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

Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 165 posts

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#81

Post by mchannon »

bamboozled wrote: post #43
sverige wrote: post #36

A great place to start would be to seriously limit or eliminate pesticides like Roundup. Don't believe the alarmists in Big Ag who will say the world will starve. We overproduce food now, and organic farming techniques, if widely adopted, wouldn't make it impossible to continue to produce enough. The loss of diversity in insects and "weeds" has had a huge impact up the chain.

I once saw a great quote which was, "maybe food is too cheap". This is probably true, we could probably eat better quality, organic food grown in a more diverse way, it would just cost more. On the flip side, it would be more valued so we'd have less waste. I can't imagine the amount of "non-valued" food, fruit vegetables etc which end up in the bin.

Everybody here is ignoring yield per acre. RoundUp, for all its faults, drives the yield number up. More people (and particularly more cattle) are fed per acre when you use pesticides.

If you banned the pesticides, it would do a lot of good, but now consider how many more acres would need to be farmed in order to keep the overall yields the same. How many acres would be cleared that would not otherwise be cleared?

I agree that glyphosate (RoundUp now makes up less than half the market, which is largely Chinese-made and Chinese-consumed now) should probably be far more heavily regulated, but be aware that humans are not going to happily grow less food on the same land when yields drop.

Taste the rainforest.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#82

Post by Retra »

TomMarius wrote: post #59
gambiting wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But for those people the food needs to be free, not cheaper - feeding them shit quality food just so they can afford it is the wrong solution as well. We need to be growing good quality food and those who can't afford it need to be given support to get it. Canned pasta and corn is not a solution just because it's cheap.

What if we instead gave them means (technology) to grow it themselves and encouraged them to group in small communities that grow together? Aquaponics is getting more and more popular and can be very cheap. I imagine that a good "how to" guide and a small monetary donation could help a lot of people.

You're not thinking like a poor person, you're thinking like a comfortably wealthy person. Poor people often don't have the time, energy, or mental well being to run organizations or take on another line of work.

Money is a tool for overcoming barriers to cooperation. People who can't self-organize to cheaply produce food for survival will continue to not be able unless enough money is available.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#83

Post by toasterlovin »

strainer wrote: post #77
ramblenode wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First of all, "organic farming" is marketing BS. At least in the US, there is a "certified organic" label regulated by the USDA. https://www.ams.usda.gov/about-ams/programs-offices/national...

Its not just a label, its a regulated labeling term. Practically all food labelled as organic in US, EU and other regions has to be certified organic. This "marketing BS" idea is pure meme. https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/organic-labeling-s...

It’s marketing BS in the sense that organic food still uses pesticides. I guarantee you that fact would be shocking to most consumers of organic foods.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#84

Post by jelliclesfarm »

Getting rid of chemical warfare on soil and in farms will become much easier of farming is automated. Automation in farms works longer than any human labourer. And getting rid of weeds in farms and planting hedgerows and letting at least 30-50 percent of land go back to nature with reforestation and installing grasslands will help with habitat restoration. We have urban indoor farms that can deal with the shortage. A lot can be grown indoors..not all our food tho. Just take inside whatever is possible to be grown indoors! Shorten supply chains. Population needs to be reduced not by punitive methods but by incentivizing smaller families. In the 70s, our population was around 3.5 billion ..now it’s close to 7.5 billion. This is a problem. We accommodated this explosion by getting rid of animals, birds, insects and turning forests into farmlands. Some of this conversion needs to be reversed.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#85

Post by jelliclesfarm »

zeroname wrote: post #44
sverige wrote: post #36

A great place to start would be to seriously limit or eliminate pesticides like Roundup. Don't believe the alarmists in Big Ag who will say the world will starve. We overproduce food now, and organic farming techniques, if widely adopted, wouldn't make it impossible to continue to produce enough. The loss of diversity in insects and "weeds" has had a huge impact up the chain.

> We overproduce food now... The alternatives to Roundup tend to be worse than Roundup. That's why people use Roundup. That's not to say Roundup per se is absolutely necessary, but farming without pesticides doesn't work at the scale necessary to feed the human population. There's no choice between "overproduction" and "appropriate production" by getting rid of pesticides. Despite all the overproduction, we still hav…

That’s not true. Organic farming is different from organic certification. I am not certified but I use organic methods. Only those who trust me and know me and have seen my farm knows about my methods but I am a small farm and that works for me. Organic methods of farming : 1. no pesticide or weedicide 2. Crop rotation 3. Cover cropping 4. Hedgerows 5. Watershed management 6. Organic and generally non GMO seeds. Sometimes hybrid Altho open pollinated is more gimmicky. Hybrid is natural. Organic farming that involves tillage also releases carbon. No till organic involves hand labour. It all hinges on manual labour. That’s why I have been begging for automation for small acreage farms that produce food. Not grains or commodity crops or food for industry/exporting like lettuce or strawberries...but for small organic farms under 100 acres that can now afford to go no/low tillage with robotic platforms in the field and automation.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#86

Post by bad_user »

mchannon wrote: post #81
bamboozled wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once saw a great quote which was, "maybe food is too cheap". This is probably true, we could probably eat better quality, organic food grown in a more diverse way, it would just cost more. On the flip side, it would be more valued so we'd have less waste. I can't imagine the amount of "non-valued" food, fruit vegetables etc which end up in the bin.

Everybody here is ignoring yield per acre. RoundUp, for all its faults, drives the yield number up. More people (and particularly more cattle) are fed per acre when you use pesticides. If you banned the pesticides, it would do a lot of good, but now consider how many more acres would need to be farmed in order to keep the overall yields the same. How many acres would be cleared that would not otherwise be cleared? I…

Modern agricultural practices that focus on yield per acre are also decreasing the quality of the soil.

It’s a short term gain. Long term sustainability is more important.

Given how much food we throw away, I really don’t think the yield per acre is a problem. It’s a race to the bottom anyway.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#87

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

gambiting wrote: post #57
TomMarius wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about people who can't afford it now, though? There are literally billions of them.

But for those people the food needs to be free, not cheaper - feeding them shit quality food just so they can afford it is the wrong solution as well. We need to be growing good quality food and those who can't afford it need to be given support to get it. Canned pasta and corn is not a solution just because it's cheap.

>But for those people the food needs to be free, not cheaper

I wonder if anyone has ever starved when some government came in to make the food free?

Edit: I wonder if I’m the only on that has seen HN move exponentially faster towards reddit in the last year?

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#88

Post by vanderZwan »

mikeash wrote: post #56
vanderZwan wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So precisely who is going to pay for all this, and the reduction in growth it’s going to entail? Speaking of rational choices: if faced with paying everything you have or your own extinction , the most rational choice would be to pay everything you have. Nobody would spontaneously make that choice, but it really is. Making this a very irrational question, in a way.

The problem is that what’s rational for the group is not what’s rational for the individual.

In general, sure. But here, the disaster extends to all levels, which removes that argument, no?

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#89

Post by jelliclesfarm »

ah765 wrote: post #9

I agree with the big idea of conservation of biodiversity, but it really bothers me when these articles are using what seems like lies and fear tactics to convince me. 2 years? Why is it so urgent? The article doesn't explain. And "By 2050, Africa is expected to lose 50% of its birds and mammals," sounded really implausible to me. I had to do further research to determine that they are probably actually referring to…

It’s not an over exaggeration or fear based. We have overwhelmingly evidence now about weather forecasting and global temperatures WILL increase. We have to keep that under 2 deg C. When wet bulb temperatures start peaking first in places like India and then Asia, people will go to sleep and die before they can wake up because of the heat. Sea levels will rise and is getting warmed up. Data is overwhelming. This IS urgent.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#90

Post by Hoasi »

bamboozled wrote: post #43
sverige wrote: post #36

A great place to start would be to seriously limit or eliminate pesticides like Roundup. Don't believe the alarmists in Big Ag who will say the world will starve. We overproduce food now, and organic farming techniques, if widely adopted, wouldn't make it impossible to continue to produce enough. The loss of diversity in insects and "weeds" has had a huge impact up the chain.

I once saw a great quote which was, "maybe food is too cheap". This is probably true, we could probably eat better quality, organic food grown in a more diverse way, it would just cost more. On the flip side, it would be more valued so we'd have less waste. I can't imagine the amount of "non-valued" food, fruit vegetables etc which end up in the bin.

> we could probably eat better quality, organic food grown in a more diverse way, it would just cost more.

Better quality combined with eating less, both would be good and producing less waste.

Post reply on HN