4 ms·

Presumably, using natural fertilizers would make a difference, as you'd expect a wider range of minerals than in straight haber-process fertilizer. I don't know

Presumably, using natural fertilizers would make a difference, as you'd expect a wider range of minerals than in straight haber-process fertilizer. I don't know if natural fertilizers are always a requirement for organic food, though.

jjoonathan 7y ago
If this is actually a problem, I'd much rather someone figure out which minerals need to go into the fertilizer mix (plus some downstream monitoring) than to assume that putting poop on the vegetables makes them wholesome.
- spenczar5 7y ago
  Why do you prefer that? I don’t particularly care either way, so blanket-preferring man-made chemical fertilizers strikes me as odd.
  - jjoonathan 7y ago
    Preferring measurability strikes you as odd?
    - oh_sigh 7y ago
      You can't miss what you can't measure.
- all_usernames 7y ago
  Ten thousand years of agriculture is an assumption?
  - jjoonathan 7y ago
    People have put up with a lot of shit -- literal and metaphorical -- over the last ten thousand years. I don't understand the assumption that it simply must be better than anything chemistry has to offer, and I find the aversion to measurement and control inherently suspicious.
    - phs318u 7y ago
      > I find the aversion to ... control inherently suspicious. Interesting. Could you please expand on that? Personally, I find the desire to control inherently suspicious.
      - jnbiche 7y ago
        I'd assume he/she means control in the engineering sense of the word: testing and inspecting. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/control https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/control Merriam Webster says that meaning (definition 1a) of the word "control" is archaic, but I still hear it used from time to time. It's commonly used in a number of European languages.
        nitrogen 7y ago
        Could also be in the sense of "control theory", where a feedback loop like measure->analyze->predict->change->repeat is applied.
    - fragmede 7y ago
      No one is saying don't measure things. Fertilizer doesn't come from mysticism and homepathy but from science - make a guess (hypothesis) and test to see if it works. The issue is that we've focused on volume of output from a field, rather than mineral content of vegetables, which is far harder to measure.
    - defterGoose 7y ago
      The problem with how you're framing this is that the scientific methods that go into such developments don't take into account certain "externalities". Measurement and control can only be exercised inasmuch as you can understand the totality of the system. In this case: broader effects on human health and ecosystems. As someone with a strong scientific background, it sometimes seems to me that the science and engineering of the past couple centuries has been so focused on the intricacies of specific problems that they haven't left their practitioners enough leeway to consider their place in the constellation of human activity. I'm not saying that there would have been another way to accomplish these feats, but that the problems are so difficult that it's left to other (sometimes non-scientific) people to evaluate their value to society.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    People drank river water for ten thousand years, but most of that is very far from clean/good. Manure works fine. That doesn't mean it's anywhere near optimal.
- pasabagi 7y ago
  For what it's worth, I totally agree. Without artificial fertilizer, half the world would starve. I don't think that kind of process makes sense within the context of capitalism, though. One obvious driver in the downward nutritional trend is the fact that faster-growing, larger, longer-lasting vegetables are better products, even if they taste worse and do less for the body. The problem with products is they're optimized for sale, not for use. Adding in extra nutrients is unlikely to improve the product, since it would increase costs.
  - primroot 7y ago
    > faster-growing, larger, longer-lasting vegetables are better product Whatever product fits into the economies of scale, and selective commoditization solely for the sake of profit concentration not nutrition or environment. But back to the idea of measuring everything. These are the counterpoints I can think about regarding measuring and controling: * Measuring and controlling cost resources, some less, some more. E.g. It is easier to measure yields than to measure nutrition. * There is imperfect knowledge on how to respond (control) after a given measurement, or even what measurements are important. E.g. Premature optimization, Goodhart's law, lack of certainty regarding nutrition. * There are conflicting interests on what the result of controlling should be. E.g. more profits or more nutrition? * Under appropriate circumstances systems can respond to variability or keep functioning without human control or input. This is resilience. E.g. Pollinating insects, edible weeds.
- jonplackett 7y ago
  What, just because you're grossed out by poo?

jjoonathan 7y ago

If this is actually a problem, I'd much rather someone figure out which minerals need to go into the fertilizer mix (plus some downstream monitoring) than to assume that putting poop on the vegetables makes them wholesome.

spenczar5 7y ago
Why do you prefer that? I don’t particularly care either way, so blanket-preferring man-made chemical fertilizers strikes me as odd.
- jjoonathan 7y ago
  Preferring measurability strikes you as odd?
  - oh_sigh 7y ago
    You can't miss what you can't measure.
all_usernames 7y ago
Ten thousand years of agriculture is an assumption?
- jjoonathan 7y ago
  People have put up with a lot of shit -- literal and metaphorical -- over the last ten thousand years. I don't understand the assumption that it simply must be better than anything chemistry has to offer, and I find the aversion to measurement and control inherently suspicious.
  - phs318u 7y ago
    > I find the aversion to ... control inherently suspicious. Interesting. Could you please expand on that? Personally, I find the desire to control inherently suspicious.
    - jnbiche 7y ago
      I'd assume he/she means control in the engineering sense of the word: testing and inspecting. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/control https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/control Merriam Webster says that meaning (definition 1a) of the word "control" is archaic, but I still hear it used from time to time. It's commonly used in a number of European languages.
      - nitrogen 7y ago
        Could also be in the sense of "control theory", where a feedback loop like measure->analyze->predict->change->repeat is applied.
  - fragmede 7y ago
    No one is saying don't measure things. Fertilizer doesn't come from mysticism and homepathy but from science - make a guess (hypothesis) and test to see if it works. The issue is that we've focused on volume of output from a field, rather than mineral content of vegetables, which is far harder to measure.
  - defterGoose 7y ago
    The problem with how you're framing this is that the scientific methods that go into such developments don't take into account certain "externalities". Measurement and control can only be exercised inasmuch as you can understand the totality of the system. In this case: broader effects on human health and ecosystems. As someone with a strong scientific background, it sometimes seems to me that the science and engineering of the past couple centuries has been so focused on the intricacies of specific problems that they haven't left their practitioners enough leeway to consider their place in the constellation of human activity. I'm not saying that there would have been another way to accomplish these feats, but that the problems are so difficult that it's left to other (sometimes non-scientific) people to evaluate their value to society.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  People drank river water for ten thousand years, but most of that is very far from clean/good. Manure works fine. That doesn't mean it's anywhere near optimal.
pasabagi 7y ago
For what it's worth, I totally agree. Without artificial fertilizer, half the world would starve. I don't think that kind of process makes sense within the context of capitalism, though. One obvious driver in the downward nutritional trend is the fact that faster-growing, larger, longer-lasting vegetables are better products, even if they taste worse and do less for the body. The problem with products is they're optimized for sale, not for use. Adding in extra nutrients is unlikely to improve the product, since it would increase costs.
- primroot 7y ago
  > faster-growing, larger, longer-lasting vegetables are better product Whatever product fits into the economies of scale, and selective commoditization solely for the sake of profit concentration not nutrition or environment. But back to the idea of measuring everything. These are the counterpoints I can think about regarding measuring and controling: * Measuring and controlling cost resources, some less, some more. E.g. It is easier to measure yields than to measure nutrition. * There is imperfect knowledge on how to respond (control) after a given measurement, or even what measurements are important. E.g. Premature optimization, Goodhart's law, lack of certainty regarding nutrition. * There are conflicting interests on what the result of controlling should be. E.g. more profits or more nutrition? * Under appropriate circumstances systems can respond to variability or keep functioning without human control or input. This is resilience. E.g. Pollinating insects, edible weeds.
jonplackett 7y ago
What, just because you're grossed out by poo?