George Monbiot: Farming is the most destructive human activity ever
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 09. 2024
- Farming is killing the planet, says writer and environmental activist George Monbiot, but we can stop it. His latest book, Regenesis: Feeding the world without devouring the planet, explores the destruction, exploitation and economic senselessness of farming. But there is hope too. Monbiot offers a treasure trove of solutions and a vision for a sustainable, healthy, equitable world. New Scientist’s podcast editor, Rowan Hooper, chatted with Monbiot about his book and why we should all be eating microbes instead of animals.
Learn more ➤ www.newscienti...
Subscribe ➤ bit.ly/NSYTSUBS
Get more from New Scientist:
Official website: bit.ly/NSYTHP
Facebook: bit.ly/NSYTFB
Twitter: bit.ly/NSYTTW
Instagram: bit.ly/NSYTINSTA
LinkedIn: bit.ly/NSYTLIN
About New Scientist:
New Scientist was founded in 1956 for “all those interested in scientific discovery and its social consequences”. Today our website, videos, newsletters, app, podcast and print magazine cover the world’s most important, exciting and entertaining science news as well as asking the big-picture questions about life, the universe, and what it means to be human.
New Scientist
www.newscienti...
Fully deranged!
Monbiot is talking crap farming also keeps us alive
When american thinktankers suggested green policy as a way to boost the economy, their plan was to increase profit by creating a demand + get economic support from governments. That why they never talk about decreased production or farming.
"Creating demand and getting economic government support" describes a lot more about Merica than just "green policy"... Most of which also, surprise surprise surprise, never gets talked about.
I’d love to see a conversation between him and Vandana Shiva.
Thank you, George. You see things so clearly and rationally. It's so good to hear someone saying out loud what I am only thinking in my head.
As opposed to military conflict?
Where does he make his money? Unfortunately he needs to get his facts right regarding farming from start to finish, he has his own agenda.
He has his own agenda much like the NFU, you, Jesus and every goddamn thing with consciousness has an agenda. So what you mean to say is that he has an agenda that you disagree with, in which case you need to argue your case. It helps generally if your agenda is supported by academic research (and a healthy dose of the moral zeitgeist) of course, which is what most spats on youtube comment sections tend to spew up eventually....a long list of papers that no-one can bother to read because theyve truly got an agenda which is to floor their opponent with every frantic tap of the keyboard.
Okay. It's great to know that only 2531 people so far seem to care whether they or/and other people will have something to eat in the future: Certainly very calming. Seriously, share comment on and like this video!
monbiot does not have any answers
I don't care. How does that make you feel?
@@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin I feel fine that Monbiot has no power to bring his ideas to fruition.
@@tinyrockyplanet8953 I think in a strange way that can be what motivates vegans. A guilt about hurting animals, because the very existence of humans has negatively transformed the natural environment. Not eating meat make ZERO difference, and most of the numbers they offer are bogus. If the whole USA stopped eating meat they might reduce CO2 by 2% maximum estimate. But they would have mountains of by product from the food industry that humans cannot eat, and 2/3 of the agricultural land would be unusable.
You are joining in with the hysteria. 2/3rds of agricultural land is marginal and not able to sustain vegetable production. That means billions of hectares can only produce animals. And the bonus is that those animals provide 40% of all fertiliser for plant production (the rest is from chemical factories),. They also provide for ecosystems with massive species diversity; unlike monoculture horror of the vegans.
Thank you ❣
I like eating. And liquids. This guys a kook!
Actually George Monbiot is one of the world's best investigative journalists. He's won multiple awards for factual and scientific reporting. Notice that it is New Scientist interviewing him, because they know how thorough he is with facts. Well worth fowling his work. His articles will blow you away.
Please get better informed. Read a little.
Interesting to hear your views because you represent the 75% who will follow like sheep when the critical mass of 25% is achieved; but by then it may well be too late.
I'll try here. I usually get taken down on FE. After almost 70 years working in farming, Gamekeeping. Forestry, conservation, ecology ect. Farming has become much more efficient post war. We have higher yields per acre now. As a consequence of this a lot of land has been taken out of production. I personally have planted thousands of tree and new hedge rows. Wet boggy areas have been left for species that prefer that kind of habitat.
This smacks of WEF influence. An eloquent speaker but knows nothing of the reality of farming and a vegan. So his views are seriously biased. He's got all the jargon, buzwords to sound like he knows what he's talking about.
We absolutely need food security. We can have both wildlife rich farms that are also very productive. Farmers are doing there very best and have always responded to the needs at the time.
You say all of this and i agree we can farm for us and with wildlife in mind, but I go out and look at all my local farms and its all poor quality rock solid clay soil with algae and moss covering it, genuinely smells like an aquarium some days on one of the fields because the algae and the crops look stunted, i look around and theres little to no insects anymore, or badgers or birds or mice, i see wind scorched areas, i see rivers getting destroyed and boil water notices because our water got contaminated by agriculture water runoff.
Some farmers are doing the right thing like im sure you are since it sounds like youre oldschool, but others are cutting corners trying to sap the ground of all its nutrients and then paying for just enough nutrients to sustain the plants without ever sustaining the area the plants are growing in by restoring the soil, when the soil is poor, and youre growing a monoculture youre a glass canon, all it takes is one type of bug or rodent or pest to take over or one flood or drought to destroy a farmers crop to which some cant financially recover from fully by next season and thats because many reasons like they cant use their own seeds you gotta buy them, cant use the soil nutrients to grow the crop as that was long gone and was just being kept afloat by external nutrients that you gotta buy, tractor broke down? Cant fix it as you wanted the fancy easier "cheaper in the long run" tractor that you operate using a tablet screen and has auto pilot that has been built to only be serviced by their own expensive mechanics, cant rely on the weather because climate change has happened too fast for nature to find an equilibrium etc etc etc, agricultural farming has been too focused on more more more, constantly optimising at the cost of every over natural system, the optimising of farming would be good if farmers then shrunk the farm accordingly, but instead they just use the land that they now dont need as extra profits. They see optimisation as "how can we use 1 field to produce 2 fields worth so that my 2 fields can make 4 fields worth of profit so i can scale my business" instead of: "how can we use 1 field to produce 2 fields worth of profit so that i can sell (or let wild) one of my two fields and still make enough money and food to feed and sustain my family + local area"
Its became less about owning and protecting the land and its people, and more about owning a business and "how much money can i squeeze out of this plot?"
Depends on what sort of farming
If farming is so destructive, what shall we feed on? Air? Or is that destructive too?
Did you actually listen to the whole of the interview? Your comment suggests not.
He is talking about Animal agriculture, not all farming.
He does not address the damaging effects of pesticides/herbicides. That is what causes pollution. Farming using old techniques is not destructive. This sounds like GMO food.
You seem a little confused, or uneducated on the food system. The largest pollutant in farming, is waste runoff from farmed animals, which is destroying rivers, water tables, and causing ocean deadzones.
If you're concerned about pollution, you should be advocating for a plant based society, which frees up 76% of current agricultural land use, meaning greater rotation periods and less fertilisers. Along with vertical farming, which removes pesticides completely, and permaculture practices which greatly reduce the need, and help maintain soil health. There simply isn't enoughland on this planet to maintain the yearly supply off 77 billion land animals as food without chemical support.
Herbicides, pesticides and artificial fertilizers are not needed for hill farms growing sheep. And the grass fed movement in meat is the best solution for the wheat mountain.
He sounds like a right pain in the butt. "Working as an investigative journalist, he travelled in Indonesia, Brazil, and East Africa. His activities led to his being made persona non grata in seven countries[18] and being sentenced to life imprisonment in absentia in Indonesia.[19] In these places, he was also shot at,[20] beaten up by military police,[20] shipwrecked[20] and stung into a poisoned coma by hornets.[21] He came back to work in Britain after being pronounced clinically dead in Lodwar General Hospital in north-western Kenya, having contracted cerebral malaria.[22]" wiki
Those countries may have had a point. He's a loonie
@@cr4yv3n That was said about Galileo and Einstein.
@@DeanJuvenal yeah? I guess every nut is Einstein now 🤣
Soil, mate. Soil.
It's not quite farming, it's population is the issue.
Exactly. This problem was foretold over 50 years ago by population scientist Paul Ehrlich and expounded in his book "The Population Bomb". Yet, here we are.
Except killing billions of people isn't going to happen. So these alternatives that work are being talked about
@@brobinson8614 Enticements to reduce the birth rate should also be part of the conversation on sustainability.
The issue is GREED. And greed always leads to excess. Excessive anything. Btw, the carbon /toxicity footprint of the military industrial complex anybody?
And greed always leads to corruption. Most pollutions are the consequences of corruption.
What would occupy the land were there no sheep on it. I have sheep farming and wheat/barley/rape farming around me. The crops are desert 3 months of the year. When ploughed all you can see is chalk rubble, the soil has blown away and growing is 100% reliant on chemical fertilizers. Occasionally they put human shit on it. The smell is gross. Only one species is allowed to thrive.
By contrast when I walk through the sheep fields and look around I see maybe a dozen species of grass. gauze bushes, nettles, dock, several species of clover (you may know it brings atmospheric nitrogen into the soil), there are species of daisy and dandelion, There are also many species of flower I have no idea what they are, and we have some rare orchids here on the Downs. These all support bees and many other insects. Badgers, and Fox are very common. There are some wild deer in Sussex too, and even rumours of wild pig which are thought to have escaped from a boar farm in the storm of 1987. All this is possible because of sheep farming.
You could have forrests growing there.
@@placeholdername0000 Or you could mimic nature and have animals eating grass.
@@chazwyman8951 Why mimic nature, when you can just have nature.
@@placeholdername0000 Fine I'll just eat the deer and not the sheep. Since when is eating lentils natural?
@@placeholdername0000 Not if your argument is about providing food, and supporting species diversity
Not if you enjoy not starving
He offered good alternitives
Better to sort the deforestation of the rainforests first .
Theyre deforesting it for farming, this IS that issue
Correct. Taking natural lands and converting them to farming does change the land. Of course, Europe was also home to old growth forests 600 years ago. Imagine the world 10 thousand years ago.
So what. The only way to go back is to get rid of humans. That will happen eventually no need to rush to make it happen.
I totally understand the concern he raises, but what about the Mongolians?
George Monbiot is confusing the word "farming" with the word "greed". Excess = danger. Any excess. Btw, the carbon /toxicity footprint of the military industrial complex George ?
That would be hard to sort out from how much it takes to keep soldiers alive. Actually by everyone doing things together, it could reduce needs of feel but idk. It's nonsequatur
You'd be forgiven for thinking George was the master of all trades and given an infinite time to speak! The problem is is that definitions of "excess/greed" also succumb to the shifting baseline syndrome. It is not the Man vs Foods or American Supersize me's that produce the bulk of the effect, it is the hump of the bell curve, the masses who have over the course of the last century reinterpreted what "normal" meat consumption is. My mum now wouldnt consider it a meal unless it had meat in it, this just wasn't the case for the masses 100 years ago as prices for meat were much higher in ratio to income. Farming and excess are entirely compatible and congruous concepts, as money and excess are entirely compatible and congruous concepts. He is talking about excess farming driven by high and increasing per-capita consumption of live-stock in a trade-off with the provision of wide-scale ecosystem stability and sustainability which undermine the very system of food production itself.
Quite right George, we would have been far better off to remain as hunter gatherer cavemen.
So what foods are in your diet, George? 😁
What about wild animals such as Wildebeest, antelopes and others? Aren't they farming the area in which they graze? Isn't farming a natural outcome of living organisms?
I think people who want to eat animals, are more committed to the ideology. Read the BCC article "why the or more women vegans". That sites evidence about some men who may eat meat as a way of supporting their sense of social dominance. It's bizarre, but I think some references to the Bible and returning to the vegan way of life in the garden of Eden might be a good reference for those reading in the bible belt
Sounds like garbage. There is no "return to veganism", it is a myth of the 20thC. And I eat meat because it is the best and most healthy type of food a human can eat.
The Neolithic was the root problem. Led to too many people. Shorter human life spans due to disease from overcrowding and catching animal diseases. .....to cities etc. But we cant, until humanity is almost extinguished, realistically get back to mesolithic life styles.
And the problem of too much grain and selective breeding of fruits raising their sugar content. Grains, fruits and sugars in the diet (which we are not well evolved to cope with) are causing T2 diabetes, Obesity and Alzeimers.
@@tinyrockyplanet8953 Some can tolerate shite. But you too will eventually find yourself staring into T2D when you get older. Start eating real food now and save yourself the sock that you are wrong.
Give me my bow and arrow, and a good hearth to cook my meat and I am happy.
@@tinyrockyplanet8953 What a silly boy you are.
@@tinyrockyplanet8953 Run along now. Bambi needs your help
The horror story in the macabre farm.
Let's hear your views on nuclear power......
Simple. It contradicts his views of scarcity so it has to be made:
Expensive
Difficult to build
Hampered at every turn
And turned into a boogey man for people to be afraid of.
Cheap abundant energy is BAD because it contradicts the logic of malthusian fuckwits
Thank you for this interview. George Monbiot is one of my heroes.
Oh man!!! I agree!!! So so much. Said so many times. And all the bubble lives being lived in total blindness.
Oof.
In reality, there is only one market and that is the energy market, primarily food and water, of course.
All other so-called markets are actually only speculative manipulations which, apart from its self-serving function, are completely without any real and intrinsic value.
These self-indulgent speculations thrive on the energy market. This is what we see now. It's all about food and water. It's not new, it's just more obvious now.
It also explains that despite the fact that food production in agriculture is the most polluted and destructive industry in the world, no political intervention is made. It would simply undress the speculation industry, whose profit rests entirely on the energy market.
The world is now catching up with the realities as they are in these times. Food and water, the Russians have unimaginable quantities of that. The EU, with its insane sanctions against Russia, has committed economic suicide.
How can someone get it so totally wrong !! Cows can graze on land where crops won’t grow. Cow pats will save the soil and planet . Yes I’m horrified by his ideas because it will totally screw the health of humanity. If you don’t understand the gut microbiome, if you don’t understand the natural process of human health if you don’t understand regenerative farming , then you don’t understand human health and the symbiotic relationship we have with the need for meat in the diet . Good farmers are out there , the climate crisis is overstated brought about by the very people who are flying jet planes and live in billion dollar mansions . It’s easy to fool someone but mulch harder to convince them they’ve been fooled
Those fields should be forrests.
taking protein and fat out of farming and foods and growing it in a laboratory is not what nature intended , not what our body’s need I don’t know how people can’t see that . And no , not all land is covered by forests , fields are not new.
"cow pats will save the soil and planet"? For someone who goes on a lot about what other people don't understand, you show very little real understanding yourself. Don't be so cocksure about complex issues, it makes you sound rather foolish.
Precision Fermentation involves science which would not have been possible without schools and universities, which would not have been possible without the development of Nations and Cities, which would in turn not have been possible without, (guess what George), AGRICULTURE, which kind of holes your entire argument below the waterline 😂😂
George Mandelbot ?
George Monbiot is one of the world's most respected investigative independent journalists. He's won multiple awards for factual and scientific reporting. Notice that it is New Scientist interviewing him, because they know how thorough he is with facts. Well worth fowling his work. His articles will blow you away.
@@brobinson8614 bot
@@callumleakfilms am actually a married man with 2 children and a cat. You 'bot' comment is often written by people who can't accept the truth.
@@brobinson8614 you literally copied & pasted the same reply to 4 people. That’s bot like behaviour.
@@callumleakfilms no its just telling each person directly that their comment was misinformed, and that they won't get a notification if I only answered you.
Heres the thing I'm not gonna bother typing the same thing out 4 times when I can simply copy my first one. It's called being efficient lol
typical bugman telling us what to do
Actually George Monbiot is one of the world's best investigative journalists. He's won multiple awards for factual and scientific reporting. Notice that it is New Scientist interviewing him, because they know how thorough he is with facts. Well worth fowling his work. His articles will blow you away.
@@brobinson8614 There’s definitely better out there.
@@callumleakfilms name them then. Name other true investigative journalist with more international awards in excellence than George Monbiot.
He's one of the greatest living in-depth, fact checking, reporters alive today.
And he does great crocodile tears on good morning Britain.
Please join Avaaz. Please read his book. Please spread the word.
🤣
A very important and informative interview. I think, organic pastures with extensive animal keeping (e.g. silvopastures) should be differentiated from intensive meat farming, unless the land is approppriated from natural ecosystems like forests & savannas. After all, a natural savanna or prairy ecosystem (that produce fertile soils) is very much like a policultural, extensive organic pasture. Isn't it?
Organic meat is another "comforting myth". This really is the sinful root feeding destruction of our planet. It is 100 percent insane to disrespectfully and needlessly take mammalian life. These beings have souls, and it is simply wrong to take them. It is perplexing to do so as thoughtlessly as we do as well
Oh and, animal livestock actively emit at least 14.5 percent of green house grasses directly
That would be too nuanced for his brain. He is suffering from Vegan brain, after his his brain malaria and being clinically dead, he never recovered.
The destructive relationship between farming and the environment is caused by high energy prices. Imagine having the energy available to desalinate water to irrigate land. Rather than burning the forest, and depleting natural water courses and aquifers - fresh water could be produced and transported using limitless clean energy. It would make economic sense to develop wastelands for agriculture, starting by sowing grasses for cattle feed, such that cattle farming fertilizes the land - creating arable land and resisting desertification.
Clearly, the missing piece of the jigsaw is energy - but rather than complete the puzzle, Monobit, in his radical left wing vegan zeal, wants to take more and more pieces from the jigsaw in the hope the picture will make sense. It won't. Communistic, imposed poverty approaches to sustainability are wrong, and would be disastrous. We cannot eek out our existence - because poor people breed more, and cannot afford to care about the environment. Prosperity must be sustained and extended to all the people's of the world - and the way to do that is provide limitless clean energy. The earth is a big ball of molten rock, that can easily be tapped into, and its heat energy converted to electrical power, and clean burning hydrogen fuel. Developing this technology is the key to securing a prosperous sustainable future for all.
ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987STIN...8820719D/abstract
@@tinyrockyplanet8953 I do appreciate the horrors implied by a 'pay more have less, tax this and stop that' - green commie approach to sustainability. Even with the best intent, reducing demand to save the world cannot work because poor people breed more.
What the greens don't seem to understand, or pretend not to know is that capitalism allows for the personal and political freedom necessary to democracy.
A command economy on the other hand, requires authoritarian government. Human beings are merely factors of production in the planned economy. They are assigned employment and must do the task assigned in order to produce the goods - government deems necessary to produce. Freedom of thought and speech, and voting are threats to the state - which is identical to the economy. And the justifying rationale of this totalitarian order would be that human welfare and environmental welfare cannot be reconciled. Genocide is the inevitable consequence.
This is why I've spent many years searching for a way to sustain capitalist prosperity, and it is possible - because the earth is a big ball of molten rock, and resources are a function of the energy available to develop them. Greens have been pushing anti-capitalist 'Limits to Growth' idea since the 1960's - but with limitless clean energy to spend, there are in effect, limitless resources. Thus, capitalism, freedom and democracy can be sustained.
However, in practice, I think it unlikely magma energy technology will be applied. I fear a catastrophe of one sort or another is almost certain. The current technological approach suggests less and more expensive energy from wind and solar, as a supplement for continued fossil fuel use, in face of increasing challenges - a course one might describe as a terminal entropic decline beneath an angry sky!
Shame, because there's more than sufficient magma energy available meet all our energy demands carbon free, plus desalinate, irrigate, recycle all waste, capture carbon, develop wastelands for agriculture and habitation, build new cities, make the deserts bloom, we could have it all - but have thrown it all away to keep the fossil fuel industry in business.
It must be mentioned that Monbiot is in favor of nuclear energy.
@@placeholdername0000 "Staff at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine are holding drills in case of an incident some feel could be worse than Chernobyl."
I'm against nuclear power, because magma energy/electricity/hydrogen is far superior; it's less expensive to build, less dangerous to run, more abundant - there's much more hot rock than uranium, and magma energy is similarly powerful, but cleaner than nuclear.
But conveniently unavailable in large quantities
@@cr4yv3n Could you explain that comment. I don't understand what it refers to.
There's a lot covered in this topic; dealing, as it does with the relationship between different types of energy, and land use. My argument is that an abundance of clean energy changes the economic rationale of our relationship to the land. And that makes the difference between Monobit's green commie vegan dictatorship feeding people on yeast grown in vats, and environmental management via agriculture, as part of Sustainable Prosperity based on limitless clean energy from magma.
In case anyone wants to argue that cows and chickens and such have been around for millions of years, their burps and waste and such are natural, so they can't be harmful, that's specious. The problem is that cows and chickens and such are _no longer natural._ I don't mean hormones and GMOs and such (although those are true as well), but their numbers. Without humans, there would be maybe only 10% of the animals that there are now, at that rate, they _wouldn't_ be a problem, cow farts wouldn't be contributing to climate-change, chicken poop wouldn't be polluting the rivers, and so on. It's because of HUMANS that they have been FORCED to procreate to _unnatural_ populations, forced to create babies so that humans can eat their babies (like something out of a sci-fi horror movie 😒). Moreover, it's not even just animals, it's also plants. Without humans, there would _not_ be vast swaths of flat-lands for farming, there wouldn't be 100 acres of a single type of corn in just on area. Further, without humans traveling around to do international trade, invasive species wouldn't be hitching a ride and annihilating everywhere they go. It's always the fault of humans, everything is.
(For what it's worth, it's not even that humans are inherently the problem, it's human _overpopulation_ that is the problem. Humans have existed for a few million years without destroying the world, it wasn't until human populations exploded that things got bad, even with the industrial revolution and technology, it could still have been okay if human populations had remained low. Human overpopulation is the cause of _every_ problem in the world. 🤦)
100% agreed. Although its not helpful to focus on over-population as much as an overpopulation of a bad-diet. We can live sustainably if we transitioned to stable crops.
Everything should be focused on managing the impact of animal farming and using renewable technology to reduce emissions. Population control is unfeasible because people in the west would rather see the end of the earth than be at the boot of an authoritarian regime. So technology and getting off animal farming is the solution.
The problem with 100% of all vegetables and fruits is that they are not natural. Not only are they all domesticants, but we are not even evolved to eat them in such quantities. Plants have cunning ways to cause metabolic problems, leptins and alkaloids are used by plants to make animals avoid them. And the tend away from meat and diary is causing an epidemic of obesity and diabetes. We are evolved to eat meat primarily, not carbs. The real problem is that there are too many Vegans having babies - who think that the world can go on supporting more people as if it was just a question of efficiency.
@@chazwyman8951 thats the most ill-informed comment I've read. The obesity epidemic is largely due to sugar and fast food including processed meats. All serious studies point to healthy vegan diets being the gold standard for health, but you'll ignore that the atkins founder and his poor diet contributed to his failing health. Now carbs and meat aren't mutually exclusive, so being pro meat doesnt mean you're anti carb. Healthy vegan diets are obviously better than non healthy vegan ones, but non healthy omnivore meat diets are the worst. The studies are pretty conclusive. And all-meat diets lack in basic nutrients like fibre, magnesium etc leading to shorter lifespans. Cancer is also associated with red meat. Lets also not forget the environmental impacts of this diet, but for the individual alone, its already a terrible choice.
@@ksb1886 You are going to die. Healthy Keto is the most natural way to live. I'm not going to spend half my life chewing through plants that I am not evolved to eat, my body forced to rid itself of the toxins that plants have been evolving to stop them being eaten. Nor am I going to spend the other half of my life on the toilet getting rid all all that crap. I eat one meat meal a day and have never felt better. I lack nothing. Bone broth provides all the magnesium I need. Cancer is not associated with red meat.
👏👍
"Farming as an industry when you step back from it"... What kind of nonsense is that ?
Industrial farming - Yes... Thanks to agriculture, we've developed our civilization... Farming is the oldest way of sedentary form of life. I'm not even sure if I want to listen to this nonsense... Do you wanna say that thousands of years of our existence, whatever we did so far - was a mistake ?
We survived thousands of years before agriculture, its made our lives better yes, but at what cost? Just like we thought drilling a hole in ur brain or pescribing opiods was a way to remove headaches did we MAYBE not see the effects it has in the future despite the huge short term benifits? Because is it still given us all the benifits now as it did then? Its diminishing returns IMO weve gone too far now. Industrial farming scalps our land and destroys it. You cant say it isnt having consequences right now, look at the climate look at the diminished wildlife, you couldnt even drink water in some parts of england this year because agricultural run off. And by sedentary he means using one spot of land not the farmer is sitting on a sofa by tje side of the field, Mongolian nomads farm but are nomadic and move as they realise intensive grazing of one area destroys it, we dont do that we just put a sticker over the issue by dumping fertiliser on the dead soil that can just escape into our rivers and water leading to our boil water notice as the water was contaminated. It isnt black or white did you not hear him say many times farming is important? He isnt saying we need to stop it fully in its entirety, just that we need to adapt our way of life as we always did before we all got so comfy in modern laziness. Just like humans comesticated wolves into useless pugs and chihuahuas, we domesticated ourselves in the name of progress!! So much progress that we now have humans regressing, 20year olds who cant cook for themselves or grow their own food or even stitch a wound or clothing up, we have no idea what plants we can eat unless its something we grew on a farm/ made money from. So so so domesticated and sedentary.
@@Rissen_ @Rissen_ I'm not sure if we understand each other... Industrial farming is profitable but it's a trouble for everyone - that's the way I see it... Traditional farming though survived thousands of years and it's fundamental to security and survival for every country, not the industrial... I couldn't understand what did you wanna say in the first sentence, so that's why I asked the question... I still don't understand what exactly you wanna say in the first sentence...Sorry for the trouble...