WEBVTT - The World Is Getting Better (Really) 0:00:15.356 --> 0:00:15.836 Pushkin. 0:00:20.676 --> 0:00:25.196 Here are three statements that are all true. Statement number one, 0:00:26.036 --> 0:00:29.956 the world is awful. This one is pretty self explanatory, 0:00:30.076 --> 0:00:35.156 no need to dwell. Statement number two, the world is 0:00:35.316 --> 0:00:38.996 better than it used to be. This one, in my experience, 0:00:39.396 --> 0:00:43.916 tends to generate pushback that ranges from mild skepticism to 0:00:44.156 --> 0:00:49.556 outright hostility. And yet along many dimensions, it is clearly true. 0:00:49.636 --> 0:00:52.596 You know, just in the past few decades, the infant 0:00:52.596 --> 0:00:55.396 mortality rate around the world has fallen by a lot, 0:00:55.796 --> 0:00:58.556 as has the share of people living in extreme poverty. 0:00:58.996 --> 0:01:02.036 Literacy rates are going up around the world. Lots of 0:01:02.116 --> 0:01:06.196 things are getting better, so that is statement number two. 0:01:06.916 --> 0:01:11.676 And then finally statement three, the world can be better. 0:01:11.836 --> 0:01:14.876 The world can be better than it is now. This 0:01:14.956 --> 0:01:18.556 one I find when I say it, people will sort 0:01:18.556 --> 0:01:19.796 of go along with it. 0:01:19.956 --> 0:01:21.396 But without conviction. 0:01:21.796 --> 0:01:24.396 Right like, maybe theoretically the world can be better, but 0:01:24.436 --> 0:01:28.876 they don't really believe it. And yet, as list item 0:01:28.956 --> 0:01:32.036 number two reminds us, the world is better than it 0:01:32.156 --> 0:01:35.796 used to be in many ways, it's true. The world 0:01:36.036 --> 0:01:45.836 really can get better. I'm Jacob Goldstein, and this is 0:01:45.876 --> 0:01:50.036 what's your problem. My guest today is Hannah Ritchie. Hannah 0:01:50.116 --> 0:01:52.996 is a data scientist and the deputy editor of Our 0:01:53.036 --> 0:01:57.516 World in Data, which is an amazing online publication home 0:01:57.556 --> 0:02:01.996 of many great graphs about the world. And Hannah is 0:02:02.236 --> 0:02:05.556 also the author of the relatively new book Not the 0:02:05.676 --> 0:02:07.836 End of the World, How we Can be the First 0:02:07.876 --> 0:02:12.516 generation to build a sustainable planet. The book uses that 0:02:12.796 --> 0:02:15.996 three part framework I just talked about. Things are bad, 0:02:16.436 --> 0:02:18.676 things are better than they used to be, things can 0:02:18.716 --> 0:02:21.756 be better than they are now, and it presents a 0:02:21.876 --> 0:02:26.316 fact based, non moralistic set of approaches to solving some 0:02:26.356 --> 0:02:30.636 of the world's big problems. In our conversation, Hannah and 0:02:30.676 --> 0:02:34.316 I wound up focusing on food, focusing on the way 0:02:34.356 --> 0:02:36.956 we eat, because the way we eat is really tied 0:02:37.076 --> 0:02:39.476 up with a lot of the big problems that Hannah 0:02:39.476 --> 0:02:44.156 focuses on in the book, deforestation, biodiversity loss, and of 0:02:44.156 --> 0:02:47.076 course climate change. But to start, I asked her about 0:02:47.116 --> 0:02:50.116 part two of her framework, that idea that the world 0:02:50.276 --> 0:02:53.116 is better than it used to be. In particular, I 0:02:53.156 --> 0:02:56.956 was curious why she thinks that idea generates so much pushback. 0:02:57.476 --> 0:03:02.756 It's interesting because when you say, when I say, in 0:03:02.756 --> 0:03:05.076 my experience, the world is much better than it used 0:03:05.076 --> 0:03:08.956 to be, people don't believe me, or they get mad, 0:03:11.356 --> 0:03:12.396 which is interesting. 0:03:12.916 --> 0:03:14.756 Has that been your experience at all? 0:03:15.476 --> 0:03:17.236 Yeah, I think, I mean, I think the key thing 0:03:17.316 --> 0:03:20.636 about this framework is that you really need to be 0:03:20.636 --> 0:03:22.876 able to hold all feevings in your head at the 0:03:22.956 --> 0:03:25.316 same time. I think naturally, it's just very difficult for 0:03:25.396 --> 0:03:28.196 us to do. I think as soon as anyone says 0:03:28.196 --> 0:03:31.996 anything positive, our mind automatically goes to the negative. Right, 0:03:32.036 --> 0:03:36.196 So if I say we've made amazing progress on reducing 0:03:36.196 --> 0:03:39.596 global hunger, your automatic reaction is to go to, well, yeah, 0:03:39.636 --> 0:03:42.036 but there's still eight hundred million people that are hungry, 0:03:42.036 --> 0:03:44.316 which is also absolutely true, right, But there is this 0:03:44.396 --> 0:03:47.756 pool in us, and it's definitely had that reaction from 0:03:47.836 --> 0:03:50.156 the book, that there is this gut reaction of wanting 0:03:50.196 --> 0:03:52.956 to counter it with the kind of almost cynical or 0:03:52.996 --> 0:03:57.636 protective kind of blanket of well, we shouldn't be complacent 0:03:57.636 --> 0:03:59.636 about this because we've still got a massive problem. 0:03:59.876 --> 0:04:01.956 Sometimes it goes even farther than that. 0:04:02.076 --> 0:04:05.236 I mean, that is certainly true, and that is more 0:04:05.316 --> 0:04:08.556 easy to understand, right, because as you say, one shouldn't 0:04:08.556 --> 0:04:10.956 be complace, one shouldn't just live here comfortably in the 0:04:10.956 --> 0:04:15.196 developed world and say Oh, everything's great, but people don't 0:04:15.236 --> 0:04:18.476 even want to believe that things are good here relative 0:04:18.476 --> 0:04:21.636 to one hundred years ago. And that one is a 0:04:21.676 --> 0:04:25.796 little bit harder to understand, Like why do you think 0:04:25.836 --> 0:04:28.956 people don't believe that things are better than they were 0:04:29.396 --> 0:04:30.316 one hundred years ago? 0:04:30.596 --> 0:04:32.796 Say, I mean, I think one thing is that we 0:04:32.876 --> 0:04:33.916 just don't look at data. 0:04:34.076 --> 0:04:34.196 Right. 0:04:34.236 --> 0:04:36.436 You can only see this through data. Right, You're never 0:04:36.476 --> 0:04:38.476 going to get this in the news because the news 0:04:38.516 --> 0:04:40.676 covers what's happened in the last hour in the world. 0:04:40.716 --> 0:04:42.676 So is an event, right, it's an event that can 0:04:42.716 --> 0:04:45.716 make a headline. It's a natural disaster, it's a war, 0:04:46.036 --> 0:04:48.996 it's a murder, it's a really, really bad event, which 0:04:49.036 --> 0:04:52.836 is one of the reasons why the news skews negative, 0:04:53.396 --> 0:04:56.196 whereas a lot of the progress we've made, you know, 0:04:56.236 --> 0:04:59.756 there's no headline really you can run because it happens gradually, 0:04:59.796 --> 0:05:01.476 day after day after day after day. 0:05:01.836 --> 0:05:05.756 It's not a headline story that globally, infant mortality has 0:05:05.876 --> 0:05:08.596 fallen a huge amount in the last thirty years, even 0:05:08.636 --> 0:05:10.756 though in terms of human welfare it's one of the 0:05:10.796 --> 0:05:13.556 most important things that happened this century so far. 0:05:13.756 --> 0:05:16.876 Right, Yeah, and I think that's true for like most 0:05:16.876 --> 0:05:20.236 of our progress stories that they happen incrementally over time, 0:05:20.476 --> 0:05:23.276 but when you add that up over decades, you just 0:05:23.356 --> 0:05:26.116 have this like profound change that's happened in the world. 0:05:26.436 --> 0:05:28.756 And I think because it's just out of pace with 0:05:28.796 --> 0:05:31.156 the news cycle, we just don't get it right. We 0:05:31.276 --> 0:05:35.276 just don't see it. Especially in rich countries in the world. 0:05:35.676 --> 0:05:39.996 We often have this patronizing perception that the rest of 0:05:40.036 --> 0:05:44.196 the world has stagnated or hasn't moved forward, right, So 0:05:44.236 --> 0:05:46.956 we think, okay, things might be okay where I am, 0:05:47.396 --> 0:05:50.556 but you know, countries in Africa or countries in Asia, 0:05:50.636 --> 0:05:53.116 they're just as poor and bad off as they were 0:05:53.316 --> 0:05:56.636 fifty years ago, when actually they are. Child mortality rates 0:05:56.636 --> 0:06:01.436 have fallen, more kids are getting vaccinated, hungered down, poverties down. 0:06:01.476 --> 0:06:04.396 So I think we have this perception that many countries 0:06:04.436 --> 0:06:06.836 in the world are stuck where they were fifty years ago, 0:06:06.876 --> 0:06:08.716 and that's just not true. And it's because we often 0:06:08.756 --> 0:06:11.836 again don't see these stories. And the news they're either 0:06:12.276 --> 0:06:15.236 our news in the US or Europe, is very US 0:06:15.356 --> 0:06:18.756 or Europe orientated, and the stuff we hear from other 0:06:18.916 --> 0:06:21.876 parts of the world again attend to be these negative stories. 0:06:22.956 --> 0:06:28.836 So the book, the book does talk about a lot 0:06:28.876 --> 0:06:30.276 of stuff that's wrong, right. 0:06:30.356 --> 0:06:31.556 The book is certainly not. 0:06:34.436 --> 0:06:40.516 Pollyanna ish, I would say, but it approaches it with 0:06:41.116 --> 0:06:43.676 a sort of practical like, let's figure out how to 0:06:43.756 --> 0:06:50.236 solve this framework, and you step through most of the 0:06:50.276 --> 0:06:52.996 big things that seem terribly wrong, or many of the 0:06:52.996 --> 0:06:56.916 big things that seem terribly wrong climate change, over fishing, deforestation, 0:06:58.796 --> 0:07:02.756 et cetera. I want to talk at some length about 0:07:02.916 --> 0:07:06.116 one chapter in particular, because, as you say in the book, 0:07:06.156 --> 0:07:09.996 it's sort of a nexus. It's a subject that touches 0:07:10.036 --> 0:07:13.356 on all of these other subjects, really, and that is 0:07:13.516 --> 0:07:16.796 food in part I mean, you know, obviously climate change 0:07:16.876 --> 0:07:19.036 is the other one that is sort of this grand thing. 0:07:19.116 --> 0:07:20.036 But food is. 0:07:21.876 --> 0:07:25.516 Very important and very underdiscussed in the context of climate change. Right, 0:07:26.036 --> 0:07:28.916 So let's talk about food at some length. 0:07:28.716 --> 0:07:29.756 And let's start. 0:07:29.996 --> 0:07:34.676 Let's use that framework that you use more generally with 0:07:35.796 --> 0:07:37.716 the world is much better than it used to be 0:07:37.796 --> 0:07:40.196 in many ways. The world is still bad in many ways, 0:07:40.236 --> 0:07:43.276 and the world can be better. Let's apply that to food. 0:07:43.396 --> 0:07:47.556 So how is food much better than it used to be? 0:07:49.236 --> 0:07:52.276 So when you look at it through a human hunger lens. 0:07:52.796 --> 0:07:57.076 So today around just under ten percent of the world 0:07:57.476 --> 0:07:59.396 are sto go hungry, which means they just don't get 0:07:59.476 --> 0:08:02.396 enough calories to eat. So that's around eight hundred million people. 0:08:02.596 --> 0:08:04.396 That's the still very bad piece. 0:08:04.516 --> 0:08:06.956 This is still very bad piece. But if you were 0:08:06.996 --> 0:08:09.596 to go back a century, you know, the share of 0:08:09.636 --> 0:08:12.756 the world that go hungry was way higher than it was. 0:08:13.796 --> 0:08:16.036 Is there are there credible estimates for what it was 0:08:16.076 --> 0:08:16.996 one hundred years ago. 0:08:17.676 --> 0:08:21.636 The long term data on this is more shaky, i'd say, 0:08:22.156 --> 0:08:25.436 but you're definitely talking about in most regions well over 0:08:25.556 --> 0:08:28.996 a third if not more, people were not getting enough calories. 0:08:28.636 --> 0:08:32.236 To eat, well over a third as opposed to ten percent. 0:08:32.316 --> 0:08:35.116 So that is improvement. I mean, what if you go back, 0:08:35.436 --> 0:08:39.156 if you go back two hundred years, what is the 0:08:39.236 --> 0:08:42.156 rough estimate of what percentage of people on earth were 0:08:42.196 --> 0:08:43.156 not getting enough to eat? 0:08:44.076 --> 0:08:46.876 I mean, I'd say probably even higher still, and I'd 0:08:46.876 --> 0:08:51.156 say most of the improvements in food and agricultural productivity 0:08:51.276 --> 0:08:54.476 have came really in the last century, but in particular 0:08:54.516 --> 0:08:57.036 in the last fifty years. So I think if you 0:08:57.076 --> 0:08:59.276 were to look at hunger rates a century ago or 0:08:59.276 --> 0:09:02.156 two centuries ago, they'd all be very very high. And 0:09:02.196 --> 0:09:05.436 again i'd say estimates are fuzzy, but you'd say at 0:09:05.476 --> 0:09:08.116 least well over a third, if not over half, of 0:09:08.116 --> 0:09:09.156 people weren't getting. 0:09:08.956 --> 0:09:13.036 Enough, yeah, as compared to today where it's something like 0:09:13.236 --> 0:09:18.276 ninety percent of people are getting enough food to eat. 0:09:17.676 --> 0:09:21.196 So I mean, obviously there are a few key breakthroughs 0:09:21.236 --> 0:09:24.276 in like getting more food per acre of land per 0:09:24.356 --> 0:09:29.276 unit of land, right, nitrogen fertilizer, and then the Haberbosch process, 0:09:29.676 --> 0:09:31.996 which weirdly we just talked about on the show, for 0:09:32.916 --> 0:09:36.996 synthesizing nitrogen fertilizer. And then there's this other moment, a 0:09:37.076 --> 0:09:40.716 later moment that you talk about in the book, which 0:09:40.756 --> 0:09:43.796 is basically one guy, one of these amazing one guy 0:09:43.916 --> 0:09:47.196 changes the world stories, and it's Norman Borlog. So tell 0:09:47.236 --> 0:09:48.436 me about Norman Borlog. 0:09:49.036 --> 0:09:53.836 So, Norman Borlog was a kind of agricultural scientist, and 0:09:54.116 --> 0:09:59.196 he was basically recruited initially to go to Mexico to 0:09:59.276 --> 0:10:02.756 work out how Mexicans could grow more food per unit 0:10:02.796 --> 0:10:05.676 of land, so how to increase agricultural productivity or crop 0:10:05.716 --> 0:10:08.716 yield in Mexico. And he came at us for a 0:10:08.756 --> 0:10:12.116 genet reading lens, so trying to work out what combination 0:10:12.636 --> 0:10:18.316 of crop strains might be able to produce us and 0:10:18.396 --> 0:10:20.036 it was a very long process. There's a lot of 0:10:20.076 --> 0:10:20.916 trial and error. 0:10:20.996 --> 0:10:23.116 Right, just to be clear, right, what this is like 0:10:23.156 --> 0:10:26.196 the sixties. This is not like GMO, This is pregmo, right, 0:10:26.236 --> 0:10:30.996 this is just like old school Mendelian crosses, farmer hybrid 0:10:31.156 --> 0:10:32.756 like that, like the old school style. 0:10:32.836 --> 0:10:33.636 Yeah, old school. 0:10:33.716 --> 0:10:36.996 So lots of trial and error, lots of trying a 0:10:37.036 --> 0:10:40.636 crop not performing well, trying another crop not performing well, 0:10:41.356 --> 0:10:43.596 and kind of got to the stage where he was 0:10:43.836 --> 0:10:45.476 kind of sent out on this mission and kind of 0:10:45.556 --> 0:10:48.076 left there is like, oh, well, he'll be over there 0:10:48.116 --> 0:10:50.116 trying to do this. We're kind of skeptical at of work, 0:10:50.196 --> 0:10:52.876 but you know, he's got a job over there. Good luck, 0:10:54.116 --> 0:10:57.196 And he finally cracks it and it makes a massive 0:10:57.316 --> 0:11:00.596 difference to crop yields in Mexico, talking about a large, 0:11:00.676 --> 0:11:04.476 large increase. Mexico moved from being a net importer of 0:11:04.476 --> 0:11:08.236 food to a net exporter of food and from there 0:11:08.276 --> 0:11:10.316 this really kicked off eat what we frame as kind 0:11:10.356 --> 0:11:14.996 of agricultural revolution. And he went to South Asia in 0:11:15.036 --> 0:11:17.556 Pakistan and India and did the same Right, so again 0:11:17.796 --> 0:11:21.796 their crop yields were extremely low during that period. There 0:11:21.876 --> 0:11:26.916 was lots of concerns about especially food shortage in that region, 0:11:26.956 --> 0:11:29.276 but more broadly, there was lots of concerns at the 0:11:29.276 --> 0:11:35.276 time about a global food shortage, huge famines, huge levels 0:11:35.316 --> 0:11:35.876 of hunger. 0:11:36.236 --> 0:11:36.396 Right. 0:11:36.436 --> 0:11:40.716 Well, and you talk about Paul Erlik, the famous biologist 0:11:41.156 --> 0:11:45.076 who in retrospect looks quite bad, right, who wrote this 0:11:45.116 --> 0:11:49.276 best selling book essentially saying, we are screwed already. It's 0:11:49.316 --> 0:11:52.116 baked in. A billion people are going to starve. We 0:11:52.236 --> 0:11:54.356 just got to figure out who, because there's no way 0:11:54.396 --> 0:11:56.756 we can grow enough food to feed all the people who. 0:11:56.556 --> 0:11:57.356 Have just been born. 0:11:57.756 --> 0:12:01.316 Right, So nineteen sixty eight he comes out with this book, 0:12:01.356 --> 0:12:04.156 The Population Bomb, and yes, that was his thesis. There's 0:12:04.196 --> 0:12:06.276 just far too many people on the planet. We've got 0:12:06.276 --> 0:12:09.236 this major global food crisis coming and many men, many 0:12:09.276 --> 0:12:11.916 people are going to die from this. That didn't happen. 0:12:12.236 --> 0:12:14.036 One of the reasons it didn't happen was because of 0:12:14.036 --> 0:12:18.116 Norman Blorog and the Green Revolution. So we we vastly 0:12:18.196 --> 0:12:23.756 underestimated how much we could increase crop yields across the world. 0:12:24.036 --> 0:12:26.596 So staying for a moment on the theme of the 0:12:26.636 --> 0:12:27.956 world is much better than it. 0:12:27.956 --> 0:12:30.916 Used to be. One thing that I. 0:12:30.316 --> 0:12:32.396 Didn't know before I read your book that I learned 0:12:32.396 --> 0:12:37.956 from the book is that the world has passed peak 0:12:37.996 --> 0:12:43.356 fertilizer use and has passed or almost passed peak land 0:12:43.436 --> 0:12:48.836 use for agriculture, which was surprising to me and encouraging. 0:12:48.956 --> 0:12:51.396 Tell me about Tell me about those facts. 0:12:51.916 --> 0:12:56.396 So peak fertilizer use, I wouldn't say definitively that we're 0:12:56.436 --> 0:12:58.396 past the peak. I think we're kind of being on 0:12:58.396 --> 0:13:01.756 this kind of plateau. We saw really really steep rise 0:13:01.796 --> 0:13:05.196 in global fertilizer use in the nineteen nineties and especially 0:13:05.236 --> 0:13:08.156 the early two thousands. If you look over the last 0:13:08.836 --> 0:13:11.556 day care, so it's kind of been leveling off, which 0:13:11.556 --> 0:13:13.836 I think goes against people's intuitions. I think they'd think, 0:13:14.116 --> 0:13:16.156 you know, we're just still going through the roof. We're 0:13:16.196 --> 0:13:20.756 using far more fertilizer than ever before. But no, we 0:13:20.836 --> 0:13:23.676 look like we're kind of stabilizing, and and part of 0:13:23.716 --> 0:13:26.076 that is due to some cooking hunters are still in 0:13:26.076 --> 0:13:27.836 the increase, and I actually think it's good at their 0:13:27.836 --> 0:13:29.836 still in the increase. As you said, like one of 0:13:29.876 --> 0:13:33.276 the key innovations that have helped to feed the world 0:13:33.356 --> 0:13:36.836 has been the use of fertilizer, and some countries still 0:13:36.956 --> 0:13:40.516 don't have enough, but some countries definitely overuse it and 0:13:40.556 --> 0:13:42.996 overuse it to the point where it's just not even 0:13:43.156 --> 0:13:46.556 cost effective for farmers to be using that much. But 0:13:46.636 --> 0:13:49.636 over the last few decades, some countries have dramatically reduced 0:13:49.716 --> 0:13:53.796 fertilizer use without sacrificing you old right, So fertilizer use 0:13:54.196 --> 0:13:57.916 in Europe in particular has gone down, and yields have 0:13:58.036 --> 0:14:01.956 either stayed the same or have continued to increase, even 0:14:01.996 --> 0:14:04.276 in China. So China, again it looks like it's now 0:14:04.396 --> 0:14:08.316 past peak fertilizer use. So fertilizer use and pesticide use 0:14:08.396 --> 0:14:11.476 in China has now been fallen, and I actually think 0:14:11.476 --> 0:14:14.596 that that could fall quite quickly. And part of the 0:14:15.676 --> 0:14:17.836 way that China has done that has actually been through 0:14:17.996 --> 0:14:22.196 large scale education programs for farmers on how to use 0:14:22.236 --> 0:14:25.796 this stuff more effectively. And again it's cost effective for 0:14:25.956 --> 0:14:27.916 a farmer to learn that. 0:14:28.676 --> 0:14:31.716 We're about to get to why the world is still 0:14:31.756 --> 0:14:33.876 bad in terms of food, But before we do, is 0:14:33.876 --> 0:14:36.676 there anything else we should do on why the world 0:14:36.796 --> 0:14:37.596 is much better? 0:14:39.956 --> 0:14:42.636 I think what people underestimate and I actually think this 0:14:42.716 --> 0:14:45.876 is a good and a bad thing. I think people 0:14:46.116 --> 0:14:50.276 just underestimate how good we've got producing food. I think 0:14:50.276 --> 0:14:52.516 they don't have a sense of scale in their head 0:14:52.636 --> 0:14:56.836 about how much food we can actually produce. So if 0:14:56.836 --> 0:14:59.396 you say that the average person in the world needs 0:15:00.316 --> 0:15:03.156 around two thousand to two and a half thousand calories 0:15:03.196 --> 0:15:05.876 per person per day, depending on their size and gender, 0:15:05.876 --> 0:15:11.716 et cetera. Because we know that some people don't get 0:15:11.796 --> 0:15:15.396 enough calories and some people probably over consume a bit, right, 0:15:15.476 --> 0:15:18.396 we might assume that that just about levels off, right, 0:15:18.476 --> 0:15:21.356 balances each other out, so we maybe produce just enough 0:15:21.356 --> 0:15:23.316 calories for everyone in the world, so maybe two and 0:15:23.316 --> 0:15:27.156 a half thousand per person per day. The reality is 0:15:27.196 --> 0:15:32.076 that we probably produce around twice as much as that, right, 0:15:32.156 --> 0:15:34.196 So you're probably talking about four and a half to 0:15:34.276 --> 0:15:37.516 five thousand calories per person per day if you were 0:15:37.556 --> 0:15:40.836 to split it all equally. So we just are capable 0:15:40.836 --> 0:15:43.196 of producing huge amounts of food. 0:15:43.596 --> 0:15:47.276 So we produce enough food if we didn't waste any 0:15:47.756 --> 0:15:50.516 to feed twice as many people as are on Earth today, 0:15:50.996 --> 0:15:53.756 which is probably more people than we'll ever live on 0:15:53.796 --> 0:15:55.556 Earth at once. Right, We're probably not going to get 0:15:55.596 --> 0:15:57.036 to two x current population. 0:15:57.356 --> 0:15:59.236 Right, So if you were to get to zero waste 0:15:59.556 --> 0:16:01.956 food systems, and again this is not just about I 0:16:01.956 --> 0:16:04.316 think what people think about as food waste, but if 0:16:04.316 --> 0:16:10.476 you were to have a really really efficient distribution system, 0:16:10.996 --> 0:16:13.836 we could Yeah, we could definitely feed ten billion, which 0:16:13.836 --> 0:16:15.836 is what people are looking at in the future. 0:16:16.076 --> 0:16:16.716 Yeah. 0:16:16.916 --> 0:16:19.996 So right, So that's happy from the point of view 0:16:19.996 --> 0:16:24.036 of there's definitely enough food. We have the technology to 0:16:24.156 --> 0:16:26.636 know how the land to grow as much food as 0:16:26.636 --> 0:16:31.756 we will need to feed people when we hit peak population. Okay, 0:16:31.836 --> 0:16:36.796 let's talk about what's bad what's bad with food today? 0:16:37.116 --> 0:16:40.316 And I think the place to start there is how 0:16:40.396 --> 0:16:44.156 much of the earth we use for food, and in particular, 0:16:44.236 --> 0:16:46.956 how much of the habitable land mass of the earth 0:16:46.956 --> 0:16:47.476 we use for. 0:16:47.436 --> 0:16:49.516 Food is a lot. So if you were to take 0:16:49.516 --> 0:16:53.356 the world habitable land, which is basically land that's not 0:16:53.516 --> 0:16:57.796 desert or not ice, then we use around half of 0:16:57.836 --> 0:16:58.716 that for farming. 0:17:00.716 --> 0:17:03.116 Half the Earth's land mass we use for growing food. 0:17:03.596 --> 0:17:06.556 What share of that is for cows, either for growing 0:17:06.596 --> 0:17:10.036 cows you know, rangeland or for growing food to feed cows. 0:17:10.916 --> 0:17:15.636 So for Kaus specifically, it's probably around sixty. 0:17:15.356 --> 0:17:20.396 Percent sixty percent of all agricultural land, so more than 0:17:20.436 --> 0:17:23.236 a quarter of the habitable land mass of the earth 0:17:23.956 --> 0:17:26.756 goes to growing cows and growing. 0:17:26.476 --> 0:17:27.236 Food for cows. 0:17:27.436 --> 0:17:31.716 Yeap, Zelli, That's that I think is the central wild 0:17:31.796 --> 0:17:34.436 fact of your book to me, right, I think as 0:17:34.476 --> 0:17:36.956 I read this chapter of your book and the book 0:17:36.996 --> 0:17:40.036 more broadly, because this seems like the central chapter, cows 0:17:40.116 --> 0:17:44.156 come out as the villain. Uh Is that a fair read? 0:17:45.956 --> 0:17:46.556 A fair read? 0:17:46.916 --> 0:17:47.196 Yeah? 0:17:47.276 --> 0:17:49.236 I mean, villain is a moral word, right, and I 0:17:49.236 --> 0:17:51.996 would like to use a non moral as my fault. 0:17:52.316 --> 0:17:55.116 But like, I appreciate that you are not moralistic in 0:17:55.156 --> 0:17:57.236 your telling. It's one of the things I particularly like 0:17:57.276 --> 0:17:59.956 about this book. It's not like, here are the evil 0:17:59.996 --> 0:18:02.396 people and I'm the good person exposing them. It's a 0:18:02.476 --> 0:18:06.796 much more sort of clinical, what feels to me, more 0:18:06.876 --> 0:18:09.036 rational approach of just like, look, let's just lay out 0:18:09.036 --> 0:18:11.196 the facts. But when you lay out the facts, I'm 0:18:11.236 --> 0:18:16.716 like cows man cows, Like, if we just if it 0:18:16.796 --> 0:18:19.196 wasn't for cows. I don't want to say we'd be fine, 0:18:19.236 --> 0:18:21.316 like we'd still have the energy transition fossil fuel, but 0:18:21.356 --> 0:18:23.436 it seems like if we could solve beef, we could 0:18:23.476 --> 0:18:24.116 solve a lot. 0:18:25.156 --> 0:18:29.596 Yeah, if we were to significantly regious global beef consumption, 0:18:29.956 --> 0:18:33.836 it would have a massive environmental impact and a positive 0:18:33.916 --> 0:18:38.356 environmental impact. So when you look at the range of 0:18:38.476 --> 0:18:42.316 environmental problems we face, beef and cattle come out really strongly. 0:18:42.796 --> 0:18:46.276 So it's a really large driver of climate change. It's 0:18:46.316 --> 0:18:51.756 the leading driver of deforestation, it's the as a result 0:18:51.796 --> 0:18:54.956 of deforestation. It's then one of the leading drivers of 0:18:54.956 --> 0:18:59.996 biodiversity laws. So yes, cattle and beef consumption specifically straddle 0:19:00.036 --> 0:19:02.636 a large number of our problems. And then for many 0:19:02.636 --> 0:19:04.916 of these problems are really like the leading cause. 0:19:06.196 --> 0:19:10.276 And just can you just articulate the link between beef 0:19:10.316 --> 0:19:12.236 and climate change a little more. 0:19:12.916 --> 0:19:17.276 Yeah, So there's two key ways that beef contributes to 0:19:17.276 --> 0:19:20.756 climate change. One is about land juice, right, So when 0:19:20.836 --> 0:19:25.476 we have deforestation or other land juice changes, that's a 0:19:25.556 --> 0:19:29.036 driver of CO two emissions, So that contributes to CO 0:19:29.276 --> 0:19:32.716 two through land juice changes. And then the second one 0:19:33.076 --> 0:19:36.236 is really about cows burping. Right, So cows burp and 0:19:36.276 --> 0:19:41.676 the bark mephane and mephe is a very powerful greenhouse gas. 0:19:42.076 --> 0:19:45.116 So that's the second way that they mostly contribute. There's 0:19:45.116 --> 0:19:47.916 a hard way, which is that their manure also releases 0:19:48.556 --> 0:19:49.436 greenhouse gases. 0:19:49.716 --> 0:19:52.676 Yeah, I want to get to the world can be 0:19:52.756 --> 0:19:57.036 better section of the food conversation. But before we do, Like, so, 0:19:57.196 --> 0:20:03.196 cows are clearly the biggest food problem, it seems, are 0:20:03.236 --> 0:20:06.996 there other what else is on the very short list 0:20:07.036 --> 0:20:10.236 of big food related problems we need to solve? 0:20:10.636 --> 0:20:14.076 I mean, I think I think one final framing of 0:20:14.116 --> 0:20:16.196 the world as bad as it is now is that 0:20:16.236 --> 0:20:18.876 we still have eight hundred million people in the world 0:20:19.116 --> 0:20:22.196 don't get enough food to eat. And actually, when you 0:20:22.356 --> 0:20:26.436 look at it, beyond calories, so not just getting enough energy, 0:20:26.476 --> 0:20:30.156 but getting enough of all of the micronutrients that we need. 0:20:30.556 --> 0:20:33.356 You're actually talking about billions of people in the world 0:20:33.556 --> 0:20:37.076 are defined as being malnourished. So even if you can 0:20:37.156 --> 0:20:40.236 get enough calories, and you can usually do that through 0:20:40.356 --> 0:20:45.196 stable crops like cereals or cassava, etc. You might be 0:20:45.236 --> 0:20:47.116 able to get enough calories, but you're not getting the 0:20:47.116 --> 0:20:49.596 full spectrum of nutrients that we need. 0:20:54.356 --> 0:20:57.156 After the break, we get to the world can be 0:20:57.236 --> 0:20:58.996 better part of the conversation. 0:21:11.076 --> 0:21:15.796 Okay, so let's solve these problems. 0:21:17.356 --> 0:21:21.956 Let's start with people going hungry and not getting enough nutrition. 0:21:23.676 --> 0:21:24.436 How do we solve that? 0:21:26.076 --> 0:21:31.276 One key way is that, especially for many of the 0:21:31.316 --> 0:21:33.916 poorest countries in the world, we just need to work 0:21:34.036 --> 0:21:38.116 again on the agricultural productivity problem. And here I'm really 0:21:38.116 --> 0:21:42.796 specifically talking about Sub Saharan Africa. Most farmers and subs 0:21:42.916 --> 0:21:45.876 in Africa got very low crop yields, much lower than 0:21:45.876 --> 0:21:48.516 the global average and much much much lower than say 0:21:48.556 --> 0:21:49.516 you'd get in the US. 0:21:49.756 --> 0:21:53.356 Sure, are there examples of places, you know, if you 0:21:53.596 --> 0:21:57.476 set aside this kind of one off green revolution, are 0:21:57.516 --> 0:22:00.836 there examples of places where crop yields go up independent 0:22:00.956 --> 0:22:03.836 of economic growth? Or is the typical story that economic 0:22:03.916 --> 0:22:07.676 growth sort of causes crop yields to go up when 0:22:07.796 --> 0:22:09.676 countries are not at the economic different tier. 0:22:11.036 --> 0:22:16.556 It is very strongly correlated. So as countries get richer, yes, 0:22:16.636 --> 0:22:20.636 you tend to get increased productivity, but I think there 0:22:20.636 --> 0:22:23.876 are still differences there. I think I think government policies 0:22:23.876 --> 0:22:27.836 play a role, land reforms play a role, access to 0:22:27.916 --> 0:22:30.076 markets player role. So I don't think this is purely 0:22:30.196 --> 0:22:32.756 just about stimulate economic growth and this happens. I think 0:22:32.756 --> 0:22:36.636 there are things that that governments can do to stimulate 0:22:36.676 --> 0:22:40.956 that and make that go faster. Providing subsidies for farmers 0:22:40.956 --> 0:22:43.836