5 ms·

Stopped at second sentence: "fortunately" Authors bias. Is this another techno-utopian rant extolling the virtues of everything unsustainable in modern society

Stopped at second sentence: "fortunately" Authors bias. Is this another techno-utopian rant extolling the virtues of everything unsustainable in modern society in prescriptive format for agriculture by urban white collar workers who never touched soil in their life but take gadget buying advice from Wired.com?

orf 10y ago
> Is this another... Maybe you should read it and find out, rather than be perturbed by a single word.
- justaaron 10y ago
  true. I did. I enjoyed the panel entitled "bugs in the system" as it aknowledges the complexity I'm hinting at. I'd like to see more study of natural ecosystems in such a way that we adapted the human behavior around the already-occuring processes, and less modelling of the planet around 20th century suburban design ideals etc. one of the largest factors that I contend will emerge will be the rebirth of local food production, perhaps technologically assisted in some regions as needed, largely due to our passing of the "negligible shipping costs" tipping point as well as improved understandings of locality, microbial cultures, and multi-celled organism interactions etc.
  - Thupli 10y ago
    I'm pretty sympathetic to the gist of your comments here (e.g., microbial ecologies, local food production,etc.), but probably fall on the 'need more and better tech' side of things when looking forward along several global trends. Population growth and movements and climate change are two such trends. I'm reaching here because I dont recall the details but I seem to remember reading about Indian grain production needing to industrialize in order to satisfy its near future domestic demand. I'd love to get some recommendations for books dealing with large-scale food production (not saying 'factory' but rather 'national', for example) from an econ perspective.
    - justaaron 10y ago
      "Population Growth" I presume you mean "human population growth"- aka at 7 billion and counting. that's an intraspecies issue that needs to be solved. it collides head-on with: "Climate Change" We are going to need to re-learn how to produce food locally, and as mentioned before by others: permaculture, not industrial technology, holds the key. The basic lesson of any polluting activity that destabilized our natural world in some fashion is that our activities need to be in harmony with natural cycles. General channel herbicides that affect the uptake of soil nutrition by plants (glyphosate, for example) are not things that should be used as they get into the water and eventually all plant life must deal with their effects, stunting any cultivars not engineered to withstand these effects. What is a "weed" to one person is "green manure" to another that builds soil. It may be a protector plant that draws insects away from crop cultivars, it may have symbiotic beneficials effects we are un-aware of. We need to step out of the lab and into the field and learn about the complex interactions of the real world if we are to truly learn how to live in harmony with the planet we are from and live upon. Why do we think and behave as if we are not an animal species native to the surface of earth?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
seizethecheese 10y ago
The Economist is a publication that has always taken an editorial stance.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  And conceals the identity of that editor.
dredmorbius 10y ago
Your first impression is highly accurate.
curun1r 10y ago
Also missing from the article was any discussion of all the wasteful practices we have after crops are farmed. If we're to discuss how we are to feed an extra 2B+ new humans, that discussion should include things like how we can reduce the amount of food that's wasted and how we can vary diet to, for example, rely more on vegetables rather than meats since meat production is incredibly wasteful. This article feels like a a discussion of weight loss that focuses solely on new trends in exercise while completely ignoring the role of diet. And, worse still, by ignoring that important facet of the problem, it seeks to create a moral justification for practices like GMO that many consider to be an unnecessary risk. I can understand why the Economist would be biased towards increased production, since that increases GDP and fits into the capitalist notions of constant expansion, but optimization on the other side of the equation will be much better at helping us meet our needs for food in the upcoming century.

orf 10y ago

> Is this another... Maybe you should read it and find out, rather than be perturbed by a single word.

justaaron 10y ago
true. I did. I enjoyed the panel entitled "bugs in the system" as it aknowledges the complexity I'm hinting at. I'd like to see more study of natural ecosystems in such a way that we adapted the human behavior around the already-occuring processes, and less modelling of the planet around 20th century suburban design ideals etc. one of the largest factors that I contend will emerge will be the rebirth of local food production, perhaps technologically assisted in some regions as needed, largely due to our passing of the "negligible shipping costs" tipping point as well as improved understandings of locality, microbial cultures, and multi-celled organism interactions etc.
- Thupli 10y ago
  I'm pretty sympathetic to the gist of your comments here (e.g., microbial ecologies, local food production,etc.), but probably fall on the 'need more and better tech' side of things when looking forward along several global trends. Population growth and movements and climate change are two such trends. I'm reaching here because I dont recall the details but I seem to remember reading about Indian grain production needing to industrialize in order to satisfy its near future domestic demand. I'd love to get some recommendations for books dealing with large-scale food production (not saying 'factory' but rather 'national', for example) from an econ perspective.
  - justaaron 10y ago
    "Population Growth" I presume you mean "human population growth"- aka at 7 billion and counting. that's an intraspecies issue that needs to be solved. it collides head-on with: "Climate Change" We are going to need to re-learn how to produce food locally, and as mentioned before by others: permaculture, not industrial technology, holds the key. The basic lesson of any polluting activity that destabilized our natural world in some fashion is that our activities need to be in harmony with natural cycles. General channel herbicides that affect the uptake of soil nutrition by plants (glyphosate, for example) are not things that should be used as they get into the water and eventually all plant life must deal with their effects, stunting any cultivars not engineered to withstand these effects. What is a "weed" to one person is "green manure" to another that builds soil. It may be a protector plant that draws insects away from crop cultivars, it may have symbiotic beneficials effects we are un-aware of. We need to step out of the lab and into the field and learn about the complex interactions of the real world if we are to truly learn how to live in harmony with the planet we are from and live upon. Why do we think and behave as if we are not an animal species native to the surface of earth?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

seizethecheese 10y ago

The Economist is a publication that has always taken an editorial stance.

dredmorbius 10y ago
And conceals the identity of that editor.

dredmorbius 10y ago

Your first impression is highly accurate.

curun1r 10y ago

Also missing from the article was any discussion of all the wasteful practices we have after crops are farmed. If we're to discuss how we are to feed an extra 2B+ new humans, that discussion should include things like how we can reduce the amount of food that's wasted and how we can vary diet to, for example, rely more on vegetables rather than meats since meat production is incredibly wasteful. This article feels like a a discussion of weight loss that focuses solely on new trends in exercise while completely ignoring the role of diet. And, worse still, by ignoring that important facet of the problem, it seeks to create a moral justification for practices like GMO that many consider to be an unnecessary risk. I can understand why the Economist would be biased towards increased production, since that increases GDP and fits into the capitalist notions of constant expansion, but optimization on the other side of the equation will be much better at helping us meet our needs for food in the upcoming century.