3 ms·

The main thesis of the article is that famine due to crop failure (as opposed to famine due to war) has largely been eliminated by two modern technologies: indu

The main thesis of the article is that famine due to crop failure (as opposed to famine due to war) has largely been eliminated by two modern technologies: industrial agricultural methods (synthetic fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, equipment) and global trade (air and ship transport managed by markets). This generally appears true - some time ago I tried to discover if total land area under agricultural production had increased since before the Norman Borlaug era and the answer seems to be no - as the author notes, per-acre productivity improvement accounts for the increase in food production. The opposing argument is that this approach is not sustainable in the long run due to soil degradation and agricultural pollution of waterways, high energy costs of the industrial approach, dependence on fossil fuels (and threats of flood and drought related to global warming), and that eventually the system will crash leading to a new round of famines. For the techno-optimists (e.g. myself) there is a way out - flip the industrial agriculture system off fossil fuels and onto renewable energy, i.e. electric equipment powered by sunlight and wind, and optimize use of inputs (fertilizer etc.) via adoption of machine learning and robotics (i.e each growing plant gets individual attention with this model). Of course this only works if we also stabilize the global human population and eliminate fossil fuels from the energy mix to avoid increasing drought/flood risk. Moving to a diet of no more than 5% or so animal products also makes sense as that means more primary production (direct photosynthesis) goes to humans instead of livestock, thereby reducing the pressure on agricultural land. As Monbiot implies, anyone claiming a return to pre-industrial subsistence agriculture is a good idea is either a shameless marketer or a lunatic who has never tried to grow their own food.

infecto 3y ago
Upvote for the fellow techno-optimist. I am pretty excited with some of the startups I have seen in the electric farm equipment space. https://www.monarchtractor.com/ https://www.monarchtractor.com/ I don't own a farm so I don't have industry insight but it's exciting because I think this is a problem at least appears solvable. I realize large combines are probably an issue but if you can automate the process perhaps smaller machines workout because they can run without human intervention. I am especially excited from what I have seen from the herbicide side. Take pictures the crop is driven over, hit with lasers or targeted herbicide instead of spraying the whole crop. The future is exciting.
- araes 3y ago
  A story I found interesting on the farm equipment development, was the effect that games like "Farm Simulator" are having as feedback on the actual industry. [1] Especially the "actual" gamist stuff. Like, "we need actual 3m tractors, they can't all be 9m $multi-million sales. How are we supposed to start out farming?" Except the industry does not "natively" think this way. Which is so crazy. They all just wanna make the big sales and ignore the little guy. Note the quote below. > Players need to be able to buy a three-metre cultivator early on, or a nine-metre version later. > “The really interesting stuff is above nine metres, and that’s what everyone wants to advertise,” Seidel said. “It’s up to me and my colleagues to be patient and negotiate.” [1] https://www.theguardian.com/games/2023/mar/25/flight-simulator-for-tractors-how-a-video-game-is-enticing-farmers-on-to-xbox https://www.theguardian.com/games/2023/mar/25/flight-simulat...
- geraldhh 3y ago
  Thanks for the link! Thou, while the description makes it seem like a high-utility and light-duty machine for high-margin farming (nuts&berries), it could also be total vaporware as the machines look "too tidy" and unused in the footage. curious if anyone could chime in here and provide some organic feedback.
pixl97 3y ago
>anyone claiming a return to pre-industrial subsistence agriculture Yea, there is no possible way it could be sustainable, the amount of labor required would likely plunge the entire world into war. If I was told to drop my cushy computer job to go out into the fields with a hoe so I could survive by some glorious leader, rising up against the leader sounds like the much more productive of the options.
Gibbon1 3y ago
I don't think of myself as a techo optimist, but mostly because I'm a politico pessimist. And some technologies are very problematic in the hands of bastards. But I do think the issue of energy is mostly solved technically. And likely doesn't have the same problematic geopolitical issues oil and gas does. It's a big task to roll it out, but the momentum is there. Also we basically solved the issue with exponential population growth via urbanization, birth control and reducing childhood mortality. That last two turned out to be exceptionally cheap. Snide comment, who knew women didn't want to be pregnant, breast feeding, and changing diapers for 20 years straight. That leaves a lot of other things, Legacy geopolitical stuff. Problems with authoritarian leaders. That 1/3 of humanity isn't particularly sane. These aren't tech problems. Problems with sustainable agriculture and that we are using up resources over a few generations that took geologic time to collect. I think it's important to not dismiss the issues we face. And equally important not to be despondent and give up. Because that's the worst thing we can do.
analyte123 3y ago
I don't find the opposing argument convincing at all. If you look at the US for example, all direct energy usage for crops and livestock production (~800 Tbtu) plus energy used for fertilizer production (~350 Tbtu) adds up to about 1% of all energy consumption [1]. This includes all the energy used to farm crops for biofuels and for export. This does not suggest some sort of looming agricultural energy crisis. The basic formula of mechanized agriculture has been in place for at least 100 years, and what is generally still happening is steadily increasing yields, decreasing energy consumption, and more knowledge and concern for soil quality and sustainability. The argument that we all need to leave cities behind and "return to the land" is squarely in the horseshoe zone of radical politics. These days I associate contempt for modernity, industrial agriculture and cities more with far-right ideologues than the far-left ones he is targeting here, but to me they are on both sides borne out of a similar unrealistic, apocalyptic, and utopian mindset; and especially the desire (conscious or not) that such a destructive transformation would address their personal struggles or political grievances. [1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=18431 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=18431, https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/
- pfdietz 3y ago
  And, there's no reason why fossil fuels would be needed to provide the energy. The only argument I can see that might have some validity is accumulation of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere from denitrification of fertilizers. But I think this can be addressed with denitrification inhibitors, some of which (procyanidins) can be produced by plants themselves.

infecto 3y ago

Upvote for the fellow techno-optimist. I am pretty excited with some of the startups I have seen in the electric farm equipment space. https://www.monarchtractor.com/ https://www.monarchtractor.com/ I don't own a farm so I don't have industry insight but it's exciting because I think this is a problem at least appears solvable. I realize large combines are probably an issue but if you can automate the process perhaps smaller machines workout because they can run without human intervention. I am especially excited from what I have seen from the herbicide side. Take pictures the crop is driven over, hit with lasers or targeted herbicide instead of spraying the whole crop. The future is exciting.

araes 3y ago
A story I found interesting on the farm equipment development, was the effect that games like "Farm Simulator" are having as feedback on the actual industry. [1] Especially the "actual" gamist stuff. Like, "we need actual 3m tractors, they can't all be 9m $multi-million sales. How are we supposed to start out farming?" Except the industry does not "natively" think this way. Which is so crazy. They all just wanna make the big sales and ignore the little guy. Note the quote below. > Players need to be able to buy a three-metre cultivator early on, or a nine-metre version later. > “The really interesting stuff is above nine metres, and that’s what everyone wants to advertise,” Seidel said. “It’s up to me and my colleagues to be patient and negotiate.” [1] https://www.theguardian.com/games/2023/mar/25/flight-simulator-for-tractors-how-a-video-game-is-enticing-farmers-on-to-xbox https://www.theguardian.com/games/2023/mar/25/flight-simulat...
geraldhh 3y ago
Thanks for the link! Thou, while the description makes it seem like a high-utility and light-duty machine for high-margin farming (nuts&berries), it could also be total vaporware as the machines look "too tidy" and unused in the footage. curious if anyone could chime in here and provide some organic feedback.

pixl97 3y ago

>anyone claiming a return to pre-industrial subsistence agriculture Yea, there is no possible way it could be sustainable, the amount of labor required would likely plunge the entire world into war. If I was told to drop my cushy computer job to go out into the fields with a hoe so I could survive by some glorious leader, rising up against the leader sounds like the much more productive of the options.

Gibbon1 3y ago

I don't think of myself as a techo optimist, but mostly because I'm a politico pessimist. And some technologies are very problematic in the hands of bastards. But I do think the issue of energy is mostly solved technically. And likely doesn't have the same problematic geopolitical issues oil and gas does. It's a big task to roll it out, but the momentum is there. Also we basically solved the issue with exponential population growth via urbanization, birth control and reducing childhood mortality. That last two turned out to be exceptionally cheap. Snide comment, who knew women didn't want to be pregnant, breast feeding, and changing diapers for 20 years straight. That leaves a lot of other things, Legacy geopolitical stuff. Problems with authoritarian leaders. That 1/3 of humanity isn't particularly sane. These aren't tech problems. Problems with sustainable agriculture and that we are using up resources over a few generations that took geologic time to collect. I think it's important to not dismiss the issues we face. And equally important not to be despondent and give up. Because that's the worst thing we can do.

analyte123 3y ago

I don't find the opposing argument convincing at all. If you look at the US for example, all direct energy usage for crops and livestock production (~800 Tbtu) plus energy used for fertilizer production (~350 Tbtu) adds up to about 1% of all energy consumption [1]. This includes all the energy used to farm crops for biofuels and for export. This does not suggest some sort of looming agricultural energy crisis. The basic formula of mechanized agriculture has been in place for at least 100 years, and what is generally still happening is steadily increasing yields, decreasing energy consumption, and more knowledge and concern for soil quality and sustainability. The argument that we all need to leave cities behind and "return to the land" is squarely in the horseshoe zone of radical politics. These days I associate contempt for modernity, industrial agriculture and cities more with far-right ideologues than the far-left ones he is targeting here, but to me they are on both sides borne out of a similar unrealistic, apocalyptic, and utopian mindset; and especially the desire (conscious or not) that such a destructive transformation would address their personal struggles or political grievances. [1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=18431 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=18431, https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/

pfdietz 3y ago
And, there's no reason why fossil fuels would be needed to provide the energy. The only argument I can see that might have some validity is accumulation of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere from denitrification of fertilizers. But I think this can be addressed with denitrification inhibitors, some of which (procyanidins) can be produced by plants themselves.