so i was scrolling through instagram the
other day and i came across this vegan
post
which made me feel mad i wanted to leave
a comment to destroy the vegan
but what should i say i decided that to
come up with the ultimate argument
against veganism
i would watch the one person who i can
always trust
to give unbiased evidence-based
arguments
if you really want to kill the most
things be a vegan because
the farmers who protect your beans
kill everything i kill one animal per
arrow
in order to grow tofu you have to kill
every ground squirrel
every vole every shrew every snake every
turtle every frog
every bird every rabbit anything that
gets in that bean field
i'm either going to plow and dismember
which is why the crows and the
and the seagulls follow the the uh the
combines every year
and then if anything does survive my
first slaughter i'm going to come in
with man santa and poison
out of everything so you can have a tofu
salad and not be responsible for any
death
you you're odd shall we off so that guy
there was ted nugent a man who
in the past said that the south african
apartheid wasn't cut and dry
and that not all men are created equal
so to be fair to joe
ted is clearly a moral beacon within
society and the kind of guy
that you definitely like to take moral
advice from he's a good guy you get to
know
but to be fair this argument is used all
the time by non-vegans and i'm sure that
many of you have had this argument used
against you
and i'm sure that many of you watching
have probably used this argument
as well so in today's video we're going
to go through in detail
the argument that has been made by ted
and others who say that animals have
been killed during crop production so
let's start off really simply and say
that yes
animals do die during crop production
but does
that mean that vegans are responsible
for more animals dying
than non-vegans well to start let's look
at ted's argument in particular because
he's talking about soy
and the animals that are killed in the
production of soy now there's a big
problem with ted's argument which is
that well firstly
about 75 to 80 percent of all the soy
that's produced around the world
is given to the animal agriculture
industries and used as animal feed in
fact only around
six percent is used directly for human
consumption
so straight away if you're worried about
animals being killed in the production
of soy
then maybe you should stop supporting
the industries that use three quarters
to four
fifths of all the soy that is produced
but ted is not the only person who has
made this argument not even the only
person
on the joe rogan podcast who has made
this argument chris cresser
has also used this argument before we go
back now to
this this 2018 paper that i mentioned
earlier
that examined the impact of plant
agriculture on animal deaths and found
35 to 250 mouths deaths per acre
mouse deaths mouse deaths deaths of mice
and up to 7.3 billion animals killed
every year from plant agriculture
if you count birds killed by pesticides
fish dust from fertilizer runoff plus
reptiles and amphibians poisonings from
eating toxic
insects from the pesticides what's the
number 7.3 billion animals killed every
year in terms of
culture of life there's far more
life taken by plant agriculture
than there is life taken by animal
agriculture even factory farming
oh yeah we're not killing 7.3 billion
cows
well firstly over 9.5 billion land
animals are killed every single year
just in the u.s alone and when you
factor in marine animals that figure
becomes
55 billion so yes more animals are
killed for meat dairy and eggs than they
are
in the production of crops and secondly
according to data from the usda
77.3 million acres of land is used in
the u.s to grow
plants directly for human consumption
however 127.4 million acres of land
is used to grow plants that's used as
animal feeds which means 65
more land is used growing plants for
animals
than for humans and that doesn't even
mention the 654 million acres of pasture
and rangeland in the u.s which means
that overall animal farming uses 10
times more land
than farming for plants directly for
human consumption
in fact according to the most
comprehensive analysis that's ever been
conducted
exploring farming and the environment 83
of all global agricultural land is used
for animal farming
but let's have a look in more detail at
the paper that chris cresser
is citing now for those of you who saw
his debate with james wilkes the
producer
of the game changes then you'll know
that chris can't read forest plots do
you know how do you read a forest plot
but i think it goes one step further
than that i think that chris doesn't
understand
the subject matter that he is talking
about because he clearly
has not read the paper that he is citing
firstly the 7.3 billion animals that
chris
cites from the paper is actually called
into question
by the authors of the paper themselves
in their own words they say the estimate
should be reduced
7.3 billion is clearly too high
in fact if you actually read the paper
the authors do a better job of
dismantling
the crop deaths argument for example
they cite
this 2004 study the study examined the
effect of wheat and corn harvesting in
central argentina
it compared the population and
distribution of grass mice in free
habitats
crop fields regions bordering the fields
and the wider surrounding area
while the number of mice found in fields
substantially decreased after harvest
their numbers substantially increased in
the border regions
when it came to disappearances a
category that included both mouse deaths
and migration out of the study area
there was no significant difference
between the three habitats
the study concluded that changes in the
number of field animals were the
consequences of movement and not of
higher mortality in crops
and if we just think about it for a
moment do we really believe
that mice who have such good hearing
that it's actually their main defense in
avoiding predators do we really believe
that these animals are just going to sit
in crop fields
as huge combine harvesters get closer
and closer to them causing massive
vibrations in the ground
and a huge amount of noise do we really
think that they just sit there and
wait to be killed by these combine
harvesters but that's besides the point
because the paper that chris is citing
actually does a great job of disproving
the very point
that he is trying to make and the figure
that he has cited from the paper
is actually called into question by the
authors
of the paper i mean you just couldn't
make this up chris cresser
is like the ultimate quack it's almost
like comedy
but where did this argument even come
from well back in 2003
there was an article published by
someone called stephen davies and
stephen davies makes the claim
that it's more ethical to eat an
omnivorous diet that focuses on
ruminant meat than it is to be
plant-based because more animals die in
the production of plant-based foods
than they do in the production of
ruminant meat however dave has made a
really significant error when he was
writing this paper because
he assumes that the same amount of food
will be made on the same amount of land
regardless of the type of food that has
been produced and that is
obviously just not true and so davies
makes the claim that about 7.5
animals are killed per hectare when
producing
grass-fed beef but 15 animals are killed
per hectare
when producing a plant-based crop
instead
so using his estimates this rebuttal
that uses un
data states that 1 000 kilograms of
protein can be produced on one hectare
of land
that is growing plants but would take 10
hectares of land
for grass-fed beef to produce the same
amount which means that when you use
davis's numbers but you factor in the
error that he made
stephen davis actually makes an even
more compelling argument
to be vegan because according to his
numbers a plant-based diet
is responsible for five times fewer
deaths than a diet that consists of
ruminant meat
and plus as a non-vegan you're paying
for animals to suffer
in a whole host of really horrific ways
for example animals are forcibly
impregnated they have their babies taken
away
from them they're mutilated by having
their tails chopped off
they're castrated they're de-horned
they're disputed
they're branded and then once they've
gone through all of those different
procedures and the farmer wants to sell
them to be killed
they're loaded into trucks and trailers
and transported to a slaughterhouse
in some countries like australia for
example these animals can be transported
for up to
48 hours in these trucks and trailers
and then once at the slaughterhouse the
animals endure a terrifying
ordeal before they're eventually killed
by having their throats cut
now of course when we go vegan it's not
just about reducing the number of animal
deaths
it's also about reducing the overall
suffering and harm
that we cause to these animals and there
could be no more suffering and harm
caused to an animal
than what is caused to them in the meat
dairy and egg industries
not to mention that animals killed in
crop production have a chance to escape
their deaths are indirect but these
animals that we raise specifically for
their meat and their secretions
well they have no chance of escape
they're prisoners within this system
and they can do nothing to escape from
the violence that's been inflicted upon
them
however there was also another article
published back in 2011 by a guy called
mike archer now this is the article that
is shared around by non-vegans
all the time this is the article that
ted is referring to when he talks about
the animals being killed in the
production of soy
this is the article that non-vegans hold
up
as a reason for them to kill the animals
that they kill to them
this is the reason why we shouldn't be
vegan so what
is the article well in the article the
author mike archer
makes the claim that 25 times more
animals
are killed in the production of wheat
than they are in the production
of grass-fed beef but why you ask
because that doesn't seem to make sense
does it on
face value well mike says that it's
because every four years or so in
australia
there are mouse plagues now mouse
plagues are basically when
an area of land in australia is overrun
by often
millions of mice it's a significant
problem in australia
however it's a significant problem in
australia you see mouse plagues
really only ever happen in australia and
they have happened before
in china but really it's a uniquely
australian problem now mike makes the
claim that because of the mouse plagues
farmers will poison as many of the mice
as they possibly can and this is why
a plant-based diet is responsible for
more deaths
than an omnivorous diet and just before
we get into the actual mouse plague
argument i think it's really important
to know that this is an australia
specific problem
so it seems really strange to me that
people would use this article as a piece
of evidence
to not be vegan when the majority of
vegans aren't even in australia to begin
with i mean as a vegan in the uk
why would this be a good reason for me
not to be a vegan in the uk
obviously it's not a good argument but
so many people have
shared this article thinking that it's a
great piece of evidence as a reason to
not be vegan
anywhere in the world one of the people
that shared this article making that
claim
was stephen crowder grain's like wheat
yeah i don't know if it's corn i think
we have a source results in 25
times more sentient animals being killed
per kilogram of usable protein
there's more environmental damage
there's more animal cruelty
than farming red meat and so to me this
really just reaffirms how
people will see headlines for articles
and maybe a few summary points
and then we'll share the article around
without even necessarily fully
understanding
what the article is saying and the
arguments that are being made
which is so often being the case with
this particular article from mike archer
so according to the usda
it is estimated that in the years 2019
to 2020
3.5 million tonnes of wheat was produced
for human consumption
whilst in the same period six million
tons was produced to be used
as animal feed so that means the animal
farmers use around 1.7 times
more wheat and so be responsible for
around 1.7 times
more mice being killed for wheat
production alone
now this is important as well because
about 80 percent of the beef that is
sold in domestic supermarkets in
australia
comes from cattle who spent about 85 to
90
of their life grazing on pasture but
then spent the last 10 to 15
of their life in feedlots being fattened
up on grain
and on top of that cattle flesh can
still be sold as being grass-fed
if the cattle spent less than 70 days
being fed grain
on a feedlot and because many cattle in
australia
are slaughtered at around 18 months old
those 70 days come in that 10 to 15
time range however what about animals
that are solely
grass-fed so at no point of fed any
grain and at no point spend
any time in a feedlot but we have this
idea don't we that
grass-fed animals just spend their
entire life grazing on pasture
and the only food they consume is from
the pasture that they're grazing on
however that's not true because
grass-fed animals can be fed different
types of
grass for example hay silage and hailage
which means that grass-fed animals are
not just consuming the pasture
that they're grazing on part of the
reason for this is due to different
seasonal changes but also because a lot
of pasture is nutritionally
insufficient and so that leads us onto
the question of
well how do farmers get hay and silage
they harvest it using
combine harvesters which means even
grass-fed animals solely grass-fed
animals
a fed food that is harvested so then how
does this relate to the mouse plays i
mean
do the mouse plagues only affect the
crops that are used to feed
vegans or do they also affect other
crops as well well
check this article out that was
published this year about a mouse plague
that has taken place this year in the
article one farmer said
the hay is a worry apparently the mouse
droppings in urine
all run through it's very damaging it
can disease
cattle it might be ruined and in the
same article another farmer is mentioned
the stora family grows sorghum to feed
their cattle
but mice have been eating it which has
hugely hurt them
financially now sorghum is a type of
grass that is used
to make hay and so the mouse plagues
affect the entire
agricultural landscape in australia
the mouse plagues don't just target the
crops that vegans consume
they target all of the different crops
including
hay and silage and there is even a
document by
feed central which is australia's
largest hay selling platform
it's called managing a mouse plague in
haystacks and it says
whatever you do don't hold back on the
number of bait stations
and on top of that the mouse plagues
even affect pasture
as well so even if you took hay and
silage out of the question
pastureland and as a consequence
grass-fed cattle
are still negatively impacted by the
mouse plagues now funnily enough mike
archer doesn't mention any of this
in his article i wonder why let's think
about it
let's see who do we think kills more
animals a vegan or a non-vegan so on the
one hand we have a non-vegan
whose diet uses more grain uses
more land is responsible for using all
of the hay and silage that is produced
and of course kills animals directly as
well and on the other hand we have the
vegan diet
which uses less land doesn't use any
hair silage
uses less grain overall and doesn't
involve
directly killing an animal who do we
think is responsible
for the most animal deaths and guess
what on top of all of that
mike archer misrepresents the data
because he makes out that every four
years
each area of grain production in
australia is affected
by mouse plagues however that's not true
and you won't believe this
but this very point the point about my
culture misrepresenting the data
was brought up in the study that chris
cresser cited i mean honestly
at this point you just don't know
whether to laugh or cry it's so
ridiculous but this is what
the study said a more accurate picture
is suggested by the cooperative research
center
which notes that each year between a
hundred thousand and five hundred
thousand hectares of grain crops in
australia
are subject to mouse plagues these
figures suggest that in an average year
2.3 percent of australian grain cropland
is hit by plague
when archer's figure of 55 deaths per
hectare of grain is recalculated
to only apply to 2.3 of cropland
the mortality rate for grain becomes
1.27 animals
per hectare so what this means is that
when you use arches figures for animal
deaths
2.2 animals are killed per 100 kilograms
of usable grass-fed protein but only 0.7
animals are killed for 100 kilograms of
usable wheat protein
and also bear in mind that the 2.2
animal deaths for grass-fed protein
doesn't include the animals killed for
the harvest of hay
silage and other feed so that number
will actually be higher as well
and so to summarize a plant-based diet
is not responsible
for more deaths than a non-vegan diet
and the two main people responsible
for perpetuating this myth actually
further proved the point that a
plant-based diet is more ethical
because when their numbers and their
estimates are used properly in
accordance with the reality of the
situation
their estimates themselves prove that
less animals are killed in the
production
of a plant-based diet and to top it all
off here is a chart showing the
estimated number of deaths
per 1 million calories for many of the
major food items in our diets
as you can see the difference in depths
between plant foods and animal-based
foods
is substantial to say the least and this
doesn't even factor in the fact that
shifting to a plant-based diet
would free up to 75 of current
agricultural land
which is an area of land equivalent in
size to the whole of australia
the whole of china the whole of the eu
and the whole of the us
combined that would be land that is
freed up
and could be reforested and restored and
to quote a recent report from the world
leading
chatham house setting aside land for
biodiversity to the exclusion of other
uses including farming
and either protecting or restoring
natural habitat
would offer the most benefit to
biodiversity across a given landscape
and with the rise of technological
advancements like vertical farming
i think it's really fitting to end with
a quote from the study
that chris cresser cited agriculture has
taken a wide variety of forms throughout
history
and current trends would seem to raise
the serious possibility
that plant agriculture might someday
kill very few animals
perhaps even none and so a plant-based
diet is not just the most ethical diet
right now it's becoming increasingly
more ethical
all the time so if you care about
animals including those who are killed
during crop production then you should
be vegan because being vegan is the best
way to minimize death
not just of the animals in farms and
slaughterhouses but indeed the animals
in the natural world as well
and by shifting to a plant-based diet
and a vegan lifestyle
we can free up so much more of the world
to allow biodiversity
to flourish all right guys thank you so
much for watching i really appreciate it
i hope you found this
video useful i hope you can share it
around to people who've said these
things to you before in the past and i
hope that if you're watching this as
someone who has used this argument
before
you now realize this argument doesn't
hold up and actually just further
reaffirms
why it is that we should be vegan and if
you're interested in hearing my response
to joe rogan and his hunting arguments
then you can do so by clicking the link
that's popping up in the top corner
right now
all right guys thank you so much for
watching i really do appreciate it and i
will see you all
in the next video
[Music]
so
you