4 ms·

If you read closely their response is basically a Luddite, anti-tech response. Their problem with the parent was that it suggested using technology.

mikeg8 6y ago
I'm definitely not anti-technology as a whole, but I very much think many of the environmental problems we're facing in agriculture were caused by an over reliance on technology in the first place. We abstracted ourselves out of the process too much and it has had horrible consequences.
- freeqaz 6y ago
  There is an element of truth to this. I agree -- people are out of touch with the world around them, on average. But it's a double-edged sword. The abstraction has been hugely beneficial to society as a whole. Specialization lets us create entirely new industries. These problems can't be ignored forever though. Eventually the dollar figure behind them will motivate even the most conservative actors. If it's cheaper to use better technology, and that technology doesn't have the same side effects, then there is no reason to continue to harm. We're just not there yet.
  - hosh 6y ago
    Having been wrangling this over the years, I've come to conclude that these abstractions create more problems than it benefits society. I think these very abstractions are the cause of class inequalities, and by extension, racial and gender inequalities as well. Many identity issues come from that specialization. We've defined worth to society to how economically productive someone is. There are many things that society as a whole and individuals can benefit from, but society don't value them economically to pay for them. People involved in that (such as artists and musicians) are constantly struggling with the tension of authentic expression as an artist and creating something popular so they can make a living wage. I won't even go into how these abstractions are a detriment to mental and emotional health, let alone, someone's spiritual life. I am not advocating for things to go back "to the way they used to be". Rather, I think there is a way to move forward. I think it will involve decentralizing our food system using resilient, and regenerative practices at the household and neighborhood scale. People will have to become more involved with growing their food, and that is generally a good thing. We have collected a number of design patterns that can yield nutrient-dense foods without as much labor, and reducing transport costs to ... going to your backyard (or going down the street). Our society is already moving towards more remote work (for some segment of our populous at least), and that will drive a trend towards the hyperlocal. The big missing piece is the decentralized food system.
- reggieband 6y ago
  I have a coworker who grew up on a farm. When asked about the experience he has almost nothing positive to say about the experience. Working on a farm, even in modern times, does sound like a significant step down from the relative comforts of city living. If advances in technology can decrease the burden on farming then we may see people willingly choose that lifestyle.
  - ricardobeat 6y ago
    "Growing up on a farm" can have vastly different meanings across places - from living next to an industrial-scale operation to an idyllic, quiet small farm surrounded by nature.
    - JackFr 6y ago
      > an idyllic, quiet small farm surrounded by nature. That sounds more like a country house — or a tax dodge— than it does a working farm.
      - ricardobeat 6y ago
        Well, that goes to show it. Not every country has gotten rid of small-scale family farms. I used to visit a place just like that in Brazil, and a friend's parents also still live in such a setting in France.
      - mikeg8 6y ago
        There has been an incredible resurgence of small scale farms, in the range of 40-300 acres, that are a combo of country house and working farm. Some are capable of feeding thousands of community families. Not all food comes from industry.
- airstrike 6y ago
  Citation still needed. The environmental problems we're facing in agriculture seems more closely related to our need to improve yield given limited land / proximity with customers. If you hate on agricultural technology, you're just hating on the effect, not the cause. Most people are against your so-called "environmental problems". It's just that solutions have to be financially sustainable besides being environmentally sustainable. The original comment you replied to was suggesting how that trade-off can be fixed with technology, just like many other trade-offs before it.
  - mikeg8 6y ago
    Top soil depletion, nutrient deficiencies in crops, watershed damage from excess fertilizer run-off, insect population decline from overuse of pesticides; these are all real issue. I'm accurate in hating the effect... the cause is ignorance and shortsightedness.
- mikepurvis 6y ago
  Biointensive gardening and earth-centric/organic/whatever methods definitely have their place, but it would be a huge shift to grow everything that way, and it's far from clear that it's even workable for the volumes needed for the big staple crops like corn, wheat, and soy. The idea of bringing companion planting, cover cropping, etc to conventional agriculture by way of increased automation is a fascinating one, in part because of how pragmatic it is. It could allow those methods to scale much more than they do today, and allow a conventional farmer to adopt them incrementally, realizing the savings piecemeal (better yield here, reduced fertilizer use there, etc). This is going to be way more realistic than trying to reboot the whole system from scratch, especially to a method that requires 100x the labour inputs. And it's definitely closer to the land than the other high tech direction, which is closed loop indoor hydroponic/aquaponic system— essentially doubling down on the monoculture approach by isolating the whole operation even more from unwanted natural inputs (pests, weather, and so on).
  - mikeg8 6y ago
    Thanks for your great comment, it's helping further the discussion and my own understanding. > but it would be a huge shift to grow everything that way, and it's far from clear that it's even workable for the volumes needed for the big staple crops like corn, wheat, and soy. Agree completely. But I think a huge shift is very much needed, and this shift may decrease our dependencies on staples like corn, much of which goes to cattle feed and fuel uses when we have other, more ecological methods like pastured beef, solar etc. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-c... RE 2nd paragraph, also totally agree with, minus the "100x labor inputs". If done properly, bio-mimicry in Ag should decrease labor inputs as you leverage the advantages of natural plant/soil nutrient cycling, reduced watering and tillage from cover cropping and soil development, reduction of pesticide application by attracting animal/insect diversity etc. From my understanding, "conventional" farming (I say ironically as we've really only been practicing these methods for ~60-70 years vs millennia of small scale farming that is the real "conventional"methods lol) has forced us to increase labor inputs - adding fertilizers, pesticides, annual tillage, managing irrigation systems - these are all things that can be eliminated, if the proper systems are put in place. Gabe Browns book, Dirt to Soil was an eye opening read. Cheers.
flycaliguy 6y ago
I suppose somebody calling for a paradigm shift would be called a “Luddite”.
hosh 6y ago
I know what you mean by "Luddite", but historically, they were not anti-tech either. They broke machines to gain leverage and put pressure over employers to give better working conditions, and not because they hated machines. There are many design patterns in regenerative agriculture that works, but are low-tech or no-tech. It isn't that you need to be anti-tech; it is that we don't need high tech to solve these problems. They are low-tech because you are allowing natural processes to do things on its own, for the most part. Nature, not technology, is the "automation".
- minerjoe 6y ago
  "Appropriate technology" https://www.appropedia.org https://www.appropedia.org I believe we are of similar understanding here. Great to read your responses here. Here's to the wish that we could share a conversation at some point. Trade notes.
  - hosh 6y ago
    Send me an email sometime (talktohosh at gmail). This stuff I am deep diving —- permaculture design —- is still fairly new to me. But I had started to reevaluate the existing tech in my life in the context of the main ethical principles of permaculture (care of earth, care of people, fair share).

mikeg8 6y ago

I'm definitely not anti-technology as a whole, but I very much think many of the environmental problems we're facing in agriculture were caused by an over reliance on technology in the first place. We abstracted ourselves out of the process too much and it has had horrible consequences.

freeqaz 6y ago
There is an element of truth to this. I agree -- people are out of touch with the world around them, on average. But it's a double-edged sword. The abstraction has been hugely beneficial to society as a whole. Specialization lets us create entirely new industries. These problems can't be ignored forever though. Eventually the dollar figure behind them will motivate even the most conservative actors. If it's cheaper to use better technology, and that technology doesn't have the same side effects, then there is no reason to continue to harm. We're just not there yet.
- hosh 6y ago
  Having been wrangling this over the years, I've come to conclude that these abstractions create more problems than it benefits society. I think these very abstractions are the cause of class inequalities, and by extension, racial and gender inequalities as well. Many identity issues come from that specialization. We've defined worth to society to how economically productive someone is. There are many things that society as a whole and individuals can benefit from, but society don't value them economically to pay for them. People involved in that (such as artists and musicians) are constantly struggling with the tension of authentic expression as an artist and creating something popular so they can make a living wage. I won't even go into how these abstractions are a detriment to mental and emotional health, let alone, someone's spiritual life. I am not advocating for things to go back "to the way they used to be". Rather, I think there is a way to move forward. I think it will involve decentralizing our food system using resilient, and regenerative practices at the household and neighborhood scale. People will have to become more involved with growing their food, and that is generally a good thing. We have collected a number of design patterns that can yield nutrient-dense foods without as much labor, and reducing transport costs to ... going to your backyard (or going down the street). Our society is already moving towards more remote work (for some segment of our populous at least), and that will drive a trend towards the hyperlocal. The big missing piece is the decentralized food system.
reggieband 6y ago
I have a coworker who grew up on a farm. When asked about the experience he has almost nothing positive to say about the experience. Working on a farm, even in modern times, does sound like a significant step down from the relative comforts of city living. If advances in technology can decrease the burden on farming then we may see people willingly choose that lifestyle.
- ricardobeat 6y ago
  "Growing up on a farm" can have vastly different meanings across places - from living next to an industrial-scale operation to an idyllic, quiet small farm surrounded by nature.
  - JackFr 6y ago
    > an idyllic, quiet small farm surrounded by nature. That sounds more like a country house — or a tax dodge— than it does a working farm.
    - ricardobeat 6y ago
      Well, that goes to show it. Not every country has gotten rid of small-scale family farms. I used to visit a place just like that in Brazil, and a friend's parents also still live in such a setting in France.
    - mikeg8 6y ago
      There has been an incredible resurgence of small scale farms, in the range of 40-300 acres, that are a combo of country house and working farm. Some are capable of feeding thousands of community families. Not all food comes from industry.
airstrike 6y ago
Citation still needed. The environmental problems we're facing in agriculture seems more closely related to our need to improve yield given limited land / proximity with customers. If you hate on agricultural technology, you're just hating on the effect, not the cause. Most people are against your so-called "environmental problems". It's just that solutions have to be financially sustainable besides being environmentally sustainable. The original comment you replied to was suggesting how that trade-off can be fixed with technology, just like many other trade-offs before it.
- mikeg8 6y ago
  Top soil depletion, nutrient deficiencies in crops, watershed damage from excess fertilizer run-off, insect population decline from overuse of pesticides; these are all real issue. I'm accurate in hating the effect... the cause is ignorance and shortsightedness.
mikepurvis 6y ago
Biointensive gardening and earth-centric/organic/whatever methods definitely have their place, but it would be a huge shift to grow everything that way, and it's far from clear that it's even workable for the volumes needed for the big staple crops like corn, wheat, and soy. The idea of bringing companion planting, cover cropping, etc to conventional agriculture by way of increased automation is a fascinating one, in part because of how pragmatic it is. It could allow those methods to scale much more than they do today, and allow a conventional farmer to adopt them incrementally, realizing the savings piecemeal (better yield here, reduced fertilizer use there, etc). This is going to be way more realistic than trying to reboot the whole system from scratch, especially to a method that requires 100x the labour inputs. And it's definitely closer to the land than the other high tech direction, which is closed loop indoor hydroponic/aquaponic system— essentially doubling down on the monoculture approach by isolating the whole operation even more from unwanted natural inputs (pests, weather, and so on).
- mikeg8 6y ago
  Thanks for your great comment, it's helping further the discussion and my own understanding. > but it would be a huge shift to grow everything that way, and it's far from clear that it's even workable for the volumes needed for the big staple crops like corn, wheat, and soy. Agree completely. But I think a huge shift is very much needed, and this shift may decrease our dependencies on staples like corn, much of which goes to cattle feed and fuel uses when we have other, more ecological methods like pastured beef, solar etc. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-c... RE 2nd paragraph, also totally agree with, minus the "100x labor inputs". If done properly, bio-mimicry in Ag should decrease labor inputs as you leverage the advantages of natural plant/soil nutrient cycling, reduced watering and tillage from cover cropping and soil development, reduction of pesticide application by attracting animal/insect diversity etc. From my understanding, "conventional" farming (I say ironically as we've really only been practicing these methods for ~60-70 years vs millennia of small scale farming that is the real "conventional"methods lol) has forced us to increase labor inputs - adding fertilizers, pesticides, annual tillage, managing irrigation systems - these are all things that can be eliminated, if the proper systems are put in place. Gabe Browns book, Dirt to Soil was an eye opening read. Cheers.

flycaliguy 6y ago

I suppose somebody calling for a paradigm shift would be called a “Luddite”.

hosh 6y ago

I know what you mean by "Luddite", but historically, they were not anti-tech either. They broke machines to gain leverage and put pressure over employers to give better working conditions, and not because they hated machines. There are many design patterns in regenerative agriculture that works, but are low-tech or no-tech. It isn't that you need to be anti-tech; it is that we don't need high tech to solve these problems. They are low-tech because you are allowing natural processes to do things on its own, for the most part. Nature, not technology, is the "automation".

minerjoe 6y ago
"Appropriate technology" https://www.appropedia.org https://www.appropedia.org I believe we are of similar understanding here. Great to read your responses here. Here's to the wish that we could share a conversation at some point. Trade notes.
- hosh 6y ago
  Send me an email sometime (talktohosh at gmail). This stuff I am deep diving —- permaculture design —- is still fairly new to me. But I had started to reevaluate the existing tech in my life in the context of the main ethical principles of permaculture (care of earth, care of people, fair share).