4 ms·

Please don't use the word "chemical" like it is something unnatural or harmful. Water is a chemical. The active ingredients of natural fertilizer are chemicals.

by geon 10y ago

grzm 10y ago
I understand the point you're trying to make. Likely you understand the distinction your parent intends as well, and this is a commonly understood way to discuss the topic. Do you have a preferred alternative to suggest that conveys the same intent, preferably one that is also widely understood?
- ogrisel 10y ago
  "fossil-fuel intensive synthetic fertilizers" or "inorganic synthetic fertilizers" NH3 in particular is commonly synthesized by combining N2 from the atmosphere with H2 extracted from CH4 (natural gas).
- geon 10y ago
  Use terms that convey the objection you have to it. Or object to the negative effects they have in the first place.
  - grzm 10y ago
    What specifically do you suggest? If you're being pedantic and snipey, you're not engaging in good faith. If you disagree with the general argument, be honest and say so. If you're looking to have a constructive discussion, help move the conversation forward, which includes showing you understand what they intend to say, even if you disagree or they're not expressing themselves as clearly as you'd prefer. Understandably you can't read their mind, but you can speculate charitably. If you don't think they're discussing in good faith, you can choose to civilly explain why that's so, or choose not to comment at all if you don't think there's a constructive way forward. For controversial topics, it's even more important to do this as it's that much easier for discussion to devolve into a flamewar.
    - geon 10y ago
      I don't have a specific suggestion, but it could be something like "synthetic fertilizer kills the symbiotic microbes nevvessary to..." rather than "scorched soils (that require chemicals to grow anything)". Just an example. I have no idea what "scorched soil" means.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  >Likely you understand the distinction your parent intends as well In principle, yes. I can imagine there are different chemicals used for farming, and that some of them may cause more harm to consumers of the produce than others. But in terms of specifics, no. I have very little idea what distinctions are being made when people refer to "chemical food" or similar, because objection to it tends towards these vague emotive terms, rather than highlighting specifics.
  - grzm 10y ago
    because objection to it tends towards these vague emotive terms, rather than highlighting specifics. You're not 'geon, so this may not apply to you, but if this is the case, a purely pedantic comment is very unlikely to do anything constructive to move the conversation forward. It's not going to encourage reflection (as they're vague and emotive). The goal is civil and substantive discussion. You might sincerely speculate what distinction they're trying to make. Or honestly and civilly ask for clarification. If you don't think they're reasonable, do you think they're likely to be swayed by anything you consider reasonable? I think it's better to refrain from commenting if it's not going to move the discussion forward. On topics like this, the ground is well-worn. It doesn't need to be rehashed if people aren't actually listening to each other. At least not on HN.
    - aninhumer 10y ago
      >but if this is the case, a purely pedantic comment is very unlikely to do anything constructive to move the conversation forward. Because the intent of the comment was not to further that particular conversation, but instead to critique your rhetoric. It was not simply a pedantic comment saying "actually you're wrong because water is a chemical" it was a suggestion to use a different term.
      - grzm 10y ago
        It's not a constructive critique. If the intent is not to further the conversation by improving it and moving it forward, there's no constructive purpose in making it. Further comments by 'geon make this clear: there's no sincere attempt to understand or charitably grant that the interlocutor might be have a reasonable argument, even if it's one you might not agree with. Edit to add: Rapoport's rules are really helpful, particularly when discussing contentious topics. https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/ https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo... This is too far off-topic now, and at best we're talking past each other, so I'll take any answer off the air.
Applejinx 10y ago
Cadmium is a chemical (I just worked with some watercolors, that's why it comes to mind). Do you want that in your water table just because 'it's a chemical, like water'? How about lead?
- XorNot 10y ago
  Cadmium is also in tattoo ink and completely harmless because it's not bioavailable. Your exact example proves the parents point: be specific about what you're talking about because it matters.
  - Applejinx 10y ago
    But the EPA says it'll cause kidney damage in the water table, which is what I specifically said. The WHO specifies that contamination with cadmium causes osteomalacia with various grades of osteoporosis accompanied by severe renal tubular disease. I also mentioned lead, which you've glossed right over. I said nothing about tattoo ink. Your example underscores my point. Why should I trust you when you whip out an unrelated example to try and ad hominem your way to all-chemical farming, in the service of the idea 'organic farming will kill us all'? How exactly does your example of 'cadmium is harmless in tattoo ink' make the larger concern irrelevant? From where I'm sitting (admittedly, it's Vermont, where we like organic farming a lot) you represent a prevalent class of agriculture arguers, who are insisting on full-tilt-bozo unnatural farming to the Nth degree, claiming it is the only thing that can save the world. And yet, the arguments are as manipulative as 'cadmium is harmless in tattoo ink' when it's NOT considered harmless in the water table, and you may have known that full well. Your example suggests (does not prove) my underlying concern: individual chemical compounds may well be trusted, but I do not trust the people selling them. It's far too profitable to be dishonest about this, and that's not going to get any better (indeed, as this way of farming wrecks the environment, it will get even more profitable to lie and mislead about it)
    - XorNot 10y ago
      You continue to reference chemistry inaccurately: cadmium in tattoo-ink is also harmless in the water-table, generally, because its complexed into a non-bioavailable state which is why it works in ink and paints safely. Conversely free cadmium in any form is a toxic heavy metal. No one is farming with cadmium-based fertilizer, so I don't know what the point of your first 4 paragraphs is? You tossed out an example intended to say "chemicals are bad". The topic under discussion was "what chemicals are you opposed to" - because "chemical" is a meaningless and unhelpful term to make public policy on. Perhaps then, it is important to speak accurately about chemical compounds when trying to decide how to regulate their usage, and a blanket declaration of "but it's natural!" is actually very unhelpful. Salt is natural, but that doesn't mean a farmer dumping it into a fresh-water river in bulk isn't going to kill it.
loup-vaillant 10y ago
It's "intellectual property" all over again. While I agree my usage of "chemichal" is loaded, I think "conventional" is even worse: it's an implicit acceptance of the status-quo, and unfairly shifts the burden of proof. On a "chemical vs organic" debate, we focus on the (over) use of synthetic, unproven, or even unsafe chemicals. Reducing their use, if possible, is obviously a good thing. On a "conventional vs organic" debate, we focus on the risks associated with change. We have a working system. Changing it on a global scale is an obvious risk. I am personally convinced massive change is necessary, and the sooner the better. So I frame the debate in a way that doesn't talk much about the associated risk, and focus on the benefits. I am not aware of a more accurate, more neutral term to name that conventional/chemical thing.

Please don't use the word "chemical" like it is something unnatural or harmful. Water is a chemical. The active ingredients of natural fertilizer are chemicals.

by geon 10y ago

Please don't use the word "chemical" like it is something unnatural or harmful. Water is a chemical. The active ingredients of natural fertilizer are chemicals.

grzm 10y ago

I understand the point you're trying to make. Likely you understand the distinction your parent intends as well, and this is a commonly understood way to discuss the topic. Do you have a preferred alternative to suggest that conveys the same intent, preferably one that is also widely understood?

ogrisel 10y ago
"fossil-fuel intensive synthetic fertilizers" or "inorganic synthetic fertilizers" NH3 in particular is commonly synthesized by combining N2 from the atmosphere with H2 extracted from CH4 (natural gas).
geon 10y ago
Use terms that convey the objection you have to it. Or object to the negative effects they have in the first place.
- grzm 10y ago
  What specifically do you suggest? If you're being pedantic and snipey, you're not engaging in good faith. If you disagree with the general argument, be honest and say so. If you're looking to have a constructive discussion, help move the conversation forward, which includes showing you understand what they intend to say, even if you disagree or they're not expressing themselves as clearly as you'd prefer. Understandably you can't read their mind, but you can speculate charitably. If you don't think they're discussing in good faith, you can choose to civilly explain why that's so, or choose not to comment at all if you don't think there's a constructive way forward. For controversial topics, it's even more important to do this as it's that much easier for discussion to devolve into a flamewar.
  - geon 10y ago
    I don't have a specific suggestion, but it could be something like "synthetic fertilizer kills the symbiotic microbes nevvessary to..." rather than "scorched soils (that require chemicals to grow anything)". Just an example. I have no idea what "scorched soil" means.
aninhumer 10y ago
>Likely you understand the distinction your parent intends as well In principle, yes. I can imagine there are different chemicals used for farming, and that some of them may cause more harm to consumers of the produce than others. But in terms of specifics, no. I have very little idea what distinctions are being made when people refer to "chemical food" or similar, because objection to it tends towards these vague emotive terms, rather than highlighting specifics.
- grzm 10y ago
  because objection to it tends towards these vague emotive terms, rather than highlighting specifics. You're not 'geon, so this may not apply to you, but if this is the case, a purely pedantic comment is very unlikely to do anything constructive to move the conversation forward. It's not going to encourage reflection (as they're vague and emotive). The goal is civil and substantive discussion. You might sincerely speculate what distinction they're trying to make. Or honestly and civilly ask for clarification. If you don't think they're reasonable, do you think they're likely to be swayed by anything you consider reasonable? I think it's better to refrain from commenting if it's not going to move the discussion forward. On topics like this, the ground is well-worn. It doesn't need to be rehashed if people aren't actually listening to each other. At least not on HN.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    >but if this is the case, a purely pedantic comment is very unlikely to do anything constructive to move the conversation forward. Because the intent of the comment was not to further that particular conversation, but instead to critique your rhetoric. It was not simply a pedantic comment saying "actually you're wrong because water is a chemical" it was a suggestion to use a different term.
    - grzm 10y ago
      It's not a constructive critique. If the intent is not to further the conversation by improving it and moving it forward, there's no constructive purpose in making it. Further comments by 'geon make this clear: there's no sincere attempt to understand or charitably grant that the interlocutor might be have a reasonable argument, even if it's one you might not agree with. Edit to add: Rapoport's rules are really helpful, particularly when discussing contentious topics. https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/ https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo... This is too far off-topic now, and at best we're talking past each other, so I'll take any answer off the air.

Applejinx 10y ago

Cadmium is a chemical (I just worked with some watercolors, that's why it comes to mind). Do you want that in your water table just because 'it's a chemical, like water'? How about lead?

XorNot 10y ago
Cadmium is also in tattoo ink and completely harmless because it's not bioavailable. Your exact example proves the parents point: be specific about what you're talking about because it matters.
- Applejinx 10y ago
  But the EPA says it'll cause kidney damage in the water table, which is what I specifically said. The WHO specifies that contamination with cadmium causes osteomalacia with various grades of osteoporosis accompanied by severe renal tubular disease. I also mentioned lead, which you've glossed right over. I said nothing about tattoo ink. Your example underscores my point. Why should I trust you when you whip out an unrelated example to try and ad hominem your way to all-chemical farming, in the service of the idea 'organic farming will kill us all'? How exactly does your example of 'cadmium is harmless in tattoo ink' make the larger concern irrelevant? From where I'm sitting (admittedly, it's Vermont, where we like organic farming a lot) you represent a prevalent class of agriculture arguers, who are insisting on full-tilt-bozo unnatural farming to the Nth degree, claiming it is the only thing that can save the world. And yet, the arguments are as manipulative as 'cadmium is harmless in tattoo ink' when it's NOT considered harmless in the water table, and you may have known that full well. Your example suggests (does not prove) my underlying concern: individual chemical compounds may well be trusted, but I do not trust the people selling them. It's far too profitable to be dishonest about this, and that's not going to get any better (indeed, as this way of farming wrecks the environment, it will get even more profitable to lie and mislead about it)
  - XorNot 10y ago
    You continue to reference chemistry inaccurately: cadmium in tattoo-ink is also harmless in the water-table, generally, because its complexed into a non-bioavailable state which is why it works in ink and paints safely. Conversely free cadmium in any form is a toxic heavy metal. No one is farming with cadmium-based fertilizer, so I don't know what the point of your first 4 paragraphs is? You tossed out an example intended to say "chemicals are bad". The topic under discussion was "what chemicals are you opposed to" - because "chemical" is a meaningless and unhelpful term to make public policy on. Perhaps then, it is important to speak accurately about chemical compounds when trying to decide how to regulate their usage, and a blanket declaration of "but it's natural!" is actually very unhelpful. Salt is natural, but that doesn't mean a farmer dumping it into a fresh-water river in bulk isn't going to kill it.

loup-vaillant 10y ago

It's "intellectual property" all over again. While I agree my usage of "chemichal" is loaded, I think "conventional" is even worse: it's an implicit acceptance of the status-quo, and unfairly shifts the burden of proof. On a "chemical vs organic" debate, we focus on the (over) use of synthetic, unproven, or even unsafe chemicals. Reducing their use, if possible, is obviously a good thing. On a "conventional vs organic" debate, we focus on the risks associated with change. We have a working system. Changing it on a global scale is an obvious risk. I am personally convinced massive change is necessary, and the sooner the better. So I frame the debate in a way that doesn't talk much about the associated risk, and focus on the benefits. I am not aware of a more accurate, more neutral term to name that conventional/chemical thing.