Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TestaOnFire t1_jeadb41 wrote

Reply to comment by Arrrrrr2D2 in Israeli scientists develop drought-resistant tomatoes by TheLieDetectorBro

>We reap what we sow.

In your case... Nothing, because you cant feed the current population with just gathering erbs in the wild.

1

Arrrrrr2D2 t1_jeal6ft wrote

WE reap what WE sow.

I think your understanding of that is "We are entitled to other people's work.".

1

TestaOnFire t1_jeam3jb wrote

Explain the "WE", because you really sound like someone who didnt go to place where famine is a problem.

It's very easy talking about "Oh we should just produce things with the Biological metod" when you live in a country where you dont have to suffer food crysis... But trust me, the problem doesn't end an YOUR steps.

Start by buying only at biological supermarket, let's see if it is really that easy as you claim it is.

1

Arrrrrr2D2 t1_jeasgyb wrote

I live on a farm. So I can skip the supermarket at will and it is that easy.

"We" is a collective of people.

I am aware of famines. I am also aware of governments playing their part in the bounty of food not reaching those in need. While I don't agree with farming methods or gmo, I do know there is more than enough food to feed people.

What I am calling out as extremely foolish is getting rid of farms (which are the reason you are even alive currently) and believing that a city run industrial farming system will sustain you. What happens when something contaminates or corrupts the food systems? Talk about a food crisis. And that is besides the fact that the food will be extremely unhealthy and cancer causing to the human body.

The truth speaks for itself, and one day you will see the system you are fighting for let you down.

1

Senyu t1_jeb4u6p wrote

I don't see how food facilities in cities wouldn't be better than vast swaths of farmland that must transport its good. Sure, you raise an important point that there are real risks that must be addressed and of course any facility could have issues. But if the majority of the major cities in the world had food facilities then the issues of one become minimal until it's resolved given there is an overall larger net production of food.

The amount of land used by farms must decrease. While farms won't vanish entirely simply for cultural reasons they must not be solely relied on for feeding the planet in the future. Improving the food quality comes tech improvements, but farmland alone is not sufficient for our current population trajectory.

1

Arrrrrr2D2 t1_jeb62kf wrote

Prove the nutrition and health of the new technologies before you rush headstrong into it. There are red flags already. Look into the logistics of the new technologies from start to finish also. I do not understand why humanity is wanting to fix nature when it is not broken. Big agriculture is broken. If individuals became stewards of the earth at their own homes, reliance on external food sources would be extremely diminished.

You believe in science and humanity, it is clear.

It is an honor to receive your thoughts in a respectful manner.

2

Senyu t1_jeb9tr6 wrote

I agree that proof of nutrition and health must be ensured and verified before rollout. All new technological progress comes with hurdles, I have no disillusion that hydroponics and vitromeat tech has its own obstacles. However, I have faith in humanity's ability to solve those problems. I do not believe we can effectively becomes stewards of the Earth at a food production level without drastic population reduction. Our society & infrastructure is simply not geared to supporting individual made food production to meet the planet's needs. We must further develop and implement hydroponics & vitromeat in order to sustain the bulk of our population's food needs with minimal ecological costs to the planet. It has nothing to do with nature being broken or not, it's merely logistics of having a multi-billion sized population. Big Agra is most definitely broken, but even if that was resolved we still have vast amounts of people to feed and the ecological costs of traditional agriculture cannot be ignored simply because it's the way we've always done it.

We can become more effective stewards of the Earth in a general sense if we can off-load the bulk of our food needs to facilities located in every major city of the world. Traditional agriculture will still exist, most likely in a cultural preservation sense. But swaths of traditional agricultural land could be return to a natural ecological state if we implement hydroponics and vitromeat at scale.

1

TestaOnFire t1_jebuv0y wrote

>I live on a farm.

Good. Now give me some of the vegetable you grow and what system you use... Dont worry, i study this things, so if you want to be specific i can understand.

>What I am calling out as extremely foolish is getting rid of farms

No one wants to get rids of farms. They are not just place to produce foods... Or at least they shouldn't. They should be a part of the society and ecosystem.

>What happens when something contaminates or corrupts the food systems? Talk about a food crisis. And that is besides the fact that the food will be extremely unhealthy and cancer causing to the human body.

This happen faaaaaar more often in uncontrolled enviroment such as Farms... Hey, did you follow all the steps to be sure your soil doesn't have an excess in N? Because that might create a build up of carcinogenic substance in vegetable... But if you stay too low the N will be removed by water being drained...

You know what could solve this problem? If the water wouldn't go away... Oh that's right, a hydroponic.

0