3 ms·

There are applications where glyphosate is perfectly appropriate. The issues with it arise when A) farmers use it as a crop dissicant in large quantities to ma

There are applications where glyphosate is perfectly appropriate. The issues with it arise when A) farmers use it as a crop dissicant in large quantities to make their crops cheaper to harvest, outside the spec of the product and B) when it's used in unsuitable soil, temperature, and humidity conditions. In the right conditions it has a half life of a few days and will be completely inert in a couple of weeks. This is a relatively small impact for a pretty big benefit. In poorly suited conditions it can persist for months or years. We should just make it legal for use in situations where it decays quickly and harmlessly and disallow it's use in jurisdictions where the conditions are not appropriate for it's use. It's just a chemical, like any other chemical as long as it's used responsibly it can deliver incredible benefits. In this case cost-effectively feeding the world. If the price for all that is some impairment to bumblebees for a few weeks maybe we should weigh that against the benefits and make a rational decision.

throwawaay31aq 3y ago
[flagged]
vixen99 3y ago
Rational decisions demand access to all necessary information. Thus one might ask if the impairment described is restricted purely to bumblebees? Do we know? What is it that's so special about bumblebees as against other organisms such that they would be immune to 'just a chemical'?
- nithril 3y ago
  It is an improvement to better understand the glyphosate effects. Rational decision cannot be taken by only considering the glyphosate effects. Decisions have to be taken with an holistic view on the agricultural systems. Eg. glyphosate might an option to regain control over weeds versus a systematic plow of the soil that has for consequences to damage its structure and its organisms.
FrustratedMonky 3y ago
A - Doesn't sound like enough advantage over disadvantage. B - Sounds like it would need regulation? Who is making sure farmers are using it in this manner? It isn't just bumblebee impairment. Entire colonies die. Bumblebees are needed to pollinate a large percentage of our food -> Hence not a "rational decision". TO say nothing of impact on humans, and the half life in water runoff.
- idiotsecant 3y ago
  Yes. Both points A and B could benefit from regulation. A lot of things we do kill animals, insects, and plants. The house or office you're sitting in displaced a great deal of natural biosphere. It emitted and emits a great deal of carbon. Should we tear that down too? No, obviously not, because we enjoy living. You can't ignore those same tradeoffs when they happen to not be taking place in your back yard. We can make sensible regulation to minimize our impact but sometimes we need to make an impact to extract resources, just how it is.
murrayb 3y ago
> In the right conditions it has a half life of a few days and will be completely inert in a couple of weeks. As far as I can tell this is not accurate- glyphosate breaks down to AMPA which is not inert.
qbxk 3y ago
what if the price is significantly increased rates of lymphoma amongst the human population?

throwawaay31aq 3y ago

[flagged]

vixen99 3y ago

Rational decisions demand access to all necessary information. Thus one might ask if the impairment described is restricted purely to bumblebees? Do we know? What is it that's so special about bumblebees as against other organisms such that they would be immune to 'just a chemical'?

nithril 3y ago
It is an improvement to better understand the glyphosate effects. Rational decision cannot be taken by only considering the glyphosate effects. Decisions have to be taken with an holistic view on the agricultural systems. Eg. glyphosate might an option to regain control over weeds versus a systematic plow of the soil that has for consequences to damage its structure and its organisms.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

A - Doesn't sound like enough advantage over disadvantage. B - Sounds like it would need regulation? Who is making sure farmers are using it in this manner? It isn't just bumblebee impairment. Entire colonies die. Bumblebees are needed to pollinate a large percentage of our food -> Hence not a "rational decision". TO say nothing of impact on humans, and the half life in water runoff.

idiotsecant 3y ago
Yes. Both points A and B could benefit from regulation. A lot of things we do kill animals, insects, and plants. The house or office you're sitting in displaced a great deal of natural biosphere. It emitted and emits a great deal of carbon. Should we tear that down too? No, obviously not, because we enjoy living. You can't ignore those same tradeoffs when they happen to not be taking place in your back yard. We can make sensible regulation to minimize our impact but sometimes we need to make an impact to extract resources, just how it is.

murrayb 3y ago

> In the right conditions it has a half life of a few days and will be completely inert in a couple of weeks. As far as I can tell this is not accurate- glyphosate breaks down to AMPA which is not inert.

qbxk 3y ago

what if the price is significantly increased rates of lymphoma amongst the human population?