5 ms·

"Progress" needs to be defined. What is the goal here? Neither diversity nor soil was mentioned once in TFA. Is yield the only relevant metric? What about qua

by tspike 5y ago

"Progress" needs to be defined. What is the goal here? Neither diversity nor soil was mentioned once in TFA. Is yield the only relevant metric? What about quantity/impact of pesticides? Amount of fertilizer required? Sustainability of local communities? Negative externalities?

kickout 5y ago
For farmers, yes, yield is the only goal. All of those things you mentioned are intangible at this point and are not incentivized. We need to restructure the incentives around farming away from a commodity perspective (yield) and more around quality (sustainability and all that good stuff). I often say, don't make farmers out to be the bad guys anymore than airplanes, cars, ihpones, etc. that similarly don't price in externalities.
- tspike 5y ago
  I'm a small-scale farmer. Yield is a secondary goal. Primary goals for me are the health of my land, the quality of life for my animals, and the ability to provide for my family.
  - kickout 5y ago
    Correct, and not to sound too obtuse, but your production 'doesn't really matter' in a supply chain sense. Most agriculture production comes from highly scaled, large operations. My goal is to accept this fact, and try to bring those sustainability qualities to the big guys instead of chopping the big guys up in 1,000 smaller players that _would_ care.
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  For a farmer, at least those who own the farmland, the sustainability of their land is far more important than the yield this year.
  - nickff 5y ago
    >" For a farmer, at least those who own the farmland, the sustainability of their land is far more important than the yield this year." Sustainability only matters if they can make the mortgage payments this year.
    - tspike 5y ago
      That’s part of sustainability. You have to balance hundreds of competing factors to do it correctly.
      - nickff 5y ago
        I was replying to a comment that says "sustainability of their land is far more important than the yield"; I wasn't arguing for or against the premise of the dilemma.
  - kickout 5y ago
    As another comment stated, short term and long term goals need to be balanced. Unfortunately, the margins in ag (USA) are razor thin, so it is difficult (not impossible) to adapt sustainable practices while maintaining top yields. Many sustainable practices require a learning curve and there is a high risk of losing yield if not done correctly. I think many farmers and landowners _want_ to be sustainable, but the current state of economics makes it challenging except for the top x% of producers.
    - BurningFrog 5y ago
      Even if this is true, which I doubt, those marginal farms will soon be bankrupt, and their lands will be taken over by someone with the means to plan long term. Short sighted practices only remain in the short run.
      - kickout 5y ago
        I'm confused. You doubt implementing sustainable practices is difficult or that it doesn't affect the profitability of farmers? I assure you, both are true. Those farmers survive b/c they are basically using unsustainable practices and transforming natural resources (soil fertility) into cash at the _expense_ of sustainability. There is basically no market for sustainable practices other than some small public relations gimmicks. People/companies are trying things, but the scale agriculture operates it makes the problem exceptionally challenging.
- MomoXenosaga 5y ago
  Farmers are reluctant to change their ways though.
  - kickout 5y ago
    They are because the risk is so high. This isn't tech and the margins aren't as high as tech. Want to tinker with the tried-and-true methods on turning profit in farming, great: Whoops, I ran into $UNFORESEEN_VARAIBLE and it cost me a ton of money. Now I lost the farm or can't get a bank to give me an operating loan because they don't agree with my practices. There is plenty of room to innovate in agriculture but _how_ to do it (successfully) is vastly different than innovating in tech, manufacturing, pedagogy, etc.
dredmorbius 5y ago
"Technological progress" is "greater output with fewer inputs". Economists typically measure inputs either in terms of total financial costs, or specific types of inputs, typically capital and labour. As is being discussed elsewhere in this thread, energy is also a principle input, and there's a strong argument that it should be considered on its own terms.
- tspike 5y ago
  If you measure ecological degradation as an output in those terms, then progress is proceeding swimmingly.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    I'm reading that as a sarcastic response. In that reading, true, and a major consideration. It could also mean that apparent progress (efficiency gains) are not. And there are multiple inputs or consequences of farming (both modern and ancient) which sharply increase costs: - Use of nonrenewable fossil fuels whose true costs of creation (the 5-million to 1 ratio of rates of formation to consumption https://www-legacy.dge.carnegiescience.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_ClimChange1.pdf https://www-legacy.dge.carnegiescience.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_C...) are unaccounted. - Contamination of sinks at rates exceeding their clearing rates (atmospheric CO2, local soil salination, downstream nitrogen and phosphorus polution leading to algael blooms and dead zones, downstream animal wastes with both chemical and bioactive consequences). - Stripping of soils at rates ~100x that of their formation. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26824479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26824479 - Degradation of natural biodiversity and ecosystems at rates exceeding their ability to recover and regenerate. All that said, the basic notion of technological progress remains: can more be achieved with less. What you're rising is a critically important point, but it remains one of making an accurate assessment of inputs and outputs. Within it however is an identification of an Achilles heel of markets: they don't assess long-term or diffuse costs, and hence systematically and persistently bias toward underaccounting for these costs and their consequences. Markets also fail to assess long-term and diffuse benefits, which is to say that their inherent focus is on the short term, direct, and manifestly evident. My direct intent in my initial answer was to define what is meant within the economic orthodoxy by "progress" or "efficiency".

by tspike 5y ago

kickout 5y ago

For farmers, yes, yield is the only goal. All of those things you mentioned are intangible at this point and are not incentivized. We need to restructure the incentives around farming away from a commodity perspective (yield) and more around quality (sustainability and all that good stuff). I often say, don't make farmers out to be the bad guys anymore than airplanes, cars, ihpones, etc. that similarly don't price in externalities.

tspike 5y ago
I'm a small-scale farmer. Yield is a secondary goal. Primary goals for me are the health of my land, the quality of life for my animals, and the ability to provide for my family.
- kickout 5y ago
  Correct, and not to sound too obtuse, but your production 'doesn't really matter' in a supply chain sense. Most agriculture production comes from highly scaled, large operations. My goal is to accept this fact, and try to bring those sustainability qualities to the big guys instead of chopping the big guys up in 1,000 smaller players that _would_ care.
BurningFrog 5y ago
For a farmer, at least those who own the farmland, the sustainability of their land is far more important than the yield this year.
- nickff 5y ago
  >" For a farmer, at least those who own the farmland, the sustainability of their land is far more important than the yield this year." Sustainability only matters if they can make the mortgage payments this year.
  - tspike 5y ago
    That’s part of sustainability. You have to balance hundreds of competing factors to do it correctly.
    - nickff 5y ago
      I was replying to a comment that says "sustainability of their land is far more important than the yield"; I wasn't arguing for or against the premise of the dilemma.
- kickout 5y ago
  As another comment stated, short term and long term goals need to be balanced. Unfortunately, the margins in ag (USA) are razor thin, so it is difficult (not impossible) to adapt sustainable practices while maintaining top yields. Many sustainable practices require a learning curve and there is a high risk of losing yield if not done correctly. I think many farmers and landowners _want_ to be sustainable, but the current state of economics makes it challenging except for the top x% of producers.
  - BurningFrog 5y ago
    Even if this is true, which I doubt, those marginal farms will soon be bankrupt, and their lands will be taken over by someone with the means to plan long term. Short sighted practices only remain in the short run.
    - kickout 5y ago
      I'm confused. You doubt implementing sustainable practices is difficult or that it doesn't affect the profitability of farmers? I assure you, both are true. Those farmers survive b/c they are basically using unsustainable practices and transforming natural resources (soil fertility) into cash at the _expense_ of sustainability. There is basically no market for sustainable practices other than some small public relations gimmicks. People/companies are trying things, but the scale agriculture operates it makes the problem exceptionally challenging.
MomoXenosaga 5y ago
Farmers are reluctant to change their ways though.
- kickout 5y ago
  They are because the risk is so high. This isn't tech and the margins aren't as high as tech. Want to tinker with the tried-and-true methods on turning profit in farming, great: Whoops, I ran into $UNFORESEEN_VARAIBLE and it cost me a ton of money. Now I lost the farm or can't get a bank to give me an operating loan because they don't agree with my practices. There is plenty of room to innovate in agriculture but _how_ to do it (successfully) is vastly different than innovating in tech, manufacturing, pedagogy, etc.

dredmorbius 5y ago

"Technological progress" is "greater output with fewer inputs". Economists typically measure inputs either in terms of total financial costs, or specific types of inputs, typically capital and labour. As is being discussed elsewhere in this thread, energy is also a principle input, and there's a strong argument that it should be considered on its own terms.

tspike 5y ago
If you measure ecological degradation as an output in those terms, then progress is proceeding swimmingly.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  I'm reading that as a sarcastic response. In that reading, true, and a major consideration. It could also mean that apparent progress (efficiency gains) are not. And there are multiple inputs or consequences of farming (both modern and ancient) which sharply increase costs: - Use of nonrenewable fossil fuels whose true costs of creation (the 5-million to 1 ratio of rates of formation to consumption https://www-legacy.dge.carnegiescience.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_ClimChange1.pdf https://www-legacy.dge.carnegiescience.edu/DGE/Dukes/Dukes_C...) are unaccounted. - Contamination of sinks at rates exceeding their clearing rates (atmospheric CO2, local soil salination, downstream nitrogen and phosphorus polution leading to algael blooms and dead zones, downstream animal wastes with both chemical and bioactive consequences). - Stripping of soils at rates ~100x that of their formation. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26824479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26824479 - Degradation of natural biodiversity and ecosystems at rates exceeding their ability to recover and regenerate. All that said, the basic notion of technological progress remains: can more be achieved with less. What you're rising is a critically important point, but it remains one of making an accurate assessment of inputs and outputs. Within it however is an identification of an Achilles heel of markets: they don't assess long-term or diffuse costs, and hence systematically and persistently bias toward underaccounting for these costs and their consequences. Markets also fail to assess long-term and diffuse benefits, which is to say that their inherent focus is on the short term, direct, and manifestly evident. My direct intent in my initial answer was to define what is meant within the economic orthodoxy by "progress" or "efficiency".