20 ms·

There’s no surprise here is there? We, as a society, poison pretty much everything as a standard part of the agricultural process. The outcome -the goal - of

There’s no surprise here is there? We, as a society, poison pretty much everything as a standard part of the agricultural process. The outcome -the goal - of that is of course, death of vast numbers of insects. Mission accomplished. It’s a success story, strangely. The only thing that seems weird to me is how society was so easily convinced that soaking all our food in poison is OK and not a problem all good thumbs up. That’s really weird.

xg15 7y ago
Well, that's a problem with many aspects involving "wilderness", not just insects. The usual train of thought seems to be that yes, natural landscapes are occasionally pretty, but as a farmer it would be irrational to have them on your land. Problem of course, if there is someone for every patch of land who says "not here", then in the end, there is no room for it to go at all.
obituary_latte 7y ago
Is it that society was convinced? Or was/is it that it is more “out of sight, out of mind”? I think for the layperson, little matters other than how much does it cost? If there is some invisible but safe-for-us chemical that increases yield and decreases cost, all the better for us, right? I think this is one of the great things to come out of the invention of the web. We are becoming better informed and this kind of information is becoming more prevalent. It’s becoming much harder for these big corporations to hide these negative side effects (insect decline, Round-Up cancers etc) and we as a population are becoming more aware of the negative side effects of our imprint on the world.
- rollthehard6 7y ago
  Reminds of all those times we are told that 'customers demanded X', as if we all stood outside supermarkets with placards saying, "We demand huge strawberries that don't taste of anything". The market does what helps the market, it often isn't good for people or the planet they inhabit - that's the story of our current era and customers need to demand change on that basis.
  - jimhi 7y ago
    We did demand X though. The supermarkets had both tasteless strawberries and organic ones and we made our choice. Many supermarkets still have organic ones and we still pick the cheaper, larger, less tasty one.
    - Retric 7y ago
      Except, they don’t actually give you a way to judge taste. With apples people learn of better tasting variety, but strawberries are unlabeled.
      - enriquto 7y ago
        aren't they? here in France there are a few labelled varieties (not as many labels as apples, though)
        Retric 7y ago
        At least in the US it looks like this: https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-fresh-fruits-berries-fruit-stand-market-nectarines-cherry-strawberry-blueberry-rashberry-apricot-public-stall-image94655473 https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-fresh-fruits-berries-... You don’t actually know anything about the strawberries in the bottom left other than their organic.
        Glawen 7y ago
        In France they show the country of origin (region when it is from France) and the variety. Sometimes they state if it is organic. Generally, the French fruits are more expensive but tastier. But when it is the high season of the fruit, like july/august for melon, then the french one are also cheaper.
      - ravar 7y ago
        I don't do this, but I do notice that in super markets lots of people do try the fruit before they it. So there are ways of making sure you get good fruit.
- marmaduke 7y ago
  > We are becoming better informed 'Distracted' is probable a more accurate median adjective for this phrase. With Google you don't have confirmation bias, just confirmation.
- mhkool 7y ago
  you are neglecting the negative effects of spraying billions of tons of Roundup on the planet before the public knows for sure that it is a dangerous poison. Same with neonics, we sprayed too much and the insect populations shrunk too much and will not revive quickly since the poison is still in plants and soil. The obvious thing is that industries work for profit and have no sympathy with insects or the health of individuals and that we are unable to regulate industries in a proper way.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    I think this "Roundup is a dangerous poison" was a propaganda meme that came out of the need to demonize US agribusiness in Europe. It's a kind of social activism protectionism. I would not be at all surprised to learn it was sustained by funding from ag interests in Europe. OF course Roundup is not a dangerous poison. This is simply a lie that is repeated over and over by the dishonest and the gullible.
    - taneq 7y ago
      Poe's Law is strong with this one. I can't tell if you're serious or if this is advanced snarkasm.
      - pfdietz 7y ago
        Totally serious. The anti-Roundup fervor is of a kind with anti-GMO fervor. The goal of it is to provide a pretext to exclude cheaper US agricultural products from Europe.
        jyounker 7y ago
        I don’t trust the research that was done on roundup. Supposedly it degrades within six months. The reality is that it doesn’t. We know this because the city of Davis, CA does public composting. Yard trimmings are scooped up, taken to the city compost yard, and over a year or som it becomes compost. Residents can pick up a quantity of free compost every year. Around ‘97-‘98 the city compost started killing many kinds of plants. The cause turned out to be glyphosphate. Despite Monsanto’s research, the reality was that glyphosate persists far longer than six months.
- elorant 7y ago
  It's a mix of both. If you want to eat tomatoes in the middle of winter agriculture will have to use a lot of pesticides. If society didn't have ridiculous expectations my guess is that the industry would use more sustainable methods of growing food.
  - bbddg 7y ago
    Everyone wants to eat tomatoes in the middle of winter! I also want ice cream that tastes great but has no calories. If some company makes an ice cream like that but we find out 10 years later it's leading to the extinction of many insect species on the planet. Is it really my fault for buying the ice cream? Not the producers fault for using chemicals with such huge downsides?
    - elorant 7y ago
      Of course you're fucking responsible. We all are in some way. And that's the thing. We need to start acting more responsibly instead of expecting someone else to solve our problems. We can't live in a world where we consume meat three times a week. Demand drives the market and what the market does is deforesting huge areas to grow grass to feed the cows which in turn add tons of methane to the atmosphere. Companies won't change unless we change our habits. And no, not everyone wants to eat tomatoes in the middle of winter. People who are more knowledgeable about food production never eat fruits and vegetables out of their seasons.
      - bbddg 7y ago
        I do think we all share some blame. We live in a democracy (no matter how flawed) and we bear some of the burden of the decisions of society as a whole. The answer to these problems however isn't just saying "everyone stop eating tomatoes in the winter." You know full well that tomatoes grown in the summer are grown using the same shit, they can just source them from somewhere a little bit further north. Why is it that I can go to the grocery store and see two different types of tomatoes: one type is cheaper and is killing the planet and the other is more expensive but safe for the environment? I have the means and the knowledge to buy the more expensive one but we can't expect that someone living paycheck to paycheck is going to be willing or even able to do the same. They aren't the ones to blame here. I do agree that we can't expect someone else to solve this problem for us. We need collective action to demand significant regulation and change to the economic system. Scolding individual people for making rational economic decisions when they have a boot on their neck isn't going to fix anything.
- peignoir 7y ago
  If it helps the place where I’ve seen nature taking back was Chernobyl. Looks like radioactivity is far less toxic than humans.
- blablabla123 7y ago
  > If there is some invisible but safe-for-us chemical that increases yield In fact increased yield is also kind of good for the environment because this way agriculture needs less space. (Speaking of deforestation because of agriculture...) But still, insecticides, fungicides etc. have been used far too carelessly in the past and of course it takes years or sometimes decades to see the effects...
  - LargeWu 7y ago
    There's certainly a trade-off. However, grocery stores in the US discard massive amounts of produce, and then still more is wasted when consumers bring it home and don't use it. It feels like we would have plenty of room to reduce yields, ship less food around, and still get everybody fed. (that's a hypothesis, not a conclusion)
    - blablabla123 7y ago
      I'm too lazy to get the reference but at least for Germany or EU both numbers you mention (consumer throwaway rate + supermarket throwaway rate) were double digit. So yeah, your conclusion is pretty much justified ;)
- rapind 7y ago
  That would be true if not for massive disinformation campaigns by corporate interests. Apparently most of us can't be bothered to dig into the source / motivations behind any media story, be it TV news, newspapers, Facebook feeds, Twitter posts, or blogs, etc.
- colordrops 7y ago
  > I think this is one of the great things to come out of the invention of the web. We are becoming better informed and this kind of information is becoming more prevalent. It’s becoming much harder for these big corporations to hide these negative side effects We are at the end of that era. The big corporations are slowly closing down that unintended loophole in which the internet was a tool for free movement of knowledge. Google now filters and shapes results into their idea of what is OK rather than exactly what you are searching for [1]. The FBI just called conspiracy theorists a domestic threat [2] and open forums are under attack [3]. Not long ago you were a nutjob for claiming Monsanto and Roundup were anything other than gifts from God. We will be going back to that world soon enough. [1] http://autocompleteaudit.com/autocomplete/Bill%20clinton http://autocompleteaudit.com/autocomplete/Bill%20clinton [2] https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/fbi-document-conspiracy-theories-domestic-terrorism-threat-2019-8 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/fbi-doc... [3] https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/clxdjk/conspiracy_theorist_crackdown_and_the_targeting/ https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/clxdjk/conspira...
  - flatline 7y ago
    People were fighting Monsanto back in the late 90s. If anything I think they have improved their public image, poor though it still is.
    - ncmncm 7y ago
      Now they are Bayer, and Monsanto doesn't exist anymore. The same people are still poisoning us, though.
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    "The FBI assesses anti-government, identity based, and fringe political conspiracy theories very likely motivate some domestic extremists, wholly or in part, to commit criminal and sometimes violent activity," the document said. "The FBI further assesses in some cases these conspiracy theories very likely encourage the targeting of specific people, places, and organizations, thereby increasing the likelihood of violence against these targets." Gee, what a bunch of authoritarian whack jobs.
- DennisP 7y ago
  Considering the amount of pesticide that homeowners spray in their own yards, I'd say most of society was pretty much convinced.
ThomPete 7y ago
The outcome is also better lives, less sickness, healthy crops etc. yes there are drawbacks but the goal isnt just good or bad its good and bad, the discussion we can have is whether is more good than bad or vice versa.
buboard 7y ago
If all people started growing their own food it would be far worse. I believe thats how people were convinced
mortdeus 7y ago
well because evolution has made it so that what kills insects only manages to give us a really bad headache (and potentially cancer way down the line, but everything gives us cancer so that is okay)
jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
Men and women went to great lengths to make sure no one ever got a straight answer regarding glyphosate. Y'know they use it to kill wheat before harvesting? Makes it lighter so the harvester can save a few piastres. Whole wheat bread can actually be a lot less clean than white bread, because the glyphosate is not washed off of the outer layer of the grain, which is discarded in the production of white bread. Is it safe to eat glyphosate? Well Patrick Moore says that a person could drink a glass of the stuff and be fine. He also said "no I won't drink it. I'm not an idiot." In Hawaii I notice absurd amounts of pesticide use. Look at any place where humans gather: if it has plants, it has pesticide. Golf course, soccer field, planter, sidewalk turf.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  The application of herbicides before harvest is about more than making things easier for the harvester: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation
SubiculumCode 7y ago
Not juat agriculture, every lawn and apartment complex.
chiefalchemist 7y ago
> That’s really weird. From what I can gather (anecdotally) is most of them would rather trust the system, or blame the system, than confront the fact they are undermining their children's future. Stormy Daniel's is a concern. The shite passing for food on the kitchen table is not nearly as important. I'm not joking when I say, we are in The Matrix - just batteries for the machine.
amelius 7y ago
> The only thing that seems weird to me is how society was so easily convinced that soaking all our food in poison is OK and not a problem all good thumbs up. That’s really weird. It's probably more a "tragedy of the commons" type of thing. If X is detrimental to society but necessary for big players to make more money, then you can bet X will happen. Especially if society doesn't find out immediately about the bad aspects.
aedocw 7y ago
As another person said, its more about being "out of sight, out of mind". But the biggest component is cost and availability. Large scale farming (unsustainable over the long term) with a single crop per season and minimal rotation allowed for huge crop yields over the short term which drove prices down. At this point the majority of consumers do not want to pay more than they've become accustomed to paying for any fruits or vegetables. Sustainable farming costs more in the short term. Over the long term it is the only reasonable way to farm. The book "Lentil Underground" by Liz Carlisle was a great read on this topic.
throwaway94857 7y ago
>"that's really weird" Not really, given that our use of pesticides allows us to feed billions of people worldwide at low cost. Rates of hunger in the developed world are almost non-existent and globally hunger rates are as low as they've ever been and continue to plummet. Pesticide treated food is safe and healthy too, so we're feeding the world with safe and healthy food. This is a great thing. It's not surprising at all that people would say all good. There would need to be some catastrophic side effects of pesticide use for people to even think about questioning it. So far all problems related to pesticides have been far, far outweighed by them giving us the ability to feed billions.
- ncmncm 7y ago
  Thereby causing global climate disruption, likely ultimately causing billions to starve. Nice work.
  - throwaway94857 7y ago
    We'll be fine. We already have the tool to save the climate (nuclear), just need to actually use it.
    - ncmncm 7y ago
      It would take far too long to get enough nuke capacity online to do any good, and would steal capital from more cost-effective measures. Nuke power was never justifiable on a cost basis, and is much less so now than ever before.
lisper 7y ago
> The only thing that seems weird to me is how society was so easily convinced that soaking all our food in poison is OK and not a problem all good thumbs up. That’s really weird. Not really. The alternative was having all our food eaten by insects and not having enough left over for ourselves. It's kind of a no-brainer in the short run.
turk73 7y ago
It's not weird in the sense that technology has no human values. Just like the invention of nerve gas or the atom bomb, technology can serve a positive or a negative purpose and it won't care a bit if the human race goes extinct. Just because "we" created something doesn't mean "we" have the last word. This is why I keep hammering on mass surveillance--this stuff is not our friend. "Get rid of insects" was the goal, now we're rid of them and whole ecosystems are crashing. I keep seeing Monarch butterflies around here and I wonder what they are eating since there is no milkweed in any direction.

xg15 7y ago

Well, that's a problem with many aspects involving "wilderness", not just insects. The usual train of thought seems to be that yes, natural landscapes are occasionally pretty, but as a farmer it would be irrational to have them on your land. Problem of course, if there is someone for every patch of land who says "not here", then in the end, there is no room for it to go at all.

obituary_latte 7y ago

Is it that society was convinced? Or was/is it that it is more “out of sight, out of mind”? I think for the layperson, little matters other than how much does it cost? If there is some invisible but safe-for-us chemical that increases yield and decreases cost, all the better for us, right? I think this is one of the great things to come out of the invention of the web. We are becoming better informed and this kind of information is becoming more prevalent. It’s becoming much harder for these big corporations to hide these negative side effects (insect decline, Round-Up cancers etc) and we as a population are becoming more aware of the negative side effects of our imprint on the world.

rollthehard6 7y ago
Reminds of all those times we are told that 'customers demanded X', as if we all stood outside supermarkets with placards saying, "We demand huge strawberries that don't taste of anything". The market does what helps the market, it often isn't good for people or the planet they inhabit - that's the story of our current era and customers need to demand change on that basis.
- jimhi 7y ago
  We did demand X though. The supermarkets had both tasteless strawberries and organic ones and we made our choice. Many supermarkets still have organic ones and we still pick the cheaper, larger, less tasty one.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Except, they don’t actually give you a way to judge taste. With apples people learn of better tasting variety, but strawberries are unlabeled.
    - enriquto 7y ago
      aren't they? here in France there are a few labelled varieties (not as many labels as apples, though)
      - Retric 7y ago
        At least in the US it looks like this: https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-fresh-fruits-berries-fruit-stand-market-nectarines-cherry-strawberry-blueberry-rashberry-apricot-public-stall-image94655473 https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-fresh-fruits-berries-... You don’t actually know anything about the strawberries in the bottom left other than their organic.
        Glawen 7y ago
        In France they show the country of origin (region when it is from France) and the variety. Sometimes they state if it is organic. Generally, the French fruits are more expensive but tastier. But when it is the high season of the fruit, like july/august for melon, then the french one are also cheaper.
    - ravar 7y ago
      I don't do this, but I do notice that in super markets lots of people do try the fruit before they it. So there are ways of making sure you get good fruit.
marmaduke 7y ago
> We are becoming better informed 'Distracted' is probable a more accurate median adjective for this phrase. With Google you don't have confirmation bias, just confirmation.
mhkool 7y ago
you are neglecting the negative effects of spraying billions of tons of Roundup on the planet before the public knows for sure that it is a dangerous poison. Same with neonics, we sprayed too much and the insect populations shrunk too much and will not revive quickly since the poison is still in plants and soil. The obvious thing is that industries work for profit and have no sympathy with insects or the health of individuals and that we are unable to regulate industries in a proper way.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  I think this "Roundup is a dangerous poison" was a propaganda meme that came out of the need to demonize US agribusiness in Europe. It's a kind of social activism protectionism. I would not be at all surprised to learn it was sustained by funding from ag interests in Europe. OF course Roundup is not a dangerous poison. This is simply a lie that is repeated over and over by the dishonest and the gullible.
  - taneq 7y ago
    Poe's Law is strong with this one. I can't tell if you're serious or if this is advanced snarkasm.
    - pfdietz 7y ago
      Totally serious. The anti-Roundup fervor is of a kind with anti-GMO fervor. The goal of it is to provide a pretext to exclude cheaper US agricultural products from Europe.
      - jyounker 7y ago
        I don’t trust the research that was done on roundup. Supposedly it degrades within six months. The reality is that it doesn’t. We know this because the city of Davis, CA does public composting. Yard trimmings are scooped up, taken to the city compost yard, and over a year or som it becomes compost. Residents can pick up a quantity of free compost every year. Around ‘97-‘98 the city compost started killing many kinds of plants. The cause turned out to be glyphosphate. Despite Monsanto’s research, the reality was that glyphosate persists far longer than six months.
elorant 7y ago
It's a mix of both. If you want to eat tomatoes in the middle of winter agriculture will have to use a lot of pesticides. If society didn't have ridiculous expectations my guess is that the industry would use more sustainable methods of growing food.
- bbddg 7y ago
  Everyone wants to eat tomatoes in the middle of winter! I also want ice cream that tastes great but has no calories. If some company makes an ice cream like that but we find out 10 years later it's leading to the extinction of many insect species on the planet. Is it really my fault for buying the ice cream? Not the producers fault for using chemicals with such huge downsides?
  - elorant 7y ago
    Of course you're fucking responsible. We all are in some way. And that's the thing. We need to start acting more responsibly instead of expecting someone else to solve our problems. We can't live in a world where we consume meat three times a week. Demand drives the market and what the market does is deforesting huge areas to grow grass to feed the cows which in turn add tons of methane to the atmosphere. Companies won't change unless we change our habits. And no, not everyone wants to eat tomatoes in the middle of winter. People who are more knowledgeable about food production never eat fruits and vegetables out of their seasons.
    - bbddg 7y ago
      I do think we all share some blame. We live in a democracy (no matter how flawed) and we bear some of the burden of the decisions of society as a whole. The answer to these problems however isn't just saying "everyone stop eating tomatoes in the winter." You know full well that tomatoes grown in the summer are grown using the same shit, they can just source them from somewhere a little bit further north. Why is it that I can go to the grocery store and see two different types of tomatoes: one type is cheaper and is killing the planet and the other is more expensive but safe for the environment? I have the means and the knowledge to buy the more expensive one but we can't expect that someone living paycheck to paycheck is going to be willing or even able to do the same. They aren't the ones to blame here. I do agree that we can't expect someone else to solve this problem for us. We need collective action to demand significant regulation and change to the economic system. Scolding individual people for making rational economic decisions when they have a boot on their neck isn't going to fix anything.
peignoir 7y ago
If it helps the place where I’ve seen nature taking back was Chernobyl. Looks like radioactivity is far less toxic than humans.
blablabla123 7y ago
> If there is some invisible but safe-for-us chemical that increases yield In fact increased yield is also kind of good for the environment because this way agriculture needs less space. (Speaking of deforestation because of agriculture...) But still, insecticides, fungicides etc. have been used far too carelessly in the past and of course it takes years or sometimes decades to see the effects...
- LargeWu 7y ago
  There's certainly a trade-off. However, grocery stores in the US discard massive amounts of produce, and then still more is wasted when consumers bring it home and don't use it. It feels like we would have plenty of room to reduce yields, ship less food around, and still get everybody fed. (that's a hypothesis, not a conclusion)
  - blablabla123 7y ago
    I'm too lazy to get the reference but at least for Germany or EU both numbers you mention (consumer throwaway rate + supermarket throwaway rate) were double digit. So yeah, your conclusion is pretty much justified ;)
rapind 7y ago
That would be true if not for massive disinformation campaigns by corporate interests. Apparently most of us can't be bothered to dig into the source / motivations behind any media story, be it TV news, newspapers, Facebook feeds, Twitter posts, or blogs, etc.
colordrops 7y ago
> I think this is one of the great things to come out of the invention of the web. We are becoming better informed and this kind of information is becoming more prevalent. It’s becoming much harder for these big corporations to hide these negative side effects We are at the end of that era. The big corporations are slowly closing down that unintended loophole in which the internet was a tool for free movement of knowledge. Google now filters and shapes results into their idea of what is OK rather than exactly what you are searching for [1]. The FBI just called conspiracy theorists a domestic threat [2] and open forums are under attack [3]. Not long ago you were a nutjob for claiming Monsanto and Roundup were anything other than gifts from God. We will be going back to that world soon enough. [1] http://autocompleteaudit.com/autocomplete/Bill%20clinton http://autocompleteaudit.com/autocomplete/Bill%20clinton [2] https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/fbi-document-conspiracy-theories-domestic-terrorism-threat-2019-8 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/fbi-doc... [3] https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/clxdjk/conspiracy_theorist_crackdown_and_the_targeting/ https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/clxdjk/conspira...
- flatline 7y ago
  People were fighting Monsanto back in the late 90s. If anything I think they have improved their public image, poor though it still is.
  - ncmncm 7y ago
    Now they are Bayer, and Monsanto doesn't exist anymore. The same people are still poisoning us, though.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  "The FBI assesses anti-government, identity based, and fringe political conspiracy theories very likely motivate some domestic extremists, wholly or in part, to commit criminal and sometimes violent activity," the document said. "The FBI further assesses in some cases these conspiracy theories very likely encourage the targeting of specific people, places, and organizations, thereby increasing the likelihood of violence against these targets." Gee, what a bunch of authoritarian whack jobs.
DennisP 7y ago
Considering the amount of pesticide that homeowners spray in their own yards, I'd say most of society was pretty much convinced.

ThomPete 7y ago

The outcome is also better lives, less sickness, healthy crops etc. yes there are drawbacks but the goal isnt just good or bad its good and bad, the discussion we can have is whether is more good than bad or vice versa.

buboard 7y ago

If all people started growing their own food it would be far worse. I believe thats how people were convinced

mortdeus 7y ago

well because evolution has made it so that what kills insects only manages to give us a really bad headache (and potentially cancer way down the line, but everything gives us cancer so that is okay)

jacobwilliamroy 7y ago

Men and women went to great lengths to make sure no one ever got a straight answer regarding glyphosate. Y'know they use it to kill wheat before harvesting? Makes it lighter so the harvester can save a few piastres. Whole wheat bread can actually be a lot less clean than white bread, because the glyphosate is not washed off of the outer layer of the grain, which is discarded in the production of white bread. Is it safe to eat glyphosate? Well Patrick Moore says that a person could drink a glass of the stuff and be fine. He also said "no I won't drink it. I'm not an idiot." In Hawaii I notice absurd amounts of pesticide use. Look at any place where humans gather: if it has plants, it has pesticide. Golf course, soccer field, planter, sidewalk turf.

maxerickson 7y ago
The application of herbicides before harvest is about more than making things easier for the harvester: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_desiccation

SubiculumCode 7y ago

Not juat agriculture, every lawn and apartment complex.

chiefalchemist 7y ago

> That’s really weird. From what I can gather (anecdotally) is most of them would rather trust the system, or blame the system, than confront the fact they are undermining their children's future. Stormy Daniel's is a concern. The shite passing for food on the kitchen table is not nearly as important. I'm not joking when I say, we are in The Matrix - just batteries for the machine.

amelius 7y ago

> The only thing that seems weird to me is how society was so easily convinced that soaking all our food in poison is OK and not a problem all good thumbs up. That’s really weird. It's probably more a "tragedy of the commons" type of thing. If X is detrimental to society but necessary for big players to make more money, then you can bet X will happen. Especially if society doesn't find out immediately about the bad aspects.

aedocw 7y ago

As another person said, its more about being "out of sight, out of mind". But the biggest component is cost and availability. Large scale farming (unsustainable over the long term) with a single crop per season and minimal rotation allowed for huge crop yields over the short term which drove prices down. At this point the majority of consumers do not want to pay more than they've become accustomed to paying for any fruits or vegetables. Sustainable farming costs more in the short term. Over the long term it is the only reasonable way to farm. The book "Lentil Underground" by Liz Carlisle was a great read on this topic.

throwaway94857 7y ago

>"that's really weird" Not really, given that our use of pesticides allows us to feed billions of people worldwide at low cost. Rates of hunger in the developed world are almost non-existent and globally hunger rates are as low as they've ever been and continue to plummet. Pesticide treated food is safe and healthy too, so we're feeding the world with safe and healthy food. This is a great thing. It's not surprising at all that people would say all good. There would need to be some catastrophic side effects of pesticide use for people to even think about questioning it. So far all problems related to pesticides have been far, far outweighed by them giving us the ability to feed billions.

ncmncm 7y ago
Thereby causing global climate disruption, likely ultimately causing billions to starve. Nice work.
- throwaway94857 7y ago
  We'll be fine. We already have the tool to save the climate (nuclear), just need to actually use it.
  - ncmncm 7y ago
    It would take far too long to get enough nuke capacity online to do any good, and would steal capital from more cost-effective measures. Nuke power was never justifiable on a cost basis, and is much less so now than ever before.

lisper 7y ago

> The only thing that seems weird to me is how society was so easily convinced that soaking all our food in poison is OK and not a problem all good thumbs up. That’s really weird. Not really. The alternative was having all our food eaten by insects and not having enough left over for ourselves. It's kind of a no-brainer in the short run.

turk73 7y ago

It's not weird in the sense that technology has no human values. Just like the invention of nerve gas or the atom bomb, technology can serve a positive or a negative purpose and it won't care a bit if the human race goes extinct. Just because "we" created something doesn't mean "we" have the last word. This is why I keep hammering on mass surveillance--this stuff is not our friend. "Get rid of insects" was the goal, now we're rid of them and whole ecosystems are crashing. I keep seeing Monarch butterflies around here and I wonder what they are eating since there is no milkweed in any direction.