3 ms·

> Dr. Evil runs Monsanto. Where they’ve turned large tracks of fertile land into a barren, sterile wasteland that can only grow their GMO crops. I don't preci

by pnathan 12y ago

> Dr. Evil runs Monsanto. Where they’ve turned large tracks of fertile land into a barren, sterile wasteland that can only grow their GMO crops. I don't precisely think that's a correct characterization (as someone who is employed by a subsidiary of MON). Let's rephrase that: - Large tracts of land have been planted with high density crops without weeds and highly resistant to pests. This year I believe the record corn harvest was over 300 bu/ac. That's a vast improvement compared to 100 years ago. I was taken to a research area earlier this year and took two photos of corn at a demonstration plot - one circa late 1800 farming practice, one circa 2014 farming practice. - https://plus.google.com/116106755607615316501/posts/hvUBLxsjU2H https://plus.google.com/116106755607615316501/posts/hvUBLxsj... - https://plus.google.com/116106755607615316501/posts/H76wXT2U3m2 https://plus.google.com/116106755607615316501/posts/H76wXT2U... Quick, guess which one has the best yield/acre - and which one has the best environment for honeybees. I'm not a beekeeper or an agronomist, but I strongly suspect that the focus on anti-weed, anti-pest farms is aggressively hostile to non-food production. I'm inclined to believe permaculture is the sustainable way forward, but I have no idea how to feed the planet with permaculture without a massive human die-off.

randomdata 12y ago
> That's a vast improvement compared to 100 years ago. You don't even have to go back that far. At the local elevator there is a highest corn yield award from the 70s hanging on the wall. The winning yield was 120 bu/ac. Though we don't quite get to 300 bu/ac in this area (yet), but 250 bu/ac isn't unheard of.
- pnathan 12y ago
  Sorry, my recollection was off - I thought I had misremembered because it was so high. The record for 2014 harvest is 504 bu/ac for Corn. http://farmfutures.com/story-ncga-announces-2014-corn-yield-contest-winners-0-121770 http://farmfutures.com/story-ncga-announces-2014-corn-yield-...
DanBC 12y ago
For many years we've had enough food, we just don't distribute it properly. The other problem with hunger is lack of micronutrients so a GM rice that provides vitamins would be more useful than a GM grain that allows a weedkiller company to sell more weedkiller. Collapse of pollinators carries a risk of human die-off.
dbingham 12y ago
We can feed the planet with Permaculture and with out a human die off. But it requires as massive shift in culture and in the organization of society. We have to relocalize agricultural production, so that we're not dependent on transporting crops grown in high density areas. We have to totally change the distribution of housing and farm land. We have to get rid of lawns and make it so that basically every speck of land not devoted to structures is growing food in some way. And we have to change our society so that people have the free time to harvest and store food. We have to accept that feeding everyone is going to require their time again and walk back a bit from our current extreme specialization. That's the part that is really, really hard to achieve. We're up against a ticking clock here, and I have no idea how to achieve it in time. The thing is we're going to get the massive human die off if we don't change. So we really have nothing to lose in trying. The only question is "How long do we have to try experiments in gradual change before we run out of time?" As for Monsanto, while I'm sure there's no Dr. Evil chewing on his pinkie at the top of its corporate hierarchy, it has done many things that are hard to call anything but evil. Even for a moral relativist like myself.
slacka 12y ago
I'm not saying we have to go back to the farming practices of over 100 years ago, by plowing with oxen and using night soil for fertilizer. You're creating a straw man argument. We need to use technology like GMO to work with nature. But Monsanto sells herbicide and pesticide, so it's not in their interest do to so. > crops highly resistant to pests. Farmers using Monsanto's GMO crops need to use MORE pesticide than no GM crops.[1] Our continued survival as a species depends on clean water,fresh air, fertile soil. Millions of tons of soil are lost from land degradation. It may require more effort, but we could feed 7 billion people with sustainable agriculture. And if you really cared about the future of our civilization, you would acknowledge the damage your employer is causing. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X20121002 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-study-pesti...
- pnathan 12y ago
  I don't speak for my employer. With that out of the way - I don't believe I was creating a straw man or negating the reality of our ecosystem change - I want to make plain: high density crops with no pests or weeds is a profound alteration from the way things are in a natural environment. It allows a high level of density (more food), but cuts hard against other things. The natural plant life is swarming with pests and "Weeds" are a human classification. WRT your link. We're forcing evolution to occur faster. That's pretty much unarguable, yea? I'm a software engineer, not an agronomist, so I can't speak to real practical sustainable architecture of food systems. I simply don't have the science needed to be intelligent about it. I don't feel long-term ecosystem alteration is a good thing to our system (see pictures I linked for an example of the variance - which picture is more natural?). I'd like to experiment with urban permaculture, but I don't think that could even feed my family (all 2 of us). Food is incredibly important - I would love to have a cunning idea to reduce food waste globally, but I don't have that domain expertise at present to produce a cunning and marketable startup there.

by pnathan 12y ago

randomdata 12y ago

> That's a vast improvement compared to 100 years ago. You don't even have to go back that far. At the local elevator there is a highest corn yield award from the 70s hanging on the wall. The winning yield was 120 bu/ac. Though we don't quite get to 300 bu/ac in this area (yet), but 250 bu/ac isn't unheard of.

pnathan 12y ago
Sorry, my recollection was off - I thought I had misremembered because it was so high. The record for 2014 harvest is 504 bu/ac for Corn. http://farmfutures.com/story-ncga-announces-2014-corn-yield-contest-winners-0-121770 http://farmfutures.com/story-ncga-announces-2014-corn-yield-...

DanBC 12y ago

For many years we've had enough food, we just don't distribute it properly. The other problem with hunger is lack of micronutrients so a GM rice that provides vitamins would be more useful than a GM grain that allows a weedkiller company to sell more weedkiller. Collapse of pollinators carries a risk of human die-off.

dbingham 12y ago

We can feed the planet with Permaculture and with out a human die off. But it requires as massive shift in culture and in the organization of society. We have to relocalize agricultural production, so that we're not dependent on transporting crops grown in high density areas. We have to totally change the distribution of housing and farm land. We have to get rid of lawns and make it so that basically every speck of land not devoted to structures is growing food in some way. And we have to change our society so that people have the free time to harvest and store food. We have to accept that feeding everyone is going to require their time again and walk back a bit from our current extreme specialization. That's the part that is really, really hard to achieve. We're up against a ticking clock here, and I have no idea how to achieve it in time. The thing is we're going to get the massive human die off if we don't change. So we really have nothing to lose in trying. The only question is "How long do we have to try experiments in gradual change before we run out of time?" As for Monsanto, while I'm sure there's no Dr. Evil chewing on his pinkie at the top of its corporate hierarchy, it has done many things that are hard to call anything but evil. Even for a moral relativist like myself.

slacka 12y ago

I'm not saying we have to go back to the farming practices of over 100 years ago, by plowing with oxen and using night soil for fertilizer. You're creating a straw man argument. We need to use technology like GMO to work with nature. But Monsanto sells herbicide and pesticide, so it's not in their interest do to so. > crops highly resistant to pests. Farmers using Monsanto's GMO crops need to use MORE pesticide than no GM crops.[1] Our continued survival as a species depends on clean water,fresh air, fertile soil. Millions of tons of soil are lost from land degradation. It may require more effort, but we could feed 7 billion people with sustainable agriculture. And if you really cared about the future of our civilization, you would acknowledge the damage your employer is causing. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X20121002 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-study-pesti...

pnathan 12y ago
I don't speak for my employer. With that out of the way - I don't believe I was creating a straw man or negating the reality of our ecosystem change - I want to make plain: high density crops with no pests or weeds is a profound alteration from the way things are in a natural environment. It allows a high level of density (more food), but cuts hard against other things. The natural plant life is swarming with pests and "Weeds" are a human classification. WRT your link. We're forcing evolution to occur faster. That's pretty much unarguable, yea? I'm a software engineer, not an agronomist, so I can't speak to real practical sustainable architecture of food systems. I simply don't have the science needed to be intelligent about it. I don't feel long-term ecosystem alteration is a good thing to our system (see pictures I linked for an example of the variance - which picture is more natural?). I'd like to experiment with urban permaculture, but I don't think that could even feed my family (all 2 of us). Food is incredibly important - I would love to have a cunning idea to reduce food waste globally, but I don't have that domain expertise at present to produce a cunning and marketable startup there.