3 ms·

Plenty of water. The problem is its being used to grow food for export.

by devmunchies 6y ago

dwhit 6y ago
I don’t want to starve
- devmunchies 6y ago
  Then we should grow food in more places.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    Where is there even marginally arable land and not food production? Well, I mean, except when there is suburban sprawl sitting on it, instead, which seems to be what you are proposing, rather ironically?
    - 3131s 6y ago
      We should be smarter about what foods we "produce". No more meat subsidies, or better yet no more meat at all.
      - webmaven 6y ago
        l> We should be smarter about what foods we "produce". No more meat subsidies, or better yet no more meat at all. I'm with you on subsidies, but it's worth noting that historically, cattle, sheep, etc. were often raised and grazed on land that wasn't (and mostly still isn't) suitable for growing crops, usually because of some combination of elevation, slope[0], soil, or lack of rainfall. Animals are mobile, so you can move them around on a larger area with relatively sparse vegetation that humans don't consider palatable[1], or even migrate them seasonally on an even larger territory. So, within some limits, animal husbandry in areas otherwise marginal for agriculture can convert poor ground cover to high quality protein (and other animal products). As long as overgrazing is avoided, this seems to me to be a decent and sustainable arrangement. [0] Terraces can deal with slopes to an extent and slows erosion, but don't always conveniently lend themselves to large scale mechanized agriculture. Solutions to the other challenges also don't work everywhere. [1] It's worth noting that the domesticated animal least picky about what plants they'll eat is the goat, many varieties of which, when not moved frequently enough, can completely denude an area by eating plants and bushes down to the ground, climb trees to eat all the leaves they can reach and even stripping the bark, which kills the tree. Which makes goatherding a likely driver of desertification in already stressed ecosystems.
Barrin92 6y ago
growing food in fertile areas and then exporting it to places that need more food seems like a better use of resources than using it for the English gardens of suburban zoom tech workers
- devmunchies 6y ago
  So... it sounds like other places have a fertility problem. And no, the soil is being depleted of all minerals and life. It’s better to spread farming out.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    yes indeed which is why markets have allocated resources in such a way that the regions that are very fertile make a lot of food and then sell it to places that aren't, rather than filling them with more terrible low density housing of which the US has already too much

Plenty of water. The problem is its being used to grow food for export.

dwhit 6y ago

I don’t want to starve

devmunchies 6y ago
Then we should grow food in more places.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  Where is there even marginally arable land and not food production? Well, I mean, except when there is suburban sprawl sitting on it, instead, which seems to be what you are proposing, rather ironically?
  - 3131s 6y ago
    We should be smarter about what foods we "produce". No more meat subsidies, or better yet no more meat at all.
    - webmaven 6y ago
      l> We should be smarter about what foods we "produce". No more meat subsidies, or better yet no more meat at all. I'm with you on subsidies, but it's worth noting that historically, cattle, sheep, etc. were often raised and grazed on land that wasn't (and mostly still isn't) suitable for growing crops, usually because of some combination of elevation, slope[0], soil, or lack of rainfall. Animals are mobile, so you can move them around on a larger area with relatively sparse vegetation that humans don't consider palatable[1], or even migrate them seasonally on an even larger territory. So, within some limits, animal husbandry in areas otherwise marginal for agriculture can convert poor ground cover to high quality protein (and other animal products). As long as overgrazing is avoided, this seems to me to be a decent and sustainable arrangement. [0] Terraces can deal with slopes to an extent and slows erosion, but don't always conveniently lend themselves to large scale mechanized agriculture. Solutions to the other challenges also don't work everywhere. [1] It's worth noting that the domesticated animal least picky about what plants they'll eat is the goat, many varieties of which, when not moved frequently enough, can completely denude an area by eating plants and bushes down to the ground, climb trees to eat all the leaves they can reach and even stripping the bark, which kills the tree. Which makes goatherding a likely driver of desertification in already stressed ecosystems.

Barrin92 6y ago

growing food in fertile areas and then exporting it to places that need more food seems like a better use of resources than using it for the English gardens of suburban zoom tech workers

devmunchies 6y ago
So... it sounds like other places have a fertility problem. And no, the soil is being depleted of all minerals and life. It’s better to spread farming out.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  yes indeed which is why markets have allocated resources in such a way that the regions that are very fertile make a lot of food and then sell it to places that aren't, rather than filling them with more terrible low density housing of which the US has already too much