4 ms·

This is likely not an answer. Small-scale sustenance farming is not enough to support humanity at scale. (Without ag-industry methods, we're about 4 billion peo

This is likely not an answer. Small-scale sustenance farming is not enough to support humanity at scale. (Without ag-industry methods, we're about 4 billion people past the planets carrying capacity) Also, if that small farm is something you dream about, I strongly suggest actually working on a farm for a while. It is surprisingly not fun. I know "I'm gonna have a farm" is a popular escapist things for many folks in tech - it is for me as well, the fantasy is great :) It's just good to know what that actually means, and then deciding if you really want to do that. (For me, it means I have three plants on my balcony to keep the dream, and skip the full experience because I know I wouldn't enjoy it)

chefkd 2y ago
This may be a little tangential (sorry) how is the planet's carrying capacity calculated? The malthusian school of thought never made sense to me
- groby_b 2y ago
  Super-simplified explanation: Three things matter for carrying capacity. 1) How many calories does a human need to survive? 2) How many calories can we squeeze out of an acre of arable land? 3) How many acres of arable land are there? The first one is pretty much immutable. The third one is maybe somewhat mutable, but to a very limited extent. We can squabble how much, but let's assume it's fairly immutable. Large changes would need energy amounts that are currently prohibitive. That leaves calories per acre. And that's where ag-industrial methods had an impact that's absolutely bonkers[1]. As the graph shows, this is not a fixed number - that's why Malthus' predictions ultimately didn't come to pass - but you need ag-industry to squeeze out those numbers. (Without mechanized agriculture, massive production of artificial fertilizer, and Borlaug's dwarf wheat, Earth would have run into massive hunger by the end of the 80s - look for "Green Revolution" for lots of info on that) And small scale subsistence farming (which is what most folks think of when the say "I want to grow food") cannot utilize all of those techniques. That's also where the "4 billion" number comes from - we know how many calories/acre non-industrial farming generated, and it was at best enough calories for ~4 billion people. Optimistically. [1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/USDA-per-acre-crop-production-figures-plotted-over-time-Production-data-is-scaled-by_fig2_367217594 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/USDA-per-acre-crop-produ...
  - Qem 2y ago
    Did you take into account we waste a lot of resources planting crops to feed cattle?
    - groby_b 2y ago
      You see the "super-simplified" at the beginning of the explanation? So, no. Neither does that explanation account for overconsumption, food waste & spoilage, crop mixes, erosion & desertification, water supply shifts, etc... It's a very basic upper bound. The number of people who could be fed in the best case.
itsanaccount 2y ago
While I agree its mostly escapist for tech workers who dream of building a farm, as someone who didn't just dream but am actively following it, I very much enjoy the hard work. Maybe because I grew up on a farm and this is returning, but also because I do expect about 4 billion people to die in the coming climate decline? collapse? and would like to leave better more resilient bones (buildings, good soil, lumber trees, good game, maybe some tools, landrace seeds etc), the skeleton of a more sustainable life to those who come after.
_yb2s 2y ago
Farming is easy and pays $$$$: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ysxzCoiu2gQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ysxzCoiu2gQ Actually, I love farm work. I grew up in the country and did quite a bit of farm work when I was younger. It felt great to be outdoors, and not have the constant massive stress I now have as a knowledge worker with ADHD. But it pays poorly and is hard on your body.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
meristohm 2y ago
Yeah, our population is in a petroleum-fueled boom and, as with all other species, it's okay that we go bust eventually. We could control that drawdown, or leave it to the wind. Or try to claw our way towards technological solutions, which feels like we consider ourselves gods. Or some combination; what technology can we reasonably keep through a population bust cycle?
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
> Also, if that small farm is something you dream about, I strongly suggest actually working on a farm for a while. I've both done that, and I sit in an office chair 8 hours a day. Anyone who prefers the latter has a different set of maladaptive personality defects than I do. > This is likely not an answer. Small-scale sustenance farming is not enough to support humanity at scale. It's ok. No one really needs to think about that anymore. When fertility rates went sub-replacement, humanity became functionally extinct, at least in those regions. Everyone's planning a future for their species which it no longer has. > I know "I'm gonna have a farm" is a popular escapist things for many folks in tech - it is for me as well, the fantasy is great Not a fantasy. I'm a few weeks/months away from buying a combine. I have a particular model in mind (John Deere model 42), but the used market is a little difficult to deal with. I may end up paying a few thousand to have it shipped from out of state (or even Canada), but no one can tell me if it's narrow enough to fit on a flatbed trailer. I have less of a clear idea about what tractor to pull it with, I really need something up around 100hp, something gen ii probably. A 4230 with a cab sounds nice, but it's like 9 gallons of diesel an hour. I'd grow sunflowers for the fuel, and I'm experimenting with a chloralkali machine for the soda lye (there are places not far away with salt springs, so I'm looking for real estate like that for salt). Currently assembling a larger machine I've got half-designed. Would use butanol instead of methanol. Not sure I could survive in a place where all I can do and hope for is "a balcony with some houseplants". Sounds soul-crushing.
- groby_b 2y ago
  > When fertility rates went sub-replacement, humanity became functionally extinct, at least in those regions. That is... also a way to look at it. 1) Migration is a thing, so unless total fertility is sub-replacement, "functionally extinct" is a tad bit premature. Turns out that across the world, we're still above replacement rate. 2) Fertility rates do change over time. E.g. the fact of group size temporarily inducing stress-related infertility until a population is below a certain level is well-known and understood. Here's a great experiment on it: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11100725/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11100725/ It's at least plausible that sub-replacement rates in humans are a similar self-regulation mechanism. I'd suggest that "functionally extinct" is maybe a bit of a premature judgment.

chefkd 2y ago

This may be a little tangential (sorry) how is the planet's carrying capacity calculated? The malthusian school of thought never made sense to me

groby_b 2y ago
Super-simplified explanation: Three things matter for carrying capacity. 1) How many calories does a human need to survive? 2) How many calories can we squeeze out of an acre of arable land? 3) How many acres of arable land are there? The first one is pretty much immutable. The third one is maybe somewhat mutable, but to a very limited extent. We can squabble how much, but let's assume it's fairly immutable. Large changes would need energy amounts that are currently prohibitive. That leaves calories per acre. And that's where ag-industrial methods had an impact that's absolutely bonkers[1]. As the graph shows, this is not a fixed number - that's why Malthus' predictions ultimately didn't come to pass - but you need ag-industry to squeeze out those numbers. (Without mechanized agriculture, massive production of artificial fertilizer, and Borlaug's dwarf wheat, Earth would have run into massive hunger by the end of the 80s - look for "Green Revolution" for lots of info on that) And small scale subsistence farming (which is what most folks think of when the say "I want to grow food") cannot utilize all of those techniques. That's also where the "4 billion" number comes from - we know how many calories/acre non-industrial farming generated, and it was at best enough calories for ~4 billion people. Optimistically. [1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/USDA-per-acre-crop-production-figures-plotted-over-time-Production-data-is-scaled-by_fig2_367217594 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/USDA-per-acre-crop-produ...
- Qem 2y ago
  Did you take into account we waste a lot of resources planting crops to feed cattle?
  - groby_b 2y ago
    You see the "super-simplified" at the beginning of the explanation? So, no. Neither does that explanation account for overconsumption, food waste & spoilage, crop mixes, erosion & desertification, water supply shifts, etc... It's a very basic upper bound. The number of people who could be fed in the best case.

itsanaccount 2y ago

While I agree its mostly escapist for tech workers who dream of building a farm, as someone who didn't just dream but am actively following it, I very much enjoy the hard work. Maybe because I grew up on a farm and this is returning, but also because I do expect about 4 billion people to die in the coming climate decline? collapse? and would like to leave better more resilient bones (buildings, good soil, lumber trees, good game, maybe some tools, landrace seeds etc), the skeleton of a more sustainable life to those who come after.

_yb2s 2y ago

Farming is easy and pays $$$$: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ysxzCoiu2gQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ysxzCoiu2gQ Actually, I love farm work. I grew up in the country and did quite a bit of farm work when I was younger. It felt great to be outdoors, and not have the constant massive stress I now have as a knowledge worker with ADHD. But it pays poorly and is hard on your body.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

meristohm 2y ago

Yeah, our population is in a petroleum-fueled boom and, as with all other species, it's okay that we go bust eventually. We could control that drawdown, or leave it to the wind. Or try to claw our way towards technological solutions, which feels like we consider ourselves gods. Or some combination; what technology can we reasonably keep through a population bust cycle?

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

> Also, if that small farm is something you dream about, I strongly suggest actually working on a farm for a while. I've both done that, and I sit in an office chair 8 hours a day. Anyone who prefers the latter has a different set of maladaptive personality defects than I do. > This is likely not an answer. Small-scale sustenance farming is not enough to support humanity at scale. It's ok. No one really needs to think about that anymore. When fertility rates went sub-replacement, humanity became functionally extinct, at least in those regions. Everyone's planning a future for their species which it no longer has. > I know "I'm gonna have a farm" is a popular escapist things for many folks in tech - it is for me as well, the fantasy is great Not a fantasy. I'm a few weeks/months away from buying a combine. I have a particular model in mind (John Deere model 42), but the used market is a little difficult to deal with. I may end up paying a few thousand to have it shipped from out of state (or even Canada), but no one can tell me if it's narrow enough to fit on a flatbed trailer. I have less of a clear idea about what tractor to pull it with, I really need something up around 100hp, something gen ii probably. A 4230 with a cab sounds nice, but it's like 9 gallons of diesel an hour. I'd grow sunflowers for the fuel, and I'm experimenting with a chloralkali machine for the soda lye (there are places not far away with salt springs, so I'm looking for real estate like that for salt). Currently assembling a larger machine I've got half-designed. Would use butanol instead of methanol. Not sure I could survive in a place where all I can do and hope for is "a balcony with some houseplants". Sounds soul-crushing.

groby_b 2y ago
> When fertility rates went sub-replacement, humanity became functionally extinct, at least in those regions. That is... also a way to look at it. 1) Migration is a thing, so unless total fertility is sub-replacement, "functionally extinct" is a tad bit premature. Turns out that across the world, we're still above replacement rate. 2) Fertility rates do change over time. E.g. the fact of group size temporarily inducing stress-related infertility until a population is below a certain level is well-known and understood. Here's a great experiment on it: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11100725/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11100725/ It's at least plausible that sub-replacement rates in humans are a similar self-regulation mechanism. I'd suggest that "functionally extinct" is maybe a bit of a premature judgment.