wasted to keep prices high.... You know CAPITALISM at its finest!
Yep. Excess food from grocery stores, food that is perfectly edible, is thrown away. Because of insane regulations, they can't even *give* it away to homeless shelters.
We are doing everything we can to try and maintain our current way of life instead of considering that maybe our whole way of life is wrong. People believe that various infrastructure solutions and consumer choices will be able to save the planet? This is untrue. The human race must live indigenous again and will live indigenous again whether we like it or not. The real question is how much do we want to destroy the land in the meantime? And how much of a toxic legacy we will be left with?
The "smarter diet" is plant-based. If we stopped raising crops to make into livestock feed, that alone would free up enough land to feed 11 billion people. Now factor in all that pasture land and there is enough for people and enough to rewild some to give back to the wild animals we've displaced and pushed towards extinction. Add in better, more natural farming practices and problem solved plus climate change would be reduced or even reversed. He needs to update this talk. The REAL inconvenient truth is that ANIMAL agriculture due to rising demand for meat and dairy products is what's destroying the planet.
Agroforestry is maybe the solution for now. We can get food as well as restoring trees which are already cleared in Forests. If we do Agroforestry, the rainfall we are getting now will spread allover the region instead of having floods at once. One more thing is trees holds lots of water and sends to the Atmosphere, it helps to cool the planet someway as well as the ground water will raise much better.
In grade school, I was the smallest kid by weight, yet also the strongest and fastest; living on my Cherokee, traditional foods of Hominy (corn), Beans & Squash. In 1975, I was talked into switching to the Paleo Diet, "to get bigger & stronger"; ten months ago, at age 50, I almost died from Heart Disease, High Blood Pressure, Type II Diabetes, Gout and Prostate Issues. I switched to VEGAN (no salt, no oil) and have completely reversed or cured ALL of the above Diseases and Issues
All systems are linked. Higher temperatures would mean higher plant production in moderate climate zones and vast new green areas in cold zones like Siberia and Canada. Which means more plant consumption of CO2, plant production of O2, and vast new areas for agricultural production. So assuming global warming is true, is that not a good thing? (Dr. Patrick Moore pointed this out btw)
And Humanity is getting richer, so we can take better care of our environment. This is already happening in Western nations, Japan etc. Agriculture is using less land to grow more food and that trend is increasing. Health outcomes are improving globally. Climate change is not a problem.
This is the video that fully persuaded me to try eating vegetarian. Screw the poultry industry and their selfish, irreversible amount of damage to the earth!
I'll make a toast to you for our barbecue this weekend ;). Meat is what gave humanity our large thinking brains - if you want to go backwards - be my guest. I'll keep perpetuating humanity to new heights with my meat induced superior intellect! :D
Growing sprouts in your kitchen to produce two meals per day saves money, and you get more nutrition than you are probably used to with grocery store poisonous foods.
I am a Right Wing Vegetarian. I am vegetarian for religious reasons. Don't worry about his lecture. The world will soon lose billions of people. We are entering a period of Global Cooling just like the Maunder Minimum (1645 - 1715). Less solar radiance. Much higher food prices.
@@raffiliberty5722 what kind of superior intellect does not think things all the way through? You think just because meat gave us our larger brains we need to continue to consume it in order to preserve them? You have a bad understanding of evolution and diet or nutrition. It is this type of thinking which leads to continued needless suffering today and to that on a higher level (crisis) tomorrow.
As important these things are, one point seems to have been forgotten: the amount of food wasted everyday. Whether it's because of poor transportation or for "cosmetic" reasons etc. I don't know the exact numbers, but it seems to me that if we efficiently distributed all the food grown, the problems illustrated in this video would become much more manageable.
He very obviously knows about the solution, but doesn't mention it. I feel sorry for him, I know how it feels when you are scared that people will not take you seriously anymore the moment the word "vegan" crosses your lips. Yet he missed a very good opportunity. We are past the point of being able to be excused for holding back the truth. We must speak up. In a sense, this talk was very vague. it made his audience aware of a problem, but stopped there. What are people who are uneducated in the field of agriculture to do with a conclusion such as the one he offers? He should have told them what kind of changes they need not make when making their day-to-day consumer decisions. All this talk will spark is feeling of helplessness and powerlessness ultimately leading to an attitude of indifference, which is very dangerous.
WE NEED MORE MEAT EATERS combined with BETTER LAND MANAGEMENT... The biggest problem we face is the fact that most of the world is desert with desertification increasing. The best way to reverse this is graze animals the old way and move them from area to area. The herds mulch the grass and fertilise the soil. It was thought grazing increased desertification but after CULLING 100s of 1000s of animals in experimental solutions (including 40,000 elephants in one area...) it was found DESERTIFICATION INCREASED..... If we just rewild areas we will need millions more animal predators to prevent OVERGRAZING that happens when HERBIVORES AREN'T KILLED (capitals for attention seeking purposes..) It's a fine balance... I'd rather feed more humans cow using managed grazing and herd numbers than feeding the lions and hyenas until they inevitably become a nuisance and have to be culled to protect humans. Cattle hide, milk and meat ensure we get our essential proteins and cheap durable, renewable, natural clothing and furniture coverings... not to mention pet food from the leftovers...
The solution is the easiest thing to find and the hardest to implement! Reduction of population by law meaning maximum 1 child per couple! Thats the solution!
Gazing animals should eat their natural food, not corn. Animals should be outside on the grassland. Using holistic gazing methods, like the Savory Institute does, the desertification in grasslands can be reversed. More grazing animals provide more food, more healthy grasslands change the microclimate of the area. Little rivers return, Grass holds CO2 in living plant material. What we definitely NOT do is burning alcohol made from corn as car fuel. now that is wasting food.
Before we look at how to increase food production we need first to solve our waste problems. We consume based on wants in the "developed" world, not on our needs. There are no laws that dictate how much food or other products you are allowed to buy, and no laws on how much you decide to waste. With a system based on supply and demand, the global "need" is misinterpreted. It is actually the global want. We need to solve our waste issue first, before we decide how much we need to be producing.
There is lots of water, we just have to remove the salt. If we double atmospheric CO2 a couple of times, plants will grow faster, in more areas, and with less water.
@@grindupBaker, with less nutritional value, you say? There was a report about that recently! I bet it turns out to be based on defective research and lots of activism, just like anthropogenic global warming.
Very troubling how he walks around the real problem: that most of the crops go to feed animals when we could eat them directly 20x more efficiently. Good to see people actually pointing out that agriculture is the biggest environmental problem, but to completely ignore change in diet is absurd. He recommends a "buckshot" of solutions, but fails to mention the most obvious one. He must be scared of something...
We have enough crops already to feed 10 billion people, if we didn't feed half of those crops to the 70 billion farmed animals, and ate them directly, we'd solve the problem.
2:45 over and again, landscape after landscape have been cleared/altered to grow food/crops. 3:20 map shows green farm areas, brown wildlife areas. 4:25 using enormous amount of land for agriculture. 4:35 mining water to farm lettuce in middle of dessert which dries up river beds. 5:35 aral sea bw kazakstan and ubekistan. in 1950s soviets diverted river water to irrigate desert to grow cotton which dried up the aral sea by 2009. 8:15 we use a lot of land water and atmosphere for agriculture, agriculture is 70% water use and 30% emitter of greenhouse gasses, more than all other human activity. it is also primary driver in biodiversity loss. 14:25 world pop growing by size of germany each year so 9B by 2040. how do we feed us all? 15:55 agri is the biggest contributor to climate change. meta message: we cant feed 9B the same way we did 7B. in short, get ready to eat insect protein.
HOW DARE THOSE SOUTH AMERICANS DO... ...the exact same thing that we did? For 100 years we have been telling the world we are the model to follow. Now that many are following, we are complaining.
I see what you are saying. I feel that prevention is better than a cure. I do agree that things change and human innovation plays a huge part. After i read what you wrote it has gotten me thinking. Thanks for educating me on that
I don't see the reason why he compared the area of land occupied by crops/pastures and cities. The population density of cities do not allow them to feed their own populations - so where do they think they get their food from, the supermarket or McDonalds? A better comparison would be to take the population of the earth and multiply that by the minimum area needed to live by subsidence farming. Then you would be able to see if we were being efficient or not with land use...
The obvious solution is something no one is willing to admit... We need to reduce the population of our planet. At this rate of growth, I'm afraid innovation and implementation simply can't catch up and it's going to be very difficult to achieve sustainability. But reducing population is controversial and methods to achieve it may be deemed unethical. I sometimes really think, is it even fair to talk about ethics and human rights, when the situation concerning the survival of all species on the planet is so dire? What makes humans more worthy than all other organisms? If one species - humans - could slash and burn a rainforest to make room to grow crops to sustain human lives, why can't we slash and burn a city to make room for the habitat of wild plants and animals?
@@russellday Looollll matter of fact I did think Thanos had a point 😂 But my stance is really more about equality between all species. Maybe instead of random cullings we should enforce strict control on population and consumption :/ Either way it's gonna be deemed unethical by some, especially those who think humans should be treated as superior to other lifeforms :/
But how far are we willing to go to save this planet? Are we willing to adopt a vegetarian diet? Are we willing to make use of thrown away food? Are we willing to consume less? We better be, but i'm sceptical.
The world needs MORE people, not less. Developed countries have irreplaceable birth rates. There are not enough kids being born. Anyone in history that worried bout human overpopulation was either a genocidal maniac or a tyrant. Human beings this planets greatest gift. Thank God for your neighbors - that's 100 more humans with individual minds all contributing to civilization and helping usher in more market solutions for everything.
the problem lies with the rich minority on this planet who consume most of the food and always demand for the best while around half of the world population is living is absolute substance !
sara meachel Many of the poor countries have antiquated ways of thinking and are superstitious and uneducated. Is it the rich countries job to fix that? That is why they are poor. They live in "absolute substance", whatever you mean by that, NOT because they choose to be eco-friendly. If they HAD the choice they would be doing the same: consuming, consuming, consuming. I'm not saying the developed countries are right to use more energy, food, materials, etc....they have a LONG way to go to improve, it is is truly pathetic...but the non-developed countries cannot simply start acting like the developed countries....the planet would be finished.
Jacques M Yes and thats why we need to start by shaming the life-style the rich countries have and probably even attacking it so it no longer becomes appealing to the rest of the world! but for the last 70 years all we have done is celebrate the life style the rich have and marketing it as a desirable choice for everyone !
sara meachel a better idea would be for poor countries to improve THEIR SITUATION with green energy and not want to move. Wasting your energy "shaming" anyone is a stupid idea.
Jacques M do you know how expansive to start the movnent of green energy thats why so far only very rich countries have rhe luxury ... the best shots they have is to take the footsteps of China and start a human labor mass production for rich countries
NO, it's not because it's too expensive...do some research, PLEASE. The reason most rich countries aren't making the move in a big way, YET, is because the oil and coal companies have so much money and have a lot of control of political leaders...there is no other reason. so yes,what you say is the typical boring way to think about it. If you're stupid like China and think destroying your environment and putting the future of the planet in jeopardy is a good way to make "progress"...please think about it again in about 15 years when half the population is suffering from lung disease and cancer. It would be much smarter for developing countries to be looking into alternative energies, solar, wind, etc because these are making significant strides in cost, reliability and efficiency. There are some smart Asian and Africa, and South American (BRIC) countries already doing this, so there is no excuse to not make it happen...only ignorance, laziness and stupidity. Make sure you politicians aren't being paid off by big oil and you WILL FIND A BETTER WAY!
So, we're feeding 'good' food to animals because eating animal protein creates disease; when did the food 'people' stop listening in that sentence? & when did YOU stop thinking critically about this! The actual inconvenient truth is realised when you witness Gary Yourofsky - (titled)The best speech you'll ever hear!... Not for the weak... & as for the agricultural crisis, I agree. We'll need to adopt some new practices. It's the industry habits, & reliance on the system to bring food to people**
Maybe if they took the food wasted in places like Las Vegas, or even in supermarkets and used it, there wouldn't be a problem. The big problem in farming is miss management and sloppy distribution.
There isn't a looming food shortage: the last time I calculated, the US along produces enough corn each year to give every human being on earth 77,000 lbs. of corn. If there are starving people in this world, it isn't because there isn't enough food being produced; it is because some countries are hoarding what they produce or too much corn is being diverted for biofuels. Food is a requirement for life, not something optional like jewelry; so why is it something from which large corporations are allowed to make excessive profits?
stop agricultural subsidies and let the market speak animal agriculture is ineffective and expensive people need to see that on their bill because they can't see it in their taxes
The great John Maynard Keynes warned that "The market can stay irrational for longer than we can stay solvent". And he was smart enough to write that the "Peace of Versailles" demanded such heavy reparations from Germany that they could not be paid, and in essence that *_No Good Would Come Of It_*.. Englishman though he was, and on the Committee until he wanted no further responsibility for a proposal that was_wrong_, he reckoned that Woodrow Wilson was wiser about it than the three European ministers.
Vegetarians eat mono culture annuals that need plowing and spraying and fertilizers from abroad every year if you rule out animal manure. Working the land for these crops kills an insane amount of bottom life, insects, rodents and birds... There is no definition of Organic farming. Its a complete grey area. I agree that permaculture is the way to go but grazing animals are key in those ecosystems, they tend to the perenials that build up a healthy nurturing botomlife that will support a large variety of plants and birds and rodents and insects etc. Also omnivores like chickens and pigs are indispensable as a natural way to enrich and plow and prepare previously distroyed farmland into permaculture. All we need is for researchers and open minded farmers and consumers to come together. So keep talking and be the change you want to see.
there have been many alternatives. the question deals with the EROEI. sweet crude has EROEI of ~100 to 40. alternative liquid fuels like biodiesel, ethanol, butanol all have EROEI of about ~ 1. whatever energy we have left should focused in developing sustainable solutions. then another question is how long will it take to develop and make the transition? and if killing themselves is a bad thing, imagine warfare to kill others which is happening now.
I'd like to see a video on the impact of military and wars. For example, how many gallons of fuel is dumped each year into the oceans by jets before landing on aircraft carriers. I have heard that the U.S. Air Force burned 2.5 billion gallons of fuel in 2005, for example. How many bombs does what kind of damage around the world. What is left of Agent Orange in Vietnam? etc.
Fully half of American corn is used, not as food or animal feed, but to make ethanol, to avoid fossil fuel use, and thereby supposedly to "fight climate change." That's about 50 million acres, which is more than the land area of the nine smallest American States, combined: Maryland, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Hawaii, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island. That's 50 million acres devoted to growing Roundup-Ready monoculture corn. So the question to ask is, how much environmental damage should we accept, to "fight climate change?"
One man's opinion... We do not have to make fuel from our food. If land producing fuel were forests, CO2 would go down...not sure how much. Solar and wind power will never produce over a few % of our power and are often detrimental to the environment because they are intermittent. They also require a backup system which often is very polluting because they are not the main source of energy. Small private sources may make sense but they are an awful waste of national economic resources. Water, nuclear and fossil fuels are the only real long term energy solutions. GMO can yield fantastic quantities of food. Greenhouses increase CO2 from 400ppm in the atmosphere to 1500ppm. Clouds is the biggest unknown in climate change. The debate is obviously not over.
CO2 is not a problem, on the contrary the biosphere would benefit from higher CO2 levels. With that said, solar emits far more CO2, (during manufacturing, maintainence and when replaced) and is far dirtier than nuclear. Solar panels contain heavy metals including lead. All those panels need to be replaced periodically. How about when the sun doesn't shine, and at night? Zero electricity.
Ok, explain one thing to me, please. At 5:08 we have the pictures of the Colorado River. In the 1950, even mountains were covered with vegetation. In the "today" picture, I can see that there is no vegetation on the mountains - they are "naked". As far as I know, Rivers do not flow upwards, so the reason for the lack of vegetation and the narrower river in the "today" picture are more scarce rainfalls. Both the river and mountain vegetation suffered from the same source - but not agriculture.
I am participating in a project with my neighbourhood. We plant potatoes, tomatoes, etc...lot of work but free organic food in exchange...and if what we have too much we can sell and re-invest and maybe grow?!
30 years ago before my marriage ended I enjoyed growing tomatoes around my house (Mississauga) and staked them out on the front lawn one year and a City guy said he just happened to be passing and noticed them & they are on City property by 6 feet (I never looked for the survey stakes & it's all my lawn but he was right) & he said no problem just remove the trellis & leave it but I noticed the guy across had his home for sale and I'm a contrary sort of bugger so I said no, I'll just move the plants & trellis 6 feet back to the very edge of my property and that's what I did (plus making the wood trellis bigger). I'm an ornery bugger.
12 ปีที่แล้ว
we don't need to lower population. what we need to do is properly allocate our resources and use sustainable and biodiverse methods.
I feel that much of this problem, is that most people have no skills, produce nothing, create nothing, have no abilities, have no interests, are profoundly ignorant and even less interested in the world around them. Good luck making any changes.
Memphis meats from cell growth a wonderful adaptation. Hydroponic growth in each community a more space conserving idea especially good during cold winters.
"global discussion on global population growth" There was a time, way back in the 60s when this WAS a topic to be discussed. Verboten today! Politically incorrect! Without a limit to human population, there is no solution!
If you take a finite world and keep adding people the slice of the total cake (resources) available to each person reduces. Eat meat, go vegan is irrelevant so long as population keeps doubling. Eventually a finite world will be unable to provide for an infinite population. The rest of the arguments are just noise.
9 bil is probably his estimate of the carrying capacity of humans on earth which often estimated in the 5-14 bil range. There are a lot of phenomena that occur when a species hit their environments carrying capacity, anything from mass extinction to stabilization and strengthening of population. If you consider current climate change a largely human phenomenon then it could be perceived that we have exceeded our carrying capacity already and our environment is now reacting to balance the growth.
The final statement, “have to get it right” is romantic but has no basis in truth of any kind, in fact, the reverse is what humanity has always planned for. It’s a “I got mine, now you get yours” kind of world out there, industrial military complex(es) sit on top of the planet , injustice reigns.
Maybe instead of stopping animal agriculture, we should try to develop ways to effectively use and manage current meat land and property to use methane gas and other waste products for other purposes. In order to also use land better, more time and effort needs to be put into agriscience. We need food so we don't die, and, in order to allow people who's livelihood revolves around livestock, we need to focus on research and development so agriculture can survive, thrive, and be a viable option.
+Austen Forrester I had the feeling all along the talk that this is the ACTUAL inconvenient truth he wanted to talk to, but was too anxious of telling it because people would get mad at him.
+Austen Forrester Perhaps if I had children I would strongly push them in the vegetarian direction. But it is no late for me, I am hooked on meat. On the other hand, I have no children. Does that count for something in mitigating my environmental sins.
***** Wait when did China and India become the problem? The highest consumption of meat is in first world countries, that's where the real problem is. And no time in history has there ever been as high a meat and dairy consumption as the current day. Get informed buddy
***** no, I'm looking at average meat consumption in developing countries as opposed to first world countries. 33kg/year per person vs 72kg/year per person respectively
All that you said is correct. All kinds of pressures influence the willingness for new couples to have children. Instead of 6, you have 2 or 1 and not at 21 years old but at around 33 when the carreer is on track. :) Do you think this also happens in Africa?
The Actual Inconvenient Truth is that in order to address climate change in any real way will require a lot less animal agriculture and a lot less population growth ALONG WITH massive energy conservation and conversion to renewable sources.
If by renewable sources you mean anything other than nuclear fission, and the renewability of fissile isotopes, you are one of the multitude who do not realise that wind turbines are inferior to sail, and coal and oil drove them from the seas.
@@albertrogers8537 Clearly, replacing coal power plants with wind energy farms has nothing to do with coal engines winning out over wind energy in the shipping industry. The discussion is about sustainability, not power. Besides that, I agree that nuclear fisison has to be included in the discussion of clean energy sources once again. The industry has advanced a lot in the areas of safety, efficiency and waste, but unfortunately the public conscience is still with Tsjernobyl, Thee-Mile Island and Fukushima.
Or you can embrace capitalism and the innovation that inevitably comes. Thank you capitalism for making weather anomalies or climate changes irrelevant. Thank you for inventing new energy sources and creating human flourishing. PS - the is no over population issue on the planet - we need at least 10 billion more people. However world population will top out at 9-10 billion unless islam gets its way. Western civilization do not reproduce and developed countries birth rates begin to decline. If you were worried about human overpopulation you should embrace capitalism.
In fact i am eating boiled meat quite often and it tastes very good with salt only. and it is not about replacing one food with another, simply we have big variety of choices and it is quite stupid to limit our choices for some absurd moral reasons. think is if food is movie, and someone tells you that watching action movies are not acceptable you have replace them with comedies. modern food is entertainment not just nutrition.
What? You can get protein, carbohydrate, amino acids, fatty acids, trace minerals without ever eating meat. How do you think these things move up the food chain to the meat you do eventually eat? It's going to be hard to justify feeding perfectly edible grain (these days more likely soya bean) to animals at an efficiency loss of 10:1 when humans in parts of the world are literally starving to death. Oh no, wait - already do that. Nevermind, have another Big Mac.
He meant greenhouse gases emitted by humans. The fact that this amount is much smaller than the natural emission of greenhouse gases, is unimportant. The natural emissions are mostly balanced by natural sequestration. It's also pretty much a scientific fact that human activity is causing the amount of greenhouse gases to rise.
It would help to use a better map than Mercator projection. S America and Africa would look much bigger (as they are in reality) and drive the message home better.
Tr Op You are a wonderful NAZI..... The Oligarchy is proud of you..... Ironically only the TRUE Christians will inherit the Earth..... Islame was created by the ROMAN catholic SECT so they will share in your fate. Ironically what is Happening on the Earth today is PREDICTED in the Bible.
Tr Op Ah the word Bigot..... Incorrectly used by BIGOTS like you..... Be of Good cheer the PROPHECIES are being fulfilled as we speak and there is not long left before the Return of Christ..... Unfortunately for you..... It will not end well Unless you get your act together and REPENT. Jesus COMMANDED His people to STUDY..... And I do. There are DOZENS of end time Prophecies that have recently been fulfilled or are in the process of being Fulfilled.... The coming NWO being just ONE of them. So many so.... That you will be WITHOUT excuse WHEN you meet Jesus. Ciao.
Haha. Hard hitting truth you said; I also was thinking of it. Especially in countries like mine (India), we really have to get the population down drastically, by some logically sound measures. I've a theory of allowing couples to conceive only when they're financially well off above a certain threshold. That way, the problem of the poor is solved, as well as the population. Also, a gap between having children would really cool down the population growth rate.
For a better albeit opposing solution, watch the other TED talk on this issue; "Allan Savory: How to Green the World's Deserts & Revert Climate Change". I find the other TED talk to convey a far more persuasive solution. Please reply back to me after viewing, as I'd love to hear others' thoughts on the matter ^_*
I find this talk not in contradiction with A.Savory. Definitely Savory short duration grazing methods could be a valuable input. And if J.Foley talks about debate around the big table - this could be one of many solutions on the table.
James Newlin Maybe this claim of his, that he has found a silver bullet is not 100% accurate. But I see nothing wrong in using the solution nevertheless. The article You're citing here makes a citation of scientific paper (which is great) but misinterprets that in my opinion (which is not so good). I know that some people are convinced that turning vegan is something that can mitigate the problem that is mentioned in J.Foley talk and they are right. However You tend to do similar thing that A.Savory did and claim that You've found silver bullet. None of You is right but You all got some point I admit. And this is good. Making many small changes is always more difficult than making one mayor one, but these small ones often give better results when combined.
even if I completely agree on meat free diet health benefits and I eat it rarely too I still want meant as delicacy to spice my life sometimes it just tastes good and modern humans have very few pleasures besides food. considering that meat is about 10% of my diet, and plant-> meat conversion efficiency is aslo like 10%, so this 10% of my diet is equivalent to all remaining food I consume.
One of the solutions, dramatically increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide - which would increase crop yield, is seen as a climate problem. The climate brainwashing has to be overcome.
How do we feed an ever growing population sustainably that is on its way to 9 Billion people? One answer is Algae technologies (fresh and salt water varieties) that are capable of producing much of the Fertilizers, Feed, Food, Fibers, and Advanced Biofuels we need while simultaneously cleaning wastewater and capturing CO2. These technologies are not 20,10, or even 5 years away. They are ready to start deploying today.
its not about forcing it on people.People need to realize that resources are not infinite.If everyone in the world has more kids then they would have to fight for resources available. We can either say we will have more children and worry about the consequences later or we never make a mistake that we might want to set right. The ones who have to address the issue will not be us, but the future generation.i would not have that for my kids. Education will make this possible and Force is useless.
Its not new ag, its the oldest form Ive ever heard of. The early people in N America practiced a form of it. Monoculture, plowing, clearing, all of that gone. Encourage whats there naturally , and get some stuff comming to prime at different times of the season and year. Little impact on the land and other creatures while gleening a large varity of foods.
One question: Why does his vid say agricultural production needs could double or triple, when population is only going up from 7billion to 9-9.5billion? Thats like a 30-35% population increase. Shouldn't that mean in the same time (now and 2040) food production would only increase the same (30%) amount, or less?
Some good points, However, The initial point was that the numbers ultimately won't work. At some point, that projected 10 billion turns into 20, 30, etc etc...at some point the real conversation is going to have to occur.
So, if you are a farmer what can you do? If you are producing food can you find ways to be more productive and less destructive in light of emissions and inputs? Find out how you can gain the knowledge required to farm for the future and reduce bonus too. We invite you to check out our store to find out more. We recommend the Meeting the Challenge for Change by Dr Christine Jones
Vertical farming, hydroponics and aquaculture, would seem to be an answer. The caloric yields per acre are astounding, much of the energy can be delivered via solar on the roofs, and it isn't weather dependent.
You are correct, current consumption rate is unsustainable. But saying birthcontrol is an option is madness! Rapid population growth occurs in the global south and for us the west to say that they can´t make anymore childres is worse then them saying that we need to consume less :s. It woun't work, the only thing is to raise standard of living so people will get less children. 3d printing, fusion, nano techo, biotech, quantem computing and advanced robotics will help :) markets work bro':)
The US alone produces enough food to feed the world yet people still go to sleep at night hungry. My point: The speaker never touched the amount of food waste only stating that we have to find away to produce more food to feed a growing population.... so what are we looking at for future food waste and future greenhouse gas emissions?
It looks like Asia will be the most problematic area in the world for self sustaining. Some parts of the world can do fine, like the American continent. Focus on self sufficiency instead of for exporting food.
Sure you know all those billions of farm aid the US sends to Africa and other famine riddled places on earth, yes lets do as you say and just stop that, lets just kill off over 100million people because of the Co2 we put out in the atmosphere that will kill no one ever in the future. Lets kill 100millino so we can save no one... good call there.
@@raffiliberty5722 there's a lot of talk about climate change. The fact is that in the USA there are very large farm land areas floded.. The corn season is over and there is 30 per cent less farming in corn. As it is happening in other grain farming areas around the world as Australia Canada Russia. Etc. So eventually the USA farming will be just good enough to feed the local population. So much left to aid other nations. Africa by the way has good land and if people over there make the right choices can become self sufficient.
@@raffiliberty5722 you are wrong . the government around the globe said it is CO2. However it is a big lie. The real problem is what is call THE GRAND SOLAR MINIMUN. it is about SOLAR cycles that affect climate change. Read about it get educated. Get prepared because it does look very bad. In near future.
go aquaponic, hydroponic, vertical farming and put green roftops on every house. small wonder that agrecultural land needs more space than urban districts simply add the third dimension to farming and voila we have skyscraer farms if youre interested there are some startups in sweden and netherlands a.e.
![วันเกิดเธอ (TO YOU) - PHUWIN [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_ROx1Bj3T0Y/mqdefault.jpg)
What he is describing is Permaculture. It is a compilation of many techniques such as storing water in the ground so irrigation is not always necessary and creating food forests with a wide variety of trees, shrubs, plants, vines from which you can eat and, once established, lives without human input.
Yes, exactly: And food waste MUST be addressed. Nearly HALf the food we grow is wasted and dumped. So we could double our food supply simply by cutting out the waste! Of course it is not that simple. But it is a good place to start. This film does not even mention food waste. I love permaculture.
Exactly. But notice that he does not mention permaculture, carbon sequestration, rotational grazing, relocalization of food, or regenerative agriculture (all of which are different perspectives on the same thing)--and why? Because this guy is a shill for Big Ag--he wants to eat his cake (industrial-scale monocultures that grow a lot of money for their investors, while depleting topsoil, spraying pesticides, and enriching Monsanto) and have it too (i.e. an intact biosphere that supports humanity). Permaculture has been shown to work magnificently in simultaneously restoring topsoil, preserving and enhancing biological diversity, and producing abundant yields, yet it is still invisible to the corporate media--because if it ever truly caught on, THEY would end up losing a lot of money.
Indeed, this is the problem I have with big oil... not the use of coal fired power, but the mono-cropping model, and the shipping of food on such a mass scale. Of course, spills, etc. are not helping, either. Greed is the problem, not global warming.
Permaculture is the answer! It unites agriculture and ecology in such a simple and beautiful way; it provides more food, more health, more biodiversity, more natural resources with every year of practice.
It seems like reducing food waste is also an extremely important part of the equation.
Scientists: "Failure is not an option".
Humanity: "Were going to prove that it is".
We not only need solutions to the agricultural crisis, we need to have a global discussion on global population growth. Growing more food just means more people and the cycle will continue.
th3dudeabides1 +100, over reproduction is not a right, it is a crime
couldn't agree more
One of the suggested improvements is to end the ability of men to direct women's lives. But it is one of the worst consequences both of religion and tribalism.
In that case your parents were criminals or you wouldn't exist.
@@LennarthAnaya Seems a bit harsh. How many is the right amount of reproduction, and why?
The talk concludes, audience claps, 7 years pass and nothing has changed.
It's just getting worse
2020. A few more flexitarians. Vegan myself.
That's not true, the issue is that not enough has changed. The common sentiment that "nobody is doing anything" is an insult to the thousands and thousands of farmers and researchers doing all that they can to be more sustainable. The problem is that there are still too many who aren't on board.
The failure of environmental science is studying on the wrong object, describing not prescribing, and not telling a story. These problems are caused by humans, impact humans, and are solved by humans. What he’s not saying is that capitalism and its imperatives of growth fail to price the true value of resources, out the pressure of survival on individuals causing them to do anything, and the structural condition of inequality. This is the story that needs to be told, and focusing there is how we solve our problems.
A decade later...My comment stands
He held a lecture at my university in Sweden today! He was such an inspiring person, albeit I did leave the lecture hall with a slight feeling that, well, we're fucked..
Covid vaccine will fix it. Silver buckshot is out the window, we're using slugs.
Thank Jonathan for great knowledge, we build an environment org called No Waste Vietnam
I love how he talks about animals stealing all the water and then points out that the lettuce farmers are draining the Colorado river..Hahahahaha
You laugh but there's nothing more frightening than a rogue lettuce stampeding.
What I resent is that he exagerates the scale by orders of magnitude.
I am from Bolivia, I do know the enormous area of the Beni, the Departamento, which is mostly Jungle in the west. (Less than one person per square kilometer)
That village he shows (Santa Cruz) was for me as pilot hard to find, given the expanse of the land, navigating without the GPS system at the time. Especilally at night, when there are no lights and the risc of laterally missing that village is too high, without an alternate city, and the additional fuel required. Speak of dishonesty!
From the air a single light is visible for a long distance, but not when surrounded by Jungle. During the day, you follow the rivers.
I run a small farm in Massachusetts part-time. There are ways to heal the planet with agriculture through systems like permaculture but it requires knowledge and participation. As long as people think they make the food at the supermarket and agriculture is run by corporations, there will never be a solution......Until its forced on us.
Corporate farming is a major problem. They are just there to maximize profits for shareholders with no concern for the environment, or the nutritional needs of the consumer. The ethical argument against meat is nonsense if the farming is done right. I don't like so-called factory farming, but grass-fed open range cattle, the way farming used to be and should be, there's nothing wrong with that.
I remember reading a newspaper article about a man who had developed a strain of bees over 20 years which was resistant to modern pesticides, which would provide a solution to the colony collapse disorder problem: the bees had a more active chemical defense system than a typical bee, giving them resistance to commercially used levels of pesticide. He had an EPA inspection which claimed he had an infestation of Varroa mite. The queens were destroyed preventing him from proving otherwise.
We are also depleting the oceans.
We are going to do something only when it is too late, that's what I believe.
That's pretty much the history the 20th century. People stick their head in the sand until the problem is directly and severely effecting them personally. Until then, they don't care and don't want to hear about it. It's not just agriculture. It's everything. You can see the same thing in infrastructure. People don't even want to pay to maintain it, they definitely don't want to pay modernize it, even though it will be far more expensive to build it over again when it inevitably fails. And when it does, people will say "How could this happen? Why didn't anyone do something about this earlier?""
This guy is absolutely right, we need every possible resource to fix this, there is not ONE single solution, but rather taking the best from every production system that we know today.One example: Replace rice and corn in our diets with crops that generates up to 5 times more carbohydrates per hectare, such as potatoes and cassava. That is, feed 5 times the number of people from the same land! This crisis can be solved, it just require 100% commitment from politicians, consumers and business.
One great thing about a vegan diet is I can do it without limiting my life in any real way, and still make a big impact on reducing animal suffering and climate change.
How do you as one person make a big impact choosing that diet? Wouldn't the decision not to have children exceed that choice many times over?
What is not mentioned is the amount of food that is produced and them wasted and in america alone. America Produces tons of food but tons of food gets wasted to keep prices high.... You know CAPITALISM at its finest!
+Donna Emigh Floor Honestly, this probably isn't a significant problem from an environmental perspective.
Yep. Excess food from grocery stores, food that is perfectly edible, is thrown away. Because of insane regulations, they can't even *give* it away to homeless shelters.
We are doing everything we can to try and maintain our current way of life instead of considering that maybe our whole way of life is wrong. People believe that various infrastructure solutions and consumer choices will be able to save the planet? This is untrue. The human race must live indigenous again and will live indigenous again whether we like it or not. The real question is how much do we want to destroy the land in the meantime? And how much of a toxic legacy we will be left with?
The "smarter diet" is plant-based. If we stopped raising crops to make into livestock feed, that alone would free up enough land to feed 11 billion people. Now factor in all that pasture land and there is enough for people and enough to rewild some to give back to the wild animals we've displaced and pushed towards extinction. Add in better, more natural farming practices and problem solved plus climate change would be reduced or even reversed. He needs to update this talk. The REAL inconvenient truth is that ANIMAL agriculture due to rising demand for meat and dairy products is what's destroying the planet.
Agroforestry is maybe the solution for now. We can get food as well as restoring trees which are already cleared in Forests.
If we do Agroforestry, the rainfall we are getting now will spread allover the region instead of having floods at once.
One more thing is trees holds lots of water and sends to the Atmosphere, it helps to cool the planet someway as well as the ground water will raise much better.
Nine years late because I just saw the vedio.
In grade school, I was the smallest kid by weight, yet also the strongest and fastest; living on my Cherokee, traditional foods of Hominy (corn), Beans & Squash.
In 1975, I was talked into switching to the Paleo Diet, "to get bigger & stronger"; ten months ago, at age 50, I almost died from Heart Disease, High Blood Pressure, Type II Diabetes, Gout and Prostate Issues.
I switched to VEGAN (no salt, no oil) and have completely reversed or cured ALL of the above Diseases and Issues
All systems are linked. Higher temperatures would mean higher plant production in moderate climate zones and vast new green areas in cold zones like Siberia and Canada. Which means more plant consumption of CO2, plant production of O2, and vast new areas for agricultural production. So assuming global warming is true, is that not a good thing? (Dr. Patrick Moore pointed this out btw)
And Humanity is getting richer, so we can take better care of our environment. This is already happening in Western nations, Japan etc. Agriculture is using less land to grow more food and that trend is increasing. Health outcomes are improving globally. Climate change is not a problem.
This is the video that fully persuaded me to try eating vegetarian. Screw the poultry industry and their selfish, irreversible amount of damage to the earth!
I'll make a toast to you for our barbecue this weekend ;). Meat is what gave humanity our large thinking brains - if you want to go backwards - be my guest. I'll keep perpetuating humanity to new heights with my meat induced superior intellect! :D
Growing sprouts in your kitchen to produce two meals per day saves money, and you get more nutrition than you are probably used to with grocery store poisonous foods.
I'm off to get a burger.
I am a Right Wing Vegetarian. I am vegetarian for religious reasons. Don't worry about his lecture. The world will soon lose billions of people. We are entering a period of Global Cooling just like the Maunder Minimum (1645 - 1715). Less solar radiance. Much higher food prices.
@@raffiliberty5722 what kind of superior intellect does not think things all the way through? You think just because meat gave us our larger brains we need to continue to consume it in order to preserve them? You have a bad understanding of evolution and diet or nutrition. It is this type of thinking which leads to continued needless suffering today and to that on a higher level (crisis) tomorrow.
As important these things are, one point seems to have been forgotten: the amount of food wasted everyday. Whether it's because of poor transportation or for "cosmetic" reasons etc. I don't know the exact numbers, but it seems to me that if we efficiently distributed all the food grown, the problems illustrated in this video would become much more manageable.
He very obviously knows about the solution, but doesn't mention it. I feel sorry for him, I know how it feels when you are scared that people will not take you seriously anymore the moment the word "vegan" crosses your lips. Yet he missed a very good opportunity. We are past the point of being able to be excused for holding back the truth. We must speak up. In a sense, this talk was very vague. it made his audience aware of a problem, but stopped there. What are people who are uneducated in the field of agriculture to do with a conclusion such as the one he offers? He should have told them what kind of changes they need not make when making their day-to-day consumer decisions. All this talk will spark is feeling of helplessness and powerlessness ultimately leading to an attitude of indifference, which is very dangerous.
Being vegan is not a solution
There were a lot fewer of them.
WE NEED MORE MEAT EATERS combined with BETTER LAND MANAGEMENT... The biggest problem we face is the fact that most of the world is desert with desertification increasing. The best way to reverse this is graze animals the old way and move them from area to area. The herds mulch the grass and fertilise the soil. It was thought grazing increased desertification but after CULLING 100s of 1000s of animals in experimental solutions (including 40,000 elephants in one area...) it was found DESERTIFICATION INCREASED..... If we just rewild areas we will need millions more animal predators to prevent OVERGRAZING that happens when HERBIVORES AREN'T KILLED (capitals for attention seeking purposes..) It's a fine balance... I'd rather feed more humans cow using managed grazing and herd numbers than feeding the lions and hyenas until they inevitably become a nuisance and have to be culled to protect humans. Cattle hide, milk and meat ensure we get our essential proteins and cheap durable, renewable, natural clothing and furniture coverings... not to mention pet food from the leftovers...
The solution is the easiest thing to find and the hardest to implement! Reduction of population by law meaning maximum 1 child per couple! Thats the solution!
Gazing animals should eat their natural food, not corn. Animals should be outside on the grassland. Using holistic gazing methods, like the Savory Institute does, the desertification in grasslands can be reversed. More grazing animals provide more food, more healthy grasslands change the microclimate of the area. Little rivers return, Grass holds CO2 in living plant material.
What we definitely NOT do is burning alcohol made from corn as car fuel. now that is wasting food.
Before we look at how to increase food production we need first to solve our waste problems. We consume based on wants in the "developed" world, not on our needs. There are no laws that dictate how much food or other products you are allowed to buy, and no laws on how much you decide to waste. With a system based on supply and demand, the global "need" is misinterpreted. It is actually the global want. We need to solve our waste issue first, before we decide how much we need to be producing.
There is lots of water, we just have to remove the salt. If we double atmospheric CO2 a couple of times, plants will grow faster, in more areas, and with less water.
And with less nutritional value. The Pepsi Cola crops.
@@grindupBaker, with less nutritional value, you say? There was a report about that recently! I bet it turns out to be based on defective research and lots of activism, just like anthropogenic global warming.
Very troubling how he walks around the real problem: that most of the crops go to feed animals when we could eat them directly 20x more efficiently. Good to see people actually pointing out that agriculture is the biggest environmental problem, but to completely ignore change in diet is absurd. He recommends a "buckshot" of solutions, but fails to mention the most obvious one. He must be scared of something...
the only real cure is fewer people. under 1 billion might be about right, it would leave room for wildlife.
We have enough crops already to feed 10 billion people, if we didn't feed half of those crops to the 70 billion farmed animals, and ate them directly, we'd solve the problem.
A lotof crops fed to animals are inedible to humans
Al Loomis Are you willing to let go of ypur modern comforts
Overpopulation is the problem. If there were 2 billion people, meaty, cheesy diets wouldn't be an issue.
2:45 over and again, landscape after landscape have been cleared/altered to grow food/crops. 3:20 map shows green farm areas, brown wildlife areas. 4:25 using enormous amount of land for agriculture. 4:35 mining water to farm lettuce in middle of dessert which dries up river beds.
5:35 aral sea bw kazakstan and ubekistan. in 1950s soviets diverted river water to irrigate desert to grow cotton which dried up the aral sea by 2009.
8:15 we use a lot of land water and atmosphere for agriculture, agriculture is 70% water use and 30% emitter of greenhouse gasses, more than all other human activity. it is also primary driver in biodiversity loss.
14:25 world pop growing by size of germany each year so 9B by 2040. how do we feed us all? 15:55 agri is the biggest contributor to climate change. meta message: we cant feed 9B the same way we did 7B. in short, get ready to eat insect protein.
HOW DARE THOSE SOUTH AMERICANS DO...
...the exact same thing that we did?
For 100 years we have been telling the world we are the model to follow. Now that many are following, we are complaining.
I see what you are saying. I feel that prevention is better than a cure. I do agree that things change and human innovation plays a huge part. After i read what you wrote it has gotten me thinking. Thanks for educating me on that
I don't see the reason why he compared the area of land occupied by crops/pastures and cities. The population density of cities do not allow them to feed their own populations - so where do they think they get their food from, the supermarket or McDonalds?
A better comparison would be to take the population of the earth and multiply that by the minimum area needed to live by subsidence farming. Then you would be able to see if we were being efficient or not with land use...
don't forget about widespread urban rooftop agriculture potential as well!
The obvious solution is something no one is willing to admit... We need to reduce the population of our planet. At this rate of growth, I'm afraid innovation and implementation simply can't catch up and it's going to be very difficult to achieve sustainability. But reducing population is controversial and methods to achieve it may be deemed unethical. I sometimes really think, is it even fair to talk about ethics and human rights, when the situation concerning the survival of all species on the planet is so dire? What makes humans more worthy than all other organisms? If one species - humans - could slash and burn a rainforest to make room to grow crops to sustain human lives, why can't we slash and burn a city to make room for the habitat of wild plants and animals?
I think you misspelled your name. Try Thanos.
@@russellday Looollll matter of fact I did think Thanos had a point 😂 But my stance is really more about equality between all species. Maybe instead of random cullings we should enforce strict control on population and consumption :/ Either way it's gonna be deemed unethical by some, especially those who think humans should be treated as superior to other lifeforms :/
But how far are we willing to go to save this planet? Are we willing to adopt a vegetarian diet? Are we willing to make use of thrown away food? Are we willing to consume less? We better be, but i'm sceptical.
It all comes down to population growth. My neighbor has over 100 grandchildren. You can't reason with the religious. I am not optimistic.
The world needs MORE people, not less. Developed countries have irreplaceable birth rates. There are not enough kids being born. Anyone in history that worried bout human overpopulation was either a genocidal maniac or a tyrant. Human beings this planets greatest gift. Thank God for your neighbors - that's 100 more humans with individual minds all contributing to civilization and helping usher in more market solutions for everything.
Thank you :)
the problem lies with the rich minority on this planet who consume most of the food and always demand for the best while around half of the world population is living is absolute substance !
sara meachel Many of the poor countries have antiquated ways of thinking and are superstitious and uneducated. Is it the rich countries job to fix that? That is why they are poor. They live in "absolute substance", whatever you mean by that, NOT because they choose to be eco-friendly. If they HAD the choice they would be doing the same: consuming, consuming, consuming. I'm not saying the developed countries are right to use more energy, food, materials, etc....they have a LONG way to go to improve, it is is truly pathetic...but the non-developed countries cannot simply start acting like the developed countries....the planet would be finished.
Jacques M Yes and thats why we need to start by shaming the life-style the rich countries have and probably even attacking it so it no longer becomes appealing to the rest of the world! but for the last 70 years all we have done is celebrate the life style the rich have and marketing it as a desirable choice for everyone !
sara meachel a better idea would be for poor countries to improve THEIR SITUATION with green energy and not want to move. Wasting your energy "shaming" anyone is a stupid idea.
Jacques M do you know how expansive to start the movnent of green energy thats why so far only very rich countries have rhe luxury ...
the best shots they have is to take the footsteps of China and start a human labor mass production for rich countries
NO, it's not because it's too expensive...do some research, PLEASE. The reason most rich countries aren't making the move in a big way, YET, is because the oil and coal companies have so much money and have a lot of control of political leaders...there is no other reason.
so yes,what you say is the typical boring way to think about it. If you're stupid like China and think destroying your environment and putting the future of the planet in jeopardy is a good way to make "progress"...please think about it again in about 15 years when half the population is suffering from lung disease and cancer. It would be much smarter for developing countries to be looking into alternative energies, solar, wind, etc because these are making significant strides in cost, reliability and efficiency. There are some smart Asian and Africa, and South American (BRIC) countries already doing this, so there is no excuse to not make it happen...only ignorance, laziness and stupidity.
Make sure you politicians aren't being paid off by big oil and you WILL FIND A BETTER WAY!
What would be the worst place to have a war? How about between 2 of the largest food exporters in the world.
You are utterly correct
the soundtrack was So convincing !
Thanks for getting this very important message out there.
where are you now lovebug ten years later?
So, we're feeding 'good' food to animals because eating animal protein creates disease; when did the food 'people' stop listening in that sentence? & when did YOU stop thinking critically about this! The actual inconvenient truth is realised when you witness Gary Yourofsky - (titled)The best speech you'll ever hear!... Not for the weak... & as for the agricultural crisis, I agree. We'll need to adopt some new practices. It's the industry habits, & reliance on the system to bring food to people**
Maybe if they took the food wasted in places like Las Vegas, or even in supermarkets and used it, there wouldn't be a problem.
The big problem in farming is miss management and sloppy distribution.
There isn't a looming food shortage: the last time I calculated, the US along produces enough corn each year to give every human being on earth 77,000 lbs. of corn. If there are starving people in this world, it isn't because there isn't enough food being produced; it is because some countries are hoarding what they produce or too much corn is being diverted for biofuels. Food is a requirement for life, not something optional like jewelry; so why is it something from which large corporations are allowed to make excessive profits?
stop agricultural subsidies and let the market speak
animal agriculture is ineffective and expensive
people need to see that on their bill because they can't see it in their taxes
The great John Maynard Keynes warned that "The market can stay irrational for longer than we can stay solvent". And he was smart enough to write that the "Peace of Versailles" demanded such heavy reparations from Germany that they could not be paid, and in essence that *_No Good Would Come Of It_*.. Englishman though he was, and on the Committee until he wanted no further responsibility for a proposal that was_wrong_, he reckoned that Woodrow Wilson was wiser about it than the three European ministers.
Look at what his economics did to the world economy.
Preach! Meat is not cheap. It's subsidized and still not cheap, and people are still eating it every day!
Vegetarians eat mono culture annuals that need plowing and spraying and fertilizers from abroad every year if you rule out animal manure.
Working the land for these crops kills an insane amount of bottom life, insects, rodents and birds...
There is no definition of Organic farming. Its a complete grey area.
I agree that permaculture is the way to go but grazing animals are key in those ecosystems, they tend to the perenials that build up a healthy nurturing botomlife that will support a large variety of plants and birds and rodents and insects etc. Also omnivores like chickens and pigs are indispensable as a natural way to enrich and plow and prepare previously distroyed farmland into permaculture.
All we need is for researchers and open minded farmers and consumers to come together.
So keep talking and be the change you want to see.
I tend to agree. If meat becomes more expensive because of the extra demand, the market will adjust and try to find ways to provide it for cheaper.
there have been many alternatives. the question deals with the EROEI. sweet crude has EROEI of ~100 to 40. alternative liquid fuels like biodiesel, ethanol, butanol all have EROEI of about ~ 1.
whatever energy we have left should focused in developing sustainable solutions. then another question is how long will it take to develop and make the transition?
and if killing themselves is a bad thing, imagine warfare to kill others which is happening now.
I'd like to see a video on the impact of military and wars. For example, how many gallons of fuel is dumped each year into the oceans by jets before landing on aircraft carriers. I have heard that the U.S. Air Force burned 2.5 billion gallons of fuel in 2005, for example. How many bombs does what kind of damage around the world. What is left of Agent Orange in Vietnam? etc.
we already have enough food to feed us, but there is starvation. food utilization as well as efficiency in production is necessary.
Fully half of American corn is used, not as food or animal feed, but to make ethanol, to avoid fossil fuel use, and thereby supposedly to "fight climate change." That's about 50 million acres, which is more than the land area of the nine smallest American States, combined: Maryland, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Hawaii, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island.
That's 50 million acres devoted to growing Roundup-Ready monoculture corn. So the question to ask is, how much environmental damage should we accept, to "fight climate change?"
One man's opinion...
We do not have to make fuel from our food. If land producing fuel were forests, CO2 would go down...not sure how much.
Solar and wind power will never produce over a few % of our power and are often detrimental to the environment because they are intermittent. They also require a backup system which often is very polluting because they are not the main source of energy. Small private sources may make sense but they are an awful waste of national economic resources. Water, nuclear and fossil fuels are the only real long term energy solutions.
GMO can yield fantastic quantities of food.
Greenhouses increase CO2 from 400ppm in the atmosphere to 1500ppm.
Clouds is the biggest unknown in climate change. The debate is obviously not over.
CO2 is not a problem, on the contrary the biosphere would benefit from higher CO2 levels. With that said, solar emits far more CO2, (during manufacturing, maintainence and when replaced) and is far dirtier than nuclear. Solar panels contain heavy metals including lead. All those panels need to be replaced periodically. How about when the sun doesn't shine, and at night? Zero electricity.
Ok, explain one thing to me, please.
At 5:08 we have the pictures of the Colorado River. In the 1950, even mountains were covered with vegetation. In the "today" picture, I can see that there is no vegetation on the mountains - they are "naked". As far as I know, Rivers do not flow upwards, so the reason for the lack of vegetation and the narrower river in the "today" picture are more scarce rainfalls.
Both the river and mountain vegetation suffered from the same source - but not agriculture.
Scared. Too many people. Too many forests being cut down. Too many cities. Too much farmland. TOO MANY PEOPLE!
Videos: Greening the Desert, Back to Eden, people: Allan Savory, Geoff Lauden....
I am participating in a project with my neighbourhood. We plant potatoes, tomatoes, etc...lot of work but free organic food in exchange...and if what we have too much we can sell and re-invest and maybe grow?!
There's the ticket. Relocalize. Grow gardens, grow community, grow awareness.
30 years ago before my marriage ended I enjoyed growing tomatoes around my house (Mississauga) and staked them out on the front lawn one year and a City guy said he just happened to be passing and noticed them & they are on City property by 6 feet (I never looked for the survey stakes & it's all my lawn but he was right) & he said no problem just remove the trellis & leave it but I noticed the guy across had his home for sale and I'm a contrary sort of bugger so I said no, I'll just move the plants & trellis 6 feet back to the very edge of my property and that's what I did (plus making the wood trellis bigger). I'm an ornery bugger.
we don't need to lower population. what we need to do is properly allocate our resources and use sustainable and biodiverse methods.
I feel that much of this problem, is that most people have no skills, produce nothing, create nothing, have no abilities, have no interests, are profoundly ignorant and even less interested in the world around them. Good luck making any changes.
Great points.
Memphis meats from cell growth a wonderful adaptation. Hydroponic growth in each community a more space conserving idea especially good during cold winters.
Where are you going to get the energy to invest in your technofix? Besides, hydroponic produce tastes like wadded up toilet paper.
"global discussion on global population growth"
There was a time, way back in the 60s when this WAS a topic to be discussed. Verboten today! Politically incorrect!
Without a limit to human population, there is no solution!
If you take a finite world and keep adding people the slice of the total cake (resources) available to each person reduces. Eat meat, go vegan is irrelevant so long as population keeps doubling. Eventually a finite world will be unable to provide for an infinite population. The rest of the arguments are just noise.
9 bil is probably his estimate of the carrying capacity of humans on earth which often estimated in the 5-14 bil range. There are a lot of phenomena that occur when a species hit their environments carrying capacity, anything from mass extinction to stabilization and strengthening of population. If you consider current climate change a largely human phenomenon then it could be perceived that we have exceeded our carrying capacity already and our environment is now reacting to balance the growth.
The final statement, “have to get it right” is romantic but has no basis in truth of any kind, in fact, the reverse is what humanity has always planned for. It’s a “I got mine, now you get yours” kind of world out there, industrial military complex(es) sit on top of the planet , injustice reigns.
I thought was going to a talk on how none of the doomsday predictions of the first inconvenient truth were even remotely true. My mistake.
Maybe instead of stopping animal agriculture, we should try to develop ways to effectively use and manage current meat land and property to use methane gas and other waste products for other purposes. In order to also use land better, more time and effort needs to be put into agriscience. We need food so we don't die, and, in order to allow people who's livelihood revolves around livestock, we need to focus on research and development so agriculture can survive, thrive, and be a viable option.
Shameful how he never even mentioned veganism, or even meat reduction as part of the solution.
+Austen Forrester I had the feeling all along the talk that this is the ACTUAL inconvenient truth he wanted to talk to, but was too anxious of telling it because people would get mad at him.
+Austen Forrester Actually he did mention it, around 10:30
+Austen Forrester Perhaps if I had children I would strongly push them in the vegetarian direction. But it is no late for me, I am hooked on meat. On the other hand, I have no children. Does that count for something in mitigating my environmental sins.
***** Wait when did China and India become the problem? The highest consumption of meat is in first world countries, that's where the real problem is. And no time in history has there ever been as high a meat and dairy consumption as the current day. Get informed buddy
***** no, I'm looking at average meat consumption in developing countries as opposed to first world countries. 33kg/year per person vs 72kg/year per person respectively
They could have left the Night satellite image up longer
use pause button
as long as you like
All that you said is correct. All kinds of pressures influence the willingness for new couples to have children. Instead of 6, you have 2 or 1 and not at 21 years old but at around 33 when the carreer is on track. :) Do you think this also happens in Africa?
yes, it does.
I no longer buy meat.
Also, I ride an electric kickscooter instead of driving a car.
The Actual Inconvenient Truth is that in order to address climate change in any real way will require a lot less animal agriculture and a lot less population growth ALONG WITH massive energy conservation and conversion to renewable sources.
If by renewable sources you mean anything other than nuclear fission, and the renewability of fissile isotopes, you are one of the multitude who do not realise that wind turbines are inferior to sail, and coal and oil drove them from the seas.
You aren't very smart, are you? You need to learn how to actually make an argument.
@@albertrogers8537 Clearly, replacing coal power plants with wind energy farms has nothing to do with coal engines winning out over wind energy in the shipping industry. The discussion is about sustainability, not power. Besides that, I agree that nuclear fisison has to be included in the discussion of clean energy sources once again. The industry has advanced a lot in the areas of safety, efficiency and waste, but unfortunately the public conscience is still with Tsjernobyl, Thee-Mile Island and Fukushima.
Or you can embrace capitalism and the innovation that inevitably comes. Thank you capitalism for making weather anomalies or climate changes irrelevant. Thank you for inventing new energy sources and creating human flourishing.
PS - the is no over population issue on the planet - we need at least 10 billion more people. However world population will top out at 9-10 billion unless islam gets its way. Western civilization do not reproduce and developed countries birth rates begin to decline.
If you were worried about human overpopulation you should embrace capitalism.
Energy conservation is absolutely wrong. We don't have enough energy. We need to create more energy, much more.
In fact i am eating boiled meat quite often and it tastes very good with salt only.
and it is not about replacing one food with another, simply we have big variety of choices and it is quite stupid to limit our choices for some absurd moral reasons.
think is if food is movie, and someone tells you that watching action movies are not acceptable you have replace them with comedies.
modern food is entertainment not just nutrition.
Lol you don’t have to boil meat to save the world. The world won’t burn because you learn to make stew.
What? You can get protein, carbohydrate, amino acids, fatty acids, trace minerals without ever eating meat. How do you think these things move up the food chain to the meat you do eventually eat?
It's going to be hard to justify feeding perfectly edible grain (these days more likely soya bean) to animals at an efficiency loss of 10:1 when humans in parts of the world are literally starving to death.
Oh no, wait - already do that. Nevermind, have another Big Mac.
He meant greenhouse gases emitted by humans. The fact that this amount is much smaller than the natural emission of greenhouse gases, is unimportant. The natural emissions are mostly balanced by natural sequestration. It's also pretty much a scientific fact that human activity is causing the amount of greenhouse gases to rise.
Land roads are the best ways for transportation in the future. We need to find ways of air transportation in the future
The first step is promoting adoption. Households with more than 2 biological kids should be taxed higher.
It would help to use a better map than Mercator projection. S America and Africa would look much bigger (as they are in reality) and drive the message home better.
9 billion people? I wonder if the earth can feed 9 billion people. Perhaps we need to think about leveling off population growth.
See if this works.. I have just blocked you.. I will also flag your comment
Nice try.
Tr Op good call
Tr Op You are a wonderful NAZI..... The Oligarchy is proud of you..... Ironically only the TRUE Christians will inherit the Earth..... Islame was created by the ROMAN catholic SECT so they will share in your fate. Ironically what is Happening on the Earth today is PREDICTED in the Bible.
Tr Op
Ah the word Bigot..... Incorrectly used by BIGOTS like you.....
Be of Good cheer the PROPHECIES are being fulfilled as we speak and there is not long left before the Return of Christ.....
Unfortunately for you..... It will not end well
Unless you get your act together and REPENT.
Jesus COMMANDED His people to STUDY..... And I do. There are DOZENS of end time Prophecies that have recently been fulfilled or are in the process of being Fulfilled....
The coming NWO being just ONE of them.
So many so.... That you will be WITHOUT excuse WHEN you meet Jesus.
Ciao.
Haha. Hard hitting truth you said; I also was thinking of it.
Especially in countries like mine (India), we really have to get the population down drastically, by some logically sound measures. I've a theory of allowing couples to conceive only when they're financially well off above a certain threshold. That way, the problem of the poor is solved, as well as the population. Also, a gap between having children would really cool down the population growth rate.
For a better albeit opposing solution, watch the other TED talk on this issue; "Allan Savory: How to Green the World's Deserts & Revert Climate Change". I find the other TED talk to convey a far more persuasive solution. Please reply back to me after viewing, as I'd love to hear others' thoughts on the matter ^_*
I find this talk not in contradiction with A.Savory. Definitely Savory short duration grazing methods could be a valuable input. And if J.Foley talks about debate around the big table - this could be one of many solutions on the table.
James Newlin
Maybe this claim of his, that he has found a silver bullet is not 100% accurate. But I see nothing wrong in using the solution nevertheless. The article You're citing here makes a citation of scientific paper (which is great) but misinterprets that in my opinion (which is not so good). I know that some people are convinced that turning vegan is something that can mitigate the problem that is mentioned in J.Foley talk and they are right. However You tend to do similar thing that A.Savory did and claim that You've found silver bullet.
None of You is right but You all got some point I admit. And this is good. Making many small changes is always more difficult than making one mayor one, but these small ones often give better results when combined.
Watch John D. Liu 's documentary on Greening the deserts.
I remember when toxic waste dumps were bad.
Now farms are bad. Sheeeeeesh
yes, now your dissension is bad and it will be stamped out! We need to abolish the 1st amendment in order to save the planet... haven't you heard?
even if I completely agree on meat free diet health benefits and I eat it rarely too I still want meant as delicacy to spice my life sometimes it just tastes good and modern humans have very few pleasures besides food.
considering that meat is about 10% of my diet, and plant-> meat conversion efficiency is aslo like 10%, so this 10% of my diet is equivalent to all remaining food I consume.
One of the solutions, dramatically increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide - which would increase crop yield, is seen as a climate problem. The climate brainwashing has to be overcome.
Also this: "Eat recycled food. Its good for the environment and ok for you"
We sure throw out a lot of edible food that at least used to go to pigs which would be eaten…
How do we feed an ever growing population sustainably that is on its way to 9 Billion people? One answer is Algae technologies (fresh and salt water varieties) that are capable of producing much of the Fertilizers, Feed, Food, Fibers, and Advanced Biofuels we need while simultaneously cleaning wastewater and capturing CO2. These technologies are not 20,10, or even 5 years away. They are ready to start deploying today.
its not about forcing it on people.People need to realize that resources are not infinite.If everyone in the world has more kids then they would have to fight for resources available. We can either say we will have more children and worry about the consequences later or we never make a mistake that we might want to set right. The ones who have to address the issue will not be us, but the future generation.i would not have that for my kids. Education will make this possible and Force is useless.
Good talk.
That's certainly one reason, among many, that'd make things difficult. How do you monetize "less" people? Another fundamental flaw in our thinking.
Its not new ag, its the oldest form Ive ever heard of. The early people in N America practiced a form of it. Monoculture, plowing, clearing, all of that gone. Encourage whats there naturally , and get some stuff comming to prime at different times of the season and year. Little impact on the land and other creatures while gleening a large varity of foods.
One question: Why does his vid say agricultural production needs could double or triple, when population is only going up from 7billion to 9-9.5billion? Thats like a 30-35% population increase. Shouldn't that mean in the same time (now and 2040) food production would only increase the same (30%) amount, or less?
Some good points, However, The initial point was that the numbers ultimately won't work. At some point, that projected 10 billion turns into 20, 30, etc etc...at some point the real conversation is going to have to occur.
So, if you are a farmer what can you do?
If you are producing food can you find ways to be more productive and less destructive in light of emissions and inputs?
Find out how you can gain the knowledge required to farm for the future and reduce bonus too.
We invite you to check out our store to find out more.
We recommend the Meeting the Challenge for Change by Dr Christine Jones
Vertical farming, hydroponics and aquaculture, would seem to be an answer. The caloric yields per acre are astounding, much of the energy can be delivered via solar on the roofs, and it isn't weather dependent.
You are correct, current consumption rate is unsustainable. But saying birthcontrol is an option is madness! Rapid population growth occurs in the global south and for us the west to say that they can´t make anymore childres is worse then them saying that we need to consume less :s. It woun't work, the only thing is to raise standard of living so people will get less children. 3d printing, fusion, nano techo, biotech, quantem computing and advanced robotics will help :) markets work bro':)
The US alone produces enough food to feed the world yet people still go to sleep at night hungry. My point: The speaker never touched the amount of food waste only stating that we have to find away to produce more food to feed a growing population.... so what are we looking at for future food waste and future greenhouse gas emissions?
I love you PC man!
It looks like Asia will be the most problematic area in the world for self sustaining.
Some parts of the world can do fine, like the American continent. Focus on self sufficiency instead of for exporting food.
Sure you know all those billions of farm aid the US sends to Africa and other famine riddled places on earth, yes lets do as you say and just stop that, lets just kill off over 100million people because of the Co2 we put out in the atmosphere that will kill no one ever in the future. Lets kill 100millino so we can save no one... good call there.
@@raffiliberty5722 there's a lot of talk about climate change. The fact is that in the USA there are very large farm land areas floded.. The corn season is over and there is 30 per cent less farming in corn.
As it is happening in other grain farming areas around the world as Australia Canada Russia. Etc.
So eventually the USA farming will be just good enough to feed the local population. So much left to aid other nations. Africa by the way has good land and if people over there make the right choices can become self sufficient.
@@raffiliberty5722 you are wrong . the government around the globe said it is CO2. However it is a big lie. The real problem is what is call THE GRAND SOLAR MINIMUN.
it is about SOLAR cycles that affect climate change.
Read about it get educated.
Get prepared because it does look very bad. In near future.
While that may be true, where will these billions more live and what happens to the quality of life? We have to remember that space is a resource.
It's not just food, it's biofuel, food for livestock, etc...
go aquaponic, hydroponic, vertical farming and put green roftops on every house. small wonder that agrecultural land needs more space than urban districts simply add the third dimension to farming and voila we have skyscraer farms if youre interested there are some startups in sweden and netherlands a.e.
How do we feed the world without destroying it? You don't, you feed your family and mind your own business!
The beginning of this talk has some good data but in the end this talk goes nowhere.
Of course, and some day that will be a relevant and pressing matter. But of the time being it isn't in comparison to other issues.