What would happen if everyone stopped eating meat tomorrow? - Carolyn Beans
Explore the possibilities and challenges of what a vegetarian world could look like if we all immediately stopped eating meat.
--
Imagine if a wizard of meatless dining suddenly appeared on Earth and with one wave of a wand wiped away all meat from our shelves- along with any desire to eat it. Farm animals destined for food vanish, whisked away to another planet. What happens in the following days, years, and even millennia? Carolyn Beans explores what a vegetarian world could look like.
Lesson by Carolyn Beans, directed by Mitchelle Tamariz.
This video made possible in collaboration with Speed & Scale
Learn more about how TED-Ed partnerships work: bit.ly/TEDEdPartners
A special thanks to Marco Springmann who provided information and insights for the development of this video.
Support Our Non-Profit Mission
----------------------------------------------
Support us on Patreon: bit.ly/TEDEdPatreon
Check out our merch: bit.ly/TEDEDShop
----------------------------------------------
Connect With Us
----------------------------------------------
Sign up for our newsletter: bit.ly/TEDEdNewsletter
Follow us on Facebook: bit.ly/TEDEdFacebook
Find us on Twitter: bit.ly/TEDEdTwitter
Peep us on Instagram: bit.ly/TEDEdInstagram
----------------------------------------------
Keep Learning
----------------------------------------------
View full lesson: ed.ted.com/lessons/what-would...
Dig deeper with additional resources: ed.ted.com/lessons/what-would...
Animator's website: www.mitchelletamariz.com
Music: www.campstudio.co
----------------------------------------------
Thank you so much to our patrons for your support! Without you this video would not be possible! Sydney Evans, Latora, Noel Situ, emily lam, Sid, Niccolò Frassetto, Mana, I'm here because of Knowledge Fight Facebook group., Linda Freedman, Edgardo Cuellar, Jaspar Carmichael-Jack, Michael Burton, VIVIANA A GARCIA BESNE, The Vernon's, Olha Bahatiuk, Jesús Bíquez Talayero, Chels Raknrl, Sai Pranavi Jonnalagadda, Stuart Rice, Jing Chen, Vector-Dopamine math, Jasper Song, Giorgio Bugnatelli, Chardon, Eddy Trochez, OnlineBookClub.org, Eric Shear, Leith Salem, Omar Hicham, Adrian Rotaru, Brad Sullivan, Karen Ho, Niklas Frimberger, Hunter Manhart, Nathan Nguyen, Igor Stavchanskiy, James R DeVries, Grace Huo, Diana Huang, Chau Hong Diem, Orlellys Torre, Corheu, Thomas Mee, Maryann H McCrory, Blas Borde, John Hellmann, Poompak Meephian, Chuck Wofford, Adam Pagan and Wes Winn.
i would like to see a TED-ED on What would happen if everyone stopped believing and practicing religion.
Hey 👋!!! I developed great interest on your comment... I would just like to know what inspired you for such a thought? No hate, just curious
I have thought about a world with PROOF of god. 100% undeniable proof. Or 100% proof he doesn’t exist. Either way society would never be the same.
@@atharvashinde1375 religion is what has partially ruined the world and its people. I would like to know what would truly happen if it didn’t exist.
@@benjaminlehman3221 never the same. Yes.
New one would prop up
Do another video of what happens if everyone just cut down on the amount of meat they eat by like 50%. Or even less, even cut by 25%. Because many people will say "I couldn't give it up forever" ( even in the comments here, many are saying it) but they don't realize that even cutting down would make a huge difference if large numbers of people did it. Millions of people going meatless one day a week would improve the environment more than a small number of people being perfect vegans all the time.
Go tour a slaughter house. that'll change your can't do attitude real fast
@@tf5pZ9H5vcAdBpI have? And it hasn’t?
i think even if people decided to stop preparing and eating meat at home but kept consuming meat when going out to restaurants that would be of great help, a change of habits is necessary
It should have been "cutting all beef"
@@chickenleg440it's just not true that eating less meat won't reduce emissions and thereby reduce climate change. Also it will reduce so much animal suffering
Dear TED-ED team, can you include your sources please? Thanks
Trust! Me!!!
Science! 🤣🤣🤣
Exactly!
The video description includes a link to the Ted Ed article with hyperlinked sources. It's definitely not ideal to do things this way, but it also took me only three clicks to get there without having to search endlessly.
@@kk-fo3zx I see it now, thanks 👍
I think it’s incredibly optimistic to think that a lot of the land used for meat production could be used for farming in the same efficiency. I also suspect those farmers who breed house and care for animals could possibly become destitute given the demand and price decrease of crops. I know it’s a thought experiment and eating less meat is a good idea in many cases, but this ignores a salient fact: 12% of Americans account for 50% of beef consumption. Have the actual externalities of meat production paid for by the producers and therefore consumers and the problem gets much easier to solve.
The average US cattle farm is 418 acres. Hoarding that much land requires a level of wealth that is guaranteed to be resilient to drastic market changes. On the subject of efficiency, yes, it would definitely take years for cattle farms to recover and be fertile for any sort of crop, as dense presence of livestock severely degrades soil fertility. What is incredibly optimistic IMO is considering anyone would a) get elected or b) sustain power in the US while holding a strong meat-taxing agenda, or that any other country or international organization could step in and force the US to solve this problem.
It's not the land used for animals themselves but the farmland used for growing the feed for those animals that can now be used to grow crops we can eat ourselves. If I recall correctly we're using way more farmland to grow the feed then that we would need if we grow and eat the crops ourselves instead of feeding it to animals and then eating their meat or products. Check our 2:07.
Do you think you can farm 300 milion cows on grass? They live in secluded areas where they are fed crops. These crops came from a normal cultivated land
Ideally our elected leaders would require the consumers to shoulder the environmental costs of animal agriculture, but that won't happen until and unless enough of us voters boycott animal products. If our leaders followed the model of discouraging smoking, an ad campaign would be the start, then the next step would be to eliminate the huge subsidies.
@lordalderan we do use the land for crops we eat. Any RESPONSIBLE land owner rotate their crops. Especially (in Canada anyway) the federal government is trying g to limit the use of commercially produced fertilizers. Livestock area critical role in putting nutrients back into the soil, as well as in the case with sheep and goats naturally controlling weeds. I don't understand the propaganda everyone is eating up. The only conceivable environmental cost to agriculture is the shipping. I hate to tell you this but shipping doesn't go away when we switch to vegetables. As for gasses produced by livestock. Although they may be composed of different gasses I'm pretty sure you pass gas too. I don't see anyone wanting to eliminate people because they pass gas.
As a vegan, I think someone named Carolyn Beans would predisposed to support a plant-based diet 😂
She was born for this 😄
Cannibalism
I should name my child steak then! 😂
She also forgot to mention that a meatless diet make people less intelligent over time.
This joke is good, which means you are not a vegan
This topic literally appeared in my passage 2 IELTS test 💀
LMAO imagine u saw this before that
OK
I like how she glossed over massive starvation.
Because it would be just a temporary problem, the long term benefits are the thing that matters here. AND - this is not a possible scenario at all, the whole point of this video to demonstrate how bad the meat consumption is for the planet. A possible solution would be a gradual (and maybe not complete) shift away from the consumption of meat.
@@evyats9127 wait a wizard can't just make all the meat go away?! Thanks for setting me straight on that one. I like how you also brush it off as temporary. This scenario would literally kill millions of people. The impacts of red meat are usually overstated as the studies usually require participants to eat red meat daily for a month or more. While that sounds delicious, I doubt that there are many people eating that much red meat. Those same studies have also found that poultry doesn't have the same effect on heart disease
@@evyats9127 Nonsense, this is one sided fantasy story
@@evyats9127 Yeah but define "Temporary" Months, Years? Also the logistical infustructure for incorporating plant based diets for dozens of different countries and cultures would be astounding. The truth is plant-based diets are only really achievable rn in the US, Europe, and other areas with a sizable income/infestructure. It's such a Western Centrist pidea. (and I'm PRO- plant based diet)
@@evyats9127you do that buddy. And give yourself a medal
Okay off topic kind of would the peanut (or nut) allergy rate go up or down? With more possible biodiversity and kids going outside or the demand that nuts replace proteins.
Allergies are caused by your immune system freaking out. Its not caused by eating too much peanuts.. actually allergies are more common in kids that live too clean and never got contact to the necessary microbes. Thats why its much more common in the modern world
The problem with plant foods is the high antinutrients they have.
@@Nja_kas”Although most plant foods contain antinutrients, when properly prepared, they are safe to consume. (7) In fact, some antinutrients have actually been shown to provide health benefits: phytates, for example, have been found to lower cholesterol, slow digestion, and prevent sharp rises in blood sugar. (8)(9) Moreover, most antinutrients can be removed or deactivated by soaking, sprouting, or boiling before consumption, and some traditional methods of preparation, such as fermenting, have been shown to increase nutritional value.” Keynutrition
@@carlostj4577but in this context, cholesterol would not be a problem, since there's no animal products anymore. slowing down metabolites and blood sugar spikes sounds like from fiber
but fermentation can increase the bioavailability, and could possibly remove the anti nutrients.
While I think the general idea may be correct, I feel like this is a more complex issue that can’t be comprehensively covered in a 5 minute video, which leads to generalizations and oversimplifications that are incorrect.
Examples?
I agree.
@@nickbowers that the land currently use for cattle to graze on isnt all arable soil that we could grow crops on. theres a reason its not used to grow crops, and instead used for pasture. they claim greenhouses gases due to livestock would go down, but the things those livestock would otherwise be eating, corn husks, stalks, shells, things humans cant eat that are waste product from crops, all of that would now actually become waste with no livestock to eat it, and so it would rot in fields and produce pretty much the same amount of gasses as from it being digested by cattle. If it doesn't rot and add nutrients back to the soil the other alternative is to burn it to get the same effect, but thats even worse for "carbon emissions". So rather than us feeding it to cattle, thus producing more useful food from waste, instead it rots and we get no extra food in the short term. it just means we might not have to fertilise the land as much. same with how they try to make claims about how much water livestock "wastes". claiming it olympic swimming pools worth of water. as if you cut open a cow and you get dozens of olympic pools worth of water spewing out of them. cows eat mostly grass, that grows from rain water, and then within a day they pee it out and it gets filtered through the ground into the water table just like the rain does. so cattle that grazes doesnt waste any water at all. unless you want to get your water out of grass? theres many massive over simplifications in video like these, that are just pushing an agenda.
@@ge2719 There is plenty of arable land currently being used to feed farm animals, plenty enough to grow human crops to replace them.
@@ge2719I understand your point but I can't agree completely. There's inaccuracies even in your statements and it's just because we don't know the whole picture from the ground level. We only get info which we are presented by someone passing on agendas.
I've cut down on some meat consumption personally, but chiefly anything related to cow meat. When I do have it, I consider it the rare treat. Small changes (in mindset) go a long way.
Absolutely! Any and all steps are still steps!
Yeah, I purposefully eat less beef than usual.
Me too👍. Shrimp. I love it🤦♀️. But, for the sake of all the sea creatures, I eat a fair amount oh, bout every 7 months to a year, and possibly longer. Needs to refurbish and allow for other animals to have food. I recently got a little frightened bout tuna, as Tuna are big fish that "Feeds many" and reminds of the man body CHRIST, and makes me wonder if it represents cannabalism🤦♀️. IDK, but baby steps in the understanding GOD department for me also🙏
Same. I think my household has more fish and chicken than beef. The closest I had to a lot of beef was the big game burger at arbys last month. The patty was 33% was venison, 33% elk and 34% was beef. Lol. I had one once a week. Lol.
I will do the inverse for you
Now make an episode about what would happen if rich people stopped using their private jets to go shopping.
There is research that shows that eschewing animal products for a year is about the same as not flying for that year.
I can imagine some people would think whatever that effect was that then eating meat isn't as bad or selfish. "Hey, richer people are doing damage! Let's all point our greasy fingers at them while enjoying our bucket of chicken wings"
@@NigraXXL richer people are doing damage.
@@NigraXXL It's about the hypocrisy. Literally the people who come to lecture people about stop eating meat clear away huge spots of forest to build their mega mansions, and fly private to climate summets and meters away decend from their cars to ride a bicycle for the show. This has been caught on camera. Look it up. (I am by no mean denying climate change or the effect in cattle on it).
In India vegetarianism is less expensive than meat, I've most eaten veg food my entire life and feel perfectly fit.
Good for you but a lot of people can't become vegan or vegetarian for health reasons, such as diabetics or people with auto immune diseases like myself.
@@dork7546 I wish I believed you except I’ve heard so many people use this cop out that it would appear the majority of all humans have auto immune diseases. Maybe I’d believe you if you actually disclosed what that issue was but I understand why you’d want it to be vague. But, sorry, all the same, I don’t believe you
@@dork7546bullsh1t
What's your currently weight?
@@timsim1178 what’s yours?
A slightly different version I would be curious about is what would happen if people stopped eating/using livestock, but the animals were still there. While some livestock are capable of living in the wild, others would not be. If humans stopped having a need for them, would we gradually just let them go extinct?
Farm animals have been selectively bred for maximum profit. They are genetic freaks that would have a hard time living in the wild. If they eventually die out, the wild animals they were bred from would continue, especially since ending animal ag would free up 75% of the land now needed for food production! Think American bison instead of cows, for example.
yes...
Most would likely re-adapt to their original habitats, in much much lower numbers (closer to what there was before)
Most domesticated livestock are no longer capable of surviving in the wild. Humans have selectively bred them for their purposes. It's also true of most agricultural crops too.
Given that not all countries have soil that can sustain the crops needed, and the limited shelflife, you also have to consider import/export. Places like Mongolia, as you mentioned, cant support its population with vegetables cause the geography wont allow it - and i can promise you they likely would not be able to afford the rising prices. Some countries have mountainous regions where animals can graze, but where it is not feasible to grow crops. Then there is the matter of the soil itself. Crops need to be rotated, and can be susceptible to disease. A few years of bad harvest would mean starvation for most people around the world. Especially in places that just does not have the specific farmland needed to grow crops. Climate also affects where fruit and vegetables can grow. Massive greenhouses might need to be built, which hinders the insect pollination you describe. Land once used for livestock will likely be used for other things, not go back to the wild. I dont think biodiversity would flourish. There is also the matter of... livestock help heal the land when they graze on a field that is resting in between crops. The use of pesticide would surely go up, and not down?
Everything you mentioned would be as a result of crop agriculture increasing. The thing is farmed animals (especially cows and pigs) require more crops to sustain until slaughter than people do to live. So if we stopped eating meat crop agriculture would also go down even when accounting for crops replacing meat in our diets
I agree, many areas of the world cannot support commercial crops of fruits, vegetables or nuts. People fail to realize how hard it is to raise those crops vs raising livestock, not to mention the environmental risk needing more man made fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides.
@@fyukfy2366 You've missed his point completely. Agriculture is NOT the same thing as animal cultivation. These peoples cannot utilize agriculture, they rely on natural grazing to generate their food.
No, the use of pesticides would not grow. A lot of grains and vegetables are destined to feed farm animals.
I think this video should have been "What if we Cut Down on the Amount of Meat we Eat?" instead of completely removing meat entirely. People that can easily eat a meat free diet should attempt to lower the amount of meat they eat. While places and people that are more reliant on meat can maintain their current levels.
I was Vegan for about two years and with eating the right things to get all my nutrients and I still had trouble with Iron deffencies and feeling weak. I agree with the concept of eating less meat, however, I feel some of the information in this article may be outdated and does not bring up the impacts of how certain diets (especailly Veg and Vegan can impact individuals differently through out their life span and development (impacting hormone levels in puberty). It will be interesting to see what this channel puts an update video to this with more peer reviewed scientific data
All the peer reviewed scientific studies have a general consensus that a vegan (not even a vegetarian) diet is fully sufficient including for iron deficiency. Please look at the sources and do your own further research.
No, veganism has been proven extensively to be nutritionally sufficient and even reduce the risk of many common chronic diseases as well as all-cause mortality risk. There are many vegan sources of iron that are easy to find. If you had issues with iron that is a problem with your planning not reflective of a vegan diet as a whole. I would recommend you to do some more research on this topic.
Agree. And to protect the environment there are many other ways we can do like choosing bicycles in our daily life, I believe celebrities and their private plane emit far more than cows lol.
@@schnappi-su4pd you believing does not make it true though. I'm not trying to diss you, just genuinely trying to discuss a point here. Scientific evidence says otherwise. Animal agriculture plays a huge role, definitely bigger, in climate change and global warming than celebrities flying in their private jets (that's horrible too but one is more damaging than other)
For all those who claim a strict vegan diet is sufficient in all nutrients, I would love to read their sources, I mean, hard evidence please.
I think what really isnt an advantage of a worldwide vegetarian diet is the loss of food culture in many countries and the lack of vegetable production in some regions. Privileged rich people in developed countries could switch to vegetarianism anytime they want, but people who dont have the ability to get vegetables as easy as them wouldnt be able to and it would clearly make a negative impact to problems of food supply and hunger.
If you've ever been to "poor countries" you'd know what cost more between meat and vegetables.
Yes. Mainly those areas that have rugged, non-arable terrain will have food shortages. Livestock farming in these regions supply food and fertilizer to the soil via animal droppings. We would also require more petroleum-based fertilizers to supply all the plants if there is no more manure to put on crops.
I'm from india where, some regions are very poor. Poor people cannot buy non veg items as they are not cheap. Most of the poor population sticks to rice, pulses and egg.
@@anjalimishra1483 you can't say about the whole India. If I talk about restaurants take-outs then veg is costlier than non veg in tier 1 cities.
@@cunningfox1798 that's not true at all. In no place vegetables can be costlier then meat.. they might be feeding you crow there😂
Coming from a mainly vegetarian country that is India, most of our population suffers from protein, iron and vitamin B12 deficiency. Large scale corporations polluting the environment and using unethical means to attain capital should be held accountable, instead of guilt shaming people who eat meat.
Umm🙄 This is meant to be thought invoking and truth seeking. If people have a guilt complex because of meat eating,, that's their problem 👍. Legumes are high in protein. 👌. 🙏
I'm a Indian too and I absolutely agree with you
Based 👏
in all major studies performed on large pop samples, vitamin b and iron deficiencies are just as common in those who eat meat as they are in those who don't. those two specific things are very much related to the absorption, not the source. as for protein: that's a myth. most ppl today eat TOO MUCH protein bc of the amount of animal products in their diets. most humans can get everything they need from a plant based diet.
@@iclite3656 no no, no guilt complex, just tired of vegans riding their high horse, their is a difference in how our body process plant based protein and animal based protein, even if it wasn't their the amount of carbs to protein ratio in legumes and eggs or chicken speaks for itself. It's not our complex, here in india their are certain regions where meat is eaten normally and regularly but there are major places dominated by vegetarians and they literally guilt shame meat eaters, my father faced those issues and i was practically brainwashed into being a vegetarian, luckily i tasted meat once at a party when i was 14 and since then i haven't looked back :) later on i got into sports and boiled chicken and eggs have been part of my regular diet since then!!
what if we turned into pescetarian or reduce meat something like a weekly or monthly thing instead? how different would our life be?
Well, for me meat eating is a monthly thing so yeah, I'm already following ur advice🌝, it has always been like this for me🌝
Fish populations are also on decline. The ocean might by huge, but it is still finite, and especially the areas where fish can thrive are limited and already overexploited...
Just to rebut the pescatarian thing. Our waters are already overfished, which is causing so many problems, not just environmental but human conflict. This would be a short lived solution if people aren’t reducing meat intake but replacing one type of meat for another in the same volume/quantity/demand. Remember our population is now 8 billion. It’s doubled since 1975, half a human lifetime ago. The reason going plant-based is the most viable for feeding the population is because 80% of the world’s farmland feeds our livestock, which represent only 20% of our calories. As the kids would say “the math is not mathing”. We would have more food with less farmland if we decided to not eat meat or source it more sustainably like indigenous communities. The problem is industrial animal agriculture.
I would love this video but with more hypotheticals about the negatives that comes with this scenario: Would corporates mass plant some greens, leading to sickness and mass death of insects? Would grass-eating animals be hunted down the same way wolves and cheetahs are now? Those types of inquiries.
Agreed, the campaign's goal shouldn't be going "meatless" but reducing consumption and waste wherever possible. Either end of the spectrum is not sustainable.
Simple answer, yes. If there's an opportunity, someone will take it.
One thing people don't understand about meat consumption is that it isn't only about meat. To produce meat you need to feed the animals, and to feed the animals you farm enormous parts of land. The land required to feed so many animals is actually more than what you would need to feed a full vegan human population. These are just facts. So, the area of farmed land would on the contrary decrease.
How would humanity cope with the lack of protein and calorie dense foods? How could we ever cope with the impossibly large freshwater usage. Agriculture is the largest freshwater drain of any nation.
@@BioTheHuman grass aren’t farmed
It’s a complicated topic. Not all foods are produced with equal cost of water, fuel, labor, time, and pesticides. Not all foods produced humanely. Human trafficking (kidnapped slaves to farm), child labor, destruction of environment (not just fishing or live stock, vegetables farms destroy environment too), animal abuse ( method of production can be very disturbing- check Foie gras). Nothing is perfect.
and to feed those animals we are doing more of that "not perfect" farming
2:23 I’m vegetarian and I wonder if deaths due to red meat are truly significantly higher than overeating sugary and processed food.
It's not. It's a psyop to get you to eat insects and be miserable.
It's not. Recent studies have shown that they overestimated how bad red meat is. In moderation, eating LEAN red meat grilled or baked (no frying) is perfectly healthy to include in your diet. Sugary and processed foods however are far worse leading to far more obesity and the many health issues that come with it (including heart disease)
I think it's more the fact that lots of people (usually in western countries or people with higher incomes) eat way too much red meat, a small portion is fine but eating large amounts of only the choice cuts of meat is the biggest health risk as far as I know
Use 10% of your brainpower and figure it out: what's worse between the most nutrient dense food, and processed, artificial substituants with 0 nutritionnal value ?
@@Stapler42 eating junk food, smoking, drinking and not exercising are the main issues. Red meat is healthy.
This feels like a very superficial examination of only one aspect of livestock farms. Animals are used for a lot more than just food, and this completely glosses over everything else. Here is a sample: violins, footballs, drums, antifreeze, surgical sutures, organs for transplant, marshmallows, wax paper, margarine, butter, crayons, paint, rubber, lubricants, candles, soap, cosmetics, shampoo, jello, leather, etc. There are also medicines made from livestock, such as insulin. There are a lot of industries that would grind to a halt or would see prices skyrocket as their supplies were normally in abundance as a byproduct of our food production. Some might argue that we wouldn't lose dairy milk, but the scenario said all animals that were eaten get teleported to another planet, and dairy cows to get slaughtered for their beef when their milk production declines, so they're all gone to another planet. Also, in order for the greenhouse gases part of their scenario to work, the animals can't be left here alive, so we're probably also losing all sheep so no more wool.
All these things can be made without animals. Many of them already are.
Thank you
it will be great if you make a video on recycling of cloths. most of us don't even know that how throwing away multiple clothes on land fills leads to increase of methane. so recycling started but still the issue was not much better as expected. it has its merits and demerits. we'd love to see all this related content together in an another informative video.
The content is a little too biased, focusing on the meat problems, but not in the plant based system problematic. But the idea behind is really good and others scenarios could even bring more interesting reflections around the topic!
You mean the plant based system to feed farm animals? You mean the 500g plant protein to get 100g meat protein? The same 100g protein that could have get straight from plants? The plant based system to produce the unnecessary 400g protein? Go do stand up comedy.
Plant based food systems are not problematic at all compared to animal based ones. The way the video is presented is extremely unfair to a plant-based food system imo. They mention things like cultural/religious ties to meat, anglers losing their jobs, communities losing their way of life, and an initial spike in plant based food costs. These things are only because they chose to present it as an instant switch. All of the positives of plant-based are still true in a long term change. All of the negatives are only true in this contrived scenario that won't happen. Also I don't even think the cost of plant based foods would rise...? We grow alfalfa, soy, and feed corn for animal feed. In this scenario those still exist. Humans aren't used to eating alfalfa or feed corn, but they're perfectly edible still.
What are you shilling for the beef industry?
You all are lacking some interpretation skills and letting me worry... I wouldn't reply, but I think it's better to... I never said that the meat industry is perfect or made a comparison, I simply said that the plant system can also have problems, but the video chose not to talk about it, what it is also a problem.
How many people are expected to die of starvation in the first two years of transition in the countries like Mongolia, that do not have enough crop growing capabilities? Will the rise in costs cause other people to also starve? Given our current distribution capabilities, how much food can we move to those areas? How long will it take to build enough distribution networks to get grain and produce to every person who needs them? Earthschool needs to add a couple of contrarians to their focus group to ask these questions. Too many like minded people at that table make for a very one sided story narrative.
Also, would the global shift to plant-based lead to an increase in pesticides and fertilizers? Pesticide increase could further destabilize pollinator communities and more fertilizer use would increase pollution of waterways and algal blooms.
This are concerns that only affect the hypothetical scenario of a sudden disappearance of all meat produce. In reality, any change would be more gradual and avoid a rapid destabilization of economies. Furthermore, small, specific communities continuing to consume meat produce would probably not be a problem, the main issue is a global over reliance on the consumption of meat.
Considering we already have enough food for everyone and don't distribute food to the areas that need it, I would expect that many more would die from this sudden change. It's a logistics and money problem not a production problem. However in the long run it would likely reduce land use, emissions, and health issues. It's just a thought experiment and they also outlined that many people who rely on meat would struggle/perish.
@@eklectiktoni Animals are fed vast amounts of crops so no. You would actually use fewer land and plant fewer crops.
You just import. Transport is marginal when it comes to a food's GHG emission, bulk of GHG comes from production itself.
My question is: what do you do to supplement B12 to those who can’t afford artificial vitamins?
B12 is in plants .
Not to mention Omega 3, which is predominantly found from fish
@@survivorofthecurse717 omega 3 is in seeweeds. Thats how fish consum it
They will just suffer from B12 deficiency
@@sevinchravshanova4861 nope just eat a healthy diet and you wont.i pure vegetarian and guess what i dont. My b12 levels are completely normal. I make sure to eat pulses veggies(not green ones much) lentils fruits wheat and rice..
vitamine B12 is only found in Animals and fongus. So we also would need to consume a lot more mushrooms or yeast.
No B12 is also found in yoghurt.
@@AnnanypratapSingh i should have clarified "animal products".
@@AnnanypratapSingh😂😂and yogurts come from yes animals
@@khatabayoop1613 it's about not eating meat. I don't think yoghurt is meat, yeah ?
Not a problem with eating more fungi/yeasts/mushrooms. Or just take a suplement.
red meat is crazy expensive nowadays, i cant even remember when i was able to eat one. i raise chickens so meat is no problem but veggie prices are beginning to rise same with fish, thats why i limit my diet with local produce only. im not complaining but a change is always welcome.
Do one about what would happen if we stopped extracting oil.
Animal farming comes to a grand total of 14.5% of greenhouse gasses. Construction has a much larger footprint. By some accounts construction is over 4 times as large as that of animal farming. This is like arguing over a dime and ignoring the quarters and half dollars in the cost of a dollar meal.
Greenhouse gasses by themselves are a small part of the problem. If we could just remove ALL emissions, but not change anything else, we would still be heading for self-destruction. We simply use up too much land, destroyed too much of the biosphere, and we use resources faster than they can regenerate, while disrupting the natural carbon and nitrogen cycles, diminishing or stopping the ability of the regenerative processes we depend on to continue. Diminishing our footprint , which switching to all plant based would do, would buy us some time. But ultimately we not only have to diminish our footprint, but also gotta change farming practices and ditch fossil fuel fertilizers it seems, and be more integrated part of the cycles of the biosphere for our long term survival, based on what I've heard recently from biologists, ecologists and people that have worked in agriculture and the mining industry.
Sources plz
@@sor3999 Find the source six months later - lol start here with the US at 10% www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions and do some digging on cement and concrete, they are sneaky about hiding the impact of construction on the environment. Instead of totals they split it up into parts.
Imagine a world without cheese
Sheogorath wouldn't stand for such a thing.
FYI, before modern era, People in Southeast Asia do not eat cheese or other dairy products. And that is the reason why most of the people from that region are lactose intolerants. Even now, Southeast Asians do not eat cheese in regular basis. I am a Southeast Asian myself.
@@Sahrul-qr2nmNO, we might not consume cheese regularly, but we definitely eat a LOT of dairy products, from milk,curd,ghee to cottage cheese which don't involve killing an animal 😅 (and we have been consuming dairy products from generations, but not the ones like cheese or other western dairy products)
@@whybhavi where are you from? You sound like from South Asia. South Asians do really like to consume dairy products. South and Southeast Asia is different. They have cultural exchange tho. But still different. And milk and dairy products are not that "big" in southeast Asia compare to south Asia.
@@Sahrul-qr2nmYeah that's only an Indian thing, our "dairy" subsitutes come from foods likr tofu and soy
What does the proverb the word hangs in the air for a moment, both a promise and threat mean?
Don't we need vitamin B12 whose source is basically meat OR multivitamin pills?
There are many many non-meat sources for B12 vitamin, these include: Dairy, Eggs, which are vegetarian and have plenty enough B12 to get your recommended amount. Or Mushrooms, Spinach, Yeast Products (Like marmite), or fortified cereals (Many store bought cereals are already fortified) which are all vegan. Also B12 pills aren't exactly unhealthy, I don't know why there is such a stigma over taking a vitamin pill if needed.
I've never heard anyone pronounce integral that way...but I looked it up and apparently the word has two pronunciations...still disturbing but...okay lol
The whole "replace land for livestock with crops for a net zero change" is pretty iffy. Livestock are also fed on wild pastures, which would have to be replaced with crops if the land is even arable enough to support them. All those crops also require just as many pesticides as before. A lot of deforestation is also for clearing land for soy or palm tree plantations, which would continue even without livestock. Getting rid of meat production would certainly reduce some stresses, but they are underselling how much crop production would increase to fill the void. Like mentioning that switching to crops will reduce respiratory issues related to livestock, but completely leaving out the similar medical issues associated with pesticides.
No, the land used to grow livestock includes all the land needed to grow their feed. It requires a lot more land and resources to grow livestock and their feed for them to eat throughout their lives for people to eat meat than just eating vegetarian food to begin with. It's incredibly inefficient.
@@ocean6462 A significant chunk of the world still feed livestock using pastures. In fact, pastures are by far the most common land use by area because it takes a lot of space to support the livestock. Even in the US, about 30% of our land is pasture for grazing livestock before they are “finished” with grains at feedlots. The majority of global agricultural land is not for growing grains for feed, but open grassland for grazing that is otherwise not suitable for farming. One of the major advantages of livestock is that they can turn otherwise “useless” grasses and shrubs on infertile soil into edible protein. There are also a number of ecological benefits to grazing livestock that they just ignored. In the US, we could probably get away with just eating the corn that would otherwise be used to fatten up livestock before slaughter. This would not be the case in many other parts of the world that rely on pastures all the way to the end.
Do one like “what happens if billion dollar corporations disappeared”
Technology vanishes.😅
Say goodbye to your beloved internet, computers, cars, and everything you use everyday
you really want to go down that road?
I'm sorry, pesticide use would drop? It would be quite the opposite! What do you think pesticide is used for, keeping fleas off of pigs?
Most pesticides are used in growing food like hay for animals. More area is covered by food crops solely for animals than humans. This is because less than 10% of the calorie intake of animals is passed to next in the food chain. The pesticides used in those crops are more dangerous to soil due to lack of regulations for what and what not animals are allowed to eat
I have one another way to help the world, is to eat local food. Cut down most of the transportation of food products.
Yes, but not all local food provide the most nutrients and sometime ironically, local food could be more expensive than imported food. That's gonna be a huge problem in Japan as 87% of the Japanese market is imported goods/commodities.
@@ariahri12 That is a very nice point you got there. Probably would be something I’ll take account on my later comments. The thing that I had considered about Japan was just “what if Japan doesn’t export fish to the world?” But I haven’t thought about “what if Japan doesn’t import food from elsewhere?” Yet. Thank you to point it out and make the comment section a place it meant to be.
@@MattDoesNothing tru tru bruv keep it up too!
Yeah not really. Transportation accounts only to a small fraction of GHG emissions, especially from meat. And generally, "hamane" farming is worse for climate change than industrial farming, which is sad thb.
Silvopasture systems were once common in Hungary and often had greater biodiversity and other combined benefits of forests and grasslands. Woody steppes were similar until cut down by the late middle ages. Ruminants raised on pasture (especially forested pasture) pose a real threat only to the larger carnivores in the region. Why this is not something to just shrug off, it is also not a deal-breaker in any way - except perhaps for scale. This holds up even in regards to human-caused climate change as all livestock account for about 15% of anthropomorphic greenhouse gases. And don't get me started on tilling large crops for calories. To sum it up: the problem (ecology-wise) really is not with eating animals, but with the way they are raised and the portion which they make up in our diet. Also: the video quiet graciously skips to "oh, food prices will drop down again". What exactly could happen in the meantime? This is a far more complex problem than just some dietary change.
Its not just eating whats better, its eating whats right. Like most green veggies get bacterial infections more often than root veggies & fruits Most of those bacteria are going to be inside the green veggies, while root veggies are usually peeled and fruits are grown at the tops of trees, green veggies are eaten as is And also they dont contain as much nutrients as much as root veggies & fruits Root veggies are so dense in nutrients that you could chop it and regrow it as much as you like (I did it once with an onion and it worked) Fruits were already designed to be eaten way before human intervention Theres a reason why fruits are sweet meanwhile you have to dip celery in ranch dressing just to eat it
I hate this kind of "what if overnight everything changed" scenarios because they are unrealistic and also they completely miss the point. Any major change to civilization done overnight would be highly disruptive, but also, other than wars, not a lot of major changes happen overnight. The real question is whether transitioning toward a meatless or a low meat civilization would be beneficial in general and the response to that is a resounding yes. That's the general direction we should be moving toward.
"eat the bugs" copium
It would be very beneficial for the planet if population of human beings starts decrease to at least 1950s numbers.
Realistic scenarios aren't interesting because people would've and can generally predict what will happen with fair enough accuracy.
@@lookstothetroonMy bet is the OP doesn't have the muscle mass to open his favorite bottle of soy product.
That's not true. Look at Maui. Look at Canada wild fires. Look whats about to happen to Maine via phillippe. GOD can change the landscape here in the blink of an eye💯💯💯GOD is AAWESOME💯💯💯, and scary...BELIEVE🙏🥰🤍🐝
Meatless world fine. No cheese? I’ll start the riot myself.
Cheese are from diary animals lol. Unless you wanted to make cheese from 'human' 👀
@@zenedhyr7612 🤮
No milk too and no ghee...
Life without cheese is not worth living
@@nsevvmilk and ghee doesn't involve killing an animal or injuring it (atleast in india).
We’d also be dependent on artificially produced creatine since plants produce ZERO creatine. Our bodies naturally produce it but supplementing that is necessary. Be interesting to hear her take on that
Vegan diet does not give as much calories per volume, so for every land area of dairy use greater land area for plant based production is used up for equivalent production.
simply false, if that were true, literally the laws of thermodynamics would be disproven.
The tricky part is to erase the desire to eat meat. After a week, I crave it. I think about it actively. Luckily beef is so expensive here that I can't even remember when I consumed it the last time. I still strongly believe that overconsumption and wasting food are way worse problems and both of these are waaaay easier to change in the positive direction than nullifying the meat industry on a global scale.
I am a vegan of 5 years and a vegetarian of 9 years now and I LOVED meat. I ate so much meat, and I thought I would miss it forever .but after some time the craving stopped completely. Also there are so many products that go in that direction nowadays that I don't feel like missing out. I sometimes miss eggs and cheese tho, not gonna lie. There is no vegan cheese yet that really captures the essence imo. I heard they are developing some pretty promising vegan eggs tho, so I am excited for that. Most of the time I am happy with the "normal" vegan food tho, there are so many delicious options :)
@@kn7892 there is a reason our ancestors ate meat and weren't focusing on making "vegan cheese"
@@chickenleg440 our ancestors also used to live in caves and die at age 30. if your argument is that all our ancestors did is the right thing to do today that's ridiculous. we don't have to eat meat today, that's a fact.
@PretendingToBeAHuman They don't have to be required to do it. All you have to do is take advantage of their greed. Companies are profit-driven and will not turn down an opportunity to cut costs. If donating left over food waste was encouraged through tax incentives, those corporations would change their tune real quick.
i was vegetarian for 3 years and a little more. I did like it at first, but I went vegetarian at around 14 or 13. My family loved meats so they were confused. Some supported, but for the most part I was struggling. I would barely eat food and when I did eat a good meal I was very happy that I didn't eat meat. My problem was back then is that I didn't know to properly cook vegetarian foods, or even know how to be "vegetarian". I was just following the rules of it. I think if people learned more they would understand. Oh, and another big part that switched me back to an omnivore was that I didn't have too many options eating out. I got tired of the same meals and wanted something new. It would be better if vegetarians had more options eating out. At the end of the day I chose to go back, and I don't really regret it. I don't even eat too much either, maybe a bit of chicken during a tuesday and the meat on the weekend because I go out. Other than that I just eat yummy grains and veggies
It certainly got easier to be vegetarian than ever, lots of good substitutes, lab grown hopefully keeps progressing. I know plenty of omnivores, who have 1-2 day of vegan a week nowadays, because they like the taste and option. Most important is to be aware of what we eat, nobody needs tons of meat to be healthy, it is being overconsumed.
I applaud your efforts, and I know how challenging it can be to avoid meat and dairy. But with the internet, there is an endless supply of information and videos on how anyone can prepare simple, quick, and affordable vegan dishes. There are even online courses that show how to plan meals, prep your food for weekly meals, and even grow your own food indoors. It may sound noble to say that you only eat a bit of chicken or meat each week, but keep in mind that it is impossible to take a bit of meat off of a chicken or cow without killing the entire animal.
@@Bruced82 I got tired of it
@@pathfinder1273 Yes, that’s all true, but like I said I got tired of having the same options. If you wanted to get something fancier then it’s expensive. Not many options when going out with family. Yes, animals die but that’s honestly just how life goes. I have a chickens and I’m aware everyday when I go out to take care of them that I literally eat chicken. It doesn’t bother me, and it’s ok to not want to be pescatarian, vegetarian or vegan. Some pescatarian, vegetarian, vegan meals are great and taste amazing. But I’d rather not be dissatisfied, I’d rather be happy. And if an animal dies but makes a meal more enjoyable for me then that’s great and they didn’t die for nothing.
@@uhhuh9773 Perhaps you should have specified that you were vegetarian for the sake of convenience. Its common to assume that people who post on a video like this have an issue to address, and not just share some trivia. For example, they are concerned about the suffering of animals, about which you couldnt care less; or they are concerned about the environment, with the same result for you; or they feel strongly about health issues, again a big zero for you. But you just wanted people to know that you did something and now you dont.
02:48 I don't understand. Habitat loss is due to clearing of forest to make way for farmlands, and farms use pesticides too.
You cannot use any kind of land to grow vegetables, you need land that meets a specific acidity and has the necessary minerals. Almost only grass can be grown on a lot of the fields used to feed cattle and sadly we cannot eat grass, unlike cows
For all the statistics about greenhouse gas emissions in this video, they don't provide one in the context of other sources of greenhouse gas emissions. While there are many environmental benefits, the greenhouse gas emissions from not eating meat would be barely noticeable.
Here's an even better version that doesn't misrepresent the problem. What would happen if we replaced all industrial agriculture with a sensible diversity of sustainable alternatives? That means ending feedlots, slaughterhouses, etc as well as ending the monoculture crops of corn, soybean, etc. Those highly destructive monocrops don't just feed livestock but also are essential for many ultra-processed foods including tofu and 'textured vegetable protein' and many meat substitutes like Beyond Meat. There are enormous areas destroyed by these monocultures, with no animal life, no soil life, overuse of chemicals, synthetic fertilisers (from fossil fuels), etc... but they could be restored to functional, healthy, productive, biodiverse ecosystems through proven regenerative farming practices. At the same time on a smaller scale, many people could be growing much of their own food. Surplus can be shared with neighbours & friends. All this helps build local resilience, restore community, provide real food that's actually nutritious, etc. We could help to facilitate all of this, to make it more accessible for more people, for example through education and seed sharing programs. Very, very cost effective for governments! Families might have a house cow or a couple of goats for dairy, if they want. Some families might choose to keep a few chickens for eggs. Again, surplus produce can be shared with friends & neighbours. These animals can be eaten at the end of their life, or their nutrients can be returned directly to the garden. And throughout their life, they've provided fertiliser... this is an essential part of the process of growing food, and a lot of it needs to come from animals (or from fossil fuels). All of the above results in fewer 'food miles', lower emissions, less energy required (from either fossil fuels or renewables), less reliance on fragile global supply chains that are themselves reliant on geopolitical stability and climate stability (among other unreliable requirements) Yet another benefit of this approach is that the population is not beholden to a few billionaires owning the entire global production & distribution of food (or food-like products).
Because you cant feed billions this way. Your idea is based on a romantic idea without any knowledge of the reality of this system (we had it in the past). Any droughts or pests and your entire local production is gone. You dont see the world wide food shipping that is used in modern days to cover our supply. In the system you describe people just used to starve.
Your idea, given the current population, is impractical. You're aware that many families around the world, consisting of four members, are squeezed into tiny flats smaller than 30 square meters, with both parents working over 50 hours a week, right?
@keeyip319 Yes of course I'm aware of a very wide variety of living conditions around the world. I'm not saying it won't be a very difficult transition. But the alternative is far, far worse. You may have noticed that there are more and more families squeezing into smaller and smaller flats with less and less ability to escape their circumstances. These problems-and many others-are only getting worse... because that's inherent to the current system. Let me say it another say. What is the current system doing to improve the lives of those people? It's clearly failing them. My proposal is much more likely to improve their lives. I'm just proposing that we primarily focus on wellbeing, rather than focusing primarily on wealth and then seeing if we have any money leftover for people's wellbeing.
@@keeyip319 This idea is *more* practical, it's the *transition* that seems impossible.
2:16 what is the surface currently used for meat production that is effectively usable for agriculture ? Oo
1:00 this is stated so many times everywhere but it's fairly untrue. The diet may contain all the nutrients, but if they aren't bioavailable (if we can't actually get the nutrients, even if they are there) then we still get deficiencies. We're not herbivores, we don't have the digestive system required to get all the nutrients. We're not carnivores either. As well, mary of the protein-packed vegan diets are difficult to sustain, either because of the large volume of produce required for the same nutrient, or for the difficulty to culture the produce. It's far more helpful to accept we need animal protein since they are dense in the nutrient and is bioavailable to us, and think of the least damaging way to farm it. Reducing cattle and dairy farming is a good start, prefering chicken is nice, thinking of adding alternative sources of animal protein might be the only sustainable one as we approach 8 billion people, like insect protein. Either way, we gotta eat way more vegetables and legumes. For fruits we still need to be carefull, many modern fruits are jammed with sugars, about 300 grams is good. Fill yourself with the veggies, legumes and whole grains, about 100 grams of meat daily and that's it. Get some dark chocolate for dessert, its iron content is bioavailable.
Yeah, this is my take, as well. Personally, it's incredibly difficult for my body to go completely vegetarian. Tried it a few times with monitoring of proteins, etc. and still I run into vitamin deficiencies fairly quickly. -Massive fatigue -Dizziness -Numbness -Heart palpitations -Vision loss -Hair falling out And those were the times it was under a nutritionist's care saying that "all humans can go vegetarian".. he changed his mind after watching my decline. My theory is, that it works for some human bodies, but not others. Now eat 3oz meat 2x/week, local, farm-raised and "happy". It's expensive but the only way I can get by without massive amount of pills and shots.
@@circa1890actually we don’t really need animal protein. There are so many sources like legumes, nuts, grains and seeds which are very high in protein and carry so many other important nutrients. Also you wont get that many more nutrients from meat. Most difficult for vegetarians or vegans are iron, b12 and selen which you can all get from supplements or for example oats or enriched food. Funfact most meat/animals are also supplemented to get those nutrients when they are consumed. Why not supplement ourselves directly? Yes, you have to be more aware of your diet but you should be anyway as most people even those eating meat are having deficiencies. I agree with your last words though. That should be a key takeaway for a healthy diet. Meat isnt bad in low amounts but it isn’t necessary either.
@@Lukas-sq3ws Honestly, yours are the exact words I thought, before trying to go vegetarian. Even with a nutritionist's support (two different ones for 2x trying..) still I was a mess - even with all the vitamins (the expensive ones) and shots. I've met others in the same situation. We just try to limit out meat intake and purchase only high quality and non-factory farmed meat. This isn't really shocking. Every body genetically has its specific needs...
@@Lukas-sq3ws You're right, those non-animal sources are definetly high in protein, but most people cannot digest them completely to absorb it. They lack the correct amount of amino acids, which is what allows the digestion. Some people are lucky and can digest, others cannot. Depending on suplements doesn't help either, what you're discussing is a very modern diet which is currently unobtainable by many countries and even the poorest of your neighbours can't supplement their diets. We need to stop pushing vegetarianism blindly. That push gives many corporations a blanket excuse for animals abuse and miserable lives: "If you don't like it, just go vegan" is their excuse. Many people can't go vegan. So, we have to fix how animals are farmed and how to completely honor their existence by using everything they can provide. Reducing consumption is essencial, we have folks eating 500g of meat because 'they fill you up and it's yummy. Don't like it? Just go vegan". A proper nutricionist can help you calculate the best diet for you and if you can reduce -or even eliminate- animal protein from your diet. We need to understand that this isn't a default setting for humans and start discussing global and individual solutions.
@@Lukas-sq3ws don't you think that the prevalence of vitamin and mineral deficiency in vegan/vegetarian diets point to the fact that humans are evolved to consume animal protein, at least to some degree? You also need specific amino acids (protein sub variants) that are only found in meat and are not produced by the body. Meat tends to have a well developed balance of these aminos that make them easily digestible and nutrients efficient. I wouldn't force anyone to eat meat tho if they didn't want to, just as if I wouldn't force them to not to.
These days, it's more expensive to eat red meat so I only buy poltry at most once a month, milk twice a month and eggs once a month. Used to be "full time" vegetarian for 8 years until I moved to another country (because I thought vegetarians were frowned upon here...turns out its a trend) now I'm 75% vegetarian and eat meat like once every other day. It's not much, but I do what I can and I feel like if everyone just ate meat "part time" we might do some change to the world.
You might be zinc deficient
Wouldn't pesticide usage actually go *up* instead of down because of farmers wanting to protect their newly grown crops from pests and insects that would otherwise destroy them? Plus what if you have dietary/health needs that would make a vegan/vegetarian diet unhealthy for you? How is someone with anemia supposed to get their iron? It's mentioned briefly in the video, but it's kinda of glosses over that a LOT of cultures/areas where meat consumption is an important part of daily life would suddenly be left out in the cold if this scenario would to happen. What's an island nation supposed to do when they suddenly don't have any fish or crabs to eat? What about groups of people living in the mountains where the soil there isn't conducive to crop growing? Are they just meant to go hungry? I know this is all just a hypothetical situation, and the video even mentions the things I already talked about, but the way it presents this situation kinda makes it sound like a vegan/vegetarian diet is the *only* way to go forward in terms of majorly reducing greenhouse gases without fully taking into consideration what that would mean on a larger scale or what the ramifications would be for certain groups of people.
🛑FACT🛑 Most plants 🌱 r full with poisons ☠️ to protect them from predators like humans🤏Such poisons kill humans slowly 🤏
Im a vegetarian and im all for this motion but you didnt take the b12 or iron deficency into account. The production of vitamins would increase as well, wouldnt it?
Add vitamin C (lemon juice for example) to your iron-rich plant-based foods (legumes, lentils), and your iron deficiency will most likely go away. Unless you suffer from heavy periods, in which case the alternative is to supplement, just like soo many meat-eating women have to supplement.
One question though … how would you fertilize the land ? Natural fertilizers come from cattle waste soooo that would mean we would need to synthesize it which is not a very good idea …
Disclaimer. This comment has zero significance. Just wanted to express my feelings. I have no desire to stop eating meat, eat cheese or drink milk. I completely understand that this the negative way of moving forward and I see the video as really educational on this topic. I believe this leads to the view we have on the life on Earth for future generations. My question is now. Should we really make the life better for future generations or could we just end the humanity with us? I see the end of humanity as a huge advantage for Earth as a whole.
Imagine if half the population of North America started eating half as much meat as they do now. That alone would effect some big changes... Meatless Mondays!
Este es un punto de vista demasiado optimista. En un mundo como el nuestro, donde hay sobre producción con ánimo de lucro y se tiran toneladas de comida al día, si desapareciera la carne lo más probable es que apenas cambiaría nada. Aunque en la actualidad más de la mitad de los productos no-cárnicos se destinan para la alimentación animal, esto no impediría que buscasen la forma de aumentar la producción. Y eso supondría que destruirían bosques y ecosistemas para agrandar las granjas de cultivo, tal vez aumentarían las dosis de pesticidas para asegurar la calidad del productos, y lo más seguro es que experimentarían genéticamente con las plantas para aumentar el tamaño del producto y hacer que sean más longevos.
Wait... I am all for eating meat in moderation and support this move in gradually shifting from a meat based diet (Not entirely, of course). But a major flaw in this video is where it is claimed less pesticides would be used... How is this so if we are increasing our plant based diet? Also, would we not substitute land for farmed not meat foods? Would habitat loss increase slightly due to certain non-meat food being less calorie dense? Again, I am all for increasing our plant based diet but facts and statistics are key in finding a balance!
I abstained from all meat for months and I felt really weak, even though I was eating super diverse and taking supplements. I learned that my body really needs meat. End of story.
You probably need some time to adapt that’s it. You don’t need it.
People’s diets are already pretty messed up in the west, I can in no way believe a majority of people would find a protein dense substitute to hit their goals when a huge percentage of our population is overweight
Insects are protein dense so you wouldnt need to eat much of that to replace eating meat.
@@Micaelangel07 yeah no way the western pallet is eating insects, also insects count as a meat lmao
Y'all would rather eat cockroaches then brussel sprouts lmao@@Micaelangel07
bean
A diet of pure potatoes has enough protein to survive. Beans and grains in moderate quantities have enough protein for even the highest performing athletes.
Good luck farming crops on wet land or dry land. Most crops are very specific if it comes to arable land. Grass will grow almost everywhere and cattle is not bound to seasons. Thats why people eat meat and drink milk.
If we are growing more crops, then we could be using more pesticides, so things might not be as perfect as you say.
Right because meat doesnt require any crop land.. cows just appear. The whole point is that we can stop growing all this corn and soj for animal feed and instead use it directly for humans. Most of our farmland rn is used to feed animals to be killed. Its vastly innefficient
More crops are grown to feed livestock, in fact if people stopped eating meat then less crops will be grown. What do you think livestock eat? Air?
I remember something like this in my Biology class and that to replace the protein that we now lacked, we would have to eat legumes but it must be in a balanced manner because eating too much legumes can cause "Leaky Gut" but I guess given enough time, we might evolve to get pass that issue naturally.
Soybeans are another great source of protein and atleast in my experience, it doesn't have any unpleasant side effects
@@sarveshpadav2881 Those are also legumes I think
"Leaky gut" is a pseudoscientific term
@@sarveshpadav2881I can't digest soyabeans at all. Been there, done that. My stomach literally screams pain with gases.
@@plant8912 ah!...didn't knew that....thanks for the info! so, ig legume intolerance is like an allergy which is limited to certain fraction of the population.
They do not contain all essential nutrients like all necessary omega 3 fatty acids or vitamin b12 (only one algae contains it and it would have to be especially harvested for that purpose). If vegan diet is not correctly balanced then the bad ratio of omega 3/6 lack of short chained sat fatty acids and improper food preparations like frying will still increase cardiovascular diseases +lack of supplementation of vit b12/d3
B12 and vitamin d has to be "fortified" into meat and dairy.....
@@MrAngrybaldguynot true.
PREACH 🙌
@@MrAngrybaldguyvitamin D12 for example is only prevalent in meat. Beef in particular is heavy in that vitamin. Humanity did not cultivate livestock over hundreds of thousands of years for fun, we did so out of dietary necessity
Oh what a tangled web someone weaved, when they practiced to Deceive😬🤦♀️.
The arguments that meat consumption is so bad for the planet is a bit of a lie as it depends on what the livestock has been fed on (and other factors). If it is grass that humans could not eat, the livestock is using land for food that couldn’t have been used otherwise. If they are being fed food, then it is worse as then more land is having to be used to grow food for them. It also mentioned greenhouse gases, though it only lasts for 12 years in the environment (source: IEA), and it all goes back into the ground. So in reality the emissions are sort of neutral.
To get a complete protein diet with all essential amino acids, we need to take combination of plant food sources instead of single animal food
No one's saying you have to just live off lettuce. Rice and beans (very cheap and eaten daily by a significant portion of the world) has all the essential amino acids.
There are plenty of plant based fortified foods available. Even meat eaters lack nutrients easily, when they have little veg stuff in their diet.
And i thought someone stole my chicken.... 😌
As someone who was raised not to waste food (if possible), seeing how much food on shelves goes to waste makes me sad. I know many places take it to feed the homeless, but for animals especially, much of the butchered parts get thrown out for their muscle. I feel like many meat-eaters do not consider eating parts like organs, feet, tail, or head which are the main pieces that get thrown out. At best, they get sold to local Asian markets if there are any. I have heard that home-butchers try to utilize all the pieces of an animal though and my parents would sometimes get sausages and livers from them.
News flash; Produce is also wasted. Grocery stores throw away produce almost on a daily basis. It also rots really fast, it arguably rots faster than meat because it's never frozen.
I live on coffee and pop tarts, I'm ready for the steak free future
Lol
😂😂😂
It makes me think about how eating less meat can help our planet. It might be a bit tough at first, but in the end, it could be really good for us and the Earth. It's a complex issue, and finding a balance that works for our health and the planet is crucial.
Those who eat no meat are the healthiest, based on the Adventist Health Studies. They also live about 8 years longer than meat eaters in the same religion.
I don't eat meat because I don't want to, but because I can't afford it😂 hope it can help our planet
@@strawberrydome If you switch to a fully plant based diet, it would be the most effective single change you could make to reduce your environmental footprint!
@@someguy2135 because I'm still a teen, i still needs fishes once a week to grow up, but I will try my best!😊
If you don't go fully plant based, boycotting just beef (and preferably also dairy) would have a huge effect! Raising cows has, by far, the biggest negative impact on our environment in animal ag.
"So over thousands of years..." Bold of you to assume humanity won't go extinct by then.
How does habitat loss, pesticide use and other pressures from agriculture subside if you need that land that once belonged to cattle to grow more vegetables and fruits? You need pesticides to keep the pests away and I don't know how it prevents habitat loss when more food to grow requires deforestation? also, the fields are probably going to be mono
the land that was used to grow food for animals will be available to grow food directly for humans, which is way more efficient, so we would need less space. this also means there is no reason to need more pesticides. and also, before it wasn't mono?
@@kn7892Not really, just a few cows can feed hundreds of people yet you would need thousands of veg to feed just a few people. Therefore, yes you would need to build more fields to feed an equivalent amount that an animal farm used to feed. Let's not forget that the grain we use feed animals is a lot easier to grow requiring few pesticides compared to veg grown for human consumption.
You don't need as much land, that's the point.
@@m.ahussain4005 Yeah pal that is not true at all, and there is a much greater yield when it comes to crops per acre vs. rearing animal flesh.
@@m.ahussain4005 You don't count a cow vs number of plants. That doesn't tell you anything useful. You check how much resources, energy and land you need to produce equivalent level of calories and nutrients from plants vs animal tissue. And plants come waaaaay on top.
This video fails to address that animal can consume crops (grass) that grow in areas that cannot support any other crops. Looks at the areas that support cattle (Montana, Wyoming, Texas). The rainfall in those areas will not support a similar caloric content of crops like beans and vegetables. But hey, let just ignore that to push this personal preference.
In 1977, I visited a commune in Tennessee. They were vegetarian, and everyone seemed healthy and happy. It's the vegans I try to avoid. No dairy or bee products seems a little too far for me.
There will be a time when future Humans will look back at us asking themselves, "How could early and even modern humans eat meat of animals?" Those humans will recognise that even plants have "feelings" and will treat them accordingly. Surely, they'll be different from us, even in the biological sense. As artificially produced meat and food will take hold, even the digestive system of humans will change. We won't fart any longer.
What about the demand for, production, and use of pesticides and insecticides? How will it affect other animal populations? I might eat more chicken and less beef though.
The video states that pesticide use subsides (2:49)
@@Simonheide I don’t know if I agree. Wouldn’t increased crops demand require more pesticides use?
@@gminors Agree, if crop demand increases. The video states that crop produced for livestock exceeds our demand if turning entirely vegan, hence the overall production decreases.
That's a nice way to say most farm animals will be near extinction levels unless we keep them alive.
Farm animals were created by us with selective breeding, they did not exist in the wild in that form, they are quite apart from their original ancestors, so this point is moot. Not even taking into account there are way too many, and they often suffer greatly, they'd rather not exist at all.
I don't think we really need to worry about this. With climate change, more and more crop fail. With crop failures, there are less and less excess crop to be used as fodder. With no fodder, these animals will not be bred anymore. Of course, realistically there will still be some, just that most people will be priced out of buying them. Thus, the problem will resolved itself. So I believe you should eat as much as good thing as possible now because most probably you can't later.
In my country most of ppl are vegetarian myself I'm 99.011% vegetarian 💙✨
Where do you live?
Where?
Indians bruh 🙃
@@darshitagarwal7085 really ? I love india. My favorite country. They really treat animals well.
Because of massive overpopulation, historically been impoverished,and for cultural and religious reasons.
I think its a bit too positive like when you gonna tell me the downsides or are you telling me there are no downsides which is very suspicious
They did? They said that cultures that rely on meat would suffer. That’s the only downside XD
Most land currently used for live stock can not be used to grow edible food for humans, which means a loottttttt more land is needed to sustain humans on just veggies, which means a lottttt more water. There are a lot of down sides but people like to ignore it.
@@nadeembakr9082 you do realize that food has to be grown to feed animals…. Right? Think of factory farmed chickens- they have to be fed grains! Grains we could eat instead XD
@@hollystop or you know chickens could eat things like worms, insects, berries, grasses, or even small rodents
@@chickenleg440 thats not what chickens are fed though.... we raise BILLIONS of them every year.
Huge increase in the need for fertilisers and sprays to grow all the plant based food but hang on, the veggies all want ORGANIC food. That only works with mixed farming with livestock providing the soil fertility. You could, instead have rotations which leave the land fallow for two seasons but I thought she said much less land would be required for agriculture? It is widely accepted that a purely vegetarian agriculture would require 3 to 5 times as much land to be used for arable crops because much of the land used for livestock is not suitable for anything other than growing grass.
Important facts have been left out. The beef and dairy industry may only count for less than 20% of total calories, but it probably accounts for way more protein, which is just as essential as calories to living a healthy life. That protein could not be replaced by plants as easily as the calories could be. In addition, this video does not take into account the carbon cycle. The carbon that cows give off comes from the plants they eat. And every year, all the plants needed to feed cows are grown. The plants are full of carbon from the air. The exact amount of carbon that will be released by the cows. It’s a cycle. It is scientifically and morally wrong to construe the data to say that cows produce all these emissions each year, and ignore that the industry takes just as much carbon out of the air with the feed that it grows.
Bad news , they also provide a small part of the protein. 80% of the land use, 35% of the protein (all of animal agriculture, not just cows) . Per land use, per water use, per resource and energy use overall, plants take waaaay less to produce equivalent amount of protein, calories and all necessary nutrients, compared to animals . Especially when compared to cows. The difference between the two is ridiculously large. And agriculture in general, including the animal agriculture part actually disrupt the carbon and nitrogen cycles of the biosphere as things are currently done, at the scale that they are done . Collectively all human sources of CO2 and other heat trapping gasses , currently exceed the rates of absorption , so the cycles are disrupted. And taking out animal agriculture is one potential way to diminish some of those. Of course most come from heavy industry , but it is still part of the puzzle. Biosphere processes and geologic activity already produce enough CO2 to sustain plant life. We're adding a bit too much on top of those, disrupting it. Especially since we also destroyed so much of nature, diminishing it's ability to make use of those gasses. And since we need a lot of land to re-wild, and animal agriculture takes ridiculously large portions of it , could be useful to free up that land for re-wilding.
Oh boy another video bashing people for the climate crisis rather than the governments, their decisions and policies.
it’s because they want you to do your part first like a responsible inhabitant pf this planet and then point a finger at others
@mpavanee1642 How dare I eat meat whilst the poor multi million corporation keeps pumping literal poison into the atmosphere. Truly we who struggle day by day to make ends meet are the ones to blame, not the massive industrial complexes overproducing and causing over 60% of the emissions.
When so much magic is required to solve a problem, it's not a solution
Actually, there is no magic needed. It is as simple as just stop eating meat and other animal products. The majority of people can do that, they just don't want to. People struggle to understand how necessary (and good) it is. And being part of the problem is definetly not a way to solve it.
Isn't some vitamins only come from animal source food? Why the narrator said we can get all the nutrition from plant based food?
Unfortunately, that would be bad for many pets. Most of the nutrients that cats and dogs need can only be found in meat like chicken or beef.
Oh boy I’m sure this comment section is gonna stay civil😅
🛑FACT🛑 Most plants 🌱 r full with poisons ☠️ to protect them from predators like humans🤏Such poisons kill humans slowly 🤏
Global meat industry is worth more than trillion dollars, dairy a little bit less than that, big players have a monopoly basicaly, they can spare some change for bad actors...
Malnutrition would happen. The focus should be on restoration of prairie grasslands and fixing the corporate industrial livestock industry. Grasslands are more biodiverse than forests. This video is focused on dogma rather than much deeper understanding of human biology and our ancestral diet of hunting and gathering. These people are not going to declare processed carbs, sugar and glucose to be the insulin spiking poisons they are because of the big money agrabiz. Who sponsors your research???
Malnutrition, that’s a silly and outdated claim from people that oppose a Vegan philosophy and plant based diet. There is no “big broccoli”, that’s trying to get everyone to go Vegan - however, there is a very large agricultural industrial complex, known as the meat, dairy and egg industries, that are fighting tooth and nail to spread industry funded research, to keep people from knowing the truth. Follow the money - much of it leads back to some very unhealthy business’, based on cruelty and propaganda. This planets wildlife would be gone quickly, if everyone went back into hunter gatherer mode. Humans thrive, and rid themselves of many western diseases on a whole food plant based diet. It’s time for the human race to ditch these outdated practices.
How would pesticides reduce?
3/4th of arable land area of the world is used for pastures. Keeping these pastures free of developing parasites/tics/insects that can damage skin/wool/hair of the domesticate or cause diseases is a big problem. Pesticides. fogging, bogging, etc are currently what's used to prevent this and this takes much more that what's used for farmlands. Note that in a farmland , if a few patches of crops had resistant variants - they can be burnt and in a few days the land can be good for fresh growth with no impact to existing growth. However, if a disease ( eg avian flu) is detected in even one pasture of a town . Then other pastures are culled too which is a far greater cost than over using pesticides or stronger ones. So if this global dietary transition can happen and animal produce can be made into a luxury item, a lot of such issues can be fixed. I hope it helps. Cheers!
I just don't buy the part about us being able to get all we need from plants. I've witnessed the ailing health and obvious physical lacking in so many vegans and I've listened to other nutritionalists who really say the opposite. I was a vegetarian but I got sick and started eating meat again. Do people (esp. in the USA) eat too much meat? Most definitely. People eat too much in general. I would like to see a video about reducing by half - or even just cutting out fast food retailers portion.
I stopped eating meat over 2 years ago and I also eat chicken and some types of fish. I do have lack of iron every once I am year, and yes I am skinny as duck 🦆
I went vegan 6 years ago and before then was vegetarian. Honestly it's always been a part of my life, I grew up vegetarian. Personally I would recommend trying it, especially if you have problems with cholesterol or heart problems. Doing your own research is always helpful in looking at other people's views. You don't have to listen to me, just floating the idea :)
Is it possible to feed the entire population with plants alone? How much do you have to produce? How many hectares of land should you cultivate?
Livestock animals consumes more grains and seeds than humans
Carolyn Beans "a biologist turned science reporter" who would've thought...
Those health benefits and global footprint reductions sound great, but I’m trying to imagine living in a world with only vegan pizza restaurants and vegan tailgating parties. Vegan family reunions. That sounds miserable 😢
Reality is that every living thing needs another living thing to survive. People get to choose what they choose to eat, after all, vegetables are living things as well. And that's a fact.
So is it ok to eat humans? I mean if we're valuing literally all life as the same...
vegetables are living things but not to the extent of animals or humans...so, technically your correct and incorrect at the same time
@@donnie9001 life is life, we humans give more importance to some life over others, but at the end of the day, it's just life.✌️
@@fyukfy2366 Don't be childish. All forms of life are energy and chemistry. Now, what value humans give to different forms of life is another story.
The one thing that most of these videos get wrong, that for ra split second I thought this one was going to get right: Much of the land used for raising livestock can not be used for growing crops. Anyone who has spent anytime in Utah, Nevada, and even some parts of Texas, know this.
90% and maybe move livestock is not fed on grass land.
Why would pesticide use subside?