That is clearly not true. It may be one of the less toxic human made functioning, profitable herbicides, but that's not what you said by far.

Roundup is not a pesticide, it's an herbicide. Conflating it with pesticides is ridiculous and incredibly misleading. Roundup is used to control weeds and remove genetic 'contamination' of specific crops. EDIT: Many of those crops are genetically modified to act as pesticides without spraying chemicals, which is a good reason to want to limit cross contamination in either direction.

Other alternatives are no chemicals at all, or only ecologically safe (usually natural) chemicals. I don't use chemicals on my farm, I weed, I spray horticulture oil, I spread ashes, I grow twice what I can eat so some loss to insects won't matter, and I remove insects, slugs, and snails by hand. It takes more work, but the statement that the only alternative to Roundup is worse chemicals or agriculture collapse is completely and obviously false and indicates a total ignorance of the issue you speak about.

"Modern Agriculture" today means hydroponics, aeroponics, and aquaponics, none of which can benefit a whit from Roundup. You mean to say "Industrial Agriculture". The collapse of industrial agriculture might not be a bad thing, as it's incredibly destructive and produces a sub par product. More people farming on smaller farms puts more people to work, makes better product, and makes the people who work on the land feel responsible for it's upkeep, not consider it a resource to be exploited as efficiently as possible.

Mentioning Monsanto's involvement in the project is not the same as saying "neither Einstein or Openheimer or others were behind the Manhattan project, it was Monsanto all along that plotted to destroy Japanese cities with nuclear weapons". They clearly implied that Monsanto joined the project as a way to 'cozy up to' the political elite, and it worked.

Where did you hear this ridiculous hypothesis about their motive? Do you see and hear things that other people don't see and hear? It's clear that the motive in all cases was profit, either directly, or future profits secured by 'making friends' in government by cooperating with them or by forcing farmers into untenable contracts and positions where, in some cases, farmers that don't use Monsanto crops were sued because Monsanto said the pollen that pollinated the crops came from a neighbors Monsanto crops, so the seed belongs to Monsanto. Monsanto does not set out to cause damage and harm, they simply don't care if it happens as a side effect of their profit making methods, which they will protect with any means possible.

Just wow, a more deliberately misleading description of the video would be hard to create.

This propaganda ignores much more than that. Roundup is one of the absolutely least toxic to human chemicals that agriculture can use. The alternatives are chemicals a lot more harmful than roundup or abandoning the use of pesticides. Worse chemicals or the collapse of modern agriculture don't look appealing as alternatives so the ignorant roundup fear mongers protest too much in my opinion.

And then there's things like claiming neither Einstein or Openheimer or others were behind the Manhattan project, it was Monsanto all along that plotted to destroy Japanese cities with nuclear weapons. You know, on account of them being evil and wanting to see millions of people dead because it gives their corporate heads joy. Just like it wanted to invent pesticides as a means of convincing the public to poison each other for giggles, and getting the state department to experiment on people. None of this had any other motive than the thrill of inflicting cruelty on people, and none of it would have happened but for Monsanto's hard drive to push for these things to be done...

Just wow, a more deliberately misleading video would be hard to create.

"How exactly do you propose Einstein would have tested his theory of general relativity back in the early 1900s?"

Gee, I don't know, doofe. Why don't you google it and learn something?

"It wasn't until very recently, using atomic clocks on a plane and one on the ground was the general theory of relativity proven to be right."

Wrong.

Regarding the last point around Einstein vs 97%.

He is absolutely right about that. If you are right, then it doesn't matter how many scientists are against you, as long as the evidence supports your theory.

Which in Einsteins case, it did (and still does nearly a century later... yay gravitational waves!).

Unfortunately, the problem here is that the evidence OVERWHELMING supports AGW. So, if you're going to disagree with that, you better a) be an expert in your field and b) have some pretty compelling evidence to support you.

What's that? The people who object to climate change don't actually understand the science and haven't got a shred of evidence to back up their nonsense? Quelle surprise....

you are once again mistaken. only approximately 10% of non-human animals are obligate carnivores. common sense tells you that it cannot be a high number as it would not be sustainable otherwise.

factory farmed or not, other sentient beings suffer and die for no other reason than a momentary taste sensation. unlike the Masai (of whom i have never heard of but am taking your word) all you have to do to greatly lessen the harm you do to others is to buy different products in the grocery store.

speaking of science, here is what a very wise man had to say on this subject:

“It is my view that the vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the human temperament would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind.”—Albert Einstein

“Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.”—Albert Einstein

“Vegetarian food leaves a deep impression on our nature. If the whole world adopts vegetarianism, it can change the destiny of mankind.”—Albert Einstein

“If a man aspires towards a righteous life, his first act of abstinence is from injury to animals.” -Albert Einstein

Eh, life isn't fair. I wonder sometimes how many great scientists, artists, and just all around good people we miss out on because of where they were born or how they were raised.

I mean look at the caste system in India. How many Einsteins, Newtons, and others have we never known of due to them being born as low caste or Dalits (untouchables)?

I'm glad she struggled through, but her story is far from unique.

Einstein called it Well played. *promote

I liked the video too, but when he got to this part of the explanation, I wondered why I never heard it before.

Also remember that Einstein came up with special theory of relativity without the advent of quantum mechanics (btw, he didn't like Q.M. and couldn't believe that "God rolls the dice", and was later proven wrong (decades after he died though)).

Awkward for you, maybe. Einstein is a beautiful human being and I raise my boner to salute sexy brain matter.

Something something, awkward boner while looking at Einstein.

I see Einstein while sitting at my desk, but when I pause it and look at it from a distance, it looks like Marilyn Monroe with a beard.

My right compound eye saw Monroe. My left compound eye saw Einstein!

Uh, Einstein won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1921 for discovering the photoelectic effect, and was not the first to propose the idea of wave-particle duality nature of light...

I admit, i kind of fast forwarded through this one

..and thus traveling faster then the speed of light? Suck it Einstein!