5 ms·

The author needs to read more about industry and history, they are wrong or ignorant about a lot of what they say. > all soil loses its fertility naturally ove

The author needs to read more about industry and history, they are wrong or ignorant about a lot of what they say. > all soil loses its fertility naturally over time Here the author is demonstrating their lack of understanding in soil biology. Think about this for a second, if soil naturally loses fertility over time then over the past million years the world would have become a barren waste land before humans got to it. Industrial agriculture uses heavy machinery that compacts the soil and tilling, both kill the microbial activity that naturally fertilises the soil. Because industrial agriculture destroys the soil fertility it must be artificially replaced not the other way around. > That those same crops would not be able to feed us if they were not also protected from pests Here the author is demonstrating their literacy lack and understanding of natural systems. In nature plants grow wild, in industrial agriculture we create monocultures of plants that allow pests and disease to spread easily between the plants resulting in famines like the Irish potato famine. > before we had electricity and clean natural gas, people burned unrefined solid fuels in their homes—wood, coal, even dung Here the author demonstrates their lack of history coal is one of the keys of the industrial revolution. They make it sound like we always produced CO2 at the levels of industry, this simply isn't true. https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/CO2_emissions_vs_concentrations_1751-2019_lrg.gif https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/CO2_emissions_vs... > plastics are produced in enormous quantities because, for so many purposes—from food containers to electrical wire coatings to children’s toys - we need a material that is cheap, light, flexible, waterproof, and insulating, and that can easily be made in any shape and color (including transparent!) We don't need to use plastics for the stated consumer purposes. I had a sandwich and some strawberries for lunch, the food was consumed immediately after purchase, the plastic packaging they came in will last forever, I can hand them down to my children and grand children long after I am dead. I didn't need them packaged in this way paper would have done or nothing at all. > Industrial literacy means understanding that the components of the global economy are not arbitrary. Each one is there for a reason—often a matter of life and death. Mater of life and death? Citation needed, the author makes it clear that their understanding of the global economy and industrial literacy are lacking or based on climate change denial propaganda, all of their examples demonstrate one consistent thing about industry. Industry consistently sacrifices long term sustainability for short term gain. Which is beneficial for me and the author at the cost of every human to come.

bzbarsky 6y ago
> if soil naturally loses fertility over time I think the implied context there is "when farmed by humans", no? The problem of soil fertility loss has plagued agriculture for literally thousands of year; it's discussed in the ancient Greek and Roman sources. You don't need to be sing industrial agriculture with heavy machinery to run into this problem. > In nature plants grow wild While true, not all of those plants are edible by humans. The reason we end up with monocultures is to increase yield per soil area and yield per labor input. Now we do tend to take this to unnecessary extremes in various cases (e.g. banana monocultures that have more to do with look than nutritive yield), but the fundamental point that equivalent overall production would require more soil area and more labor input if we used other pest protection techniques seems correct to me. If you have specific suggested reading showing otherwise, I would love a reference. > They make it sound like we always produced CO2 at the levels of industry Uh.. They're not talking about CO2 production. They are literally talking about how people heat their homes and what the health effects of that are. This has nothing to do with industry per se or CO2 emissions. The article doesn't even mention CO2, so you're reading things into it that it just doesn't say as far as I can tell.
- dangerface 6y ago
  > I think the implied context there is "when farmed by humans", no? They specifically state "naturally" as in "all soil loses its fertility naturally over time" they are clearly implying that its inevitable and unavoidable rather than man made. > The article doesn't even mention CO2, so you're reading things into it that it just doesn't say as far as I can tell. From the article I quoted > people burned unrefined solid fuels in their homes—wood, coal, even dung Burning these things releases CO2 into the air, I have to assume that you knew that I don't really know what your point is here when you where so happy to imply the exact opposite of what the author wrote. > The reason we end up with monocultures is to increase yield per soil area and yield per labor input. Different plants need different nutrients from the soil planting a monoculture creates massive competition for the same nutrients and subsequent nutrient depletion this is why you do crop rotation even with conventional tilling monocultures. Other nutrients the plants don't need remain in the soil and provide a feast for weed plants. You can easily stop this pest problem by understanding what nutrients your different plants need and then planting mixes appropriately. It's all about soil biology. The only reason we do monocultures is for labour input, could you imagine the amount of work trying to harvest different plants that are all mixed up? not a job for humans. > If you have specific suggested reading showing otherwise, I would love a reference. As you pointed out agriculture has been trying to improve fertility in soil for thousands of years and thanks to modern science we have more understanding of how soil biology works and how our old tilling practicies destroy that. Specifically search "Soil Biology" its a science, with lots of smart people that know more about soil fertility than you or me so I just take their word for it. For a more laymans understanding of soil biology and how our conventional tilling and monocultures destroy soil biology read the plowmans folly. I also talked about natural systems which is the same idea as Natural farming, specifically you should read the one straw revolution by Masanobu Fukuoka. Plants and nature are more productive when left alone from human intervention in cycles of death and rebirth and natural farming is about setting up these cycles in a system that benefits us rather than just wild. In contrast to the monoculture the author is advocating for where we till the soil killing the soil biology and then artificially try to create the right habitat with synthetic fertilizer and pesticide.

bzbarsky 6y ago

> if soil naturally loses fertility over time I think the implied context there is "when farmed by humans", no? The problem of soil fertility loss has plagued agriculture for literally thousands of year; it's discussed in the ancient Greek and Roman sources. You don't need to be sing industrial agriculture with heavy machinery to run into this problem. > In nature plants grow wild While true, not all of those plants are edible by humans. The reason we end up with monocultures is to increase yield per soil area and yield per labor input. Now we do tend to take this to unnecessary extremes in various cases (e.g. banana monocultures that have more to do with look than nutritive yield), but the fundamental point that equivalent overall production would require more soil area and more labor input if we used other pest protection techniques seems correct to me. If you have specific suggested reading showing otherwise, I would love a reference. > They make it sound like we always produced CO2 at the levels of industry Uh.. They're not talking about CO2 production. They are literally talking about how people heat their homes and what the health effects of that are. This has nothing to do with industry per se or CO2 emissions. The article doesn't even mention CO2, so you're reading things into it that it just doesn't say as far as I can tell.

dangerface 6y ago
> I think the implied context there is "when farmed by humans", no? They specifically state "naturally" as in "all soil loses its fertility naturally over time" they are clearly implying that its inevitable and unavoidable rather than man made. > The article doesn't even mention CO2, so you're reading things into it that it just doesn't say as far as I can tell. From the article I quoted > people burned unrefined solid fuels in their homes—wood, coal, even dung Burning these things releases CO2 into the air, I have to assume that you knew that I don't really know what your point is here when you where so happy to imply the exact opposite of what the author wrote. > The reason we end up with monocultures is to increase yield per soil area and yield per labor input. Different plants need different nutrients from the soil planting a monoculture creates massive competition for the same nutrients and subsequent nutrient depletion this is why you do crop rotation even with conventional tilling monocultures. Other nutrients the plants don't need remain in the soil and provide a feast for weed plants. You can easily stop this pest problem by understanding what nutrients your different plants need and then planting mixes appropriately. It's all about soil biology. The only reason we do monocultures is for labour input, could you imagine the amount of work trying to harvest different plants that are all mixed up? not a job for humans. > If you have specific suggested reading showing otherwise, I would love a reference. As you pointed out agriculture has been trying to improve fertility in soil for thousands of years and thanks to modern science we have more understanding of how soil biology works and how our old tilling practicies destroy that. Specifically search "Soil Biology" its a science, with lots of smart people that know more about soil fertility than you or me so I just take their word for it. For a more laymans understanding of soil biology and how our conventional tilling and monocultures destroy soil biology read the plowmans folly. I also talked about natural systems which is the same idea as Natural farming, specifically you should read the one straw revolution by Masanobu Fukuoka. Plants and nature are more productive when left alone from human intervention in cycles of death and rebirth and natural farming is about setting up these cycles in a system that benefits us rather than just wild. In contrast to the monoculture the author is advocating for where we till the soil killing the soil biology and then artificially try to create the right habitat with synthetic fertilizer and pesticide.