roseweird posted:if you want you can always turn your computer off and go practice subsistence farming somewhere
thats actually my plan and my families totally into it. its awesome 'cause my dad listens to coast to coast am and is like "son theyre putting poison in the gmo corn, we need to buy land and a shotgun" and im like "cool dad"
Edited by Scrree ()
Science
automated polyculture would be impossible on the harvesting end without some completely uptopian Solar-Powered BigDog Robot that is light enough to not compress the ground and agile enough to harvest carrots, broccoli, and CORN or whatever, and even then you get to issues of manufacturing and maintenance of in-credible machines on scale large enough to feed the world. and automated planning only makes senses if you distrust farmers economically or politically, which means your liberatiing world system involves underpaying or oppressing the peasant classes.
theyre both problems that are solved by the use of the human body - you can't automate complex processes that involve varying points of production and create a variety of goods - which is what argiculture must be
roseweird posted:if you want you can always turn your computer off and go practice subsistence farming somewhere
yes, as a person raised without tradition and with little passing-on of material or practical skills, i can definitely do that difficult thing and not starve, and definitely have enough capital to buy land and equipment to do this with.
stegosaurus posted:new science problem this forum specifically is having: daylight savings time lmbo
itll resolve itself in 6 months. or maybe it just took an hour
jeffery posted:
i love these posts
Edited by Scrree ()
roseweird posted:mechanized agriculture pretty clearly reduces need for physical human labor,
wrong
roseweird posted:anyway 100-200m seems pretty low imo. 7-12b like we're dealing with now is tolerable if stressful,
wrong. how could we have even 3 billion people? that's more people than were alive in 1950, decades after the industrial revolution started leaving a permanent heat rash on the earth. we have an idea about the actual carrying capacity of the planet by estimates of the pre-columbian population of the americas, 50-100 million. in a coming era of resource depletion i think we should be safe and set that as a worldwide limit.
https://vimeo.com/74025061
roseweird posted:swampman posted:roseweird posted:mechanized agriculture pretty clearly reduces need for physical human labor,
wrong
roseweird posted:anyway 100-200m seems pretty low imo. 7-12b like we're dealing with now is tolerable if stressful,
wrong. how could we have even 3 billion people? that's more people than were alive in 1950, decades after the industrial revolution started leaving a permanent heat rash on the earth. we have an idea about the actual carrying capacity of the planet by estimates of the pre-columbian population of the americas, 50-100 million. in a coming era of resource depletion i think we should be safe and set that as a worldwide limit.
that is an estimate for the carrying capacity of precolumbian populations living in the manner of precolumbian populations. i don't think our mission as human beings on earth is to be Eternally Precolumbian
you're being obtuse to avoid acknowledging the necessity of your own death
roseweird posted:we all die eventually. are you trying to say that there are insufficient resources to support my life and that it is necessary that i die violently prior to my natural death in, given good health and good luck, 60-70 years?
not necessary, just inevitable - this thread is about exploring less violent alternatives to global food riots
roseweird posted:mechanized agriculture pretty clearly reduces need for physical human labor, which is why as lessons pointed out our agricultural sector already employs a small number of relatively wealthy agritech types and not masses of peasant farmers.
no you're missing the point. it's really questionable how much labor time is actually saved because of how much it gets pushed down the production line, i.e., the labor saved by agricultural equipment corresponds with increased labor needed to produce that equipment, and at a ratio much closer to parity than a factory assembly line vs artisanal craftsmanship. the point about the cost of farm equipment + agricultural subsidies wasn't to say that contemporary western farmers are rich - it's to cast doubt on the idea that the arrangement in the US is actually the most economical framework even within capitalism, let alone alternative economic systems. china for example is probably always going to have a large proportion of the population working in agriculture because they can't repeat the same development path we did and they'll always have access to cheap labor while tractors keep costing a million dollars.
fat isn't bad for you and grainfed vs. grassfed matters a lot more in terms of good meat. 'advancements in biotech' have made fruit less digestible to living things.precision farming is only an alternative to actually having people on the ground recording data and making obersvations and a bad one at that. farmers don't burn dieasl fuel when they harvest (though they sure smell like it!). also tractors are more expensive than that. americans pay less for food because we eat corn, processed food made from corn, meat from corn fed animals and the market price for a corn bushel is like 75% lower than the cost to produce it (the fed makes up the rest).
that org is literally chaired by the director of agricultural and food from Wal-Mart(tm) - COme On!
!
it is pretty funny that walmart runs websites like that tho