4 ms·
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 agr
by 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 agoSo 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 agoThe 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 agoI 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.