Global Warming
-
In a way of thinking, they are. I am also talking about industrial scale farming here. I have spent good 20 years of life living on farm lands. They included industrial farming and research as well. I have seen both fertilizer based farming and one without it. It is evident that once you have started using fertilizers, slowly soil quality and ability to grow crops will reduce. It will also impair crop rotation abilities inherent in the soil. I don't know standards followed in Australia regarding their use but I would still stand by my point: fertilizers are bad and are not needed at all. Even if rules you have are strict enough to check the quantity and quality of chemicals used, it is not needed. There are many natural ways of saving crops from insects.
"The worst code you'll come across is code you wrote last year.", wizardzz[^]
So your belief is that there was no green revolution, there was no increase in worldwide crop yields in the 70s, and the companies tricked farmers into buying something they did not need, that gave no observable benefits, and made farmers stuck with having to buy more, to be where they were to start with ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
So your belief is that there was no green revolution, there was no increase in worldwide crop yields in the 70s, and the companies tricked farmers into buying something they did not need, that gave no observable benefits, and made farmers stuck with having to buy more, to be where they were to start with ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Yes there was. I am not denying the fact that chemical speed up growth process and also protect against creatures. But all the evident benefits could have been achieved using natural ways. There was no real need to doing all which was done through harmful chemicals (all of them are poison, just the threat level differs). Any land which was introduced to chemicals had deteriorated in past 20-30 years. Today, switching away from these chemicals is not easy and hence farmers are now stuck. If one a capable enough to survive with little less crop for sometime, he can still refuse to use these. Here are some more links if you wish to have a look: Navdanya[^] Centre for Sustainable Agriculture[^]
"The worst code you'll come across is code you wrote last year.", wizardzz[^]
-
Yes there was. I am not denying the fact that chemical speed up growth process and also protect against creatures. But all the evident benefits could have been achieved using natural ways. There was no real need to doing all which was done through harmful chemicals (all of them are poison, just the threat level differs). Any land which was introduced to chemicals had deteriorated in past 20-30 years. Today, switching away from these chemicals is not easy and hence farmers are now stuck. If one a capable enough to survive with little less crop for sometime, he can still refuse to use these. Here are some more links if you wish to have a look: Navdanya[^] Centre for Sustainable Agriculture[^]
"The worst code you'll come across is code you wrote last year.", wizardzz[^]
So, you're saying that the farmers in the west were just dumb ? The increase they saw was because they'd always been doing it wrong ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
So, you're saying that the farmers in the west were just dumb ? The increase they saw was because they'd always been doing it wrong ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
People had always had problems like crops being eaten away by insects. Getting rid of them is the solution. How we achieved that was wrong. It could have been done using natural process. For instance, just keep some peacocks around the farm and you can get rid of rats and snakes. Similar ways can be applied to almost every other aspect. I am not saying people in West (or anywhere) are dumb. All I am saying is we all were. We all saw the improvement and jumped the bandwagon without realizing consequences in long run.
"The worst code you'll come across is code you wrote last year.", wizardzz[^]
-
People had always had problems like crops being eaten away by insects. Getting rid of them is the solution. How we achieved that was wrong. It could have been done using natural process. For instance, just keep some peacocks around the farm and you can get rid of rats and snakes. Similar ways can be applied to almost every other aspect. I am not saying people in West (or anywhere) are dumb. All I am saying is we all were. We all saw the improvement and jumped the bandwagon without realizing consequences in long run.
"The worst code you'll come across is code you wrote last year.", wizardzz[^]
So you think that keeping peacocks is a solution for farms of 100s of acres ? I'm sorry, I think you've grossly misunderstood the scale of industrial farms and are completely misunderstanding the basic facts. The green revolution avoided a food crisis by increasing yields. Therefore, if there was another way of doing it, we did not know it, and today, organic methods result in lower yields still than farms that properly use green revolution techniques. I don't disagree that there's long term harm, but it was done because the short term good was there.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
So you think that keeping peacocks is a solution for farms of 100s of acres ? I'm sorry, I think you've grossly misunderstood the scale of industrial farms and are completely misunderstanding the basic facts. The green revolution avoided a food crisis by increasing yields. Therefore, if there was another way of doing it, we did not know it, and today, organic methods result in lower yields still than farms that properly use green revolution techniques. I don't disagree that there's long term harm, but it was done because the short term good was there.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
It is possible to employ harmless ways in farms that huge. Of course, you wouldn't buy hundreds of peacocks but there are other ways. Also, if we see the increase in yields, it may have increased for certain crops but would also have decreased for the successor crop in rotation. We need to consider that as well in calculations.
"The worst code you'll come across is code you wrote last year.", wizardzz[^]
-
So you think that keeping peacocks is a solution for farms of 100s of acres ? I'm sorry, I think you've grossly misunderstood the scale of industrial farms and are completely misunderstanding the basic facts. The green revolution avoided a food crisis by increasing yields. Therefore, if there was another way of doing it, we did not know it, and today, organic methods result in lower yields still than farms that properly use green revolution techniques. I don't disagree that there's long term harm, but it was done because the short term good was there.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
In many ways we are, and have always been, wizard's apprentices who have some problems to control what we have summoned. Unfortunately there ia also another factor: Greed. How much harm is done for profit, even if there are clean but less profitable alternatives?
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
-
In many ways we are, and have always been, wizard's apprentices who have some problems to control what we have summoned. Unfortunately there ia also another factor: Greed. How much harm is done for profit, even if there are clean but less profitable alternatives?
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
For what reason do you think that a farmer would pay money for something when there's a clean alternative that costs less ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
For what reason do you think that a farmer would pay money for something when there's a clean alternative that costs less ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I'm sure the John Innes Centre will provide all the information you will need on the subject of fertilizers, or anything to do with crops and the land. From http://www.jic.ac.uk[^] such as www.jic.ac.uk/staff/mike-merrick/pdfs/2009/Molecular%20Basis%20and%20Regulation%20of%20Ammonium%20Transporter%20in%20Rice.pdf[^]
-
For what reason do you think that a farmer would pay money for something when there's a clean alternative that costs less ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
That's exactly the problem. If you have to run a business, you must take every advantage you can find. All others will do just the same. Still, nothing is without consequences. It may take some time, but wenn the bill is presented to us, then it will be with interest. A less short sighted strategy that spares natural resources could prevent that, but that would require that nobody tries to be smarter than the rest at everbody's expense.
At least artificial intelligence already is superior to natural stupidity
-
yeah, the trouble is, there's no real solutions. Greenies love things like organic food, and I grow plenty of it myself, but yields are lower, that's why we have fertilizer in the first place.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
that's why we have fertilizer in the first place
I've followed your discussion with the OP and all I can say is that we have and continue to produce staggering amounts of corn, soy and wheat that wouldn't be possible without fertilizers. I have grown small crops both naturally and using fertilizers and the difference is dramatic.
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. There is no place like 127.0.0.1 -
yeah, the trouble is, there's no real solutions. Greenies love things like organic food, and I grow plenty of it myself, but yields are lower, that's why we have fertilizer in the first place.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
The problem with fertilizer is it kills the soil. It kills all of the good bacteria and micro-organisms and even worms that make soil healthy. Why is there no real solution? Since the history of mankind small farms have sustained life. I am not suggesting everyone become farmers but small sustainable farms can go a long way in being a solution. Big farms produce a lot of food, but it is not nutritious food. Also, big farming practices destroy the earth making them more and more dependent on chemicals which is a vicious cycle because the chemicals destroy the earth.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
So your belief is that there was no green revolution, there was no increase in worldwide crop yields in the 70s, and the companies tricked farmers into buying something they did not need, that gave no observable benefits, and made farmers stuck with having to buy more, to be where they were to start with ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
US farmers tried selling their "beautiful" bug-free produce in Japan around that time and the Japanese were smart enough to know that if a bug won't eat it, they wouldn't eat it. For a while, the US couldn't get their produce to sell well in Japan. Quantity does not always beat quality.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
So, I buy the Skeptics magazine from time to time. I bought a special issue on global warming, I've also just read 'the geek manifesto', which is about geeks pushing politicians, the media, etc, to respect science more, for example by not supporting homeopathy etc through national health schemes. It had a chapter on global warming, also. I've read a fair bit on this issue, and I still believe that the environmental movement exaggerates AGW and it's impact. 'The geek manifesto' said the same, actually. Both it and the Skeptics magazine make a compelling case for AGW in general being something that has stronger scientific support than, say, evolution, but suggest that because the green movement has tied accepting AGW to the idea of being anti any sort of development or modern lifestyle, they are equated in the minds of people who oppose it. It's certainly thought provoking, but I feel as I examine some of this evidence, I am becoming more convinced that, while AGW as portrayed by the media is not really true, that humans are definitely impacting on the climate, and that it's a shame that science is being made a slave to ideology.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
It had a chapter on global warming, also.
I didn't find the piece very informative. The stated intent was to present evidence but a lot of the verbiage was about predicted results.
Christian Graus wrote:
because the green movement has tied accepting AGW to the idea of being anti any sort of development or modern lifestyle, they are equated in the minds of people who oppose it.
That is of course because much of the the organized environment groups are pushing social issues rather than the environment. Read up on why one of the original founding members of Green Peace quit the organization for an example of that. Might note as well that the environment groups also ignore the most pressing social issue that would have a direct impact on the environment - that of population growth.
Christian Graus wrote:
and that it's a shame that science is being made a slave to ideology.
It is of course a mistake to think that any large scale human endeavor is somehow exempt from the same social conditions that other endeavors are subject to.
-
I'd say we are impacting our environment greatly. When I was a kid I could/would swim in just about any river or stream, not now. I could go outside and breathe fresh air in or near most cities, not now. I could play out and wander far from home hitch hike cross country. not now. (Sorry I know that's not necessarily environmental but had to throw it out there) Could swim in the ocean off the coast where I live, not now. (Last time I really swam there they had bio-hazardous material wash up on shore, needless and such) I could go on but from here on out it would be a rant.
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. There is no place like 127.0.0.1Mike Hankey wrote:
I'd say we are impacting our environment greatly. When I was a kid I could/would swim in just about any river or stream, not now.
Exactly how much research has been done between now and then exposing additional problems? And how old are you and where do you live? Because there are certainly water bodies that 50+ years ago that no one would enter but they do now.
Mike Hankey wrote:
I could go outside and breathe fresh air in or near most cities, not now.
What country do you live in? The air in US cities and probably most first world nations are cleaner now than they were 50+ years ago.
Mike Hankey wrote:
I could play out and wander far from home hitch hike cross country. not now. (Sorry I know that's not necessarily environmental but had to throw it out there)
I can only suppose this reflection has something to do with random violence. And there is no reason to believe that this is any different now than it was 50 years or 100 years ago. The real difference however is that the media reports and popularizes this. Additionally the ability of law enforcement to recognize patterns and perhaps even to emphasize solving such cases more so in the past (where as one can make the case that the friendly neighborhood officer spent more time on known neighbor problems than on problems with strangers.)
Mike Hankey wrote:
Could swim in the ocean off the coast where I live, not now. (Last time I really swam there they had bio-hazardous material wash up on shore, needless and such)
And so now you are a member of the informed public versus a time when there was no such knowledge.
-
This is not true at all. There are villages in India which do not use fertilizers. Their yields are same may be more than one with fertilizers use. We just need to understand the various insects, bacteria etc and how they fit into this big food chain. They do help improving soil quality which in turn means better yield. Check this[^] out. Sikkim state in India is known for it's organic farming.
"The worst code you'll come across is code you wrote last year.", wizardzz[^]
d@nish wrote:
This is not true at all.
Provide a source.
d@nish wrote:
Their yields are same may be more than one with fertilizers use.
Provide a source.
d@nish wrote:
They do help improving soil quality which in turn means better yield.
So your contention is that locusts provide a better yield?
-
In a way of thinking, they are. I am also talking about industrial scale farming here. I have spent good 20 years of life living on farm lands. They included industrial farming and research as well. I have seen both fertilizer based farming and one without it. It is evident that once you have started using fertilizers, slowly soil quality and ability to grow crops will reduce. It will also impair crop rotation abilities inherent in the soil. I don't know standards followed in Australia regarding their use but I would still stand by my point: fertilizers are bad and are not needed at all. Even if rules you have are strict enough to check the quantity and quality of chemicals used, it is not needed. There are many natural ways of saving crops from insects.
"The worst code you'll come across is code you wrote last year.", wizardzz[^]
d@nish wrote:
I have spent good 20 years of life living on farm lands.
I have spent decades using bathrooms but that doesn't make me an expert on urban waste disposal and most certainly doesn't make me an expert on differing techniques on a world wide basis on the best ways to deal with it.
d@nish wrote:
It is evident that once you have started using fertilizers, slowly soil quality and ability to grow crops will reduce.
It is evident that if you misuse the soil, regardless of how, that problems will occur. That is the only thing that is "evident".
d@nish wrote:
There are many natural ways of saving crops from insects.
Wrong. Most insect problems are specific to a single pest. Something that eats leaves cannot be dealt with in the same way that a pest that eats roots or harvested product can be. And "natural" solutions are often limited to a single choice for a single pest. Some pests have more than one solution and if you disagree with that then please do provide the name of a single pest and provide more than 10 "ways" of saving the crop from that pest.
-
Yes there was. I am not denying the fact that chemical speed up growth process and also protect against creatures. But all the evident benefits could have been achieved using natural ways. There was no real need to doing all which was done through harmful chemicals (all of them are poison, just the threat level differs). Any land which was introduced to chemicals had deteriorated in past 20-30 years. Today, switching away from these chemicals is not easy and hence farmers are now stuck. If one a capable enough to survive with little less crop for sometime, he can still refuse to use these. Here are some more links if you wish to have a look: Navdanya[^] Centre for Sustainable Agriculture[^]
"The worst code you'll come across is code you wrote last year.", wizardzz[^]
d@nish wrote:
Here are some more links if you wish to have a look:
Looks similar to the sites that promote that cow urine cures cancer. All types of cancer. Perhaps just a coincidence that India also seems to have better luck with that than other places.
-
People had always had problems like crops being eaten away by insects. Getting rid of them is the solution. How we achieved that was wrong. It could have been done using natural process. For instance, just keep some peacocks around the farm and you can get rid of rats and snakes. Similar ways can be applied to almost every other aspect. I am not saying people in West (or anywhere) are dumb. All I am saying is we all were. We all saw the improvement and jumped the bandwagon without realizing consequences in long run.
"The worst code you'll come across is code you wrote last year.", wizardzz[^]
d@nish wrote:
For instance, just keep some peacocks around the farm and you can get rid of rats and snakes.
Eh? You equate rats/snakes with locusts? Far as I know rats/snakes have not had a significant impact on agriculture productivity for at least 50 years. Perhaps 100 years ago rats might have been a problem but snakes were never significant. Locusts on the other hand were a problem 100 years ago and still are.
d@nish wrote:
We all saw the improvement and jumped the bandwagon without realizing consequences in long run.
Exactly what do you mean by "long run"? I am fairly certain that crop yields (yield per acre) have been improving for a very long time. Probably more than 50 years. Your statement suggests that it is has somehow fallen off. So where is your source for that?
-
US farmers tried selling their "beautiful" bug-free produce in Japan around that time and the Japanese were smart enough to know that if a bug won't eat it, they wouldn't eat it. For a while, the US couldn't get their produce to sell well in Japan. Quantity does not always beat quality.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
US farmers tried selling their "beautiful" bug-free produce in Japan around that time and the Japanese were smart enough to know that if a bug won't eat it, they wouldn't eat it. For a while, the US couldn't get their produce to sell well in Japan.
I see. And what is your take on Japan's continued importation of endangered species used in "medicine"? Or for that matter non-endangered species? How about their continued "scientific" research done by killing whales? And could you explain to me exactly what real human caloric need is met by the consumption of the blowfish?
