3 ms·

All those three points are a problem because they threaten the environment. The environment is the thing that enables us to EAT. You can't destroy the underlyi

by boxed 4y ago

All those three points are a problem because they threaten the environment. The environment is the thing that enables us to EAT. You can't destroy the underlying ecosystem without killing yourself. I can't believe I am even writing something so super trivial.

roenxi 4y ago
> I can't believe I am even writing something so super trivial. How much can you write about the role of fossil fuels in the food chain? Because this comment reads to me like you're not totally across how artificial our food production is. Nature does not keep 8 billion humans fed. I, personally, think we should have built a lot of dodgy nuclear plants 20 years ago, aimed for too cheap to meter with the occasional meltdown, and try to go for hydroponics. It'd be a better strategy IMO than what we have actually done. I can live with it not working, but the fact that the West choked the nuclear industry with excessive regulation upsets me. I want to be investing in nuclear tech, I see real issues here that we could have solved with technology that is 50 years old at this point. > You can't destroy the underlying ecosystem without killing yourself. I haven't visited a natural ecosystem in months, I live in a city. Now we can argue about how natural the ecosystem is that my food comes from, but I think it is more likely to weather climate change if we have cheap, cheap electricity and fuels. Hopefully solar can provide that because we now have a lot of eggs riding in that basket. We feed ourselves with systems that we create using whatever energy we have on hand.
- boxed 4y ago
  > I, personally, think we should have built a lot of dodgy nuclear plants 20 years ago, aimed for too cheap to meter with the occasional meltdown, and try to go for hydroponics. Ok? But that isn't what we are talking about now. The cheap energy we have now is fossil fuel. > [lots of things about food production] Yea it's obvious you don't know how modern food production works. We are feeding cities by burning various ecosystems. You being ignorant about it doesn't change it.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    Draw out the connection a little more. You'll need to write a full paragraph to explain yourself. Everything I'm exposed to in my daily life is an artificial environment mediated by fossil fuels. All my food comes from an artificial environment mediated by fossil fuels. Running out of fossil fuels would be (will be, really) a catastrophe. How do you think the environment figures in to this? Or are you using a definition of 'environment' that includes the artificial bits that humans constructed? In which case, sure. Everything is the environment so all problems affect it. But the so-called climate crisis is still not a top priority.
    - boxed 4y ago
      Fishing and farming is the basis of the food web for cities. Cities aren't closed systems plus fossil fuels/electricity. They are super open systems with an enormity of inputs in the form of everything from wheat, to fish, to chickens that have been fed rando fish that humans won't eat, etc. It's all a big extraction machine that is super unsustainable.

by boxed 4y ago

roenxi 4y ago

> I can't believe I am even writing something so super trivial. How much can you write about the role of fossil fuels in the food chain? Because this comment reads to me like you're not totally across how artificial our food production is. Nature does not keep 8 billion humans fed. I, personally, think we should have built a lot of dodgy nuclear plants 20 years ago, aimed for too cheap to meter with the occasional meltdown, and try to go for hydroponics. It'd be a better strategy IMO than what we have actually done. I can live with it not working, but the fact that the West choked the nuclear industry with excessive regulation upsets me. I want to be investing in nuclear tech, I see real issues here that we could have solved with technology that is 50 years old at this point. > You can't destroy the underlying ecosystem without killing yourself. I haven't visited a natural ecosystem in months, I live in a city. Now we can argue about how natural the ecosystem is that my food comes from, but I think it is more likely to weather climate change if we have cheap, cheap electricity and fuels. Hopefully solar can provide that because we now have a lot of eggs riding in that basket. We feed ourselves with systems that we create using whatever energy we have on hand.

boxed 4y ago
> I, personally, think we should have built a lot of dodgy nuclear plants 20 years ago, aimed for too cheap to meter with the occasional meltdown, and try to go for hydroponics. Ok? But that isn't what we are talking about now. The cheap energy we have now is fossil fuel. > [lots of things about food production] Yea it's obvious you don't know how modern food production works. We are feeding cities by burning various ecosystems. You being ignorant about it doesn't change it.
- roenxi 4y ago
  Draw out the connection a little more. You'll need to write a full paragraph to explain yourself. Everything I'm exposed to in my daily life is an artificial environment mediated by fossil fuels. All my food comes from an artificial environment mediated by fossil fuels. Running out of fossil fuels would be (will be, really) a catastrophe. How do you think the environment figures in to this? Or are you using a definition of 'environment' that includes the artificial bits that humans constructed? In which case, sure. Everything is the environment so all problems affect it. But the so-called climate crisis is still not a top priority.
  - boxed 4y ago
    Fishing and farming is the basis of the food web for cities. Cities aren't closed systems plus fossil fuels/electricity. They are super open systems with an enormity of inputs in the form of everything from wheat, to fish, to chickens that have been fed rando fish that humans won't eat, etc. It's all a big extraction machine that is super unsustainable.