A Man's Gotta Eat - Agroecology and Food Security

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > A Man's Gotta Eat - Agroecology and Food Security

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Killer-of-Lawyers posted:

Then we move them off the farm. We should focus on developing the third world, not coming up with a stupid list of best practices for subsistence farmers. My plan is to increase production in the parts of the world where it makes sense, grow grain there, and drop it out the back of c-130's for the hungry. That's how you solve food crises. Incidentally, we're pretty food secure in the developed world, so it stands to reason that making the entire world modern and developed would do a lot for food security. Since, as we've already established, there is more than enough food being made for everyone. We just need to get it to them, and it'll be a hell of a lot easier if they're living in urban areas than if they're spread across hell and back.

So you brought coke up, and found your statement indefensible. Fantastic, we're making headway.

How do you, and I apologize if this is buried somewhere in the rest of the thread, plan to deal with the issue of lack of genetic diversity and the vulnerability this brings to pathogens?

# ¿ Mar 19, 2015 19:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 04:39

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Killer-of-Lawyers posted:

You mean the issue of everyone in one particular region growing on particular strain of a crop? I'd probably deal with it by offering subsidies to people who want to grow a few acres of less productive seed, promoting seed banks, and so on and so forth.

If we're talking about the risk of a disease causing a catastrophic crop failure in an entire region, then I'd find that it'd be hard to happen across all productive regions of the world, and happen to every single staple crop during the same year, so I'd find that the basics of keeping various strains around to be sufficient, as long as we were growing enough that a drop in one crop won't effect supply. As it stands we're already growing an abundance of calories, so it shouldn't be too hard.

Needless to say, the whole pushing things out the back of c-130's is an unrealistic exaggeration, but the basic idea of grow food where it makes the most sense and reducing the human foot print via urbanization as much as possible is a good solution to the problem as long as you make headway against the distribution issues we face in the third world. I'm inclined to believe that the issues will go away as the third world develops.

I mean the issue of the entire world growing a few strains per crop, and opening the door for a catastrophic situation where you have epidemics leaping from region to region and multiple simultaneous outbreaks. This is going to be a regular strain on the system, bluntly.

Killer-of-Lawyers posted:

A steady state economy is a dumb idea. Sorry. It's never going to happen. You might as well focus on mitigating the environmental impact of modern society than pushing for a ridiculous pipe dream.

Lot of pessimism here.

# ¿ Mar 19, 2015 20:13

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Killer-of-Lawyers posted:

I don't think that I ever advocated the world only growing a few strains of crops. I advocated growing food where it's efficient to do so, and letting the rest of the world remain fallow. That doesn't mean everyone's growing the same thing, at all.

As for steady state economies? No. Optimism. Anyone who wants the world to stop growing is pretty drat selfish and evil. We've got mouths to feed, technology to expand, and factories to build. We can decouple the modernization of the third world from our environmental impact.

Okay, that's part and parcel of modern agriculture though. You need a standardized strain to efficiently harvest.

Reality dictates that we will eventually stop growing, but optimism would suggest that we would do it on our own terms rather than charging thermodynamics head-on and dying.

# ¿ Mar 19, 2015 20:19

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Killer-of-Lawyers posted:

Except we don't. Modern agriculture grows a lot of different strains. In one state alone a number of different wheat crops are grown:
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Montana/Publications/crops/variety/whtvar.pdf

The idea that modern farming is done with only one strain is just crunchy type idiocy.

We've got a lot of wiggle room with thermodynamics on our own planet, and a sun that will continue to pour power into the system for 5 billion more years. Reality only dictates an end to growth a far way away from where we currently are.

How genetically diverse are these cultivars? Because there are thousands of different types of potatoes, but the ones eaten outside of the Andes come down to two genetically distinct varieties, purple potatoes and the rest. Which is why potato blight regularly devastates potato crops.

We have much less wiggle room than you'd think, and focusing on becoming perfect von Neumann machines is something that would destroy most of it.

# ¿ Mar 19, 2015 20:27

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

Killer-of-Lawyers posted:

Good question. I'd have to do more research to say for certain, but they're diverse enough that hey're immune to and susceptible to different diseases.

Also, rural poor farming is just as likely to breed itself into a hole, if not more so because farmers in poor countries don't have rich governments to insure their crops, subsidize them when they grow strains no one else is growing, or to do the research on diseases. If anything, a strong national entity trying to push efficient farming would be less likely to do something that'd destroy all agriculture, as it'd be headed by researchers and scientists who spend their lives studying diseases. The sort of jobs that you get when your entire population isn't poking the ground with sticks. I think you're just reading the desire to find the most efficient crop into my posts because it's what you expect rather than I ever saying anything of the sort.

This second paragraph is bizarre and based on a false dichotomy.

# ¿ Mar 19, 2015 20:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 04:39

Effectronica: May 31, 2011; Fallen Rib

computer parts posted:

Genes also don't have to come from similar species though.

If you're coding for resistance to a parasite or pathogen that attacks this cluster of species, they presumably have some way to survive it, which you can look for without knowing the exact mechanism. On the other hand, ripping out genes from widely different organisms requires a much greater understanding of what they will do in order to make them effective. So preserving biodiversity is good at the very least because it provides an easier way to do things than assembling smut resistance in corn out of first principles.

ghetto wormhole posted:

Agreed.

Breeders are constantly working to increase disease resistance and a big part of that is to introduce genes from wild relatives. A big thing they drill into your head in plant pathology and other ag classes is that a plant breeder's work is never done. There's no such thing as a perfect cultivar. You can make something that's extremely resistant to every known disease and next year a new or mutated pathogen will pop up that's great at killing it so you always have to keep improving them. It's just evolution.

The bright side is we have varieties that are far better than ever before and the pace of improvement has picked up dramatically.

The USDA also does a lot of work with disease control and containment. When something new pops up they study it and help farmers do their best to contain it so it doesn't spread and quickly become a huge problem.

So in other words, the way is to have what is effectively a biodiverse set of crops, which is what I was saying was being overlooked. Glad to know that people are working on that.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2015 04:20

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > A Man's Gotta Eat - Agroecology and Food Security