4 ms·

Fascinating video, but still it worries me how sustainable this is. This isn't a "rewilding" process - there is a LOT of manual human labor going into supportin

Fascinating video, but still it worries me how sustainable this is. This isn't a "rewilding" process - there is a LOT of manual human labor going into supporting very low yield agriculture. It seems like this idea relies on a long term low wage workforce willing to live on subsistence agriculture.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jermaustin1 3y ago
> It seems like this idea relies on a long term low wage workforce willing to live on subsistence agriculture. I think that is already the population. What the attempt seems to be is to create a green belt that prevents further desertification of semi-arable land that they are already subsistence farming on, because if the desert keeps moving, these people will cease to exist. Captialistically/economically, there is questions as to whether these people should continue to subsistence farm, but if they want to, and it can help keep the desert at bay, then I say more power to them.
- bluGill 3y ago
  These people right now don't have good options. Get them enough food locally and they no longer need to chase all over trying to find enough work to afford food. In turn that means they can send their kids to school and those now educated kids can in turn apply modern things. Some of that is those kids - the ones who don't love farming - leave to better jobs in the city, while others - those who love farming - apply modern farming techniques (which is sustainable, contrary to popular myth) and produce a lot more food while building up the soil even more. But if you don't have enough food it all fails. History has taught us that in every corner.
  - krmboya 3y ago
    Can you expound a bit on sustainability of modern farming techniques? It has always been my understanding that modern farming is reliant on a large industrial outlay and global trade for things like fertiliser and pesticides. And that it also affects the soil in a way that is hard or impossible to reverse (extraction of certain nutrients that cannot be easily replenished naturally)
    - bluGill 3y ago
      This is a very complex question. Traditional farming is not sustainable because they don't have pesticides and so once in a while your whole crop is destroyed and your whole village starves to death. Some traditional practices slowly destroy the soil over time. Fertilizers like nitrogen (one of the largest fertilizer uses) are needed for the best yields, but modern farming creates enough as on farm to be sustainable without the addition at lower yield levels. However when a crop leaves the field it takes away some things like sulfur, potassium, and that needs to be replaced for the next crop. I'm considering this a failure of modern transport to bring those back and not modern farming - but this should feel like a meaningless distinction. When I say modern farming is sustainable I mean that modern farming is building up soil over the decades. While we need to replace anything actually removed with the crop, the soil is getting better year after year.
- legitster 3y ago
  I just have strong doubts that people will want to. The video already highlights that the problem in the first place was young people wanting to move to cities or other countries. I would suspect it would revert to the pattern when the UN grant money dries up.
Nux 3y ago
They could perhaps send there criminals, prisoners.. this kind of people.. have them man the green wall.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  Or, you know, pay locals a consistent salary, thus helping the environment and also mitigating extreme poverty (<$1.25 a day) - which is what they are doing.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    More importantly, these green spaces are sustainable. So even if you run out of budget in 5 years, the people no longer need you to pay them as they now get everything they need from the work you paid them to do in the past and so they can live without subsidy. Or if you do have budget you can move to some other village and pay them to become sustainable.
    - alephnerd 3y ago
      Yep!
- protomolecule 3y ago
  And when they would need more workers... What could possibly go wrong.
macspoofing 3y ago
>Fascinating video, but still it worries me how sustainable this is. What was shown in the video looks like a "mickey mouse" operation, akin to a local tree planting effort to combat climate change. For this to make any difference you can't have people digging "half-moons" at a rate of 1 person/1 half-moon/1 day - that does not scale in any meaningful way. You need to do this kind of project at an industrial scale, with large amounts of heavy machinery and thousands of skilled professional workers - especially since they are discussing creating a "Green Wall" across thousands of kilometers at a width of hundreds of kilometers.
- legitster 3y ago
  Yeah, I suspect that if the UN is actually serious about a Green Wall in the near future, they are engaging in mass industrialized planting. But it's not very expensive to have some marginal community projects here and there
- bluGill 3y ago
  There is plenty of labor in Africa, that scales very well. Just give the people reason to keep trees and they will plant and water them. There are many local advantages to trees so it isn't hard to get locals to take care of them with small incentives.
- silverquiet 3y ago
  If the Titanic is going down, it's going down, but if rearranging the deck chairs gives you something to do to relieve the anxiety, then I guess you might as well (my life may resemble this particular metaphor). I read William Langewiesche's travelogue where he crossed the Sahara overland after being a pilot who flew over for a few years. He said that the locals are rather fatalistic about living in such a massive and unforgiving place (people frequently die there); they say that when god decides it's your time, then it's your time. Langewiesche added that if you don't believe in god, then you can replace that with "The Sahara" and it still works quite well. I cannot imagine that there is much humans can do to hold back the desert. I'm quite sure that the only thing that would matter, a rapid drawdown of carbon emissions, is not possible at this point. I know it sucks, sorry.
bluGill 3y ago
There is no particular reason to expect Africa to do better in the near future. Russia and Iran are making large plays and helping dictators kick out the western supported governments (which were already corrupt, but making small strides to less corruption). I see no hope for most of Africa to do better. (note that I said most - There are 54 countries in Africa - several of them are doing very well - I hope this trend continues and spreads) edit: looking closer, it looks like this might be in one of the few countries that might actually do better. Though that also helps as people who are doing better have time to invest in this. time will tell.
vidarh 3y ago
Senegal has one of the worlds highest fertility rates. They have a surplus of labour, and slowing desertification is a way of improving their ability to both subsist and grow their economy until they can drive wages up. Note how the video points out how it is causing more people to have reasons to stay in villages that's otherwise get depleted of young people. If that continues, it will have a significant long term benefit for the growth of Senegals economy.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
ww520 3y ago
Land improvement is the easiest value creation. Turning unusable desert land into arable land creates huge long lasting benefits. The land has huge value increase. If the people doing the work are deeded the land, they become well off. They are incentivized to maintain the land.
zokier 3y ago
I believe the intent is that the local climate and soil will be sufficiently altered that no laborious long-term upkeep is needed. So its not rewilding per se, but its also not purely agricultural project and parts of green wall afaik are completely non-agricultural. That also highlights the fact that the implementations of green wall projects have been very varied, there is no single formula that is applied everywhere. But yes, it is ambitious project and there indeed are lot of questions on both short-term feasibility and long-term outlook. As is natural for a project of this kind, the financial aspect is especially messy. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/07/africa-great-green-wall-just-4-complete-over-halfway-through-schedule https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/07/africa-g...
maxglute 3y ago
>It seems like this idea relies on a long term low wage workforce willing to live on subsistence agriculture. It's a labour intensive, make work program that accepts the reality that there's going to be 100s of millions to billions of Africans who will be stuck in subsistence agriculture for the rest of their lives. You can incrementally improve new workforce over time as society develops, but people who get left behind generally get left behind. Ultimately, their labour is cheap, and need something to do. Maybe you can replace 1000 workers with a piece of specialized heavy machinery that's cheaper, but then you'll have 999 idle hands.
singularity2001 3y ago
>> there is a LOT of manual human labor same reaction. someone bring power shovel diggers. Also it should be combined with the other Great Green Wall projects, the most successful being "just plant trees" to shade the crops and keep the area cool and humid.
- vidarh 3y ago
  How much do they cost compared to the labour cost that also provides additional employment options and boost the local economy? "Just plant trees" without doing anything to ensure the trees can survive is not meaningful in all conditions. What they're doing here is effectively "just planting trees" in a way that ensures the area stays moist enough for the trees to survive, and leveraging the same space to grow crops.
krmboya 3y ago
> It seems like this idea relies on a long term low wage workforce willing to live on subsistence agriculture. There are some who are content with low wages and a simple life of living off the land. Shouldn't technology make this even easier, buy making low cost education available to their kids and making more affordable healthcare possible?
wodenokoto 3y ago
Some of the trenches are there to solely produce biomass. They don’t don’t go into it in the video but it hints to me that they are trying to change the soil. Now the ground is hard dirt and water runs off. The half moons capture water and makes it possible to grow a tree. Roots will loosen the soil, and combined with biomass from the bushes in the trenches you can imagine there’s a path towards changing the composition to something more arable in the traditional sense. To me it sounds like the editable crops are a carrot to keep the locals working toward a much longer term goal.
1letterunixname 3y ago
#TeamTrees: Africa Edition. Sustainable isn't concerned when emotional, idealistic hype push math, reality, and science aside. Fix the climate first with extreme net negative carbon capture and sequestration. Then we can fix the soil with large herds of herbivores stomping grassland and improving fertility.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jermaustin1 3y ago

> It seems like this idea relies on a long term low wage workforce willing to live on subsistence agriculture. I think that is already the population. What the attempt seems to be is to create a green belt that prevents further desertification of semi-arable land that they are already subsistence farming on, because if the desert keeps moving, these people will cease to exist. Captialistically/economically, there is questions as to whether these people should continue to subsistence farm, but if they want to, and it can help keep the desert at bay, then I say more power to them.

bluGill 3y ago
These people right now don't have good options. Get them enough food locally and they no longer need to chase all over trying to find enough work to afford food. In turn that means they can send their kids to school and those now educated kids can in turn apply modern things. Some of that is those kids - the ones who don't love farming - leave to better jobs in the city, while others - those who love farming - apply modern farming techniques (which is sustainable, contrary to popular myth) and produce a lot more food while building up the soil even more. But if you don't have enough food it all fails. History has taught us that in every corner.
- krmboya 3y ago
  Can you expound a bit on sustainability of modern farming techniques? It has always been my understanding that modern farming is reliant on a large industrial outlay and global trade for things like fertiliser and pesticides. And that it also affects the soil in a way that is hard or impossible to reverse (extraction of certain nutrients that cannot be easily replenished naturally)
  - bluGill 3y ago
    This is a very complex question. Traditional farming is not sustainable because they don't have pesticides and so once in a while your whole crop is destroyed and your whole village starves to death. Some traditional practices slowly destroy the soil over time. Fertilizers like nitrogen (one of the largest fertilizer uses) are needed for the best yields, but modern farming creates enough as on farm to be sustainable without the addition at lower yield levels. However when a crop leaves the field it takes away some things like sulfur, potassium, and that needs to be replaced for the next crop. I'm considering this a failure of modern transport to bring those back and not modern farming - but this should feel like a meaningless distinction. When I say modern farming is sustainable I mean that modern farming is building up soil over the decades. While we need to replace anything actually removed with the crop, the soil is getting better year after year.
legitster 3y ago
I just have strong doubts that people will want to. The video already highlights that the problem in the first place was young people wanting to move to cities or other countries. I would suspect it would revert to the pattern when the UN grant money dries up.

Nux 3y ago

They could perhaps send there criminals, prisoners.. this kind of people.. have them man the green wall.

alephnerd 3y ago
Or, you know, pay locals a consistent salary, thus helping the environment and also mitigating extreme poverty (<$1.25 a day) - which is what they are doing.
- bluGill 3y ago
  More importantly, these green spaces are sustainable. So even if you run out of budget in 5 years, the people no longer need you to pay them as they now get everything they need from the work you paid them to do in the past and so they can live without subsidy. Or if you do have budget you can move to some other village and pay them to become sustainable.
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    Yep!
protomolecule 3y ago
And when they would need more workers... What could possibly go wrong.

macspoofing 3y ago

>Fascinating video, but still it worries me how sustainable this is. What was shown in the video looks like a "mickey mouse" operation, akin to a local tree planting effort to combat climate change. For this to make any difference you can't have people digging "half-moons" at a rate of 1 person/1 half-moon/1 day - that does not scale in any meaningful way. You need to do this kind of project at an industrial scale, with large amounts of heavy machinery and thousands of skilled professional workers - especially since they are discussing creating a "Green Wall" across thousands of kilometers at a width of hundreds of kilometers.

legitster 3y ago
Yeah, I suspect that if the UN is actually serious about a Green Wall in the near future, they are engaging in mass industrialized planting. But it's not very expensive to have some marginal community projects here and there
bluGill 3y ago
There is plenty of labor in Africa, that scales very well. Just give the people reason to keep trees and they will plant and water them. There are many local advantages to trees so it isn't hard to get locals to take care of them with small incentives.
silverquiet 3y ago
If the Titanic is going down, it's going down, but if rearranging the deck chairs gives you something to do to relieve the anxiety, then I guess you might as well (my life may resemble this particular metaphor). I read William Langewiesche's travelogue where he crossed the Sahara overland after being a pilot who flew over for a few years. He said that the locals are rather fatalistic about living in such a massive and unforgiving place (people frequently die there); they say that when god decides it's your time, then it's your time. Langewiesche added that if you don't believe in god, then you can replace that with "The Sahara" and it still works quite well. I cannot imagine that there is much humans can do to hold back the desert. I'm quite sure that the only thing that would matter, a rapid drawdown of carbon emissions, is not possible at this point. I know it sucks, sorry.

bluGill 3y ago

There is no particular reason to expect Africa to do better in the near future. Russia and Iran are making large plays and helping dictators kick out the western supported governments (which were already corrupt, but making small strides to less corruption). I see no hope for most of Africa to do better. (note that I said most - There are 54 countries in Africa - several of them are doing very well - I hope this trend continues and spreads) edit: looking closer, it looks like this might be in one of the few countries that might actually do better. Though that also helps as people who are doing better have time to invest in this. time will tell.

vidarh 3y ago

Senegal has one of the worlds highest fertility rates. They have a surplus of labour, and slowing desertification is a way of improving their ability to both subsist and grow their economy until they can drive wages up. Note how the video points out how it is causing more people to have reasons to stay in villages that's otherwise get depleted of young people. If that continues, it will have a significant long term benefit for the growth of Senegals economy.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

ww520 3y ago

Land improvement is the easiest value creation. Turning unusable desert land into arable land creates huge long lasting benefits. The land has huge value increase. If the people doing the work are deeded the land, they become well off. They are incentivized to maintain the land.

zokier 3y ago

I believe the intent is that the local climate and soil will be sufficiently altered that no laborious long-term upkeep is needed. So its not rewilding per se, but its also not purely agricultural project and parts of green wall afaik are completely non-agricultural. That also highlights the fact that the implementations of green wall projects have been very varied, there is no single formula that is applied everywhere. But yes, it is ambitious project and there indeed are lot of questions on both short-term feasibility and long-term outlook. As is natural for a project of this kind, the financial aspect is especially messy. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/07/africa-great-green-wall-just-4-complete-over-halfway-through-schedule https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/07/africa-g...

maxglute 3y ago

>It seems like this idea relies on a long term low wage workforce willing to live on subsistence agriculture. It's a labour intensive, make work program that accepts the reality that there's going to be 100s of millions to billions of Africans who will be stuck in subsistence agriculture for the rest of their lives. You can incrementally improve new workforce over time as society develops, but people who get left behind generally get left behind. Ultimately, their labour is cheap, and need something to do. Maybe you can replace 1000 workers with a piece of specialized heavy machinery that's cheaper, but then you'll have 999 idle hands.

singularity2001 3y ago

>> there is a LOT of manual human labor same reaction. someone bring power shovel diggers. Also it should be combined with the other Great Green Wall projects, the most successful being "just plant trees" to shade the crops and keep the area cool and humid.

vidarh 3y ago
How much do they cost compared to the labour cost that also provides additional employment options and boost the local economy? "Just plant trees" without doing anything to ensure the trees can survive is not meaningful in all conditions. What they're doing here is effectively "just planting trees" in a way that ensures the area stays moist enough for the trees to survive, and leveraging the same space to grow crops.

krmboya 3y ago

> It seems like this idea relies on a long term low wage workforce willing to live on subsistence agriculture. There are some who are content with low wages and a simple life of living off the land. Shouldn't technology make this even easier, buy making low cost education available to their kids and making more affordable healthcare possible?

wodenokoto 3y ago

Some of the trenches are there to solely produce biomass. They don’t don’t go into it in the video but it hints to me that they are trying to change the soil. Now the ground is hard dirt and water runs off. The half moons capture water and makes it possible to grow a tree. Roots will loosen the soil, and combined with biomass from the bushes in the trenches you can imagine there’s a path towards changing the composition to something more arable in the traditional sense. To me it sounds like the editable crops are a carrot to keep the locals working toward a much longer term goal.

1letterunixname 3y ago

#TeamTrees: Africa Edition. Sustainable isn't concerned when emotional, idealistic hype push math, reality, and science aside. Fix the climate first with extreme net negative carbon capture and sequestration. Then we can fix the soil with large herds of herbivores stomping grassland and improving fertility.