Thank you. The farming method described *is* revolutionary, but it's also quite popular - just very unusual on a large scale. It's called Permaculture.
Totally awesome. I man after my own heart. I appreciate him exposing more of the truth behind the American fish farming. I don't eat them - if I can help it.
I really commend the author of this post for putting up such an intelligent clip. This is a really deep video to watch and quite inspirational. Some of the comments on the video were really thought provoking. Will be recommending to other fish farmers on fishfarmingbusiness(dot) com to watch.
Fish farming is now big business as the demand for fish continues to rise globally and with the fact that demand for fish now far outstrips what mother nature can naturally supply.
After watching this fine video from Dan Barber, I sadly realized that he was hopelessly right. I know this sounds negative, but I at 52yrs. have seen to much of large corporate greed for his friend Miguel's system to be inacted in my lifetime; on a global large percentage scale. I can only hope that modern technology will come into "proper play" in future generations so that these great ideas will become the norm. Just maybe before I die I will see the true turn around begin.
I do believe in fish farming with natural resources just like the fish farm that Dan Barber is talking about in spain. We have already have abused the sea with over fishing and polluting our oceans, so what better way to fix what we have already ruiend then making our own purfing system with these fish farms and feed the world along the way.
So what if the fish are being fed some chicken pellets? He said himself that objectively the taste of this fish was good. If the taste of something changes so much upon knowing what is inside then surely you are being influenced too much by what is supposed to taste good/bad.
You're all suckers for a few jokes and a bit of charisma. This is a completley unrealistic and fanciful ideal. Science is too busy concentrating on creating efficient, sustainable and most importantly CHEAP farming to benefit the whole population than to hear an anecdote about a rich chef going for a boat ride with a guy called Miguel.
@89jwood then explain what's so unrealistic about it? Science might be focusing on other means of getting food but hey, it's not neccessarily the right frame of mind.
Miguel is such a perfect example of what systems should strive for, but I think the biggest question is, how to accomplish this goal? What can we do to change our food system? Where should we start? How to be innovative and economically viable? Ted talks provokes so many questions...
I really hate it when vegans impose their beliefs on others as if it were the righteous thing to do. I eat meat and I am pretty sure that I'm not an immoral, wasteful, hypocritical, or anything that can be loosely derivatively negative about eating meat. I dislike the fact that people find it necessary to impose their choice on others when that choice is only made possible through the success of their current agriculture. If you dislike the efficiency, then harp on that and not meat eaters.
I have to be honest and say that I have never really likes any seafood with the exception of clams, scallops and as horrible as it sounds, especially to a chef, canned tuna. That being said, I do however, realize and understand the importance of what he just said. I was horrified when he said chicken pellets. It totally gave new meaning to the term "chicken of the sea" to me.
Enemy Belligerent Act:- Arrests and Indefinate Imprisonment without Lawful Cause and Due Process. Weed out Resisters
DHS Malintent & Naked Body Scanners:- Conditioning your Adherence to the Lovely Tyranny
S.773 - Cybersecurity Act of 2009:- Destroying Free Speech on the Internet. FED GOVERNMENT software standards for all ISP's. Allows Removal of all Global Communication at whim. Good to prevent Organized Resistors
Health Care HR 3590:- Completely Dicated Health Care Decisions. No Freedom
Great story! BUT. The Vet La Palma story is a very special case. The canal system was there waiting for them. The company is in the lucky position to have a monopoly on a productive piece of the world. Had the spot been open to unregulated fishing the fish would soon be wiped out. The fact that the complex was aquired (presumably) at relatively low cost and is under the control of one entity with a long term perspective is what makes it an economic and ecological success.
I want to be able to do this with my fish tank... It doesn't need to be cleaned or aerated thanks to snails and plants. But I still have to use fish food, and it has artificial coloring in it.
no, the land is so cheap that all they did is make a giant pond and put fish in it. its not that remarkable. if land was cheap all over and people were few you could just let cows graze on grass and drink from a stream. there's too many of us so poor will always have to eat shit. by the way this guy is trying to talk like barrack obama and its kind of annoying.
so how and how much is farmed from this place anyways... he goes on talking about the benefits but never actually says anything about their farming techniques
im all for sustainable farming and this is an excellent example but i feel like there could be something quantitative missing from this talk (ie how much is actually produced) that is needed to make his message a lot more meaningful
The Time Magazine article says about 1,200 tons of fish annually on 3,200 hectares of marshland. As most of the new "extensive" ecological-community-dominated farms are equally devoted to promoting the model as they are to actual production, it's hard to say what max capacity would be from this method.
what about the over-population of human animals. cant just toss this subject under the rug. making everybody eat veggie burgers wont solve the problem of industrial agriculture.
The elephant in the room of our food production system is the rearing of animals for human consumption, as Dan Barber says it's the poor conversion ratio.
Vegetarians understand that even if we don't care for the welfare of animals, we should care that food we grow find it's way DIRECTLY for human consumption.
cchilder, we don't need to curb human population, planet earth could potentially feed 15 billion humans, but not while we give priority to feeding billions of non-human animals.
earth cannot feed that many people sustainably and still leave room for the other systems that support us. feeding 15 billion would leave no food for all the other creatures to eat. the world was not made for people. it was made for all life.
Well a planet of 6 billion vegetarian humans would reduce the inherent violence that we abhor. Most vegetarians are vegetarians because they love animals, ALL of them!! The violence inherent in killing another creature, has resulted in our desensitizing to human suffering which historically has played out in wars. As ALBERT EINSTEIN said "Nothing will benefit human health and INCREASE CHANCES for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
its not just animals. plants have life too, as well as bacteria, fungi, viruses, tumors, parasites... we all have equal rights to live.
thats said, violence is a part of life. its inescapable. excessive violence is another thing, but that is subjective. as a large mammal, you enact violence to all the bugs you step on, all the parasites you cleanse from your body, and even the plants you kill to eat. the 'minimize violence' idea falls short because its entirely subjective.
'acceptable violence' is based on what YOU deem morally appropriate, and what you deem morally appropriate, others may cringe at.
the black plague parasite were just tryna get by without causing too much harm as well. as a single member of the community of life, you cant tell any other member what is and is not acceptable. humans doing this very thing is what caused this problem in the beginning.
There was a case in northern China, a consequence of the PRC's one child policy & a preference for male children.
It was so important for couples to hv a male child, that middle men appeared who would promise, for a fee, to take the girl children of their hands & find another family for their child. Now where do you imagine this girls ended up. They were passed to farmers, and the girls were raised as we raise any other non-human animal, upon maturity, they were slaughtered for meat.
As this practice was going on in recent time, footage of the conditions & slaughter of this girls was circulated on youtube, it caused international furor, cchilder, you say the 'minimize violence' idea falls short because its entirely subjective & that there is no one right way to live & you cant tell any other member what is and is not acceptable. humans doing this very thing is what caused this problem in the beginning.
You have implicitly condoned these farmers actions.
I get your point, however, but u'r not making a strong enough case. Morality is simple, basically the biblical golden rule, do unto other as u would want them to do to u! Or for us agnostics, "Equal consideration of interests". Sure bacteria, viruses hv life, but we only need to kill them when our life is threatened & sure plants hv life. Let me ask you in the interest of authenticity.
An attempt to elicit some acknowledgment that there is a huge difference between taking the life of a animal as compared to a plant.
On any given weekend, & given a choice between taking u'r children to (#1) the local veggie/fruit farm to pick their own food to eat, or (#2) the local abattoir to pick & kill an animal to take home to eat.
Which would you choose, would u'r children intuitively find picking strawberries or celery less traumatic, perhaps even enjoyable. Or would you have the heart to expose them to what goes on in an abattoir? Most people I know would prefer to hide their children from the reality of animals slaughtered for food, why?
in this culture, the slaughtering of animals has become something to be embarrassed of. but the starwbrries you prbably eat dont come from a pleasant little field either. they are loaded up with steroids and chemicals and they use crazy machines to pick them and their environment is utterly destroyed in their picking. its not all nice and pretty like we think it is.
unless youre talking organic/local/small farms whatevers. but in that case, the animals are treated a lot better as well.
i dont see illing an animal as any different from killing a plant. i see all life as equally valuable and worth saving. i distress everytime i see someone weeding or mowing a lawn. the difference is just where you draw your own convenient line of morality.
this culture has made animal husbandry very grotesque and disgusting, but its done the same to plant growing.
you will probably say plants dont think and animals do. but im saying they do think. they dont have brains or nervous systems, but they obviously like to live. they grow towards the light. they can get sick. they can die.
the difference is only in how big you draw your circle of appreciation.
You say "i don't see killing an animal as any different from killing a plant. i see all life as equally valuable and worth saving." Obviously, you have to eat so what is the basis of your choice between taking the life of an animal or that of a plant?
Personally, my choice is easy, if my children would cry at the sight of me taking the life of living thing then I wouldn't kill it. I believe children intuitively see other animals as just that other animals unlike themselves.
There is no escaping the violence inherent in taking another animals life, unless your sheltered from the reality by the other side of the walls of a abattoir. So if we don't have any biological need to eat them, then the choice is easy.
I find it interesting that u believe ALL life to be equal, this is a mystical statement just as the claim that "all men are created equal".
We have no empirical experiment that we can conduct that will quantifiably establish equality.
I think I agree with your comments about equality.
I do wonder about a difference between eating plants and eating animals. They are both life forms.
Do you eat broccoli - it has a central nervous system. Many edible plants have muscle fibers and functional hearts. They work profoundly differently, but are essentially the same structures.
I raise an eyebrow when people suggest it is only wrong to eat something we can easily anthropomorphize.
So given your moral position cannibalism is ok? Again I'm talking about causing as little suffering as possible as we go through our life. We have no biological need to eat other animal or fellow human animals, then our best justification for causing unimaginable suffering is that they "Taste Good!!". If I don't eat fruits & veg I die, I haven't any choice!!
Actually we're all repulsed by cannibalism because Carthage lost it's war with Rome. They found the Roman practice of burning the dead repugnant. They couldn't understand how you could treat your loved ones like fire-wood, rather than show them respect by talking them into you. Morals are highly subjective.
Eat some fish if your worried about suffering, they have almost no pain receptors.
Some of us actually have to eat meat to survive. I ended up in the hospital trying to be vegan.
Try a raw vegan diet, giving that our species is the ONLY species using fire to denature the food we eat,it's not surprise we end up hospitalized. Why do you cook u'r food, eat it as every other species on the planet does, and u won't get sick as they don't.
Do you actually do any research ever!!?? It's been shown definitively that cooking our food is what made our species what it is!
Cooking food performs several of the functions that our body uses energy to perform in order derive what it needs from what we eat. We acquire orders of magnitude more nutrition from cooked food than we do from raw.
Furthermore, when we cooked our food, we lived for about 30 years. Now many of us last longer than a century.
I look at where conventional wisdom has got us. Humans are feared by most other species, we destroy our environment, we war amongst ourselves, in spite of our 'best' efforts to exploit this planets resources, happiness(undeniable holy grail) eludes us, so I promised myself not to fall for this matrix of seduction, as I saw those who went before me do. Sad but in this world today their are very few people who are looked to as exemplary role models of compassion & love. Our children wait 4 us.
In my opinion we can correct the mistakes we've made along the way without giving up what we've gained.
We don't need stop eating meat to stop treating our food animals like crap. We can be human, which would include eating a natural human diet, while preserving the environment. This video presents some ideas how.
You are right that there are too few people who are role models of compassion. Showing our children we can live as part of nature rather than above it seems a good place to start.
And I can't believe you assert that other species don't get sick. Most animals in wild live under stress with not enough food and die violent bloody deaths. Most of the rest die from disease, usually associated with malnutrition.
99% species that have ever existed are extinct for a reason. Finding a diet that will sustain, is nearly impossible in nature. Our species was able to spread far and wide because we could use cooking & technology to adapt to a great variety of flora & fauna.
Sure animals get sick when kept in human captivity.
Finding a diet that will sustain, is nearly impossible in nature, probably has something to do with, clear felling these animals habitat, so as we can graze cattle & grow the crops to feed them.
I'm always pretty offended by vegetarians that walk around pretending their more moral than the rest of us.
You don't want to eat meat that's fine, but it doesn't make you more moral. You have drawn a line and decided it's ok to kill and eat things that can't run away and don't move in disturbing ways when you kill them.
That's arbitrary and unworthy of respect. Doubly so, if you go around asserting to others that you have the moral high ground because you can't accept human physiology.
So human beings are animals as are peoples pets, all move in disturbing ways when you kill them. So your arbitrary line of morality places them on which side friend or food?
Your morality troubles me. I just don't get what you deem moral or immoral. According to your model do I have to accept people flying planes into buildings for example, people rearing humans as animals to be slaughtered for meat? Is there anything that you deem morally reprehensible?
It's interesting you would reference the reactions of your children. It's like you're invoking the concept of natural behavior as a model.
But uh...we're grazing predators or omnivores. It's plain from our physiology. Our intestines can only handle so much plant and so much meat. And our physical form is designed both to easily pick plants and to leverage strength into a killing blow.
From a natural perspective, we eat things that run; and then, wash it down with berry juice.
i eat animals because they taste good, they give me nutrition that is naturally occurring and good for me, and my species evolved to eat them. ya know those sharp teeth in your mouth, the canines? they are for meat eating. i am just as moved by killing an animal as i am by killing a plant. as a large predator with a big brain and a soul, it is something i am capable of feeling.
So human beings are animals as are peoples pets. So your convenient line of morality places them on which side of your line & why?
It troubles me that your arbitrary line of morality did implicitly condone the farming of female human children in my previous real life example. I just don't get what you deem moral or immoral. According to your model do I have to accept people flying planes into buildings for example?
all im saying is that building a moral foundation out of 'non-violence' is a losing game. life is a violent thing: eating, dying, competition. not everyone survives. its not good or bad, it just is. there are certain aspects of veg-ism that i like, non-violence aspect is just stupid.
you dont have to accept anything. unfortuantely, little girls are farmed, people fly planes into buildings, and eating a plant kills it. a philosophy of non-violence not only fails to avoid these outcomes, but does nothing to stop them from happening either.
the conclusion i have made is this: people who talk preach non-violence are ignorant, elitist, and above all, pussies who wont stand up and fight for what matters.
whether or not any of those labels apply to you is your choice. make it.
I'm ex-military, I joined because I wanted to protect what I loved, so yes there are somethings worth fighting for. When it comes to the issue of non-violence, we have a choice, if violence is needed for self preservation, ok, however, if no human initiated unnecessary violence as a choice, the world would be peaceful. Again, we have tried almost every avenue to create a peaceful world, economic, political, technological, etc, to no avail.
Veganism looks to be untried, Einstein may be right!
@veganath From a statistical point of view, your quote only furthers my point: The experience of torturing animals is extremely common amongst kids. If you followed the lives of many children, you would probably find that most of those who torture animals DON'T become criminals.
"You put a baby in a crib with an apple and a rabbit. If it eats the rabbit and plays with the apple, I'll buy you a new car" - Harvey Diamond
Children aren't born inherently violent, they are desensitized to suffering of others by their parents. I believe a babies natural state is of seeing/feeling the beauty & wonder that is life & subsequently as they grow, give equal consideration of interests to others. (human & non-human people).
@veganath As far as I know, feral children are LESS concerned with the interests of others than normal children.
The ability to even just consider other people's thoughts in a meaningful manner (e.g. without assuming that they have exactly the same knowledge as you) takes >3 years to develop in children.
Although your hypothesis of people being naturally good is heart-warming, it's false. I assume you don't have kids.
Either way, I wouldn't use the concept of "natural" as a basis for morality.
For myself it simply amounts to equal consideration of interests(the biblical golden rule, 'do unto other as u would want done to u'), so depending on your cultural indoctrination & hence the nomenclature used, people(for me any species human & non-human) should not fear that I will cause them suffering, on the contrary, I need to extend to all love & compassion.(Self interest) Just an advocate for raising the bar of morality.
@veganath I would label myself as utilitarian. (With some added bits to be more robust to lack of information and lack of objectivity in the definition of good). So I have A (not necessarily THE) basis for morality.
The big difference between your form of morality and mine seems to be that harming someone is much worse in your opinion than letting harm happen to someone through inaction.
Unnecessary animal suffering is immoral. Growing GM pigs to harvest organs for transplants is moral.
@Paulginz Being utilitarian, u look to stem inefficiencies, and you agree that we should not cause unnecessary suffering to humans & non-humans, it's always nice to meet other vegetarians;-)
On the issue of harvesting GM pig organs, wouldn't it be more utilitarian to grow human clones to minimize the inherent rejection of xenotransplantation of transgenic organ by a host?
@veganath You would need to clone everyone pre-emptively to allow time for growth. Also you would need to develop artificial uteri etc. Growing organs from one's own stem cells is the next likely step forward (already done for some organs).
I'm not a vegetarian. I have plenty of rationalisations: e.g. The choice isn't between life and death for the animals, since they wouldn't be born in the first place if not for farming. But mainly I put a much higher weight on my happiness than on a cow's.
@Paulginz U say your not vegetarian & yet advocate that "Unnecessary animal suffering is immoral". You also claim to be utlitarian, but it seems only when convenient.
Well, it is the year 2010, there is no government today that say you need to eat any foods derived from animal sources to live in optimal health. On the contrary main stream medicos are advocating less consumption to prevent the early onset of chronically debilitating diseases.
@Paulginz For the word "NECESSARY" to mean anything, it cannot include AMUSEMENT, CONVENIENCE, or PLEASURE!!
Therefore the best justification we have for causing unimaginable suffering to billions of non-human animals every year is that - 'They taste good!!' Sounds a lot like 'Pleasure'!!
@Paulginz So if we have agreed with the original premise that we should not cause unnecessary suffering to animals & we take seriously our moral/ethical convictions & do not want to appear hypocritical then we cannot sit down to a meal that includes the consumption of meat!!
@Paulginz The jury is not out on the inefficiencies of rearing animals for food!!
In tracking food animal production from the feed through to the dinner table, the inefficiencies of meat, milk and egg production range from a 4:1 energy input to protein output ratio up to 54:1. The result is that producing animal-based food is typically much less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits for direct human consumption.
@Paulginz Additionally, the production and consumption of meat and other animal products is associated with the clearing of rainforests, resource depletion, air and water pollution, land and economic inefficiency, species extinction, and other environmental harms.
Paul if you truly claim to be Utilitarian then you need to seriously give consideration to what that means. A genuine Utilitarian would have to be vegan, if they don't simply want to appear hypocritical.
@veganath (continued) So it's not a categorical yes/no moral dilemma.
The question is HOW MUCH environmental harm tasty diverse food is worth.
We were specifically discussing meat though. The problem is that you are making a fallacious comparison. The alternative to "killing a cow to get my multi-yearly consumption of meat" is NOT "letting the cow live an idyllic life in the wild". It's "Never letting that cow be born".
The next problem of course is whether we should kill carnivorous animals.
@veganath Yes farming is inefficient. (except some cases e.g. extensive farming where the grazing land is unsuitable for agriculture.)
(Also, energy is not a fair metric (c.f. atkin's diet), protein content is better. Sill it's inefficient)
Inefficiency in of itself is not damning. Do you only eat the most efficient-to-grow healthy combination of vegetables? Or choose some based on taste? This means you are willing to sacrifice a little bit of rainforest for tastier food. (continued)
@veganath If the meaning of necessity is restricted to life-or-death situations, then it isn't necessary to avoid torture. There has to be a trade-off between quantity and quality of life somewhere. I should have used the word useless instead.
Depending on the type of farming, the amount of suffering can be less than would be expected in the wild. Abattoirs are designed to reduce (as much as cheaply possible) fear and suffering (it toughens the meat apparently).
I created a moral system the only way moral systems have ever been created since the dawn of time: I observed my behaviour and cultural prejudices, and found a system of axiomatic rules which would justify as many of them as possible while staying logically consistent. Which is why I used the term "rationalisation".
IIRC vegan diets decrease lifespan when adjusting for social factors (including health-consciousness).
I agree that we consume too much red meat on average.
the talk was inspiring and all, but its a bit "utopia" impossible. i think of myself as a "goody two shoes" as well, but the reality today is that human "greed" is inevitable/uncontrollable. call it lack of knowledge or plain old stupidity, but people WANT more with less expense on their part. people are just too selfish or greedy for this idea of sustainable farming to happen. i do see change though, but right now i think most people are just not as well informed like the small crowd in TED.
The one type of harvest that supports the environment... very very impressive and admirable! Now go watch the movie "The Cove" to see an example of unfortunate and brutal alternatives to this type of farming! A heartache of a subject, but very important, also revealing that the health issues of eating larger fish such as tuna, dolphin, whale etc. is the amount of mercury in the fish. As human beings we love fish myself included and this type of farm seems like an excellent option :)
there was a somewhat recently posted ted talk given by the author of omnivour's dilemma. that talk makes reference to polyface farms ( in pennsylvania maybe?) which makes good use of relationship as well. i'm glad to see these practices come to more prominence.
I LOVE this presentation. So true; let mother nature take it's course, and watch in amazement as all of your needs are met in abundance.
This presentation has so many important points to take away; the most important from this speech is the "measure your success by the health of the predators" - very Zen, very healthy.
I was a chef. I love haute cuisine - wonderful waste of resources. Dan Barber is a terrific chef, but he charges more for a single meal than most people spend on food for a week. His restaurants are lovely, but they have little or nothing to do with the way people in his community actually eat.
He should probably leave commenting on agriculture to people who actually know something about producing food at a price folks can afford.
Yeah, I know. It was perfect, why did they have to change it. They've changed a lot of stuff lately, what the hell is going on? There was nothing wrong with youtube, don't fix it! Its only been made worse.
Incredible speaker. Better the second time around. Also a cooker of flesh getting a standing ovation from TEDster veggies is no easy feat
crudhousefull 3 weeks ago
wonderful talk gives me hope for the future of this planet
ElmaPollard 4 months ago 2
Seriously, who eats fish....
salahhe 5 months ago
@salahhe over 3/4 of the world., need to get out of your coconut shell more often :)
loveyourlegwarmers 6 days ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
WHO FUCKING CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!
ill7291 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love his perspective on this issue, from how he got to where he came from to his viewpoints now. wonderful twist
Skamanjon 5 months ago
Thank you. The farming method described *is* revolutionary, but it's also quite popular - just very unusual on a large scale. It's called Permaculture.
charbonou2 6 months ago
Totally awesome. I man after my own heart. I appreciate him exposing more of the truth behind the American fish farming. I don't eat them - if I can help it.
ArizonaBorn1358 6 months ago
How are there 45 dislikes? What point or argument in all of that talk can you dislike?
mrbenderson005 9 months ago 11
@mrbenderson005 I guess they don't like fish
GangusKang 8 months ago
@mrbenderson005 There are bots that go in and click the dislike button.
randomunavailable 5 months ago
@mrbenderson005 I dun lik learnin
CymroGoch 1 month ago
i wish more people watched tedtalks. these lectures are the truly instructive material that could really make a difference.
buttfreckle 9 months ago
@buttfreckle TED Talks: food for thought. Here's some truth in advertising for ya ;)
creat3d 9 months ago
Comment removed
FishFarmingBusiness 9 months ago
I really commend the author of this post for putting up such an intelligent clip. This is a really deep video to watch and quite inspirational. Some of the comments on the video were really thought provoking. Will be recommending to other fish farmers on fishfarmingbusiness(dot) com to watch.
Fish farming is now big business as the demand for fish continues to rise globally and with the fact that demand for fish now far outstrips what mother nature can naturally supply.
FishFarmingBusiness 9 months ago
what 2 fishes is he talking about? i cant identify them.
reedux 10 months ago
this is absolutely genius
TopHatIndustries 11 months ago
mmmmmmmmmercury poisoning!
bakkerrich1979 11 months ago
why would you dislike this 0_0?
gigikun1 11 months ago
Excellent! Now all we have to do is turn exponential population growth into a decline so this sustainable system can sustain us!
Dracanic 1 year ago
very inspiring. one question though: is it profitable ?
Ramsez 1 year ago
@Ramsez Well obviously, if they're selling their fish, and not paying to feed them...
charbonou2 6 months ago
A great example of how a great story, delivers a message more powerfully, than any other way.
shockeyk 1 year ago
After watching this fine video from Dan Barber, I sadly realized that he was hopelessly right. I know this sounds negative, but I at 52yrs. have seen to much of large corporate greed for his friend Miguel's system to be inacted in my lifetime; on a global large percentage scale. I can only hope that modern technology will come into "proper play" in future generations so that these great ideas will become the norm. Just maybe before I die I will see the true turn around begin.
irishsqual 1 year ago 4
HE's quite a funny talker! I fell in Love with the fish
robzilla84911 1 year ago
Everyone should watch this! Enlightening, funny & scary all at he same time.
JerryJett 1 year ago
permaculture fishfarm! awsome
kingxciter 1 year ago
Comment removed
ch3lababii 1 year ago
have a whole diff thinking now when it comes to fish!
ch3lababii 1 year ago
biodiversity is key!!!!
grandlotus2 1 year ago
I do believe in fish farming with natural resources just like the fish farm that Dan Barber is talking about in spain. We have already have abused the sea with over fishing and polluting our oceans, so what better way to fix what we have already ruiend then making our own purfing system with these fish farms and feed the world along the way.
garciamonica1 1 year ago
@garciamonica1 very true!!!! =)
ch3lababii 1 year ago
If you're a natural gardener, or concerned about the nutritional value of your food, you NEED to watch this; especailly the last ten minutes.
The first part is nice and informative and entertaining as well.
Thanks so much for sharing this.
God Bless,
TGW10368760702
ThanksgivingWalk 1 year ago
Lets do it like he said.......
simcoeregionchapter 1 year ago
beautiful talk .. loved it. shows how much dan barber has prepared for this. and loved the standing ovation the audience gave him at the end.
shankarnath1234 1 year ago
@shankarnath1234 totally agree!!!!
ch3lababii 1 year ago
Implement these farms all over the world! End world hunger with abundance!
silversobe 1 year ago
So what if the fish are being fed some chicken pellets? He said himself that objectively the taste of this fish was good. If the taste of something changes so much upon knowing what is inside then surely you are being influenced too much by what is supposed to taste good/bad.
89jwood 1 year ago
You're all suckers for a few jokes and a bit of charisma. This is a completley unrealistic and fanciful ideal. Science is too busy concentrating on creating efficient, sustainable and most importantly CHEAP farming to benefit the whole population than to hear an anecdote about a rich chef going for a boat ride with a guy called Miguel.
89jwood 1 year ago
@89jwood then explain what's so unrealistic about it? Science might be focusing on other means of getting food but hey, it's not neccessarily the right frame of mind.
wuzzyman 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@89jwood And you don't know what you're talking about. Do you work for Monsanto?
garethlott 1 year ago
TED is Great, and Dan is funny and informative. I watch this vid for laughs, and the info about how to run a fish farm. Totally entertaining.
HoundmanV 1 year ago
what a great speaker! i click on the video by accident... i dont know anything about fish and got sucked in...and watch the whole video!
Xelaju16 1 year ago
a great speaker and a touching presentation.
ThorstenTreffer 1 year ago
it just donned on me.. this fish.. i love it, where can i (m)eat this fish?
newhorizons1970 1 year ago
Miguel is such a perfect example of what systems should strive for, but I think the biggest question is, how to accomplish this goal? What can we do to change our food system? Where should we start? How to be innovative and economically viable? Ted talks provokes so many questions...
angieangel135 1 year ago
Inspiring! Beautiful presentation!
clodelle 1 year ago
I really hate it when vegans impose their beliefs on others as if it were the righteous thing to do. I eat meat and I am pretty sure that I'm not an immoral, wasteful, hypocritical, or anything that can be loosely derivatively negative about eating meat. I dislike the fact that people find it necessary to impose their choice on others when that choice is only made possible through the success of their current agriculture. If you dislike the efficiency, then harp on that and not meat eaters.
Masterphan 1 year ago
Well worth watching
rahxephon52 1 year ago
Watch food, inc. to see what he's talking about with agri-business
afrodrummer72 1 year ago
No doubt! Flawless, Funny, Inspirational, Enlightening, coherent and ....... I LOVE FISH!!!
socratiz 1 year ago
Beautiful beautiful beautiful!!!
Thanks Dan Barber for sharing this amazing talk!!!
swtantra 1 year ago
Great!
mrkvamaster 1 year ago
I have to be honest and say that I have never really likes any seafood with the exception of clams, scallops and as horrible as it sounds, especially to a chef, canned tuna. That being said, I do however, realize and understand the importance of what he just said. I was horrified when he said chicken pellets. It totally gave new meaning to the term "chicken of the sea" to me.
SRJC5725 1 year ago
seriously good videos. Every single one is brilliant :) good job.
productionalhumour 1 year ago 22
This has been flagged as spam show
Enemy Belligerent Act:- Arrests and Indefinate Imprisonment without Lawful Cause and Due Process. Weed out Resisters
DHS Malintent & Naked Body Scanners:- Conditioning your Adherence to the Lovely Tyranny
S.773 - Cybersecurity Act of 2009:- Destroying Free Speech on the Internet. FED GOVERNMENT software standards for all ISP's. Allows Removal of all Global Communication at whim. Good to prevent Organized Resistors
Health Care HR 3590:- Completely Dicated Health Care Decisions. No Freedom
Terra7Q 1 year ago
What a great speaker. Loved this talk
cgbeaman 1 year ago 43
Great talk!
ScienceVideoResource 1 year ago
subtitles are awful... it calls "predictors" as creditors and again as spenders...
darkwizzard 1 year ago
02:10 >> Spot the stoner :D
yatah 1 year ago 2
Stop the increase of the human population on Earth.
dryan22 1 year ago
@dryan22 kill yourself
roidroid 1 year ago
@roidroid - the star of math class speaks doh
dryan22 1 year ago
2:13 guy in the middle
slw2222 1 year ago
Great story! BUT. The Vet La Palma story is a very special case. The canal system was there waiting for them. The company is in the lucky position to have a monopoly on a productive piece of the world. Had the spot been open to unregulated fishing the fish would soon be wiped out. The fact that the complex was aquired (presumably) at relatively low cost and is under the control of one entity with a long term perspective is what makes it an economic and ecological success.
jerikstacy 1 year ago
He looks and sounds like that guy from the first matrix movie.
the one who created "the woman in the red dress"
POLlyy23 1 year ago
I'll play devil's advocate:
What was the total yearly output of this farm?
How does that compare to the cost of the land used?
Paulginz 1 year ago 2
@Paulginz Two great questions.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
That was brilliant.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
I want to be able to do this with my fish tank... It doesn't need to be cleaned or aerated thanks to snails and plants. But I still have to use fish food, and it has artificial coloring in it.
luckyodeler 1 year ago
I've been discussing this with my wife. It seems like such an interesting goal to create a miniature ecosystem.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 Cool.
luckyodeler 1 year ago
"fish tasted like chicken" i loled
Jayhawkblue 1 year ago 2
I don't like this talk with love and fish. Love should be for people. I don't trust this man if he's going to be talking about beastiality.
robbycocksmith 1 year ago
I lolled.
Sconz32 1 year ago 2
great vid
mordorspy 1 year ago
Comment removed
Zeppelinemg 1 year ago
Really great talk! This is our future (I hope)
BFDK 1 year ago
no, the land is so cheap that all they did is make a giant pond and put fish in it. its not that remarkable. if land was cheap all over and people were few you could just let cows graze on grass and drink from a stream. there's too many of us so poor will always have to eat shit. by the way this guy is trying to talk like barrack obama and its kind of annoying.
theglib 1 year ago
He talks with the same cadence and rhythm as Obama.
willsl321 1 year ago
so how and how much is farmed from this place anyways... he goes on talking about the benefits but never actually says anything about their farming techniques
im all for sustainable farming and this is an excellent example but i feel like there could be something quantitative missing from this talk (ie how much is actually produced) that is needed to make his message a lot more meaningful
theburninator88 1 year ago
The Time Magazine article says about 1,200 tons of fish annually on 3,200 hectares of marshland. As most of the new "extensive" ecological-community-dominated farms are equally devoted to promoting the model as they are to actual production, it's hard to say what max capacity would be from this method.
deseosuho 1 year ago
I never knew my fish ate chicken.
rwickes 1 year ago
lol youtube discussion
angrylaserhobo 1 year ago
I got the 777th rating!
ProffetBlueFoxcoon 1 year ago
Fish are friends not food... If you really love them!!
Feed conversion ratios could easily be improved just remove the human consumption of animals from the mix. Go Veg!!
veganath 1 year ago
soybean farms are destroying the planet too
cchilder 1 year ago
@cchilder - Most agriculture is damaging to to planet, guess we wouldn't need to grow so much soy if there weren't so many non-human animals to feed.
veganath 1 year ago
what about the over-population of human animals. cant just toss this subject under the rug. making everybody eat veggie burgers wont solve the problem of industrial agriculture.
cchilder 1 year ago
The elephant in the room of our food production system is the rearing of animals for human consumption, as Dan Barber says it's the poor conversion ratio.
Vegetarians understand that even if we don't care for the welfare of animals, we should care that food we grow find it's way DIRECTLY for human consumption.
cchilder, we don't need to curb human population, planet earth could potentially feed 15 billion humans, but not while we give priority to feeding billions of non-human animals.
veganath 1 year ago
earth cannot feed that many people sustainably and still leave room for the other systems that support us. feeding 15 billion would leave no food for all the other creatures to eat. the world was not made for people. it was made for all life.
cchilder 1 year ago
Well a planet of 6 billion vegetarian humans would reduce the inherent violence that we abhor. Most vegetarians are vegetarians because they love animals, ALL of them!! The violence inherent in killing another creature, has resulted in our desensitizing to human suffering which historically has played out in wars. As ALBERT EINSTEIN said "Nothing will benefit human health and INCREASE CHANCES for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
So what do you suggest ?
veganath 1 year ago
its not just animals. plants have life too, as well as bacteria, fungi, viruses, tumors, parasites... we all have equal rights to live.
thats said, violence is a part of life. its inescapable. excessive violence is another thing, but that is subjective. as a large mammal, you enact violence to all the bugs you step on, all the parasites you cleanse from your body, and even the plants you kill to eat. the 'minimize violence' idea falls short because its entirely subjective.
cchilder 1 year ago
'acceptable violence' is based on what YOU deem morally appropriate, and what you deem morally appropriate, others may cringe at.
the black plague parasite were just tryna get by without causing too much harm as well. as a single member of the community of life, you cant tell any other member what is and is not acceptable. humans doing this very thing is what caused this problem in the beginning.
there is no one right way to live.
cchilder 1 year ago
and einstein also helped make the atomic bomb. talk about non-violence? i dont know if he is your best example...
cchilder 1 year ago
There was a case in northern China, a consequence of the PRC's one child policy & a preference for male children.
It was so important for couples to hv a male child, that middle men appeared who would promise, for a fee, to take the girl children of their hands & find another family for their child. Now where do you imagine this girls ended up. They were passed to farmers, and the girls were raised as we raise any other non-human animal, upon maturity, they were slaughtered for meat.
veganath 1 year ago
As this practice was going on in recent time, footage of the conditions & slaughter of this girls was circulated on youtube, it caused international furor, cchilder, you say the 'minimize violence' idea falls short because its entirely subjective & that there is no one right way to live & you cant tell any other member what is and is not acceptable. humans doing this very thing is what caused this problem in the beginning.
You have implicitly condoned these farmers actions.
veganath 1 year ago
you missed the point.
go eat a veggie burger.
cchilder 1 year ago
Comment removed
veganath 1 year ago
Ok, Yeah it was delicious, cholesterol free too!!
I get your point, however, but u'r not making a strong enough case. Morality is simple, basically the biblical golden rule, do unto other as u would want them to do to u! Or for us agnostics, "Equal consideration of interests". Sure bacteria, viruses hv life, but we only need to kill them when our life is threatened & sure plants hv life. Let me ask you in the interest of authenticity.
veganath 1 year ago
An attempt to elicit some acknowledgment that there is a huge difference between taking the life of a animal as compared to a plant.
On any given weekend, & given a choice between taking u'r children to (#1) the local veggie/fruit farm to pick their own food to eat, or (#2) the local abattoir to pick & kill an animal to take home to eat.
veganath 1 year ago
Which would you choose, would u'r children intuitively find picking strawberries or celery less traumatic, perhaps even enjoyable. Or would you have the heart to expose them to what goes on in an abattoir? Most people I know would prefer to hide their children from the reality of animals slaughtered for food, why?
veganath 1 year ago
in this culture, the slaughtering of animals has become something to be embarrassed of. but the starwbrries you prbably eat dont come from a pleasant little field either. they are loaded up with steroids and chemicals and they use crazy machines to pick them and their environment is utterly destroyed in their picking. its not all nice and pretty like we think it is.
unless youre talking organic/local/small farms whatevers. but in that case, the animals are treated a lot better as well.
cchilder 1 year ago
i dont see illing an animal as any different from killing a plant. i see all life as equally valuable and worth saving. i distress everytime i see someone weeding or mowing a lawn. the difference is just where you draw your own convenient line of morality.
this culture has made animal husbandry very grotesque and disgusting, but its done the same to plant growing.
cchilder 1 year ago
you will probably say plants dont think and animals do. but im saying they do think. they dont have brains or nervous systems, but they obviously like to live. they grow towards the light. they can get sick. they can die.
the difference is only in how big you draw your circle of appreciation.
cchilder 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You say "i don't see killing an animal as any different from killing a plant. i see all life as equally valuable and worth saving." Obviously, you have to eat so what is the basis of your choice between taking the life of an animal or that of a plant?
Personally, my choice is easy, if my children would cry at the sight of me taking the life of living thing then I wouldn't kill it. I believe children intuitively see other animals as just that other animals unlike themselves.
veganath 1 year ago
There is no escaping the violence inherent in taking another animals life, unless your sheltered from the reality by the other side of the walls of a abattoir. So if we don't have any biological need to eat them, then the choice is easy.
I find it interesting that u believe ALL life to be equal, this is a mystical statement just as the claim that "all men are created equal".
We have no empirical experiment that we can conduct that will quantifiably establish equality.
veganath 1 year ago
I think I agree with your comments about equality.
I do wonder about a difference between eating plants and eating animals. They are both life forms.
Do you eat broccoli - it has a central nervous system. Many edible plants have muscle fibers and functional hearts. They work profoundly differently, but are essentially the same structures.
I raise an eyebrow when people suggest it is only wrong to eat something we can easily anthropomorphize.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
exactly. im not saying there is no difference between plants and animals, but i dont like it when people play the "its wrong to eat animals" card.
cchilder 1 year ago
So given your moral position cannibalism is ok? Again I'm talking about causing as little suffering as possible as we go through our life. We have no biological need to eat other animal or fellow human animals, then our best justification for causing unimaginable suffering is that they "Taste Good!!". If I don't eat fruits & veg I die, I haven't any choice!!
veganath 1 year ago
Actually we're all repulsed by cannibalism because Carthage lost it's war with Rome. They found the Roman practice of burning the dead repugnant. They couldn't understand how you could treat your loved ones like fire-wood, rather than show them respect by talking them into you. Morals are highly subjective.
Eat some fish if your worried about suffering, they have almost no pain receptors.
Some of us actually have to eat meat to survive. I ended up in the hospital trying to be vegan.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
Try a raw vegan diet, giving that our species is the ONLY species using fire to denature the food we eat,it's not surprise we end up hospitalized. Why do you cook u'r food, eat it as every other species on the planet does, and u won't get sick as they don't.
veganath 1 year ago
Do you actually do any research ever!!?? It's been shown definitively that cooking our food is what made our species what it is!
Cooking food performs several of the functions that our body uses energy to perform in order derive what it needs from what we eat. We acquire orders of magnitude more nutrition from cooked food than we do from raw.
Furthermore, when we cooked our food, we lived for about 30 years. Now many of us last longer than a century.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
Damn it! "before we cooked our food we lived for about 30 years."
Thinking I have a good point apparently doesn't exempt me from typos. :)
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
Take a little while and read up on some things instead of just following your emotions.
Arrogance is thinking your own thoughts and feelings are sufficient to understand the world. Humility requires that you question yourself.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
I look at where conventional wisdom has got us. Humans are feared by most other species, we destroy our environment, we war amongst ourselves, in spite of our 'best' efforts to exploit this planets resources, happiness(undeniable holy grail) eludes us, so I promised myself not to fall for this matrix of seduction, as I saw those who went before me do. Sad but in this world today their are very few people who are looked to as exemplary role models of compassion & love. Our children wait 4 us.
veganath 1 year ago
I respect questioning conventional wisdom. I also advocate continuing to question your own wisdom after you start thinking for yourself.
I submit that there are some facts you may not be aware of, which you can verify for yourself.
Humans aren't the only species that engages in warfare (see chimps).
Most animals are afraid of most other animals.
Our technology has increased our lifespan while improving our standard of living.
*second comment*
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
In my opinion we can correct the mistakes we've made along the way without giving up what we've gained.
We don't need stop eating meat to stop treating our food animals like crap. We can be human, which would include eating a natural human diet, while preserving the environment. This video presents some ideas how.
You are right that there are too few people who are role models of compassion. Showing our children we can live as part of nature rather than above it seems a good place to start.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
And I can't believe you assert that other species don't get sick. Most animals in wild live under stress with not enough food and die violent bloody deaths. Most of the rest die from disease, usually associated with malnutrition.
99% species that have ever existed are extinct for a reason. Finding a diet that will sustain, is nearly impossible in nature. Our species was able to spread far and wide because we could use cooking & technology to adapt to a great variety of flora & fauna.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
Sure animals get sick when kept in human captivity.
Finding a diet that will sustain, is nearly impossible in nature, probably has something to do with, clear felling these animals habitat, so as we can graze cattle & grow the crops to feed them.
veganath 1 year ago
I'm always pretty offended by vegetarians that walk around pretending their more moral than the rest of us.
You don't want to eat meat that's fine, but it doesn't make you more moral. You have drawn a line and decided it's ok to kill and eat things that can't run away and don't move in disturbing ways when you kill them.
That's arbitrary and unworthy of respect. Doubly so, if you go around asserting to others that you have the moral high ground because you can't accept human physiology.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As I said to cchilder
So human beings are animals as are peoples pets, all move in disturbing ways when you kill them. So your arbitrary line of morality places them on which side friend or food?
Your morality troubles me. I just don't get what you deem moral or immoral. According to your model do I have to accept people flying planes into buildings for example, people rearing humans as animals to be slaughtered for meat? Is there anything that you deem morally reprehensible?
veganath 1 year ago
It's interesting you would reference the reactions of your children. It's like you're invoking the concept of natural behavior as a model.
But uh...we're grazing predators or omnivores. It's plain from our physiology. Our intestines can only handle so much plant and so much meat. And our physical form is designed both to easily pick plants and to leverage strength into a killing blow.
From a natural perspective, we eat things that run; and then, wash it down with berry juice.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
i eat animals because they taste good, they give me nutrition that is naturally occurring and good for me, and my species evolved to eat them. ya know those sharp teeth in your mouth, the canines? they are for meat eating. i am just as moved by killing an animal as i am by killing a plant. as a large predator with a big brain and a soul, it is something i am capable of feeling.
cchilder 1 year ago
So human beings are animals as are peoples pets. So your convenient line of morality places them on which side of your line & why?
It troubles me that your arbitrary line of morality did implicitly condone the farming of female human children in my previous real life example. I just don't get what you deem moral or immoral. According to your model do I have to accept people flying planes into buildings for example?
veganath 1 year ago
all im saying is that building a moral foundation out of 'non-violence' is a losing game. life is a violent thing: eating, dying, competition. not everyone survives. its not good or bad, it just is. there are certain aspects of veg-ism that i like, non-violence aspect is just stupid.
cchilder 1 year ago
you dont have to accept anything. unfortuantely, little girls are farmed, people fly planes into buildings, and eating a plant kills it. a philosophy of non-violence not only fails to avoid these outcomes, but does nothing to stop them from happening either.
the conclusion i have made is this: people who talk preach non-violence are ignorant, elitist, and above all, pussies who wont stand up and fight for what matters.
whether or not any of those labels apply to you is your choice. make it.
cchilder 1 year ago
I'm ex-military, I joined because I wanted to protect what I loved, so yes there are somethings worth fighting for. When it comes to the issue of non-violence, we have a choice, if violence is needed for self preservation, ok, however, if no human initiated unnecessary violence as a choice, the world would be peaceful. Again, we have tried almost every avenue to create a peaceful world, economic, political, technological, etc, to no avail.
Veganism looks to be untried, Einstein may be right!
veganath 1 year ago
@veganath The reason it's hard or even traumatising to kill a large mammal/bird is that they are much more similar to us than plants/insects.
Generally, it's very hard to have empathy for something without a face.
Children aren't traumatised by fishing trips because fishes have less expressive faces and are silent.
Also, turning to children's sensibilities for moral guidance is a very BAD idea. (And I'm not just talking about those who torture animals for fun.)
Paulginz 1 year ago
@Paulginz I just believe we should not willfully cause unnecessary suffering to animals. And u?
I wish I didn't need to hurt plants, unfortunately I have nothing else to eat.
Here is something of interest about children who torture animals.
"Out of 135 criminals, including robbers and rapists, 118 admitted that when they were children they burned, hanged and stabbed domestic animals."
Ogonyok (1979) (Soviet anti-cruelty magazine)
veganath 1 year ago
@veganath From a statistical point of view, your quote only furthers my point: The experience of torturing animals is extremely common amongst kids. If you followed the lives of many children, you would probably find that most of those who torture animals DON'T become criminals.
Paulginz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Paulginz I just believe we should not willfully cause unnecessary suffering to animals. And u?
veganath 1 year ago
@Paulginz
"You put a baby in a crib with an apple and a rabbit. If it eats the rabbit and plays with the apple, I'll buy you a new car" - Harvey Diamond
Children aren't born inherently violent, they are desensitized to suffering of others by their parents. I believe a babies natural state is of seeing/feeling the beauty & wonder that is life & subsequently as they grow, give equal consideration of interests to others. (human & non-human people).
veganath 1 year ago
@veganath As far as I know, feral children are LESS concerned with the interests of others than normal children.
The ability to even just consider other people's thoughts in a meaningful manner (e.g. without assuming that they have exactly the same knowledge as you) takes >3 years to develop in children.
Although your hypothesis of people being naturally good is heart-warming, it's false. I assume you don't have kids.
Either way, I wouldn't use the concept of "natural" as a basis for morality.
Paulginz 1 year ago
@Paulginz So you have a basis for morality?
For myself it simply amounts to equal consideration of interests(the biblical golden rule, 'do unto other as u would want done to u'), so depending on your cultural indoctrination & hence the nomenclature used, people(for me any species human & non-human) should not fear that I will cause them suffering, on the contrary, I need to extend to all love & compassion.(Self interest) Just an advocate for raising the bar of morality.
veganath 1 year ago
@veganath I would label myself as utilitarian. (With some added bits to be more robust to lack of information and lack of objectivity in the definition of good). So I have A (not necessarily THE) basis for morality.
The big difference between your form of morality and mine seems to be that harming someone is much worse in your opinion than letting harm happen to someone through inaction.
Unnecessary animal suffering is immoral. Growing GM pigs to harvest organs for transplants is moral.
Paulginz 1 year ago
@Paulginz Being utilitarian, u look to stem inefficiencies, and you agree that we should not cause unnecessary suffering to humans & non-humans, it's always nice to meet other vegetarians;-)
On the issue of harvesting GM pig organs, wouldn't it be more utilitarian to grow human clones to minimize the inherent rejection of xenotransplantation of transgenic organ by a host?
veganath 1 year ago
@veganath You would need to clone everyone pre-emptively to allow time for growth. Also you would need to develop artificial uteri etc. Growing organs from one's own stem cells is the next likely step forward (already done for some organs).
I'm not a vegetarian. I have plenty of rationalisations: e.g. The choice isn't between life and death for the animals, since they wouldn't be born in the first place if not for farming. But mainly I put a much higher weight on my happiness than on a cow's.
Paulginz 1 year ago
@Paulginz U say your not vegetarian & yet advocate that "Unnecessary animal suffering is immoral". You also claim to be utlitarian, but it seems only when convenient.
Well, it is the year 2010, there is no government today that say you need to eat any foods derived from animal sources to live in optimal health. On the contrary main stream medicos are advocating less consumption to prevent the early onset of chronically debilitating diseases.
veganath 1 year ago
@Paulginz For the word "NECESSARY" to mean anything, it cannot include AMUSEMENT, CONVENIENCE, or PLEASURE!!
Therefore the best justification we have for causing unimaginable suffering to billions of non-human animals every year is that - 'They taste good!!' Sounds a lot like 'Pleasure'!!
veganath 1 year ago
@Paulginz So if we have agreed with the original premise that we should not cause unnecessary suffering to animals & we take seriously our moral/ethical convictions & do not want to appear hypocritical then we cannot sit down to a meal that includes the consumption of meat!!
veganath 1 year ago
@Paulginz The jury is not out on the inefficiencies of rearing animals for food!!
In tracking food animal production from the feed through to the dinner table, the inefficiencies of meat, milk and egg production range from a 4:1 energy input to protein output ratio up to 54:1. The result is that producing animal-based food is typically much less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits for direct human consumption.
veganath 1 year ago
@Paulginz Additionally, the production and consumption of meat and other animal products is associated with the clearing of rainforests, resource depletion, air and water pollution, land and economic inefficiency, species extinction, and other environmental harms.
Paul if you truly claim to be Utilitarian then you need to seriously give consideration to what that means. A genuine Utilitarian would have to be vegan, if they don't simply want to appear hypocritical.
veganath 1 year ago
@veganath (continued) So it's not a categorical yes/no moral dilemma.
The question is HOW MUCH environmental harm tasty diverse food is worth.
We were specifically discussing meat though. The problem is that you are making a fallacious comparison. The alternative to "killing a cow to get my multi-yearly consumption of meat" is NOT "letting the cow live an idyllic life in the wild". It's "Never letting that cow be born".
The next problem of course is whether we should kill carnivorous animals.
Paulginz 1 year ago
@veganath Yes farming is inefficient. (except some cases e.g. extensive farming where the grazing land is unsuitable for agriculture.)
(Also, energy is not a fair metric (c.f. atkin's diet), protein content is better. Sill it's inefficient)
Inefficiency in of itself is not damning. Do you only eat the most efficient-to-grow healthy combination of vegetables? Or choose some based on taste? This means you are willing to sacrifice a little bit of rainforest for tastier food. (continued)
Paulginz 1 year ago
@veganath If the meaning of necessity is restricted to life-or-death situations, then it isn't necessary to avoid torture. There has to be a trade-off between quantity and quality of life somewhere. I should have used the word useless instead.
Depending on the type of farming, the amount of suffering can be less than would be expected in the wild. Abattoirs are designed to reduce (as much as cheaply possible) fear and suffering (it toughens the meat apparently).
Paulginz 1 year ago
@veganath
I created a moral system the only way moral systems have ever been created since the dawn of time: I observed my behaviour and cultural prejudices, and found a system of axiomatic rules which would justify as many of them as possible while staying logically consistent. Which is why I used the term "rationalisation".
IIRC vegan diets decrease lifespan when adjusting for social factors (including health-consciousness).
I agree that we consume too much red meat on average.
Paulginz 1 year ago
@cchilder Einstein didn't really help make the bomb. "E=mc^2" hardly counts.
Paulginz 1 year ago
@cchilder Violence being inescabable is about as true as you getting mugged everytime you step out of your door.
highawareness 1 year ago
They were already doing this in India. Great way to take care of human waste through natural filtration :)
bl0000000000 1 year ago
the talk was inspiring and all, but its a bit "utopia" impossible. i think of myself as a "goody two shoes" as well, but the reality today is that human "greed" is inevitable/uncontrollable. call it lack of knowledge or plain old stupidity, but people WANT more with less expense on their part. people are just too selfish or greedy for this idea of sustainable farming to happen. i do see change though, but right now i think most people are just not as well informed like the small crowd in TED.
mariolawpanda 1 year ago
cool guy
googoo120 1 year ago
Odd title.
AmericanCritiquer 1 year ago
The one type of harvest that supports the environment... very very impressive and admirable! Now go watch the movie "The Cove" to see an example of unfortunate and brutal alternatives to this type of farming! A heartache of a subject, but very important, also revealing that the health issues of eating larger fish such as tuna, dolphin, whale etc. is the amount of mercury in the fish. As human beings we love fish myself included and this type of farm seems like an excellent option :)
chvick 1 year ago
hey has a great speech on foie gras too. amazing speaker. brilliant ideas.
OpakeArawra2 1 year ago
"fish that taste like chicken", ha ha priceless! :P
SecretOrientalSauce 1 year ago
there was a somewhat recently posted ted talk given by the author of omnivour's dilemma. that talk makes reference to polyface farms ( in pennsylvania maybe?) which makes good use of relationship as well. i'm glad to see these practices come to more prominence.
JustinHSabaj 1 year ago
sustainable fishing, how? go back to the basics!
drdollars77 1 year ago
How to sustain wild farms like that fishery is exciting!
audiowiz 1 year ago
This is basically Permaculture in action.
MilesB1975 1 year ago
Comment removed
Crazee108 1 year ago
I LOVE this presentation. So true; let mother nature take it's course, and watch in amazement as all of your needs are met in abundance.
This presentation has so many important points to take away; the most important from this speech is the "measure your success by the health of the predators" - very Zen, very healthy.
Imagine the possibilities!
colinlikeschapstick 1 year ago 3
as long as you are not the fish.
kriptonis 1 year ago
LMAO true, true.
colinlikeschapstick 1 year ago
LOL - Foodies making themselves feel virtuous.
I was a chef. I love haute cuisine - wonderful waste of resources. Dan Barber is a terrific chef, but he charges more for a single meal than most people spend on food for a week. His restaurants are lovely, but they have little or nothing to do with the way people in his community actually eat.
He should probably leave commenting on agriculture to people who actually know something about producing food at a price folks can afford.
dadattam 1 year ago
this is awesome
pyro51090 1 year ago 2
Amazing presentation! Brilliant!
IkaikaSpace 1 year ago 8
the new you tube sucks
bluzy25 1 year ago 2
@bluzy25
Why did they do this to its users.. why?
OriginalMindTrick 1 year ago
Yeah, I know. It was perfect, why did they have to change it. They've changed a lot of stuff lately, what the hell is going on? There was nothing wrong with youtube, don't fix it! Its only been made worse.
fuunguus 1 year ago
Veganism is the best solution to a lot of problems like this
tommyk77 1 year ago
soybeans rape the environment just as much
cchilder 1 year ago
Harvesting kills mice, I know. But it's better than having long term suffering and exploitation of other animals like cows and chickens
tommyk77 1 year ago 2