3 ms·
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' fa
by 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 agoFirstly, 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 agoDesertification 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.
- Boothroid 9y agoThank you, better than I put it.