4 ms·

So not really "fairly untouched", then. You're going to need more farms and more farmers, and no-one can afford to be shipping food halfway round the planet.

defrost 7mo ago
Let's see, I didn't make any claim about untouched - although I do have some strong positions on wetlands cover, corridors, wild old forrest, et al but that's a whole other aside. I'm just here to point out farming and livestock at suprisng to many scales can be operated by fewer people than you might expect. as for: > no-one can afford to be shipping food halfway round the planet. what does the Atlas of Economic Complexity type datasets currently say about food volume tonnages and trip lengths? I know that our local farmers co-op handles handysize to post-Panamax vessel shipments from Australia, United States, Canada, South America and Europe to key grain markets in Asia, Europe, Central America and the Middle East. ( from: https://www.cbh.com.au/exports-overview https://www.cbh.com.au/exports-overview ) and there are other grain basins about the globe. The challenges for grain shipping going forward likely fall about getting sufficient production of non fossil origin methanol fuel variations for shipping engines. That and making sure the front doesn't fall off.
- ErroneousBosh 7mo ago
  > That and making sure the front doesn't fall off. Well that's not very typical, I'd like to make that point.
- zdragnar 7mo ago
  And yet, farmers still need roads, and hardware stores, and grocery stores, and hospitals, and HVAC and plumbers and before you know it, you need villages for all the people those people depend on, along with their families.
  - defrost 7mo ago
    Farming communities have already had these things, the broad pattern is that fewer and fewer of thiese thigs are needed as fewer and fewer people are needed to work the same land. Urbanisation ratios have increased, farm worker percentages decreased, average land area holdings increased so stores, schools, etc. are closing. As time passes now, more an more old farm hoses are vacant island in an ocean of larger consolidated workings.
    - zdragnar 7mo ago
      Fewer people are needed to work megafarms, but the basic needs for these services don't go away entirely. As a result, moving people to the urban centers still leaves you with all the things that you hoped urbanizing would get rid of- roads and rural communities.
      - defrost 7mo ago
        Perhaps reread the upstream and pay close attention to the usernames and who said what. > all the things that you hoped urbanizing would get rid of- roads and rural communities. I spoke about the actual real in this moment trend that is already happening; increased urbanisation, I said nothing about wanting to see the end of roads or rural communities - although I'm a big fan of seeing less human impact on larger areas of managed land - land that includes agriculture, mining, native reserves, cropped treelands, etc.
satvikpendem 7mo ago
It is often costlier and worse for the environment to ship locally than across the world. https://www.wpr.org/news/locally-grown-fruits-veggies-expensive-grocery-store https://www.wpr.org/news/locally-grown-fruits-veggies-expens...
- ErroneousBosh 7mo ago
  But it's more ecologically sustainable to eat what grows where you live. We do not have the capacity to ship food halfway round the world because picky eaters don't like the idea of eating meat and potatoes.
  - satvikpendem 7mo ago
    > But it's more ecologically sustainable to eat what grows where you live. Depends on the food, if you're clearing land for a new crop (which many countries have done historically and still do today) then it's not sustainable. And if the native crops are simply not as good nutritionally as the new crop then it's better to eat the new crop even at the ecological cost of the native one, e.g. potatoes vs barley in Ireland. I'm not sure what you're referring to in your second sentence, not sure why picky eaters wouldn't like meat and potatoes or what that has to do with shipping in general, not even the fact that we do indeed have the capacity and will to ship food halfway around the world already today.
    - ErroneousBosh 7mo ago
      > And if the native crops are simply not as good nutritionally as the new crop then it's better to eat the new crop even at the ecological cost of the native one, e.g. potatoes vs barley in Ireland. Potatoes and barley both grow pretty well in the UK. The problem with eating things like soya over here is that you can only do it if you burn a city's worth of diesel every single day to power a container ship to bring it, and it's farmed using horribly unsustainable methods. The stuff I eat (he says, drinking a cup of Colombian coffee, okay okay, hypocrisy) is grown using techniques and ecological impact more-or-less unchanged from the dawn of agriculture. We use Massey-Fergusons now rather than horses or oxen but there would be nothing stopping you going back to horses, and indeed with diesel at nearly two quid a litre it might well be worth looking at that.

defrost 7mo ago

Let's see, I didn't make any claim about untouched - although I do have some strong positions on wetlands cover, corridors, wild old forrest, et al but that's a whole other aside. I'm just here to point out farming and livestock at suprisng to many scales can be operated by fewer people than you might expect. as for: > no-one can afford to be shipping food halfway round the planet. what does the Atlas of Economic Complexity type datasets currently say about food volume tonnages and trip lengths? I know that our local farmers co-op handles handysize to post-Panamax vessel shipments from Australia, United States, Canada, South America and Europe to key grain markets in Asia, Europe, Central America and the Middle East. ( from: https://www.cbh.com.au/exports-overview https://www.cbh.com.au/exports-overview ) and there are other grain basins about the globe. The challenges for grain shipping going forward likely fall about getting sufficient production of non fossil origin methanol fuel variations for shipping engines. That and making sure the front doesn't fall off.

ErroneousBosh 7mo ago
> That and making sure the front doesn't fall off. Well that's not very typical, I'd like to make that point.
zdragnar 7mo ago
And yet, farmers still need roads, and hardware stores, and grocery stores, and hospitals, and HVAC and plumbers and before you know it, you need villages for all the people those people depend on, along with their families.
- defrost 7mo ago
  Farming communities have already had these things, the broad pattern is that fewer and fewer of thiese thigs are needed as fewer and fewer people are needed to work the same land. Urbanisation ratios have increased, farm worker percentages decreased, average land area holdings increased so stores, schools, etc. are closing. As time passes now, more an more old farm hoses are vacant island in an ocean of larger consolidated workings.
  - zdragnar 7mo ago
    Fewer people are needed to work megafarms, but the basic needs for these services don't go away entirely. As a result, moving people to the urban centers still leaves you with all the things that you hoped urbanizing would get rid of- roads and rural communities.
    - defrost 7mo ago
      Perhaps reread the upstream and pay close attention to the usernames and who said what. > all the things that you hoped urbanizing would get rid of- roads and rural communities. I spoke about the actual real in this moment trend that is already happening; increased urbanisation, I said nothing about wanting to see the end of roads or rural communities - although I'm a big fan of seeing less human impact on larger areas of managed land - land that includes agriculture, mining, native reserves, cropped treelands, etc.

satvikpendem 7mo ago

It is often costlier and worse for the environment to ship locally than across the world. https://www.wpr.org/news/locally-grown-fruits-veggies-expensive-grocery-store https://www.wpr.org/news/locally-grown-fruits-veggies-expens...

ErroneousBosh 7mo ago
But it's more ecologically sustainable to eat what grows where you live. We do not have the capacity to ship food halfway round the world because picky eaters don't like the idea of eating meat and potatoes.
- satvikpendem 7mo ago
  > But it's more ecologically sustainable to eat what grows where you live. Depends on the food, if you're clearing land for a new crop (which many countries have done historically and still do today) then it's not sustainable. And if the native crops are simply not as good nutritionally as the new crop then it's better to eat the new crop even at the ecological cost of the native one, e.g. potatoes vs barley in Ireland. I'm not sure what you're referring to in your second sentence, not sure why picky eaters wouldn't like meat and potatoes or what that has to do with shipping in general, not even the fact that we do indeed have the capacity and will to ship food halfway around the world already today.
  - ErroneousBosh 7mo ago
    > And if the native crops are simply not as good nutritionally as the new crop then it's better to eat the new crop even at the ecological cost of the native one, e.g. potatoes vs barley in Ireland. Potatoes and barley both grow pretty well in the UK. The problem with eating things like soya over here is that you can only do it if you burn a city's worth of diesel every single day to power a container ship to bring it, and it's farmed using horribly unsustainable methods. The stuff I eat (he says, drinking a cup of Colombian coffee, okay okay, hypocrisy) is grown using techniques and ecological impact more-or-less unchanged from the dawn of agriculture. We use Massey-Fergusons now rather than horses or oxen but there would be nothing stopping you going back to horses, and indeed with diesel at nearly two quid a litre it might well be worth looking at that.