40% of the US population used to work in farming... Now it's only 2%
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 06. 2024
- Dr. Sean B. Carroll is a distinguished biologist and esteemed author, acclaimed for his groundbreaking research in evolutionary developmental biology. He holds the position of Professor of Molecular Biology and Genetics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and is the Vice President for Science Education at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Dr. Carroll earned his Ph.D. in Immunology from Tufts University and is renowned for his seminal work on the genetic foundations of animal development and evolution.
His research, which merges molecular genetics with evolutionary biology, has provided critical insights into the processes driving evolution and biodiversity. Dr. Carroll is also an accomplished author, known for his influential books such as "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" and "The Serengeti Rules," which effectively communicate intricate scientific ideas to a broad readership. His exceptional contributions to science have been recognized with numerous honors, including election to the National Academy of Sciences, underscoring his significant influence on both research and science education.
In The Netherlands we lost 85% of our biodiversity compared tot the 50’s. Mainly due to large scale agriculture and pesticides. Not sure if its better..
I mean, I agree in essence, but in a world closing in on 8 billion people, the main priority is just having food I guess. The downsides of no population management I suppose lol
Things can always improve from where we stand today but I'll take the present scenario over the 1900s or 1950s every single time. Society at-large advancing beyond subsistence farming is a huge win for civilization.
@@acs78393 that’s not as bad a life as it sounds, like look at work engadgment stats from Gallup, at least then your actually engadged with the start and fruits of your labor. Engadgment would tech be higher in that way of life.
Well let’s just all abandon our office jobs and get back to plowing fields busting our hands open while earning a 10th of a minimum salary then, if you care that much about the environment to the point of rejecting modern agriculture and agronomy.
@@Gustavovisk21 higher engadgment though for sure
but global soil health is shit due to use of synthetic fertilisers. agriculture is one of leading drivers of climate change but also one of the most affected.
Actually, the real reason for the increase in food production is the use of a huge amount of all kinds of farm machinery that are all powered by FOSSIL FUELS.
The chemicals have changed yields very little. It's mechanical harvesting that has allowed such growth.
Thanks to our sponsor, Monsanto.
Monsatan.
You know, everyone picks on Monsanto (now owned by Bayer), but what about Syngenta and Corteva and BASF? They all have herbicide tolerant and insect resistant traits. And what about GDM? They do too.
@@msseedlady2587 sure, F them, too.
@msseedlady2587 true. It's big business. I think it has to do with visibility. Monsanto is known for taking farmers to court over seed copyrights, so they get more news coverage.
You are not wrong. It’s not the GMOs that are harmful it’s the herbicides
at increasing cost to the natural world, on which we all depend
The spin from that statistic is wild
yeah I truly did not expect it to go that direction
It is because of tractors and other machinery. What use to take 30 workers, now takes a 30 foot swath.
It's because the inputs are chemicals instead of sweat.
Look up world population for 1900. Just look it up.
1.6 billion @@matthewensign9683
@@matthewensign9683quadrupled
chemicals have better taste than sweat
Dude, “sweat” wasn’t very productive all things considered.
”We have a right to expect that the best trained, the best educated men on the Pacific slope, the Rocky Mountains, and great plains States will take the lead in the preservation and right use of forests, in securing the right use of waters, and in seeing that our land policy is not twisted from its original purpose, but is perpetuated by amendment, by change when such change is necessary in the life of that purpose, the purpose being to turn the public domain into farms each to be the property of the man who actually tills it and makes his home in it.”
“No nation has ever achieved permanent greatness unless this greatness was based on the wellbeing of the great farmer class, the men who live on the soil.”
-Teddy Roosevelt
When he said that, about 40% were in agriculture, it's astounding how different. I don't know how you had that quote so handy, but I'm glad you posted it ❤
I sure wish we would get back into that mindset about our forests. I'm from the Kettle Crest, part of those Pacific slopes, and unfortunately we are losing billions of trees to fires from fire suppression (fuel piles) and heat waves. It's a fatal harvest.
@@Moondog1109 If you have suggestions for methods, theories, strategies, etc. please share, I'm always looking and listening for ways to better the situation. Trees are the lungs of the earth. I'm glad to hear from someone who lives up close to the situation.
200 years ago it was 90% of the population that worked the land. 5% distributed what was produced, 1% owned most of it and the rest administered things.
I don't buy this video
nothing to buy, its a simple fact
Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it's not true.
Better nourishment with a vid of sprayer... pesticides are poison... weird short
I work in Agri .. That’s actually a timed crop water sprinkler ..
Then why we still hungry.
In the US, almost nobody is
Some are hungry, more are consuming too much food.
I think that's more of a distribution problem rather than a supply problem. The problem is real, though, and should be solved.
Define “better”
Is large amounts of unhealthy foods better? I think there is still much room for improvement
I want someone to invent a new vegetable,one that if you eat it your health gets restored back to 100%
Bullshit
And then we waste 38% of that production according to USDA and other best estimates.
Interesting. Im reading a book called "A Square Meal, the Culinary Històry of the Great depression. It mentioned that in the early 1900s there was a mass exodus of people leaving farms. Mostly younger generation farmers.
In 1908 Pres. Roosevelt alarmed by this created the "Country Life Commission" to investigate. The commission found country life was still going strong but a lot of people were leaving because city life offered more financial and intellectual opportunities. The country in general was starting a shift toward city life and that trend still continues today.
The mass reduction of farm workers wasn't BECAUSE of machinery, automation, etc, it was actually a cultural shift. People just wanted more. Schools were offering views of city life that was appealing. People had the opportunity to do more, learn more and experience more.
Quality of food reduced thus reducing ours
What is the Quality of Our Food from Commercial Farming, I think Some Victory Gardens would be in Order, at Home, in Community's, Know where Our Food 🥑🥝 comes from
I don't know about where you live but, there is a whole lot of produce stamped from other than USA here.
Pretty tough to grow a mango at the 49th parallel.
A whole lot of that is also because Mexico exports a load of their crops to the USA...
It's poisoning a lot more people too.
Which is the reason people live way longer I suppose
'better ways to fight off plant diseases'?- somebody please tell him we have already lost big share of biodiversity 😔
yeah, and that we are breeding food crops with decreasing natural resistance to pests and disease, since the focus is on shippability, uniformity, and shelf life, instead of robust genetics
@@sunshinemonsoonOn the top of lost biodiversity, then with this tempo we are going to have one type of potato, one type maize, one type tomato etc. Homogeneity will be widespread. Is this what we want? My answer is no
@@inchaaliyeva1504me neither!
Thank you..this is somewhat reassuring..
One more thing: the proposed improvement of safety in food supply to be tossed in this comparison is not justifiable. A) there is not data to proof food was objectively and significamtly more unsafe in 1900. There is a trend when measuring from our current point of view ...just concluding that back in time things must have been worse. But fact is this:
For detailed statistics and a more direct comparison between the years 1900 and 2024, historical records and modern databases would need to be consulted. The data from the early 20th century may not be as comprehensive or reliable as modern data due to the differences in data collection and reporting standards over time. However, it is clear that there have been significant improvements in food safety regulations and practices since the 1900s, contributing to a safer food supply in the USA today.
B) After WWII severeal 'improvements' like seeds and plants used to produce bread containing more gluten (helps against plant desease and insects to a certain level) were looked at being such an improvement. Today we know that long term this significantly aided to cause overweight. JUST LIKE ...allowing endless lore sugars in all sort of products. Food safety is replaced by 'safe' food... causing food addiction, chronic deseases and lack of health and fittness of people... There are stats proposing in 2050 highly overweight people in proportion to people in the us with a normal weight will be 2:1. So here a question: Did we come a long way making food more safe or making more people than ever in history chronically unhealthy and ill than ever before...?
Let's not forget the 15% that we import and the 13% that suffer daily from food insecurity.
No, we don't enjoy a more secure food supply.
38% of people no longer have direct access to the food produced (the supply chain is just in time and if it were disrupted 98% of people wouldn't have access to food), the aquifers have been depleted, the volume of production is more dependent on fertilisers, pesticides, fungicides, insecticides, herbicides...
In 2023 the US food exports were worth $143 billion. Same as the Netherlands.
how many people when you consider supporting roles like transport, fuel, fertilizer production, who manufactures and maintains the equipment, the various industries to make the various raw materials and parts...
Dont have a horse in this fight but the guy said the food supply is more *secure* not necessarily better.
Its unfortunate that the poisons we have introduced to increase efficiency have lowered life expectancy from 85 to 76. Additionally, male fertility has been declining at about 1 to 2 % per year over the last 50 years as well. I suspect the food we eat is the primary reason
Better?
The agriculture in the US is terrifying!
Why, because machine's are doing 38% of the work. The previous 38% were mostly mixed with forced labour, bad human rights environment.
That's true agricultors now think that their work is the cause of providing more food for people .😌
We have lost a lot of biodiversity, skills and social connections in the process though. The food production industry is impressive, but it’s far from perfect. The brutal exploitation of the land, environment and animals is overlooked for a quick buck and it’ll not go on without heavy consequences.
Our food supply is also more poisonous in the US too
The 100+ years of massive improvements in agricultural output comes at a price - much higher levels of background pollution, aquifer depletion, microbial-dead soils, & an unsustainable population explosion. The global population in 1900 was 1.6 billion and in the USA was 76 million (both around a FIFTH of today). Learn all you can about the consequences of OVERSHOOT & you will appreciate that the good times have been and gone.
I take the point that this short (assuming that there is not a full video) is Not worthy of Big Think for the reason of providing incomplete information around the placement of farming in the bigger (eco)system as some have already mentioned. Yes; food security and productivity have increased which safeguards direct food needs NOW, however the trade off of the production means regarding water use, pollution of chemicals and loss of biodiversity is likely to undermine food security over the long run. Moreover is there a self enforcing loop on the dependency of automation and ‘conventional’ means (conventional specially marked, as the dependence on chemicals is regarded normal nowadays, which is to me a toxic standpoint; i’d always like to compare the situation of conventional farming with a human being that is regarded ‘healthy’ that depends on a particular amount of medical drugs to keep their body in balance) due to the economic system that initiates a race of economy of scale and cheaper production where ‘general’ farmers in a global system are mere price takers. Second point is that the implicit promise of cheap food of politics for consumers is strengthening this loop. One could take the standpoint that food security could become a problem when switching to more extensive means of production (opposite of intensive), but that could create food scarcity. However, continuing this system of technical innovation or use of Genetically Modified Organisms, is very likely to only push the problem of potential food scarcity further in time, in a world with an even bigger population based on demographic projections (EVEN with a higher food consumption and land-use due to increasing welfare), and therefore creating a bigger share in potential famine over the long run, as a result of large scale crop failures. Such failures may then be arising from i.e. water shortages, or even water abundances (as a result of changing weather patterns due to climate change) or increases in pests due to resilience of pests to pesticides. Moreover even the loss of self proficiency in food due to the lack of knowledge on farming, spatial regulations in city zones (and the majority of global pop. living in urban) for example or the low financial incentive to start growing ourselves, are making this problem of food accessibility ever more potent for an ever larger share of population and therefore bigger risk of the so nowadays notoire risk of dying in one’s physical life.
With a high likelihood of failing crops in the long run, as substantiated above, it is politically and socially wise to dedicate an increasing share of our money, effort and time in regaining and learning methods of farming that include nature and strive for natural balances without external dependence on synthetic means. - the reason for natural farming systems is an ancient proven method that holds human society within ecological carrying capacity, while connecting us spiritually to our home planet and our origin, with psychological benefits as a free side effect. However, strong political lobbies that connect with strong monetary greed are keeping these providing systems in place. The question of food security asks for extreme nuance and requires a critical view on how such systems relate to other socio-financial and ecological systems that are in place. However, such nuance does require deep levels of thinking and are easily debunked by simple, linear thinking politicians that are used by those who benefit monetarily from their power positions. Thats my share.
How have health and nutrition have deteriorated due to over harvesting and use of chemicals in this "more secure food supply"?
U S population in 1900 = 76.3 million amd in 1940 = 134.000 prople. US population in 2024 = 336.000 people. The pure percentage calculation is not correctly representing the actual proportions here. The trend is clear though.
Calculating actal proportion .... means that **40% of 76,400,000** is approximately **4.55 times larger** than **2% of 336,000,000**. The proportion of the first value is significantly higher compared to the second still but this calculation is a better statistical representation.
I guess 666 likes is a beautiful number, let's keep it like that.
Yes, the efficiency is much higher but what about the quality? What about the taste?
Unfortunately everyone who depends on agri industry has lost their food security. If there is an interruption in the oil supply there will be no food, so there is no food security at all. Who paid for this propaganda?
and as a result, we have some of the worst food in the world, because it's devoid of taste and lacks a deeper nutritional value. And I'm talking about the basic building blocks of natural non-processed (or minimally processed) food.
Yeah but compare the nutrient value and chemical contamination of a 1950s tomato to a 2024…
Clarify "food security". When what industrial farms are producing is laced with glyphosates and other endocrine disruptors and carcinogens, is it really even safe to eat commercially produced "food"? Furthermore, when a handful of factory farms hold a monopoly on food prices, there is always the risk of hyperinflation for nothing more than profiteering. Maybe what you're calling "food security" is actually commodities market share security. Real food security is when a family produces their own, knows what they are eating and gets out of their food production work what they are willing to put into it. Give a little, get a little. With food prices through the roof, that maxim doesn't even apply anymore.
I compared the price of a kilo of cherry tomatoes sold in Canada compared to the same sold in India. Here we would be asked to pay $16/kg. There, $1.
Yet, massive unemployment? Figures
Community garden in town unused
at the cost of the animals. our dominion cant last. we just lost a million chickens here. so no eggs.
Yes, we need to go back to more of a traditional organic agricultural economy. This large scale farming is not good for the soil or for us.
Organic has drawbacks too-it is heavily dependent on tillage for weed and insect control which leads to soil tilth loss and erosion. There is never a costless method
Run off from fertilizers and pesticides is killing the water supply and the bays around the world.
Thanks for feeding Africa
How about the migrant workers???
Not really true as the quality is way-way low if we compare even to the food we produced just around 1930-1940s
It's useful information.
I love farming
This is grossly false: agriculture productivity relies upon abundant energy and fertilizers, and marginally on agronomic innovation. Energy supply is at high risk due to peak oil. Same for fertilizers due to finite phosphate reserves. And climate warming make already agricultural yields drop down: Spanish tomatoes dropped last year by 70% and Irish potato by 90%. So can we say that we enjoy a much more SECURE food supply? Certainly not long term!
Thank you Monsanto
I need a break be back asap
back
Convenient
Yeah!---Especially with phosphates!
Does that say 38% is outsourced
What better seeds
American fruits vegetables, fruits etc taste terrible compared to the rest of the world
More profit doesn't mean better
Lost jobs. Big markets buying from big farms, breaking the little guy.
Yeah no the farming practices today are not helping the environment at all.
We need to go back to preindustrial farming methods. Nothing was wrong with them. We were not 'food insecure' 100 years ago.
This is a patently bad post from a supposedly intelligent source. Do better due diligence.
And were all sick!
does anybody think he looks like marty from the curse of oak island?
Well we all know who controls the US farming industry 😁
Bitter truth
Happy happy everyone!
Much more food around now, and sooooo much cheaper.
Whoop whooop
GMO... Pesticide...
Be Kind Be vegan ❤
Its crap food tho.
How many migrants work the fields, though?
Rubbish. Wonder who's sponsoring this pack of lies? A tractor company?
GMO
What an excellent glimpse into a topic that has severely changed over a relatively short amount of time! Thanks BT❤❣❤
With all respect for you for this chanel for all gold minds this channel have ,we have much more shit food now we had ever , because nothing is organic anymore only hybrid
When people in comments think we spray plants with pure pesticids :