3 ms·

Global warming is just the tip of the iceberg (sorry). Seriously though, there are so many ways in which humanity is making the world immeasurably worse and in

Global warming is just the tip of the iceberg (sorry). Seriously though, there are so many ways in which humanity is making the world immeasurably worse and in which our current models of organisation cannot be sustained, and global warming is only one of them. Take for example modern agriculture: we are forced to pour huge amounts of artificial (i.e. not animal manure) fertiliser onto the soil in order to produce enough to feed ourselves. The fertiliser is required due to the extreme pressure we put on the soil i.e. monoculture, expecting a full crop every year, with no fallow periods for recovery. This fertiliser has in some cases to be mined, obviously at some expense in energy terms, from non-renewable resources. The production and usage of the fertiliser consumes large amounts of currently, predominantly, fossil fuels. The fertiliser runs off the soil into the ocean, disrupting the natural balance, with negative side effects on sea life, itself on which many coastal dwelling people depend for food or livelihood. When was the last time you saw this issue discussed in the media? Sometimes I think that the focus on global warming is negative in that it is far easier for those that stand to lose from wider conciousness about environmental issues, i.e. the usual big business concerns, to counter a single topic than it would be for them to deny the general trend of ongoing worsening and destruction of our natural environment in general. The fact is that western lifestyles cannot be achieved by the whole population of the world without consequent massive pressure on resources. Rather than worrying ourselves solely about global warming I think we would do far better to start reducing consumption, reversing population growth to the point that the world's population starts to decline, and putting efficiency at the heart of humanity's scientific and business endeavours. The chances of this happening? I'd say pretty much zero, because modern capitalism preaches at the altar of inexorable GDP growth, and the rich and powerful aren't going to give up without a fight.

fsloth 9y ago
Yes, we have problems. But I would prefer an argumentation that does not place the 'artificiality' of modern farming at the fulcrum as there is no 'natural' farming. All farming is artificial - an artifact of human culture. Farming is a thousands of years old biohack, of whose output we've improved over millenias. Using nitrogen fertilizer generated through Haber process to increase crop yelds is not in any way less 'natural' than manure. Trace chemicals from e.g. pesticides that leak to all sorts of foodchains, including those where human partake - now, that's an issue. It's also not very effective to speak of the general consumption of western lifestyle. We can't fix 'western lifestyle'. But, we can fix specific problems, one at a time. The problem needs some metric and the solution needs some predetermined metric to follow. So, what's the first thing you would specifically fix?
- Boothroid 9y ago
  Firstly, the contrast you draw regarding artificial versus natural farming is yours, not mine. Secondly, surely it is apparent that there is a big difference between digging potash from hundreds of metres below the surface of the earth versus gathering animal manure - for a start, if we make our food production systems dependent on the former we are in trouble if it becomes unavailable, for example through exhaustion or economic/civilisational collapse. Thirdly I'm not sure the term trace is in keeping with the magnitude of e.g. nitrogen run off into the sea - some think the eutrophication of the world's oceans could become as big a problem as carbon: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-05/uov-at051208.php https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-05/uov-at051208... Fourth, I think we all have an idea of what constitutes western lifestyle, and thus I would say it is an effective term in communicating an idea. Are you really saying you have no idea what western lifestyle means? Fifth, you ask me what I would specifically fix. I suspect that overall your tactic is to challenge aspects of my statements without refuting the central thrust of what I am saying, but whatever, I will engage. Specific problem: eutrophication due to high levels of fertiliser. How do we fix it? Drastic restriction of food production - there is a massive surfeit of food in most developed countries - and introduction of less destructive methods of agriculture. Why would this never be allowed to happen? Big business would take far too big a hit.
- horsawlarway 9y ago
  Desertification of crop lands? Increasing pesticide use coupled with decreasing benefit? Depletion of groundwater tables because of land usage that encourages run-off? Substituting fertilizer made from non-renewable resources for a self sustaining form of agriculture? Destruction of local habits for mono-culture crop development? Destroying complex ecosystems that are perfectly capable of supporting rich crops for humans and replacing them with mono-culture crops like soy/corn/sugarbeets that absolutely fuck the topsoil, deplete nutrients, and fail to support basically any animal life? I'm not OP, but our current agricultural practices that came out of the world wars with cheap and easy access to "Chemicals" is absolutely a problem. Not because the chemicals are artificial (although that doesn't help with regards to price) but because we're using them in ways that don't create a renewing system. We're literally destroying our sources of water and topsoil to grow corn no one needs.
bluejekyll 9y ago
> i.e. monoculture, expecting a full crop every year, with no fallow periods for recovery It's my understanding that at least in the US, crop rotation is required in order to earn farm subsidies. For example, near my parents there is a lot of corn grown, many fields will be left fallow for a year and then planted with soy to impart nitrogen into the soil. I agree with your general sentiment, though.

fsloth 9y ago

Yes, we have problems. But I would prefer an argumentation that does not place the 'artificiality' of modern farming at the fulcrum as there is no 'natural' farming. All farming is artificial - an artifact of human culture. Farming is a thousands of years old biohack, of whose output we've improved over millenias. Using nitrogen fertilizer generated through Haber process to increase crop yelds is not in any way less 'natural' than manure. Trace chemicals from e.g. pesticides that leak to all sorts of foodchains, including those where human partake - now, that's an issue. It's also not very effective to speak of the general consumption of western lifestyle. We can't fix 'western lifestyle'. But, we can fix specific problems, one at a time. The problem needs some metric and the solution needs some predetermined metric to follow. So, what's the first thing you would specifically fix?

Boothroid 9y ago
Firstly, the contrast you draw regarding artificial versus natural farming is yours, not mine. Secondly, surely it is apparent that there is a big difference between digging potash from hundreds of metres below the surface of the earth versus gathering animal manure - for a start, if we make our food production systems dependent on the former we are in trouble if it becomes unavailable, for example through exhaustion or economic/civilisational collapse. Thirdly I'm not sure the term trace is in keeping with the magnitude of e.g. nitrogen run off into the sea - some think the eutrophication of the world's oceans could become as big a problem as carbon: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-05/uov-at051208.php https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-05/uov-at051208... Fourth, I think we all have an idea of what constitutes western lifestyle, and thus I would say it is an effective term in communicating an idea. Are you really saying you have no idea what western lifestyle means? Fifth, you ask me what I would specifically fix. I suspect that overall your tactic is to challenge aspects of my statements without refuting the central thrust of what I am saying, but whatever, I will engage. Specific problem: eutrophication due to high levels of fertiliser. How do we fix it? Drastic restriction of food production - there is a massive surfeit of food in most developed countries - and introduction of less destructive methods of agriculture. Why would this never be allowed to happen? Big business would take far too big a hit.
horsawlarway 9y ago
Desertification of crop lands? Increasing pesticide use coupled with decreasing benefit? Depletion of groundwater tables because of land usage that encourages run-off? Substituting fertilizer made from non-renewable resources for a self sustaining form of agriculture? Destruction of local habits for mono-culture crop development? Destroying complex ecosystems that are perfectly capable of supporting rich crops for humans and replacing them with mono-culture crops like soy/corn/sugarbeets that absolutely fuck the topsoil, deplete nutrients, and fail to support basically any animal life? I'm not OP, but our current agricultural practices that came out of the world wars with cheap and easy access to "Chemicals" is absolutely a problem. Not because the chemicals are artificial (although that doesn't help with regards to price) but because we're using them in ways that don't create a renewing system. We're literally destroying our sources of water and topsoil to grow corn no one needs.

bluejekyll 9y ago

> i.e. monoculture, expecting a full crop every year, with no fallow periods for recovery It's my understanding that at least in the US, crop rotation is required in order to earn farm subsidies. For example, near my parents there is a lot of corn grown, many fields will be left fallow for a year and then planted with soy to impart nitrogen into the soil. I agree with your general sentiment, though.