Not bad. Nose to tail is an ancient concept that we’ve been removed from. Not only is it more economical, but it’s not nutritious as well. Organs are the most nutrient dense foods on the planet. The one thing I don’t agree with is about eating less meat. Eat high quality animals, nose to tail, and eat a lot of them. Your health and the planet will be grateful
Loved this speech! I didn't realise how barbaric the food industry is until now! 23yrs old! I knew it was bad, but not this bad! Once you fully understand what's happening to these animals, it's hard to ignore, I live in Aus and am very lucky with our standards. I do enjoy meat but will make a conscious effort to eat meat once a fortnight or once a month and when buying meat finding out where it came from, being more mindful of these animals and being grateful for all the food I am given and the life that was given so I could enjoy a meal
Unfortunate, carnivore diet literally cures every inflammatory disease. You will most likely live well into your 100’s eating fatty meat and eggs alone. Go for beef the most!
It's probably more economically efficient to run a factory than a local butchery since the meat on the market would be much cheaper than the butcher could sell their meat. Unless they have a large farm as well, that is. But then in order for that to be economically beneficial for the butcher is if they treated the animals much less as "humane slaughter" and bigger cages would certainly be more expensive.
How a about eating once a week a modest portion biological meat? and then the meat that is not the 'popular' part. That's what I do and think might be responsible with 10 billion people on this planet.
LOL....totally disgusting...Just freaken go Vegan....I have been one for 14 years now and has been the absolute best change I have ever made in my life and everybody wins. "If you don't want to be beaten, imprisoned, mutilated, killed or tortured then you shouldn't condone such behavior towards anyone, be they human or not." ~ Moby
Then you don't get it yourself. Because most people love individual freedom and do not want to live in a dictatorship, there will always be a large amount of those people who want to enjoy their freedom of choice and their spot on top of the food chain and thereby the freedom to chose to eat meat.
What the hell are you talking about, JD? I made a statement about the logical outcome for the philosophy of eating "less" meat, and you're off on a political rant about "dictatorship" and "freedom". Don't worry, no one's coming after the dead animals on your plate anytime soon :) . But use your freedom of thought, eh?
What the hell are you talking about? Cannot imagine you lack that much introspection. I can repeat what you stated, but I don't know if that will help since your reply doesn't make sense, nor does it looks like you got mine. Anyway, you made a statement about that "this guy doesn't really get it" and that the solution is "simple". I tried to argue that both those statements are false. This guy does get it and your simple solution is not simple and only attainable by force. That's all. It was not meant as a "political rant". Dictatorship and freedom were mentioned trying to explain _why_ your suggested solution is not "simple" and unlikely. My apologies if that came across as a irrelevant "political rant", but despite I am no native speaker I tend to think that the latter is more your fault than mine.
JD - Your reply very clearly had a political framework to it, couching things in terms of freedom and dictatorship, as opposed to addressing what I actually said. There's no way to skate around that. What I actually said addressed this guy's presentation very directly - he says that "factory farming is criminal", in so many words, and that we should try to reduce that by ... eating more meat! :) He goes on to say that he means we should use more of each animal we kill, and be less wasteful. And should get the animals we consume by some other means than factory farming. The problem with this philosophy he espouses is that there's literally not enough land on the planet to consume the amount of animals we do if they're "free range" "grass fed" and all that. Moreover, "free range" still doesn't do away with the cruelty of slaughtering innocent animals for our own pleasure when there's no need to do so. So the speaker here is dancing around the issue with halfway measures instead of looking at the very simple solutions to the cruelty and damage from animal consumption to which he refers. That simple solution is just don't eat animals, there's no need to, and it's harmful to us, to the planet, and to the animals themselves. Just cut to the chase, and cut out the meat. It's not complicated.
You clearly keep misinterpreting my arguments about human behavior and freedom, used as an explanation _why_ your initial statements are false. On top of that, the speaker is not dancing around anything. The speaker accepts the fact that a large amount of human beings will (hopefully) always enjoy the freedom to eat meat, therefor he suggests wasting a lot less of it or actually none of it. A great solution according to me. Not according to you. And that is fine by me. But that doesn't mean that the speaker "doesn't get it" you just do not agree with him. Nor does it mean that simply everybody stop eating meat at all is a simple solution. That solution is only attainable by force (hence some sort of dictatorship) and therefor the solution is not a a real solution and especially not a simple one. But I will agree to disagree.
Those laughing women should have been escorted out. Why attend if you can't be respectful and listen?
What's wrong with you? It was fun listening to him......nothing to do with disrespect.
Not bad. Nose to tail is an ancient concept that we’ve been removed from. Not only is it more economical, but it’s not nutritious as well. Organs are the most nutrient dense foods on the planet. The one thing I don’t agree with is about eating less meat. Eat high quality animals, nose to tail, and eat a lot of them. Your health and the planet will be grateful
Try the carnivore diet for a month then get back to us
If we only produced what we needed, the problem would go away overnight. We, in America, throw away 70% of all food produced.
False. It's more like 30-40%.
This should be taken down from RUclips meat is essential for humans and shouldn’t be reduced
Eat nose to tail, one meal, all meat, be happy.
Loved this speech! I didn't realise how barbaric the food industry is until now! 23yrs old! I knew it was bad, but not this bad! Once you fully understand what's happening to these animals, it's hard to ignore, I live in Aus and am very lucky with our standards. I do enjoy meat but will make a conscious effort to eat meat once a fortnight or once a month and when buying meat finding out where it came from, being more mindful of these animals and being grateful for all the food I am given and the life that was given so I could enjoy a meal
Meat is essential
Unfortunate, carnivore diet literally cures every inflammatory disease. You will most likely live well into your 100’s eating fatty meat and eggs alone. Go for beef the most!
There is not one necessary nutrient from plants that you can’t get from meat and there are necessary nutrients in meat that you cannot get in plants.
It's probably more economically efficient to run a factory than a local butchery since the meat on the market would be much cheaper than the butcher could sell their meat. Unless they have a large farm as well, that is. But then in order for that to be economically beneficial for the butcher is if they treated the animals much less as "humane slaughter" and bigger cages would certainly be more expensive.
Thousands of gallons of water per tree each year to produce nuts.
How a about eating once a week a modest portion biological meat? and then the meat that is not the 'popular' part. That's what I do and think might be responsible with 10 billion people on this planet.
Hi
JEEEEZ, just eat/drink no meat/milk and at all. It's healthier and better for the environment.
false, regenerative responsible livestock farming is the best thing for the environment.
eat more meat for the ganizzz
hard Gainer you know?
people are soooo barbaric.. damnn
LOL....totally disgusting...Just freaken go Vegan....I have been one for 14 years now and has been the absolute best change I have ever made in my life and everybody wins. "If you don't want to be beaten, imprisoned, mutilated, killed or tortured then you shouldn't condone such behavior towards anyone, be they human or not." ~ Moby
However it would be even more "disgusting" to forcefully take away another human being's freedom to enjoy his or her disgusting habits.
I wouldn't say so. I put the right to not be tortured and killed above lazy eating habits.
6 years. Strongly doubt you’re still vegan. And if you are, you got stomach problems, your skin is sagging and your hair is thin.
@@jjTaiiwan still vegan now, no health problems at all, zero inflammation, my skin and hair is doing great, and I feel FANTASTIC!
Sounds logical. Just kidding.
bruh
dude. Do you not have a brain
Lmao 😂
This guy doesn't really get it. It's simple as can be - eat less meat by eating NO meat. Done.
Then you don't get it yourself. Because most people love individual freedom and do not want to live in a dictatorship, there will always be a large amount of those people who want to enjoy their freedom of choice and their spot on top of the food chain and thereby the freedom to chose to eat meat.
What the hell are you talking about, JD? I made a statement about the logical outcome for the philosophy of eating "less" meat, and you're off on a political rant about "dictatorship" and "freedom". Don't worry, no one's coming after the dead animals on your plate anytime soon :) . But use your freedom of thought, eh?
What the hell are you talking about? Cannot imagine you lack that much introspection. I can repeat what you stated, but I don't know if that will help since your reply doesn't make sense, nor does it looks like you got mine. Anyway, you made a statement about that "this guy doesn't really get it" and that the solution is "simple". I tried to argue that both those statements are false. This guy does get it and your simple solution is not simple and only attainable by force. That's all. It was not meant as a "political rant". Dictatorship and freedom were mentioned trying to explain _why_ your suggested solution is not "simple" and unlikely. My apologies if that came across as a irrelevant "political rant", but despite I am no native speaker I tend to think that the latter is more your fault than mine.
JD - Your reply very clearly had a political framework to it, couching things in terms of freedom and dictatorship, as opposed to addressing what I actually said. There's no way to skate around that. What I actually said addressed this guy's presentation very directly - he says that "factory farming is criminal", in so many words, and that we should try to reduce that by ... eating more meat! :) He goes on to say that he means we should use more of each animal we kill, and be less wasteful. And should get the animals we consume by some other means than factory farming. The problem with this philosophy he espouses is that there's literally not enough land on the planet to consume the amount of animals we do if they're "free range" "grass fed" and all that. Moreover, "free range" still doesn't do away with the cruelty of slaughtering innocent animals for our own pleasure when there's no need to do so. So the speaker here is dancing around the issue with halfway measures instead of looking at the very simple solutions to the cruelty and damage from animal consumption to which he refers. That simple solution is just don't eat animals, there's no need to, and it's harmful to us, to the planet, and to the animals themselves. Just cut to the chase, and cut out the meat. It's not complicated.
You clearly keep misinterpreting my arguments about human behavior and freedom, used as an explanation _why_ your initial statements are false. On top of that, the speaker is not dancing around anything. The speaker accepts the fact that a large amount of human beings will (hopefully) always enjoy the freedom to eat meat, therefor he suggests wasting a lot less of it or actually none of it. A great solution according to me. Not according to you. And that is fine by me. But that doesn't mean that the speaker "doesn't get it" you just do not agree with him. Nor does it mean that simply everybody stop eating meat at all is a simple solution. That solution is only attainable by force (hence some sort of dictatorship) and therefor the solution is not a a real solution and especially not a simple one. But I will agree to disagree.