The Impossibility of Growth

[Dinner]

At least I'll die with the smug knowledge that sooner or later all will fall beneath the merciless feet of our new robot overlords.

The Cylons agree.

[Felch]

Then, there is GMO corn that is resistant to Roundup herbicide. Its purpose is to increase the sales and use of Roundup herbicide. This usefulness is highly debatable and has a host of potentially adverse effects.

There's no evidence that the genetic modification that makes corn, soy, and other crops resistant to glyphosate causes any harm at all to humans, nor is there any reason to believe that it will be found harmful. Glyphosate itself is only dangerous to plants, at least at the levels you'd be exposed to from eating GMO foods. Obviously if you drank pure Roundup you could get sick or even die. And workers who are exposed to it regularly in high concentrations wear protective gear to prevent skin and eye irritation. But you could eat glyphosate treated foods your entire life and never experience any problems.

The usefulness itself is not debatable. If the Roundup Ready crops weren't useful, farmers wouldn't buy them. The only realistic concern with glyphosate is that some weeds are developing resistance to it, just like antibiotic resistant bacteria.

[pchang]

There have been higher levels than normal of cancer and birth defects in farm workers over the last 20 years or so. Many of them have been exposed to low levels over very long periods (not the high dose over short periods used in animal models).

The usefulness of Roundup is that it make high intensity machine farming more productive. But, this benefit may be a short term one. There is evidence that high intensity machine farming's high yields have been harder and harder to achieve over the long run.

[Felch]

There have been higher levels than normal of cancer and birth defects in farm workers over the last 20 years or so. Many of them have been exposed to low levels over very long periods (not the high dose over short periods used in animal models).

Everything I've read about cancer and birth defects among farm workers attributes the rise to the use of pesticides. Which makes sense, since pesticides are meant to kill animals, while Roundup is meant to kill plants (by interfering with their production of certain amino acids). Furthermore, it doesn't bioaccumulate in animals (so low levels over long periods are not a concern), and there is no evidence connecting it to an increase in cancer risk.

The usefulness of Roundup is that it make high intensity machine farming more productive. But, this benefit may be a short term one. There is evidence that high intensity machine farming's high yields have been harder and harder to achieve over the long run.

Soil depletion has nothing to do with Roundup.

[Sava]

The stuff they use... I wouldn't recommend anyone put it in their herb garden.

[Aeson]

We need more herbicide resistant crops, with a wider range of herbicides that have herbicide resistant crops, not less.

The benefits of herbicides in general are they allow for growing crops with less (and sometimes no) soil tillage, allow for more yield per unit of area, reduce the amount of mechanical energy used to grow a crop, and are better for soil fertility (less compaction, less erosion/runoff) compared to the alternative (mechanical cultivation). This means cheaper food which is still very important for many people around the world.

There are drawbacks to herbicides; soil contamination, runoff contamination (worst with tilling actually), health issues for workers. But those aren't problems with GMO, since herbicides are used in many other applications. Even when using mechanical tillage herbicides are still likely to be used. Eco-friendly applications like no-till wheat also rely on herbicides.

The main harm right now from Roundup Ready is that since there are only very limited GMO crops with resistances to herbicides, and they mostly are Roundup, this pushes farmers towards using Roundup and growing Roundup Ready crops more than they should. This means lots of corn and soybeans and we're left trying to shoehorn those into products where they probably shouldn't be just because they're so cheap. It also means that farmers are more likely to ignore the science and use soley Roundup on serial cereal crops, leading to increased resistance within pest plant populations, increased pest problems in general, and soil fertility problems.

So to mitigate the harm of herbicide resistant GM crops, what we actually need is accelerated development of herbicide resistant crops and a wider spectrum of herbicides that can be fit into such a system. Then we're more likely to see proper crop and herbicide rotation. This leads to less buildup of any given chemical, less resistant within weed populations so less volume of herbicide used.

[Fake Boris]

I agee with Aeson, except for the 100% part where he's wrong.

[Fake Boris]

Soil depletion has nothing to do with Roundup.

Of course, intensive agriculture and products meant to muster it have nothing to do with soil depletion.

[Fake Boris]

Arguing with conservatives over issues is pointless. By the time they've been proven wrong, they already have something else to deny.

[pchang]

Oncle Boris is becoming a true contender for Dinner's title.

[Felch]

I agee with Aeson, except for the 100% part where he's wrong.

Of course - how could a farmer know more about agriculture than a philosopher?

[Kidlicious]

Of course - how could a farmer know more about agriculture than a philosopher?

[Aeson]

Of course, intensive agriculture and products meant to muster it have nothing to do with soil depletion.

Tillage is the single worst thing for soil fertility. It causes soil impaction, disrupts biomes, spreads soil borne diseases, and increases erosion. You can rather easily put NPK back into the soil to replace what you take out, but it's a very hard thing to un-impact soil or promote healthy soil biomes ... and some soil borne diseases are impossible to deal with other than to change to resistant crops or abandon the field altogether (for several years). Getting soil back once it's eroded away is also rather difficult.

No till crops are possible (at least while being economically viable) because of herbicides. GM crops can allow for even more no-till options in the future.

You're going at this all wrong. We need more intensive agriculture, not less. This is the way to increase output without increasing footprint (physical dimensions, energy use, emissions/runoff), or even increase output while decreasing footprint.

[Kidlicious]

100% WRONG!

[Fake Boris]

Of course - how could a farmer know more about agriculture than a philosopher?

It doesn't matter that he's a farmer; his opinions on GMO crops are 20 years behind.