6 ms·
There’s a second order conclusion here that seems to get constantly lost in the conversation. On a bumper sticker it’d be, “It’s the monocultures, stupid.” Whe
by gdubs 7y ago
There’s a second order conclusion here that seems to get constantly lost in the conversation. On a bumper sticker it’d be, “It’s the monocultures, stupid.”
When we talk about things like glysophate staying around in the soil or making it’s way into the water supply, what we really should be questioning is why so much is being used in the first place. And that’s because we grow fragile annual crops in enormous monocultures making the use of chemicals a necessity.
I’m for alternative methods of farming, like permaculture, but I’m not so ideological to be against chemicals in the absolute. Based on the evidence I’ve seen, pragmatic use of sprays isn’t terribly dangerous. I’m talking spot spraying as part of conservation and restoration work, etc.
The fixation on particular chemicals like glysophate is a distraction from the root issue, which is that industrial scale agriculture is — on the whole —damaging to the planet.
- sametmax 7y agoYes but permaculture is not scalable for big companies, since it requires a lot of skilled labors. You cannot use one big tractor for a huge perma field and be done with it. And they dictate the market.
- dan_quixote 7y agoAlternative ideas like a robot weeder [1] are interesting. This could be pretty effective on some crops. Doesn't solve the pesticide problem though. [1] https://www.ecorobotix.com/en/autonomous-robot-weeder/ https://www.ecorobotix.com/en/autonomous-robot-weeder/