4 ms·

Back up your claims! You might also say: access to clean air and unpolluted drinking water is a luxury which is not particularly environmentally friendly or su

Back up your claims! You might also say: access to clean air and unpolluted drinking water is a luxury which is not particularly environmentally friendly or sustainable. Keep in mind when you are breathing and drinking clean air and water, that it's gonna be that way forever, and you're gonna be drinking mud and breathing soot in the long term because you're living in a "green" fantasy. That'd be kinda setting the status quo for everyone based on your own low standards I think.

readams 11y ago
This makes no sense. The whole point is to find a model for feeding 7 billion people that preserves the environment. Local and organic do _more_ damage to the environment than producing the same equivalent amount of food industrially. They use more land and more energy. A solution for the environment cannot involve starving the world, or needing to allocate even more huge swaths of it for agriculture.
- tehchromic 11y ago
  "do more damage" sorry, that's the claim that is not substantiated by evidence and it isn't close to being accurate. Conventional farming is a toxic mess, and it's heavily subsidized by unsustainable resources and practices at every level. It may be the case that the cost of doing farming right is high (and that is not necessarily meeting the "organic" standards which are themselves heavily biased by conventional interests, but by farming using truly organic methods) but that's because it tends to include costs to the planet, or not include cost savings that are causing extinction level changes to the planetary chemistry. There are people who will tell you that sustaining our population is not possible and that we are headed for an extinction event, however other people say that it is possible to live within our means, if we start factoring in the real cost of things like conventional farming, and therefore change our practice. And technology is definitely a factor in that transition, so if you buy the phony trolling argument going on here that greenhouses, and automation is incompatible with sustainable, organic, local farming practice, then you are being sold a bill o' goods!
roel_v 11y ago
"Back up your claims!" Just go to google scholar and start reading the literature on this topic for the last 10 years. It's not even a debate any more.
- tehchromic 11y ago
  local, organic, small-scale farming is certainly practical, and it's also imperative for a sustainable model to support our immense population. So is automation, and greenhouses, and transporting food from far away places. What is incompatible with a sustainable future is conventional, factory farming, where the fields are awash in toxic chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and supplemented with bare fertilizers manufactured using toxic processes out of fossil fuels or harvested from unsustainable sources. That can't go on. Fortunately organic holistic farming methods produce higher yield and healthier foods, and are compatible with the best and highest tech in automation, greenhouses, and etc, and increasingly the old and new tech is coming together on the small scale, local farm.

readams 11y ago

This makes no sense. The whole point is to find a model for feeding 7 billion people that preserves the environment. Local and organic do _more_ damage to the environment than producing the same equivalent amount of food industrially. They use more land and more energy. A solution for the environment cannot involve starving the world, or needing to allocate even more huge swaths of it for agriculture.

tehchromic 11y ago
"do more damage" sorry, that's the claim that is not substantiated by evidence and it isn't close to being accurate. Conventional farming is a toxic mess, and it's heavily subsidized by unsustainable resources and practices at every level. It may be the case that the cost of doing farming right is high (and that is not necessarily meeting the "organic" standards which are themselves heavily biased by conventional interests, but by farming using truly organic methods) but that's because it tends to include costs to the planet, or not include cost savings that are causing extinction level changes to the planetary chemistry. There are people who will tell you that sustaining our population is not possible and that we are headed for an extinction event, however other people say that it is possible to live within our means, if we start factoring in the real cost of things like conventional farming, and therefore change our practice. And technology is definitely a factor in that transition, so if you buy the phony trolling argument going on here that greenhouses, and automation is incompatible with sustainable, organic, local farming practice, then you are being sold a bill o' goods!

roel_v 11y ago

"Back up your claims!" Just go to google scholar and start reading the literature on this topic for the last 10 years. It's not even a debate any more.

tehchromic 11y ago
local, organic, small-scale farming is certainly practical, and it's also imperative for a sustainable model to support our immense population. So is automation, and greenhouses, and transporting food from far away places. What is incompatible with a sustainable future is conventional, factory farming, where the fields are awash in toxic chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and supplemented with bare fertilizers manufactured using toxic processes out of fossil fuels or harvested from unsustainable sources. That can't go on. Fortunately organic holistic farming methods produce higher yield and healthier foods, and are compatible with the best and highest tech in automation, greenhouses, and etc, and increasingly the old and new tech is coming together on the small scale, local farm.