5 ms·

In my view, we should use nuclear power to desalinate seawater at scale, turn the Sahara Desert into a massive prairie, and raise a billion cattle there to help

In my view, we should use nuclear power to desalinate seawater at scale, turn the Sahara Desert into a massive prairie, and raise a billion cattle there to help feed the world. We really need to move away from agriculture for environmental reasons, and red meat is also the most nutritious food humans can consume. We should also do the same thing in the Australian desert.

actionfromafar 4y ago
I read an article in a pop-sci magazine making the case that the jungles in South America would basically collapse if one removed Sahara Desert. (Something about the sand storms.)
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
  Or let the Guarani and other natives have their way. Which in pre-columbian times was nomadic, treading very lightly from one place to another, making small amounts of 'terra preta' while camping in one place for a short while.
- DoreenMichele 4y ago
  NASA Satellite Reveals How Much Saharan Dust Feeds Amazon’s Plants https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-satellite-reveals-how-much-saharan-dust-feeds-amazon-s-plants https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-satellite-reveals-...
- myshpa 4y ago
  I seriously doubt that amazonian rainforest would die off without saharan dust. Trees & mycorhizae are very capable of extracting the needed nutrients from below.
  - actionfromafar 4y ago
    That NASA link said "The phosphorus that reaches Amazon soils from Saharan dust, an estimated 22,000 tons per year, is about the same amount as that lost from rain and flooding"
eru 4y ago
> We really need to move away from agriculture for environmental reasons, [...] And then you go on to suggest massive global scale engineering projects? What kind of objections do you have against agriculture? Especially objections that couldn't be solved with less effort than what you are suggesting here?
- rhinoceraptor 4y ago
  Large scale modern agricultural takes a lot of oil, fertilizer and pesticide inputs to be viable. It's not sustainable.
  - timeon 4y ago
    Agriculture can be scaled down a bit if you do not need to feed huge amount of meat.
  - eru 4y ago
    Sorry, I don't understand how the second sentence follows from the first.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    Whereas greening the Sahara desert will require .. what inputs exactly? It's just an "agriculture" project on an infeasible scale.
    - LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
      What's so infeasible about it? Large parts of California have actually been terraformed by means of building large dams far away, canals, aequaducts, tunnels and pumps. Not to mention Nevada, Arizona...
    - solomonb 4y ago
      I think the idea would be to sink significant amounts of water and biomass into the desert and let it slowly develop into a prairie? You don't need fertilizer or pesticide and the parent poster was suggesting using nuclear to power the operation.
jjtheblunt 4y ago
Where did you get that red meat is the most nutritious food humans can consume?
- smegger001 4y ago
  its not, but it has its advantages, there is a lot of thing a ungulate can consume that does not make good food for humans, and much of the terrain they can graze on does not make good farm land for other food production. cows and goat for example will happily eat all sort of vegetation that doesn't need humans to water fertilize or plant.
  - myshpa 4y ago
    > but it has its advantages And tons of disadvantages. > and much of the terrain they can graze on does not make good farm land for other food production So ... maybe let's rewild the land with forests and shrubs? > will happily eat all sort of vegetation that doesn't need humans to water fertilize or plant You'd have us thinking that eating meat helps save water. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use We globally dedicate 75% of agri land to the animal agriculture, btw it's larger area than all forests together. https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/ https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-... "Per ton of product, animal products generally have a larger water footprint than crop products. The same is true when we look at the water footprint per calorie. The average water footprint per calorie for beef is twenty times larger than for cereals and starchy roots. When we look at the water requirements for protein, it has been found that the water footprint per gram of protein for milk, eggs and chicken meat is about 1.5 times larger than for pulses. For beef, the water footprint per gram of protein is 6 times larger than for pulses." https://www.cowspiracy.com/facts https://www.cowspiracy.com/facts "Agriculture is responsible for 80-90% of US water consumption. 5% of water consumed in the US is by private homes. 55% of water consumed in the US is for animal agriculture. Animal Agriculture is responsible for 20%-33% of all fresh water consumption in the world today."
    - smegger001 4y ago
timeon 4y ago
Most people do not even eat red meat and are doing just fine. So which is simpler solution? Is it turning desert around?
dgb23 4y ago
Red meat converts about an order of magnitude less energy than plant based farming.

actionfromafar 4y ago

I read an article in a pop-sci magazine making the case that the jungles in South America would basically collapse if one removed Sahara Desert. (Something about the sand storms.)

LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
Or let the Guarani and other natives have their way. Which in pre-columbian times was nomadic, treading very lightly from one place to another, making small amounts of 'terra preta' while camping in one place for a short while.
DoreenMichele 4y ago
NASA Satellite Reveals How Much Saharan Dust Feeds Amazon’s Plants https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-satellite-reveals-how-much-saharan-dust-feeds-amazon-s-plants https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-satellite-reveals-...
myshpa 4y ago
I seriously doubt that amazonian rainforest would die off without saharan dust. Trees & mycorhizae are very capable of extracting the needed nutrients from below.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  That NASA link said "The phosphorus that reaches Amazon soils from Saharan dust, an estimated 22,000 tons per year, is about the same amount as that lost from rain and flooding"

eru 4y ago

> We really need to move away from agriculture for environmental reasons, [...] And then you go on to suggest massive global scale engineering projects? What kind of objections do you have against agriculture? Especially objections that couldn't be solved with less effort than what you are suggesting here?

rhinoceraptor 4y ago
Large scale modern agricultural takes a lot of oil, fertilizer and pesticide inputs to be viable. It's not sustainable.
- timeon 4y ago
  Agriculture can be scaled down a bit if you do not need to feed huge amount of meat.
- eru 4y ago
  Sorry, I don't understand how the second sentence follows from the first.
- pjc50 4y ago
  Whereas greening the Sahara desert will require .. what inputs exactly? It's just an "agriculture" project on an infeasible scale.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
    What's so infeasible about it? Large parts of California have actually been terraformed by means of building large dams far away, canals, aequaducts, tunnels and pumps. Not to mention Nevada, Arizona...
  - solomonb 4y ago
    I think the idea would be to sink significant amounts of water and biomass into the desert and let it slowly develop into a prairie? You don't need fertilizer or pesticide and the parent poster was suggesting using nuclear to power the operation.

jjtheblunt 4y ago

Where did you get that red meat is the most nutritious food humans can consume?

smegger001 4y ago
its not, but it has its advantages, there is a lot of thing a ungulate can consume that does not make good food for humans, and much of the terrain they can graze on does not make good farm land for other food production. cows and goat for example will happily eat all sort of vegetation that doesn't need humans to water fertilize or plant.
- myshpa 4y ago
  > but it has its advantages And tons of disadvantages. > and much of the terrain they can graze on does not make good farm land for other food production So ... maybe let's rewild the land with forests and shrubs? > will happily eat all sort of vegetation that doesn't need humans to water fertilize or plant You'd have us thinking that eating meat helps save water. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use We globally dedicate 75% of agri land to the animal agriculture, btw it's larger area than all forests together. https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/ https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-... "Per ton of product, animal products generally have a larger water footprint than crop products. The same is true when we look at the water footprint per calorie. The average water footprint per calorie for beef is twenty times larger than for cereals and starchy roots. When we look at the water requirements for protein, it has been found that the water footprint per gram of protein for milk, eggs and chicken meat is about 1.5 times larger than for pulses. For beef, the water footprint per gram of protein is 6 times larger than for pulses." https://www.cowspiracy.com/facts https://www.cowspiracy.com/facts "Agriculture is responsible for 80-90% of US water consumption. 5% of water consumed in the US is by private homes. 55% of water consumed in the US is for animal agriculture. Animal Agriculture is responsible for 20%-33% of all fresh water consumption in the world today."
  - smegger001 4y ago

timeon 4y ago

Most people do not even eat red meat and are doing just fine. So which is simpler solution? Is it turning desert around?

dgb23 4y ago

Red meat converts about an order of magnitude less energy than plant based farming.