5 ms·

> The downside is you can't automate harvest So who are you planning to put to work as agricultural stoop-labor peasants? Are you volunteering? I mean, we used

> The downside is you can't automate harvest So who are you planning to put to work as agricultural stoop-labor peasants? Are you volunteering? I mean, we used to harvest all our crops that way. The people who did it were generally...not volunteers. As far as higher yields go, I don't believe you. See: https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/images/CornYieldTrend_US.gif https://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/images/Co...

arrosenberg 7y ago
> So who are you planning to put to work as agricultural stoop-labor peasants? Are you volunteering? I mean, we used to harvest all our crops that way. The people who did it were generally...not volunteers. I find it strange how we have cell phones and solar power and other these other wonders, and yet arguments always goes straight to slavery anytime the specter of higher labor costs comes up. One would think innovation, especially on this forum. The obvious, immediate way would be to fix the immigration laws and enforcement to allow in as much guest labor as needed. If the economics are an issue, then selective use of farm subsidies are appropriate given the positive value being added to the land in terms of increased productivity and soil quality. Eventually innovation will bring the costs down. > As far as higher yields go, I don't believe you. Another silly comparison to the past - agricultural science has advanced multiple times in the last 80 years. No one would argue that modern, chemistry-based farming isn't productive, simply that it's less productive (and far, FAR more detrimental to the soil) than what modern science around restorative agriculture can produce. Restorative Ag 101: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A For what it's worth, I also think Corn yields are probably impacted by how heavily subsidized it is. That's a policy that started with the New Deal in 1933, so it makes sense that the graphic would start to increase there.
- bradleyjg 7y ago
  > If the economics are an issue, then selective use of farm subsidies are appropriate given the positive value being added to the land in terms of increased productivity and soil quality. Wait, what? If the farmer’s asset is getting more valuable how is that an argument for public subsidies?
  - undersuit 7y ago
    Farmer's are going to plant what's profitable, not what's going to feed the nation in six months. Subsidies can allow the government to incentivize for feeding the nation, or as crop insurance when we consistently grow too much corn and want to play chemist.
    - bradleyjg 7y ago
      How many cycles of spikes in demand six months out does it take to develop a futures market that spikes six months out and makes planting what's going to feed the nation in six months profitable today? Besides which, I don't see any danger in Americans starving. We export enormous quantities of food and many food crops are, when you get right down to it, substitutes. I see zero reason to continue subsiding agriculture--big, small, cash crop, heirloom vegetable, dairy, or anything else. Whether through cash, subsidized insurance, water policy, protectionist measures, or anything else. Let the chips fall where they may.
      - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
        Subsidies must end. In the USA, subsidies are for commodity crops traded in Wall Street. Not for our food. A vast majority of it goes to feed too, but factory farms and CAFOs shouldn’t be encouraged anyways.
- Turing_Machine 7y ago
  > I find it strange how we have cell phones and solar power and other these other wonders, and yet arguments always goes straight to slavery anytime the specter of higher labor costs comes up. It's not "strange" at all. Either the crops are cultivated and harvested by machinery, or they're cultivated and harvested by back-breaking human labor. You can either pay those laborers subsistence peasant wages, or you can raise the price of food dramatically (which of course means that other poor people can't afford food). Your choice, dude. > The obvious, immediate way would be to fix the immigration laws and enforcement to allow in as much guest labor as needed. Oh, I see. You'll import people from other countries to work as peasants. Because that's what they're good for, right? Bah. > than what modern science around restorative agriculture can produce. Demonstrate that this can work at scale, without raising the price of food, and without creating or importing a new peasant class. Until then, it's just a fantasy.
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  Please stop. Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that we import labour to do physically hard work that we can’t do when it’s possible to create ag bots and intelligent machines to do it? This is the argument..that we can get cheap manual labour from poor countries..that’s impeding ag innovations.

arrosenberg 7y ago

> So who are you planning to put to work as agricultural stoop-labor peasants? Are you volunteering? I mean, we used to harvest all our crops that way. The people who did it were generally...not volunteers. I find it strange how we have cell phones and solar power and other these other wonders, and yet arguments always goes straight to slavery anytime the specter of higher labor costs comes up. One would think innovation, especially on this forum. The obvious, immediate way would be to fix the immigration laws and enforcement to allow in as much guest labor as needed. If the economics are an issue, then selective use of farm subsidies are appropriate given the positive value being added to the land in terms of increased productivity and soil quality. Eventually innovation will bring the costs down. > As far as higher yields go, I don't believe you. Another silly comparison to the past - agricultural science has advanced multiple times in the last 80 years. No one would argue that modern, chemistry-based farming isn't productive, simply that it's less productive (and far, FAR more detrimental to the soil) than what modern science around restorative agriculture can produce. Restorative Ag 101: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A For what it's worth, I also think Corn yields are probably impacted by how heavily subsidized it is. That's a policy that started with the New Deal in 1933, so it makes sense that the graphic would start to increase there.

bradleyjg 7y ago
> If the economics are an issue, then selective use of farm subsidies are appropriate given the positive value being added to the land in terms of increased productivity and soil quality. Wait, what? If the farmer’s asset is getting more valuable how is that an argument for public subsidies?
- undersuit 7y ago
  Farmer's are going to plant what's profitable, not what's going to feed the nation in six months. Subsidies can allow the government to incentivize for feeding the nation, or as crop insurance when we consistently grow too much corn and want to play chemist.
  - bradleyjg 7y ago
    How many cycles of spikes in demand six months out does it take to develop a futures market that spikes six months out and makes planting what's going to feed the nation in six months profitable today? Besides which, I don't see any danger in Americans starving. We export enormous quantities of food and many food crops are, when you get right down to it, substitutes. I see zero reason to continue subsiding agriculture--big, small, cash crop, heirloom vegetable, dairy, or anything else. Whether through cash, subsidized insurance, water policy, protectionist measures, or anything else. Let the chips fall where they may.
    - jelliclesfarm 7y ago
      Subsidies must end. In the USA, subsidies are for commodity crops traded in Wall Street. Not for our food. A vast majority of it goes to feed too, but factory farms and CAFOs shouldn’t be encouraged anyways.
Turing_Machine 7y ago
> I find it strange how we have cell phones and solar power and other these other wonders, and yet arguments always goes straight to slavery anytime the specter of higher labor costs comes up. It's not "strange" at all. Either the crops are cultivated and harvested by machinery, or they're cultivated and harvested by back-breaking human labor. You can either pay those laborers subsistence peasant wages, or you can raise the price of food dramatically (which of course means that other poor people can't afford food). Your choice, dude. > The obvious, immediate way would be to fix the immigration laws and enforcement to allow in as much guest labor as needed. Oh, I see. You'll import people from other countries to work as peasants. Because that's what they're good for, right? Bah. > than what modern science around restorative agriculture can produce. Demonstrate that this can work at scale, without raising the price of food, and without creating or importing a new peasant class. Until then, it's just a fantasy.
jelliclesfarm 7y ago
Please stop. Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that we import labour to do physically hard work that we can’t do when it’s possible to create ag bots and intelligent machines to do it? This is the argument..that we can get cheap manual labour from poor countries..that’s impeding ag innovations.