3 ms·
It is impossible to produce food without chemicals.
by Scalene2 4y ago
It is impossible to produce food without chemicals.
- StanislavPetrov 4y agoI'm sure if they were still around today those who produced food for thousands of years without chemicals would beg to differ.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- vanattab 4y agoHis point was they are/were using chemicals regardless of if they understood the chemistry at a low level or not. When ancient people/(or modern) used dung to fertilize crops they are using chemicals. With that being said I think when the power of modern chemistry / genetic engineering and modern economic agricultureraly forces collide caution is warranted.
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago>His point was they are/were using chemicals regardless of if they understood the chemistry at a low level or not. Even if that was his point, it is still completely wrong. >It is impossible to produce food without chemicals. If you live in the northern hemisphere, it is only June. Go plant a handful of pumpkin and watermelon seeds in a patch of fertile earth. Add no "chemicals" of any kind - man made or otherwise. Return in 4 months and you will very likely see food that has been grown with absolutely no chemicals at all.
- Scalene2 4y agoFertile earth is composed of chemicals. Water is a chemical. Air is composed of chemicals. The seed is composed of chemicals. It is impossible to grow food without chemicals.
- rvbissell 4y agoHint: water is a chemical.
- eurasiantiger 4y agoThat’s not what was meant and you know it. You’re being intellectually dishonest.
- Scalene2 4y agoAnd the person saying "chemical" is being intellectually lazy.
- eurasiantiger 4y agoWhat word would you suggest to use, then? Discussing individual chemicals by name is inefficient, confusing and almost certainly requires scientific citations to be remotely worthy of discussion. Going by groups of chemicals is a bit better, but then citations are largely not applicable. There are no synonyms or near synonyms. The dictionary definition of ”chemical” (noun), however, is explicitly clear: 1 : a substance obtained by a chemical process or producing a chemical effect 2 : a drug I posit that the person saying ”chemical” is not being lazy, they are being scientifically accurate while enabling rational discussion. It’s anyone saying ”but EVERYTHING is chemicals” that needs to check the dictionary.
- astine 4y agoYour definition "1" describes just about anything. Water, for example, produces a chemical effect. So do amino acids. Your entire metabolism is a chemical process, as is the growth of plants. What I think that people mean when they talk about "chemicals" in their food is artificially synthesized chemicals and that's easy enough to say.
- rvbissell 4y agoI point that out in conversations similar to ours because (in my experience) so many people who make the chemical-free argument do so because they've fallen for the Appeal-To-Nature fallacy, e.g. "naturally grown food must be better for you." The reality is that Nature only finds local maxima for some variables relevant to the organism's survival, and those variables aren't necessarily relevant to what is best for human health. In this particular thread, my first contribution was too flippant to be constructive, so I deserved the down-vote. But I wasn't being intellectually dishonest.
- smugma 4y agoYou're being pedantic but not actually using a common definition of chemical. Perhaps "chemical substance" might apply. AOED definition of chemical: a compound or substance that has been purified or prepared, especially artificially: _never mix disinfectant with other chemicals | controversy arose over treatment of apples with this chemical._