|
That's where mandatory tree planting comes in.
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 05:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
That article also seems conspicuously silent on land ownership issues, even though it's long been known that small farms produce more food than large ones, probably because they use more human labour (and are therefore less profitable).
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 10:10
|
|
|
Potential BFF posted:
I know these pieces are from the 70's (and I've grown up always loving them), but as I get older I find it more and more amusing that everyone depicted in them are always white. Like super fitting for the rich that will survive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 10:17
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:That article also seems conspicuously silent on land ownership issues, even though it's long been known that small farms produce more food than large ones, probably because they use more human labour (and are therefore less profitable). What
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 10:44
|
|
|
Nuclear War posted:What We have known small farms produce more food than large ones since 1962, and yet I get this reaction every time I mention it. It seems like the superiority of small farms is somehow unthinkable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 11:50
|
|
|
Ssthalar posted:I've heard that one before. Yup, sounds like a thing humans would do
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 14:10
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:We have known small farms produce more food than large ones since 1962, and yet I get this reaction every time I mention it. It seems like the superiority of small farms is somehow unthinkable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
If not for the siphoning off of massive amounts of capital by the rich and their white collar administrative lackeys those farming families would as a collective be making quite a bit more than they did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:ah yes un/underpaid labor from family (women and children), great plan for increasing efficiency comrade. Thanks for confirming that an inability to imagine different economic arrangements is the root of the problem, I guess. We can produce more food by changing land ownership patterns, but we don't have to leave small farmers impoverished. Other methods of producing more food will also cost.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 16:25
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:Thanks for confirming that an inability to imagine different economic arrangements is the root of the problem, I guess. We can produce more food by changing land ownership patterns, but we don't have to leave small farmers impoverished. Other methods of producing more food will also cost. by all means imagine away, but your hot contrarian take backed up with a dumb blog post from 2008 was clearly not it i for one am looking forward to gelatin bars made of robotically farmed roach protein powder edit: the people who come at climate change from a reactionary-paleo "if we just permaculture around our yurts" are like the climate change politics version of healing crystals anti-vax types. possibly nice people but just childishly detached from reality. StabbinHobo fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Jan 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:by all means imagine away, but your hot contrarian take backed up with a dumb blog post from 2008 was clearly not it It's not remotely contrarian: the inverse relationship between farm size and food productivity is well established in academic literature and recognized by eg the IAASTD (a World Bank initiative). It has nothing to do with yurts or palaeo-anything. Small farms can be modern. Do you have an objection to sharing out land more or or increasing the number of agricultural jobs available that isn't just "I hate peasants and Greens"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 18:42
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:the people who come at climate change from a reactionary-paleo "if we just permaculture around our yurts" are like the climate change politics version of healing crystals anti-vax types. possibly nice people but just childishly detached from reality. Vaccines and healthcare in general keep people alive and consuming. Better for the planet to let them die. Healthcare is what like 20% of GDP now. And gives a bunch of doctors a pile of money and entitlement complex, trip to the islands every year, you deserve it. Forget coal mines, protest hospitals
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:It's not remotely contrarian: the inverse relationship between farm size and food productivity is well established in academic literature and recognized by eg the IAASTD (a World Bank initiative). It has nothing to do with yurts or palaeo-anything. Small farms can be modern. https://ispc.cgiar.org/blog/farm-size-and-productivity-lessons-recent-literature quote:The frequent finding is that there is an inverse relationship between farm size and measured productivity. In other words, small farms are highly productive in terms of output per unit area (i.e., yield). However, recent evidence casts some doubt on this inverse relationship, which may stem from measurement errors. Even if some small farms produce more per unit of land, their productivity per unit of labor is often very low, and income from these farms remains low when compared to larger farms. The inverse relationship should not be taken as evidence that small farms have the potential to lift rural households out of poverty. its the best kind of internet argument, you're *technically* right it just doesn't matter at all in the broader scope and system of things. you have hinged your understanding on over-extrapolating from one little factoid. in conclusion, no, I don't think optimizing for marginally greater land-use efficiency by having more small families living in poverty and working the land sounds like a good idea at all. it sounds like some hyper right wing crazy poo poo actually. weird little horseshoe here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:the people who come at climate change from a reactionary-paleo "if we just permaculture around our yurts" are like the climate change politics version of healing crystals anti-vax types. possibly nice people but just childishly detached from reality. StabbinHobo posted:yes your arguments against your silly charicatures are true, but those people really only exist as a handful of effortposting autists on some obscure sub reddits, you're getting angry at a small handful of absolute nobodies.  
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:I tried googling your bs and got this: That article states that small farms are widely thought to produce more food, then argues that even though some small farms may produce more food, this will not make people richer. Producing more food was the topic. E: Here, have a paper. Oh dear me fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jan 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 20:07
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:We have known small farms produce more food than large ones since 1962, and yet I get this reaction every time I mention it. It seems like the superiority of small farms is somehow unthinkable. That does make sense and the issue, as pointed out in the blog post, is that it's impossible to adequately pay people for that kind of detailed farm labor. quote:(a) The partial productivity of land (output per hectare) is higher for small individual farms I think these three points from your linked paper effectively illustrate why this system will be hard to voluntarily return to. We prize output per worker, not hectare, since we supplant the decreased land efficiency with machines. Energetically, it's still far far more efficient to use human labor, since by necessity we need to produce more energy than we physically use, but energy isn't, and can't be, priced like that. Farm labor loving sucks to do, so the hard part here is encouraging large numbers of people to get back into it when we still have the option of inefficient land use but far more efficient human-labor use. That's not to say we can't. I think, in the US at least, we could use the carrot of student-loan forgiveness to entice people to take up farming. But that requires an enormous overhaul of our food system, from the corporate ownership of land to the kind of seeds and legal protections and patents of seeds, fertilizer use, transportation of food, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:Thanks for confirming that an inability to imagine different economic arrangements is the root of the problem, I guess. We can produce more food by changing land ownership patterns, but we don't have to leave small farmers impoverished. Other methods of producing more food will also cost. This is A way to produce more food, but only matters your only goal is "more food" and nothing else. It's a BAD way to produce more food, because we also care about other things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:Farm labor loving sucks to do, so the hard part here is encouraging large numbers of people to get back into it That's a very western perspective though; land reform - by which I mean sharing out land into smaller bundles - is an extremely popular demand in many parts of the world, though seldom acceded to. Meanwhile peasants are still often violently forced off their lands to serve corporate interests. I don't wish to argue that full agrarian communism now would solve the food problem entirely; I just think a paper about how we're going to feed the world in future ought at least to consider land ownership issues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Big article with lots of info, analysis. Glad the obvious important message is near the top quote:Consumption of ruminant meat (beef, lamb and goat) is projected to rise 88 percent between 2010 and 2050. Beef, the most commonly consumed ruminant meat, is resource-intensive to produce, requiring 20 times more land and emitting 20 times more GHGs per gram of edible protein than common plant proteins, such as beans, peas and lentils. Limiting ruminant meat consumption to 52 calories per person per day by 2050—about 1.5 hamburgers per week—would reduce the GHG mitigation gap by half and nearly close the land gap. In North America this would require reducing current beef and lamb consumption by nearly half. Actions to take include improving the marketing of plant-based foods, improving meat substitutes and implementing policies that favor consumption of plant-based foods. I don't give a poo poo about vegetarianism or whether you think individual action matters, drastically reducing the amount of ruminant meat you consume is piss easy to do and has gigantic land use impacts. Cutting out ruminant consumption on a societal scale would make so many other land use problems non-issues The parts about moving from wild fishing to aquaculture are interesting as well, especially since the authors have a fairly rosy projection of wild fish stock in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
Thinking about yield may not be the thing. What you might want to think about is soil and soil cycles. Mfg scale monocropping initially produces yield, but within a decade destroys the soil cycle which is then supplemented, with you guessed it, fossil fuel supply chain products. It always returns to models of consumption and profit as well. Famine has, thus far, mostly been institutionally created. Crop selection feeds into a system of great waste, including vast losses of protein to produce meat and dairy. It’s possible that mfg scale monocropping to maximize profit and single acre subsistence farming are not the only options.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 21:19
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Glad the obvious important message is near the top True, about 10 years ago I noticed my digestive system rising up in rebellion every time I ate too much beef or pig meat, so I reduced my beef (and pig) consumption by like 99,5% (I tend to overdo everything I start) and replaced my meat consumption with more fish and poultry. That said, I'm probably a dirty cheater 'cause I didn't like beef and pig meat that much to begin with so ejecting it from my consumption was probably easier for me than for the average meat eater. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:That article states that small farms are widely thought to produce more food, then argues that even though some small farms may produce more food, this will not make people richer. Producing more food was the topic. no, producing enough food to feed 10 billion people being absurd was the topic, and your "lets just build a class of peasant land working families" solution only drives the point home
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 00:39
|
|
|
lets immiserate a few hundred million people so that we can keep racking up our high score!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 00:41
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:no, producing enough food to feed 10 billion people being absurd was the topic, and your "lets just build a class of peasant land working families" solution only drives the point home That's not my solution, you absolute muppet. I think we should consider all ways of increasing food production, and study how we might use and adapt them, what we can do to mitigate their disadvantages and so on. We should not ignore what knowledge we have because you're terrified of peasants.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 02:00
|
|
|
Sogol posted:Thinking about yield may not be the thing. What you might want to think about is soil and soil cycles. Mfg scale monocropping initially produces yield, but within a decade destroys the soil cycle which is then supplemented, with you guessed it, fossil fuel supply chain products. There is a huge amount of low hanging fruit as far as making modern agriculture more sustainable. As with most things, almost nobody bothers because the only incentive is to maximize profit. The common false dichotomy between big ag business-as-usual and ultra small scale
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 04:11
|
|
|
lol if anyone itt thinks "farming" is hard with modern technology *in the us with gov subsidies and loans paying for nearly everything when it comes to cash crops Feral Integral fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Jan 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 05:07
|
|
|
Morbus posted:There is a huge amount of low hanging fruit as far as making modern agriculture more sustainable. As with most things, almost nobody bothers because the only incentive is to maximize profit. The common false dichotomy between big ag business-as-usual and ultra small scale Wouldn't this be a good argument for carbon taxes / tariffs on countries that don't have carbon taxes? It's unrealistic that consumers are just going to decide en masse to make better choices, especially when those choices can't be wrapped in a handmade bespoke bow from a farmer's market, so force the issue and just make everything that's carbon intensive to produce way more expensive than the things that are produced more sustainably. enki42 fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Jan 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/EricHolthaus/status/1084843015762599936
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 18:16
|
|
|
enki42 posted:Wouldn't this be a good argument for carbon taxes / tariffs on countries that don't have carbon taxes? It's unrealistic that consumers are just going to decide on mass to make better choices, especially when those choices can't be wrapped in a handmade bespoke bow from a farmer's market, so force the issue and just make everything that's carbon intensive to produce way more expensive than the things that are produced more sustainably. Yes but now you’re impinging on people’s freedom  to be completely reckless, disengaged with the world and its future, and operate with total disregard to the environment If we could legislate human behaviour we could eliminate environmental problems within a generation- but we can’t so instead we’ll offload the worst effects of our actions to future humans and animals to the point where there won’t be any more humans or animals
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
Corporations are people too  and they have the freedom to not consider or mitigate the negative impacts they create because profit is sacredAny attempt to make corporations do less damage will be met and probably defeated by a legal challenge because justice is blind to the priorities of earths survival  
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
COMPAGNIE TOMMY posted:Corporations are people too Some good (old) and somewhat related news: Dutch organization Urgenda filed and won a case against the government forcing it to do more to fight climate change, inspiring similar lawsuits elsewhere in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
enki42 posted:Wouldn't this be a good argument for carbon taxes / tariffs on countries that don't have carbon taxes? It's unrealistic that consumers are just going to decide en masse to make better choices, especially when those choices can't be wrapped in a handmade bespoke bow from a farmer's market, so force the issue and just make everything that's carbon intensive to produce way more expensive than the things that are produced more sustainably. Land use problems are just as much about the nitrogen and phosphate cycles as they are about the carbon cycle. And the market solution is really simple: Make ruminant products cost 100x as much. Done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
Hmm, looks like Trump is doing his part in the battle against climate change with this prolonged shutdown. EDIT: I mean, it's only going to be poor westerners starving on the streets so I guess it doesn't affect consumption that much. But then again, it is nationwide... Gortarius fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Jan 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
How many cows do you have to save to counteract this? Ice loss from Antarctica has sextupled since the 1970s, new research finds
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
We're going to need some sort of CCS (cow capture and storage) technology.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
Insanite posted:How many cows do you have to save to counteract this? You just sit back and enjoy the canaries of a pliocene transition. That's baked in!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
Nah, it's cool. I have 100% renewable electricity, will make my next car electric, and haven't eaten a cow in years. The world is saved. Note to self: look up carbon cost of eating canary. Insanite fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Jan 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
Insanite posted:Nah, it's cool. I have 100% renewable electricity, will make my next car electric, and haven't eaten a cow in years. Proud of you for helping slow things down at pliocene level instead of miocene or eocene.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
Mozi posted:We're going to need some sort of CCS (cow capture and storage) technology. Yeah, my stomach! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 11:23 |
|
|
it touches my little irony poisoned heart when people use the "canary" idiom with climate change. on account of the origin of it also being the origin of the problem
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 04:32
|
|