5 ms·

Let's play a game. First, assume you're correct and these soil issues really exist. I'm sure there are entities who have a short or long term interest to not

Let's play a game. First, assume you're correct and these soil issues really exist. I'm sure there are entities who have a short or long term interest to not do anything about it. For example, somebody might be selling land (because they know such issues will get worse in the future), and if farming will be prohibited, they will get a worse price for the land. Hence best to deny, or at least question the existence of soil problems. If these entities have a lot of money, they can create their own journals and publish science that says "there is no problem with the soil". They can also bribe scientists and reviewers with high status. They can lobby politicians. And lastly, the media can be caught too, you have to frame it as a political issue so you have 50% of the media in your pocket. Now look at it from a politician's point of view. If you really get the signal that it's not a real problem, then it certainly doesn't make sense to spend resources on it.

chicob 9y ago
Ok. In agriculture, people tend to ignore the problem because it leads to lesser profits in the short term. The food industry, one of the major clients of agrobusiness is very competitive. The phyto pharmaceutical industry keeps pushing their products just like the pharmaceutical companies in hospitals. In fact, they're the same corporations most of the time. In this case, lobbying happens in the Union level, i.e. the European Parliament. The pressure is to great for small farmers to deal with. That is also happening with the construction/concrete lobby (and I presume that sometimes the land price rises if you plan to build housing around cities in the countryside). Construction companies build regardless of erosion or flooding problems. It's not their problem once they finish the job. That happens a lot around here. Politicians only think in the short term. "Yeah, sure there's the problem of seasonal fires, draughts and floods. We'll make use of some catastrophe fund. But you can't forget jobs in construction and tourism infrastructure!" Result: concrete all over.
- balabaster 9y ago
  So you buy farmland high in the water catch basin where you're not subject to salination and as few upstream pollution problems. Dig yourself a well, grow your own food using as few herbicides, fungicides and pesticides as possible. Build your own ecosystem and let the rest of society go to hell. Eventually, if you do it properly, you'll be the only one left with farmable land, you'll be bought out for a handsome price and you take your newfound riches and fuck off to somewhere that doesn't have this problem yet and do it all again. It doesn't matter if anyone believes in it or not. Either you're wrong and you're no further behind, in fact, from a trust standpoint, you're ahead because you're now in control of your food supply from the ground to your plate... and if you're right, then you win. I'm over simplifying to be facetious, but my point stands. If everyone put not only their money where their mouth was, but took legitimate action to ensure their lifestyle fit what was important to their belief, I don't think we'd suffer from half of the problems we do. Unfortunately 90% of the population are happy with just complaining and being armchair politicians and only make the convenient choices that don't interfere with their comfort and their status quo. If you believe big agriculture is destroying the planet, find a sustainable way to not support them, or support them as little as absolutely possible. Support your local farms and farmers. Support Mom & Pop stores in your local area. Buy from farmers markets. Learn to preserve food over the winter months when it's not available. Eat seasonal produce. Of course, everyone's lives are nuanced and complicated. It's not as easy as it sounds for most people. But I firmly believe that if you truly believe we have a problem (which I do), then do something about it instead of just talk, complain and continue life as normal.
  - mac01021 9y ago
    > If everyone put not only their money where their mouth was, but took legitimate action to ensure their lifestyle fit what was important to their belief, I don't think we'd suffer from half of the problems we do. One problem with this is that we fall into a very suboptimal, deleterious Nash Equilibrium. Imagine you're in the 90% of farmers that can't set themselves up "high in the water catch basin" because there is limited space up there. You may be very aware of the problem, but it can only be solved if a majority of farmers in the valley adopt sustainable practices. And, if a majority are not going to do so, then you're am simply hurting myself if I incur the expense of adopting those practices yourself. There is some missing ingredient that needs to be added before people will start cooperating to ensure a long-term good state of affairs. Another problem is that, even if you do set up high in the catch basin and use sustainable farming practices, your produce is going to be comparatively expensive and noone is going to buy it until such time that all those farmers below you finish ruining their soil/aquifer. And you have to eat in the meantime.
    - balabaster 9y ago
      The purpose of growing your own crops is to eat your own crops, you just sell the excess. There always seems to be plenty enough people to buy your excess to subsidize the remainder of things you need. The problem with everyone finding problems is that they use these problems as excuses not to make any changes. That puts them in the 90% of people who complain and do nothing. As Venture Capitalists always say - they're not interested in ideas, they're interested in people who can execute. Either you can (and do) execute, or you can't (or don't). Not all legitimate action means moving up the catch basin and growing your own crops. There is legitimate action that can be taken in the city, in the suburbs and in low lying rural areas. You're not hurting yourself by adopting a sustainable lifestyle, you're helping yourself and the planet in the process.
      - balabaster 9y ago
        I love the down votes on this as if I don't speak from experience. This is the life I live, every day. It can be done if you're willing to do it.
chicob 9y ago
Another thing. >Now look at it from a politician's point of view. If you really get the signal that it's not a real problem, then it certainly doesn't make sense to spend resources on it. That is true, but even if there is a perception of a real problem, the short term rules. If it is not as profitable, they ignore it. It's not going to be their problem 50 years ahead.
mason240 9y ago
That would require a massive, coordinated conspiracy by a large group of landowners, and would be very expensive to carry out and would suffer from a free-rider issue of funding it. It's just not within the realm of possibility.
Bartweiss 9y ago
In what we actually observe, this doesn't seem to be the case. (In this case - obviously issues like smoking went exactly this way.) Rather, everything from "best to deny..." to "...bribe scientists and reviewers" got skipped. It just didn't change anything. Pretty much everyone knows soil erosion, desertification, and aquifer drawdown are major issues in the US Midwest. Certainly everyone with a big enough farm to have a major impact does. Cattle feedlots have been moved out of the TX/OK panhandle area because water is so scarce. Politicians are painfully aware of it. But there's no incentive to fix it, because the fix is basically just triggering the shutdown sooner. Eventually soil and water issues will cripple midwestern farming, but avoiding that means slashing farming volume now. Better for the environment, but not for most of the people there. So... no conspiracy, everyone knows, but the problem continues. Ironically, the conspiracy story shows too much faith in our government - it assumes they would act if they knew!
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Sometimes I think it must really suck to be in public administration. If you want to do something about anything, you get attacked for trying to limit people's freedom. If you don't do anything, you later get blamed for letting the problem happen.
  - bluGill 9y ago
    It sucks because the job is impossible for technical reasons: Just moving 100 meters often changes the correct best practice for long term soil health. How you can you regulate when you need that many different regulations?

chicob 9y ago

Ok. In agriculture, people tend to ignore the problem because it leads to lesser profits in the short term. The food industry, one of the major clients of agrobusiness is very competitive. The phyto pharmaceutical industry keeps pushing their products just like the pharmaceutical companies in hospitals. In fact, they're the same corporations most of the time. In this case, lobbying happens in the Union level, i.e. the European Parliament. The pressure is to great for small farmers to deal with. That is also happening with the construction/concrete lobby (and I presume that sometimes the land price rises if you plan to build housing around cities in the countryside). Construction companies build regardless of erosion or flooding problems. It's not their problem once they finish the job. That happens a lot around here. Politicians only think in the short term. "Yeah, sure there's the problem of seasonal fires, draughts and floods. We'll make use of some catastrophe fund. But you can't forget jobs in construction and tourism infrastructure!" Result: concrete all over.

balabaster 9y ago
So you buy farmland high in the water catch basin where you're not subject to salination and as few upstream pollution problems. Dig yourself a well, grow your own food using as few herbicides, fungicides and pesticides as possible. Build your own ecosystem and let the rest of society go to hell. Eventually, if you do it properly, you'll be the only one left with farmable land, you'll be bought out for a handsome price and you take your newfound riches and fuck off to somewhere that doesn't have this problem yet and do it all again. It doesn't matter if anyone believes in it or not. Either you're wrong and you're no further behind, in fact, from a trust standpoint, you're ahead because you're now in control of your food supply from the ground to your plate... and if you're right, then you win. I'm over simplifying to be facetious, but my point stands. If everyone put not only their money where their mouth was, but took legitimate action to ensure their lifestyle fit what was important to their belief, I don't think we'd suffer from half of the problems we do. Unfortunately 90% of the population are happy with just complaining and being armchair politicians and only make the convenient choices that don't interfere with their comfort and their status quo. If you believe big agriculture is destroying the planet, find a sustainable way to not support them, or support them as little as absolutely possible. Support your local farms and farmers. Support Mom & Pop stores in your local area. Buy from farmers markets. Learn to preserve food over the winter months when it's not available. Eat seasonal produce. Of course, everyone's lives are nuanced and complicated. It's not as easy as it sounds for most people. But I firmly believe that if you truly believe we have a problem (which I do), then do something about it instead of just talk, complain and continue life as normal.
- mac01021 9y ago
  > If everyone put not only their money where their mouth was, but took legitimate action to ensure their lifestyle fit what was important to their belief, I don't think we'd suffer from half of the problems we do. One problem with this is that we fall into a very suboptimal, deleterious Nash Equilibrium. Imagine you're in the 90% of farmers that can't set themselves up "high in the water catch basin" because there is limited space up there. You may be very aware of the problem, but it can only be solved if a majority of farmers in the valley adopt sustainable practices. And, if a majority are not going to do so, then you're am simply hurting myself if I incur the expense of adopting those practices yourself. There is some missing ingredient that needs to be added before people will start cooperating to ensure a long-term good state of affairs. Another problem is that, even if you do set up high in the catch basin and use sustainable farming practices, your produce is going to be comparatively expensive and noone is going to buy it until such time that all those farmers below you finish ruining their soil/aquifer. And you have to eat in the meantime.
  - balabaster 9y ago
    The purpose of growing your own crops is to eat your own crops, you just sell the excess. There always seems to be plenty enough people to buy your excess to subsidize the remainder of things you need. The problem with everyone finding problems is that they use these problems as excuses not to make any changes. That puts them in the 90% of people who complain and do nothing. As Venture Capitalists always say - they're not interested in ideas, they're interested in people who can execute. Either you can (and do) execute, or you can't (or don't). Not all legitimate action means moving up the catch basin and growing your own crops. There is legitimate action that can be taken in the city, in the suburbs and in low lying rural areas. You're not hurting yourself by adopting a sustainable lifestyle, you're helping yourself and the planet in the process.
    - balabaster 9y ago
      I love the down votes on this as if I don't speak from experience. This is the life I live, every day. It can be done if you're willing to do it.

chicob 9y ago

Another thing. >Now look at it from a politician's point of view. If you really get the signal that it's not a real problem, then it certainly doesn't make sense to spend resources on it. That is true, but even if there is a perception of a real problem, the short term rules. If it is not as profitable, they ignore it. It's not going to be their problem 50 years ahead.

mason240 9y ago

That would require a massive, coordinated conspiracy by a large group of landowners, and would be very expensive to carry out and would suffer from a free-rider issue of funding it. It's just not within the realm of possibility.

Bartweiss 9y ago

In what we actually observe, this doesn't seem to be the case. (In this case - obviously issues like smoking went exactly this way.) Rather, everything from "best to deny..." to "...bribe scientists and reviewers" got skipped. It just didn't change anything. Pretty much everyone knows soil erosion, desertification, and aquifer drawdown are major issues in the US Midwest. Certainly everyone with a big enough farm to have a major impact does. Cattle feedlots have been moved out of the TX/OK panhandle area because water is so scarce. Politicians are painfully aware of it. But there's no incentive to fix it, because the fix is basically just triggering the shutdown sooner. Eventually soil and water issues will cripple midwestern farming, but avoiding that means slashing farming volume now. Better for the environment, but not for most of the people there. So... no conspiracy, everyone knows, but the problem continues. Ironically, the conspiracy story shows too much faith in our government - it assumes they would act if they knew!

TeMPOraL 9y ago
Sometimes I think it must really suck to be in public administration. If you want to do something about anything, you get attacked for trying to limit people's freedom. If you don't do anything, you later get blamed for letting the problem happen.
- bluGill 9y ago
  It sucks because the job is impossible for technical reasons: Just moving 100 meters often changes the correct best practice for long term soil health. How you can you regulate when you need that many different regulations?