|
The major problem with this argument is that there is no holistic metric by which to measure how effective and efficient a use of land is. Industrial ag (including organic industrial ag) mostly only cares about $/acre or $ earned/$ spent. That's the business metric. It doesn't consider ecological damage due to monocultural practices or damage caused by the production, transportation, or usage of fertilizers, chemicals, and machinery. All they care about is $/$. They don't care that a huge volume of what they sell is thrown away by the markets and consumers, representing wasted resources. They factor in government subsidies that keep them earning huge profits (so why are we subsidizing them?). Even in drought stricken California, where big and small farms have been hit hard by water shortages, you can drive up and down the central valley and see climate inappropriate crops being grown using inefficient watering methods that result in massive amounts of water waste by evaporation. The problem is much more complex than just land use and $ in/$ out. It's more complex than environmental impact and crop yields. You have to consider that a lot of poor people can't afford fresh food, even though tons of it is thrown away every day by producers for being too ugly, by markets for not being sold (even at super low industrial prices!), and by consumers for being purchases but not eaten in time. There is no reason we should be subsidizing industrial ag, throwing away tons of food, and having millions of kids going to school without breakfast. The entire way we look at food and food production needs to change in order to really address the issues at stake. Consumers are too far removed from the food production process and it allows large industrial producers to abuse animals, abuse workers, claim massive government subsidies, and toss out foods with spots because markets only want flawless waxy apples and bell peppers.
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Just FYI: Please cite your sources. And if you are afraid they may be called out as biased, truth is, they may be biased. The fact that you are calling attention to that is actually an issue, because unfortunately for your argument, the Organic crowed is more guilty of bias than most. Hey, cite yours, too. e: You keep sayings things are objectively true, making strong claims about your argument, then demanding sources from others, without citing anything yourself. Tuxedo Gin fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Jun 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
I think there is not a major defense of industrial organic farming being better than industrial non-organic farming in this thread. They are the same thing. The real argument here is industrial global ag vs. local community centered ag.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Anos posted:What exactly does that entail - is it less mechanized and what farm size qualifies as non-industrial? I don't think there would be any size restrictions. It's more about feeding your local market and not a global one. My family has a tiny farm in rural San Diego county. We sell within the county. Between sales at markets and trading with other small local farms (We have extra eggs, persimmons, and honey - we trade for things that are in season but we don't grow), we have very little food waste. What produce is wasted is composted and used to fertilize our fields and orchards. We make enough to support 5 adults and 2 kids with a very, very comfortable lifestyle. We do not even put 40 hours a week into it. Obviously that is anecdotal and our entire food production system would have to be completely broken down in order to accommodate a shift to local farming, but would that be a bad thing? People need to work. People are hungry. We have a lot of wasted land in the suburbs and exurbs that could be used far more effectively. Urbanization doesn't require industrial farming, but suburban sprawl does, and is a waste (and not sustainable). Anos posted:The US exports a lot of food so higher food prices have effects beyond the borders of the US. Paying 50 cents more for a pound of beans may or may not be manageable for the poor in the US but more likely than not it won't be for the poor that rely on US exports. When biofuels became a thing in the 2000s food prices spiked across the world. In Europe and the US people managed but there were shortages and ultimately political instability in other places. As far as I can tell implementing reforms that reduce production by 20% will have the same effect. You can make the argument that people in other countries will die from a 50 cent increase in green beans, but the whole point of the local farming argument is that we should be using land to feed our local community. Millions across America don't get enough food to eat. Lots of kids get one meal a day: school provided lunch. Industrial ag isn't working for anyone but big business and middle class - and it isn't even better for the middle class, it just works for them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
twodot posted:What's an example of a micronutrient found in milk which your average American able to afford organic milk is unlikely to find elsewhere? Like iodized salt is good because even if people are unlikely to need it, it has basically no impact on production or price. If we're asserting organic milk is healthy because it complements the nutrition profile of Soylent drinkers, that seems pretty suspect. http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/02/18/467136329/is-organic-more-nutritious-new-study-adds-to-the-evidence It's just better levels. Is it a huge difference? No, not really. It is the lack of hormones and antibiotics that make the massive difference and cost justification. Hormones and antibiotics from meat and dairy are having substantial impacts on general health in this country.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Also, using non-iodized salt doesn't pump you full of biological function altering hormones and superbug contributing antibiotics. GMO hysteria is dumb, but hormones and antibiotics in meat and dairy are loving awful.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
The problem with this topic is that the way we are doing things right now, works for the world right now. We are raping our agriculturally productive land. We are wasting space with useless suburban sprawl. We have massive populations in places that simply cannot support those populations. Yes, for local community farming to be ideal we would need make some progress on problems like poverty, overpopulation, and unsustainable business and lifestyle practices. But we need to address those things anyway. Yeah, right now things work pretty loving well, for the most part. In 100+ years that probably won't be the case. Passing the buck and saying "technology will sort it out" is setting your grandkids and great grandkids for a really, really bad time. The problems with agriculture are intertwined with economic issues and ecological issues. It is cheaper and easier to stay the course, but it isn't better. Nobody is calling for an immediate end to major industrial agriculture, but rather a shift to making local choices when you can, even if it is a little more expensive or requires you to go to a farmer's market on Sunday morning.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:There is this thing called 'economy of scale' which is why we don't produce things by using artisans in cottages like the 1700s anymore We overscaled the economy. Industrial agribusiness is dependent on government subsidies to maintain growth and profits, and a ridiculous amount of the product is thrown away every day. Not to mention agribusiness using scarce, communal resources (like water in California, or land in general) to make bundles of cash exporting almonds and alfalfa (incredible thirsty crops, not at all suited for drought prone regions) to China. Why should they make huge profits at the expense of others? Smaller local farmers who can't afford to add a few thousand feet to their well have fallow fields because the big dogs are raping the groundwater for export profits. Even if the drought in CA suddenly ends tomorrow, it could take decades or longer to bring the groundwater to a healthy level.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Perfectly efficient food production is eating Soylent and ground cricket flour, not organic chickens. Local organic production is massively less efficient than even the system we have now, and setting up the entire world's agriculture like that means billions of people die of starvatoin We don't need a perfectly efficient system, and we don't need to feed billions of people. People should not be living in places that can not sustain them. This goes to my argument: CA agribusiness is raping a drought stricken state to feed Chinese people. China has a shitload of land. De urbanization is the best thing for this planet. Too many people in areas that cannot support them leads to other areas being hurt. Then, when middle America and California's central valley cannot sustain industrial levels of agriculture due to overexploitation of resources, what the gently caress do we do? Pray that technology has an answer, just like all the other climate change factors that we choose to ignore now because of convenience or greed. e: Also, if people are so concerned about people starving all over the world, why the gently caress are we throwing away tons and tons of food, and bleaching dumpsters, every day?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:No actually we do need to feed billions of people, that's exactly the problem. The major stress on world food production isn't Las Vegas and California suburbs, it's third world countries under water stress, and while eliminating waste and inefficiency in Las Vegas will help a little its effect on a country like Yemen or Bangladesh will be negligible. The solution to developing countries' problems looks nothing like small, local farms, it looks like industrial agriculture with huge inputs of capital and technology But we're not using that solution either. We're selling almonds and alfalfa to China for cash, and destroying the community resources in California to do it. So you can say my suggestion isn't a viable one, but yours isn't either - exchanging profit for altruism is largely unthinkable. Until the people of Yemen and Bangladesh can afford US produce prices (essentially never, unless we continue to subsidize even more), it will never happen. Instead of subsidizing industrial agriculture to sell to developing countries, why not just subsidize developing countries to help them become sustainable? Because we don't get rich that way, of course.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That's the problem though: These people are arguing that their method of farming should be the only viable and acceptable version. So, yes, it is an issue. Do you have sources, Mr. Unsourced opinions? Cause here's some that say you are wrong. Local food is demonstrably better for the environment than globally transported industrialized ag products: http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS09-05.pdf http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/09/04/how-green-is-local-food/ http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~hertel/data/uploads/publications/avetisyan-hertel-sampson-food-miles.pdf The only time local is NOT more ecologically responsible is meat, because livestock is loving awful for the environment.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 22:33
|
|
Who shall live and who shall die? Get back to us and let us know
|
Yeah, you guys seem to think that we are arguing for a return to agrarian lifestyles, which we have never done. Nobody is saying abolish industrial ag. Just tone it down a bit. The majority of what you want, produce wise, is available from local farms. Do that when you can. I've said that already.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Problem is all-local wouldn't be able to meet the food needs of most large population centers. A mixed approach, not entirely unlike the way poo poo is currently, is probably best. Nobody is saying all-local. But the current mixed approach should be expanded. Some people get produce locally, but the majority don't even consider it. Most supermarkets should be like meat and processed/frozen foods. There's not much reason to buy produce from a supermarket unless you absolutely have to have that out of season thing imported from the other side of the world, in which case, gently caress you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Your own sources show that small vehicle emissions are a larger impact overall that agriculture and transportation. Hm. Interesting that you deflect instead of giving up your sources. I'll stand by for whatever google results you pull out of your rear end, I guess. Small vehicle emissions are happening whether food is local or not. Even the one source I gave that you are talking about still stipulates that even considering that, local food use results in a 4-5% reduction in carbon footprint, more if the local farms use more sustainable practices than the industrial farms (many do). People are going to die either way. We are trading one bandaid for another. Technology is not advancing fast enough to reverse climate change. Either we re-evaluate our urban make up (Keep core cities that can sustain themselves, otherwise have much, much smaller cities) or we stay the current path and down the like billions die anyway because we've overpopulated and reached too high a density in urban/suburban areas and industrial ag can no longer keep up. Obviously that's our choice, cause we're already doing it, but that doesn't make it the best choice. A mixed local-industrial plan is best. We can continue industrial production on a reducing scale for emergencies, export, and and supplementing the system. The majority of people should be strongly encouraged to buy local every chance they get. That's my entire argument. Nobody has to die for this, it just requires a reevaluation of our relationship with food. Stop throwing it away, and you don't need strawberries in January.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:We'll have bigger emissions hits by switching off coal and gas than we will switching off industrial agriculture that currently does feed our planet. Agricultural capacity is bullshit. We throw away tons and tons of perfectly good food every goddamn day. Agricultural capacity is currently too loving high. Wasted resources. e: I just said I'm not calling for the end of industrial ag. Just scale it back a bunch. You're frothing at the mouth imagining that we are calling for the reversal of technology to 1800's agrarian life, but we're not.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And what makes you think cutting back on capacity is going to cut back on consumer oriented waste? Consumer oriented waste is not the only type of waste. It's like you don't read a loving thing anyone writes. Producers and retailers have ridiculous amounts of food waste.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Also, I'm still waiting for your sources on carbon footprint being smaller for industrial ag operations. Or was your "stopping coal and oil would be better" a backpeddle on that?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Awaiting on both your plans on how to mass emigrate these people and also resolve the massive agricultural debt of Africa. Thanks in advance. Awaiting details of your plan on how increased use of resources via industrial ag as cash crops and exports will save humanity from stripping this rock bare in a few hundred years. Our plan depends on people being willing to give up massive corporate profits, and possibly being open to allowing brown people to settle land in their countries. None of this will ever happen, obviously, so we're strait hosed. But your plan of "stay the course" is not a plan.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Nope. Not a backpeddle. But a point that there are bigger issues the resolve prior to the systems that currently ensure the world is fed. It is a backpeddle, because I provided evidence that you are WRONG that industrial agriculture has less environmental impact than local agriculture, so now you are dismissing it altogether. How does industrial agriculture feed the world? People in developing countries are loving starving. People in America are lacking access to food.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This highlights an issue with capitalism and for-profit driven economics, not farming in generally. The food is there, its denied to people on the basis of economic merit, not on lack of availability. Were you not the one that highlighted food waste as a significant weight on food availability? Maybe solving that would go further than shifting to small farms? Food waste is not a significant weight on food availability. It is proof that the system is not working as intended. Yes, my argument highlights an issue with capitalism and for-profit economics. Industrial agriculture is the result of that. I've said many times in this thread that the problems with industrial agriculture are intertwined with environmental and economic issues. I've presented evidence of this. You've presented no evidence to dispute this other than "people will die." People are going to die with the current system, too. They already are. The system is broken. The solution is not to double down. The solution is to fix it. If we were diverting all surplus food to starving people around the world, I would be with you. We don't really do that, at least not in a really meaningful way. That is the only way the current system can be justified. Feed the world. Your arguments are the same arguments of the farmers in central California with the signs that say "Is growing food wasting water?" stuck in their almond, alfalfa, and cotton farms - mostly for export and profits. Sure, if you want industrial ag to feed the world, then loving feed the world. But you're not, so why even use that defense?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Sorry, my thesaurus is packed away. I can assure you I don't use it in the gamer sense of "You got raped", but instead according to the actual dictionary definition of "to despoil". Sorry if I offended your sensibilities with my legitimate use of a word according to the primary M-W definition of that word.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'm still enjoying their condemning anyone in the Middle East for living in places not conducive to farming. You're illiterate, right? Cause nobody has loving said that. But, continue to take pieces of our arguments out of context while ignoring the larger argument in order to prove your point which you refuse to back up with any facts.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yeah, because it's really loving expensive. If you read some of the articles I cited, you might notice that it is not. If you buy in season fruit and veg from a farmer's market it will typically be less expensive than supermarket prices. Yeah, they aren't doing the same volume, but they also don't have nearly as much middleman overhead and transportation costs. CommieGIR posted:OP was citing a loving farmer appealing to 'faith' as a guide for his farming practices. We never said they deserve lack of access. We said something should probably be done to ween them off of exported foods. If that means we have some desert mega ghost cities in 100 years, gently caress it. It's a pipe dream, but so is the argument that we're feeding the world - we demonstrably are not. So, yes, you are taking it out of context. We've both said multiple times that our point is that the current system is unsustainable, and doubling down to expand it is not the solution. In a perfect world, people would have freedom to move out of the deserts and populate areas that can sustain them. But, keep ranting on about how we're calling for the deaths of billions because we want to completely eliminate industrial agriculture. If you actually read either of our posts you'd see that we specifically said that is not what we are talking about.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Well from my personal experience there usually is a significant price difference (especially once you move to things like meats, eggs and cheeses). Of course meats and cheese are more expensive. Buy those at the supermarkets. Livestock is terrible for the environment and you shouldn't encourage local livestock operations. Eggs are not nearly as bad, and I'm surprised you find them more expensive at markets. They're much cheaper here. Same with honey and most in season fruits and veg.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
computer parts posted:But even if we grant you that, the fact that they're not able to produce as much volume means that prices will rise significantly if people actually start switching over to local consumption. Read the thread. Switch when it makes sense, don't when it doesn't. Most people don't even consider it, which is the problem. Buy most of your produce from local markets. The price won't go up too high or people will stop buying it. We're not saying eliminate supermarkets and industrial agriculture - but use them to supplement what is produced locally.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's the point. Local produce is very sensitive to demand shifts because it has very low volume. The net result is going to be that maybe a few more people will buy local, and most people will still buy what they've always bought. Which is why we should encourage more local farms, and we should encourage more people to buy from them. That's the main point of the argument. People need to change the way they think about food and the way they interact with food production. The current system is environmentally unsustainable and economically wasteful.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Local farms are even more environmentally unsustainable and economically wasteful. They objectively use up more resources. Read the thread. I've already posted sources that dispute that claim. Please post some that support it. This parallels the discussion in the CA Politics thread. Drive up I-5 and see farms spraying water up into the air and on the ground in 90+ degree weather. Much of that water is lost to evaporation. My farm, and all the neighbors I've seen, have irrigation systems on our small farms so we aren't just spraying everywhere. We also water during the times of day that minimize evaporation. Most people who are running small farming operations in this day and age, and working local markets, in opposition to the large industrial agribusinesses, want to make a living sustainably. They are far more likely to invest in ecologically responsible methods, even if that hurts the bottom line. The large agribusinesses are absolutely not willing to take a hit in profit unless they are forced to by regulation. Shareholders are king. e: The exception, as I've said, is livestock. You don't want local livestock operations. They are terrible for the environment. Tuxedo Gin fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Jun 11, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Your sources do not dispute it. Well I'm sorry about your reading comprehension skills. The Columbia article I posted on the last page discusses it. As I did in my own post from my own experience being a local farmer and being surrounded by small local farms. Small farms are more likely to adopt practices that limit negative environmental impacts. We use less water and spray less chemicals. Our produce has a smaller carbon footprint than large agribusinesses.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I've already told him that, he raged. No you didn't. You handwaved and said it was irrelevant because oil and coal are more damaging than industrial farming. And continued to refuse to post sources that support your argument.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yeah and it concluded "you'd do better to just go Vegetarian". 4-5% is not insignificant, especially because that is just greenhouse gas emissions. It doesn't consider water use, chemical use, and excessive need for fertilizer due to monoculture practices. You guys are hilarious. You find one little point, pull it out of context of the entire argument, and try to argue that your (unsupported) claims completely destroy the argument. Post some facts that unrestrained industrial agriculture is awesome for the environment and local economies and I will shut up.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 03:29
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Their data supports large farming. No, you don't produce a smaller carbon footprint. You're own sources highlighted as much. You can't read. It says that even despite the savings by mass collection, local production results in a 4-5% decrease in carbon emissions. But hey, keep not reading and railing on without posting facts to support your claims. You've not posted anything except your opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
I'm done engaging. No wonder the OP fled. You won, but not by proving your point. You won by endlessly arguing your opinion with no support other than more of your opinions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 03:34
|
|