(Thread IKs:
Stereotype)
|
Erghh posted:meanwhile https://time.com/6335225/sultan-al-jaber-cop28-interview/?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us Hmmmmm, capitalism is threatening to destroy the biosphere. Maybe adding more capitalism can help fix it?
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 17:06 |
|
|
 true capitalism has never been attempted
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 02:51
|
|
|
What if - and I'm just blue skying here - what if we...well...what if we just keep all the money and power no matter how many people it kills and destruction it causes?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 04:03
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Abrupt onset and prolongation of aragonite undersaturation events in the Southern Ocean is the paper I'm thinking of. There's a pdf link in google scholar it looks like (a weird one that won't hotlink). Twigand Berries posted:This is what I found for the end Permian Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 11:34
|
|
|
The last page had a few misconceptions on farming. We are not reliant of fossil fuels and "mega-agriculture" or fossil fuels to get enough nitrogen into the soil. I wish I was a soil scientist to better explain this stuff myself. I'll link a few videos if anyone is interested. Chemical (conventional) fertilizers aren't necessary. For producing grain and raising ruminants, using a combination of cover crops and planned rotational grazing is both more profitable and better for the environment. Google "cover crops Gabe Brown" if you would like to know more, he travels around the country explaining how 20+ years ago he stopped tilling his farm and stopped using fertilizers/pesticide/herbicide/fungicide. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A It will still use large tractors to plant the seeds and columbine harvesters, but I'm sure those could be made electric if the demand was there. Producing fruits and vegetables, smaller scale "no-till"(1-10 acres) farms have higher yields per square foot. This channel goes into some of the science on why we don't need chemical conventional fertilizers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ0StXVfIUU I do agree with previous posters that climate change will have a major impact. Rising temperatures will mean more crop failures and uncertain/changing water cycles. Just got triggered that we need fossil fuels to farm. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 22:12
|
|
|
Fozzy The Bear posted:Chemical (conventional) fertilizers aren't necessary. You're technically correct, but who's point are you refuting? This is like arguing "the earth isn't being destroyed, it's a giant ball of rock - we can't do anything to it!" Of course there are other ways of farming, but we're not just going to change the current system to no till land holding and feed 8 billion people all of a sudden, and civilisation just keeps on trucking into it's glorious future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 22:29
|
|
|
Wanna hear more about the columbine harvesters, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2023 23:29
|
|
|
Fozzy The Bear posted:The last page had a few misconceptions on farming. We are not reliant of fossil fuels and "mega-agriculture" or fossil fuels to get enough nitrogen into the soil. I wish I was a soil scientist to better explain this stuff myself. I'll link a few videos if anyone is interested. so what? the point isn't whether or not we need them to farm, it's that we currently have 8 billion people dependent on ff agriculture to live. how you gonna swap out agricultural systems without mass death?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 00:11
|
|
|
bl1ndsight posted:so what? the point isn't whether or not we need them to farm, it's that we currently have 8 billion people dependent on ff agriculture to live. how you gonna swap out agricultural systems without mass death? the current ff agriculture system is heading us towards mass death already so i wouldnt worry so much about what the pro mass death people in power are chosing
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 00:28
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:happy 1K+satan page They really buried the lede in this one, what with how the way to make cement from turbine blades is to burn them. GE at least claimed at one point to be using them for aggregate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 02:01
|
|
|
Fozzy The Bear posted:<failure to comprehend the scale of the problem> if only everybody knew farmer jesse's one weird trick! starve off 5 - 7B pepole
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 02:09
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:happy 1K+satan page At what point is the amount of energy that goes into running all those shredders, sorters, scoops, and the transportation for all of that just a waste over leaving the blades to rot and making concrete out of normal concrete things? This seems extremely performative Dokapon Findom posted:It sucks now! Remember how cheap corn used to be before they started putting it in gasoline? Didnt they start putting corn in fuel as a way to use up all the excess corn from subsidies *because* the corn was so cheap, rather than just reduce the subsidies so less got grown?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 02:17
|
|
|
starkebn posted:You're technically correct, but who's point are you refuting? This is like arguing "the earth isn't being destroyed, it's a giant ball of rock - we can't do anything to it!" Of course there are other ways of farming, but we're not just going to change the current system to no till land holding and feed 8 billion people all of a sudden, and civilisation just keeps on trucking into it's glorious future. bl1ndsight posted:so what? the point isn't whether or not we need them to farm, it's that we currently have 8 billion people dependent on ff agriculture to live. how you gonna swap out agricultural systems without mass death? MightyBigMinus posted:if only everybody knew farmer jesse's one weird trick! starve off 5 - 7B pepole The point of my post was besides fueling tractors, we could continue our current system (USA) without any drop in output without using fossil fuels. We just choose to use them, it wouldn't even be expensive to switch. Because of farm subsides, there is incentive not to switch. In fact I would argue, its because of the farm subsides that keeps the current status quo going. e: poo poo, USA farm land was MORE fertile before we started using chemical fertilizers. Fozzy The Bear has issued a correction as of 02:24 on Nov 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 02:22
|
|
|
Fozzy The Bear posted:e: poo poo, USA farm land was MORE fertile before we started using chemical fertilizers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 02:38
|
|
|
Did mechanizing farming result in less productivity per input - like nitrogen or whatever - but vastly more land under cultivation and so vastly increased total output perhaps?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 02:43
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Did mechanizing farming result in less productivity per input - like nitrogen or whatever - but vastly more land under cultivation and so vastly increased total output perhaps? Correct. Industrial agriculture is about reducing labor, not improving productivity. Gabe Brown, Joel Salatin, Greg Judy, etc... all prove you do not need fossil fuel (or at least not at the massive scale of industrial agriculture) to produce food, just labor. frozenphil has issued a correction as of 03:21 on Nov 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 03:19
|
|
|
Fozzy The Bear posted:The point of my post was besides fueling tractors, we could continue our current system (USA) without any drop in output without using fossil fuels. utter nonsense edit: and to be clear, i subscribe to that guy's channel and watch his videos weekly for years, he didn't tell you this
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 03:20
|
|
|
frozenphil posted:Correct. Industrial agriculture is about reducing labor, not improving productivity. Gabe Brown, Joel Salatin, Greg Judy, etc... all prove you do not need fossil fuel (or at least not at the massive scale of industrial agriculture) to produce food, just labor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 03:36
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:should be nbd, just increase the proportion of the population working in agriculture, this won’t have any economic or social ramifications whatsoever I never said we'd do it, just that it's possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 03:38
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:should be nbd, just increase the proportion of the population working in agriculture, this won’t have any economic or social ramifications whatsoever this but unironically
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 03:40
|
|
|
Putting the horse back into horsepower.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 04:27
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Didnt they start putting corn in fuel as a way to use up all the excess corn from subsidies *because* the corn was so cheap, rather than just reduce the subsidies so less got grown? All I know is it used to be 9 ears for $1 and now each ear is >$1 on its own Also ethanol reduces fuel economy so you end up burning functionally the same amount of petroleum
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 04:27
|
|
|
spiritual bypass posted:this but unironically you ever heard of pol pot
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 04:55
|
|
|
Hubbert posted:you ever heard of pol pot get your lasix while you have time
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 04:59
|
|
|
Whenever I'm at the grocery store I kind of marvel at the year-round availability of non-local fruit, particularly citrus and tropical fruits like pineapple. I eat bananas every day but they don't grow within 1000+ miles of where I live, and I disdain apples which grow locally in abundance. Even berries, which can be found locally, are being brought in from Mexico and California. All this is underwritten by relatively cheap (and non-renewable) energy. It's also part of the problem with getting rid of plastic as our system as designed now operates with that efficiency built in. I think about milk in glass bottles and how much less efficient it is from a shipping (and therefore carbon) standpoint to transport reusable glass bottles than lightweight disposable cartons. The effort to reuse things is often just not worth it; cloth shopping bags take more resources in textiles, water, energy etc. to produce than do the equivalent number of plastic bags they replace. The only smart attempt to deal with the problem of weight vs. waste so far is the square Heineken bottle that doubled as a brick
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 05:13
|
|
|
Lol at destroying the green revolution being a key plank of half the environmentalist movement. "You get higher yields!" * For low calorie non staple crops ** In particular climates *** During only the ideal growing seasons **** In places with exceptional soil quality Like being anti-nuclear it's pure vibes based environmentalism
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 05:29
|
|
|
Dokapon Findom posted:Whenever I'm at the grocery store I kind of marvel at the year-round availability of non-local fruit, particularly citrus and tropical fruits like pineapple. I eat bananas every day but they don't grow within 1000+ miles of where I live, and I disdain apples which grow locally in abundance. Even berries, which can be found locally, are being brought in from Mexico and California. All this is underwritten by relatively cheap (and non-renewable) energy. It's also part of the problem with getting rid of plastic as our system as designed now operates with that efficiency built in. I think about milk in glass bottles and how much less efficient it is from a shipping (and therefore carbon) standpoint to transport reusable glass bottles than lightweight disposable cartons. The effort to reuse things is often just not worth it; cloth shopping bags take more resources in textiles, water, energy etc. to produce than do the equivalent number of plastic bags they replace. this is all neurotic nonsense too btw, the only thing that matters is beef. the transportation cost of fruit and veg is negligible compared to the land-use impacts of all the land that grows cattle feed and is used for grazing pasture. 
MightyBigMinus has issued a correction as of 06:01 on Nov 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 05:48
|
|
|
Dokapon Findom posted:Whenever I'm at the grocery store I kind of marvel at the year-round availability of non-local fruit, particularly citrus and tropical fruits like pineapple. I eat bananas every day but they don't grow within 1000+ miles of where I live, and I disdain apples which grow locally in abundance. Even berries, which can be found locally, are being brought in from Mexico and California. All this is underwritten by relatively cheap (and non-renewable) energy. It's also part of the problem with getting rid of plastic as our system as designed now operates with that efficiency built in. I think about milk in glass bottles and how much less efficient it is from a shipping (and therefore carbon) standpoint to transport reusable glass bottles than lightweight disposable cartons. The effort to reuse things is often just not worth it; cloth shopping bags take more resources in textiles, water, energy etc. to produce than do the equivalent number of plastic bags they replace. I saw this recently... I thought it made more sense than the strangely shaped bottles 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 05:51
|
|
|
like maggots worrying about portion control
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 06:12
|
|
|
im working on making it so the seeds can only grow when sprayed with company approved chemicals
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 06:37
|
|
|
swamp thong posted:im working on making it so the seeds can only grow when sprayed with company approved chemicals First Farmer, can you vouch for the licensing of your crops? We pledge our loyalty to Monsanto, from now until death. Then receive this reward from Bayer, may your stalks grow tall.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 06:50
|
|
|
The only thing that can save us is tiberium and The Brotherhood of Nod. Save us Joseph David Kucan!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 06:56
|
|
|
THE TECHNOLOGY OF PEACE
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 07:36
|
|
|
MightyBigMinus posted:this is all neurotic nonsense too btw, the only thing that matters is beef. the transportation cost of fruit and veg is negligible compared to the land-use impacts of all the land that grows cattle feed and is used for grazing pasture. But have you considered, without beef, I cannot haz cheezboiger. No votey for that!
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 10:33
|
|
|
p sure beast meat is good... for land that is not suitable for crops and that kinda stuff. Not chop down the planet and put up a pig factory
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 10:48
|
|
|
FlapYoJacks posted:The only thing that can save us is tiberium and The Brotherhood of Nod. Save us Joseph David Kucan! Tiberium is a relentless scourge that has ruined the planet, tolerated only because it offers up some paltry riches to those willing to embrace it. It is insidious, it has touched every ecosystem and destroyed them all, and even - for those unfortunate enough to be overly exposed - turned normal humans into horrifying, disgusting creatures that threaten the very existence of anyone else they come into contact with. Sorry did I say tiberium I meant capitalism
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 10:55
|
|
|
so at this rate of warming we’re gonna bit 3C by 2040? good thing I got a 401k
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 16:42
|
|
|
swamp thong posted:im working on making it so the seeds can only grow when sprayed with company approved chemicals no need, it’s basically already there. if you buy seed from, for example, Monsanto, it will be genetically altered in two major ways: firstly, the plants that grow from it will be unable to propagate themselves (single use), and secondly they will be extremely tolerant to Monsanto’s pesticides, and only to Monsanto’s pesticides. also, it’s a proprietary formula, so every other company’s plants will die instantly if Monsanto chemistry touches them. this ends up with all the farmers in the area being forced to buy whichever seed and chemistry brand the biggest megafarm in the area chooses, so that sloppy application of pesticide doesn’t destroy their crop. also, you can get a credit from the companies if you buy their seeds and chems multiple years in a row
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 17:01
|
|
|
Scarabrae posted:so at this rate of warming we’re gonna bit 3C by 2040? good thing I got a 401k Think 8C by 2050
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 17:06 |
|
|
Commercial varieties are usually single-use because they're all F1 hybrid seed and whatever grows from their offspring is a loving mess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2023 17:17
|
|