For anyone interested in the teachings of Carolyn Steel, she is visiting Schumacher College, Devon UK this autumn to take a course titled 'Awakening our Relationship with Food' - go to the College website for more details.
i think it's so sad the amount of people who don't understand this subject. i guess it comes down to things that scare us we choose not to believe. even if you disagree with most of the information presented you must understand the concept that most of us havent a clue of where are food has come from, what has been sprayed on it and how long ago it was picked prior to reaching the grocery store. when is the last time any one of us has purchased a ripe tomato at the store that tasted good.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I thought her ideas were nonsensical. What was she really saying? That we should all be growing our own food in our back yards? People don't grow their own food because nobody wants to do it. Its hot, sweaty, dirty, and miserable work. Agricultural mechanization is a beautiful thing to anybody who has actually grown anything more than a couple tomatoes and flowers in their backyard.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
blah blah blah meat bad blah blah blah loss of nature blah blah blah unealthy blah blah blah destruction of the land blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
this women is very smart and she has some correct views on food. Today we dont eat as fresh as we would like.Fresh food has been replaced by Mcdonalds, burgerking and kentucky fried chiken. We dont eat as a family. Now we feed our kids ramen noodles like its a major food group. And the amount of Msg = Monosodium Glutimate is rediculus. Msg should be banned just as food additives and food coloring should also be banned due to high blood pressure and diabetes and most cancers today.
to say msg and food coloring should be banned is ignorant. People can educate themselves on those topics, should not be controlled by any one government or group
I think we should get rid of supermarkets because they enabled women to go to school and pursue carreers. women should spend more of their time at farmers markets instead of thinking they have a place outside the home. its crazy that women can just get away with buying a weeks full of groccerys at a time.
PLEASE DONT READ THIS. YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE? FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE. TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. HOWEVER IF YOU DONT POST THIS COMMENT TO AT LEAST 3 VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS. NOW UV STARTED READIN DIS DUNT STOP THIS IS SO SCARY. SEND THIS OVER TO 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SO SCARY BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKs japanjunkie ..
Kudos Ms. C. Steel brilliant ,, love this topic .. It is as important as any ,, if not all... W/ our so called intelligence in this day and age our thinking re; food(s) is being overtaken by corporate greed, with little respect about basic human compassion... I think we ate better 50 yrs ago VS. today ... joel d. ( Ind. )
It's not just monoculture (altho that is a problem). It's also the power of big business (at home and abroad), the well-meaning but misguided public policy of subsidies, the reduction of genetic diversity, the chemicals that make people sick, the dangerous work environment of meat packers, the links to obesity. It goes on and on. I just think we can do better.
@jursamaj; That's not necessarily true. The cheap food coming out of industrial production (and the actions of mega food companies) may actually have the long term effect of causing enormous poverty, and aren't sustainable anyway.
Besides which, we only started farming like this about 70 years ago. The world population then was about 2.5B (UN estimate). You're saying that the world at the time couldn't have supported more than 0.6B people.
But this is all nit-picking the details. The fact is, this idea requires a *drastic* reduction of current population, and authoritarian control of new births.
Most of the population reduction would likely come from the wars trying to force this stuff on the various countries of the world.
This may take a few posts to answer, so bear with me.
1. I say 70 years b/c that's when we started using left over explosives from WWII as fertilizer (NPK fertilizers), which are devistating when they run off the farms in rainwater. You might could stretch it to 80 years b/c that's when the US government started actively trying to consolodate farming by encouraging farmers to sell their land to agribusiness.
2. The use of fossil fuels *in moderation* is sustainable for many years to come. The trouble is that the West doesn't use fossil fuels in moderation, in agriculture or out of it.
For fossil fuels "long enough" would be time to find something better, but that's not really the point. Putting aside the trouble that appears to be coming our way because of global warming, there's also the problem of the waste produced by our food system. The pesicides and mountains of feces that leech into American rivers and drinking water can only persist for so long before cholera is an issue again. There's E. Coli in our spinach, for crying out loud, and that ain't right.
3. Cheap food and the actions of Monsanto, etc. go hand in hand. Vandana Shiva has explained this better than I can, and it would take more posts here than anyone has patience for anyway, so I encourage you to check out some of her lectures on the interaction between food, agribusiness and poverty.
(And just in case you couldn't care less about India, consider how agribusiness is undermining classic agriculture in the US. Monsanto is carrying on a campaign against farmers who don't buy their GM seeds by accusing them of theft and suing them. That hurts the US's ability to prevent famine b/c it reduces the genetic diversity, which means that one super bug can kill all corn in the country.)
Again, if it only considers that trio of things (food, agribusiness and poverty), in their current configurations, then it is a very impoverished analysis.
If Monsanto is making false accusation, that is a wholly separate issue from monocultures. As for diversity itself, what are you going to do, tell some farmers they are required to use seeds with less yield in order to preserve diversity? They'll go out of business.
Monsanto's accusations highlight one of the problems of industrial farming: mega food companies have too much power. Farmers have been steadily put out of business since the Depression. That in itself isn't a world-ender. Problem is, food companies are now pushing to stop farmers from using seeds produced on their own land. Those farmers are put out of business by legal fees b/c of Monsanto's lawsuits. I think farmers should have the option of heirloom seeds.
But by that logic, *all* the mega corps are too powerful. But they got that wealth and power because the consumer chose it. How do you propose to alter the basics of economics?
Mega corps: Actually, I suspect that mega corporations in general actually are too powerful and reduce productive competition in the long run. But that's just my opinion. They got that way because of the passivity or active support of government in the 20th century. I don't think consumers chose it so much as they didn't notice it until it had already happened, or were fallable and couldn't predict the consequences. Many consumers now are actively pushing against it (vote with you fork).
4. The world's population will drop soon anyway. It's already happening in the West. Better medicine drove the population up b/c children were surviving to adulthood. Education and empowerment of women will drive it down b/c who the hell wants to go thru labor 10 times if they don't have to? At least that's been the logic of educated and empowered women the world over so far.
It's true that Europe-descended culture has done as you say. It remains to be seen whether the developing countries will follow suit. You assume education and empowerment of women will be universal, yet there are strong forces currently trying to prevent that.
Population forecast: I actually checked this out on Gapminder (TED is awesome!), and in the last 15-20 years, children per women has gone down as literacy and early education among girls has gone up, all over the world. Rates in different countries vary, and there are outliers, but the trend is there. Equality in education has been and is going up and children per women is going down.
Population: By that logic we can't make any predictions and therefore both of our arguments about future populations are invalid. My argument is, given what's happened so far, I predict that the trend will continue. Many countries not in "the West" already are below the birth rate necessary to replace their populations.
I recommend the wiki on "Demographic transition" (also "Demographic-economic paradox"). In particular: "Note that this model predicts ever decreasing fertility rates, whereas recent data shows that after a certain level of development the fertility increases again [3]."
Stage 3, involving the decrease of birth rates, depends on the events Europe went thru, which aren't guaranteed. Particularly notice the "demographic trap".
It appears that stage 3 depends on events that went on (and are still going on) in China, South Korea, Iran, Thailand, Turkey, Brazil, and other non-European states. So, it's not just Europe. As for the possibility of increasing fertility post-stage 3, the impact of that depends on a) how low did the birth rate get, and b) how great of an increase are we talking about? ...
If Lebanon's stats go from 1.89 children (2006) to 2.5 (a good, solid replacement rate), then that's still not going to increase the overall population.
What I see is, the countries that fall into the demographic trap are a minority (they're mostly in Sub-Saharan Africa), and even the DTM suggests that such states will probably fail and fall into either famine or warfare that will through great tragedy bring the population down again.
Not lead to an increase of population? How's that?
If each woman has 2.5 kids, that means each woman produces 1.25 girls, women in the next generation.
Treat it as discrete generational: Start with 1000 men and 1000 women. Next generations has 1250 of each. Next 1562. Then 1953 (nearly doubled in 3 generations), 2441, 3051 (tripled in 5), etc.
And as their healthcare gets better, more of those will survive longer.
"The replacement fertility rate is roughly 2.1 births per woman for most industrialized countries ... but ranges from 2.5 to 3.3 in developing countries because of higher mortality rates" --Wiki. It's over 2.0 b/c of infant and child mortality, and women who do not or cannot reproduce for other reasons. Maybe 2.5 is high for Lebanon specifically, but my point about an eventual increase in birth rates still stands.
Stop balmeing the developing world you fucks.. I am an indian and i eat meat only once or twice in a week! There are many indians who are hard core vegetarians who would are brought up never to touch meat! So blame yourselves.. your greed is what caused this huge mess.. we told you not go so greedy now we have to pay for your miss dead.. think not.
Ted's mission appears to be..."the world is going to hell in a heand basket, the way we have ordered socierty in up till now has failed, however, we the ellite have arrived and will save the day.
.... rather put it like this - "The dedicated researcher (elite) came up with some (unexpected) surprising results...which they would like to share, and consequently, try to make people aware or increase the level of awareness."
That's not the case at all. TED is simple a convention where individual people, all over the world, working on independent or global problems of the world, explain to each other what they are doing. The TED prize is awarded to people of fruitful causes.
These are people that believe they can make a difference, and are working with every ounce of their power to do so. You perceive the world as "going to hell in a handbasket", so that is how you interpret TED's purpose.
Look I enjoy TED. But the fact remains, they are technologists and technologists are of the opinion that things - anything - can be fixed or made better.
Society isn't a play thing or an object, it is people living together - what F.A.Hayek called a Spontaneous Order. Many TED speakers want an Engineered Order because they think they know better than the rest of us.
I still don't understand why they haven't had any permaculture specialists on. I submitted a request on TED the site, but I guess they'd need more requests. any one out there who agrees with me, please go to TED . com and submit a request for Bill Mollison, Sepp Holtzer, Geoff Lawton or any of the many others teaching permaculture around the world.
As someone who works in the food industry, it is true, people have become very distanced from their food, and waste lots of it. We are privileged to to live in a society where so few, relatively speaking, are required to feed so many. Food gets grown, picked, processed, packaged and shipped thousands of miles. A burger can contain meat from hundreds of animals. there's some food for thought!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Stage one speaker. I love how she tries to include everyone else in her dystopian world. Like we're all fat bastard food wasters who don't value what they eat. Then she even shows pictures of farmers markets and fields and cooks and acts like she fucking invented them or discovered them. Normally I'm big on anthropology but I didn't get anything from this other than the fat lady thinks it's the world's fault she's fat.
What great arguments? She discovered a problem that people don't care about and pointed out solutions someone else came up with that became popular years ago and which she in no way helped implement and still she's acting depressing and self righteous. Give her a gold star for wasting my time.
I was responding to a response. It's simple social interaction. when someone says something you respond this prevents a comment section from being a dull wasteland of trolls and fanboys. Debate arises and even something as meaningless as this piece of fluff might actually atone for itself by leading to an interesting conversation or debate.
I agree with you but at the very least, she's speaking where those who have truly contributed to things like permaculture may soon get a stage like this to state their case.
That was the first time I'd heard permaculture mentioned at a TED talk. I don't care who she is, I'm just glad she's brought it up.
Sungazing would help the billion starving and the billion obese. Youtube Search: Solar Gazing with HRM. Food is a secondary source of sun energy. The eye on the capstone of the One Dollar bill is your clue. The stone that the builders disregarded turns out to be the most important. It's the pineal gland. The third eye. There ARE many people living now without eating food. Sungazers are everywhere.
New studies show that overweight is caused mainly by how much food the mothers eat during pregnancy. Eating too little food will cause the baby to be born with bacterias that break down fat much more efficient than normal. This is the main cause why some people can eat almost all the food they want and don't ever get fat, while others have to eat diets to drop weight. You're prejudice is uncalled for.
I'm sorry, don't got any links to hand out right now. The source of my claims, is a highly respectable magazine called "Science Illustrated", if that helps on the truthfulness of my claims. But if you still want links, I'll get back to you later and try dig up something, I just don't got the time right now.
that should probably be enough to go on, but i suspect your claims are quite accurate, i once watched a show about a specific nucleic acid that handles personal evolution over the course of your life, for example if you practice punching hard objects often your body will actively change the structure of the bones in your knuckles by adding new layers of calcium deposits, if only i could remember the name of the molecule... its driving my crazy, im sure its the same phenomena at work
I was a bit over 210 pounds 8 or so months ago and am now 155 lbs, this is without doing anything special. Saying this to let you know that genes and bs excuses are just that, excuses. Educate yourself and find out why your body isn't behaving like you want it to couse is the end is your fault as opposed to some disadvantage you been putted with.
Google: Poor Nutrition in Pregnancy May Mean Obese Kids
These articles doesn't state exactly what I stated about the bacterias, but I remember those statements from "Science Illustrated" specifically. The article in SI was much longer and went deeper in detail than these articles. And stated other things like that there might be a correlation with poor diet in America 30-50 years ago and today's overweight problems in America.
Now I ain't generalizing this, you're situation may very well be totally different. All overweight people does not necessarily have their mother (or grand mother) to blame for their obesity. And one should be careful about putting blame on anyone for something you can't be sure about.
one would be a fool to think genes dont play a part, some people would have to work a hundred times as hard as you to achieve the same results because of their physiological makeup, the moral of the story, often it is a bad excuse and sometimes it is a legitimate one
First off she starts off by saying we cant feed the world and that we cant feed the world meats. And that there is no solution likely.
Industry and technology in food sciences have archived the unheard of only 75 years ago. In the last 50 years food production per acre has skyrocketed. She greatly underestimates the human ability to achieve the impossible. In typical libtard fashion she creates a crisis out of nothing, and wants to control it
Rewatch her presentation, she is not saying that we can't feed the world, she is in fact saying that we are doing it badly and inefficiently.
But, of course, your use of an epithet shows me that you really weren't watching it except through your own blinders and wouldn't get it if you did rewatch it.
How is it more social to shop at a centralized market in a small city vs shopping in a supermarket in suburb of a large city? Then she says we don't trust food. Somehow she knows that people in the past really trusted their food. This is based on nothing. She just made it up.
The world has evolved towards specialisation (I think it's a shame she forgot to mention the effects of refrigeration on food transport), in both transport and agriculture. So why is that bad per se? Is it specialisation that causes environmental damage, or something else?
I also found her way of speaking a bit strange; as if decisions about food distribution were made collectively. Even in Rome, that lover of the politic, food was a decentralised affair.
I think much of what she is referring to for food can also be referred to trade routes... although most trade before the trains and boats were only food and maybe tradesman's goods like metals.
She's right though, food has long been a tool of powerful control. And with 5 major corporations owning most of the food industry that doesn't bode well for the little guy :S
The decision is considered collective because food is necessity.
There are several cities which have successfully incorporated food production into the urban environment. This does away with much of the transportation and energy costs associated with food distribution. Of course, eating less or no meat or dairy has a huge effect too.
if you are going to make a speech, at least try to change your voice tone so it doesn't sound like you are bored to death and wanting to be somewhere else.
I'm just not convinced by this. The lack of data here worries me. This is simply "oh wouldn't it be nice if we had happy cows, happy families, and happy community food." Specialization if a part of economic advancement. the Rural/Urban divide is a part of this and without mega farms we wouldn't be able to feed NEARLY as many as we do now.
I agree. Food production is more efficient than it has ever been. Streamlined production and distribution methods have done more to feed the hungry than any amount of environmental romanticism ever could.
There are some valid points though: Meat as a source of energy is very inefficient (and delicious). At the current growth rates we will quickly run of of agricultural land, although this is more a problem of overpopulation than food production.
There was another Ted video that argued the opposite. Essentially without modern super farms many more humans would not be alive today. If we switch to something less efficient, instead of 1 billion starving we will have 2 billion. In fact the number of staving people has been falling and its definitively linked to the increase in availability and cheapness of food.
The point is that she didn't really offer any solutions that had any sound scientific bases. No statistical data or anything.
so basically, she is looking at life from only one perspective, right? and then she tries to put all together seen from this one perspective. and it seems to fit, so her perspective is the right one?
looking at it from this perspective, her talk seems provocative and more like art - rethorical polemicising but only a picture seen in black and white.
Also, certain things like agriculture simply can't be done effectively at a local scale. Perhaps buying all our food from Walmart to the point where they can automate their business even further, to deliver fresh produce from large agricultural centers straight to our dwellings might be one way to bend capitalism to our benefit.
I fear this "eat natural" religious movement is breeding a generation of neo-luddites with very little in the way of logic and scientific skills, and no appreciation for how far we've come thanks to the benefits of our technology.
I'd rather hear someone talk about exactly WHY Home Grown food tastes better, i'm quite tired of hearing the "it's magic!" explanation of Gaia worshiping retards.
"Yeah, can you taste the love in this tomato, maaaaan?" urgh
"no appreciation for how far we've come thanks to the benefits of our technology."
The worst are the people decrying genetically-engineered crops as being some sort of mutant vegetation that is the bane of humanity. You know, never mind the BILLION people saved worldwide by GE crops, or the fact that as population increases, so must crop yields.
Organic foods are great, but for most of the world's population, are not an option. It's elitist and shortsighted to force them onto people.
ive recently been discovering the joys of cooking from scratch. its wonderful getting know know food and it feels good to enjoy a meal free, or at least nearly free, of preservatives and food colorings and artificial sweeteners and things of that nature.. just today i made fresh pasta for the first time. i must say it was WONDERFUL! it was fun, delicious and SO much cheaper than premade pasta :). i wish i could have been raised to know more about food instead of learning about it later in life.
how do you feed a city?...how bout you tell me what your fat ass eats in a day and im pretty sure i could answer your question. what a pathetic rant of nothing
This lady is talking out of her butt. Nothing worth seeing here. She takes no considerations of neither economics nor fundamental nutritional knowledge.
Food is the cornerstone for many families, as it should be. No thanks with the nutrient pills. Proper farming methods enrich and nourish the land while creating an abundance of food for people to eat. Remineralized minimally processed organic and biodynamic foods are the key to the future.
So what about communities built in places where the soil is only efficient to grow a limited variety of crops?
Or what if the soil and/or climate is so poor that it would leave a smaller carbon footprint to grow crops far outside the community and ship it in, than it would to grow it in that community?
You can't build a city like Dubai in the fashion she's describing.
You can create sustainable food systems in pretty much any climate. Permaculturists are 'greening' parts of the desert which were once considered completely inadequate for food production. There are some good videos here on youtube on that regard.
Yes, but doing that requires far more energy than growing food somewhere where it is naturally most efficient to grow it and shipping it. It would require so much more energy that it would leave a far greater carbon footprint and be even worse for the environment than shipping the food from place where it naturally grows most efficiently.
That is actually not true. You should research permaculture and the work of Geoff Lawton, he has done projects greening the desert. The systems created are self sustaining, only needing the initial human effort to create them and then tend them,it mainly requires human labor. You would grow it to feed the local populations and wouldn't need to ship it.
Yeah, I've seen quite a bit of it, and there's no doubt it can help, but even in permacultured farms, you're limited to what can grow in the desert climate, which is mostly fruit. Not much else.
I am always for these kind of examples to make the world more sustainable.
However, I didn't like her choice of words. For an articulate english person I wouldn't expect her to say that food was a tool for city design, but rather an inspiration, guideline or requirement...
I like the start of her presentation but the solutions were very vague, it just said treat food better. I think some of the solutions to focus on are:
1) eat more locally so you waste less energy on transportation.
2) Eat less meat because meat cost more land and water than any other food group (not sure how you accomplish this) Rationing might be the only way but god knows Americans will never go for that... perhaps better food education??
local meat can result in some great benefits - reduction of harmful insects, less pollutive gounds care, increased green space, etc. as well, free range animal fats can contain important nutrients which are absorbed more readily then when found in other areas.
Should be. But too many people are addicted to fast food crap (myself included) for something like the laws against Tobacco to be passed on fast food, anytime soon.
I'm always astounded by some people's utter affection for forests, as if they're the only good ecosystem. are hot deserts inherently bad? no. they're naturally occurring, just like grassland, wetlands, jungles, tundra, etc.
forests look pretty and are more habitable to us than deserts are. However, i'd say it's *all* beautiful in the long run, so my previous point is pretty well moot.
They generally have the most natural resources. Resources which when used destroy the forest itself. Cut down forests and you have less wood, no habitat for the animals that lived there, less oxygen that those trees produced, etc.
If you take oil from the middle of the desert you're only misplacing sand.
desert ecosystems are more fragile than you think... anyways, my point is that the idea that the earth should be covered in forests is domineering and unthinking. yeah, I love forests, I live in a temperate zone, but still, we have to understand the importance and beauty of all zones.
Population control seems like a good solution. Nothing wrong with allowing 2 children per parent, on a national basis. I don't see how that "restriction of freedom" is problematic.
For the sake of animals, i hope we develop invitro-meat and artificial diary substitutes very soon.
For some it's against their religion. For others having the government decide how many children they are allowed would be the ultimate restriction of freedom.
The primary argument for pro-choicers is that it's a woman's choice to have or not have a child. How is a forced abortion different than a forced birth?
It might fly in some countries that are extremely forward thinking but I doubt it would ever fly in the US or many other countries.
I don't think there are any solutions in nature. There is only one important law in nature, called cause and effect. Humans look for solutions and the only way solutions come is by changing the direction of the cause and getting the effect in your favor. However, changing the direction of cause might seem infringement on freedom to many human beings. However, humans should realize that nature doesn't really allow them any freedom. It makes us dependent on external things starting with food.
Control is "necessary evil" if you will. In a global sense, you're sitting in my room already and if we don't cooperate by agreeing on self-control, this room is gonna get very uncomfortable for everyone. Our evolutionary drives alone, aren't suited to solve this.
I don't believe in Anarchy, as much as i'm a freedom seeker.
You don't believe in humans interacting freely, yet you seek "freedom." That's some kind of perverted freedom you're seeking.
It's a fallacy that everyone occupying a huge chunk of land, or even worse, the world, has to agree on everything. And the failure of the US government that is directly proportional to its size should be a clear indicator of that fact. If communities were allowed to establish their own laws and interact freely, people would be much more self-sufficient and productive.
Comment removed
amazeblaze 11 months ago
Comment removed
amazeblaze 11 months ago
For anyone interested in the teachings of Carolyn Steel, she is visiting Schumacher College, Devon UK this autumn to take a course titled 'Awakening our Relationship with Food' - go to the College website for more details.
worldwideweb(dot)schumachercollege(dot)org(dot)uk(slash)courses(slash)awakening-our-relationship-with-food
SchumacherCollegeUK 1 year ago
i think it's so sad the amount of people who don't understand this subject. i guess it comes down to things that scare us we choose not to believe. even if you disagree with most of the information presented you must understand the concept that most of us havent a clue of where are food has come from, what has been sprayed on it and how long ago it was picked prior to reaching the grocery store. when is the last time any one of us has purchased a ripe tomato at the store that tasted good.
ddAdmire 1 year ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I thought her ideas were nonsensical. What was she really saying? That we should all be growing our own food in our back yards? People don't grow their own food because nobody wants to do it. Its hot, sweaty, dirty, and miserable work. Agricultural mechanization is a beautiful thing to anybody who has actually grown anything more than a couple tomatoes and flowers in their backyard.
doidletp 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
blah blah blah meat bad blah blah blah loss of nature blah blah blah unealthy blah blah blah destruction of the land blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
enough, this is tiresome
gruelin1 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
BORING!!!!!!
marcdogg7 1 year ago
this women is very smart and she has some correct views on food. Today we dont eat as fresh as we would like.Fresh food has been replaced by Mcdonalds, burgerking and kentucky fried chiken. We dont eat as a family. Now we feed our kids ramen noodles like its a major food group. And the amount of Msg = Monosodium Glutimate is rediculus. Msg should be banned just as food additives and food coloring should also be banned due to high blood pressure and diabetes and most cancers today.
glen58316 1 year ago 5
@glen58316
to say msg and food coloring should be banned is ignorant. People can educate themselves on those topics, should not be controlled by any one government or group
SnapTactics 1 year ago
the governments of the world is deceiving us on the dangers of this that why the truth is hard to reveil to everyone.
glen58316 1 year ago
I think we should get rid of supermarkets because they enabled women to go to school and pursue carreers. women should spend more of their time at farmers markets instead of thinking they have a place outside the home. its crazy that women can just get away with buying a weeks full of groccerys at a time.
johnnysurefire 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This Jabba the Hut just wants all the food for herself.
treemagnet88 1 year ago
yes
anitteapotabuse 1 year ago
i was eating chiken well waching this ..... ivlost im appatie
jajcrowther 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
hahahahahahahahahaha that bitch is FAT! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
scottspeaksfuckinsux 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lets LAUGH SEARCH "ELMOVANS" ND I GARANTEE ILL make you LAUGH
FREAK N AWSOME
elmovans 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lets LAUGH SEARCH "ELMOVANS" ND I GARANTEE ILL make you LAUGH
FREAK N AWSOME
elmovans 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lets LAUGH SEARCH "ELMOVANS" ND I GARANTEE ILL make you LAUGH
FREAK N AWSOME
elmovans 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lets LAUGH SEARCH "ELMOVANS" ND I GARANTEE ILL make you LAUGH
FREAK N AWSOME
elmovans 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
search "tjcheeem" wath the foosball vid and comment on it, u will be immpresed!!!!!!
tjcheem 1 year ago
what is this
StanleyPredator 1 year ago
iii
MrAnsaan 1 year ago
Comment removed
JsfAlt3rn4tiv13 1 year ago
So informative and very frightening.
dynya742 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
PLEASE DONT READ THIS. YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE? FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE. TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. HOWEVER IF YOU DONT POST THIS COMMENT TO AT LEAST 3 VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS. NOW UV STARTED READIN DIS DUNT STOP THIS IS SO SCARY. SEND THIS OVER TO 5 VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR CRUSHES NAME WILL APPEAR ON THE SCREEN IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SO SCARY BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY WORKs japanjunkie ..
diablo728 1 year ago
Kudos Ms. C. Steel brilliant ,, love this topic .. It is as important as any ,, if not all... W/ our so called intelligence in this day and age our thinking re; food(s) is being overtaken by corporate greed, with little respect about basic human compassion... I think we ate better 50 yrs ago VS. today ... joel d. ( Ind. )
joelsdollar 1 year ago 2
There is NOTHING that will change ones attitude
more quickly than having to go without eating.
Its like Joni Mitchell wrote...
"We got to get ourselves back to the garden.We just got caught up in some devils bargain."
decem10ber 1 year ago 2
Is she saying 2015 or 2050? Because if she said 2015, I don't think much is going to change in 5 years ... Food wise that is.
RoseRedStudios 1 year ago 4
I think she said 2050.
ameroux 1 year ago
Yeah 2050 So close yet so far away.
T3c4x3r0 1 year ago
damn, very informative show.
arktikgraywolf 1 year ago 3
And you are a terrible troll.
CarmineEternity 1 year ago
nice.
shshshsht 1 year ago 2
Lol i thought this was MAD tv.She looks just like how that dude dress's up as a women.
unknownkeyblade1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cover your mouth with your hand
2. Make a wish
3.Close your hand (fist)
4. Hold your hand at heart for 5 seconds
5. Send this to 3 more videos
6. Tomorrow will be the best day ever
it actually worked
Money- you will find a wad of $200 in cash
Love- Your crush or lover will kiss you or ask you out
Cosmina1231 1 year ago
Well, that changes everything she says, then! Her words are meaningless because she is not sexually attractive!
CarmineEternity 1 year ago
It's not just monoculture (altho that is a problem). It's also the power of big business (at home and abroad), the well-meaning but misguided public policy of subsidies, the reduction of genetic diversity, the chemicals that make people sick, the dangerous work environment of meat packers, the links to obesity. It goes on and on. I just think we can do better.
shiftyjake 2 years ago 2
Like many such people, she states that we should get away from industrial farming.
Unfortunately, they don't get that without that scale of farming, at least 90% of the world's population must go!
jursamaj 2 years ago
@jursamaj; That's not necessarily true. The cheap food coming out of industrial production (and the actions of mega food companies) may actually have the long term effect of causing enormous poverty, and aren't sustainable anyway.
Besides which, we only started farming like this about 70 years ago. The world population then was about 2.5B (UN estimate). You're saying that the world at the time couldn't have supported more than 0.6B people.
shiftyjake 2 years ago
Ah, you must distinguish between the results of the food and the results of the food companies' actions. Separate issues.
And why aren't they sustainable? (Not necessarily the current details, just the industrial scale)
70 years? The 1st steam tractors came out about 1850.
British wheat bushels/acre:
1720: 19
~1750: 21-22
1840: stabilized at 30
jursamaj 2 years ago
But this is all nit-picking the details. The fact is, this idea requires a *drastic* reduction of current population, and authoritarian control of new births.
Most of the population reduction would likely come from the wars trying to force this stuff on the various countries of the world.
jursamaj 2 years ago
This may take a few posts to answer, so bear with me.
1. I say 70 years b/c that's when we started using left over explosives from WWII as fertilizer (NPK fertilizers), which are devistating when they run off the farms in rainwater. You might could stretch it to 80 years b/c that's when the US government started actively trying to consolodate farming by encouraging farmers to sell their land to agribusiness.
shiftyjake 2 years ago
2. The use of fossil fuels *in moderation* is sustainable for many years to come. The trouble is that the West doesn't use fossil fuels in moderation, in agriculture or out of it.
shiftyjake 2 years ago
"sustainable for many years to come"...
So, apparently, is the current rate. Just not as many years. How long is long enough?
jursamaj 2 years ago
For fossil fuels "long enough" would be time to find something better, but that's not really the point. Putting aside the trouble that appears to be coming our way because of global warming, there's also the problem of the waste produced by our food system. The pesicides and mountains of feces that leech into American rivers and drinking water can only persist for so long before cholera is an issue again. There's E. Coli in our spinach, for crying out loud, and that ain't right.
shiftyjake 2 years ago
3. Cheap food and the actions of Monsanto, etc. go hand in hand. Vandana Shiva has explained this better than I can, and it would take more posts here than anyone has patience for anyway, so I encourage you to check out some of her lectures on the interaction between food, agribusiness and poverty.
shiftyjake 2 years ago
(And just in case you couldn't care less about India, consider how agribusiness is undermining classic agriculture in the US. Monsanto is carrying on a campaign against farmers who don't buy their GM seeds by accusing them of theft and suing them. That hurts the US's ability to prevent famine b/c it reduces the genetic diversity, which means that one super bug can kill all corn in the country.)
shiftyjake 2 years ago
Again, if it only considers that trio of things (food, agribusiness and poverty), in their current configurations, then it is a very impoverished analysis.
If Monsanto is making false accusation, that is a wholly separate issue from monocultures. As for diversity itself, what are you going to do, tell some farmers they are required to use seeds with less yield in order to preserve diversity? They'll go out of business.
jursamaj 2 years ago
Monsanto's accusations highlight one of the problems of industrial farming: mega food companies have too much power. Farmers have been steadily put out of business since the Depression. That in itself isn't a world-ender. Problem is, food companies are now pushing to stop farmers from using seeds produced on their own land. Those farmers are put out of business by legal fees b/c of Monsanto's lawsuits. I think farmers should have the option of heirloom seeds.
shiftyjake 2 years ago
But by that logic, *all* the mega corps are too powerful. But they got that wealth and power because the consumer chose it. How do you propose to alter the basics of economics?
jursamaj 2 years ago
Mega corps: Actually, I suspect that mega corporations in general actually are too powerful and reduce productive competition in the long run. But that's just my opinion. They got that way because of the passivity or active support of government in the 20th century. I don't think consumers chose it so much as they didn't notice it until it had already happened, or were fallable and couldn't predict the consequences. Many consumers now are actively pushing against it (vote with you fork).
shiftyjake 2 years ago 2
4. The world's population will drop soon anyway. It's already happening in the West. Better medicine drove the population up b/c children were surviving to adulthood. Education and empowerment of women will drive it down b/c who the hell wants to go thru labor 10 times if they don't have to? At least that's been the logic of educated and empowered women the world over so far.
shiftyjake 2 years ago
It's true that Europe-descended culture has done as you say. It remains to be seen whether the developing countries will follow suit. You assume education and empowerment of women will be universal, yet there are strong forces currently trying to prevent that.
jursamaj 2 years ago
Population forecast: I actually checked this out on Gapminder (TED is awesome!), and in the last 15-20 years, children per women has gone down as literacy and early education among girls has gone up, all over the world. Rates in different countries vary, and there are outliers, but the trend is there. Equality in education has been and is going up and children per women is going down.
shiftyjake 2 years ago 2
I didn't deny those trends. But a trend doesn't determine an endpoint.
jursamaj 2 years ago 2
Population: By that logic we can't make any predictions and therefore both of our arguments about future populations are invalid. My argument is, given what's happened so far, I predict that the trend will continue. Many countries not in "the West" already are below the birth rate necessary to replace their populations.
shiftyjake 2 years ago
Indeed, population projection is very dicey.
I recommend the wiki on "Demographic transition" (also "Demographic-economic paradox"). In particular: "Note that this model predicts ever decreasing fertility rates, whereas recent data shows that after a certain level of development the fertility increases again [3]."
Stage 3, involving the decrease of birth rates, depends on the events Europe went thru, which aren't guaranteed. Particularly notice the "demographic trap".
jursamaj 2 years ago
It appears that stage 3 depends on events that went on (and are still going on) in China, South Korea, Iran, Thailand, Turkey, Brazil, and other non-European states. So, it's not just Europe. As for the possibility of increasing fertility post-stage 3, the impact of that depends on a) how low did the birth rate get, and b) how great of an increase are we talking about? ...
shiftyjake 2 years ago
If Lebanon's stats go from 1.89 children (2006) to 2.5 (a good, solid replacement rate), then that's still not going to increase the overall population.
What I see is, the countries that fall into the demographic trap are a minority (they're mostly in Sub-Saharan Africa), and even the DTM suggests that such states will probably fail and fall into either famine or warfare that will through great tragedy bring the population down again.
shiftyjake 2 years ago
Not lead to an increase of population? How's that?
If each woman has 2.5 kids, that means each woman produces 1.25 girls, women in the next generation.
Treat it as discrete generational: Start with 1000 men and 1000 women. Next generations has 1250 of each. Next 1562. Then 1953 (nearly doubled in 3 generations), 2441, 3051 (tripled in 5), etc.
And as their healthcare gets better, more of those will survive longer.
jursamaj 2 years ago 2
"The replacement fertility rate is roughly 2.1 births per woman for most industrialized countries ... but ranges from 2.5 to 3.3 in developing countries because of higher mortality rates" --Wiki. It's over 2.0 b/c of infant and child mortality, and women who do not or cannot reproduce for other reasons. Maybe 2.5 is high for Lebanon specifically, but my point about an eventual increase in birth rates still stands.
shiftyjake 2 years ago
Stop balmeing the developing world you fucks.. I am an indian and i eat meat only once or twice in a week! There are many indians who are hard core vegetarians who would are brought up never to touch meat! So blame yourselves.. your greed is what caused this huge mess.. we told you not go so greedy now we have to pay for your miss dead.. think not.
KarthikSoun 2 years ago 2
@KarthikSoun exactly!
Ziegut 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
dont take this the wrong way but i wanna fuck u so bad ur fuckin hot an i jus turned 18 an if we ever see eachother we gotta fuck
comment me back an also i love jay electronica his best song is the pledge check that out if u havent already heard it
ur fuckin hot
anthrop88 2 years ago
you mean you like the speaker?!! hmm.. well i am sure she would like you too..
KarthikSoun 2 years ago
WHY
Yamakashi1 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
id like to bang this sexy milf lady and later have a nice hot meal served by her
beeqool 2 years ago
So, how are we going to fix this problem?
Zeaky0arteest 2 years ago
Easy, just don't have too many children and eat meat no more than 3 days a week.
Not so complicated really.
SophosVII 2 years ago
Ted's mission appears to be..."the world is going to hell in a heand basket, the way we have ordered socierty in up till now has failed, however, we the ellite have arrived and will save the day.
behaack 2 years ago
haha... thats probably the best thing ive heard all day..
EscuchelaLaCiudad 2 years ago
.... rather put it like this - "The dedicated researcher (elite) came up with some (unexpected) surprising results...which they would like to share, and consequently, try to make people aware or increase the level of awareness."
yogilix 2 years ago 6
That's not the case at all. TED is simple a convention where individual people, all over the world, working on independent or global problems of the world, explain to each other what they are doing. The TED prize is awarded to people of fruitful causes.
These are people that believe they can make a difference, and are working with every ounce of their power to do so. You perceive the world as "going to hell in a handbasket", so that is how you interpret TED's purpose.
Loaki9 2 years ago
Look I enjoy TED. But the fact remains, they are technologists and technologists are of the opinion that things - anything - can be fixed or made better.
Society isn't a play thing or an object, it is people living together - what F.A.Hayek called a Spontaneous Order. Many TED speakers want an Engineered Order because they think they know better than the rest of us.
behaack 2 years ago
It is not the -experts- talking, if you are decently educated as we all should, you know this already, it has been out for decades.
You are just afraid of change and reticent to actually take a bit of responsibility for your own existence.
It is not necessary to remove meat from our diet all of the sudden, but to just have the diet that our bodies have evolved to.
This is, to eat meat 3 of 7 week days max. or 30% of our daily intake. Healthy for us, healthy for the planet.
SophosVII 2 years ago
Drivel.
AngrySkeptic 2 years ago
very important subject.... she's NOT the one to bring it. She's missed the truth about agriculture.
caseyforever 2 years ago
yay!!! she said mentioned permaculture!!!!
I still don't understand why they haven't had any permaculture specialists on. I submitted a request on TED the site, but I guess they'd need more requests. any one out there who agrees with me, please go to TED . com and submit a request for Bill Mollison, Sepp Holtzer, Geoff Lawton or any of the many others teaching permaculture around the world.
funnyguise 2 years ago 2
This is nonsense.
Sesquiltera 2 years ago
your face is nonsense.
prozach805 2 years ago 5
Cloned meat...
Charles2337 2 years ago
cloned meat is still inefficient and far beyond our current technological capacity to deploy it safely.
SophosVII 2 years ago
As someone who works in the food industry, it is true, people have become very distanced from their food, and waste lots of it. We are privileged to to live in a society where so few, relatively speaking, are required to feed so many. Food gets grown, picked, processed, packaged and shipped thousands of miles. A burger can contain meat from hundreds of animals. there's some food for thought!
mcflurry82 2 years ago
Paleo baby
Maruf80 2 years ago
Awesome@!
Jessiqua42 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Stage one speaker. I love how she tries to include everyone else in her dystopian world. Like we're all fat bastard food wasters who don't value what they eat. Then she even shows pictures of farmers markets and fields and cooks and acts like she fucking invented them or discovered them. Normally I'm big on anthropology but I didn't get anything from this other than the fat lady thinks it's the world's fault she's fat.
ratholin 2 years ago
so, perfectly good arguements supported on real information dont apply because the lady is fat. Great to be at Youtube.
conceitarturo 2 years ago 3
What great arguments? She discovered a problem that people don't care about and pointed out solutions someone else came up with that became popular years ago and which she in no way helped implement and still she's acting depressing and self righteous. Give her a gold star for wasting my time.
ratholin 2 years ago
if this was truly a waste of your time, you wouldn't have come back to respond some more =0
mcflurry82 2 years ago
I was responding to a response. It's simple social interaction. when someone says something you respond this prevents a comment section from being a dull wasteland of trolls and fanboys. Debate arises and even something as meaningless as this piece of fluff might actually atone for itself by leading to an interesting conversation or debate.
ratholin 2 years ago
I agree with you but at the very least, she's speaking where those who have truly contributed to things like permaculture may soon get a stage like this to state their case.
That was the first time I'd heard permaculture mentioned at a TED talk. I don't care who she is, I'm just glad she's brought it up.
funnyguise 2 years ago
You have as much of Anthropologist as I have of NBA player with my 1.60m stature.
Your mind is not just closed, it is sealed.
SophosVII 2 years ago
I belive vertical farming is the future...
shadman1911 2 years ago 5
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The title should read: "Double Cheeseburger: How Food Shapes Carolyn Steel."
canadianmaple09 2 years ago
LOL!!
LamaPaj 2 years ago
Sungazing would help the billion starving and the billion obese. Youtube Search: Solar Gazing with HRM. Food is a secondary source of sun energy. The eye on the capstone of the One Dollar bill is your clue. The stone that the builders disregarded turns out to be the most important. It's the pineal gland. The third eye. There ARE many people living now without eating food. Sungazers are everywhere.
marjorielard 2 years ago 2
They eat liquid food. They also don't look very healthy.
freedomgonzo 2 years ago
I think you should jump off of the edge of the earth and hit all the turtles on the way down.
bindlessMoredom 2 years ago 2
Annoying hippy.
Waranoa 2 years ago
Are you?
bentothetenthpower 2 years ago
I am sorry but I can't take anything some1 overweight says about food too seriously.
tubehax 2 years ago
I am sorry but I can't take anything some1 who resorts to ad hominen attacks too seriously.
FTLNewsFeed 2 years ago
New studies show that overweight is caused mainly by how much food the mothers eat during pregnancy. Eating too little food will cause the baby to be born with bacterias that break down fat much more efficient than normal. This is the main cause why some people can eat almost all the food they want and don't ever get fat, while others have to eat diets to drop weight. You're prejudice is uncalled for.
fuunguus 2 years ago
that would be highly intriguing if you could support your claim, maybe a hyperlink or two for us?
lwanatt 2 years ago
I'm sorry, don't got any links to hand out right now. The source of my claims, is a highly respectable magazine called "Science Illustrated", if that helps on the truthfulness of my claims. But if you still want links, I'll get back to you later and try dig up something, I just don't got the time right now.
fuunguus 2 years ago
that should probably be enough to go on, but i suspect your claims are quite accurate, i once watched a show about a specific nucleic acid that handles personal evolution over the course of your life, for example if you practice punching hard objects often your body will actively change the structure of the bones in your knuckles by adding new layers of calcium deposits, if only i could remember the name of the molecule... its driving my crazy, im sure its the same phenomena at work
lwanatt 2 years ago
I was a bit over 210 pounds 8 or so months ago and am now 155 lbs, this is without doing anything special. Saying this to let you know that genes and bs excuses are just that, excuses. Educate yourself and find out why your body isn't behaving like you want it to couse is the end is your fault as opposed to some disadvantage you been putted with.
tubehax 2 years ago
Google: Poor Nutrition in Pregnancy May Mean Obese Kids
These articles doesn't state exactly what I stated about the bacterias, but I remember those statements from "Science Illustrated" specifically. The article in SI was much longer and went deeper in detail than these articles. And stated other things like that there might be a correlation with poor diet in America 30-50 years ago and today's overweight problems in America.
fuunguus 2 years ago
Now I ain't generalizing this, you're situation may very well be totally different. All overweight people does not necessarily have their mother (or grand mother) to blame for their obesity. And one should be careful about putting blame on anyone for something you can't be sure about.
fuunguus 2 years ago
one would be a fool to think genes dont play a part, some people would have to work a hundred times as hard as you to achieve the same results because of their physiological makeup, the moral of the story, often it is a bad excuse and sometimes it is a legitimate one
lwanatt 2 years ago
Where is the evidence that developing countries will come to embrace a Western diet when they become developed?
Don't be so West-centric already.
JimexJimex 2 years ago
This woman is very foolish in her presentation.
First off she starts off by saying we cant feed the world and that we cant feed the world meats. And that there is no solution likely.
Industry and technology in food sciences have archived the unheard of only 75 years ago. In the last 50 years food production per acre has skyrocketed. She greatly underestimates the human ability to achieve the impossible. In typical libtard fashion she creates a crisis out of nothing, and wants to control it
putittogether 2 years ago
Rewatch her presentation, she is not saying that we can't feed the world, she is in fact saying that we are doing it badly and inefficiently.
But, of course, your use of an epithet shows me that you really weren't watching it except through your own blinders and wouldn't get it if you did rewatch it.
FTLNewsFeed 2 years ago 3
The process of what happens to food once it leaves our bodies is more interesting than this babbling ole bit'.
theaggravator 2 years ago
How is it more social to shop at a centralized market in a small city vs shopping in a supermarket in suburb of a large city? Then she says we don't trust food. Somehow she knows that people in the past really trusted their food. This is based on nothing. She just made it up.
jeffmagic32 2 years ago
She looks like she values food; a little too much.
wpiman 2 years ago
This is good sense. Thank you for uploading this.
neonwind 2 years ago
Wonderful talk.
P00P0STER0US 2 years ago
The world has evolved towards specialisation (I think it's a shame she forgot to mention the effects of refrigeration on food transport), in both transport and agriculture. So why is that bad per se? Is it specialisation that causes environmental damage, or something else?
I also found her way of speaking a bit strange; as if decisions about food distribution were made collectively. Even in Rome, that lover of the politic, food was a decentralised affair.
bluebeard2 2 years ago
I think much of what she is referring to for food can also be referred to trade routes... although most trade before the trains and boats were only food and maybe tradesman's goods like metals.
She's right though, food has long been a tool of powerful control. And with 5 major corporations owning most of the food industry that doesn't bode well for the little guy :S
The decision is considered collective because food is necessity.
tillo2008 2 years ago
There are several cities which have successfully incorporated food production into the urban environment. This does away with much of the transportation and energy costs associated with food distribution. Of course, eating less or no meat or dairy has a huge effect too.
dismutased 2 years ago
......were boned.
klasco1991 2 years ago
The Venus Project . com
kaioshy 2 years ago
Hi, see post above for my reasons. Maybe it'll open your mind a little bit to another possibility.
sdpgposd 2 years ago
if you are going to make a speech, at least try to change your voice tone so it doesn't sound like you are bored to death and wanting to be somewhere else.
tieInterceptor 2 years ago
I don't think being vegan for religious reasons is rational...
I don't think being vegan is a very good thing either, but reducing meat consumption surely is, for the environment, and for health reasons.
achlorelei 2 years ago
I'm just not convinced by this. The lack of data here worries me. This is simply "oh wouldn't it be nice if we had happy cows, happy families, and happy community food." Specialization if a part of economic advancement. the Rural/Urban divide is a part of this and without mega farms we wouldn't be able to feed NEARLY as many as we do now.
majinspy 2 years ago 2
I agree. Food production is more efficient than it has ever been. Streamlined production and distribution methods have done more to feed the hungry than any amount of environmental romanticism ever could.
There are some valid points though: Meat as a source of energy is very inefficient (and delicious). At the current growth rates we will quickly run of of agricultural land, although this is more a problem of overpopulation than food production.
nikanj 2 years ago
There was another Ted video that argued the opposite. Essentially without modern super farms many more humans would not be alive today. If we switch to something less efficient, instead of 1 billion starving we will have 2 billion. In fact the number of staving people has been falling and its definitively linked to the increase in availability and cheapness of food.
The point is that she didn't really offer any solutions that had any sound scientific bases. No statistical data or anything.
TheBestNameEverMade 2 years ago 2
somethings are interesting but i disagree with a lot of things in this video
princeofexcess 2 years ago
so basically, she is looking at life from only one perspective, right? and then she tries to put all together seen from this one perspective. and it seems to fit, so her perspective is the right one?
looking at it from this perspective, her talk seems provocative and more like art - rethorical polemicising but only a picture seen in black and white.
so basically i can not take this talk serious.
thrhymes 2 years ago
western diet is just too profitable
Also, certain things like agriculture simply can't be done effectively at a local scale. Perhaps buying all our food from Walmart to the point where they can automate their business even further, to deliver fresh produce from large agricultural centers straight to our dwellings might be one way to bend capitalism to our benefit.
lvecsey 2 years ago
I fear this "eat natural" religious movement is breeding a generation of neo-luddites with very little in the way of logic and scientific skills, and no appreciation for how far we've come thanks to the benefits of our technology.
I'd rather hear someone talk about exactly WHY Home Grown food tastes better, i'm quite tired of hearing the "it's magic!" explanation of Gaia worshiping retards.
"Yeah, can you taste the love in this tomato, maaaaan?" urgh
roidroid 2 years ago 2
"no appreciation for how far we've come thanks to the benefits of our technology."
The worst are the people decrying genetically-engineered crops as being some sort of mutant vegetation that is the bane of humanity. You know, never mind the BILLION people saved worldwide by GE crops, or the fact that as population increases, so must crop yields.
Organic foods are great, but for most of the world's population, are not an option. It's elitist and shortsighted to force them onto people.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago 7
i'm hungry... i need beef or steak.
325982668 2 years ago
omg a seziure
LeafyLarry 2 years ago
ive recently been discovering the joys of cooking from scratch. its wonderful getting know know food and it feels good to enjoy a meal free, or at least nearly free, of preservatives and food colorings and artificial sweeteners and things of that nature.. just today i made fresh pasta for the first time. i must say it was WONDERFUL! it was fun, delicious and SO much cheaper than premade pasta :). i wish i could have been raised to know more about food instead of learning about it later in life.
Aprilshowersss 2 years ago
how do you feed a city?...how bout you tell me what your fat ass eats in a day and im pretty sure i could answer your question. what a pathetic rant of nothing
sikes1379 2 years ago
This lady is talking out of her butt. Nothing worth seeing here. She takes no considerations of neither economics nor fundamental nutritional knowledge.
lordmetroid 2 years ago
Agreed. She's way too vague, no substance.
She says we should be replace farms with Permaculture. This is rediculous, permaculture requires more land, and more labour than farming does.
Does she think we should all be farmers? We live in a professionalised society, because professionals do things best and most efficiently!
Farmers are the best at growing food.
Architects are best at designing buildings. Maybe she should write books about that instead.
roidroid 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
shut up fat bitch
oxygenownz 2 years ago
Didn't quite enjoy this video.
It starts out fine; meat is ineffecient, food distrubution sucks and we waste too much.
But seriously, food as a cornerstone for families? Sigh, I just just eat food for 2 reasons:
1) Get nutrients.
2) Supress hunger feeling.
In the future we'll just eat pills that give us a perfect dose of what we need and it will be awesome.
Less waste, perfect diet means longer lifespan, no time wasted to cook, less space needed to produce all of it, you name it.
Phyrexious 2 years ago 2
Food is the cornerstone for many families, as it should be. No thanks with the nutrient pills. Proper farming methods enrich and nourish the land while creating an abundance of food for people to eat. Remineralized minimally processed organic and biodynamic foods are the key to the future.
UniversalBrother108 2 years ago
So what about communities built in places where the soil is only efficient to grow a limited variety of crops?
Or what if the soil and/or climate is so poor that it would leave a smaller carbon footprint to grow crops far outside the community and ship it in, than it would to grow it in that community?
You can't build a city like Dubai in the fashion she's describing.
frayzerm 2 years ago
You can create sustainable food systems in pretty much any climate. Permaculturists are 'greening' parts of the desert which were once considered completely inadequate for food production. There are some good videos here on youtube on that regard.
UniversalBrother108 2 years ago
Yes, but doing that requires far more energy than growing food somewhere where it is naturally most efficient to grow it and shipping it. It would require so much more energy that it would leave a far greater carbon footprint and be even worse for the environment than shipping the food from place where it naturally grows most efficiently.
frayzerm 2 years ago
That is actually not true. You should research permaculture and the work of Geoff Lawton, he has done projects greening the desert. The systems created are self sustaining, only needing the initial human effort to create them and then tend them,it mainly requires human labor. You would grow it to feed the local populations and wouldn't need to ship it.
UniversalBrother108 2 years ago
Yeah, I've seen quite a bit of it, and there's no doubt it can help, but even in permacultured farms, you're limited to what can grow in the desert climate, which is mostly fruit. Not much else.
frayzerm 2 years ago
I am always for these kind of examples to make the world more sustainable.
However, I didn't like her choice of words. For an articulate english person I wouldn't expect her to say that food was a tool for city design, but rather an inspiration, guideline or requirement...
RoyvanKeulen 2 years ago 2
Really interesting idea.
thebeartaxes 2 years ago
one man's food is another man's poison
mike6459 2 years ago
I like the start of her presentation but the solutions were very vague, it just said treat food better. I think some of the solutions to focus on are:
1) eat more locally so you waste less energy on transportation.
2) Eat less meat because meat cost more land and water than any other food group (not sure how you accomplish this) Rationing might be the only way but god knows Americans will never go for that... perhaps better food education??
3) Eat communally instead of individually
DemiRonin 2 years ago 3
There are ways to drastically reduce the amount of space livestock needs, in fact I believe it was discussed on a previous TED.
CheezMonsterCrazy 2 years ago
local meat can result in some great benefits - reduction of harmful insects, less pollutive gounds care, increased green space, etc. as well, free range animal fats can contain important nutrients which are absorbed more readily then when found in other areas.
dapnd 2 years ago
if a pack of smokes cost's $6 and the cost stop's
1 million people from smoking. Health care cost should go down in the future.
Every channel on TV push's the .99 cent fast food crap.
If you want to save future health care cost's then it should be a $10 burger?
ron732489 2 years ago
Should be. But too many people are addicted to fast food crap (myself included) for something like the laws against Tobacco to be passed on fast food, anytime soon.
Cyllid 2 years ago
You're not addicted, you're just too lazy to figure out how to cook.
LokiClock 2 years ago 3
You're right, saying it's an addiction is just passing the buck.
It's not that I'm too lazy to figure out how to cook, I'm just too lazy to actually go out and get what's needed to cook, and then to cook it.
Cyllid 2 years ago
You just have to get into the habit is all.
LokiClock 2 years ago
I'm always astounded by some people's utter affection for forests, as if they're the only good ecosystem. are hot deserts inherently bad? no. they're naturally occurring, just like grassland, wetlands, jungles, tundra, etc.
dapnd 2 years ago 3
forests look pretty and are more habitable to us than deserts are. However, i'd say it's *all* beautiful in the long run, so my previous point is pretty well moot.
NwZ2 2 years ago
They generally have the most natural resources. Resources which when used destroy the forest itself. Cut down forests and you have less wood, no habitat for the animals that lived there, less oxygen that those trees produced, etc.
If you take oil from the middle of the desert you're only misplacing sand.
kalaway 2 years ago 2
desert ecosystems are more fragile than you think... anyways, my point is that the idea that the earth should be covered in forests is domineering and unthinking. yeah, I love forests, I live in a temperate zone, but still, we have to understand the importance and beauty of all zones.
dapnd 2 years ago 2
Population control seems like a good solution. Nothing wrong with allowing 2 children per parent, on a national basis. I don't see how that "restriction of freedom" is problematic.
For the sake of animals, i hope we develop invitro-meat and artificial diary substitutes very soon.
HiAdrian 2 years ago
For some it's against their religion. For others having the government decide how many children they are allowed would be the ultimate restriction of freedom.
The primary argument for pro-choicers is that it's a woman's choice to have or not have a child. How is a forced abortion different than a forced birth?
It might fly in some countries that are extremely forward thinking but I doubt it would ever fly in the US or many other countries.
kalaway 2 years ago
Control is never the solution.
I want to live free
roidroid 2 years ago
I don't think there are any solutions in nature. There is only one important law in nature, called cause and effect. Humans look for solutions and the only way solutions come is by changing the direction of the cause and getting the effect in your favor. However, changing the direction of cause might seem infringement on freedom to many human beings. However, humans should realize that nature doesn't really allow them any freedom. It makes us dependent on external things starting with food.
screenflicker1 2 years ago 2
@roidroid:
Control is "necessary evil" if you will. In a global sense, you're sitting in my room already and if we don't cooperate by agreeing on self-control, this room is gonna get very uncomfortable for everyone. Our evolutionary drives alone, aren't suited to solve this.
I don't believe in Anarchy, as much as i'm a freedom seeker.
HiAdrian 2 years ago 2
You don't believe in humans interacting freely, yet you seek "freedom." That's some kind of perverted freedom you're seeking.
It's a fallacy that everyone occupying a huge chunk of land, or even worse, the world, has to agree on everything. And the failure of the US government that is directly proportional to its size should be a clear indicator of that fact. If communities were allowed to establish their own laws and interact freely, people would be much more self-sufficient and productive.
787Bisurdaddy 2 years ago 3
What i'm saying is that EVERYONE in our society wants to live free. No-one will vote for your idea.
I fear your ideals are the ideals of an authoritarian, a despot.
"We will control the people".
You will have a fight on your hands.
Messing with procreation is a particularly messy business, it makes people freak out.
Google "Penis Panic".
roidroid 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is very important
airdreamlove 2 years ago
It sounds a lot like jac Fresco's 'venus project'.
farnium 2 years ago