9 ms·

> a weird backstory to public opposition to glyphosate which has very little to do with glyphosate itself Is it required that the public have a "good reason" f

> a weird backstory to public opposition to glyphosate which has very little to do with glyphosate itself Is it required that the public have a "good reason" for wanting something? > glyphosate is relatively benign and relatively inert compared other common crop and landscape treatments We used to spray DDT everywhere. This isn't exactly a resounding recommendation. Perhaps there's a case for using as little additives in farming as is possible.

tptacek 6mo ago
No, it isn't. What's your point?
- themafia 6mo ago
  Your quip follows a trope: "There's a weird reason the public wants this and it has little to do with the thing itself." Very often the implication being: "Therefore the public is wrong and should be ignored."
  - tptacek 6mo ago
    I think the public is in fact wrong, but that has nothing to do with my argument.
parineum 6mo ago
> Is it required that the public have a "good reason" for wanting something? Not required but it's a nice to have, especially if the thing they want done is to have the desired outcome.
- themafia 6mo ago
  The desired outcome is simply not using Glyphosate. I'm not seeing how "reasonability" of this idea impacts it's implementation. If you find someone using it you severely fine them and/or put them in jail.
  - sokoloff 6mo ago
    I’m sure someone’s desired outcome is to stop using urea or ammonium nitrate as a fertilizer. “Reasonability of X” factors into many people’s assessment of “should we do X or not-X?”
  - tptacek 6mo ago
    Why is that a desired outcome?
    - themafia 6mo ago
      Why is using Glyphosate worth defending? Does it make food taste better, or grow larger, or become more nutruitious? If the only value is to increase the value of crops, by planting patent seeds, and then dousing the land in weed killer, perhaps people, regardless of the published scientific quality of their rationale, think that our food supply would be better off without it. Unless the suggestion that Glyphosate is the only way to grow the necessary amount of food then I think the question should be: What justifies it's use? So then why would you bother to care if the imputed and over generalized public rationale is right or wrong? If it is in fact so worth using then why shouldn't the government use imminent domain to capture the patents and distribute the technology for free?
      - deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
      - tptacek 6mo ago
        This question has been answered several times on the thread already: because glyphosate is more benign, and relatively more inert, than other herbicides. The case for it is not complicated.
        themafia 6mo ago
        > This question has been answered several times on the thread already Yet you continue to respond. So why mention it? > because glyphosate is more benign, and relatively more inert, than other herbicides Except for the fact you have to use genetically modified crop seeds to survive it. Do other herbicides require this? > The case for it is not complicated. The case against it isn't either.
FarmerPotato 6mo ago
> We used to spray DDT everywhere. This isn't exactly a resounding recommendation. Perhaps there's a case for using as little additives in farming as is possible It's not relevant to glyphosate, but there is such a thing. It's called Integrated Pest Management. I only know it wrt fruit crops. The main idea is to use the least-intrusive methods first, and pesticides last. For example, sanitation comes first: remove last year's debris where larvae and spores have over-wintered. Glyphosate isn't a pesticide (unless it kills host plants? maybe?)
munk-a 6mo ago
I think this a very unsound place to start an argument. Food production is vital and has been refined over the entirety of human existence to be stable and bountiful. I think it's extremely reasonable to critique Roundup for other reasons - but if you want to blank-slate farming and go with a no-additive solution we're bringing a lot of technology and technique into question that is helpful. While it's more difficult to formulate on the internet through brief interactions - the correct answer here is nuanced. Somethings are beneficial to farm land productivity and also beneficial to consumers by lowering prices, increasing availability to healthy food etc - and some things are not but might be highly profitable to conglomerates. We need to pick issues like this apart carefully.

tptacek 6mo ago

No, it isn't. What's your point?

themafia 6mo ago
Your quip follows a trope: "There's a weird reason the public wants this and it has little to do with the thing itself." Very often the implication being: "Therefore the public is wrong and should be ignored."
- tptacek 6mo ago
  I think the public is in fact wrong, but that has nothing to do with my argument.

parineum 6mo ago

> Is it required that the public have a "good reason" for wanting something? Not required but it's a nice to have, especially if the thing they want done is to have the desired outcome.

themafia 6mo ago
The desired outcome is simply not using Glyphosate. I'm not seeing how "reasonability" of this idea impacts it's implementation. If you find someone using it you severely fine them and/or put them in jail.
- sokoloff 6mo ago
  I’m sure someone’s desired outcome is to stop using urea or ammonium nitrate as a fertilizer. “Reasonability of X” factors into many people’s assessment of “should we do X or not-X?”
- tptacek 6mo ago
  Why is that a desired outcome?
  - themafia 6mo ago
    Why is using Glyphosate worth defending? Does it make food taste better, or grow larger, or become more nutruitious? If the only value is to increase the value of crops, by planting patent seeds, and then dousing the land in weed killer, perhaps people, regardless of the published scientific quality of their rationale, think that our food supply would be better off without it. Unless the suggestion that Glyphosate is the only way to grow the necessary amount of food then I think the question should be: What justifies it's use? So then why would you bother to care if the imputed and over generalized public rationale is right or wrong? If it is in fact so worth using then why shouldn't the government use imminent domain to capture the patents and distribute the technology for free?
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
    - tptacek 6mo ago
      This question has been answered several times on the thread already: because glyphosate is more benign, and relatively more inert, than other herbicides. The case for it is not complicated.
      - themafia 6mo ago
        > This question has been answered several times on the thread already Yet you continue to respond. So why mention it? > because glyphosate is more benign, and relatively more inert, than other herbicides Except for the fact you have to use genetically modified crop seeds to survive it. Do other herbicides require this? > The case for it is not complicated. The case against it isn't either.

FarmerPotato 6mo ago

> We used to spray DDT everywhere. This isn't exactly a resounding recommendation. Perhaps there's a case for using as little additives in farming as is possible It's not relevant to glyphosate, but there is such a thing. It's called Integrated Pest Management. I only know it wrt fruit crops. The main idea is to use the least-intrusive methods first, and pesticides last. For example, sanitation comes first: remove last year's debris where larvae and spores have over-wintered. Glyphosate isn't a pesticide (unless it kills host plants? maybe?)

munk-a 6mo ago

I think this a very unsound place to start an argument. Food production is vital and has been refined over the entirety of human existence to be stable and bountiful. I think it's extremely reasonable to critique Roundup for other reasons - but if you want to blank-slate farming and go with a no-additive solution we're bringing a lot of technology and technique into question that is helpful. While it's more difficult to formulate on the internet through brief interactions - the correct answer here is nuanced. Somethings are beneficial to farm land productivity and also beneficial to consumers by lowering prices, increasing availability to healthy food etc - and some things are not but might be highly profitable to conglomerates. We need to pick issues like this apart carefully.