What is the Blue Revolution?

[@abyssal_phoenix]

Im actually starting a fight with monoculture for the bees. I’m breeding different species of flowers and next year the first ones will be released in the wild. It is because thanks to monoculture bees get too little variation in their diet, making their immunesystem a little bit weaker. This also does hit bees quite hard. I’m trying to help them the best I personally can And to fertilize the plants I spread organic matter that would normally be thrown away. I skip the composting process. A few small pieces of these projects actually attract a lot of birds and insects to my garden, so I’m sure they will work on larger scale as well

[@tronation1932]

V need more heroes like u

[@abyssal_phoenix]

@@tronation1932 aww thanks. The best thing is, I’m 16. I have a whole life to do this, and all my classmates are too busy with parties and stuff. I’d wish others would do this as well. I would appreciate helps much. I literally took over the role of the protector of an almost extinct ecosystem: the Dutch peatlands. Plus I really didn’t expect al these likes 😊

[@atinysoftbean1645]

Great project, here's one important thing to note for anyone doing this: Make sure the flowers are actually local wildflowers that bees can eat from and not invasive species, especially if you plant them in the wild, because invasive species take away nutrients from native flowers and can be "inedible" for bees. Some studies done on "bee flower" and "wild flower" seed mixes and "seed bombs" have found that they often contain invasive species, so do research and stay vigilant.

[@elliottstirrop4353]

hey is there a website you can link me to about this? how could i help? how could i do this in my own little area of the world?

[@abyssal_phoenix]

@@atinysoftbean1645 yep I know that. That is why I studied local wildlife and flowers, researched what flowers bees used and then started to collect seeds to sow coming spring and then plant in the wilderness. It’s really important to watch out for invasive species, they could cause the opposite of what I want to achieve. And it is also not worth it if it doesn’t help the bees

[@y33t23]

If it is possible for people to live on a platform in the middle of the ocean to drill for oil, then platforms for the purpose of housing fish farmers should work out too, or am I missing something? Only financial problem would be bringing over all the supplies.

[@sheepketchup9059]

Don't forget automation

[@benedict6962]

an oil platform presumably generates its own energy to run. Aquaculture platforms will need to play around with solar and hydro turbines to get a consistent level of electricity, especially for emergencies.

[@flytrapYTP]

@@benedict6962 nuclear technology has the answer here. And I don't mean a full scale reactor but rather the ones used by icebreakers and submarines. They're small nuclear reactors which aren't as efficient but very safe.

[@mohamedbassam9328]

I think it's an economic problem here as oil is much more profitable and less labor intensive than fishing ,so it doesn't make economic sense to house people in the middle of the ocean for fishing . Not to mention the lack of motive for people to go live in the middle of the ocean if they get paid the same amount of money.

[@tiely13]

Yeah, I can't imagine that due to the lack of experience and technology it's now worthwhile for private companies to invest in this full-on mariculture without heavy subsidies. It's just cheaper to go on the ocean with a boat and hunt those 'free' fish.

[@tjardhamming441]

Ironically, in your introduction you gave the answer as to why aquaculture would be a great problem. You have a good way of explaining the concept, but wouldn't you think some of your points are contradictory? Monoculture is a system that is detrimental to what it tries to achieve, as it is in fact a one-sided solution which totally neglects the ecological consequences of the system. But that ecological system is exactly what agricultural can't go without. If you think about it, you could come to the conclusion that aquaculture is just agricultural monoculture pushed out to sea. You can always try to mitigate and adapt to the problems that arise, without ever tackling the cause. As we have seen in agriculture, it is almost impossible to account for everything, without creating a new problem. I'm doing a study in the Netherlands on aquatic eco-technology, in which I have learnt that nature often offers great solutions to human problems. Nature has developed their systems over millions of years to almost achieve perfection. Something to think about: instead of interfering in these processes, we could try and learn from them and implement them in our solutions. One example in this case: large parts of the ocean could be turned into protected areas for fish species to thrive. There would be so much fish in those areas that the populations would overflow into fishing areas. This would solve the problem of overfishing with minimal effort and improve the fishing capacity greatly. If you are interested in this subject, I highly recommend looking into regenerative agriculture, which focuses on this mindset.

[@Ingeb91]

I guess a step in the right direction from deep sea mono-culture farms, would be to grow several things in the same area, like having kelp forests and mollusc farms in the same general area. maybe bad example if they eat the same stuff, i'm just curious about this, i don't actually know much about it, but there should be combinations of deep sea farming that would kind of cancel each others environmental consequences out to a certain degree. what do you think? if you have some stuff for me to read on hand, feel free to link it :D I'll look into regenerative agriculture now.

[@Ingeb91]

@@tjardhamming441 Thanks, ill check it out immediately. I've heard some rumours about in doors farms in Holland using machine learning to optimise farming, so I think machine learning would be your best bet when it comes to managing a scaling up of an on surface permaculture. They use it to get some giga yield tomato plants, but I think that tech is far better used in determining how much red clover you need to plant criss crossing your giant wheat fields, to make sure the soil is constantly refilled with nitrogen.

[@Ingeb91]

@@tjardhamming441 Thanks :D

[@DadDoStuff]

My friend continued his agriculture study in Holland exactly for this reason. Good to know the knowledge she learned is developing so quickly

[@NewArchipelago]

I think you have the right idea for sure. In the long term, hopefully once as many people as possible will be lifted out of poverty and into a "middle class" life with plenty of food and access to education and health care, people will continue to have children later and having fewer children. As I'm sure you know population growth has already slowed down a lot in developed countries around the world, to the point where we can even expect to see declining populations. If humanity can learn the lessons of natural systems that you mentioned, things could like quite good long term, if we can make sure there's enough of the natural world left to bounce back after the population peak that's coming.

[@daviddavis4885]

5:42 “There is one place on earth with both unlimited space and water” Me: Antarctica! Atlas: the Ocean, obviously..... Me: Oh.... that makes a lot more sense...

[@guiorgy]

Would be kind of cool if we could reliably grow crops on ice lol. Then again, it would probably worsen the whole meting ice problem :P

[@name4601]

Glad I wasn't the only one who thought that.

[@helltubejackie1086]

Unfrozen lettuce

[@JeroenJA]

luckely, antartica is the only place on earth that has been worldwide agreed that no one owns the underground riches or can exploit the continent for economical activities. only scientific studies and expeditions are allowed, huge different with the north pole .. with current competition to claim as much underwater seebed as possible, for future extractions of hoped oil, minerals and other earthly riches ... the polar bear stand very little chance to survive in but a few isolated places, long term in the wild ..

[@hurhurhurhurhruhrurh]

You’re not allowed to grow anything in Antarctica. Even their trash has to be taken away. You can watch PBS Terra. They have a lot about the people living there.

[@adnanilyas6368]

Tuna “farming” isn’t really a farming operation. What Tuna farms do is capture relatively immature shoals of tuna in huge pens made out of nets, and then transport those pens somewhere where the tuna can be managed for 6-12 months while the tuna are fattened. Because of this, tuna “farming” is actually EXTREMELY harmful to wild populations because those wild populations are being taken out of the breeding population all at once, instead of being caught to match demand as needed.

[@soviettankmen]

of course they know about this, and they tried to develop full cycle tuna farm and now there is already fully farmed tuna in japan. The main problem of aquaculture, especially mariculture, regarding to the wild population is aquaculture FEED. A lot of trash/junk fish that used to feed the farmed fish are from bycatch or wild captured so it really impacted on wild population. But again, a lot of effort went to find solution about this problem, such as using plant-based protein e.g. soy bean meal and insect-based protein e.g. maggot meal as substitute for fish meal in formulated feed edit : maybe because of my bad english, i should add here, that wild fish population is declining, and one of the reasons is from aquaculture. Why this is happened, eventhough aquaculture is said to be lowering the pressure to wild population because of fisheries activities ? because aquaculture operation needs fish meal in order to feed the farmed fish, and the fish meal that used are from, as i mentioned, wild population and bycatch. Is there any solution about this ? ofc, to substitute the fish meal with plant-based or insect-based feed, such as soy bean or maggot meal for fish feed. Nowadays aquaculturist strives to developt more sustainable methods of fish farming, to mitigate the impacts to the environment and to prevent ecological disasters

[@allencox3730]

Adding in the the feed in aquaculture a bud development would also be using kelp and seaweed as the feed stock. We already use it in our vegetarian and vegan burgers as a meat substitute

[@johnrutledge3892]

Thanks for straightening out these clearly idiotic people condemning monoculture while simultaneously pushing it for the sea . We need people like you to keep an eye on these types of people. Somehow I feel as if china is behind this vid.

[@AGenericFool]

@@johnrutledge3892 lol

[@tonywilson4713]

As an Australian where the tuna industry was revolutionized by the exact process you described we have come to realise that that exact process has had a huge impact on wild stocks because it leaves nothing. The information on that has come from within the actual industry itself and its been people from within that industry who have funded all the research to breed tuna. Which they have finally done a couple of years ago. In future they hope to replace the wild stocks and also not rely on wild stocks. What he does NOT explain in the slightest are they tons of smaller fish (like pilchards) that have to be wild caught to feed them ad non one yet knows what damage is being done there. What he also does not mention is the incredible damage being done to places like Tasmania where they have now found that if you put too many salmon pens in one place it can do massive damage. Fish like all animals piss and shit and just like they have with cattle feed lots if you pack too may fish into a pen all that shit and piss falls to the bottom and wrecks everything. Its it a massive concern for the salmon farmers absolutely as they have lost entire pens because of water pollution. So they are working on it, but when you try and tell companies with big investments they have to change they don't like it.

[@johnnymartinjohansen]

Here in Norway, aquaculture has become one of the most important industries. Currently, it's mostly about salmon, but billions are being invested in both better technologies, and other products.

[@cyb3ar897]

Before today, I had no idea about the concept of aquaculture. Now that I do, I think this will be something really cool to include in the sci-fi book I'm working on

[@flytrapYTP]

What's it about, brudda

[@davidtitanium22]

something like a hyper-industrialized tech world where the entire planet is covered by cities and the ocean is just a food production facility?

[@dylans3833]

@@davidtitanium22 yuck wouldn't want to live there

[@TheCinderfang]

I've been working on fleshing our merfolk settlements in dnd and their agriculture has been something I was struggling with before. Especially as I was trying to explore them growing beyond nomadic hunters.

[@otashigo]

It has been long done, Chinese sci fi novels like i have a mansion in the post-apocalyptic world have covered this issue and many more in depth.

[@soulchester3194]

When you realize the first 6 minutes of the video was just an intro.

[@joycetam3239]

thanks now i know to skip

[@Samuel_J1]

@@joycetam3239 it's an informative and interesting intro if that helps

[@mushmush4980]

Yea I was about to say that, that's overkill

[@borkwoof696]

@@mushmush4980 no, it’s not. It provides important background information

[@mimimarcus]

I realized he overkilled, so I skipped it. Hehe

[@leeb9342]

The fish be like; "I never agreed to any of this."

[@JakeLipohar]

Yeah, most of this video is hard to accept as a vegan. I'd rather see governments impose taxes on meat consumption and provide incentives to non-monoculture fruit and veggie production. We've been underpaying for our food for so long, the only way people will change their habits is through their wallets.

[@leeb9342]

@@JakeLipohar as another fellow vegan, I 100% agree. 👍

[@ArthursHD]

@@leeb9342 Same could be said about plants. As of now, there is no way around it. We just have to sacrifice life to stay alive and healthy. Whole another thing is needless sacrifice! We should plan ahead on what we eat in advance so there is no staggering amount of wasted food.

[@JosephDiveley]

@@JakeLipohar So you want us to pay more for food we don't want to eat in the first place. Brilliant. You do realize that plants feel pain and scream in agony when you harvest them too right? They just do it at a frequencies that humans can't hear. If your eating food then you stole or murdered a living creature to have it or paid others to do it for you. Food is food. Stop trying to force your vegan nonsense down the throats of those of us who prefer to eat a balanced diet instead of an extreme and unhealthy one.

[@blugaledoh2669]

@@JosephDiveley There is also environmental reason to be vegan. Although if the blue revolution does occur, it might solve one issue. Where did you get the info that plants feel pain? Also it is in fact possible to have a healthy and balance vegan diet.

[@jameschristophercirujano6650]

Citing that there were no other big youtubers discussing this topic really brings back memories when we still called you underrated when you only had a few thousand. Congrats on your success, with your quality, the sky's the limit.

[@malcolmreynolds4099]

i remember those times :) and now its 750k wow

[@hioyua650]

"I know what your thinking, how exactly does water based agriculture work?" I was thinking about how bloody long that intro was.

[@mrpopulistless]

I was thinking about "and the really naive count on vertical farming". Way to insult by far the most efficient and environmentally friendly form of food production without any justification. Lost all respect for this channel

[@Greg-yu4ij]

Yeah and all the useless lies. Like livestock using up 75% of farmland. But that land is unsuitable for crops! It’s suitable for grazing. I’m sold on aquaculture but why lie that we have an overpopulation crisis when the opposite is true, a worldwide population collapse in developed countries. The elites take these scientists seriously and are shutting down farmers and ensuring a worldwide famine! They see themselves as gods, and consider culling the human population to be good stewards of the environment

[@TomBruhh]

@@mrpopulistless Lmao chill. One innocuous comment is enough to ruin an entire channel of great content. Stop overreacting lol

[@felixdubiswolf3371]

This is literally the first I've heard of deep sea mariculture even though I follow a lot of things regarding solutions to global warming and several science/edu channels. Thank you for all the info!

[@timpz]

You're missing to mention a crucial point and that is that farmed fish primarily eats a mix of two things: crops and wild fish. For these reasons they are still unsustainable when scaled up considering we're already overfishing and using huge amounts of lands for crops intended for animals. Although it is still better from an environmental stance than livestock (which also eats crops and fish meal).

[@LeakyFaucett]

Not to mention salmon raised in these pens are exceptionally toxic. The skin on farm raised salmon contain the same chemicals as fire retardant. Sorry Norway.

[@ASSamiYT]

I don't see how the logistics of going to the open ocean to feed the World would be very environmentally friendly. That'll fill the valuable coastal areas with more ship traffic and everything that comes with that.

[@LexicroftAlpha]

Another thing that missing : about polution in sea itself, you know microplastic

[@muehahahaha]

Well you could grow plants to feed plant eating fish like carp. And then feed the carp to salmon or tilapia.

[@timpz]

@@muehahahaha Perhaps but it would probably be too expensive or it would be done already. As it stands today sustainable fish doesn't exist and the only thing you can do to prevent overfishing is not buy any fish.

[@QuantumAscension1]

"... the really naive investing in vertical farms..." Whoa, bruh, whoa! I feel offended. How dare

[@rddragon5]

I agree with the over all point of the video, but vertical farming also helps fix two of the main issues. Land and water use.

[@jortverbakel6669]

Vertical farming probably has some downsides to it. But I don't easily spot large downsides, especially when you compare it to the huge advantages it has in terms of efficiency compared to traditional agriculture.

[@jptritonn5224]

@@jortverbakel6669 Have you ever done a back-of-the-envelope calculation to see how massive vertical farms would have to be to replace conventional agriculture? They're good for leafy greens but the current model cannot be used to grow rice, wheat, corn, or other starches.

[@borkwoof696]

@@rddragon5 how does it solve the water problem?

[@TheCinderfang]

Vertical farms largest benifit is the reduction in the footprint of transportation. It has flaws at the moment but to ignore that is to ignore a large benifit as well as the simple fact of efficient use of space.

[@MrRoyalChicken]

One problem that comes to my mind on this: What are all the fish going to feed on, when you try to farm them in the middle of an oceanic desert?

[@laszloiso777]

plastic :D we GMO the fish and feed them plastic!

[@PiecesOfNature]

@@laszloiso777 lol not on my plate!

[@laszloiso777]

@@PiecesOfNature Then we GMO humans to be able to digest plastic fish :D

[@fillfrog]

You can grow food for them out there, then also cheaply ship in everything else you need. Plus the more things you farm out there will create an oasis of nutrients.

[@diandrad1414]

you feed them pellets that you get shipped every month for instance, and then you have a place to keep it out htere at sea, like a silo, and then you just feed your fish whenever you want to

[@Hansulf]

Ah, yes, the great sector of fishing fish and giving them to other fish so they get bigger and we can eat them... This video lacks a looot of information like how salmon fisheries are killing wild salmon by breeding pathgens, like explaining how are we depleting wild fisheries for feeding our fisheries, how those "deserts" open ocean regions could be harnessing the biggest and more important ecosystem of the lantern fish... Etc...

[@0Arcoverde]

Yeah Also They lack nutrient, it didn't even cover how to get and keep the nutrient there for the mules for example

[@fleurdepapaye9635]

There is always hole in every systems. No system is perfect.

[@Hansulf]

@@fleurdepapaye9635 Is not about perfection, is about eficiency. This is not eficient at all... The oister this is pretty nice, but the fisheries are the worst.

[@anth1768]

i think it says more about the human race that this only has 32 likes and the one above that says something stupid about Antarctica has 516 likes :/

[@errata]

This video is 100% hopium

[@michaelcapponi2]

the assumption that where there's high levels of nutrients/phytoplankton is where you'll find the highest levels of biodiversity isn't borne out in the evidence. indeed the fertile areas may have more biomass, but it's the nutrient poor landscapes that have the greatest biodiversity. this includes many tropical rainforests and coral reefs; dry shrublands such as australia's kwongan, south africa's fynbos, california's chaparral etc. i read about this phenomenon in tim flannery's 1994 book the future eaters.

[@irrelevantirrelevant7332]

Biodiversity strongly correlates with available surface area and nutrients. A swamp has higher biodiversity per km² than dessert; tundra has less biodiversity than any rainforest. If there is nothing to eat, why should any being evolve and undergo niche partitioning?

[@karibui494]

@@irrelevantirrelevant7332 but rainforests are nutrient deficient that is why they are so biodiverse. Extreme environmental conditions are not the same a nutrient availability.

[@andrewhenshaw4067]

"It will be known as the *Blue Revolution* Ad plays: Blue Fanta will blow your mind!

[@lrc6217]

ATLAS IS BACK LADS GET YER DRINKS OUTT

[@Xaiff]

I'd rather keep myself sober when I watch Atlas, but I won't stop you from enjoying your time. :D

[@infinitecanadian]

Please turn Caps Lock off before commenting.

[@lrc6217]

@@infinitecanadian n o

[@Sena-yk6mm]

Microplastics: let me introduce myself

[@alexlaverty8564]

Mercury has also entered the chat

[@alexrogers777]

Land based animals like chicken and beef have plenty of micro plastics in them too. I think the overall benefits of mariculture would outweigh any negatives

[@scp-2348]

Red tide: hello there

[@dejayrezme8617]

@@alexlaverty8564 Afaik: Mercury travels up the food chain. So predator fish like tuna have the highest concentration, while filter feeders the lowest (negligent?). I suspect these maricultures are mostly using land based food for the fishes though instead of growing their own microalgae next door in the ocean.

[@debbiehenri345]

The expansion of deep sea mariculture might actually drive many 'currently' irresponsible governments towards passing more stringent laws to protect their share of the oceans - rather than continuing to use them as a rubbish dump, and that would include providing financial backing to those few companies that are in the process of cleaning the ocean of plastics. Once someone finds a good use or importance for something previously abused, it's amazing how quickly their governments turn round and start protecting it (e.g major rivers in Britain, which used to be be thick with industrial pollutants and devoid of fish in the 60's and 70's. Since the various environmental acts in the UK, fish and aquatic plants have not only crept back into these rivers, they are thriving). I think the one major problem facing mariculture is 'not' continuing to clean up the oceans and passing international laws to protect it from further wilful pollution - but getting all countries to be 'fair' about who has 'the right' to an appropriate share of the oceans in order to conduct their business. We all know how extremely selfish some countries can be. Before it gets to that stage, there needs to be an international organisation for deciding this matter, and not one dominated by 'certain countries' that not only have their own populations in mind, but also think only of dominating the trade side of this form of agriculture in the near future. In essence, a 3rd world nation should have an immediate right to a protected percentage of 'charted farmable' ocean within reasonable reach of its particular continent/island (whether it invests in such schemes right away or not) - and not find that when it time does come to invest in mariculture, other larger, richer nations have already grabbed all the best and closest sea-acres. It wouldn't do for rival nations to start warring over something like this, but there's every potential for this to happen.

[@indigiomontoya8005]

I feel my mecury level rising already

[@zombiechcken]

Lol you're a thermometer

[@everythingisfine9988]

@@zombiechcken just someone who eats fish 🐟

[@EllisIsland2023]

Maybe a stupid question - but honestly asked - how does heavy metals get into the sea life that far out?

[@Vizzix]

I feel my nicotine level depleting

[@Vizzix]

@@EllisIsland2023 ship wrecks and rust

[@timetodestination9538]

9:59 Farming tuna is incredible difficult. The survival rate is extreme low.

[@mikimiki1634]

No thats yr mom

[@leandersearle5094]

... You mean before "harvest"?

[@ItzRetz]

This has really inspired me, I'd love to get into the Aquaculture industry and change the world for the better.

[@sunlynnhatchett3983]

Imagine in 50 years where the average dinner is salmon and rice, while stuff like pork or steak is for the rich.

[@larrian3846]

While I don't disagree that livestock land use is absolutely an issue, a lot of the land used to house cattle and other livestock really cannot be used for low-impact crops. For example, here in Australia, there a huge swathes of land the size of US states that are used as cattle ranches that absolutely could not be used for most crops. So unfortunately it isn't always that simple.

[@DepServ]

Interesting point, thank you for mentioning it

[@tiely13]

Sadly, most problems and their solutions are never simple.

[@lif3andthings763]

Grazing is good for the environment and can stop desertification

[@dolphindiverbct8297]

@@lif3andthings763 but not overgrazing which is happening in lots of livestock farms

[@CODENAMEDERPY]

@@dolphindiverbct8297 that is true but all small farmers and most big farmers wouldn’t do that because it is bad for them in the long run.

[@animeyahallo3887]

Great time to end my stressful day. Thank you for this one Atlas.

[@masonm600]

"And the really naive investing in vertical farms..." could you say more?

[@hopen511]

right! my question exactly

[@skontejonte]

yeah, made me leave a dislike. really dont trust someone who seem so biased

[@quazimofo8742]

Go watch his video about vertical farming to understand his stand point

[@c.j.3404]

@@quazimofo8742 well I would, if I could find any lol

[@leesin1299]

So weird, he then says they don't tackle the real problem, water and land are limited. But vertical farms DO tackle those issues, they use like 97% less water and if you stack them 50 stories high land shouldn't be a problem either. You can also build them wherever the food is needed.

[@thomasboyd1402]

Wait, of the 18 minute video, 6 minutes is the intro? Damn, that's some devotion to setting the scene.. :D

[@grammadog1947]

Interesting and, on the surface of it (lol), a solution. There will be things to work out as with every new technology, but yeah, interesting...

[@LdangerB]

Thank you for making this video. I work in aquaculture and it's great to see some positive feedback on it. It's not perfect but I believe if people stopped trying to shut it down and embraced it, allowing it to revolutionize and technology to get better it could be a great solution for food security and environmental stability!

[@stephenpickering8063]

Is 't there a problem that as you said the wider oceans are basically deserts. Even molluscs need something to feed on and if there's no/not enough nutrients then - other than importing large amounts to feed the crops won't this face a serious problem? Also what about storms, shipping lanes, possibly even piracy if it does start becoming practical? Not to mention how practical would the sort of vertical farming your proposing be in the deeper oceans rather than on the continental shelves? Furthermore fish farms have faced problems not just with the pollution some of them generate but, as frequently monocultures being vulnerable to diseases and pests? I'm not saying there isn't scope for a lot of food here but you do seem to be overlooking a lot of potential problems.

[@sietuuba]

You are correct about the desert part - and there's a solution to that as well. Those regions of the deep ocean shown on the map are deserts due to no upwelling of nutrient rich water from the deep and that can also be produced artificially. It would then support the base of the food pyramid, the plankton. Look up "marine permaculture", which shows promise in both creating new hotspots of ocean life where none existed as well as restoring existing biomes impacted by marine heat waves thanks to the cooling effect of upwelling cool water from the deep. Dr. Brian von Herzen is one name to search for; there are a couple of videos on KZbin about their work.

[@sietuuba]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/r2m1oJ2Hj8emeJo Here's one.

[@deharudragonsoul6238]

@@sietuuba there is another, more worrying way to look about this though. The deep sea ecosystem relies on a different baseline compared to the rest of the ocean, marine snow (the dead of surface animals and plants washed in by currents) rather than plankton (zoo and phyto). We haven't explored these areas yet due to depth and light issues, so we don't know what exactly is going on down there. Due to lantern fish we can estimate that the deep sea is taking care of around half of our current carbon emissions, so messing with that system when we don't know how it works yet could lead to a worsening of the global warming situation. Cause think about it, if the disposal method of something is disabled somehow it builds up more quickly. Honestly, this plus the artificial greenhouse gas (sorry can't remember its name right now) created by solar energy systems makes me think that any effort we currently are making to save the planet is actually harmful.

[@mrnnhnz]

"....sort of vertical farming YOU'RE proposing..." Sorry to be pedantic, but spelling and grammar matter. Getting them wrong could undercut the point you're trying to make.

[@stephenpickering8063]

@@sietuuba OK thanks. I will try and have a look at that video.

[@mjk9388]

Fantastic video. I do think Mollusk, Kelp and Seaweed is a good option from both a feed to protein ratio, space and resource input perspective. However, fish farms use floating pelletized food that is typically made of fish oil, fish meal, wheat gluten, lupin meal and soya protein (soy isolate) concentrate. So you're going to be feeding all those increased numbers of farmed fish by farming the ocean even harder and using more land grains and legumes...and then transporting all that pelletized food out to the deep sea cages (energy/resource intensive). Also, if Mollusks feed on Algae and other particulates in the ocean, then how will they find those particulates in the deep sea deserts where biology is scarce? Seems like both the mollusks, kelp and seaweed farms would have to be in areas where there's already a diverse amount of life to support their needs? Please don't take these two points as disparaging remarks, I do think this is a great and informative video and you've definitely gained another subscriber!

[@songyu1356]

Hello, I'm a Marine Sciences student. Not sure about the fish farms part (not an Aquaculture student), but mollusks, kelp and seaweed can actually be grown in polluted waters because they can purify water by converting the waste into nutrients for their own need. There has been quite a number of amazing discoveries of the incredible ability of oysters to filter water. So not only could they function as a food source, they could also help to restore clean seas and rivers! the academia had also agreed that we should promote an eating culture that focuses lower on the food chain - shellfishes and seaweed/kelp, as a strategy to tackle climate change and solve water crisis.

[@BrowncoatGofAZ]

5:40 actually vertical farming uses less land because of the “vertical” part. And hydroponics, which is often used in vertical farming, actually uses less water than soil farming, despite appearances. Admittedly there are drawbacks to that technology, including energy consumption and startup costs.

[@oisin3495]

Yeah that part annoyed me

[@navry01]

2:00 that graph is ABOMINABLE. Bottom-to-top 26-to-44%? yuck

[@ohnowhy700]

Yes! I'm so happy you're back!

[@dejayrezme8617]

Wow thank you this is super interesting. Now I wonder if this could be a viable option for "seasteading". You'd have a fleet of ships with people doing this. Building boats as habitats for displaced people, building these fish farms. Growing microalgae as food and cyanobacteria as fertilizer.

[@tylerprow7563]

Something that is frequently neglected to be mentioned in comparisons of land use for animal vs. plant agriculture is that the vast majority of land area used to raise livestock is rangeland that is too arid or nutrient poor for growing traditional traditional crops. Raising animals like cattle on range also has a lower ecological impact on the native biological community than converting land to monocultured cropland. Of course, this is if sustainable agricultural practices are followed, which is often not the case (like raising beef on cleared rainforest ground in Brazil)

[@peterisawesomeplease]

"majority of land area used to raise livestock is rangeland that is too arid or nutrient poor for growing traditional traditional crops" This is super misleading. Most of the calories those livestock eat don't come from the nutrient poor arid land they live on. Most of their calories come from farmed crops(grain and hey from more productive regions). Brazil is not being deforested primarily to raise cattle directly. It is being deforested to make room to grow soy that is then fed to American cows. If people ate less meat not only would we free up the low productivity land they often live on but it would free up all the crop land used to feed them. Most crop land is used to feed animals. Only a little bit is used to feed people directly.

[@ThreeRunHomer]

Good point. And if the livestock operation uses permaculture techniques and moves the livestock daily, the arid grassland ecosystem can actually be greatly improved.

[@dru4670]

@@ThreeRunHomer as an African I can tell you. Let the cows range. It's just natural. The whole monocrop thing is so inefficient I don't know why it even survives. That's how bison grazed for the longest time in the great American plains. That's how animals graze. It's just natural and in the end they fertilise the soil with their natural manure. The whole system is in check. Only issue is looking out for predators that prey on the livestock.

[@dru4670]

@@peterisawesomeplease to add on my note. They were millions of bison capable of feeding the American population in a sustainable way for the longest time. Before they were all hunted unsustainably to extinction.

[@peterisawesomeplease]

@@dru4670 Bison can sustain a few million people but will 300 million people demanding meat it does not work. You simply can't generate enough calories without juicing the system with irrigation and artificial nitrogen. The conversion factors between grass and humans are like 100 to 1 using bison/cattle. There were never 300 million bison predators.

[@eostyrwinn5018]

Given what's currently going on, I feel like it's also worth pointing out that the odds of a disease jumping to humans from aquatic life is much lower than from current livestock. Thus reducing the risk of a new disease or another pandemic. I'm also curious about how ocean currents affect this. While the farms might be located in areas of minimal bio productivity, surely the waste could still be carried on currents to areas of more vulnerable ecosystems. Do the currents provide enough time to dissipate the waste before it's dangerous (in which case wouldn't scaling this up cause a problem)? Or is there some other reason this isn't an issue? Or is it really an issue?

[@oliverhunter3015]

This is where molluscs come in. As filter feeders they actually clean the water. Oysters and muscles are currently being reintroduced to the Hudson River to help clean the water

[@eostyrwinn5018]

@@oliverhunter3015 Oh cool. I live near the Hudson River but I didn't know how they were cleaning it. Thanks!

[@memeboi6017]

idea Make a giant rubber net . Fill it with water , then put in fish

[@lindatullos9430]

@@oliverhunter3015 Just don't eat the mollusks. Other fish that we might eat will eat the mollusks and thus the concentration of contaminants will be more for us. The best thing to do is let them clean the water and remove them periodically when they get to a size. The larger fish that eat them should be avoided by fishermen until the waters are certified clean again. Rice also absorbs contaminants so planting those (not for consumption) and removing them periodically would also help. Once again the larger animals that consume rice would be concentrating the contaminants in their bodies so eating anything from the polluted river is not a good idea.

[@michelangelobuonarroti4958]

4:00 very important to keep in mind is that on the vast majority of the land that is used to raise livestock growing crops is simply not possible for various reasons.

[@JastwatchingYT]

we had the green revolution we will have the blue revolution and the red revolution would be for mars! (not to be confused with the red revolution in russia and china)

[@darekmistrz4364]

I prefer to name it orange revolution (not to be confused with president Trump)

[@El-s]

Commie Mars

[@gabrielandradeferraz386]

well, there is a reason why they call it the red planet

[@sonyakii]

Consider the following The planetary revolution

[@oliverhunter3015]

Well capitalism requires infinite growth sooo maybe we do need that red revolution... Also why go to mars when we can't even look after the earth?

[@Red_crane]

The y-axis not going to 0 at 2:00 is somewhat misleading. It suggests at a quick glance that the % is almost 0 in 2020

[@saims.2402]

Yeah, I thought it went to 0 until I read your comment and saw the 26 on the side.

[@nineteenlettersonly9687]

Idk when I was watching it I got exactly what he meant since he did say the percentages out loud

[@OADINC]

I agree its not the best implementation, maybe add a wiggly line at the bottom to show that it's not 0?

[@Nicoconuts63]

he probably did this on purpose, for a next video or something like that

[@filip9564]

Yup. Miss represented statistics are a big problem. He probably didnt mean to do it but still, it is a problem.

[@TimZoet]

My only concern is the amount of microplastics in the ocean. Fish will be filled with it, clams and mussels will also filter those out of the water. I would love this idea if our oceans were clean, but the amount of microplastics in the water makes it a problem for me.

[@doylethelovely2555]

He didn’t talk about ras systems. Recirculating our culture is becoming one of the more popular methods for fish species because it’s cheaper and keeps in a lot of control over the fishers environment

[@dallasweaver4061]

RAS is also very energy-intensive and is not cheaper. China's new approach of massive offshore ship type structures may be far more economical.

[@soviettankmen]

as the previous commenter said, RAS is not a cheap aquaculture method, but definitely control many parameter such as water quality and disease

[@dallasweaver4061]

@@soviettankmen Yes, RAS will give control over water chemistry and is the way to go for hatcheries to produce the fingerlings to stock into ocean net pen-type system. With full zero discharge RAS you can locate near the workboat base the offshore systems. In RAS you can go "specific pathogen-free" SPF operation to keep down disease issues. Getting pathogens out of RAS is a lot harder than preventing them from coming in.

[@CODENAMEDERPY]

Atlas left out the fact that 20% of the emissions by Agriculture, Forestry, And Other Land Use was sequestered by those plants. It says it in the EPA reference that he sites. As well as the fact that it wasn’t just agriculture but all uses of land that that pie chart references.

[@lolcano2346]

Interesting. Also doesn't really talk about how irrigation is more of a problem for the growing of crops than for grass. Grass is one of the hardiest plants on Earth and will still grow with less water than pretty much any crop out there.

[@lyreparadox]

Nor does he mention that of the 77% of land used to raise livestock, a significant portion isn't useable for growing modern crops anyway (too dry, remote, or rugged).

[@hajomusic9890]

@@lyreparadox same thought here. im not sure about this one but given the amount of energy it takes to make 1kg of cow meat is pretty high; is the demand met with mostly grasses and hay right? These are also often farmed on lands unsuitable for crops.

[@Dslayer62]

Videos like this are important, it raises awareness of the issue and their solutions. Thanks.

[@JoJoKaiser1504]

One of the most interesting edutainment videos i've seen so far. What an amazing topic and amazing execution. S Tier Video

[@falkhauser9612]

Thanks for the video Atlas Pro. You are ahead of most KZbinrs with this one. The Fishing Industry has no future indeed. Sorry Brits.

[@isaacalien]

No need to sympathise, we're least geographically and culturally in a comfortable position to pursue mariculture in the future as hopefully Atlas' projection of future adoption come to fruition.

[@itsguanyu]

In case you ever read this. I would like to hear your thoughts on vertical farming and why it is that you apparently think it's no solution at all. Thanks for the video and maybe until soon. ✌️

[@Peleski]

I think the obvious is that consumable plants need a full day of sunshine. Even if you move stuff about to get sunlight, the output will be terrible.

[@abyssal_phoenix]

Actually not only am i trying to build up a better ecosystem by breeding flowers and stuff, I am actually experimenting with tropical plants over here in the Netherlands. I found a possible “hardiness gene” in strawberries (it is an adaptation to warmer winters over here I think, it is because every generation stays greener during winter, some don’t even lose any leaves at all anymore) I hope other plants can get it as well. Plus by growing tropical plants I can maybe prevent shipments from all over there world, thus a lot of CO2 emmisions. (I know this sounds unrealistic, but I can try it. My brain now has the power to solve other problems since I don’t need it to work on myself anymore)

[@Felishamois]

That's fascinating and important research, but it's no less important to keep level with the potential consequences, because you have a massive responsability in that regard. What happens if a tropical plant, which can now grow unhindered in these climates, with no natural predators, becomes an invasive species which causes an ecological catastophe spreading over the whole of Northern Europe and then the Eurasian tundra, also irrevocably changing the makeup of those habitats while decimating biodiversity?

[@Felishamois]

Are there any failsafes, or operational ways of stopping such a disaster if it has somehow gone underway?

[@Wustenfuchs109]

It is a nice idea... except when you realize that all our waste ends up in the ocean one way or the other. Fish already have a worryingly high amounts of mercury and other crap in them, and as the time goes on, oceans will be polluted more and more. While we have some idea how to clean up the land and air, cleaning up oceans is a bit of a problem. And when you move an industrial scale food production into the ocean, an already polluted area, you will further increase pollution rates. I mean, yes, due to the sheer volume of water, it is the best option as it has the most capacity for pollution, but all our crap goes there. All chemicals, industrial waste, everything. I don't think that will be the way the food production will go. It requires the construction of huge infrastructure projects, in remote and hostile areas, with dubious legal status, even longer logistics chain... Simply put, it will be really hard to get anyone behind it in on a level that matters. In the same way that vertical farming in cities is kinda cool, but it is a luxury thing, not a future of agriculture.

[@Herghun]

Some fish have a tendency to store high amounts of heavy metal because of their organism but they will store such amount of metal only if they are exposed too much to it. They don't produce metals by them selves only stars do that.

[@Wustenfuchs109]

@@Herghun I didn't say that they produce it :D But the very fact that they act as sponges for various chemicals and elements found in the water where all our garbage, waste and pollution goes eventually, is not a good thing. It is not a dynamic system in the sense that the oceans return all that to us, they are the end stop and thus are more polluted every year.

[@mando_gra]

I'd be curious to know why vertical farming will remain a luxury in your eyes. because of high initial building/development costs ?

[@DanRegueira]

Do a video on why I'm really naive for liking vertical farming, cause I think it's cool AF

[@PremierCCGuyMMXVI]

Revolution? Comrades why did you have a Revolution without me? Lol

[@cheesedmacaroni]

We are still waiting on the _Red_ Revolution comrade

[@dorian4646]

Let's farm fish then!

[@helltubejackie1086]

Ya man, for communism to work everyone needs to work together globally and go to socialism, then abolish the state and bring in communism

[@Xaiff]

@@helltubejackie1086 No, comerade. There must be a "state" in communism. Otherwise how would we enforce to share our resources? :D

[@helltubejackie1086]

@@Xaiff ah comrade, communism is supposed to be a stateless, classless, moneyless, society where the workers own the means of production, as I have been told by countless other communist friends :D

[@SEALIFERESCUE]

What do the Aquaculture fish feed eat? We did not hear you mention that smaller fish are caught from the ocean to feed the aquaculture fish. Is that not also a negative FCR? Also the Tuna farming is catching wild Tuna to then grow in cages, you should correct these facts in your video as this is what is killing the ocean ecosystem. It is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. People need to start thinking of sustainable fishing in the same way as sustainable forestry! - for every fish you take out, you put back ten fertilized eggs. Every country has treated the open ocean as a free checking account and has been cash checks. No one has made any deposits, so it is not hard to figure out that the system will crash unless we start to contribute. Only the ignorant can ignore the facts and give you a thumbs down-great video, commendable effort - Sea Life Rescue.

[@FirstArchon]

the thumbs down are because the shade thrown at vertical farming

[@panchora99]

Videos like this are the reason I love youtube and why I cant live without it

[@DangerB0ne]

I'll eat more seafood, I refuse to eat bugs. Miss me with that cricket flour.

[@jgr7487]

so you won't eat shrimps? arthropods are arthropods

[@DangerB0ne]

@@jgr7487 Crustaceans are fine, insects and arachnids aren't.

[@ANTSEMUT1]

@@DangerB0ne lol.

[@DangerB0ne]

@Hunter Smith "Sea bugs" are distinct enough from land bugs for me not to care as much. I'll eat bivalves, octopus, and squid but not snails despite all of them being molluscs. Clams=food, snail=garden fauna/pest. Like many people, I associate insects with filth. Local restaurant got shut down by the health inspector? Probably roaches contaminating food. If you want to brave that "new protein source", be my guest. I'd rather not eat things I associate with disease and uncleanliness. It's the same reason I don't eat rats despite them being mammals like pigs, sheep, and cows. Rats are plague-bearers, the rest are tasty.

[@nickpaschentis5284]

7:52 Atlas: Let's take our Farms and puss them somewhere else. Alaskan Bull Worm:Am I a Joke to you?

[@samsmith4242]

Despite all the statistics an important missing one is how much of the farmland is suited to crop growth. Such as plants and cereals and other better suited to grazing or mixed agriculture. Not all agricultural land is made equal after all and a lot of the worlds potential arable land is in some of the most biodiverse and ecologically important land on earth as well. The argument works for a lot of Eurasian agriculture, where in theory there shouldn’t be any or much land at all given over to large scale livestock rearing but large parts of the rest of the world are dependent on livestock for the simple region they have to be. Yaks and variations there upon are the best product for farms in Tibet to have for example. Nothing else comes close to providing as much for the people living there A better solution is licking urban and vertical farming while moving away from intensive monoculture practises and towards a mixed or rotation based system elsewhere. This frees up agricultural land for rewinding, conservation and reforestation while also making city based crops. Which gets rid of transportation costs for a range of products and reduces CO2 output as a bonus. The presence of massive agriculture and food production in cities also promotes rural migration out of cities as well, like what has been seen in Cuba. Reducing urban sprawl as well (although I’ll admit to the opposite being just as possible and/or likely. I just don’t know any examples)

[@eilovechiken]

This comment only serves the algorithm.

[@AtlasPro1]

I appreciate it

[@siriusk1453]

Wh

[@EcuadorianFlagShip]

bump

[@BaenjaminS]

This one does too

[@supremememersnoke7350]

This one as well.

[@calimerohnir3311]

You seem pretty skeptical on "vertical farming". Have you made a video on the subject? If not, do you plan on expanding further on the subject down the line?

[@benedict6962]

Yeah I was surprised at the quick and brutal dismissal. I'm guessing it's due to the ultimate input and output of the process. Vertical farming at their best can more efficiently consume water, but that's a high precision operation and very vulnerable to people doing a bad job. Replacing soil with fertilizer may consume even more minerals than the traditional method, and if you stick to soil than you are necessarily digging up vast quantities of soil from fertile lands, causing untold erosion effects. All of that to save some space. We become able to make use of more of the earth's soil at the same time, but none of that deals with what happens if we DEPLETE all of the earth's soil at the same time. We don't have a similarly scalable livestock poop generator.

[@ddlc_monika]

@@benedict6962 the problems are plentiful. Not only are we running out of phosphorus and nitrates anyways, there's also the issue of vertical farms being impossible to get well-distributed sunlight on. So that would have to be artificial, scale that up and you'll need another nuclear power plant for your country, not that desireable.

[@majorfallacy5926]

Vertical farming depends on green electricity sources we currently don't have and it's economically only somewhat viable for leafy greens at this point. It will probably become more popular just cause it's cool and nice to have fresh produce produced locally, but it won't solve our farting cows problem

[@yeetdeets]

​@@benedict6962 No, plants can't use the whole spectrum of sun light, so the loss in [sun light -> solar panel -> LED -> food] compared to [sun light -> food] is much smaller than people think. With more maturity in panel and LED technologies, they will increase energy efficiency over traditional farming. The real potential though, lies in total control. Measurement of plant productivity, soil humidity, fertilizer supplementation, temperature, light spectrum exposure, timing of all the above, etc. Put all that data into a machine learning model and you have magic. Maximizing the nicotine content in tobacco for example. Soil can be created from air and fertilizer. It's just decayed plant matter with some microbes in it, carbon comes from the air and the rest from the fertilizer. The real soil killer is traditional farming. Especially in the arid regions, they basically put seeds in clay and fertilizer.

[@johankvistrad]

This needs to be discussed more! Great video!

[@SnowTerebi]

Imagine 50 years later: "Mom are we eating oysters again?" "Yes." "But I want to eat chicken wings!"

[@ルカ写真撮影]

@@dr.floridaman4805 lobster meat is better than chicken meat if you ask me but that’s my opinion

[@seanhenderson5996]

Considering how these days chicken wings often aren't wings, its just a matter of time till they aren't chicken either.

[@ルカ写真撮影]

Industrial raise chicken taste dull, free roam is much better and tastier

[@SnowTerebi]

@@seanhenderson5996 I mean just don't get "boneless wings".

[@SosirisTseng]

We could grow chicken wings in the lab, but that is one more layer of indirection.

[@t-rey1312]

Such high quality videos!!! Please get this channel to a million subs!!

[@galactyx1]

Truly outstanding piece of work. Glad the algorithm flagged this up. Well done!

[@Steentje06]

Why did you forget to mention that those 'domesticated' salmon escape nets often and ruin the genetics of the wild ones? Those salmons come out looking like zombies compared to wild one. DW documentary did a piece about it.

[@lolcano2346]

there was probably 100,000 things not mentioned in this video but to be fair, it's a very large and complicated subject

[@Steentje06]

@@lolcano2346 You are completely right. That doesn't take away tho the fact that we should be critical of the information presented to us. He based this whole video on one paper.

[@lolcano2346]

@@Steentje06 oh for sure. If anything I was leaning towards the critical side of things on this video anyway.

[@Steentje06]

@@lolcano2346 good to hear! Have a good day

[@noah22261]

Great ideas but I’d be concerned about the adverse affects of consuming chemicals and micro plastics from the ocean.

[@BrowncoatGofAZ]

Unfortunately that can only be avoided by addressing that topic directly.

[@igavinwood]

Absolutely brilliant video. Education and edification on how the world, the only one we can exist on, is impacted and can be utilised is so needed. Thank you for researching, creating and sharing.

[@FIREFOX274]

15:03: What I'm actually thinking: so are we just gonna eat fish and seaweed now?

[@StephensCrazyHour]

Most people in history have survived on less nutritious sources of energy.

[@hamanakohamaneko7028]

not bad actually, I like seafood and if you don't, just eat plant based meats. Those things use seaweed.

[@luca920]

3:28 this chart made me flip my table

[@oliverhunter3015]

So fucked! Using 77% of agricultural land for 18% of our daily calories (37% of our protein). We need to stop eating meat! (Once not completely as animal by products are crucial for sustainable farming)

[@willrumpf3727]

The 77% agricultural land utilized for livestock is not all fit for growing crops. Take for instance much of The American West: it’s too dry and the soil is too poor to allow for traditional crops. Livestock allows us to make food from land utilizing plants we can’t directly consume.

[@irasponsibly]

six minutes in before we got the intro? damn

[@crackedemerald4930]

What's this? Answers with Joe?

[@elliottstirrop4353]

i legit thought i’d skipped the video and tried to go back hahaha

[@EcuadorianFlagShip]

that's when you know it's gonna be f ucking good

[@vodafoneuser1690]

What's your problem? Didn't get the condensed 30sec Instagram-Reel you hoped for? You got six minutes of informative content that you simply badmouth lol

[@irasponsibly]

@@vodafoneuser1690 calm your farm dude, it wasn't a complaint

[@Shalefist]

I have thee questions in regards to this video: 1. The Law of the Sea - Summed up succinctly, most international nations do not have rights past a certain nautical mile limit (I think it is 115), and thus the rule has been any vessel out past that point is effectively both independent, and on its own. If i have a farm over the Laurentian Abyss, and pirates (or Chinese fishing fleets) come to me, I would either have to defend my 'outpost' myself, or rely on some other governmental oversight. You mad lad; you might have actually given reason to push international borders to the depths of the ocean! Otherwise, you get Waterworld. 2. Infrastructure - While deep sea oil rigs and natural gas are forerunners in this respect, pretty much big money and massive commercial interests are going to be the real players here. What about the little guy? What about me and my ship and my little aquaculture net? Feeding in from the first point, Big Fish or another nation could literally destroy or harass my minor efforts to attempt to drive me off. Again, this just reminds me of a potential Waterworld scenario. 3. Pollution and Food Safety - Assuming the first two are somehow solved, and I am both protected by national law and can operate such a business as easily as a regular farm on land, the third wrinkle is the mass movement of humans to the ocean, and eventually to colonize it. You guessed it, Waterworld. Humans already do a fantastic job at screwing up environments on land; I do not think we need floating cities to help speed along destruction. Plus, water is already pretty contaminated as it is with micro-plastics and other refuse from land waste; any large-scale fishing operations would have to account for ways to keep their raised foods safe and cleansed. I would be horrified to know my farm raised salmon or tilapia had mercury, radiation or plastic and caused people to be sick. That is a good recipe for disaster. Great video as always; keep it up!

[@AmbrotosArkhon]

Very good questions. To add to this I'd also be concerned about the ecological impacts on the oceans caused by introducing thousands of non-native species of plants and animals directly on top of them. Marine life is already facing devastating consequences from industrial pollution. That would certainly need to be dealt with before we start putting all our agriculture out there. It all seems like it would benefit the corporations and allow for greater control over the masses before it helped anything.

[@Felishamois]

You might end up with a UN agency directly ruling over the deep seas in that regard, made up of the companies operating it and some national oversight. So if some people end up creating permanent settlements you could end up with a UN-sanctioned-&-operated-plutocracy which has to exist structurally as-is for the UN to exist in its current form. Pretty wild.

[@Shalefist]

@@AmbrotosArkhon While introduction of invasive species can be horrific, the easy answer to your concern is that it'd be done over watery deserts. Unlike terrestrial habitats, the ocean has its biodiversity split by water columns and layers, that is by depth, rather than specific location. Aside from river deltas and continental shelves, they are vast and empty until you get to the extremophiles living on the deep, dark, floor. So unless we need to farm hydro venting animals, they should be safe from species thousands of feet above them. It might actually enrich their own habitats by increasing the amount of "food snow" they live off of.

[@Shalefist]

@@Felishamois Yikes. The UN would be the last organization I'd trust for anything requiring enforcement and such. Just go ask the peoples who dealt with UN peacekeepers back in the Balkans in the 1990s if they'd trust a repeat. As for the rule by corporations, Jesus that's worse. Imagine your boss gets to also be your own personal dictator and Supreme Court. You take a day off to play the latest release of a game, and then you find you walk the plank to help feed the fishes. The poor bastards working slave wages for Apple is a good idea of what that kind of thing would be like.

[@AmbrotosArkhon]

@@Shalefist This is true but as long as we are using inefficient fossil fuels and plastics we're more likely to make the already existing pollution even worse. There's a lot of risks associated with moving our agriculture into deserts. A single destructive event could leave millions without food.

[@Akislav1990]

This must be the most impactful video i have seen in 2020, 3 weeks later, it still packs a punch. Now, when i also think of the "8th continent project" by Slovak architect Lenka Petráková, i can envision a completely ocean based civilization. Not Atlantis reborn, but Atlantis at last.

[@tomasvillegas7274]

4:17 this is a common misconception. 2/3 of every land used for agriculture isn't arable and therefore used for livestock. You see its' not that farmers prefer growing more food than growing livestock it's that the requirements for land to be arable are quite difficult to meet.

[@mihan2d]

We should bring this aspect to the attention of vegans, who yell that cruel lousy no-good farmers want to grow cows and chickens instead of tomatoes because they're evil and want the world to burn LOL

[@dani4anarchy]

You're also propagating a misleading statement. It doesn't matter that 2/3 of land isn't arable for all agriculture. Even if we only used the land that is arable to feed humans instead of feeding livestock we could generate enough food for the whole world. The alternative isn't to use the livestock land for growing vegetables. We can let it return to wildlife and reduce our impact on the planet (let alone the green house gas impact of animal agruculture).

[@dani4anarchy]

@@mihan2d farmers aren't to blame here, they're growing what they have to to make a living. Animal agriculture is inefficient in many ways though, and we should vastly reduce our meat consumption which has exploded in the last century.

[@kimwarburton8490]

@@mihan2d Also, that approx 90% of their diet (or more) is of stuff we cannot digest, such as corn stalks. I DO think animal farming needs a BIG shake up though as well as a reduction to only being on land thats not suitable for plant produce. I hate the factory farming, they are sentient beings and means more illness n anti-biotics.

[@hajomusic9890]

You also gotta look further into the amount of land used for agriculture. Lifestock takes up a lot of it but you also have to recognize the fact that not every land is suitable for crops like maize or wheat. Like for example the grasslands of some parts of australia or the USA dont really allow an efficient crop culture because they lack essential things like soil structure, nutrition factors and mostly enough rainfall or irrigation possibilities. Therefore only simple plants like grasses can grow there. So people are most likely to use them for livestock. If they wouldnt though, this land would probably just be abandoned by farmers and just cease to exist as agricultural land. Same goes for the savannah regions in central asia. So a high percentage of livestock used land is not really a sign of misuse per se.

[@Eralealea]

Exactly this. Where I live the land is too steep, hilly and prone to seasonal drought to reliably grow crops, but the animals handle it just fine. People who think we should "just convert" this kind of land to plant-based agriculture should come and try to drive a combine harvester up some of these hills. It would make great youtube comedy.

[@widodoakrom3938]

True

[@JG-zu5wc]

Fucking 6 minutes before the intro is playing. I’m hooked. This guy knows how to make content. This channel is amazing. Well done.

[@ADSaaron]

I used to watch videos like this in school and be bored. Now that I'm watching of my own freewill I'm enjoying every second

[@landon2614]

Your videos are really ducking good

[@pastrychefiii822]

Well u are BIG BRAIN

[@chavezrodriguezbarbarailia6900]

I download that paper first... and at the end of the video you talked about it jajaja. How awesome. I´m studying marine biology and I´m seriously thinking on making a master or something about this topic... Thanks, love the video

[@rj5848]

The world we are going to have blue revolution People: oh blue I think that would be a cool revolution Vegan:Nothing special for us Sea creatures :😭😭

[@Xaiff]

Some people: How would this Blue Revolution differs from the Red Revolution?

[@LordButtersI]

Even vegans can benefit from ocean-grown crops.

[@JastwatchingYT]

sea creatures should be happy because they won't be hunted to extinction!

[@lolcano2346]

@@JastwatchingYT yeah but their ecosystems will be even more upturned than they already are. There are many, many, many problems with the idea of blue revolution for ocean ecosystems

[@JastwatchingYT]

@@lolcano2346 The whole point of the blue revolution is that it takes place in the open ocean, the place with the least amount of life..

[@512TheWolf512]

Maybe you can make a video where you actually look in detail into livestock production, particularly chicken farming? From the efficiency standpoint, not ethics standpoint

[@mattvoelker241]

You said your self we're currently in a food surplus. The issue is transportation and storage. Farmers were throwing out milk because it was cheaper than storing/transporting it. Both problems need to be solved, and moving farms to the ocean just means more boats going around. I don't worry about humanity running out of problems to solve. There will always be more problems, as every new solution brings forth more issues.

[@rjschroeders726]

When you talk about 18% of our calorie supply coming from meat and 82% coming from plants does the meat category take into account animal byproducts or was it assumed plants take up the rest? Livestock typically accounts for both animals being farmed for byproducts as well as for meat.

[@Tuanry]

6 minutes intro... 👏👏

[@coleodonnell9942]

Thank you so much for making this video. My essay wrote itself because of you.

[@ldelgg]

whys this the only hearted comment and why did it have 0 likes

[@Bryzerse]

Also is no one going to mention that beautiful ocean vs. land bar?

[@GenestealerUK]

29% of the time it's land 100% of the time

[@Akislav1990]

2 months later, and I still can't stop thinking about the ramifications. The excitement contained in this video, lifted my spirits out of a lockdown slump.

[@PaleGhost69]

If you thought that was a trip, look into permaculture. You won't be able to see the world the same afterward.

[@facelessdrone]

Look up food forests and regenerative agriculture, they (along with permaculture) are our only one hundred percent environmentally sound options at the moment and they're so fucking easy its blows my mind hardly anyone does it.

[@aronmo2755]

My dad (engineer) used to work on the development of kelp farms in Norway. I truly belive going in this direction with our food production would work out!

[@permiebird937]

Most of that 71% of agriculture land that is used for livestock is range land. Range land is the unsuitable for growing crops, but grazing animals can convert the inedible to humans grasses into edible for humans meat. If grazing animals are managed using regenerative techniques, they build soil and sequester carbon in grassland soils. At that point, eating grass fed and finished meat becomes one of the most effective ways to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

[@Paul-NH]

About 2/3 of the land couldn't really be used to grow crops, yeah But grazing animals can only offset between 20 to 60 percent of the carbon they produce But most importantly, cows produce methane, which has a shorter lifespan, but the environmental impact ist still 25 times greater. And after some time the ground will also reach soil carbon equilibrium, which means it can no longer sequester any more carbon. But you make it seem like there is this grass that we can just “convert into food”, but how about not using this place solely for grass in the first place? We can rewild the land and plant trees, which are net positive (at this point) and/or at least neutral, where as livestock is responsible for more emissions than the entire transport sector

[@permiebird937]

@@Paul-NH You really need to update your understanding of livestock, and how they function in an ecosystem. Cattle produce small amounts of methane if they are fed grass instead of grain. CAFOs is where cattle produce excessive methane. The small amount of methane produced by cattle grazing on grassland is part of a natural system that built the US great plains and grasslands everywhere. Grassland prairies are themselves are an especially endangered ecosystem because when Europeans or other colonizers, came to the US, or any other grassland, they thought how easy that land would be to plough once the grazing herds and indigenous people were removed. Before European colonization in North America the first nations people managed the prairies and buffalo to insure the long-term improvement of the land and herds. The soils they built supported grasses that had thick roots that went 15 feet down, instead of just below the surface roots that ploughed fields create. All those thick underground roots were sequestered carbon, by destroying that ecosystem all the carbon held in those roots has been released into the atmosphere or run off into the sea. That land's fertility has been squandered, and now to force a crop out of that abused land the farmer puts huge amounts of chemical fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides, all of which are giant greenhouse gas contributors, much greater than cattle. Conventional chemical agriculture produces much more methane, and fossil methane at that, than even CAFO cattle produce. Current estimates are those ploughed fields have around 50 crops left before the land is too damaged to produce food. The old "cow farts or burps" study has more flaws than good info in it, it ignores things like the full carbon cost of transportation in favor of daily emissions from transport. It was designed to smear cattle. Trees are great carbon sinks, but they do not grow every where equally well, and unless they are grown in the complex system of a forest, they are not reaching optimal carbon sequestration, tree plantations don't do that. Wetlands are enormous carbon sinks, but they cannot be created in all locations, both those ecosystems are needed as much as grasslands with deep roots. Each of these ecosystems, if carefully managed would take a great deal of carbon out of the atmosphere, and we need all of them working to reduce atmospheric carbon. I find this channel infuriating, because they keep looking for shiny new expensive technological fixes where rebuilding and supporting natural systems is the better and more certain choice going forward.

[@Paul-NH]

@@permiebird937 I get your last paragraph But my whole intention was to create a contrast Grass-fed cattle produce 3 to 3.5 times more CH₄ than cows fed on grains and cattle fed on grass also need more time to reach “market weight”. As I said, sequestration can only offset around 20 to 60 percent of emissions (and only for some time, even if you switch between lands). I don't think one can argue to make something more sustainable if the whole thing isn't sustainable in the first place. In the future, we all should and probably will be vegans (not one myself yet)

[@permiebird937]

@@Paul-NH The largest part of greenhouse emissions with cattle is growing the grain to feed them, which I have already noted is a big problem. Grass fed cattle managed with regenerative grazing, eat grass that when it isn't eaten, the tops will die and rot in the field, producing methane anyway. That methane produced by grass fed cattle and rotting grass is green methane and part of a natural cycle that has run since hoofed mammals became a thing. Nature has got that one covered. Of all the agriculture land on the planet, about 2/3s of it is rangeland, which is best suited for grazing animals, and useless for growing crops. Veganism for all, requires we clear more wild lands to try to grow more crops, killing even more wildlife and destroying the land and soil as we do that. Wildlife can live on pasture, prairie, and meadow, with cattle, but wildlife dies on ploughed fields. Rice farming produces more methane than cattle, including CAFO cattle, but I don't see vegans complaining about that. .

[@dani4anarchy]

Wildlife can have similar impact without the same level of emissions. There is no scenario in which growing livestock is better for the environment than freeing land for wildlife and growing plants for direct human consumption.

[@Gaiafreak6969]

"no politics I promise" That's impossible

[@The_Cat_Princess]

This video was very interesting to me because I am now thinking of becoming a fisherman and starting a mussel farm. In Japan, there are only a few places where the waves are calm, such as inlets and bays, and there was no space to cultivate mussels in these limited spaces.

[@Julian-wd8ym]

fucking good video. First I was like "nah, I dont wanna watch 18 minutes" but now I would love it to be longer xD

[@patrikfigo]

That 6 minute intor tho :O

[@ThePsyclepath]

Great video with well researched data and links to sources provided. If only professional journalists could do this as well.

[@daviddavis4885]

The opposite of the Communist Revolution, obviously 🙄

[@georgetzi7160]

Lol

[@uzefulvideos3440]

Something about the recording makes your voice quite uncomfortable to listen to. Don't know what it is exactly.

[@liquidmeme6019]

Why is no one mentioning that these "bio-deserts" in the oceans are the sub-tropical gyres that are a result of global currents? By the way famously house garbage patches in all five of them including the great Pacific Garbage patch. This is a very limited look at the Hydrosphere and is not considering the complexities of our planet. Watch the Crash Course playlist on Geography for more information. Thanks for reading. Hope you have a nice day.

[@RigbyWilde]

I can perfectly imagine a new country rising in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, making its territory only by ships, islands and lots of these ocean farms.

[@axelpatrickb.pingol3228]

Technically speaking, they won't be considered a "country" under both UNCLOS and the Montevideo Agreement...

[@BoWSkittlez]

Misleading graph at 2:00. The y-axis doesnt start at 0, just so you all know

[@RonDe675]

Its not misleading. He literally says the percent it drops down to if you were paying attention

[@BoWSkittlez]

@@RonDe675 I disagree. It's just honest graph-making not to be misleading to your audiences. By that standard, I could show a picture of a turtle but as long as I say it's actually a blue sky one, I'm fine. Also, what about the hearing-impaired viewers who can only see the graph? Graphs are exclusively visual conveyors of information. To have to correct it by explanation defeats the purpose.

[@WanderTheNomad]

@@BoWSkittlez I agree with you about trying your best not to show misleading graphs to your audience, but that point about hearing-impaired viewers seems kinda irrelevant since captions are enabled for this video.

[@BoWSkittlez]

@@WanderTheNomad *luckily* there are captions to the video.

[@stevenclark2188]

One thing growing livestock is good for is replenishing salted ground. Apparently alfalfa soaks up salt from soil with all that extra water it requires.

[@charliedavey4129]

I did my master's thesis on more or less this subject, and I came to the same conclusions: land meat farming = boo, Sea meat farming = yay (and yes, these are the correct scientific terms)

[@6zeekoe9]

I mean, cows have literally been saying this the whole time

[@24_smiley_83]

open sea nets have quite a different side as well. They heavily influence the open seas, infecting fish with strong viruses, killing the seafloors below the nets, ... the nets are a perfect breeding place for viruses and parasites. they use pesticides to fight off the parasites which are forbidden on land and most of the fish in the nets are misshaped because the nets are so packed. And dont forget the fish that manages to get out of the nets. Especially for the salmon, they are genetically modified for the net fishing and their personalities are way more aggressive. They join a group, mate with open sea females and the babies wont survive. And that damages the open sea fishes as well.

[@orionma5425]

Hi, did you look into the business and/or legal side of this or just the science/logistics? It looks like a capital intensive industry... and I can't imagine that the laws that govern farming in international waters are simple. My first impression is that any company that wants to succeed must get either government backing or already be established. I'd like to know what you think about this, thanks!

[@lolcano2346]

doesn't seem that simple, your phD sounds rather biased. You telling me we don't stand to completely upheave many ocean ecosystems by implementing something like a blue revolution at scale?

[@vodafoneuser1690]

You are a liar and you should stop lying.