4 ms·

As long as there is a profit to be made, people will do it. The consequences of their actions won't be felt by them and they know it. We've got a system that d

As long as there is a profit to be made, people will do it. The consequences of their actions won't be felt by them and they know it. We've got a system that does not provide checks and balances against that, and the world is run by the same neoliberal ideology that says the market is always right and intervention is wrong. Sucks for our kids and their kids, but the people doing things like this do not care one iota. It's a shame that those that run the world are ideologically opposed to make them care about the damage they're doing.

nverno 4y ago
Personally, I wouldn't say Iowa farmers run the world. We have systems, eg. the USDA, EPA, etc. that are supposed to protect against long-term damage. They just might not be doing enough in many cases. This is about a lot more than ideology. People want food, and it's a whole lot harder to produce the quantities people need using better long-term farming practices. Hopefully, that changes.
- blululu 4y ago
  People have food. There is more than enough food for everyone in the US. The US produces a large surplus. The federal government intervenes with generous subsidies, to guarantee over production.
  - paganel 4y ago
    > The US produces a large surplus. Which helps keep the price of basic foods low in other parts of the world, such as Africa. Take that out and you've got huge famines over large parts of the world, huge famine-induced migrations and guaranteed big wars. There's no way for a country like Egypt to feed its population of 100 million (I just checked that value yesterday on wikipedia, I still can't believe it) all by itself, that's why it needs cheap food imports to be available. Yes, the Western subsidies for their own agricultural products directly kill most of African agriculture in the bud, but, even so, and I repeat, I don't think a country like Egypt would have been able to feed itself. Maybe a country like Congo could (population ~100 million), but the soils over there are not suitable for farming grains and then you'd have to cut down the equatorial forests to make way for said farming land. One could transform nearby Zimbabwe in the bread-basket of Africa again, but then all the environmental damages we now inflict on the US MidWest prairies and big rivers would similarly negatively affect the African savannah and rivers like the Zambezi.
    - oblio 4y ago
      > There's no way for a country like Egypt to feed its population of 100 million (I just checked that value yesterday on wikipedia, I still can't believe it) Hold on to your hat: https://www.populationpyramid.net/egypt/2050/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/egypt/2050/
- HWR_14 4y ago
  I don't think "long term soil health" on private lands is regulated by anybody.
  - nverno 4y ago
    Conservation of soil/water is a directive of the USDA [1], and they provide the guidelines mentioned in the article, but I don't know what actual legal power they wield in this regard. 1. https://www.usda.gov/directives/directives-categories https://www.usda.gov/directives/directives-categories
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      I believe all compliance with the guidelines in voluntary.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  The people who came up with and enforce the regulations farmers need to adhere to, by definition, are running the world. These days farms have been so consolidated, and corporations dictate terms via contracts with the smaller farms that are left, that the idyllic family farm image that comes to mind when you think of American farmers is nearly a thing of the past. Those corporations, banks, etc that are involved with consolidation and dictating contractual terms with smaller farms, also tend to run the world.
  - nverno 4y ago
    These evil corporations aren't mandating devastating farming practices. Certainly, big corporations, supermarket chains having huge contracts with few industrial farms for example, have played a big role in the consolidation. There are a lot of factors at play here, though, that have lead to industrial farms crowding out all the smaller farms, eg. economy of scale, high capital investment in equipment, and dwindling workforce- fewer kids want to stick around and work the farms. I think it's a tradeoff- a lot of better farming practices require more workers, from my understanding/experience.
    - heavyset_go 4y ago
      They're mandating contracts where farmers are forced to adopt practices with negative externalities just to keep their heads above water and meet their contractual obligations, and so they don't have to literally sell the farm.
      - nverno 4y ago
        This sounds like sharecropping or something. Why are farmers signing contracts like this?
        heavyset_go 4y ago
        Large consolidated farms can outcompete them at scale and automation, so they either enter contracts with thin margins or they literally sell the farm, which will likely end up being part of yet another consolidated farm. Many farmers have gotten out of the game for that reason, so to answer your question, a lot of them got out of farming and whoever is left is taking the contracts.
- wwweston 4y ago
  USDA, EPA, make policy that are reflections of US culture, as you'd expect in a representative system. This includes Iowa farmers, who probably do have extra margins of influence regarding practices in their industry in the same way software engineers inevitably have influence over practices in their industry, on top of whatever representation they support as individuals or in industry groups. > harder to produce the quantities people need using better long-term farming practices. You're not wrong but "harder" does a lot of work in that sentence. Requires more labor or becomes more expensive are probably correct. Are we willing to pay for it? That's ultimately a question of values or ideology. Though of course, borrowing from future agricultural capacity also sounds like it could be very expensive.
  - nverno 4y ago
    > Requires more labor or becomes more expensive are probably correct. Are we willing to pay for it? I certainly am, but in the US we have a history now of eating rubbish and devaluing quality food, so I'm not sure how quickly the market will push farming practices. I think the labor is the more difficult issue, as fewer people want to farm. I imagine it's a very hard choice to switch off a high production farm for a permaculture one (one I personally hope more people make).
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  Iowa farmers don’t run anything, other than their farms, and a hilarious influence on the tone of national elections in the most powerful country on the planet.
  - ckrapu 4y ago
    The Iowa ag lobby had a huge hand in 1) getting ethanol to be subsidized, 2) forcing open Mexico’s protected maize market, thereby indirectly causing most of the border troubles we face, and 3) pushing corn syrup on unwitting consumers and turning half the USA obese.
    - eyelidlessness 4y ago
      Yeah my comment was probably way too clever in my own mind for its own good. Iowa farmers have vastly more influence on all sorts of things than they should, in no small part because of their weird symbolic early influence on elections.
      - ckrapu 4y ago
        I think your underlying assumption that there's no coordination or conspiracy going on is probably right. What scares me is that most people had good intentions along the way here (plus a light dusting of completely predictable greed) but made all of these negative outcomes happen.
brightball 4y ago
There’s already so much intervention with farming you can’t even attribute market effects anymore.
- colordrops 4y ago
  It's only market intervention if it makes them lose money.
Aunche 4y ago
>the world is run by the same neoliberal ideology that says the market is always right and intervention is wrong. Did "neoliberal ideology" inspire the Soviet Union to drain the Aral sea? Did neoliberal ideology inspire Easter Islanders to deplete their forests? If your only solution to environmental destruction is change the ideology of the world to match your own, then you don't really care about the environment at all.
- ElevenLathe 4y ago
  Those environmental disasters were clearly created by other warped, bad ideologies. Neoliberalism is another example.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Warped? I can understand the desire for such a framing, but I think that is unhelpful, partly because nobody likes being told their ideology is warped, and partly because all ideologies are misaligned — it's not like anyone really has a perfect idea of what a well-aligned ideology even looks like, though we can all see the failures after they happen, rather we just tell ourselves that we do know and it's «insert your own preference here» that is The One True Way. Laissez-faire capitalism basically died as hard in the Great Depression as Soviet-style socialism did with the fall of the Iron Curtain, but while capitalism as a whole shifted in response to that, and the actual (non-conspiracy-theory) version of the WEF's Great Reset is an attempt to replace neoliberalism, communism… well, based on conversations I still have with an ex who self-identifies as anarcho-Communist (Marxist?), communism is still busy convinced that class-consciousness is only one election/strike action from taking over the world like it's 1866 and the aristocracy is still a big deal.
    - ElevenLathe 4y ago
      I would call any ideology that destroys the environment of the society that holds it "warped" and "bad" but maybe that's just my personal bias.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
refurb 4y ago
I think you need to replace “profit” with benefit since even subsistence farmers used inefficient farming techniques. Bizarre to blame profit when it’s bigger than that.

nverno 4y ago

Personally, I wouldn't say Iowa farmers run the world. We have systems, eg. the USDA, EPA, etc. that are supposed to protect against long-term damage. They just might not be doing enough in many cases. This is about a lot more than ideology. People want food, and it's a whole lot harder to produce the quantities people need using better long-term farming practices. Hopefully, that changes.

blululu 4y ago
People have food. There is more than enough food for everyone in the US. The US produces a large surplus. The federal government intervenes with generous subsidies, to guarantee over production.
- paganel 4y ago
  > The US produces a large surplus. Which helps keep the price of basic foods low in other parts of the world, such as Africa. Take that out and you've got huge famines over large parts of the world, huge famine-induced migrations and guaranteed big wars. There's no way for a country like Egypt to feed its population of 100 million (I just checked that value yesterday on wikipedia, I still can't believe it) all by itself, that's why it needs cheap food imports to be available. Yes, the Western subsidies for their own agricultural products directly kill most of African agriculture in the bud, but, even so, and I repeat, I don't think a country like Egypt would have been able to feed itself. Maybe a country like Congo could (population ~100 million), but the soils over there are not suitable for farming grains and then you'd have to cut down the equatorial forests to make way for said farming land. One could transform nearby Zimbabwe in the bread-basket of Africa again, but then all the environmental damages we now inflict on the US MidWest prairies and big rivers would similarly negatively affect the African savannah and rivers like the Zambezi.
  - oblio 4y ago
    > There's no way for a country like Egypt to feed its population of 100 million (I just checked that value yesterday on wikipedia, I still can't believe it) Hold on to your hat: https://www.populationpyramid.net/egypt/2050/ https://www.populationpyramid.net/egypt/2050/
HWR_14 4y ago
I don't think "long term soil health" on private lands is regulated by anybody.
- nverno 4y ago
  Conservation of soil/water is a directive of the USDA [1], and they provide the guidelines mentioned in the article, but I don't know what actual legal power they wield in this regard. 1. https://www.usda.gov/directives/directives-categories https://www.usda.gov/directives/directives-categories
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    I believe all compliance with the guidelines in voluntary.
heavyset_go 4y ago
The people who came up with and enforce the regulations farmers need to adhere to, by definition, are running the world. These days farms have been so consolidated, and corporations dictate terms via contracts with the smaller farms that are left, that the idyllic family farm image that comes to mind when you think of American farmers is nearly a thing of the past. Those corporations, banks, etc that are involved with consolidation and dictating contractual terms with smaller farms, also tend to run the world.
- nverno 4y ago
  These evil corporations aren't mandating devastating farming practices. Certainly, big corporations, supermarket chains having huge contracts with few industrial farms for example, have played a big role in the consolidation. There are a lot of factors at play here, though, that have lead to industrial farms crowding out all the smaller farms, eg. economy of scale, high capital investment in equipment, and dwindling workforce- fewer kids want to stick around and work the farms. I think it's a tradeoff- a lot of better farming practices require more workers, from my understanding/experience.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    They're mandating contracts where farmers are forced to adopt practices with negative externalities just to keep their heads above water and meet their contractual obligations, and so they don't have to literally sell the farm.
    - nverno 4y ago
      This sounds like sharecropping or something. Why are farmers signing contracts like this?
      - heavyset_go 4y ago
        Large consolidated farms can outcompete them at scale and automation, so they either enter contracts with thin margins or they literally sell the farm, which will likely end up being part of yet another consolidated farm. Many farmers have gotten out of the game for that reason, so to answer your question, a lot of them got out of farming and whoever is left is taking the contracts.
wwweston 4y ago
USDA, EPA, make policy that are reflections of US culture, as you'd expect in a representative system. This includes Iowa farmers, who probably do have extra margins of influence regarding practices in their industry in the same way software engineers inevitably have influence over practices in their industry, on top of whatever representation they support as individuals or in industry groups. > harder to produce the quantities people need using better long-term farming practices. You're not wrong but "harder" does a lot of work in that sentence. Requires more labor or becomes more expensive are probably correct. Are we willing to pay for it? That's ultimately a question of values or ideology. Though of course, borrowing from future agricultural capacity also sounds like it could be very expensive.
- nverno 4y ago
  > Requires more labor or becomes more expensive are probably correct. Are we willing to pay for it? I certainly am, but in the US we have a history now of eating rubbish and devaluing quality food, so I'm not sure how quickly the market will push farming practices. I think the labor is the more difficult issue, as fewer people want to farm. I imagine it's a very hard choice to switch off a high production farm for a permaculture one (one I personally hope more people make).
eyelidlessness 4y ago
Iowa farmers don’t run anything, other than their farms, and a hilarious influence on the tone of national elections in the most powerful country on the planet.
- ckrapu 4y ago
  The Iowa ag lobby had a huge hand in 1) getting ethanol to be subsidized, 2) forcing open Mexico’s protected maize market, thereby indirectly causing most of the border troubles we face, and 3) pushing corn syrup on unwitting consumers and turning half the USA obese.
  - eyelidlessness 4y ago
    Yeah my comment was probably way too clever in my own mind for its own good. Iowa farmers have vastly more influence on all sorts of things than they should, in no small part because of their weird symbolic early influence on elections.
    - ckrapu 4y ago
      I think your underlying assumption that there's no coordination or conspiracy going on is probably right. What scares me is that most people had good intentions along the way here (plus a light dusting of completely predictable greed) but made all of these negative outcomes happen.

brightball 4y ago

There’s already so much intervention with farming you can’t even attribute market effects anymore.

colordrops 4y ago
It's only market intervention if it makes them lose money.

Aunche 4y ago

>the world is run by the same neoliberal ideology that says the market is always right and intervention is wrong. Did "neoliberal ideology" inspire the Soviet Union to drain the Aral sea? Did neoliberal ideology inspire Easter Islanders to deplete their forests? If your only solution to environmental destruction is change the ideology of the world to match your own, then you don't really care about the environment at all.

ElevenLathe 4y ago
Those environmental disasters were clearly created by other warped, bad ideologies. Neoliberalism is another example.
- ben_w 4y ago
  Warped? I can understand the desire for such a framing, but I think that is unhelpful, partly because nobody likes being told their ideology is warped, and partly because all ideologies are misaligned — it's not like anyone really has a perfect idea of what a well-aligned ideology even looks like, though we can all see the failures after they happen, rather we just tell ourselves that we do know and it's «insert your own preference here» that is The One True Way. Laissez-faire capitalism basically died as hard in the Great Depression as Soviet-style socialism did with the fall of the Iron Curtain, but while capitalism as a whole shifted in response to that, and the actual (non-conspiracy-theory) version of the WEF's Great Reset is an attempt to replace neoliberalism, communism… well, based on conversations I still have with an ex who self-identifies as anarcho-Communist (Marxist?), communism is still busy convinced that class-consciousness is only one election/strike action from taking over the world like it's 1866 and the aristocracy is still a big deal.
  - ElevenLathe 4y ago
    I would call any ideology that destroys the environment of the society that holds it "warped" and "bad" but maybe that's just my personal bias.
dragonwriter 4y ago

refurb 4y ago

I think you need to replace “profit” with benefit since even subsistence farmers used inefficient farming techniques. Bizarre to blame profit when it’s bigger than that.