littlegreenpills posted:my ex wife keeps calling me up and telling me how much the dog misses me
that's, fucke dup
daddyholes posted:*rolls up in flatbed Ford* How many 9/11s are we lookin at
If 19 martyrs chose to die for the future of humanity each second from now on, 6 billion would be dead in almost exactly 10 years.
roseweird posted:swampman if the riots start how will i recognize you? i want to stay far away from your cannibal dogman death squads
"how will i recognize the cannibal dogman death squads??" she says
roseweird posted:swampman posted:you guys have made some okay posts in this thread, i admit that, but really what i wanted to talk about was killing 6 billion people
i know you really want this to be funny but if 6 billion people starve or die in desperate violence you're going to remember that back when a thing called the internet existed you used it to joke about killing 6 billion humans
i'd venture that swampman is probably parodying some particular viewpoint or mode of argument rather than just suggesting genocide for laughs, though i'm stumped as to what exactly it is.
swampman posted:you guys have made some okay posts in this thread, i admit that, but really what i wanted to talk about was killing 6 billion people
Haha, weeeell, that number sounds a bit arbitrary to me. If we're going to create a useful Human Management Program we need to begin by determining optimum population. Humans provide a number of economically useful products, including supple hides, rich suet, and high-quality weaves. I propose that a population plan should maximize output of these products for the long term benefit of society, and our children.
To maximize the the economic value of the human harvest we need to determine Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), which generally occurs when total population or biomass is 50-60% of the biological carrying capacity (BCC). This point achieves both a high rate of population increase and a high total population, and is the ideal most conservation biologists seek to achieve.
Determining BCC is a serious challenge in Population Management, however when a population is experiencing logistic growth, like the human population, the peak of the curve, under ideal conditions, should occur at the BCC.
The rate of population growth has already begun declining, and conservative estimates by the UN predict a peak between 9-11 billion persons. From this it is reasonable to assume MSY will occur at 4.5-6.6 billion individuals. Annual harvest limits should first be set so that population gradually decreases, and then set at the natural annual increase. For a population of 4.5 billion individuals with a growth rate of 2%, that's an annual global yield of 90,000,000 individuals, in perpetuity. That's a lot of kidneys!
Squalid posted:9-11 billion
my god...
Scrree posted:ill sum up my thoughts on mechanization by saying: the master's house cannot be broken with the master's tools. john deere creates useful machines that allow the harvest of an incredible amount of land with the labor of incredibly few people, but the corn syrup you get from a coke can has a 10 to 1 petro-calorie to human-calorie ratio (organic baby-lettuce has around a 50-1 ratio lol). properly managed ecosystems produce an energy surplus from the sun, not a deficit from the earth, and combines haven't been proven to work within that kind of system.
your talking about the fantasy of pushing plows, but its been shown that !in most biomes with most plants! small labor-intensive farms are the most productive. mechanization reduces yields, but this effect is masked by expensive fertilizer and genetically vulnerable hybrids. if you want to feed the world without mass human death (which i think is totally possible as well!) then the only answer is to get people back to growing at least part of their own diet. not out of erotic nostalga for dirt but because thats what needs to be done to feed people even without the issue of land ownership and national subsistence. do you think haitain rice-farmers liked being underdeveloped into proles after clinton forced aristide to remove the rice-tariff? (that is a mean question, sorry)
also saying the environmental left is primarily worried about nuclear power is like saying feminists are primarily worried about women's access to consumer goods. The 'green movement' as a political entity in most liberal democracies does pander to nimby dumbasses but the core 'actually-doing-things' green leftists have been doing really important research and experimentation in things like Temperate Food Forests and Management Intensive Grazing - medium/high labor, low capital, and high yield growing methods.
you dont cause a communist revolution by shifting the OVerton Window left every election cycle and you dont feed the world by tinkering with a wholly profit-oriented system. im fine with nuclear power and solar power as long as they arent made from the spilled entralls of africa, but thats their most likely source so might as well try to build a system that can survive without them.
edited some words better
Scrree: You! get the Department of Agriculture
swampman posted:Thats about half a trillion pounds of people parts, to put that in perspective, they (we) would weigh as much as 2.5 million blue whales
tentativelurkeraccount posted:littlegreenpills posted:maybe eye shd change my avatar. my eye key on ths keyboard s broken btw
Do not do that.
Do it.
guidoanselmi posted:how have i not posted this?
how have i not posted this
wasted posted:I will contact all people learned in soil science and agribusiness on the rhizzone to make sure we understand the logistics of collective farming before falling down the maoist path of love.
hello i'm here to do this as well
Scrree posted:yeah i kind of threw the yields thing out there unsupported sorry
the big way hybrid grain and synthetic fertilizer increase yield on say, corn, isn't by tripling the amount of kernals on each cob but by allowing the corn to be planeted incredibly close together. genetically identical hybrid corn means no plant grows faster than any other (or has any greater pest/disease resistance!!!) and the fertilizer prevents the soil from being completely stripped of nitrogen after a single season of overproduction.
HOWEVER polyculture methods improve yields the exact same way without the need for oil-based inputs! the classic and a bit hokey Three SIsters - Corn + Bean + Squash - all compete on different soil/sun levels and so produce greater calorie per acre than corn or beans or squash by itself in the same amount of space (without nitrogen fertilizer)
HOWEVER mechanization removes the possibility of polyculture because each machine can handle only one type of plant, and only those that all ripen at the around the same time. outside of not-yet-seen handlike harvest machines (which if they could be made without huge material/energy inputs i would totally support!) using large machines in harvesting is going to require monoculture, which reduces yields, which must then be boosted by genetically vulnerable produce and water-poisoning fertilizer.
the industrial agriculture companies say they want to feed the world, but they dont! their systemic goal is to grow the most corn possible to make the most profit possible by selling corn-based products, even if it means sacrificing total calorie yields. this is why capitalist agriculture must be treated skeptically (NOT thoughtlessly rejected) at all turns, because they do not grow food, they grow profit.
and so its important to the remember that the reason monoculture was adapted by humans in the first place wasnt to increase the amount of food avalible, but to make food production more legible to the tax officials of kings. monoculture is state-culture, and if the ultimate goal of Communism is the abolishment of the state through the dictatorship of the majority then a food system that is designed to feed that majority, not profit off of them, is needed
thanks for this cool and correct post
can we chat about realistic, irl, non-mono agriculture. shennong is dead or something from his toronto rooftop agri-bee project, but we can carry on his work.
i know the most correct thing to do would be to kill myself, but for some reason i have failed to do this yet. but what are the realistic approaches to growing more shit. can families in fact practice real sustainable agriculture without it being a completely unrealistic shitshow. does it require an entire community. what books should i read. what can i do now in a city. (inside; it's fucking cold)
thx
Ironicwarcriminal posted:global warming isn't actually happening though, the world hasn't warmed in 15 years despite huge increases in carbon emissions
no one is actually talking about this
drwhat posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
global warming isn't actually happening though, the world hasn't warmed in 15 years despite huge increases in carbon emissions
no one is actually talking about this
why would they, it would threaten the flow of the gravy train
Piles of Poop in Playgrounds
Sitting in his office in the Eimsbüttel district of Hamburg, Beleites is surrounded by ideas for the magazine hanging on his bulletin board. They are about costs, advertising, staff, marketing, backing, Twitter, and mailing lists. Belietes works here on his dream magazine, for which he essentially acts as editor-in-chief, provocateur and satirist all in one. The 66-year-old deliberates for a long time before he speaks.
"I am not a dog lover, I am not a dog hater," he says. But he is probably closer to the latter. When he was a kid, he was bitten by his grandfather's Pomeranian. "As children we were terrified of the dog," he says.
Today, what annoys him is piles of dog poop in school yards, pedestrian areas, and playgrounds. The magazine is a manifest against the absurd increase in the anthropomorphism of dogs, according to Beleites. But he does not see himself as a fanatic. "I would always announce my aversion to dogs with a wink and a nod," he says.
That's exactly how he plans Kot & Köter to be, with possible topics for the magazine including: "Slutty poodles and lewd dogs: The role of dogs in the sex trade," "Abandonment tips for vacation: The best rest stops road tested," or "He's not doing anything, he only wants to play: What dog owners say and 20 punchy responses."
drwhat posted:wasted posted:I will contact all people learned in soil science and agribusiness on the rhizzone to make sure we understand the logistics of collective farming before falling down the maoist path of love.
hello i'm here to do this as well
Scrree posted:yeah i kind of threw the yields thing out there unsupported sorry
the big way hybrid grain and synthetic fertilizer increase yield on say, corn, isn't by tripling the amount of kernals on each cob but by allowing the corn to be planeted incredibly close together. genetically identical hybrid corn means no plant grows faster than any other (or has any greater pest/disease resistance!!!) and the fertilizer prevents the soil from being completely stripped of nitrogen after a single season of overproduction.
HOWEVER polyculture methods improve yields the exact same way without the need for oil-based inputs! the classic and a bit hokey Three SIsters - Corn + Bean + Squash - all compete on different soil/sun levels and so produce greater calorie per acre than corn or beans or squash by itself in the same amount of space (without nitrogen fertilizer)
HOWEVER mechanization removes the possibility of polyculture because each machine can handle only one type of plant, and only those that all ripen at the around the same time. outside of not-yet-seen handlike harvest machines (which if they could be made without huge material/energy inputs i would totally support!) using large machines in harvesting is going to require monoculture, which reduces yields, which must then be boosted by genetically vulnerable produce and water-poisoning fertilizer.
the industrial agriculture companies say they want to feed the world, but they dont! their systemic goal is to grow the most corn possible to make the most profit possible by selling corn-based products, even if it means sacrificing total calorie yields. this is why capitalist agriculture must be treated skeptically (NOT thoughtlessly rejected) at all turns, because they do not grow food, they grow profit.
and so its important to the remember that the reason monoculture was adapted by humans in the first place wasnt to increase the amount of food avalible, but to make food production more legible to the tax officials of kings. monoculture is state-culture, and if the ultimate goal of Communism is the abolishment of the state through the dictatorship of the majority then a food system that is designed to feed that majority, not profit off of them, is neededthanks for this cool and correct post
can we chat about realistic, irl, non-mono agriculture. shennong is dead or something from his toronto rooftop agri-bee project, but we can carry on his work.
i know the most correct thing to do would be to kill myself, but for some reason i have failed to do this yet. but what are the realistic approaches to growing more shit. can families in fact practice real sustainable agriculture without it being a completely unrealistic shitshow. does it require an entire community. what books should i read. what can i do now in a city. (inside; it's fucking cold)
thx
swampman posted:I'm surprised you're not into the Ishmael series of children's books about the talking gorilla who wants to shrink the human population by slowly reducing agricultural output.
Ugh I had to read that in university and was stunned by how many adults took it's third grad history/philosophy seriously
daddyholes posted:was it thes tupid shithead[ department
Environmental Studies, Lol. Everyone who got the degree with me now works in the fracking biz.
Makeshift_Swahili posted:hi hubbert
Squalid posted:that's like the lamest moral obligation ever. go choke on a Pringles tube
