4 ms·

I don't claim any knowledge on the matter above that of a layperson, so please don't take this as picking sides, as I'm far too uninformed to do so intelligentl

I don't claim any knowledge on the matter above that of a layperson, so please don't take this as picking sides, as I'm far too uninformed to do so intelligently... that said, would it not be considered appropriate for the body populace to get their dirt exposure through play, sport, gardening or other activities that bring them into contact with it, while simultaneously applying germ theory to our food processing, preparation, emergency rooms, etc?

contingencies 9y ago
There's not enough land for most people to have a garden, and it's a rare sporting venue in major world cities that is now (a) based on proper dirt, with an ecosystem (b) not pumped full of chemicals (c) used by a large percentage of the population for sports that would readily and regularly facilitate eating dirt. Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly.
- t123 9y ago
  On the contrary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land Not counting huge land-masses in central africa and I'd also be skeptical of the numbers provided for Khazakstan and Mongolia
  - t123 9y ago
    iow a 2ar garden for every human being currently living on our planet with still plenty of room left and this with only using land that's already deforested.. (+ we could easily grow a lot food on water. the tech is already here, waiting to be assembled - although not needed) .. this is meant to be a philosophical-kind-of-post, and its appropriate to recap that the 2 most important limiting factors in terms of population growth are (low)childhood mortality, (freely-available)education and a (working) social safety net (if an educated woman could have children without risks in her late 40s and live an active live up to her 90s ,,)
    - contingencies 9y ago
      Yes, there is obviously a lot of space on the planet, but we should talk about places people actually and increasingly live, ie. Asian cities, particularly Chinese and Indian cities. So let's rephrase that to "At current densities where most of the world's people actually live there is no way everyone can have a garden, because of lack of space."

contingencies 9y ago

There's not enough land for most people to have a garden, and it's a rare sporting venue in major world cities that is now (a) based on proper dirt, with an ecosystem (b) not pumped full of chemicals (c) used by a large percentage of the population for sports that would readily and regularly facilitate eating dirt. Otherwise, I agree wholeheartedly.

t123 9y ago
On the contrary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land Not counting huge land-masses in central africa and I'd also be skeptical of the numbers provided for Khazakstan and Mongolia
- t123 9y ago
  iow a 2ar garden for every human being currently living on our planet with still plenty of room left and this with only using land that's already deforested.. (+ we could easily grow a lot food on water. the tech is already here, waiting to be assembled - although not needed) .. this is meant to be a philosophical-kind-of-post, and its appropriate to recap that the 2 most important limiting factors in terms of population growth are (low)childhood mortality, (freely-available)education and a (working) social safety net (if an educated woman could have children without risks in her late 40s and live an active live up to her 90s ,,)
  - contingencies 9y ago
    Yes, there is obviously a lot of space on the planet, but we should talk about places people actually and increasingly live, ie. Asian cities, particularly Chinese and Indian cities. So let's rephrase that to "At current densities where most of the world's people actually live there is no way everyone can have a garden, because of lack of space."