4 ms·

> 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

> 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
> They specifically state "naturally" The whole thing is in the context of farming. I really do think you're reading things into the text that aren't there... > Burning these things releases CO2 into the air Sure, but that has nothing to do with the author's point. The author's point is that burning these fuels in the typical home-heating setup that obtained throughout history produces nasty particulate emissions that are quite hazardous to health, and that using modern natural gas or electricity for heating does not have that problem. The key words here are "unrefined" and "solid", which is where your particulates come from. Yes, burning them releases CO2 as well, but that's the least of your problems with this sort of burn-chunks-of-random-stuff-for-heat setup. > You can easily stop this pest problem by understanding what nutrients your > different plants need and then planting mixes appropriately I would love to see a reference for this. I can see a mitigation for pests in the sense that you have multiple food crops being grown at once, so if one of them fails it's not a complete disaster. But to _stop_ the pest problem in the sense of having it not affect yields at all seems like it would require quite wide separation between individual plants of a given type, to prevent spread. Again, I would love to see more details here. > could you imagine the amount of work trying to harvest different plants that are all mixed up? Yes, having done it on a small scale. > specifically you should read the one straw revolution by Masanobu Fukuoka. Thank you, I will take a look. > In contrast to the monoculture the author is advocating for I think the author is observing, not advocating. He's pretty interested in how we can improve our practices of all sorts in general, and would probably appreciate pointers for further reading, I suspect.
- dangerface 6y ago
  > The whole thing is in the context of farming. The context is understanding the industrial revolution thats why there is only one argument about farming and the title is "Industrial Literacy". > Yes, burning them releases CO2 as well, but that's the least of your problems with this sort of burn-chunks-of-random-stuff-for-heat setup. Ok cool but you ignored my point that the burn-chunks-of-random-stuff-for-heat setup is exactly what industry does and it does it at a much larger scale than individuals. You are trying to compare the toxic smoke produced from individuals to the toxic smoke produced from industry as if they are the same or unavoidable when infact they are not. The toxic smoke produced by industry contains all the same toxins and the link I posted demonstrates that industry produces 6 times the amount of toxic smoke. > I would love to see a reference for this. I just gave you references, "Soil Biology" its a discipline of agricultural science with lots of literature and knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_biology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_biology But if you want me to point to one person / literature specifically then again read the one straw revolution by Masanobu Fukuoka > In contrast to the monoculture the author is advocating for They are advocating for "Industrial Literacy" but they have not read any literacy from modern day agricultural sciences or environmental sciences or at the very least they make arguments that are ignorant of this literature, with the end goal being "Don't worry its fine". If they are ignorant of Scientific Literacy while advocating for "Industrial Literacy" using the same arguments as climate change denial propaganda exactly what literature are they advocating people read? > I’ve said before that understanding where our modern standard of living comes from, at a basic level, is a responsibility of every citizen. it starts advocating "Industrial Literacy" as a responsibility of every citizen, and it ends that way too. > Let’s recognize the value of industrial literacy and commit to improving it—starting with ourselves. Please stop trying to inject false context into what the article states, the author is fairly clear on their understanding and intent.

bzbarsky 6y ago

> They specifically state "naturally" The whole thing is in the context of farming. I really do think you're reading things into the text that aren't there... > Burning these things releases CO2 into the air Sure, but that has nothing to do with the author's point. The author's point is that burning these fuels in the typical home-heating setup that obtained throughout history produces nasty particulate emissions that are quite hazardous to health, and that using modern natural gas or electricity for heating does not have that problem. The key words here are "unrefined" and "solid", which is where your particulates come from. Yes, burning them releases CO2 as well, but that's the least of your problems with this sort of burn-chunks-of-random-stuff-for-heat setup. > You can easily stop this pest problem by understanding what nutrients your > different plants need and then planting mixes appropriately I would love to see a reference for this. I can see a mitigation for pests in the sense that you have multiple food crops being grown at once, so if one of them fails it's not a complete disaster. But to _stop_ the pest problem in the sense of having it not affect yields at all seems like it would require quite wide separation between individual plants of a given type, to prevent spread. Again, I would love to see more details here. > could you imagine the amount of work trying to harvest different plants that are all mixed up? Yes, having done it on a small scale. > specifically you should read the one straw revolution by Masanobu Fukuoka. Thank you, I will take a look. > In contrast to the monoculture the author is advocating for I think the author is observing, not advocating. He's pretty interested in how we can improve our practices of all sorts in general, and would probably appreciate pointers for further reading, I suspect.

dangerface 6y ago
> The whole thing is in the context of farming. The context is understanding the industrial revolution thats why there is only one argument about farming and the title is "Industrial Literacy". > Yes, burning them releases CO2 as well, but that's the least of your problems with this sort of burn-chunks-of-random-stuff-for-heat setup. Ok cool but you ignored my point that the burn-chunks-of-random-stuff-for-heat setup is exactly what industry does and it does it at a much larger scale than individuals. You are trying to compare the toxic smoke produced from individuals to the toxic smoke produced from industry as if they are the same or unavoidable when infact they are not. The toxic smoke produced by industry contains all the same toxins and the link I posted demonstrates that industry produces 6 times the amount of toxic smoke. > I would love to see a reference for this. I just gave you references, "Soil Biology" its a discipline of agricultural science with lots of literature and knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_biology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_biology But if you want me to point to one person / literature specifically then again read the one straw revolution by Masanobu Fukuoka > In contrast to the monoculture the author is advocating for They are advocating for "Industrial Literacy" but they have not read any literacy from modern day agricultural sciences or environmental sciences or at the very least they make arguments that are ignorant of this literature, with the end goal being "Don't worry its fine". If they are ignorant of Scientific Literacy while advocating for "Industrial Literacy" using the same arguments as climate change denial propaganda exactly what literature are they advocating people read? > I’ve said before that understanding where our modern standard of living comes from, at a basic level, is a responsibility of every citizen. it starts advocating "Industrial Literacy" as a responsibility of every citizen, and it ends that way too. > Let’s recognize the value of industrial literacy and commit to improving it—starting with ourselves. Please stop trying to inject false context into what the article states, the author is fairly clear on their understanding and intent.