3 ms·

> 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...

> 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
  > but you ignored my point that the burn-chunks-of-random-stuff-for-heat setup is exactly what industry does I guess I don't see the relevance of that point to the article's point. They are just completely different topics. > You are trying to compare the toxic smoke produced from individuals to the toxic smoke produced from industry No, I am not. I am not talking about industry at _all_ here, nor is the article. The article is making a narrow point: technological progress allowed us to make substantial improvements to indoor air quality for the vast majority of people. I _think_ you're arguing that at the same time we reduced outdoor air quality by building industry and that we shouldn't have done that. Is that a correct characterization of your position and what you are trying to argue here? If not, what _is_ your point, exactly? And is the "that" that we should not have done "building industry" or "building industry that burns things" or something else? > the toxic smoke produced by industry contains all the same toxins It actually doesn't quite: industrial combustion is generally more efficient (read: more complete combustion, hence less particulates per unit of heat), and nowadays tends to have post-processing of the combustion products to remove even more of the bad things before venting to the general atmosphere. This latter part wasn't always this way, of course. > the link I posted demonstrates that industry produces 6 times the amount of toxic smoke I'm sorry, but I don't know what link you mean. The only link I see in your posts is to 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... which is not about particulates at all. Is that the one you meant? > I just gave you references, "Soil Biology" its a discipline of agricultural science with lots of literature and knowledge. Yes, but I do not have the time to read up on an entire discipline, unfortunately, which is where asking for a specific reference for a specific claim comes from. I will take a look at Fukuoka's work. > with the end goal being "Don't worry its fine". I know for a fact this is NOT the author's end goal, so I am 100% certain that is you reading things into what they wrote that are just not there. The author, if you read the rest of their work, which I encourage you to do, does not think things are "fine" and is looking for how we as a species can most rapidly improve things so they will be closer to "fine". > as climate change denial propaganda See, this is where the reading into things comes in. Climate change is on your mind, and you are projecting it onto things that are not really about climate change at all, as far as I can tell. > it starts advocating "Industrial Literacy" as a responsibility of every citizen, and it ends that way too. Sure. It's not the only responsibility of every citizen, of course, nor does this article claim it is.

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
> but you ignored my point that the burn-chunks-of-random-stuff-for-heat setup is exactly what industry does I guess I don't see the relevance of that point to the article's point. They are just completely different topics. > You are trying to compare the toxic smoke produced from individuals to the toxic smoke produced from industry No, I am not. I am not talking about industry at _all_ here, nor is the article. The article is making a narrow point: technological progress allowed us to make substantial improvements to indoor air quality for the vast majority of people. I _think_ you're arguing that at the same time we reduced outdoor air quality by building industry and that we shouldn't have done that. Is that a correct characterization of your position and what you are trying to argue here? If not, what _is_ your point, exactly? And is the "that" that we should not have done "building industry" or "building industry that burns things" or something else? > the toxic smoke produced by industry contains all the same toxins It actually doesn't quite: industrial combustion is generally more efficient (read: more complete combustion, hence less particulates per unit of heat), and nowadays tends to have post-processing of the combustion products to remove even more of the bad things before venting to the general atmosphere. This latter part wasn't always this way, of course. > the link I posted demonstrates that industry produces 6 times the amount of toxic smoke I'm sorry, but I don't know what link you mean. The only link I see in your posts is to 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... which is not about particulates at all. Is that the one you meant? > I just gave you references, "Soil Biology" its a discipline of agricultural science with lots of literature and knowledge. Yes, but I do not have the time to read up on an entire discipline, unfortunately, which is where asking for a specific reference for a specific claim comes from. I will take a look at Fukuoka's work. > with the end goal being "Don't worry its fine". I know for a fact this is NOT the author's end goal, so I am 100% certain that is you reading things into what they wrote that are just not there. The author, if you read the rest of their work, which I encourage you to do, does not think things are "fine" and is looking for how we as a species can most rapidly improve things so they will be closer to "fine". > as climate change denial propaganda See, this is where the reading into things comes in. Climate change is on your mind, and you are projecting it onto things that are not really about climate change at all, as far as I can tell. > it starts advocating "Industrial Literacy" as a responsibility of every citizen, and it ends that way too. Sure. It's not the only responsibility of every citizen, of course, nor does this article claim it is.