Global Agricultural Land Use v. Agricultural Production [OC]Submitted by rosetechnology t3_xvgmuw in dataisbeautiful
signmeupnot t1_ir4j2j5 wrote
Reply to comment by CharonsLittleHelper in Global Agricultural Land Use v. Agricultural Production [OC] by rosetechnology
Why is that laughable?
To me its astonishing that people happily spend a lot of free time in their gardens, growing lawns and non edible flowers, instead of food.
Progress doesn't have to be a world that looks like Bladerunner.
CharonsLittleHelper t1_ir5rhn0 wrote
Because subsistence farming means being super inefficient and poor. Civilian is based upon specialized labor.
signmeupnot t1_ir64fxa wrote
Haha no it doesn't. It's perfectly possible to grow all the veggies and fruit for a family on a small plot of land.
That doesn't necessarily mean that every single human being needs to do that, and there can be no broad scale farming under any circumstances.
But if millions started growing food themselves tomorrow, that would take a huge burden away from the environment.
CharonsLittleHelper t1_ir6gtp2 wrote
I didn't say that it wasn't possible. I said it's inefficient.
If you want to grow vegetables as a hobby - go for it. Have fun. The return on your labor is terrible. You're lucky to get min wage relative to just buying the same vegetables at the grocery.
signmeupnot t1_ir6mdd7 wrote
Inefficient in what sense?
I'm saying its possible and more than efficient. But you have to change your farming style to a more natural, ecological sound approach. Which means large monocultures are out, polycultures with perennials are in, as a start.
I don't know why you talk about wage and return like it's about running a farm solely for profit. Its not. Its about growing the food your family needs firstly.
If you design your land well, the amount of work after establishing is very little. Then the amount of yield you get vs. work hours is incomparable to buying all your food at the supermarket.
CharonsLittleHelper t1_ir6mm86 wrote
In the sense of land use and labor. Monocultures are used because it's MORE efficient. Avoiding them will make it worse.
Are there drawbacks to monocultures? Sure. But they're efficient.
Are you an anti-GMO activist too?
signmeupnot t1_ir6o4vf wrote
They are more efficient in the sense that few people can cultivate and harvest, they are people efficient you could say.
However, the constant plowing is bad for the soil, the energy input you need in the form of massive machinery and fuels is high, energy input for fertilizer is high, fungicides, pesticides, loss of biodiversity, transport of crops and its fuel inputs and on and on. And since it's all annuals, you have to do the same every year.
So the environment is paying the price, just so a few people can do massive acrages themselves. That so called efficiency is not sustainable.
No wonder conventional farming doesn't pay.
CharonsLittleHelper t1_ir6og5o wrote
Right - so you need a ton of labor. Which makes it basically a horribly paid job/hobby - not economically beneficial. Which was my initial point you tried to dispute.
signmeupnot t1_ir6ptxz wrote
You didn't read my reply then. As I said, the labor of establishing is only initially, and we are not talking a massive amount of labour. Once the perennials are in the ground, they do the work themselves for years to come.
And its like you don't understand, that what you grow yourself, you don't have to pay for at the Supermarket, those savings are your reward, among the joy of growing yourself and what other benefits that brings like more nutritious food.
Food is a big part of the paycheck for many people.
CharonsLittleHelper t1_ir6qaap wrote
Yes - all of the world's farmers are dumb and wrong. If only you were in charge of the world...
signmeupnot t1_ir6r63a wrote
I think I'll end the discussion here, as you are going for my person, instead of giving counterarguments to my points.
Just because millions of people are doing something, doesn't make it smart. I'll leave you with that
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments