4 ms·

> and get rid of the 'wrap everything in a layer of plastic' tendencies that are completely unnecessary. If only fruits and vegetables had robust, natural, bio

> and get rid of the 'wrap everything in a layer of plastic' tendencies that are completely unnecessary. If only fruits and vegetables had robust, natural, bio-degradable packaging of their own. Some sort of peelable skin, perhaps.

hutzlibu 3y ago
"bio-degradable packaging" That is the thing: they rot. And if wrapped in plastic, they last longer ... so more fruit makes it to the markets. That being said, I strongly prefer fruits directly from trees that were not treated with 50+ different chemicals.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  less an issue if people eat locally and seasonally
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    But overwhelmingly they don't.
    - mandmandam 3y ago
      In our fucked-up society, yes. We eat sugar and corn, because that's whats subsidized and marketed. Food forests were very much a thing, for a very, very long time. Thousands of years.
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        I think corn was eaten since thousands of years, too. And whether food forests were a big thing and not just common in some areas, is quite disputable.
        mandmandam 3y ago
        Do you want to compare the percentage of corn of people's diet between now and then? Do you want to compare the actual plant - size, nutrition profile? Do you want to compare the growing methods - monoculture pesticide gmo corn vs heirloom corn? Food forests being a big thing is disputed by some people, that doesn't mean they didn't exist, and it certainly doesn't mean that we couldn't do the same thing but better if we made an effort to. It irks me when people use 'the way we do things now' to dismiss alternatives with great potential. What's the motivation there? Where's the logic in saying 'we can't do that, because that's not how we are doing things now?' It's stupid, and it shows a complete lack of imagination.
        hutzlibu 3y ago
        "Food forests being a big thing is disputed by some people" Food forests being a BIG thing all around the world is something many people, myself dispute. So you make a claim against the common consensus, it is up to you to proof your point. "Where's the logic in saying 'we can't do that, because that's not how we are doing things now?'" And the logic is, now there are way more people to feed. And I have actually seen quite some alternative permaculture communities. Usually they struggle to feed themself, let alone feed others(usually cannot live off their huge land at all). You cannot live off imagination. You need solid food. And food forests do have some potential, but not to feed the world.
        mandmandam 3y ago
        > And I have actually seen quite some alternative permaculture communities. Usually they struggle to feed themself, let alone feed others. Maybe that's true. But, does it actually matter - at all - that some communities didn't work? It shouldn't, but you think it does. That's weird. > food forests do have some potential, but not to feed the world. Think those goalpoasts just broke the sound barrier. We went from "food forests would let people eat fruit with less pesticides" to "well they won't feed the entire planet". And you're still wrong. Food forests will have a critical role in feeding the world sustainably. It's not just about calories - it's about soil health, diversity, fairness, carbon sequestration. > You cannot live off imagination. You need solid food. There's no call for this kind of condescending strawman. It's very much against the guidelines here.
- quattrofan 3y ago
  [dead]

hutzlibu 3y ago

"bio-degradable packaging" That is the thing: they rot. And if wrapped in plastic, they last longer ... so more fruit makes it to the markets. That being said, I strongly prefer fruits directly from trees that were not treated with 50+ different chemicals.

wahnfrieden 3y ago
less an issue if people eat locally and seasonally
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  But overwhelmingly they don't.
  - mandmandam 3y ago
    In our fucked-up society, yes. We eat sugar and corn, because that's whats subsidized and marketed. Food forests were very much a thing, for a very, very long time. Thousands of years.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      I think corn was eaten since thousands of years, too. And whether food forests were a big thing and not just common in some areas, is quite disputable.
      - mandmandam 3y ago
        Do you want to compare the percentage of corn of people's diet between now and then? Do you want to compare the actual plant - size, nutrition profile? Do you want to compare the growing methods - monoculture pesticide gmo corn vs heirloom corn? Food forests being a big thing is disputed by some people, that doesn't mean they didn't exist, and it certainly doesn't mean that we couldn't do the same thing but better if we made an effort to. It irks me when people use 'the way we do things now' to dismiss alternatives with great potential. What's the motivation there? Where's the logic in saying 'we can't do that, because that's not how we are doing things now?' It's stupid, and it shows a complete lack of imagination.
        hutzlibu 3y ago
        "Food forests being a big thing is disputed by some people" Food forests being a BIG thing all around the world is something many people, myself dispute. So you make a claim against the common consensus, it is up to you to proof your point. "Where's the logic in saying 'we can't do that, because that's not how we are doing things now?'" And the logic is, now there are way more people to feed. And I have actually seen quite some alternative permaculture communities. Usually they struggle to feed themself, let alone feed others(usually cannot live off their huge land at all). You cannot live off imagination. You need solid food. And food forests do have some potential, but not to feed the world.
        mandmandam 3y ago
        > And I have actually seen quite some alternative permaculture communities. Usually they struggle to feed themself, let alone feed others. Maybe that's true. But, does it actually matter - at all - that some communities didn't work? It shouldn't, but you think it does. That's weird. > food forests do have some potential, but not to feed the world. Think those goalpoasts just broke the sound barrier. We went from "food forests would let people eat fruit with less pesticides" to "well they won't feed the entire planet". And you're still wrong. Food forests will have a critical role in feeding the world sustainably. It's not just about calories - it's about soil health, diversity, fairness, carbon sequestration. > You cannot live off imagination. You need solid food. There's no call for this kind of condescending strawman. It's very much against the guidelines here.
quattrofan 3y ago
[dead]