3 ms·

>Glyphosate, which was totally banned by Austria’s parliament on Tuesday, is the world’s most widely used herbicide but there have been growing attempts around

>Glyphosate, which was totally banned by Austria’s parliament on Tuesday, is the world’s most widely used herbicide but there have been growing attempts around the world to stop its use. There is no ideal “all natural” world. The truth is, you will not be able to feed 7 billion people without using pesticides. With glyphosate, we have a chemical that has seen use for decades in large amounts and even now the case for it actually being harmful to humans is pretty weak. What will happen is that because you need pesticides to support the crop yields necessary for 7 billion people, you will end up with a less well tested pesticide that will end up causing even more problems.

devoply 7y ago
Truth is 7 billion people are an exponential bacterial like growth which under natural circumstances should collapse and is instead collapsing the entire planet and the rest of its living population with its tech to sustain its unsustainable growth... and arguments to humanism and capitalism are used to justify its ludicrous behaviour which is completely unnecessary and easily controlled through birth control. Bring food supply in line with carrying capacity or destroy the planet, scientifically the options are simple, politically while espousing humanist rhetoric like how do we feed the hungry it's impossible.
- pkaye 7y ago
  > Truth is 7 billion people are an exponential bacterial like growth Quite a few countries are under replacement fertility rate. China is below. India is almost there.
  - devoply 7y ago
    Economic growth is the same as population growth. When the population increases consumption increase. Economic growth is increase in number of goods and services produced which leads to more consumption per person, which in most cases leads to greater use of natural resources per person. Hence countries in the West who have smaller populations consume much more than poorer countries with less economic development. Most of those countries claiming to have replacement level fertility are still growing either through immigration or through economics. This is the case across the board... If they are not then they are considered in trouble as is the case with Japan.
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  thank you for saying it. i upvoted you. we are far beyond any reasonable carrying capacity. i fail to understand why any mention of reining in population growth creates such a knee jerk reaction of rejection. if perpetuating the species is our prime directive, we are too far gone down the path of species destruction with uncontrolled population growth. we are not just an apex predator. we are a super apex predator and by destroying habitat, we are literally eating the planet that is supposed to sustain us. we are dependent on every other species and environment(marine, terrestrial and all things environmental) for our survival as we cannot synthesise our sustenance..our current strategy is not akin to sitting on the top most branch and sawing the trunk away. the destruction of habitat and the early indication of disappearance of several insect species should cause alarm. we can extend our life span and freeze our genetic material. this is exactly what we must do to stop self inflected genocide and preserve what remains of our planet. this entire planet is drenched with glyphosate. every human being and fetus yet to be born will test positive for glyphosate. it is found in breast milk of mothers. it has destroyed soil biome and by extension, human biome. there is finally some validity to the transhumanist values i had tentatively held for decades now. we cannot survive unless we genetically modify ourselves because we have modified our habitat and environment so drastically. we are no longer the species we were meant to be...by design. by our own design. but even at any H+ revival of our species, we will still need to respect this misshapen rock that seems to be..by all known accounts..the only place that supports human life as we know it.
  - vkou 7y ago
    > We are far beyond any reasonable carrying capacity. i fail to understand why any mention of reining in population growth creates such a knee jerk reaction of rejection. Two reasons. 1. The last time eugenics, and population control was a mainstream ideology, it culminated in things like WWII, and the Holocaust. For various reasons, that's not a road people are particularly interested in going down again. 2. The wasteful habits and tastes of rich nations are are the reason we are in this mess. It is unreasonable to expect poor nations to to sacrifice to fix the problem we have created. Especially when the richest 25% of the world (Which, for odd reasons, is never the target of people talking about population control) currently consumes 50-70% of the world's resources.
- ajmurmann 7y ago
  I think what's needed is a phase shift for humanity: https://youtu.be/nQRzxEobWco https://youtu.be/nQRzxEobWco
artificialLimbs 7y ago
"The truth is, you will not be able to feed 7 billion people without using pesticides." I'm sorry you believe that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQdCkPR6ZCw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQdCkPR6ZCw
- realusername 7y ago
  If that would work better than pesticides and produce more, farmers would have switched already.
  - vkou 7y ago
    If non-leaded gasoline worked better then leaded gasoline, why didn't the industry switch towards it, before governments around the world banned it? That's because what works better for the vendors and purchasers of a product may not be what works best for society, as a whole. I'm not sure why this needs to be explained. (I don't have a horse in the glyphosate race. I'm not an expert on its dangers, and I'm not sure what expert consensus on it is, at the moment.)
    - realusername 7y ago
      Because it was cheaper to make? You just answered your own comment.
      - onion2k 7y ago
        The salient point is that people will use dangerous and less effective solutions if they're cheaper. Leaded gasoline is a good example. So when people suggest there might be alternatives to pesticides the answer is not automatically that pesticides are the best solution. They might just be the cheapest.
    - headsoup 7y ago
      Why didn't industry switch away from CFC's until a cheaper option became available?... 'Corporate ethics.'
legulere 7y ago
The effect of no herbicides on food production is negligible compared to the effect of eating too much meat. In fact a lot of herbicides are used just in the production of stock feed.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

devoply 7y ago

Truth is 7 billion people are an exponential bacterial like growth which under natural circumstances should collapse and is instead collapsing the entire planet and the rest of its living population with its tech to sustain its unsustainable growth... and arguments to humanism and capitalism are used to justify its ludicrous behaviour which is completely unnecessary and easily controlled through birth control. Bring food supply in line with carrying capacity or destroy the planet, scientifically the options are simple, politically while espousing humanist rhetoric like how do we feed the hungry it's impossible.

pkaye 7y ago
> Truth is 7 billion people are an exponential bacterial like growth Quite a few countries are under replacement fertility rate. China is below. India is almost there.
- devoply 7y ago
  Economic growth is the same as population growth. When the population increases consumption increase. Economic growth is increase in number of goods and services produced which leads to more consumption per person, which in most cases leads to greater use of natural resources per person. Hence countries in the West who have smaller populations consume much more than poorer countries with less economic development. Most of those countries claiming to have replacement level fertility are still growing either through immigration or through economics. This is the case across the board... If they are not then they are considered in trouble as is the case with Japan.
jelliclesfarm 7y ago
thank you for saying it. i upvoted you. we are far beyond any reasonable carrying capacity. i fail to understand why any mention of reining in population growth creates such a knee jerk reaction of rejection. if perpetuating the species is our prime directive, we are too far gone down the path of species destruction with uncontrolled population growth. we are not just an apex predator. we are a super apex predator and by destroying habitat, we are literally eating the planet that is supposed to sustain us. we are dependent on every other species and environment(marine, terrestrial and all things environmental) for our survival as we cannot synthesise our sustenance..our current strategy is not akin to sitting on the top most branch and sawing the trunk away. the destruction of habitat and the early indication of disappearance of several insect species should cause alarm. we can extend our life span and freeze our genetic material. this is exactly what we must do to stop self inflected genocide and preserve what remains of our planet. this entire planet is drenched with glyphosate. every human being and fetus yet to be born will test positive for glyphosate. it is found in breast milk of mothers. it has destroyed soil biome and by extension, human biome. there is finally some validity to the transhumanist values i had tentatively held for decades now. we cannot survive unless we genetically modify ourselves because we have modified our habitat and environment so drastically. we are no longer the species we were meant to be...by design. by our own design. but even at any H+ revival of our species, we will still need to respect this misshapen rock that seems to be..by all known accounts..the only place that supports human life as we know it.
- vkou 7y ago
  > We are far beyond any reasonable carrying capacity. i fail to understand why any mention of reining in population growth creates such a knee jerk reaction of rejection. Two reasons. 1. The last time eugenics, and population control was a mainstream ideology, it culminated in things like WWII, and the Holocaust. For various reasons, that's not a road people are particularly interested in going down again. 2. The wasteful habits and tastes of rich nations are are the reason we are in this mess. It is unreasonable to expect poor nations to to sacrifice to fix the problem we have created. Especially when the richest 25% of the world (Which, for odd reasons, is never the target of people talking about population control) currently consumes 50-70% of the world's resources.
ajmurmann 7y ago
I think what's needed is a phase shift for humanity: https://youtu.be/nQRzxEobWco https://youtu.be/nQRzxEobWco

artificialLimbs 7y ago

"The truth is, you will not be able to feed 7 billion people without using pesticides." I'm sorry you believe that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQdCkPR6ZCw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQdCkPR6ZCw

realusername 7y ago
If that would work better than pesticides and produce more, farmers would have switched already.
- vkou 7y ago
  If non-leaded gasoline worked better then leaded gasoline, why didn't the industry switch towards it, before governments around the world banned it? That's because what works better for the vendors and purchasers of a product may not be what works best for society, as a whole. I'm not sure why this needs to be explained. (I don't have a horse in the glyphosate race. I'm not an expert on its dangers, and I'm not sure what expert consensus on it is, at the moment.)
  - realusername 7y ago
    Because it was cheaper to make? You just answered your own comment.
    - onion2k 7y ago
      The salient point is that people will use dangerous and less effective solutions if they're cheaper. Leaded gasoline is a good example. So when people suggest there might be alternatives to pesticides the answer is not automatically that pesticides are the best solution. They might just be the cheapest.
  - headsoup 7y ago
    Why didn't industry switch away from CFC's until a cheaper option became available?... 'Corporate ethics.'

legulere 7y ago

The effect of no herbicides on food production is negligible compared to the effect of eating too much meat. In fact a lot of herbicides are used just in the production of stock feed.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]