3 ms·

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 st

by 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 slacka 12y ago

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.