281–290 of 511 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is an enormous body of law in the US that incentivizes a top-down corporate business structure and disincentives a co-op business structure.
I think human nature incentivizes top-down corporate business structures and disincentivizes co-op businesss structures.
So... human nature. Human nature is stopping people from doing that.
Disclaimer: I have been on a tractor exactly once in my life, no idea what any of the realities of this would be. But... Doesn't it seem like there's a huge opening for Cheap Solid DIY Tractors Inc.? All I read about is how farmers hate tractors available now for their lock-in, their shitty software, their insane costs -- I wonder what's preventing someone from selling tractors that match the description listed in th…
As a farmer, I don’t think I’ve ever met another farmer who hates modern equipment. I’m not sure where that narrative has come from. We drool over the latest tech. I know many who choose older equipment for financial reasons, as the article suggests. Modern equipment is insanely expensive to purchase and is simply out of reach of the smaller farmer. If older equipment was actually a hot commodity, more than newer equ…
My grandfather, rest his soul, was a 3rd generation rancher and farmer. He bought 2 John Deere tractors in the '80s and used them for 35 years. They are still being used to this day on the ranch. Growing up, I visited the ranch regularly. Farming and ranching is very hard on equipment so the tractors often needed repair. My father and grandfather could seemingly fix anything on the tractor without even needing to go…
The greatest innovation in the history of mankind was a land consolidation. It took what 100 peasants all making enough food for subsistence living to 100 peasants be able to make enough food for thousands of people. It's not sad, it's progress.
Like so many human activities, fashions, and innovations, the reduction in numbers required to work the land started off providing a benefit and ultimately went much too far. Looking at the destruction such as algal blooms in countless water courses from over fertilisation, steady soil erosion, loss of wild flora and fauna caused by industrialised agriculture and the colossal fields with a single crop, as far as the eye can see in every direction, it's hard to call it progress. It's change. Milk in shops is older than it was, homogenisation allows older milk to pass without notice. It's not progress, and hasn't been for quite some considerable time.
We have large, pretty, consistent fruit and vegetables, but there's been a 50% decline in nutrient content since the war, and a similar decline in taste -- frequently replaced by sugars. We've hugely increased systemic risk from use of monocrops as all it takes is a single virulent disease to put the entire world's production at risk -- see bananas.
Even the productivity gains are overstated. On the old mixed, family farm the raw individual crop productivity was far lower, but the chickens, pigs and plants overlapped such that the waste of one provided food or fertiliser for the others, the animals provided some degree of pest control, and as a whole the productivity was far better than usually assumed.
Industrialisation begets simplification, begets monoculture, for the sake of profit not progress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tractor as a service will only bite them back. Look at how popular 40-year old tractors are :) It's never been a better time to create a good old repairable machine.
They all want to get to the point of being Tesla. Hiding features only in software, pushing out updates, and trying to bake in a living (recurring revenue) model. It's a problem for a lot of reasons. First off it's the complete death of ownership. I can't fix things. At some point they will probably just lock stuff back down if I want to sell, assuming I can even sell without them getting a cut. Second, repairability…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It looks like the neoliberal cult of "progress" has its acolytes on Hacker News, but that really shouldn't surprise. What is sad, though, is the distinct lack of empathy that this ideology instills in its adherents. Leaving people behind is not a sign of progress; instead, it's a sign of an ill society.
I'll take being able to feed the entire world's population more affordably than ever over the jobs of a small group of people in a rich country. This isn't to say the government should play no role in cushioning those affected by progress, but the progress has been undeniably good.
My grandfather, rest his soul, was a 3rd generation rancher and farmer. He bought 2 John Deere tractors in the '80s and used them for 35 years. They are still being used to this day on the ranch. Growing up, I visited the ranch regularly. Farming and ranching is very hard on equipment so the tractors often needed repair. My father and grandfather could seemingly fix anything on the tractor without even needing to go…
Do you think end-users products from corporation style farms are cheaper than family farm (for equivalent quality) ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think human nature incentivizes top-down corporate business structures and disincentivizes co-op businesss structures.
Which is why 75% of France's farmers belong to an agricultural cooperative?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll take being able to feed the entire world's population more affordably than ever over the jobs of a small group of people in a rich country. This isn't to say the government should play no role in cushioning those affected by progress, but the progress has been undeniably good.
Progress implies improvement. s/progress/change/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
During the industrial revolution hard labor jobs transitioned to maintenance work for the machines. The problem is as we improve at automation the need for non-technical maintenance decreases. A small team of engineers can displace thousands or tens of thousands of workers without creating any new opportunities.
« A small team of engineers can displace thousands or tens of thousands of workers without creating any new opportunities. » A corporation that did that would have significantly increased its profits, and this new wealth is often (not always) indirectly redistributed to society. For example the corporation could increase its production (ie. hiring more workers), or increase salaries/bonuses, or increase stock buyback…
What happens when you can produce enough for ten? What do the other 70% of people do? Make products nobody actually needs, using up raw materials. That's what we've done since the War and we decry all the waste. You can't have it both ways.
What happens when you can produce enough for 15? 20? 100? In theory that means leisure time in heaps for everyone. In practice we don't have societal structures that actually allow that to happen. You will not receive a week's pay for 6 hours of work. You will not be accepted by your neighbors and peers for working 6 hours a week. Or zero.
You're meant to be doing something. We enforce this with microaggressions on people we've literally just met.
I'm surprised that John Deere isn't going around buying their old tractors, and then scrapping them or learning how to make one again.