Krazyhorse
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2010
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 1
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
a deep-seated dislike of human beings.
Discuss.
Discuss.
a deep-seated dislike of human beings.
Discuss.
The idea of prioritizing the welfare of plants over the welfare of humans is disgusting :thumbdown
Sustainable agriculture is a concept born of observing nature. Why create waste lagoons when you can fertilize your fields with it? Why resort to pesticides before planting when you can have your fowl get fat with no cost to you? Nature over millions of years has created a very efficent circle of life that wastes no energy.
a deep-seated dislike of human beings.
Discuss.
Thank you. You seem very intelligent. What is your astrological sign?
Umm no. If you don't grow sustainable agriculture, then you CAN'T SUSTAIN IT. I would think that would be obvious. Unsustainable practices might work fine for a couple years or even several decades, but eventually the resource will be completely depleted. Look at the total collapse of Newfoundland's cod industry in the 1990s due to overfishing. Look at Haiti's slash-and-burn development that has left them almost entirely without forests.
FACT: we have been engaging in unsustainable agriculture for over a century.
Kuciwalker said:If something doesn't happen in that timeframe then it can't happen at all.
Nature wastes no energy? Are you completely unacquainted with the second law of thermodynamics?
What practices, specifically, are you referring to, and why do you consider them unsustainable?
You JUST SAID one sentence ago that our agricultural practices are unsustainable. Now you are saying that nothing will ever change because it hasn't changed so far (i.e. the practices ARE sustainable.) Which is it? Do you even understand what "sustainable" means?
I think his point is that current agricultural practices (which are labeled "unsustainable" by advocates of "sustainable" agriculture) are, in fact, completely sustainable,
Ben L. Kenobi said:as demonstrated by their successful use for over a century to feed far more human beings than "sustainable" agricultural practices could ever hope to. It's advocates of "sustainable" agriculture who don't seem to understand what the word "sustainable" means.
I think his point is that current agricultural practices (which are labeled "unsustainable" by advocates of "sustainable" agriculture) are, in fact, completely sustainable, as demonstrated from their successful use for over a century to feed far more human beings than "sustainable" agricultural practices could ever hope to. It's advocates of "sustainable" agriculture who don't seem to understand what the word "sustainable" means.
It is also unsustainable without massive amounts of external inputs into the crops
Without the large amounts of fertilizers and pesticides being added to fields the yield with todays monoculture farming would drop dramatically
FACT: we have been engaging in unsustainable agriculture for over a century. If something doesn't happen in that timeframe then it can't happen at all.
Humans themselves are unsustainable. Environmentalists are at loathe to admit it but the only way we can keep the earth's population down is with tried and true methods. We won't be able to feed everyone without pesticides, this is perfectly true. So we need to figure out who to keep. I've been reading a bunch of interesting articles about how lesbians are leading the way in selective breeding programs and think this shows a lot of promise.
Kids of lesbians have fewer behavioral problems, study suggests - CNN.com
The Green Revolution looked good on paper
Tell that to the millions of poor people in Africa and Asia who wouldn't be alive today if it weren't for the Green Revolution. The Green Revolution was good on paper and even better in execution. :cheers:
Tell that to millions of people in Africa whose traditional farm land would still be in tact if the IMF hadn't come in under private subsidization programs to acquire their land and replace it with "modern" agriculture. Tell that to the millions in Africa whose crops cannot compete on the world market because of American subsidization of its domestic crops.
That is completely irrelevant to the issue of modern agricultural practices being vastly superior to "sustainable" agricultural practices in terms of yield produced per acre. Tens (and possibly hundreds) of millions of people would starve worldwide without the modern agricultural practices that "sustainable" agriculture partisans deride.