4 ms·

Nothing about the food we eat is "natural" - none of the major crops we farm would exist without significant human intervention. Farming itself is an unnatural

Nothing about the food we eat is "natural" - none of the major crops we farm would exist without significant human intervention. Farming itself is an unnatural act, in that sense. We genetically modified plants that had some benefit for us - first with breeding, now with breeding and more modern techniques - to have an even greater benefit. Taking a systems view is a good thing, but I think you're assuming we're not already doing that. But I think it's unlikely that a systems approach to farming is going to look like letting nature do the work; without cultivation, plants are not going to be food.

ItsMe000001 9y ago
> Nothing about the food we eat is "natural" What a quality reply. Next, a lecture that everything is a "chemical"? I took (university) biochemistry, thank you very much. > but I think you're assuming we're not already doing that. We are not. Proof: Monocultures that require lots of stored sun energy and lots of fertilizers (even more stored ancient sun energy) and lots of pesticides (even more energy, plus incalculable side effects). > without cultivation, plants are not going to be food. How about you read what I wrote? I mean, all of it, not just a few words that triggered you to lecture me as if I had said something on a child level. HN has interesting discussions, let's keep the level up a bit. If you read into my comment that I propose to let nature run all on its own, like some state park or nature preserve, than you did not really read much of it. If I have to explain what I wrote to someone who didn't read it I feel like I'm wasting a lot of time and comment space.