4 ms·

Really? So, we go from, say, 450M agriculture waged workers today, to 2 billion. Or 3 billion. Or 5. Slaving away with hoes on their tiny biodynamic farmsteads

by cplease 12y ago

Really? So, we go from, say, 450M agriculture waged workers today, to 2 billion. Or 3 billion. Or 5. Slaving away with hoes on their tiny biodynamic farmsteads . Problem solved, 10 billion fed (although living in abject circumstances, ignoring pollution etc. here). Let's take it to 15 billion people. What does the planet earth look like then? Also, I think your premise that "natural polyculture" can scale up to feeding the high 10 digits of people in anything resembling the kind of society we expect to live in is unrealistic, to say the least.

briantakita 12y ago
Really. Don't let the marketing of large chemical manufactures fool you. The UN has a report that small scale, distributed farming is more efficient & yields more food than large monoculture farms. It's been measured. http://www.technologywater.com/post/69995394390/un-report-says-small-scale-organic-farming-only http://www.technologywater.com/post/69995394390/un-report-sa... The only "disadvantage" is more people will be required to grow food. However, given the amount of people who are out of work & economically displaced, this would be a good thing. These people will be given autonomy & food sovereignty. There is historical evidence that monoculture, petrol farming does not work. Look at the "green revolution" in India. India is moving back toward natural farming techniques because they work.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Turing_Machine 12y ago
  "These people will be given autonomy & food sovereignty." You're kidding, right? Small-scale peasant farmers have historically been the most downtrodden and oppressed group. Serfdom or outright slavery is the norm. "There is historical evidence that monoculture, petrol farming does not work." No, there is historical evidence that it does work. China hasn't had a major famine in close to fifty years, and India hasn't had one since the 1940s. Yes, there are still hungry people there, but you don't see the kind of mass die-offs that were common under the "natural farming techniques". "The only "disadvantage" is more people will be required to grow food." Cool. You get to go first.
  - Turing_Machine 12y ago
    Historical corn yield in Missouri: http://crops.missouri.edu/audit/images/CornYields_MO.jpg http://crops.missouri.edu/audit/images/CornYields_MO.jpg What was that you were saying about "does not work"? Note that even in a horrible year, the yield is still about 3x what they were getting in the early 1900s. In a good year it's 7x-8x.
    - briantakita 12y ago
      > What was that you were saying about "does not work"? Things that do not work: the overuse of till farming, soil erosion, drought, loss of habitat of wildlife, water pollution, inefficient water usage, desertification, famine, uneven food distribution, the reduction of nutrients in food, the obesity epidemic of the consumers of monoculture petrol agriculture, methane pollution from concentrated livestock, to name a few... Note that the graph you present is a myopic & reductionistic lens on the system's performance. It is also based on the evolution of the tradition of monoculture till farming, which can work (in an unoptimal way) in forgiving (even rainfall through the year) climates, but devastates the ecosystem in brittle (uneven rainfall through the year) climates. > No, there is historical evidence that it does work. China hasn't had a major famine in close to fifty years, and India hasn't had one since the 1940s. Yes, look at the "fertile crecent", that is Iraq, Iran, etc. It was once a lush paradise that has been till farmed to desert. Look at the farmers in India who are going back to natural methods because they are going into debt due to chemical agriculture's exploitative & inefficient practices. In China, look at the Loess Plateau being transformormed from desert into green land with Natural & Permaculture methods. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBLZmwlPa8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBLZmwlPa8A And famines happen all over the world. Centralized food production results in unequal food distribution. Re: traditional agriculture, we have been improving on a fundamentally broken tradition for thousands of years; We & Earth's ecosystems have suffered. It's time to go back to basics & work with, not against, nature. Reductionistic policy creates many externalized consequences, because we optimize for the things that we measure. In a monoculture mindset, we optimize for one crop. In a systemic mindset, we optimize for the entire system. Polyculture farms grow food by acre than monoculture farms. The many plants interact with each other to form a symbiotic food web, having introduce chemicals. Natural farming techniques, such as no till farming, have been shown to consistently out perform chemical monoculture agriculture. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yPjoh9YJMk&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yPjoh9YJMk&feature=youtu.be and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masanobu_Fukuoka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masanobu_Fukuoka One "challenge" is the diversity of the ecosystems on Earth call for a diversity in natural growing methods. There are many bioregions. The natural farmer needs to be in tune with the land & the ecosystem. On a side note, we have an epidemic of overly reductionistic thinking, which tends to blind us from the bigger picture. > Cool. You get to go first. I am. I'm taking part in the solutions to humanity's biggest issues. You are invited to as well.
cplease 12y ago
@briantakita If you read between the lines, what that says is all of our options are bad. Unchecked population growth will exceed the limits of any system. No amount of conservation and "permaculture" will reduce the footprint of a nonmiserable human to less than a substantial fraction of what is currently, much less zero. You can't manufacture or farm virgin wilderness by any means. We eclipsed optimum population and blazed by sustainable population in the last millennium. We pay the price in this one.
- Turing_Machine 12y ago
  "Unchecked population growth will exceed the limits of any system." Good thing we're not seeing that, then. The world population growth rate has halved since its peak in the early 1960s, and the rate is continuing to decline. "You can't manufacture or farm virgin wilderness by any means." Good thing modern farming techniques don't need virgin wilderness, then.
  - cplease 12y ago
    > Good thing we're not seeing that, then. The world population growth rate has halved since its peak in the early 1960s, and the rate is continuing to decline. Good thing? World population was 3 billion in 1960, in the post-war baby boom when population growth was 9% on an extremely anomalous rebound above historical rates. So, the world added 270M people that year to 3 billion. In 2012, the world hit 7 billion people with a population growth rate of 4.5%. You are right, the rate was half of the 1960 peak. So, it added 315M people that year to 7 billion. Now that you've seen the arithmetic, what do you think has a bigger impact on the environment, 270 million people added to 3 billion people, or 315 million people added to 7 billion people, who are consuming a hell of a lot more than they did in 1960? Easing off the accelerator while the world is driven to hell is nothing to pat ourselves on the back for. We need to slam the brakes and go in reverse. > Good thing modern farming techniques don't need virgin wilderness, then. Let's just pave and plow every single inch of the planet until we have a lifeless moonscape then. Do you know nothing about ecology? Have you never taken a hike off the beaten track?
    - 12y ago

by cplease 12y ago

briantakita 12y ago

Really. Don't let the marketing of large chemical manufactures fool you. The UN has a report that small scale, distributed farming is more efficient & yields more food than large monoculture farms. It's been measured. http://www.technologywater.com/post/69995394390/un-report-says-small-scale-organic-farming-only http://www.technologywater.com/post/69995394390/un-report-sa... The only "disadvantage" is more people will be required to grow food. However, given the amount of people who are out of work & economically displaced, this would be a good thing. These people will be given autonomy & food sovereignty. There is historical evidence that monoculture, petrol farming does not work. Look at the "green revolution" in India. India is moving back toward natural farming techniques because they work.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Turing_Machine 12y ago
"These people will be given autonomy & food sovereignty." You're kidding, right? Small-scale peasant farmers have historically been the most downtrodden and oppressed group. Serfdom or outright slavery is the norm. "There is historical evidence that monoculture, petrol farming does not work." No, there is historical evidence that it does work. China hasn't had a major famine in close to fifty years, and India hasn't had one since the 1940s. Yes, there are still hungry people there, but you don't see the kind of mass die-offs that were common under the "natural farming techniques". "The only "disadvantage" is more people will be required to grow food." Cool. You get to go first.
- Turing_Machine 12y ago
  Historical corn yield in Missouri: http://crops.missouri.edu/audit/images/CornYields_MO.jpg http://crops.missouri.edu/audit/images/CornYields_MO.jpg What was that you were saying about "does not work"? Note that even in a horrible year, the yield is still about 3x what they were getting in the early 1900s. In a good year it's 7x-8x.
  - briantakita 12y ago
    > What was that you were saying about "does not work"? Things that do not work: the overuse of till farming, soil erosion, drought, loss of habitat of wildlife, water pollution, inefficient water usage, desertification, famine, uneven food distribution, the reduction of nutrients in food, the obesity epidemic of the consumers of monoculture petrol agriculture, methane pollution from concentrated livestock, to name a few... Note that the graph you present is a myopic & reductionistic lens on the system's performance. It is also based on the evolution of the tradition of monoculture till farming, which can work (in an unoptimal way) in forgiving (even rainfall through the year) climates, but devastates the ecosystem in brittle (uneven rainfall through the year) climates. > No, there is historical evidence that it does work. China hasn't had a major famine in close to fifty years, and India hasn't had one since the 1940s. Yes, look at the "fertile crecent", that is Iraq, Iran, etc. It was once a lush paradise that has been till farmed to desert. Look at the farmers in India who are going back to natural methods because they are going into debt due to chemical agriculture's exploitative & inefficient practices. In China, look at the Loess Plateau being transformormed from desert into green land with Natural & Permaculture methods. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBLZmwlPa8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBLZmwlPa8A And famines happen all over the world. Centralized food production results in unequal food distribution. Re: traditional agriculture, we have been improving on a fundamentally broken tradition for thousands of years; We & Earth's ecosystems have suffered. It's time to go back to basics & work with, not against, nature. Reductionistic policy creates many externalized consequences, because we optimize for the things that we measure. In a monoculture mindset, we optimize for one crop. In a systemic mindset, we optimize for the entire system. Polyculture farms grow food by acre than monoculture farms. The many plants interact with each other to form a symbiotic food web, having introduce chemicals. Natural farming techniques, such as no till farming, have been shown to consistently out perform chemical monoculture agriculture. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yPjoh9YJMk&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yPjoh9YJMk&feature=youtu.be and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masanobu_Fukuoka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masanobu_Fukuoka One "challenge" is the diversity of the ecosystems on Earth call for a diversity in natural growing methods. There are many bioregions. The natural farmer needs to be in tune with the land & the ecosystem. On a side note, we have an epidemic of overly reductionistic thinking, which tends to blind us from the bigger picture. > Cool. You get to go first. I am. I'm taking part in the solutions to humanity's biggest issues. You are invited to as well.

cplease 12y ago

@briantakita If you read between the lines, what that says is all of our options are bad. Unchecked population growth will exceed the limits of any system. No amount of conservation and "permaculture" will reduce the footprint of a nonmiserable human to less than a substantial fraction of what is currently, much less zero. You can't manufacture or farm virgin wilderness by any means. We eclipsed optimum population and blazed by sustainable population in the last millennium. We pay the price in this one.

Turing_Machine 12y ago
"Unchecked population growth will exceed the limits of any system." Good thing we're not seeing that, then. The world population growth rate has halved since its peak in the early 1960s, and the rate is continuing to decline. "You can't manufacture or farm virgin wilderness by any means." Good thing modern farming techniques don't need virgin wilderness, then.
- cplease 12y ago
  > Good thing we're not seeing that, then. The world population growth rate has halved since its peak in the early 1960s, and the rate is continuing to decline. Good thing? World population was 3 billion in 1960, in the post-war baby boom when population growth was 9% on an extremely anomalous rebound above historical rates. So, the world added 270M people that year to 3 billion. In 2012, the world hit 7 billion people with a population growth rate of 4.5%. You are right, the rate was half of the 1960 peak. So, it added 315M people that year to 7 billion. Now that you've seen the arithmetic, what do you think has a bigger impact on the environment, 270 million people added to 3 billion people, or 315 million people added to 7 billion people, who are consuming a hell of a lot more than they did in 1960? Easing off the accelerator while the world is driven to hell is nothing to pat ourselves on the back for. We need to slam the brakes and go in reverse. > Good thing modern farming techniques don't need virgin wilderness, then. Let's just pave and plow every single inch of the planet until we have a lifeless moonscape then. Do you know nothing about ecology? Have you never taken a hike off the beaten track?
  - 12y ago