Comment by Gravityloss | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Gravityloss | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Let's play a game. First, assume you're correct and these soil issues really exist. I'm sure there are entities who have a short or long term interest to not do anything about it.

For example, somebody might be selling land (because they know such issues will get worse in the future), and if farming will be prohibited, they will get a worse price for the land. Hence best to deny, or at least question the existence of soil problems.

If these entities have a lot of money, they can create their own journals and publish science that says "there is no problem with the soil". They can also bribe scientists and reviewers with high status. They can lobby politicians. And lastly, the media can be caught too, you have to frame it as a political issue so you have 50% of the media in your pocket.

Now look at it from a politician's point of view. If you really get the signal that it's not a real problem, then it certainly doesn't make sense to spend resources on it.

Ok.

In agriculture, people tend to ignore the problem because it leads to lesser profits in the short term. The food industry, one of the major clients of agrobusiness is very competitive. The phyto pharmaceutical industry keeps pushing their products just like the pharmaceutical companies in hospitals. In fact, they're the same corporations most of the time.

In this case, lobbying happens in the Union level, i.e. the European Parliament.

The pressure is to great for small farmers to deal with.

That is also happening with the construction/concrete lobby (and I presume that sometimes the land price rises if you plan to build housing around cities in the countryside).

Construction companies build regardless of erosion or flooding problems. It's not their problem once they finish the job. That happens a lot around here. Politicians only think in the short term. "Yeah, sure there's the problem of seasonal fires, draughts and floods. We'll make use of some catastrophe fund. But you can't forget jobs in construction and tourism infrastructure!" Result: concrete all over.

So you buy farmland high in the water catch basin where you're not subject to salination and as few upstream pollution problems. Dig yourself a well, grow your own food using as few herbicides, fungicides and pesticides as possible. Build your own ecosystem and let the rest of society go to hell. Eventually, if you do it properly, you'll be the only one left with farmable land, you'll be bought out for a handsome price and you take your newfound riches and fuck off to somewhere that doesn't have this problem yet and do it all again.

It doesn't matter if anyone believes in it or not. Either you're wrong and you're no further behind, in fact, from a trust standpoint, you're ahead because you're now in control of your food supply from the ground to your plate... and if you're right, then you win.

I'm over simplifying to be facetious, but my point stands. If everyone put not only their money where their mouth was, but took legitimate action to ensure their lifestyle fit what was important to their belief, I don't think we'd suffer from half of the problems we do. Unfortunately 90% of the population are happy with just complaining and being armchair politicians and only make the convenient choices that don't interfere with their comfort and their status quo.

If you believe big agriculture is destroying the planet, find a sustainable way to not support them, or support them as little as absolutely possible. Support your local farms and farmers. Support Mom & Pop stores in your local area. Buy from farmers markets. Learn to preserve food over the winter months when it's not available. Eat seasonal produce.

Of course, everyone's lives are nuanced and complicated. It's not as easy as it sounds for most people. But I firmly believe that if you truly believe we have a problem (which I do), then do something about it instead of just talk, complain and continue life as normal.

> If everyone put not only their money where their mouth was, but took legitimate action to ensure their lifestyle fit what was important to their belief, I don't think we'd suffer from half of the problems we do.

One problem with this is that we fall into a very suboptimal, deleterious Nash Equilibrium. Imagine you're in the 90% of farmers that can't set themselves up "high in the water catch basin" because there is limited space up there. You may be very aware of the problem, but it can only be solved if a majority of farmers in the valley adopt sustainable practices. And, if a majority are not going to do so, then you're am simply hurting myself if I incur the expense of adopting those practices yourself. There is some missing ingredient that needs to be added before people will start cooperating to ensure a long-term good state of affairs.

Another problem is that, even if you do set up high in the catch basin and use sustainable farming practices, your produce is going to be comparatively expensive and noone is going to buy it until such time that all those farmers below you finish ruining their soil/aquifer. And you have to eat in the meantime.

The purpose of growing your own crops is to eat your own crops, you just sell the excess. There always seems to be plenty enough people to buy your excess to subsidize the remainder of things you need.

The problem with everyone finding problems is that they use these problems as excuses not to make any changes. That puts them in the 90% of people who complain and do nothing.

As Venture Capitalists always say - they're not interested in ideas, they're interested in people who can execute. Either you can (and do) execute, or you can't (or don't).

Not all legitimate action means moving up the catch basin and growing your own crops. There is legitimate action that can be taken in the city, in the suburbs and in low lying rural areas. You're not hurting yourself by adopting a sustainable lifestyle, you're helping yourself and the planet in the process.

I love the down votes on this as if I don't speak from experience. This is the life I live, every day. It can be done if you're willing to do it.

>The problem with everyone finding problems is that they use these problems as excuses not to make any changes.

This is true. But in the case of many problems around Ecology, most solutions orbit around collective action. Individual actions count, but some of them must be taken in the community/region/national level.

Absolutely, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't take the actions that are within your power and ability.

I work in the software business.

It's definitely the state's function to care about soil erosion, not mine.

I vote and pay taxes and expect stuff like courts, law enforcement and military to be taken care of as well.

We all have a lot of expectation of our taxes. But one thing you can be sure of - the Government can and does fuck up pretty much everything you hire them to do. History has proven this time and time again. So at what point do people get off their asses and make things happen instead of just talking about it?

P.S. I work in the software business too.

Additionally: Do you honestly think that given the Government's lack of guarantee to provide you with free healthcare, clean water, even clean air... given many states atrocious track record for this: Look at Flint with the lead in the water, look at Pennsylvania with oil companies fracking and polluting the drinking water meaning you can literally light the water pouring from your kitchen tap on fire. Do you really trust your Government to provide you any kind of regard when they've got lobbyists campaigning left, right and centre for the interests of people who don't give a shit about you and yours, just their shareholder profits?

I think it's naive to expect that the Government will do the right thing, even though as tax payers we should rightfully be able to expect that. They've proven too many times that they won't. The definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. If you want different results, something's gotta change. You have no surer way of doing something different than doing it yourself.

Flint situation is so visible because generally the gov't does a great job at regulating water quality.

We are not there on greenhouse gas pollution, but the EPA has done some wonderful work on particulate pollution. Also, remember that the old ozone hole is healing? That was helped by a consortium of governments.

"Gov't" can mean so many things. This meme ("the Government can and does fuck up pretty much everything you hire them to do") is inaccurate and heavily influenced by the high profile failures that lead to availability bias.

I suspect that it is also corporate propaganda, to reduce popular support for regulation, and to encourage the privatization of government services.

Perhaps to most people it would be such, but I personally disagree. I agree with regulation, I agree with socially owned services, I agree with free healthcare for all, I agree that taxes should be spent for the good of the people both in the present and the future. I believe in effective Government. What I don't believe is that to this point the Government has been as effective as the tax payers should be expecting and to which the Government should be held to account.

> Dig yourself a well

Where is the water for your well coming from?

Your plan sounds good, but the details have to be got right, and we do not know how to get the details right (though we know more now that we need in the past)

Like in most wells, out of the ground ;)

I jest... but not really.

You'd be surprised just how accessible the water table is, depending on your region. If there are trees on your property, there's a reasonably good chance you're close enough to water to dig a well and get good throughput. If you're looking to buy property, look for properties that have trees that normally require a lot of water. Just by way of example, if there's a Willow tree(s) on the property, there's a good chance you've got water... and aspirin.

If your question was related to contaminants and so forth, obviously you have to be aware of where the water is flowing from upstream. If you're downstream of a high contamination zone, your only real choice is to move, sadly.

My question was related to aquifer depletion. Some deserts have great soil, but there isn't enough water to grow anything, try to dig a well and the well will go dry.

Contaminants are a valid question too though.

This would definitely be another situation you'd need to consider relocation. In that situation, you'd need to find alternative measures to become more sustainable. Like living in the city, the measures you take would look significantly different than someone living in the green zone.

I want to move to this libertarian paradise where I'm not affected by externalities and acting selfishly is always pareto efficient. I want to live in this magical place where we don't need government. Where is it?

Nobody suggested you don't need Government. I do believe in an effective Government. What I don't believe is that the Government has to this point been as effective as the tax payers should be holding them to account.

> Build your own ecosystem and let the rest of society go to hell. Eventually, if you do it properly, you'll be the only one left with farmable land, you'll be bought out for a handsome price and you take your newfound riches and fuck off to somewhere that doesn't have this problem yet and do it all again.

Actually, that is not correct. If your neighbour uses fertilizers in excess, your well will be contaminated through drainage. Then you have to adjust your own fertilizer's NPK levels, by subtracting the NPK levels on your contaminated water. Unfortunately, this often saturates, but you still have to fertilize because ammonia/urea and their salts degrade and are easily dissolved in water thus improving acidity and draining fast.

If your neighbours use insecticide in excess, your pollination rates drop as well, and so your yields.

If your neighbours use the wrong kind of fungicide, mycorrhizae will suffer, and so will your crops if they depend on them.

> It doesn't matter if anyone believes in it or not.

Yes it does. If you believe that you will be the last farmer standing, you're wrong. Your yields will drop as well.

It's like a stampede: you can't stop it, you can just join everyone and run. Unless people organize and stop the madness.

Putting my money where my mouth is doesn't work because other peoples' actions count.

>If you believe big agriculture is destroying the planet, find a sustainable way to not support them

I try every effin day. But it turns out everyone has to do it, otherwise it's just (collective) suicide.

I was being slightly facetious when I suggested you'd be the last farmer standing. Of course you won't be the last farmer standing. Most farmers are slowly coming around to the fact that their actions affect future generations of crop growth and are making changes. You will not be the last farmer standing. Sure, you've gotta put in time, effort and even money to make it go, but overall it's not as expensive as you're led to believe. I do this every day, this is the life I live. Sure it has its problems to negotiate and master, but it's doable. I know this, because I do it.

I was not referring to myself or you, but to the hypothetical farmer taking actions only in his self interest.

>I know this, because I do it.

I didn't want to imply that there was no solution for this problem. I only stated, from my own perspective as a farmer, how hard it is.

I get your point. I did point out in my original post though that I was being deliberately facetious to make my point ;)

Thanks for participating in the conversation though, it's an important conversation that I feel more people should be having and helping to find solutions for, because it's not a simple problem to solve and many hands make light work.

In what we actually observe, this doesn't seem to be the case. (In this case - obviously issues like smoking went exactly this way.)

Rather, everything from "best to deny..." to "...bribe scientists and reviewers" got skipped. It just didn't change anything.

Pretty much everyone knows soil erosion, desertification, and aquifer drawdown are major issues in the US Midwest. Certainly everyone with a big enough farm to have a major impact does. Cattle feedlots have been moved out of the TX/OK panhandle area because water is so scarce. Politicians are painfully aware of it.

But there's no incentive to fix it, because the fix is basically just triggering the shutdown sooner. Eventually soil and water issues will cripple midwestern farming, but avoiding that means slashing farming volume now. Better for the environment, but not for most of the people there.

So... no conspiracy, everyone knows, but the problem continues. Ironically, the conspiracy story shows too much faith in our government - it assumes they would act if they knew!

Sometimes I think it must really suck to be in public administration. If you want to do something about anything, you get attacked for trying to limit people's freedom. If you don't do anything, you later get blamed for letting the problem happen.

It sucks because the job is impossible for technical reasons: Just moving 100 meters often changes the correct best practice for long term soil health. How you can you regulate when you need that many different regulations?

Another thing.

>Now look at it from a politician's point of view. If you really get the signal that it's not a real problem, then it certainly doesn't make sense to spend resources on it.

That is true, but even if there is a perception of a real problem, the short term rules. If it is not as profitable, they ignore it. It's not going to be their problem 50 years ahead.

That would require a massive, coordinated conspiracy by a large group of landowners, and would be very expensive to carry out and would suffer from a free-rider issue of funding it.

It's just not within the realm of possibility.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com