2 ms·

> The key thing is for how long soil will be able to keep that production rate up We're basically going hydroponics with sterile soil as a substrate. The limit

• mschuster91 5y ago
  > We're basically going hydroponics with sterile soil as a substrate. The limiting factors are fertilizer and water. This may not be ideal, but it frees up a lot of land for things other than wheat/soy/corn. The problem is that now the produce only consists of fertilizer. Just compare the taste and nutritional value of mass-manufactured produce vs. organic-grown produce - the difference (at least if you're not suffering from covid) will be massive. Additionally, sterile soil without deep levels of old roots, fungi and other life in it has the downside that it will simply erode and, as a consequence of losing that structure, blow away sooner or later. The US literally went through this once in the 1930s [1] and at the moment 40% of the US are at risk for further desertification [2]. Yes, it may be more efficient in a short-term rabid capitalism POV to continue ruthlessly exploiting nature, but the long term of continuing as-is will only lead to an utter catastrophe and cascading effects - e.g. groundwater depletion once the soil compresses, effects on the local and regional climate (clouds and in consequence rain need evaporation of water) or heatwaves and as a direct consequence uninhabitability because pure sand can't buffer off heat. Earth is at the moment right at the tipping point of a lot of crises: CO² and other climate gases such as methane leading to a greenhouse effect, the collapse of ice shelves, the permanent destruction of arable land, the compression of soil in deserts destroying groundwater, predators going extinct and throwing ecosystems out of balance, invasive species being transmitted by air and especially water cargo, humans ending up with half a dozen pandemic or almost-pandemic events in two decades because we keep intruding on animal reservoirs in our ever deeper search for space... we need to stop and seriously rethink how we want to live, if we want to leave our children a planet they can actually live on - and that's leaving the social issues like erosion of democracies, of international law, and of war and aggression and their impact on nature, completely out of the discussion! And JFC the answer to the problems we're seeing is not geo-engineering or GMOs. That's band aids barely covering up the atrocities we have committed as a species! [1] https://share.america.gov/u-s-scientists-work-to-stave-off-desertification/ https://share.america.gov/u-s-scientists-work-to-stave-off-d... [2] https://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/us-desert-50-years1.htm https://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atm...
  • ch4s3 5y ago
    > Just compare the taste and nutritional value of mass-manufactured produce vs. organic-grown produce - the difference (at least if you're not suffering from covid) will be massive. If the variety is the same I generally can't tell with things like onions, potatoes, and most fruits. As for flour you'd be hard pressed to see any difference. I bake and brew and spend some time looking at spec sheets for flours and barley and organic/not doesn't really register as a difference. Price tiers matter, but that doesn't correlate well with organic. It may be the case that less intensive agriculture makes sense for non-staple crops, but that isn't the issue here, we're talking about things like barley, wheat, corn, soy, and rice. I'd also mention that organic doesn't mean anything about soil health, size of the farm, or really anything other than some specifics about chemical application. > Additionally, sterile soil without deep levels of old roots, fungi and other life in it has the downside that it will simply erode and, as a consequence of losing that structure, blow away sooner or later. The US literally went through this once in the 1930s [1] and at the moment 40% of the US are at risk for further desertification [2]. This is largely being solved by a shift to no till agriculture. > Yes, it may be more efficient in a short-term rabid capitalism POV to continue ruthlessly exploiting nature This strikes me as religion, and not a judgement based on science or economics. Switching to more responsible irrigation, and reforesting old agricultural will go a long way towards alleviating those issues. More crops from less land leaves more land for undisturbed nature. > Earth is at the moment right at the tipping point of a lot of crises: CO² This is a great case for returning more former crop land to forests. > And JFC the answer to the problems we're seeing is not geo-engineering or GMOs. That's band aids barely covering up the atrocities we have committed as a species! It isn't really a bandaid, it's taking a traditional technique of using beans to fix nitrogen in depleted soil, and giving that trait to other crops. It's pretty amazing in fact. Humans have always shaped landscapes on REALLY large scales, and we going to continue to do so just by our very presence. It makes sense to use every tool available.