Hacker News Reader

Comment by grabcocque | Hacker News Reader

It's not necessary. I mean if we use organic farming methods, we could achieve the same thing except not only do they produce more emissions, but because of the lower yield of crops, organic farms require more land.

In the tropics this means cutting down more rainforests, affecting not only emissions but wildlife.

The scientific and technological solution is disease and pest resistant GM crops.

View on HN

Not only that, but the pesticides permitted on organic crops are sometimes more harmful than synthetic pesticides.

edit: https://risk-monger.blogactiv.eu/2015/11/12/the-risk-mongers...

In the developed countries food is just to cheap. I know this is controversial statement, but considering how much food is wasted daily, and how much we're overeating it's possible that not subsidizing food production, and getting rid of pesticides would be better for us all.

The only other issue is that poor families would possibly have even less access to food, but if we shuffled subsidies from farmers to the poor, that would probably be enough.

Also, problem with the food full of pesticides, and virtually empty of micronutrients is that this food is not really something we should be eating anyway.

I'm glad someone said this!

Like a lot of cheap goods available presently in the west, they often have a low monetary cost but a high social and environmental cost.

IKEA furniture has had a dubious past, for example [1] and, cheap clothing can be horrendous. [2]

Most people don't give a single thought about this stuff though, people even get abusive if you mention it, but I still like to practice what I call "deep consuming", which is investigating the origin of goods before purchasing :)

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/29/ikea-anc... [2] http://truecostmovie.com/

Do you think that in a rich capitalistic country the farmers would prefer to have less productivity? they will use all legal methods to obtain maximum profit. Since not all population will buy green/bio stuff you will not solve the pesticides use by starving poor people in poor countries. I do not know a lot about subsidies but usually farmers get less taxes on diesel and buying new equipment and in EU they get some money to encourage them to increase the farm and productivity.

The deeper problem is monoculture versus multiculture (if that is the correct word).

Our farming is currently focused on monoculture: only one kind of crop on a large field. Mainly because its efficient in maintenance and picking because it makes all kinds of mechanization possible.

But monoculture is not good for the soil and bad for health of the crop. Therefore pesticides and fertilizers are needed.

An alternative could be multiculture. Like for example http://jinjaritual.com/syntropic-farming/

A very divers pallet of fruits and crops in the same area. The soil will only get better and the plants protect each other. Just as in the 'real nature' ;-)

The downside is losing the efficiency: getting all the different fruits and crops from the field is more labour intense. But the general maintenance will be much cheaper (no pesticides and fertilizers). And the yield will be healthier and probably more nutritious.

The other downside is more commercial: the big companies that sell mechanized stuff, pesticides and fertilizers will always educate farmers into monoculture.

But especially for more poor countries (or poor farmers !) a multiculture would be much more beneficial...

A modern combine harvester can process about 10,000 acres per person per year. Hand pickers can do about 10 acres per person per year. Are you prepared for food prices to go up 1000x?

Just FYI in case you aren't aware: USDA organic certification allows the use of some pesticides. [1]

[1] http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2011/06/18/13724926...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com