3 ms·

Disruption to food production makes it more expensive. We use ~all the land to produce food not because we need to, but because that's the cheapest way. Gree

Disruption to food production makes it more expensive. We use ~all the land to produce food not because we need to, but because that's the cheapest way. Greenhouses can produce several orders of magnitude more food per acre than dryland mechanized farming does. (Greenhouses are just one example, there are lots of other ways to produce food more expensively). If we lose ~half of US food production capacity due to climate change we don't halve food production, we switch to more expensive production methods. Increased food prices might collapse poor societies, but you're going to need a lot more than that to collapse rich societies.

roughly 1y ago
And how long does it take to do that? What do our reserves look like? Where are those new greenhouses? Who pays for the food? How do we adjust our food system around that? How long does _that_ take? How many restaurants, shops, farmers go out of business? What happens to them? How does the economy shift around this? We already have people starving today, how many more do we add in this scenario?
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  Yes, it'll be horrible. But "collapse of civilization" is a pretty high bar.
  - roughly 1y ago
    Ok, now make two tweaks to your mental model: First, think “the fall of Rome” when you hear “civilization collapse.” Second, consider that this isn’t just affecting the US, but every major populated country. And then consider you’ll be living through it, not reading about it in a book.
    - bryanlarsen 1y ago
      Fall of Rome took hundreds of years, up to 1000 depending on how you measure it. And fall of Rome isn't anywhere close to collapse of civilization. Collapse of Rome scenarios I'll accept as plausible. Collapse of civilization, no.
    - jrowen 1y ago
      I might ask you to tweak your model as well..."collapse of civilization" is such an extreme, dramatic, far-reaching term, people are always going to latch onto that. It's sensationalism. I would describe what you're talking about as "widespread suffering and hardship" more akin to a world war.
      - roughly 1y ago
        What do you define as “civilization”? Is it culture, norms, practices, a lifestyle, an economy, basic assumptions about the availability of goods and services and health care and medicine, basic assumptions about government, and norms and standards thereof? Is it literally every part of your life that you live every day?
        jrowen 1y ago
        It's more about the definition of collapse. By your definition civilization collapsed during World War 2. Generally a large structure that has collapsed is hopelessly, irreparably broken - capable of performing near 0% of its function. It can't recover, it's not limping along in some form, it is "totaled" and you have to clean up the pieces and start completely over.
cogman10 1y ago
> Greenhouses can produce several orders of magnitude more food per acre than dryland mechanized farming does. If we climate control them and light them. Then yes. It also depends on the crop being grown. That takes electricity. There are many crops that simply aren't well suited to greenhouses. Primarily because they are nutrient thin. Those are popular crops that people and livestock eat. And, importantly, we don't have those greenhouses built yet. Not even a fraction of a percentage of our food comes from them today. It's possible that we can make the switchover, but that will take decades of build out. The other thing to consider is we won't really have much warning before we need these greenhouses. About the only thing that will trigger action here with the way society is structured is famine. Importantly, capitalism will work against wanting to produce these greenhouses as famine will kick up prices and traditional farming will remain the cheapest way to produce food. Plenty of large corporate farmers will be happy to just continue raising prices rather than build out.
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  Greenhouse is the extreme. There are many intermediate options farmers have to increase yields that they currently don't use because they are too expensive.
ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
Using greenhouses to prevent famine is a nice idea in theory, but in practise the world has had many famines since the introduction of greenhouses. Realistically, it's a problem with food distribution whereby the richest countries can attempt to purchase food from alternate supplies and the poorest countries simply starve.
M95D 1y ago
> Greenhouses can produce several orders of magnitude more food Got any sources for that? I don't belive a greenhouse can produce even 3x wheat or corn compared to normal farming.
- dzhiurgis 1y ago
  2-3 seasons instead of one, less losses to pests and diseases. All while it’s far cleaner from heavy metals, uses less water, less fertiliser, doesn’t pollute environment. Crazy we don’t do this already. It’s a bit of like ICE vs EV.

roughly 1y ago

And how long does it take to do that? What do our reserves look like? Where are those new greenhouses? Who pays for the food? How do we adjust our food system around that? How long does _that_ take? How many restaurants, shops, farmers go out of business? What happens to them? How does the economy shift around this? We already have people starving today, how many more do we add in this scenario?

bryanlarsen 1y ago
Yes, it'll be horrible. But "collapse of civilization" is a pretty high bar.
- roughly 1y ago
  Ok, now make two tweaks to your mental model: First, think “the fall of Rome” when you hear “civilization collapse.” Second, consider that this isn’t just affecting the US, but every major populated country. And then consider you’ll be living through it, not reading about it in a book.
  - bryanlarsen 1y ago
    Fall of Rome took hundreds of years, up to 1000 depending on how you measure it. And fall of Rome isn't anywhere close to collapse of civilization. Collapse of Rome scenarios I'll accept as plausible. Collapse of civilization, no.
  - jrowen 1y ago
    I might ask you to tweak your model as well..."collapse of civilization" is such an extreme, dramatic, far-reaching term, people are always going to latch onto that. It's sensationalism. I would describe what you're talking about as "widespread suffering and hardship" more akin to a world war.
    - roughly 1y ago
      What do you define as “civilization”? Is it culture, norms, practices, a lifestyle, an economy, basic assumptions about the availability of goods and services and health care and medicine, basic assumptions about government, and norms and standards thereof? Is it literally every part of your life that you live every day?
      - jrowen 1y ago
        It's more about the definition of collapse. By your definition civilization collapsed during World War 2. Generally a large structure that has collapsed is hopelessly, irreparably broken - capable of performing near 0% of its function. It can't recover, it's not limping along in some form, it is "totaled" and you have to clean up the pieces and start completely over.

cogman10 1y ago

> Greenhouses can produce several orders of magnitude more food per acre than dryland mechanized farming does. If we climate control them and light them. Then yes. It also depends on the crop being grown. That takes electricity. There are many crops that simply aren't well suited to greenhouses. Primarily because they are nutrient thin. Those are popular crops that people and livestock eat. And, importantly, we don't have those greenhouses built yet. Not even a fraction of a percentage of our food comes from them today. It's possible that we can make the switchover, but that will take decades of build out. The other thing to consider is we won't really have much warning before we need these greenhouses. About the only thing that will trigger action here with the way society is structured is famine. Importantly, capitalism will work against wanting to produce these greenhouses as famine will kick up prices and traditional farming will remain the cheapest way to produce food. Plenty of large corporate farmers will be happy to just continue raising prices rather than build out.

bryanlarsen 1y ago
Greenhouse is the extreme. There are many intermediate options farmers have to increase yields that they currently don't use because they are too expensive.

ndsipa_pomu 1y ago

Using greenhouses to prevent famine is a nice idea in theory, but in practise the world has had many famines since the introduction of greenhouses. Realistically, it's a problem with food distribution whereby the richest countries can attempt to purchase food from alternate supplies and the poorest countries simply starve.

M95D 1y ago

> Greenhouses can produce several orders of magnitude more food Got any sources for that? I don't belive a greenhouse can produce even 3x wheat or corn compared to normal farming.

dzhiurgis 1y ago
2-3 seasons instead of one, less losses to pests and diseases. All while it’s far cleaner from heavy metals, uses less water, less fertiliser, doesn’t pollute environment. Crazy we don’t do this already. It’s a bit of like ICE vs EV.