4 ms·

> the idea that we could have a modern society with 40-70% of people shifting to agricultural labor is on its face ridiculous I never said we'd need 40-70% of

by myshpa 3y ago

> the idea that we could have a modern society with 40-70% of people shifting to agricultural labor is on its face ridiculous I never said we'd need 40-70% of people in the agriculture. I've talked about the possibility of the increase upto aproximately 4% , with a pool of 40-70% people to choose from. Is it clearer now? > you seem to be dead set on having an argument with me about something I'm not saying Ditto :) > If your proposal is to revert back to high land and labor input methods, then maybe it would make a difference insofar as a few billion people would probably starve. For my part, I'd prefer we try innovating our way through it. This has triggered my response. I can't agree with that at all. There's no need to revert to high land and labor input methods. I'll simplify a lot. We could grow more veggies and fruit, plant more nut orchards to replace milk, grow more legumes to replace meat, on smaller fields separated with rows of productive and nitrogen fixing trees (agroforesty) and reforest more lands to let biodiversity rebound and work with it, not against it ... nothing that is particulary hard and nothing of that means that billions would have to die. It would need new (smaller) electric machines and more workers, but maybe 1-2 times more, not 20 times more.

ch4s3 3y ago
This strikes me a rhetorical sleight of hand. > I never said we'd need 40-70% of people in the agriculture. > with a pool of 40-70% people to choose from > There's no need to revert to high land and labor input methods. > We could > It would need new (smaller) electric machines and more workers, but maybe 1-2 times more, This is all very squishy and utopian. I just don't see a practical proposal here. You're talking about completely reworking agriculture with no viable path to providing sufficient calories at a cost that developing nations can bare. We can see the recent debacle in Sri Lanka as a cautionary tale of what can happen if you try to force such a change. On a more personal note I've seen a lot of people try to spin up hobby farms using "restorative" practices and they're producing relatively little food, using unpaid interns, still having to charge 4x grocery store price for worse food, and havign to rely on government handouts to even do that.
- myshpa 3y ago
  > This strikes me a rhetorical sleight of hand. > I just don't see a practical proposal here My previous comment @ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37589124 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37589124 : Sustainable and regenerative agriculture is entirely possible. You may want to explore practices such as natural, syntropic, permaculture, and agroforestry farming, to name just a few. While it may require more knowledge and labor, advancements in technology and automation could potentially mean only a slight increase in the workforce, from around 2% to maybe upto 4%. > We can see the recent debacle in Sri Lanka as a cautionary tale of what can happen if you try to force such a change Without a transition period, education, or support, it was poised to end up badly. > hobby farms using "restorative" practices and they're producing relatively little food Again, take a look into syntropic agriculture (Ernst Gotsch) and natural (or 'do-nothing') farming (Masanobu Fukuoka). Their yields are comparable to or better than those of their traditional counterparts, all while repairing the soil and without using any external inputs (thus saving significant costs). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37390730 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37390730

by myshpa 3y ago

ch4s3 3y ago

This strikes me a rhetorical sleight of hand. > I never said we'd need 40-70% of people in the agriculture. > with a pool of 40-70% people to choose from > There's no need to revert to high land and labor input methods. > We could > It would need new (smaller) electric machines and more workers, but maybe 1-2 times more, This is all very squishy and utopian. I just don't see a practical proposal here. You're talking about completely reworking agriculture with no viable path to providing sufficient calories at a cost that developing nations can bare. We can see the recent debacle in Sri Lanka as a cautionary tale of what can happen if you try to force such a change. On a more personal note I've seen a lot of people try to spin up hobby farms using "restorative" practices and they're producing relatively little food, using unpaid interns, still having to charge 4x grocery store price for worse food, and havign to rely on government handouts to even do that.

myshpa 3y ago
> This strikes me a rhetorical sleight of hand. > I just don't see a practical proposal here My previous comment @ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37589124 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37589124 : Sustainable and regenerative agriculture is entirely possible. You may want to explore practices such as natural, syntropic, permaculture, and agroforestry farming, to name just a few. While it may require more knowledge and labor, advancements in technology and automation could potentially mean only a slight increase in the workforce, from around 2% to maybe upto 4%. > We can see the recent debacle in Sri Lanka as a cautionary tale of what can happen if you try to force such a change Without a transition period, education, or support, it was poised to end up badly. > hobby farms using "restorative" practices and they're producing relatively little food Again, take a look into syntropic agriculture (Ernst Gotsch) and natural (or 'do-nothing') farming (Masanobu Fukuoka). Their yields are comparable to or better than those of their traditional counterparts, all while repairing the soil and without using any external inputs (thus saving significant costs). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37390730 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37390730