The Impossibility of Growth

[Aeson]

Are you trying to say that spraying an herbicide is worse for soil fertility than plowing a field and cultivating it during the growing season?

[regexcellent]

Oncle Boris isn't even a very good philosopher.

[Felch]

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

Behind what? Name one scientific study that both supports your anti-GMO position and hasn't been thoroughly discredited.

You're an anti-science nitwit. You're in the same boat as the anti-vaccine crowd. You wallow in ignorance, and refuse to acknowledge any data that contradicts your retarded biases and misconceptions. It wouldn't bother me, but your ignorance is contagious, and it can lead to starvation and nutrient deficiencies.

[N35t0r]

no, you are wrong, because you are wrong. 100% wrong. Now my post has numbers, so it's even more valid!


I'll also laugh at you.

[pchang]

If Oncle Boris had made CIV, the tech tree would be:
Writing -> Wheel -> Self Destruction (Game Over)

[Lorizael]

No, you idiotic conservatard, ancient technologies are good because they're sort of close to being natural, and I subscribe to the naturalistic fallacy which, as all intelligent people know, means that it's a fallacy to buy things that aren't 100% all natural.

[Fake Boris]

Behind what? Name one scientific study that both supports your anti-GMO position and hasn't been thoroughly discredited.

You're an anti-science nitwit. You're in the same boat as the anti-vaccine crowd. You wallow in ignorance, and refuse to acknowledge any data that contradicts your retarded biases and misconceptions. It wouldn't bother me, but your ignorance is contagious, and it can lead to starvation and nutrient deficiencies.

Dude, you just claimed in this thread that carbon damage "is part of a natural cycle". Come back when you've grown rational ability.

[Fake Boris]

Tillage is the single worst thing for soil fertility.

Fine, but who spoke of tillage? The opposite of intensive is extensive.

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.

The only way to avoid soil erosion is GMO. Sure!

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.

This is wrong at a more fundamental level. Given the current system of incentives, production increases result in greater capital that is used to further expand production. In other words practically all efficiency gains go to additional resource extraction.

[Fake Boris]

No, you idiotic conservatard, ancient technologies are good because they're sort of close to being natural, and I subscribe to the naturalistic fallacy which, as all intelligent people know, means that it's a fallacy to buy things that aren't 100% all natural.

The key here is ecological harmony, which does require the use of science and technique.

The fallacy is on you. Ecological harmony has nothing to do with the naturalistic fallacy. You're equating the two for lack of better arguments.

[Geronimo]

This is wrong at a more fundamental level. Given the current system of incentives, production increases result in greater capital that is used to further expand production. In other words practically all efficiency gains go to additional resource extraction.

right, because demand for food is unlimited. This is why food prices never crash when supply is dramatically increased.

[Fake Boris]

To get a better idea of what I'm talking about, look at this interesting piece.

Apparently there used to be an advanced civilization in the Amazon rainforest. Archaeological evidence indicates that it thrived through extensive agriculture and forest engineering.

Not all human techniques are equal. Some are clearly less disruptive than others. Turning a rainforest into a massive orchard (instead of deforestation and modern intensive agriculture) seems to be a step in the right direction.

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/12/132853997/Amazon-Once-Was-Home-To-Advanced-Civilizations

[Geronimo]

The key here is ecological harmony, which does require the use of science and technique.

Ecological harmony has nothing to do with the naturalistic fallacy.

See how easy that was? Maybe you can DanS the embarrassing OP to replace it with these two sentences.

[Fake Boris]

If Oncle Boris had made CIV, the tech tree would be:
Writing -> Wheel -> Self Destruction (Game Over)

Actually, I play AC with Deirdre and plant forests.

[Fake Boris]

right, because demand for food is unlimited. This is why food prices never crash when supply is dramatically increased.

Demand for food is practically unlimited, yes.

1) Human population tends to increase following food availability
2) Access to more food production creates demand for more complex food products (like meat)
3) Globalized trade and consumer preferences means that a lot of food is lost in the production to retail cycle

[Felch]

Dude, you just claimed in this thread that carbon damage "is part of a natural cycle". Come back when you've grown rational ability.

Carbon damage? What the **** is carbon damage and how is carbon not part of a natural cycle? Are you telling me you don't believe in the carbon cycle?

Fine, but who spoke of tillage? The opposite of intensive is extensive.

Aeson spoke of tillage, because he's a farmer and knows more about agriculture than your dumbass does.

The only way to avoid soil erosion is GMO. Sure!

Tillage was historically used to control weeds. Now with GMOs we don't need to use tillage as much (in some cases at all), because weeds can be controlled with herbicides, and herbicides can be used without harming crops. Maybe if you were a farmer and not a worthless philosopher, you'd understand that connection already.

This is wrong at a more fundamental level. Given the current system of incentives, production increases result in greater capital that is used to further expand production. In other words practically all efficiency gains go to additional resource extraction.

Geronimo already handled this idiocy beautifully.