Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

news.mongabay.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 170 posts

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#31

Post by mikeg8 »

_2d30 wrote: post #27
airstrike wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent is precisely arguing against mono-cultures. I don't see how your reply is really discussing any of the various relevant points he raised. Right now, all that I understand from your opinion is that you think robots are bad because of mono-cultures, but the parent would argue equating those two things is incorrect.

If you read closely their response is basically a Luddite, anti-tech response. Their problem with the parent was that it suggested using technology.

I'm definitely not anti-technology as a whole, but I very much think many of the environmental problems we're facing in agriculture were caused by an over reliance on technology in the first place. We abstracted ourselves out of the process too much and it has had horrible consequences.

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#32

Post by jessaustin »

This seems like a scam to me. The reason VCs don't fund "normal" crops like wheat etc. is that commodities don't generate the high profits that make "unicorns" possible. There have been fewer people employed in agriculture in USA every year for the last 150 years. The only long-term successful firms are selling "picks and shovels", and even they have to resort to evil to generate reliable profits (Monsanto, etc.) All of the crops under discussion in TFA are also commodities. Where is the profit going to arise? These venture funds will not return investors' money.

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#33

Post by jeffbee »

The feds would have to stop distorting the markets in the West before any of this could happen economically, right? People didn't just forget how to grow orchards and pastures. They got run out of business by the California water projects and the BLM. As long as the BLM keeps leasing out grazing land for $1/acre and as long as Reclamation allows Stewart Resnick to grow 100k acres of nuts on otherwise worthless land, how can sustainable growers compete?

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#34

Post by freeqaz »

mikeg8 wrote: post #31
_2d30 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read closely their response is basically a Luddite, anti-tech response. Their problem with the parent was that it suggested using technology.

I'm definitely not anti-technology as a whole, but I very much think many of the environmental problems we're facing in agriculture were caused by an over reliance on technology in the first place. We abstracted ourselves out of the process too much and it has had horrible consequences.

There is an element of truth to this. I agree -- people are out of touch with the world around them, on average.

But it's a double-edged sword. The abstraction has been hugely beneficial to society as a whole. Specialization lets us create entirely new industries.

These problems can't be ignored forever though. Eventually the dollar figure behind them will motivate even the most conservative actors. If it's cheaper to use better technology, and that technology doesn't have the same side effects, then there is no reason to continue to harm.

We're just not there yet.

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#35

Post by reggieband »

Fiahil wrote: post #23
freeqaz wrote: post #16

I think that "mixed" farming like this article describes has a huge potential for automation by the software field. Monocrops[0] (homogeneous fields of crops like corn or soybeans) are easy to build automated robots for. We've been doing that for generations now, starting with combine harvesters[1]. But there are many problems with growing monocrops[2]. Pests are a problem -- they breed and spread disease. And on the…

There is a short explanation on why heterogeneous cropping is not the norm : Harvesting is just extremely difficult. It's not just a software automation problem, it's building the machinery and tractors, training people, gathering feedbacks... Even if you manage to repetitively grow successful combinations of produces, that's only the beginning of the journey. Farming is an far older industry than software engineerin…

> don't you think humans already tried that in the past 10 000 years ?

Often what you are saying is true. Except in this case we have access to new technologies that have only existed for a small percentage of that 10,000 years. It might be worth re-examining what we think we know about growing food in light of these new technologies. That is, things that would have been ideal but were practically impossible may now be possible.

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#36

Post by riffraff »

hef19898 wrote: post #13
nothal wrote: post #9

It's really wild to me that investors realizing foresting exists and continues to exist because it makes money is a story. I did forestry related club stuff in high school for a program called Envirothon and there's a rich history of silviculture in the US and Europe going back a long ways. IIRC, we actually have more forest in the US today than 100 years ago because of silviculture. Notably, the Vanderbilt's started…

Fun fact, one of the first detailed concepts of sustainability comes from forestry in Germany by Hans Carl von Carlowitz in 1713. https://www.forstwirtschaft-in-deutschland.de/index.php?id=5...

Japan also started protecting forests and managing them sustainably a long time ago[0], in the Edo period (1603-1868).

[0] https://www.nippon.com/en/features/c03912/

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#37

Post by evilsetg »

hodgesrm wrote: post #19

It's really surprising to me that we tend to focus on sustainability rather than simple economic benefits when pitching initiatives to combat climate change. Case in point: The US had a great opportunity to sell alternative energy sources as way to get off Middle East oil after 9/11. Instead we continued to consume oil like there's no tomorrow while squandering trillions on fruitless wars.

The valuing of (short-term) economic benefit over sustainability is precisely what is fueling climate change.

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#38

Post by Fiahil »

freeqaz wrote: post #26
Fiahil wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a short explanation on why heterogeneous cropping is not the norm : Harvesting is just extremely difficult. It's not just a software automation problem, it's building the machinery and tractors, training people, gathering feedbacks... Even if you manage to repetitively grow successful combinations of produces, that's only the beginning of the journey. Farming is an far older industry than software engineerin…

It is a hard problem. Historically, people often grew plants in heterogeneous environments because they grew their own crops. Even if it wasn't _all_ of their food, it was still a subset of their food. But it was very labor intensive. The scale of monocrop farming today with modern tractors is a very new field as well (no pun intended). With machine learning specifically, I can see a robot arm being able to farm a lo…

This very interesting piece might be of interest for you : https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/how-to-pick-a-pepper/

It took one of the protagonist ten years of testing to find a machine capable of harvesting special-bread peppers. The breakthrough your are looking for isn't for software engineering only - or even at all -. It's a combination of mechanical engineering, biology and hacking. Venture-led startups often lead to short-lived niche products made to impress silicon valley. It's not sustainable, and it's not the future.

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#39

Post by reggieband »

mikeg8 wrote: post #31
_2d30 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read closely their response is basically a Luddite, anti-tech response. Their problem with the parent was that it suggested using technology.

I'm definitely not anti-technology as a whole, but I very much think many of the environmental problems we're facing in agriculture were caused by an over reliance on technology in the first place. We abstracted ourselves out of the process too much and it has had horrible consequences.

I have a coworker who grew up on a farm. When asked about the experience he has almost nothing positive to say about the experience. Working on a farm, even in modern times, does sound like a significant step down from the relative comforts of city living.

If advances in technology can decrease the burden on farming then we may see people willingly choose that lifestyle.

Re: Investors say agroforestry is climate friendly and also profitable

#40

Post by matchbok »

mikeg8 wrote: post #24
freeqaz wrote: post #16

I think that "mixed" farming like this article describes has a huge potential for automation by the software field. Monocrops[0] (homogeneous fields of crops like corn or soybeans) are easy to build automated robots for. We've been doing that for generations now, starting with combine harvesters[1]. But there are many problems with growing monocrops[2]. Pests are a problem -- they breed and spread disease. And on the…

I do not believe the solution is to increase robotics to support this field, I think the solution is much more about a paradigm shift from over-optimization aka mono-cultures to a more holistic approach that increases the human-nature connection. We have to heal ourselves to heal the planet and while technology can help, software engineers will not be the heroes on this front, it will be more traditional stewards of…

That's not realistic. It will never be profitable.
Post reply on HN