5 ms·

>if neonicotinoids are a net win for agriculture The logic here seems to be that: * Farmers buy neonicotinoids. * Therefore, neonicotinoids have a net positi

>if neonicotinoids are a net win for agriculture The logic here seems to be that: * Farmers buy neonicotinoids. * Therefore, neonicotinoids have a net positive effect on agriculture. (in other words, like a good libertarian you are assuming that the market has complete/perfect/accurate information) Unfortunately that's just not true. Today's farmers simply don't have the required soil science/botany/ecology/hydrology knowledge. Worst, they are actively misled by biocide and fertilizer salesmen, who have a natural profit motive to convince farmers that their products are essential. Far from being essential, in reality pesticides destroy the nutrient harvesting ability of healthy soil. Soil microbiologist Dr. Elaine Ingham explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2H60ritjag https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2H60ritjag

tptacek 11y ago
I would appreciate it if you would not call me a libertarian, as I am not one of those, and you couldn't possibly know anyways. This mistake --- the fundamental attribution effect --- causes more bullshit misunderstandings on HN than anything except for perhaps the is-ought fallacy.
- schiffern 11y ago
  Whether or not you call yourself the "L" word, you argument relies on free market fundamentalism, which is just as bad. Free Market Fundamentalism: the belief that markets are giant calculating machines that output optimal social relations, i.e. Pareto optimal transactions
  - tptacek 11y ago
    That is also false. Please don't use me as a coat rack for arguments you want to make that are unrelated to mine.
    - schiffern 11y ago
      If you'd like to talk about the glaring hole I pointed out in your argument instead of clutching your pearls, I'd be happy to change topic! :)
      - tptacek 11y ago
        I am convinced you don't understand my argument and have substituted for it the most immediately available outrageous argument. Please don't do that.
        schiffern 11y ago
        Then please, correct me! How did you come to the conclusion that neonicotinoids have an overall net positive effect on agriculture?
        tptacek 11y ago
        Because the alternatives to neonicotinoids are broader-spectrum pesticides that affect other kinds of animal life, including mammals, as I've said repeatedly on the thread. I don't know why you insist on being so overtly hostile, but whatever the reason, let me promise that it doesn't make you more persuasive.
        schiffern 11y ago
        >Because the alternatives to neonicotinoids are broader-spectrum pesticides Well 'ere's yer problem! ;) You're starting off by assuming that agriculture must use pesticides to grow food. But is that really true? I submit to you that it is not. Furthermore, I submit that a food system that depends on pesticides is doomed to self-destruct (because of inevitable biogeophysical processes). Pesticides destroy the nutrient cycling microorganisms in the soil leading to infertility, erosion, and ultimately desertification. Again, soil microbiologist Elaine Ingham explains the process better than I could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2H60ritjag https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2H60ritjag >I don't know why you insist on being so overtly hostile You're right. My apologies, and edited.
semi-extrinsic 11y ago
To be fair though, neonicotinoids have become popular since the 90's because they are much more narrow spectrum than previous pesticides. In particular, they are not harmful to mammals, which is often seen as a good thing.
- schiffern 11y ago
  By destroying the soil, you kill everything (mammals included) because they're all part of the same food web. The video I linked explains this.
  - semi-extrinsic 11y ago
    I'm not disagreeing with you. I definitely agree that using less (ideally no) pesticides is the best. But moving from a pesticide with more side effects to one with less is an improvement any way you look at it. Also, I believe it's an open question whether we would be able to feed the world population without using pesticides. If you have to choose between adverse affects on soil quality and potentially having people starve, the choice for policy makers is obvious.
    - schiffern 11y ago
      > I believe it's an open question whether we would be able to feed the world population without using pesticides. I would counter that it is a closed question whether we can feed the world population with pesticides, and the answer is "no." The industrial food system is not a viable replacement for itself. People tend to forget that that's all "unsustainable" means. >If you have to choose between adverse affects on soil quality and potentially having people starve False choice. That's like asking someone to choose between inhaling and exhaling. Nations are built, both literally and figuratively, on their soil. Nations that forget this perish.
      - icebraining 11y ago
        Nations are built, both literally and figuratively, on their soil. Nations that forget this perish. That's empty rhetoric. What actual alternative do you suggest?

tptacek 11y ago

I would appreciate it if you would not call me a libertarian, as I am not one of those, and you couldn't possibly know anyways. This mistake --- the fundamental attribution effect --- causes more bullshit misunderstandings on HN than anything except for perhaps the is-ought fallacy.

schiffern 11y ago
Whether or not you call yourself the "L" word, you argument relies on free market fundamentalism, which is just as bad. Free Market Fundamentalism: the belief that markets are giant calculating machines that output optimal social relations, i.e. Pareto optimal transactions
- tptacek 11y ago
  That is also false. Please don't use me as a coat rack for arguments you want to make that are unrelated to mine.
  - schiffern 11y ago
    If you'd like to talk about the glaring hole I pointed out in your argument instead of clutching your pearls, I'd be happy to change topic! :)
    - tptacek 11y ago
      I am convinced you don't understand my argument and have substituted for it the most immediately available outrageous argument. Please don't do that.
      - schiffern 11y ago
        Then please, correct me! How did you come to the conclusion that neonicotinoids have an overall net positive effect on agriculture?
        tptacek 11y ago
        Because the alternatives to neonicotinoids are broader-spectrum pesticides that affect other kinds of animal life, including mammals, as I've said repeatedly on the thread. I don't know why you insist on being so overtly hostile, but whatever the reason, let me promise that it doesn't make you more persuasive.
        schiffern 11y ago
        >Because the alternatives to neonicotinoids are broader-spectrum pesticides Well 'ere's yer problem! ;) You're starting off by assuming that agriculture must use pesticides to grow food. But is that really true? I submit to you that it is not. Furthermore, I submit that a food system that depends on pesticides is doomed to self-destruct (because of inevitable biogeophysical processes). Pesticides destroy the nutrient cycling microorganisms in the soil leading to infertility, erosion, and ultimately desertification. Again, soil microbiologist Elaine Ingham explains the process better than I could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2H60ritjag https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2H60ritjag >I don't know why you insist on being so overtly hostile You're right. My apologies, and edited.

semi-extrinsic 11y ago

To be fair though, neonicotinoids have become popular since the 90's because they are much more narrow spectrum than previous pesticides. In particular, they are not harmful to mammals, which is often seen as a good thing.

schiffern 11y ago
By destroying the soil, you kill everything (mammals included) because they're all part of the same food web. The video I linked explains this.
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago
  I'm not disagreeing with you. I definitely agree that using less (ideally no) pesticides is the best. But moving from a pesticide with more side effects to one with less is an improvement any way you look at it. Also, I believe it's an open question whether we would be able to feed the world population without using pesticides. If you have to choose between adverse affects on soil quality and potentially having people starve, the choice for policy makers is obvious.
  - schiffern 11y ago
    > I believe it's an open question whether we would be able to feed the world population without using pesticides. I would counter that it is a closed question whether we can feed the world population with pesticides, and the answer is "no." The industrial food system is not a viable replacement for itself. People tend to forget that that's all "unsustainable" means. >If you have to choose between adverse affects on soil quality and potentially having people starve False choice. That's like asking someone to choose between inhaling and exhaling. Nations are built, both literally and figuratively, on their soil. Nations that forget this perish.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Nations are built, both literally and figuratively, on their soil. Nations that forget this perish. That's empty rhetoric. What actual alternative do you suggest?