7 ms·

> The Haber process,[1] also called the Haber–Bosch process, is an artificial nitrogen fixation process and is the main industrial procedure for the production

by 323 4y ago

> The Haber process,[1] also called the Haber–Bosch process, is an artificial nitrogen fixation process and is the main industrial procedure for the production of ammonia today. > Nearly 50% of the nitrogen found in human tissues originated from the Haber–Bosch process.[59] Thus, the Haber process serves as the "detonator of the population explosion", enabling the global population to increase from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 7.7 billion by November 2018.[60] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

boudin 4y ago
Isn't that just the result of having heavily used this process? This can indeed be a consequence (although I do find the source of the wikipedia article really light without a proper study to support the claim) but it doesn't mean that this is a necessity. It could just be a result of a transition of societies relying a lot on animals, so having a lot of fertilizer as a byproduct, to a mechanize society needing to find an alternative for fertilizing.
- 323 4y ago
  > societies relying a lot on animals, so having a lot of fertilizer as a byproduct Animals also eat. There was never an abundance of fertilizer before industrial processes.
  - boudin 4y ago
    Although highly depending where, there definitely was. You can read about it in the Parisian farmers practice in the 19th century for example (not sure there's much material in English though)
  - jdmichal 4y ago
    > Animals also eat. I'm curious: what do you think they were eating? Livestock was and is used to convert plants humans can't eat into milk and meat that we can. Even modern grass-finished beef is raised mostly eating grasses. Grains are really expensive compared to some grass growing in a field. I don't understand why people think it would be even close to economical for a rancher to raise an animal over 1000 pounds on grain alone. That beef would be more expensive than any wagyu.
    - jdmichal 4y ago
      > Even modern grass-finished beef is raised mostly eating grasses. I meant, "Even modern grain-finished beef is raised mostly eating grasses."
OJFord 4y ago
But isn't that just another example? GP's point/question still applies - that's how we did it, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened another way.
- rcme 4y ago
  "It could have happened some other way" is a non-falsifiable statement. Therefore, it's not really that interesting to talk about. I counter with "It could have happened some other way" with "Prove it."
  - OJFord 4y ago
    I don't think that's true - imagine for example we'd run out of oxygen, and had needed to manufacture (extract) it somehow on a large scale to support a growing population: we could falsify it by saying 'no, it was necessary to produce more oxygen than was naturally available'. If we can't find any such way to falsify it, then the point stands.
    - rcme 4y ago
      Your example is not the same. The argument isn’t whether or not producing nitrogen is necessary. The question is whether how we produce nitrogen is necessary or if there is an alternative. Using your example, it’d be like if we produced oxygen using process X and then saying “process X was necessary to save the species because we would have run out of natural oxygen.” And someone saying “Not necessarily because process X might not be the only way to produce oxygen.”
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    the original statement implied it couldn't have happened some other way (gotten to population of 8 billion without megacorps), to which I essentially replied "Prove it" If your reply to my "prove it" is also "prove it" then it would seem we are at an impasse.
    - rcme 4y ago
pigsty 4y ago
Is that exclusively only manufacturable by multi-billion dollar mega corps? Is it impossible for every region of 10 million people to manufacture their own?
- 323 4y ago
  One could say that a company serving 10 million is a megacorp.
  - CuriousCosmic 4y ago
    I don't believe that's the question being asked. Rather they are asking whether the process was/is only viable with the support of a megacorp? Could this same process not be just as effectively used by smaller geographically distributed facilities run separate orgs or corps?
    - jacobr1 4y ago
      That is plausible. It depends what you mean by "megacorp." If what we mean (in contrast to artisanal craftsmanship) is just industrial scale operations - then yes, we certainly can organize industrialization differently than megacorps. Smaller sized corps, State-owned enterprises, co-ops, federated mutualism, and more, are all possibilities. But if the suggestion is that we could support modern population levels with just traditional production methods - that probably is unlikely. To steelman the argument, maybe proponent could suggest something like advanced permaculture. I'm skeptical that would work, but something along those lines is a possibility.
  - thisGuyFlicks 4y ago
    What's empirical about that though?

by 323 4y ago

boudin 4y ago

Isn't that just the result of having heavily used this process? This can indeed be a consequence (although I do find the source of the wikipedia article really light without a proper study to support the claim) but it doesn't mean that this is a necessity. It could just be a result of a transition of societies relying a lot on animals, so having a lot of fertilizer as a byproduct, to a mechanize society needing to find an alternative for fertilizing.

323 4y ago
> societies relying a lot on animals, so having a lot of fertilizer as a byproduct Animals also eat. There was never an abundance of fertilizer before industrial processes.
- boudin 4y ago
  Although highly depending where, there definitely was. You can read about it in the Parisian farmers practice in the 19th century for example (not sure there's much material in English though)
- jdmichal 4y ago
  > Animals also eat. I'm curious: what do you think they were eating? Livestock was and is used to convert plants humans can't eat into milk and meat that we can. Even modern grass-finished beef is raised mostly eating grasses. Grains are really expensive compared to some grass growing in a field. I don't understand why people think it would be even close to economical for a rancher to raise an animal over 1000 pounds on grain alone. That beef would be more expensive than any wagyu.
  - jdmichal 4y ago
    > Even modern grass-finished beef is raised mostly eating grasses. I meant, "Even modern grain-finished beef is raised mostly eating grasses."

OJFord 4y ago

But isn't that just another example? GP's point/question still applies - that's how we did it, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened another way.

rcme 4y ago
"It could have happened some other way" is a non-falsifiable statement. Therefore, it's not really that interesting to talk about. I counter with "It could have happened some other way" with "Prove it."
- OJFord 4y ago
  I don't think that's true - imagine for example we'd run out of oxygen, and had needed to manufacture (extract) it somehow on a large scale to support a growing population: we could falsify it by saying 'no, it was necessary to produce more oxygen than was naturally available'. If we can't find any such way to falsify it, then the point stands.
  - rcme 4y ago
    Your example is not the same. The argument isn’t whether or not producing nitrogen is necessary. The question is whether how we produce nitrogen is necessary or if there is an alternative. Using your example, it’d be like if we produced oxygen using process X and then saying “process X was necessary to save the species because we would have run out of natural oxygen.” And someone saying “Not necessarily because process X might not be the only way to produce oxygen.”
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  the original statement implied it couldn't have happened some other way (gotten to population of 8 billion without megacorps), to which I essentially replied "Prove it" If your reply to my "prove it" is also "prove it" then it would seem we are at an impasse.
  - rcme 4y ago

pigsty 4y ago

Is that exclusively only manufacturable by multi-billion dollar mega corps? Is it impossible for every region of 10 million people to manufacture their own?

323 4y ago
One could say that a company serving 10 million is a megacorp.
- CuriousCosmic 4y ago
  I don't believe that's the question being asked. Rather they are asking whether the process was/is only viable with the support of a megacorp? Could this same process not be just as effectively used by smaller geographically distributed facilities run separate orgs or corps?
  - jacobr1 4y ago
    That is plausible. It depends what you mean by "megacorp." If what we mean (in contrast to artisanal craftsmanship) is just industrial scale operations - then yes, we certainly can organize industrialization differently than megacorps. Smaller sized corps, State-owned enterprises, co-ops, federated mutualism, and more, are all possibilities. But if the suggestion is that we could support modern population levels with just traditional production methods - that probably is unlikely. To steelman the argument, maybe proponent could suggest something like advanced permaculture. I'm skeptical that would work, but something along those lines is a possibility.
- thisGuyFlicks 4y ago
  What's empirical about that though?