4 ms·
The planet won't benefit from this. Agricultural overconsumption with a more efficient or open technology supply chain is still overconsumption.
by RGamma 5y ago
The planet won't benefit from this.
Agricultural overconsumption with a more efficient or open technology supply chain is still overconsumption.
- danuker 5y agoHow do you know it's overconsumption?
- RGamma 5y agoHalf the habitable land is farm land and farm land is ecologically dead (with pesticide use having damaging effects on the surroundings) and not available for carbon sequestration for instance. Also "livestock accounts for 77% of global farming land. While livestock takes up most of the world’s agricultural land it only produces 18% of the world’s calories and 37% of total protein" And the trend is growth.. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use
- ahepp 5y agoWon't improving ag tech improve the efficiency of farming land? And allow better ecological management?
- tome 5y agoBeware Jevons paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- RGamma 5y agoEven 100% efficient agriculture is meaningless in the face of overburdening absolute demand. Raising efficiency and means of exploitation may also induce demand ("oh we're so eco-friendly"). The point is: Life needs (contiguous) undisturbed wilderness. And ecological management? That this would even be necessary is testament to our fuckup, but yeah that might actually be topic's biggest benefit I suppose. Pre-industrialisation life managed itself just fine for millenia.
- wolverine876 5y ago> Pre-industrialisation life managed itself just fine for millenia. What do you mean by that, specifically? Clearly we benefit enormously from what has happened since, including food, shelter, peace, freedom, knowledge, etc. etc. I just got something called a vaccine, which protects me from a deadly disease. Someone stuck a needle in my arm, but they had figured out how to do that perfectly safely. The vaccine was driven to the provider, kept cold in refrigeration, and I also drove the provider after making prior arrangements via telecommunications. You're literate and reading this on a website using a computer, a vast collection of manufactured items ... You get the idea.
- RGamma 5y agoI meant natural life. You know, animals/plants... Those things that inhabited this planet for millions of years before us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life Christ, how far have things come
- wolverine876 5y agoI understand your point now. I didn't realize that your last sentence referred to human-managed 'wilderness'. Anyway, what is your solution? Starvation doesn't seem like an option.
- RGamma 5y agoWhy starvation? Is there nothing between being adequately fed and starvation?
- wolverine876 5y agoWhat solution do you recommend?
- RGamma 5y ago
- newsclues 5y agoIs it impossible to use technology to make use of small plots of land to function as regenerative organic farms to sustainablely feed people?
- marcinzm 5y agoSo? The question isn't if it's better than some utopian ideal situation but if it's better than what we have now. If your approach to things is the former then every solution to every problem will fall short and nothing will ever change.
- RGamma 5y agoIn general I agree with "incremental progress is better than none". However this problem is not of a technological nature but a political/institutional one. If there had been a strong forward-looking consensus to keep agricultural ecosystem use in check, it would never have come to this point. As so often the free market moves first, society gets to clean up afterwards.
- mch82 5y agoIf 33% of food is wasted & 9% of people are hungry, then a logistics fix alone might eliminate hunger.