8 ms·

Biodiversity does not directly benefit everyone, while global trade does. Global trade killed bananas? Without it you would not know bananas exists. Would you

Biodiversity does not directly benefit everyone, while global trade does. Global trade killed bananas? Without it you would not know bananas exists. Would you rather ban all unprocessed food imports and eat only local fruits and vegetables? Limited by season, soil, water and probably overpriced

dubcanada 3y ago
I get what you are saying. But I will say that a lot of local foods disappeared because of the global trade. There are TONS of edible plants and trees that we don’t even consider because we buy one of the 3 types of lettuce sold. This is not because they are bad tasting, actually in some cases superior to their store bought alternative. It is just that nobody knows about them. There is benefits, but there is also cons.
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  I live in California and benefit greatly from incredible local produce, but someone in Alabama does not. Trade has allowed everyone to enjoy the best of each region, while giving up some of their own. I’d say the bigger issue is the commodification of corn syrup and reductionism of product for addiction rather than trade itself.
  - sarchertech 3y ago
    Alabama has a long growing season, a ton of arable land and more average rainfall than nearly anywhere in California. Not as warm in winter as California sure, but I’m not sure it’s the best example
    - tsunamifury 3y ago
      I hate this type of “I read a fact” and applied it wrong comment. Please point me to alabamas vast wine country or nuts or avacados. Just because Alabama theoretically has potential doesn’t mean it has everything California does.
      - twisteriffic 3y ago
        > Just because Alabama theoretically has potential doesn’t mean it has everything California does. No one was saying that other than you.
      - enriquec 3y ago
        I hate this type of "wrong" comment. Alabama obviously produces a ton of crops as do most of the states. After googling for 2 seconds, I even found Alabama is 2nd in the country as far as peanut production.
      - drewcoo 3y ago
        Good grief. Alabama Ag is alive and well. Not everything is avocadoes or California nuts. https://farmflavor.com/alabama-agriculture/ https://farmflavor.com/alabama-agriculture/
        tsunamifury 3y ago
        Sorry I offended Alabamans with facts about differential trade volume…
        upvote_test_act 3y ago
        [flagged]
        tsunamifury 3y ago
        I can change my mind just fine. It’s just a bit laughable that you’d get so up in arms about something obvious. California trades with Alabama… it’s incredible how offended everyone is here about that… like honestly. Back off and think about this… who is acting rediculiously? You go on this long rant attacking me personally, stereotyping me with laughably bad caricatures, pouring over my history. Buddy. Get a grip. This is all over the statement “California trades with Alabama.” Honestly who is being unhinged and emotionally stunted here. Also you’ve been stalking me across multiple comments on different posts. I think you need to really honestly consider your behavior. It’s unsettling, and inappropriate.
  - drewcoo 3y ago
    > I live in California and benefit greatly from incredible local produce Without more qualifiers, that misses the point. Most local crops are still big ag varieties. The "local" crops you buy are likely the same ones sold in grocery stores anywhere in the US because so many things are grown in California. But there are some things that can only be grown locally, because they aren't suited to shipping or because they have short shelf lives. And there are lots of varieties that are not on big ag's buy list, so large operations are very unlikely to grow them. Even corn (which you mention) and soybeans need to be certain varieties to be turned into everything from high fructose corn syrup to the "shrimp shapes" made of soy I remember from grade school. They are part of the problem the GP is talking about, not the problem instead . . . Big ag forces out diversity in crops and, frankly, forces a blander palate on the populace, who doesn't know better anymore.
    - upvote_test_act 3y ago
      Please save yourself further effort here-- the person you're replyng to isn't interested in cultivating and improving any kind of accurate mental model of the world.
numtel 3y ago
Global trade killed all uniqueness of culture? We don't even know what we're missing. > Biodiversity does not directly benefit everyone Jfc. Plants aren't just for food. Lots of medicines are derived from plants. As indigenous people dwindle from the planet, their knowledge of useful plants disappears and their potential becomes lost on us.
- hyperhopper 3y ago
  > We don't even know what we're missing. The plants that are being neglected aren't unknown, they are just not as useful > Jfc. Plants aren't just for food. Nobody said they were. Stop inventing strawman arguments > indigenous people dwindle from the planet, their knowledge of useful plants disappears and their potential becomes lost on us. Source required. What important plant knowledge is being lost?
  - numtel 3y ago
    We literally do not know what we lost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putumayo_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putumayo_genocide When rubber industrialists wiped out the people living in the area, those that remained lost generational knowledge. Ethnobotanists like Shultes explored the Amazon afterwards. There's even a movie made on the subject of exploring the Amazon for medicines with Sean Connery, Medicine Man. Also, the more recent Embrace of the Serpent.
    - alexey-salmin 3y ago
      When you personally are sick do you go to a doctor or to a shaman?
- alexey-salmin 3y ago
  Medicine we have now is orders of magnitude better than what indigenous people could ever dream of.
  - Hnrobert42 3y ago
rexpop 3y ago
> Biodiversity does not directly benefit everyone Just a bonkers nonsense statement, I am stunned by this perspective. Do you think you could live in an antiseptic paper envelope? Biodiversity doesn't "benefit" anyone so much as it comprises, entirely, the world from which we're inextricable. Absolutely bonkers modernist anthropocentrism.
- ponector 3y ago
  How biodiversity in some areas of US will benefit people in Chile? But global trade is helping them to become richer by selling avocados to americans. Growing an avocado is devastating to local biome, but I bet people would rather destroy it than live in poverty. I have never seen an edible chestnut tree and really don't care about how many species of them are all over the world. I'm not talking about antiseptic envelope, it is not related to biodiversity. It is sad that biodiversity is decreasing, but we can live with smaller amount of species on the planet. Will you fill the difference if there will be 20 instead of 60 species of ash tree?
- softg 3y ago
  >Biodiversity doesn't "benefit" anyone so much as it comprises, entirely, the world from which we're inextricable. Is it though? There's been several extinction events that wiped out the biodiversity of the planet and they were all natural too. We might be inextricable from the world but we can and do manipulate it to our benefit. I don't understand what is the problem with anthropocentrism. Given the chance, I'd prefer more biodiversity for sure, but if it's objectively bad for human beings I think human interests should come first. It's just that the current cycle of overproduction and global warming isn't benefiting humans either. That's not the fault of human-centered thinking, it's the fault of profit-centered short-term thinking.
- Modified3019 3y ago
  Biodiversity is a word which divorced from its consequences, which can be positive, negative, both or neither. It can result in “health” via symbiotic relationships, just as much as it can result suffering, war and hardship via the introduction of pests and diseases. The point is it’s daft throw around biodiversity as some kind of absolute idea of virtue. It is not equitable with “goodness”.
ramblenode 3y ago
> Biodiversity does not directly benefit everyone, while global trade does. Biodiversity is an intrinsic aspect of ecosystem stability. The earth's functioning ecosystem is literally necessary for life on earth. All that "free" value in the form of plants and animals that produce our food, photosynthesizing organisms that produce air, decomposers that produce soil, etc is the result of coevolution of diverse organisms. When that system becomes unstanble or unbalanced then mass extinction follows. The human economic ecosystem is built on top of a functioning biosphere. You can't just replace what the biosphere provides with industry or trade.
- alexey-salmin 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - richbell 3y ago
    > No, extinction of species due to infections is not a planetary catastrophe. It's natural and perennial. It is reductive to describe invasive species with no predators destroying native crops and forests as "natural."
    - alexey-salmin 3y ago
      That happened thousands of times (if not millions, hard to estimate) before human race came to existence. How on earth can it be unnatural?
      - ThatGuy42 3y ago
        In the past species were limited by how far they could walk/fly/swim. Now humans can put any species anywhere in the world at any time (sometimes intentionally, sometimes not).
        alexey-salmin 3y ago
        Well not that limited apparently since the whole world is populated. Humans speed up the spread of species (contributing to biodiversity lol) but the phenomenon itself is not new.
offtrail 3y ago
This has to be bait.
pvaldes 3y ago
> Biodiversity does not directly benefit everyone my mitochondria, and gut flora, politely disagree

dubcanada 3y ago

I get what you are saying. But I will say that a lot of local foods disappeared because of the global trade. There are TONS of edible plants and trees that we don’t even consider because we buy one of the 3 types of lettuce sold. This is not because they are bad tasting, actually in some cases superior to their store bought alternative. It is just that nobody knows about them. There is benefits, but there is also cons.

tsunamifury 3y ago
I live in California and benefit greatly from incredible local produce, but someone in Alabama does not. Trade has allowed everyone to enjoy the best of each region, while giving up some of their own. I’d say the bigger issue is the commodification of corn syrup and reductionism of product for addiction rather than trade itself.
- sarchertech 3y ago
  Alabama has a long growing season, a ton of arable land and more average rainfall than nearly anywhere in California. Not as warm in winter as California sure, but I’m not sure it’s the best example
  - tsunamifury 3y ago
    I hate this type of “I read a fact” and applied it wrong comment. Please point me to alabamas vast wine country or nuts or avacados. Just because Alabama theoretically has potential doesn’t mean it has everything California does.
    - twisteriffic 3y ago
      > Just because Alabama theoretically has potential doesn’t mean it has everything California does. No one was saying that other than you.
    - enriquec 3y ago
      I hate this type of "wrong" comment. Alabama obviously produces a ton of crops as do most of the states. After googling for 2 seconds, I even found Alabama is 2nd in the country as far as peanut production.
    - drewcoo 3y ago
      Good grief. Alabama Ag is alive and well. Not everything is avocadoes or California nuts. https://farmflavor.com/alabama-agriculture/ https://farmflavor.com/alabama-agriculture/
      - tsunamifury 3y ago
        Sorry I offended Alabamans with facts about differential trade volume…
        upvote_test_act 3y ago
        [flagged]
        tsunamifury 3y ago
        I can change my mind just fine. It’s just a bit laughable that you’d get so up in arms about something obvious. California trades with Alabama… it’s incredible how offended everyone is here about that… like honestly. Back off and think about this… who is acting rediculiously? You go on this long rant attacking me personally, stereotyping me with laughably bad caricatures, pouring over my history. Buddy. Get a grip. This is all over the statement “California trades with Alabama.” Honestly who is being unhinged and emotionally stunted here. Also you’ve been stalking me across multiple comments on different posts. I think you need to really honestly consider your behavior. It’s unsettling, and inappropriate.
- drewcoo 3y ago
  > I live in California and benefit greatly from incredible local produce Without more qualifiers, that misses the point. Most local crops are still big ag varieties. The "local" crops you buy are likely the same ones sold in grocery stores anywhere in the US because so many things are grown in California. But there are some things that can only be grown locally, because they aren't suited to shipping or because they have short shelf lives. And there are lots of varieties that are not on big ag's buy list, so large operations are very unlikely to grow them. Even corn (which you mention) and soybeans need to be certain varieties to be turned into everything from high fructose corn syrup to the "shrimp shapes" made of soy I remember from grade school. They are part of the problem the GP is talking about, not the problem instead . . . Big ag forces out diversity in crops and, frankly, forces a blander palate on the populace, who doesn't know better anymore.
  - upvote_test_act 3y ago
    Please save yourself further effort here-- the person you're replyng to isn't interested in cultivating and improving any kind of accurate mental model of the world.

numtel 3y ago

Global trade killed all uniqueness of culture? We don't even know what we're missing. > Biodiversity does not directly benefit everyone Jfc. Plants aren't just for food. Lots of medicines are derived from plants. As indigenous people dwindle from the planet, their knowledge of useful plants disappears and their potential becomes lost on us.

hyperhopper 3y ago
> We don't even know what we're missing. The plants that are being neglected aren't unknown, they are just not as useful > Jfc. Plants aren't just for food. Nobody said they were. Stop inventing strawman arguments > indigenous people dwindle from the planet, their knowledge of useful plants disappears and their potential becomes lost on us. Source required. What important plant knowledge is being lost?
- numtel 3y ago
  We literally do not know what we lost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putumayo_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putumayo_genocide When rubber industrialists wiped out the people living in the area, those that remained lost generational knowledge. Ethnobotanists like Shultes explored the Amazon afterwards. There's even a movie made on the subject of exploring the Amazon for medicines with Sean Connery, Medicine Man. Also, the more recent Embrace of the Serpent.
  - alexey-salmin 3y ago
    When you personally are sick do you go to a doctor or to a shaman?
alexey-salmin 3y ago
Medicine we have now is orders of magnitude better than what indigenous people could ever dream of.
- Hnrobert42 3y ago

rexpop 3y ago

> Biodiversity does not directly benefit everyone Just a bonkers nonsense statement, I am stunned by this perspective. Do you think you could live in an antiseptic paper envelope? Biodiversity doesn't "benefit" anyone so much as it comprises, entirely, the world from which we're inextricable. Absolutely bonkers modernist anthropocentrism.

ponector 3y ago
How biodiversity in some areas of US will benefit people in Chile? But global trade is helping them to become richer by selling avocados to americans. Growing an avocado is devastating to local biome, but I bet people would rather destroy it than live in poverty. I have never seen an edible chestnut tree and really don't care about how many species of them are all over the world. I'm not talking about antiseptic envelope, it is not related to biodiversity. It is sad that biodiversity is decreasing, but we can live with smaller amount of species on the planet. Will you fill the difference if there will be 20 instead of 60 species of ash tree?
softg 3y ago
>Biodiversity doesn't "benefit" anyone so much as it comprises, entirely, the world from which we're inextricable. Is it though? There's been several extinction events that wiped out the biodiversity of the planet and they were all natural too. We might be inextricable from the world but we can and do manipulate it to our benefit. I don't understand what is the problem with anthropocentrism. Given the chance, I'd prefer more biodiversity for sure, but if it's objectively bad for human beings I think human interests should come first. It's just that the current cycle of overproduction and global warming isn't benefiting humans either. That's not the fault of human-centered thinking, it's the fault of profit-centered short-term thinking.
Modified3019 3y ago
Biodiversity is a word which divorced from its consequences, which can be positive, negative, both or neither. It can result in “health” via symbiotic relationships, just as much as it can result suffering, war and hardship via the introduction of pests and diseases. The point is it’s daft throw around biodiversity as some kind of absolute idea of virtue. It is not equitable with “goodness”.

ramblenode 3y ago

> Biodiversity does not directly benefit everyone, while global trade does. Biodiversity is an intrinsic aspect of ecosystem stability. The earth's functioning ecosystem is literally necessary for life on earth. All that "free" value in the form of plants and animals that produce our food, photosynthesizing organisms that produce air, decomposers that produce soil, etc is the result of coevolution of diverse organisms. When that system becomes unstanble or unbalanced then mass extinction follows. The human economic ecosystem is built on top of a functioning biosphere. You can't just replace what the biosphere provides with industry or trade.

alexey-salmin 3y ago
[flagged]
- richbell 3y ago
  > No, extinction of species due to infections is not a planetary catastrophe. It's natural and perennial. It is reductive to describe invasive species with no predators destroying native crops and forests as "natural."
  - alexey-salmin 3y ago
    That happened thousands of times (if not millions, hard to estimate) before human race came to existence. How on earth can it be unnatural?
    - ThatGuy42 3y ago
      In the past species were limited by how far they could walk/fly/swim. Now humans can put any species anywhere in the world at any time (sometimes intentionally, sometimes not).
      - alexey-salmin 3y ago
        Well not that limited apparently since the whole world is populated. Humans speed up the spread of species (contributing to biodiversity lol) but the phenomenon itself is not new.

offtrail 3y ago

This has to be bait.

pvaldes 3y ago

> Biodiversity does not directly benefit everyone my mitochondria, and gut flora, politely disagree