5 ms·

I find this kind of comment neither particularly amusing nor informative. Can you elaborate on those kinds of programs and their problems instead?

whythre 2y ago
The above post isn’t about specific details, it’s about the idea of individuals being scolded into trying useless ‘solutions’ to problems caused by the mismanagement of entire industries. Industrialized farming involves a lot of pesticides. Acting as if the problem will get better if people just let pests eat their small garden plots is dumb.
- Ma8ee 2y ago
  The problem will get better, even if the direct effect of no pesticide home gardens of course is negligible. But it helps change the mindset of people. People who live in garden with a diversity of wildlife, who find joy in the butterflies (and their larvae), who are appalled by the thought of poison their own air, water and soil, soon start to buy organic food and vote for stricter environment protection laws. In addition, while it might not change the world, the amount of pesticides and herbicides used by all the homeowners in a city like LA isn’t insignificant, in particular not for the local wildlife.
antisthenes 2y ago
I find this tongue-in-cheek commentary very amusing, especially considering the article is a perfect example of describing feel-good bikeshedding, rather than addressing actual issues that were called out (e.g. large scale farming and loss of habitat due to human development) If you want to read more, you can start at a very high level by Googling habitat loss and industrial agriculture, I guess?
- nemo44x 2y ago
  Instead of “habitat loss” I prefer to call it “starvation prevention”.
  - elmomle 2y ago
    I think "starvation deferment" is a more accurate phrase. To prevent starvation we need to address the tendency of humanity to reproduce, and to consume resources, past the limits of what we can safely and reliably sustain. Taking more and more land, and increasingly suppressing nature, to create more food on a finite Earth simply kicks the problem down the road.
    - DontchaKnowit 2y ago
      eye roll when are we gonna get over this Malthusian doomsaying. Population is not the issue. Stewardship is the issue.
      - nemo44x 2y ago
        The fact we’ve basically eliminated fatality rates to kids under 5 is the the actual thing they’re trying to say. That kids survive at a rate in many places globally that is not sustainable to those places. Meanwhile we are told that we should limit how many kids, if any, we should have.
        BobaFloutist 2y ago
        The good news is that childbirth rates are plummeting in the majority of the world, despite desperate efforts to encourage them upwards. It turns out that, given education, opportunity, and choice, women want an average of far under 2 children.
        DontchaKnowit 2y ago
        Uhh no. Women are more likely having less children because economies are increasingly integrating them into the workforce and there isnt time or money for it.
        FartyMcFarter 2y ago
Kiro 2y ago
[flagged]
youcantcook 2y ago
[dead]
youcantcook 2y ago
[dead]

whythre 2y ago

The above post isn’t about specific details, it’s about the idea of individuals being scolded into trying useless ‘solutions’ to problems caused by the mismanagement of entire industries. Industrialized farming involves a lot of pesticides. Acting as if the problem will get better if people just let pests eat their small garden plots is dumb.

Ma8ee 2y ago
The problem will get better, even if the direct effect of no pesticide home gardens of course is negligible. But it helps change the mindset of people. People who live in garden with a diversity of wildlife, who find joy in the butterflies (and their larvae), who are appalled by the thought of poison their own air, water and soil, soon start to buy organic food and vote for stricter environment protection laws. In addition, while it might not change the world, the amount of pesticides and herbicides used by all the homeowners in a city like LA isn’t insignificant, in particular not for the local wildlife.

antisthenes 2y ago

I find this tongue-in-cheek commentary very amusing, especially considering the article is a perfect example of describing feel-good bikeshedding, rather than addressing actual issues that were called out (e.g. large scale farming and loss of habitat due to human development) If you want to read more, you can start at a very high level by Googling habitat loss and industrial agriculture, I guess?

nemo44x 2y ago
Instead of “habitat loss” I prefer to call it “starvation prevention”.
- elmomle 2y ago
  I think "starvation deferment" is a more accurate phrase. To prevent starvation we need to address the tendency of humanity to reproduce, and to consume resources, past the limits of what we can safely and reliably sustain. Taking more and more land, and increasingly suppressing nature, to create more food on a finite Earth simply kicks the problem down the road.
  - DontchaKnowit 2y ago
    eye roll when are we gonna get over this Malthusian doomsaying. Population is not the issue. Stewardship is the issue.
    - nemo44x 2y ago
      The fact we’ve basically eliminated fatality rates to kids under 5 is the the actual thing they’re trying to say. That kids survive at a rate in many places globally that is not sustainable to those places. Meanwhile we are told that we should limit how many kids, if any, we should have.
      - BobaFloutist 2y ago
        The good news is that childbirth rates are plummeting in the majority of the world, despite desperate efforts to encourage them upwards. It turns out that, given education, opportunity, and choice, women want an average of far under 2 children.
        DontchaKnowit 2y ago
        Uhh no. Women are more likely having less children because economies are increasingly integrating them into the workforce and there isnt time or money for it.
        FartyMcFarter 2y ago

Kiro 2y ago

[flagged]

youcantcook 2y ago

[dead]

youcantcook 2y ago

[dead]