5 ms·

I'm talking about reliable solar panel setups being very expensive and often only barely worth it with substantial subsidies. I'm talking about "village homes"

I'm talking about reliable solar panel setups being very expensive and often only barely worth it with substantial subsidies. I'm talking about "village homes" being incredibly space & land inefficient. I'm talking about permaculture-style forests wasting large amounts of land and resources hosting plants and herbs few people actually want but hey, it's a lot of greenery, who cares if it doesn't actually meet demand for modern non-herbal pharmaceuticals and food people actually want to eat. I doubt that a 2h30m video giving situational advice on soil health is an answer to the declining biodiversity this article is talking about. Even if his techniques are more "productive" (which means little on its own anyway, it's not efficient if productivity gains don't match time/labor/financial/scale cost increases), as long as his farm is still very much a farm it will largely exclude the kind of "wild" biodiversity that is declining which includes a lot of destructive, nasty or totally pointless flora & fauna. It's not a problem with solutions like "using less fertilizer" or "don't till the soil as much so some fungi can grow". "Real" biodiversity and utilitarian farmland have very little overlap, natural "wild" ecosystems generally suck at meeting modern consumer demand. The most relevant and compelling solutions that I see focus on increasing yield and space/land efficiency so we can meet modern demand with less space, leaving more space for low-utility wild ecosystems scientists care about. Ultimately, I'm not going to pretend like I'm an expert in the field who can competently analyze two hour technical farming videos. If Gabe and co can solve this problem more efficiently, I'd encourage them to prove that in the market by providing more and better produce. The market cuts through the bullshit and nonsense we tell ourselves about how much better something is. Show me something better and I'll vote with my wallet. > So where do you want to get power w/o burning fossil fuels? Perhaps a mix of centralized renewable techs and nuclear. Good solutions don't necessarily exist yet, that's why the world is working hard on energy tech, the world isn't giving up.

carapace 5y ago
> I'm talking about reliable solar panel setups being very expensive and often only barely worth it with substantial subsidies. FWIW, I'm actually kind of unimpressed by solar panels. (Although it's clear that the trends favor them.) I'd prefer passive solar design and direct utilization (solar hot water collectors, etc.) instead. > I'm talking about "village homes" being incredibly space & land inefficient. Compared to what? Other suburbs? FWIW, I like the idea of "arcologies": ecologically integrated whole cities built at once. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology I don't know if they are truly possible, but it seems obvious to me that constructing a city as a unit would permit massive economies of scale (e.g. no need for individual AC units if the whole city is temperature controlled with passive solar/wind design, etc.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_River%27s_City_project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_River%27s_City_project > I'm talking about permaculture-style forests wasting large amounts of land and resources hosting plants and herbs few people actually want To me that seems like a bizarre take on the concept of food forests. These systems produce more food than conventional mono-crops without the ecological destruction. Long-term what does it matter if a conventional farm can grow more of a single crop if the land it's on is eventually destroyed? That's the fundamental trade-off: if a system of agriculture destroys the basis for life it is doomed sooner or later. In other words, the "waste" of land you're talking about (to the extent that it's actually true) is really maintenance cost that has to be paid one way or another, sooner or later. > I doubt that a 2h30m video giving situational advice on soil health is an answer to the declining biodiversity this article is talking about. Even if his techniques are more "productive" (which means little on its own anyway, it's not efficient if productivity gains don't match time/labor/financial/scale cost increases), as long as his farm is still very much a farm it will largely exclude the kind of "wild" biodiversity that is declining which includes a lot of destructive, nasty or totally pointless flora & fauna. It's not a problem with solutions like "using less fertilizer" or "don't till the soil as much so some fungi can grow". Well I don't know what to tell you other than that is exactly what is addressed in the video. I'm sure there are other, shorter videos if you really want to check it out. His farm is more productive, has fewer inputs, has more biodiversity, etc. than conventional farming. Maybe check out these folks? "Homestead Paradise: got barren land, boosted it at a profit" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRPP4Ilpxso https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRPP4Ilpxso it's still an hour, and they're doing something much different than Gabe Brown is, but it's another example of having one's cake and eating it too: more "wild" biodiversity and fertility, fewer inputs, economically productive, etc. > "Real" biodiversity and utilitarian farmland have very little overlap, natural "wild" ecosystems generally suck at meeting modern consumer demand. The most relevant and compelling solutions that I see focus on increasing yield and space/land efficiency so we can meet modern demand with less space, leaving more space for low-utility wild ecosystems scientists care about. Setting aside the point that Permaculture et. al. is all about "increasing yield and space/land efficiency", you're right (IMO) that we should be setting aside, say, half the Earth for non-human use. See E.O. Wilson's "Half Earth" proposal. https://www.half-earthproject.org/ https://www.half-earthproject.org/ My original question is how do you get buy-in on such a goal if only a few scientists care about it? I see the root of the problem as humankind's divorce from Nature. What prevents us from seeing the intrinsic value of "low-utility wild ecosystems"? > If Gabe and co can solve this problem more efficiently, I'd encourage them to prove that in the market by providing more and better produce. That's exactly what they're doing. > The market cuts through the bullshit and nonsense we tell ourselves about how much better something is. Except when we ignore externalities like degraded soil and overheated atmosphere, eh? I mean that's the whole problem we're facing now, isn't it? No oil company put aside profit to pay for mitigation of CO₂ emissions? No farming conglomerate put aside funds to pay for new topsoil to replace what's getting blown away, or to regenerate oceanic deadzones caused by over-fertilization with and runoff of artificial fertilizer, eh? > > So where do you want to get power w/o burning fossil fuels? > Perhaps a mix of centralized renewable techs... So solar? Renewable energy comes from the sun. Wind is powered by thermal differences that are driven by solar flux. (Although wave power technically comes from the Moon.) > ...and nuclear. Which is fine with me, but it won't help in time to alleviate climate change. > Good solutions don't necessarily exist yet, that's why the world is working hard on energy tech, the world isn't giving up. Again, my point isn't that nobody is working on it, my question is what prevents us from taking up the tools and technology (and eco-farming is a technology based on the science of ecology) we already have faster and more eagerly?
- themacguffinman 5y ago
  Village homes compared to modern high density buildings (eg. apartments, skyscrapers) and dense cities with centralized services. You freely admit that what you like ("arcologies") doesn't quite exist yet and you don't even know if it's possible yet. That's my point. I'm not the one sitting here speaking as if we already have it figured out and it's a mystery why we're not there yet. Our current green city tech sucks and cool arcology solutions haven't been invented yet. > Permaculture et. al. is all about "increasing yield and space/land efficiency" Not exactly, that's one aspect of it but a core part of permaculture is some principle of conservative consumption and changing demand to fit supply instead of the other way round. Meat is a pretty classic example, most people love and consume a lot of meat. Permaculture ignores that, it focuses on sustainably cultivating stuff that is suitable for sustainable cultivation and limiting consumption of stuff that isn't. I don't want permaculture, I want all the meat that I want to eat. Now make that efficient too. > My original question is how do you get buy-in on such a goal if only a few scientists care about it? I see the root of the problem as humankind's divorce from Nature. What prevents us from seeing the intrinsic value of "low-utility wild ecosystems"? You get buy-in on such a goal by acknowledging that no one cares about the supposedly intrinsic value of these wild ecosystems, you get buy-in by giving people what they actually want. As far as I'm concerned, there is no intrinsic value to these natural habitats. If you invent a cheaper way to cultivate popular produce like meat and dairy, I don't need to be a scientist to see the value of that and buy it. If scientists give consumers what they want (cheap produce I actually like) then consumers will give scientists what they want (money to pay for sustainable technology). It was ever thus. What won't fly is telling people how cool Nature is if you just change your entire lifestyle around it. > Except when we ignore externalities like degraded soil and overheated atmosphere, eh? I mean that's the whole problem we're facing now, isn't it? We don't ignore these externalities, every government and corporation is talking about it (the topic of this very article). There are new laws and initiatives filling the gaps. Renewable energy has a lot of funding. Farming conglomerates look out for their own corporate survival and factor land degradation costs into their calculations, degraded land impacts their bottom line, short and long term. But proposed alternatives have other externalities: they're more expensive, time-consuming, hard-to-scale or simply don't produce what consumers demand. That won't cut it. It turns out that it's a hard problem to solve. I don't really care who pays for it, the obsession with who pays for it is stupid and unproductive. Ultimately, the cost is passed down to the consumer. The problem is that the cost is too high and we solve that by making more efficient eco-tech, not by complaining that Big Co isn't signing the check. > it's another example of having one's cake and eating it too: more "wild" biodiversity and fertility, fewer inputs, economically productive, etc. Ok, what about cost? What about scale? Can you scale Homestead paradise into a system that feeds a country of 300 million people all the milk, eggs, leather and beef they want for a dollar? How about a billion? If it really can, then I've got good news: anyone can watch YouTube so anyone, including Big Farm Co, can profit from such improvements. If it can't, then I don't want your eco cake. > In other words, the "waste" of land you're talking about (to the extent that it's actually true) is really maintenance cost that has to be paid one way or another, sooner or later. You could say this about anything, innovation and new technology is all about not accepting current limitations.

carapace 5y ago

> I'm talking about reliable solar panel setups being very expensive and often only barely worth it with substantial subsidies. FWIW, I'm actually kind of unimpressed by solar panels. (Although it's clear that the trends favor them.) I'd prefer passive solar design and direct utilization (solar hot water collectors, etc.) instead. > I'm talking about "village homes" being incredibly space & land inefficient. Compared to what? Other suburbs? FWIW, I like the idea of "arcologies": ecologically integrated whole cities built at once. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology I don't know if they are truly possible, but it seems obvious to me that constructing a city as a unit would permit massive economies of scale (e.g. no need for individual AC units if the whole city is temperature controlled with passive solar/wind design, etc.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_River%27s_City_project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_River%27s_City_project > I'm talking about permaculture-style forests wasting large amounts of land and resources hosting plants and herbs few people actually want To me that seems like a bizarre take on the concept of food forests. These systems produce more food than conventional mono-crops without the ecological destruction. Long-term what does it matter if a conventional farm can grow more of a single crop if the land it's on is eventually destroyed? That's the fundamental trade-off: if a system of agriculture destroys the basis for life it is doomed sooner or later. In other words, the "waste" of land you're talking about (to the extent that it's actually true) is really maintenance cost that has to be paid one way or another, sooner or later. > I doubt that a 2h30m video giving situational advice on soil health is an answer to the declining biodiversity this article is talking about. Even if his techniques are more "productive" (which means little on its own anyway, it's not efficient if productivity gains don't match time/labor/financial/scale cost increases), as long as his farm is still very much a farm it will largely exclude the kind of "wild" biodiversity that is declining which includes a lot of destructive, nasty or totally pointless flora & fauna. It's not a problem with solutions like "using less fertilizer" or "don't till the soil as much so some fungi can grow". Well I don't know what to tell you other than that is exactly what is addressed in the video. I'm sure there are other, shorter videos if you really want to check it out. His farm is more productive, has fewer inputs, has more biodiversity, etc. than conventional farming. Maybe check out these folks? "Homestead Paradise: got barren land, boosted it at a profit" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRPP4Ilpxso https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRPP4Ilpxso it's still an hour, and they're doing something much different than Gabe Brown is, but it's another example of having one's cake and eating it too: more "wild" biodiversity and fertility, fewer inputs, economically productive, etc. > "Real" biodiversity and utilitarian farmland have very little overlap, natural "wild" ecosystems generally suck at meeting modern consumer demand. The most relevant and compelling solutions that I see focus on increasing yield and space/land efficiency so we can meet modern demand with less space, leaving more space for low-utility wild ecosystems scientists care about. Setting aside the point that Permaculture et. al. is all about "increasing yield and space/land efficiency", you're right (IMO) that we should be setting aside, say, half the Earth for non-human use. See E.O. Wilson's "Half Earth" proposal. https://www.half-earthproject.org/ https://www.half-earthproject.org/ My original question is how do you get buy-in on such a goal if only a few scientists care about it? I see the root of the problem as humankind's divorce from Nature. What prevents us from seeing the intrinsic value of "low-utility wild ecosystems"? > If Gabe and co can solve this problem more efficiently, I'd encourage them to prove that in the market by providing more and better produce. That's exactly what they're doing. > The market cuts through the bullshit and nonsense we tell ourselves about how much better something is. Except when we ignore externalities like degraded soil and overheated atmosphere, eh? I mean that's the whole problem we're facing now, isn't it? No oil company put aside profit to pay for mitigation of CO₂ emissions? No farming conglomerate put aside funds to pay for new topsoil to replace what's getting blown away, or to regenerate oceanic deadzones caused by over-fertilization with and runoff of artificial fertilizer, eh? > > So where do you want to get power w/o burning fossil fuels? > Perhaps a mix of centralized renewable techs... So solar? Renewable energy comes from the sun. Wind is powered by thermal differences that are driven by solar flux. (Although wave power technically comes from the Moon.) > ...and nuclear. Which is fine with me, but it won't help in time to alleviate climate change. > Good solutions don't necessarily exist yet, that's why the world is working hard on energy tech, the world isn't giving up. Again, my point isn't that nobody is working on it, my question is what prevents us from taking up the tools and technology (and eco-farming is a technology based on the science of ecology) we already have faster and more eagerly?

themacguffinman 5y ago
Village homes compared to modern high density buildings (eg. apartments, skyscrapers) and dense cities with centralized services. You freely admit that what you like ("arcologies") doesn't quite exist yet and you don't even know if it's possible yet. That's my point. I'm not the one sitting here speaking as if we already have it figured out and it's a mystery why we're not there yet. Our current green city tech sucks and cool arcology solutions haven't been invented yet. > Permaculture et. al. is all about "increasing yield and space/land efficiency" Not exactly, that's one aspect of it but a core part of permaculture is some principle of conservative consumption and changing demand to fit supply instead of the other way round. Meat is a pretty classic example, most people love and consume a lot of meat. Permaculture ignores that, it focuses on sustainably cultivating stuff that is suitable for sustainable cultivation and limiting consumption of stuff that isn't. I don't want permaculture, I want all the meat that I want to eat. Now make that efficient too. > My original question is how do you get buy-in on such a goal if only a few scientists care about it? I see the root of the problem as humankind's divorce from Nature. What prevents us from seeing the intrinsic value of "low-utility wild ecosystems"? You get buy-in on such a goal by acknowledging that no one cares about the supposedly intrinsic value of these wild ecosystems, you get buy-in by giving people what they actually want. As far as I'm concerned, there is no intrinsic value to these natural habitats. If you invent a cheaper way to cultivate popular produce like meat and dairy, I don't need to be a scientist to see the value of that and buy it. If scientists give consumers what they want (cheap produce I actually like) then consumers will give scientists what they want (money to pay for sustainable technology). It was ever thus. What won't fly is telling people how cool Nature is if you just change your entire lifestyle around it. > Except when we ignore externalities like degraded soil and overheated atmosphere, eh? I mean that's the whole problem we're facing now, isn't it? We don't ignore these externalities, every government and corporation is talking about it (the topic of this very article). There are new laws and initiatives filling the gaps. Renewable energy has a lot of funding. Farming conglomerates look out for their own corporate survival and factor land degradation costs into their calculations, degraded land impacts their bottom line, short and long term. But proposed alternatives have other externalities: they're more expensive, time-consuming, hard-to-scale or simply don't produce what consumers demand. That won't cut it. It turns out that it's a hard problem to solve. I don't really care who pays for it, the obsession with who pays for it is stupid and unproductive. Ultimately, the cost is passed down to the consumer. The problem is that the cost is too high and we solve that by making more efficient eco-tech, not by complaining that Big Co isn't signing the check. > it's another example of having one's cake and eating it too: more "wild" biodiversity and fertility, fewer inputs, economically productive, etc. Ok, what about cost? What about scale? Can you scale Homestead paradise into a system that feeds a country of 300 million people all the milk, eggs, leather and beef they want for a dollar? How about a billion? If it really can, then I've got good news: anyone can watch YouTube so anyone, including Big Farm Co, can profit from such improvements. If it can't, then I don't want your eco cake. > In other words, the "waste" of land you're talking about (to the extent that it's actually true) is really maintenance cost that has to be paid one way or another, sooner or later. You could say this about anything, innovation and new technology is all about not accepting current limitations.