5 ms·
Well the obvious answer is "Yes" but I am honestly uncertain whether it can be done while maintaining current profit margins which is was always the real issue.
by AFNobody 9y ago
Well the obvious answer is "Yes" but I am honestly uncertain whether it can be done while maintaining current profit margins which is was always the real issue.
A well-educated farmer, focused on a plot of land that is meant to be kept for generations without a profit focus can certainly do it. I suspect if you try to scale this process up, the issue is its more expensive if you were a corporation who has to pay a better educated class of labor to maintain soil quality.
Till, fertilize, water is alot simpler than trying to build an ecosystem that spans a 4000 acre plot of land.
I think until society values externalities more accurately, it is unlikely to catch on like so many other things that cost even a tenth of a percent of the overall corporate profit margin.
- QAPereo 9y agoThis is also a society that happily wastes a vast amount of food which is produced based on conformity issues, and other nonsense designed to maximize profits in supermarkets. At every level, we’re deeply complicit, and our revealed preferences are clear.
- AFNobody 9y agoI think the majority's preferences as a society is clear. I also believe there is a substantial minority that would prefer a more sustainable approach to many things in the interest of long term sustainability. The reality is our level of infrastructure spending, to the way we produce power, to the condition of the majority of the arable land is fundamentally unsustainable for more than another 50 years without substantial technological change. This does not even get into climate change related impacts on agriculture.
- QAPereo 9y agoAbsolutely, we are all very screwed, but that still won’t empower a minority to save the majority from itself.
- JumpCrisscross 9y agoA good first step would involve avoiding (a) casting these events as species- or civilisation-ending events (they’re not) and (b) condescension towards the majority.
- WalterBright 9y agoWe've historically often engaged in unsustainable practices, like: 1. hunting whales for lamp oil 2. cutting down trees for fuel to make glass and build ships 3. using natural rubber 4. no sanitation in the cities 5. using horses for transportation 6. using well water in cities As these became unsustainable, alternatives were discovered and developed.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- QAPereo 9y agoHistorically we engaged in major conflict between equal powers, such as the two World Wars. Then... nukes. Tech doesn’t always magically resolve itself, sometimes it’s just an apocalypse in waiting.
- taejo 9y agoI'd say rather that as alternatives were discovered and developed, these became unprofitable.
- WalterBright 9y agoIncreasing unsustainability leads to price increases, which encourages the development of cheaper alternatives, and then they become unprofitable. The development of synthetic rubber was a direct result of high prices and inability to increase natural rubber production.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- tarsinge 9y ago> Increasing unsustainability leads to price increases Not if there is nobody alive anymore to raise prices. This theory works well for progressive change but doesn't hold for long-term brutal changes, e.g. maybe historically if people dried the only well in their village there was no price increase (or there was an instantaneous price increase to infinity if you prefer) because the village was doomed.
- bluGill 9y agoIn fact big farmers are building the soil on their land. When you have a lot of land it is easy to do a scientific comparison of different farming methods and discover which yield better profits. When you have a small farm it is easy to ignore (if you want to) research. An extra $10 per acre over 80 acres is only $800, while that same $10/acre over 3000 acres is $30000. The $800 won't make the payment on the different equipment needed for best practice, while $30000 makes the payment and leaves a nice chunk on the bottom line. The other part of the above is getting that extra $10/year in profits needs 7 years of investment, until year for you make less profit, and the next 3 years you are more or less even (obviously each farming practice has a different payoff period, the above example is for no-till). Again, big farmers have the money to spare to try the new practice and when they see results they turn more fields over to the new system. The only time it pays in the long run to mine the soil is when the land will go to someone else in a couple years. A farmer who sees the big city wanting his land for a new development in a couple years should mine his soil. In all other cases farmers who care for the soil as an investment will make more money in the long run than farmers who mine the soil.