Hacker News Reader

Comment by justin_vanw | Hacker News Reader

I think this is just an example of 'elitism' on the part of the author. It is ludicrous to think that there is a chance that the 'local/organic' movement will ever capture more than 1%-2% of food production. Most people don't care, and some fraction of people that do care are intelligent enough to decide that additional cost for no increase in quality is not worth it.

So this is 'elitism' because people think that a very high-cost, niche, atypical behavior is in some way a 'threat' because 'everyone will do it'. Maybe everyone the author knows, but only a tiny percentage of people overall.

View on HN

It's only your preconceptions that are ludicrous. In 1990s agriculture in Russia partially collapsed, so people turned to their small plots of land and "captured the food production". They were lucky they knew how - the communist government-managed centralized distribution was unreliable so the skill was handy. Of course, there's no hard data from this chaotic period, but being from eastern european country myself, it is fully conceivable. There's widespread home food gardening culture (only we don't call it "organic", just "how it was always done").

Those home food gardening systems aren't sustainable, if you're implying that. They very often use artificial fertilizers (and in wrong dosages ,too - hey if one gram is great, 2 grams must be better, right?) They are often based on tilling and/or small monocultures with maybe a basic crop rotation system, etc. Sure, they have beneficial aspects that traditional farms don't have, but home-scale subsistence farming is just bad in different ways from conventional industrial scale farming.

You're making a lot of assumptions, and they aren't founded. Of all the people I've met who have gardens, the vast majority of them do some form of composting. Tilling is almost never used as is is too labor intensive, they mulch instead. They plant a diversity of crops, and not just annuals - a plethora of perennials as well. They typically don't spray pesticides, though some will spray soapy water around pests. Most counter pests by creating habitat for birds and beneficial insects like lacewings, and by intermixing pesticidal plants into the garden.

This sort of gardening absolutely decimates conventional ag in terms of food/acre. It is also sustainable, produces better food and creates an attractive green space. Properly performed, permaculture farming principles can even reclaim deserts. The cost is labor, but what if all the people trying to sell you stupid shit you don't need decided to farm instead? Can you imagine beautiful green cities with fruit trees and gardens everywhere? How nice would it be to be able to forage in your neighborhood to get fresh vegetables for dinner rather than go to the store? That can be reality, if we as a species can overcome this idea that we need to produce and collect as many widgets as possible.

I can't even. Of course they are sustainable without artificial fertilizers, if compost and animal manure (nothing big necessary, just chicken and rabbits) is used. Of course, you can use fertilizers and stuff in unsustainable way, too, but what does that prove or disprove?

Well it depends on what you call 'sustainable'. I use a pretty common definition, roughly 'can in this way, without using non-renewable, external energy sources, a population be fed'. If I'm reading you correctly, you're using a definition of 'can this particular plot be sustained as a home garden without external inputs'; well yes, it probably (maybe) can. What my definition adds is 'can the whole population be fed this way'; and no, home-scale agriculture can't do that, in the aggregate (maybe in one village, or a rural(ish) part of a developing country somewhere; I don't care for specific case studies, I'm talking about the aggregate).

If some people can feed themselves off their own land, while relying on (many) others in the rest of society to produce stuff and infrastructure etc. who need large-scale agriculture to sustain themselves, I argue that those few aren't being 'sustainable' - just ignorant of their reliance on infrastructure provided by others who produce more efficiently.

Let me provide example of what I think is sustainable. This system uses electrical energy from grid(still much less energy than fossil eqivalent used by mainstream farming machinery) and occassional local as-needed application of pesticides. I know the man who developed it, he was able to repay all loans without subsidies and he is able to provide food for 50 people iirc. http://www.slideshare.net/inmediaslovakia/farmlandia

The article is discussing how we 'whether we will be able to make enough food if we try to grow everything locally', which I am saying is silly since we aren't really headed in that direction outside of high end niche markets.

You are saying the other way around, 'we have to go local because we can't make enough food', which is great, and I believe something people should be more prepared to do just in case, but it has nothing to do with the article.

You seem to assume organic food is much more expensive to produce than chemical food. You'll need to justify that assumption, especially in the face of hidden costs: scorched soils (that require chemicals to grow anything), light but pervasive food poisoning (pesticides), growing resistances to our pesticides and antibiotics, heavy dependence on fossil fuels, as well as quite a bit of oil for chemicals.

As a not so separate issue, there is the cost of distribution. Carrying food across the country, across the world, has costs: more need for energy, and degradation of the food (fresh is better). Such costs could be lowered right now, but cannot be eliminated as long as we keep large monocultures: with them, you don't get any diversity without moving lots of food around.

Please don't use the word "chemical" like it is something unnatural or harmful. Water is a chemical. The active ingredients of natural fertilizer are chemicals.

It's "intellectual property" all over again. While I agree my usage of "chemichal" is loaded, I think "conventional" is even worse: it's an implicit acceptance of the status-quo, and unfairly shifts the burden of proof.

On a "chemical vs organic" debate, we focus on the (over) use of synthetic, unproven, or even unsafe chemicals. Reducing their use, if possible, is obviously a good thing.

On a "conventional vs organic" debate, we focus on the risks associated with change. We have a working system. Changing it on a global scale is an obvious risk.

I am personally convinced massive change is necessary, and the sooner the better. So I frame the debate in a way that doesn't talk much about the associated risk, and focus on the benefits. I am not aware of a more accurate, more neutral term to name that conventional/chemical thing.

I understand the point you're trying to make. Likely you understand the distinction your parent intends as well, and this is a commonly understood way to discuss the topic. Do you have a preferred alternative to suggest that conveys the same intent, preferably one that is also widely understood?

>Likely you understand the distinction your parent intends as well

In principle, yes. I can imagine there are different chemicals used for farming, and that some of them may cause more harm to consumers of the produce than others.

But in terms of specifics, no. I have very little idea what distinctions are being made when people refer to "chemical food" or similar, because objection to it tends towards these vague emotive terms, rather than highlighting specifics.

because objection to it tends towards these vague emotive terms, rather than highlighting specifics.

You're not 'geon, so this may not apply to you, but if this is the case, a purely pedantic comment is very unlikely to do anything constructive to move the conversation forward. It's not going to encourage reflection (as they're vague and emotive). The goal is civil and substantive discussion.

You might sincerely speculate what distinction they're trying to make. Or honestly and civilly ask for clarification. If you don't think they're reasonable, do you think they're likely to be swayed by anything you consider reasonable? I think it's better to refrain from commenting if it's not going to move the discussion forward. On topics like this, the ground is well-worn. It doesn't need to be rehashed if people aren't actually listening to each other. At least not on HN.

>but if this is the case, a purely pedantic comment is very unlikely to do anything constructive to move the conversation forward.

Because the intent of the comment was not to further that particular conversation, but instead to critique your rhetoric.

It was not simply a pedantic comment saying "actually you're wrong because water is a chemical" it was a suggestion to use a different term.

It's not a constructive critique. If the intent is not to further the conversation by improving it and moving it forward, there's no constructive purpose in making it. Further comments by 'geon make this clear: there's no sincere attempt to understand or charitably grant that the interlocutor might be have a reasonable argument, even if it's one you might not agree with.

Edit to add: Rapoport's rules are really helpful, particularly when discussing contentious topics.

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo...

This is too far off-topic now, and at best we're talking past each other, so I'll take any answer off the air.

>If the intent is not to further the conversation by improving it and moving it forward, there's no constructive purpose in making it.

It is an attempt to start a different conversation. You could argue that it's off-topic, and choose not to follow up, but that doesn't mean it's not potentially constructive.

>there's no sincere attempt to understand or charitably grant that the interlocutor might be have a reasonable argument

They didn't claim that you don't have a reasonable argument to make, they just asked you to use different (more precise) terminology to make it.

"fossil-fuel intensive synthetic fertilizers" or "inorganic synthetic fertilizers"

NH3 in particular is commonly synthesized by combining N2 from the atmosphere with H2 extracted from CH4 (natural gas).

Use terms that convey the objection you have to it. Or object to the negative effects they have in the first place.

What specifically do you suggest? If you're being pedantic and snipey, you're not engaging in good faith. If you disagree with the general argument, be honest and say so. If you're looking to have a constructive discussion, help move the conversation forward, which includes showing you understand what they intend to say, even if you disagree or they're not expressing themselves as clearly as you'd prefer. Understandably you can't read their mind, but you can speculate charitably.

If you don't think they're discussing in good faith, you can choose to civilly explain why that's so, or choose not to comment at all if you don't think there's a constructive way forward. For controversial topics, it's even more important to do this as it's that much easier for discussion to devolve into a flamewar.

I don't have a specific suggestion, but it could be something like "synthetic fertilizer kills the symbiotic microbes nevvessary to..." rather than "scorched soils (that require chemicals to grow anything)".

Just an example. I have no idea what "scorched soil" means.

Cadmium is a chemical (I just worked with some watercolors, that's why it comes to mind). Do you want that in your water table just because 'it's a chemical, like water'? How about lead?

Cadmium is also in tattoo ink and completely harmless because it's not bioavailable.

Your exact example proves the parents point: be specific about what you're talking about because it matters.

But the EPA says it'll cause kidney damage in the water table, which is what I specifically said. The WHO specifies that contamination with cadmium causes osteomalacia with various grades of osteoporosis accompanied by severe renal tubular disease. I also mentioned lead, which you've glossed right over. I said nothing about tattoo ink.

Your example underscores my point. Why should I trust you when you whip out an unrelated example to try and ad hominem your way to all-chemical farming, in the service of the idea 'organic farming will kill us all'?

How exactly does your example of 'cadmium is harmless in tattoo ink' make the larger concern irrelevant? From where I'm sitting (admittedly, it's Vermont, where we like organic farming a lot) you represent a prevalent class of agriculture arguers, who are insisting on full-tilt-bozo unnatural farming to the Nth degree, claiming it is the only thing that can save the world.

And yet, the arguments are as manipulative as 'cadmium is harmless in tattoo ink' when it's NOT considered harmless in the water table, and you may have known that full well.

Your example suggests (does not prove) my underlying concern: individual chemical compounds may well be trusted, but I do not trust the people selling them. It's far too profitable to be dishonest about this, and that's not going to get any better (indeed, as this way of farming wrecks the environment, it will get even more profitable to lie and mislead about it)

You continue to reference chemistry inaccurately: cadmium in tattoo-ink is also harmless in the water-table, generally, because its complexed into a non-bioavailable state which is why it works in ink and paints safely. Conversely free cadmium in any form is a toxic heavy metal.

No one is farming with cadmium-based fertilizer, so I don't know what the point of your first 4 paragraphs is? You tossed out an example intended to say "chemicals are bad". The topic under discussion was "what chemicals are you opposed to" - because "chemical" is a meaningless and unhelpful term to make public policy on.

Perhaps then, it is important to speak accurately about chemical compounds when trying to decide how to regulate their usage, and a blanket declaration of "but it's natural!" is actually very unhelpful. Salt is natural, but that doesn't mean a farmer dumping it into a fresh-water river in bulk isn't going to kill it.

Yeah, we're not communicating well: I'm sorry. I'm making an effort.

I don't remember anywhere suggesting that _I_ was talking about tattoo ink. Context suggests that I meant the toxic heavy metal… and while I obviously am not petrified with fear of cadmium if I keep Cadmium Yellow around, I don't propose to lick it even if your context suggests it's effectively as harmless as Burnt Sienna (iron oxide-based).

And this is the point: 'organic' farming doesn't typically consist of salting one's fields, but ultra-modern high efficiency farming is based on extremely complicated chemistry and people not in the industry cannot hope to even guess at what's being done out there. Non-farmers probably don't know what crop rotation is either (an anachronism in synthetic farming) but ultra-modern farming has a nasty way of dumping LOTS of very strange chemistry into people's diets.

Trust is the issue, not 'referencing chemistry accurately' because it's not my job as a food-eater to analyze chemical compounds and reference chemistry appropriately. Try to look at the organic farming movement as a trust issue: a vote of no confidence in current and future inventions for increasing crop efficiency.

In that light, 'water is a chemical' is not an effective counter, and pouncing on cadmium in the water table (known for kidney damage) and talking of tattoo ink which is cadmium sulfide, cadmium sulfoselenide or zinc cadmium sulfide, is more behavior that tends to erode trust.

See, this is great! Im learning stuff now.

It feels a little like you are replying to what you imagined the article was about rather than reading the actual article.

Please correct me if that's unfair but it does cover some of the things you're railing against.

It already captured 5,3% of food revenue in Germany and growing (4,7% in 2015). Source http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/dm-gegen-alnatu...

It's captured that many people because of fear-based marketing.

Many people believe that organic also means "healthier" or "has more nutrients" and that GMO means "unhealthy". "Organic" acts as a namebrand compared to the "no-name" non-organic products.

On a related note, "GMO free" has actually become a qualifier random companies slap on their products to imply health benefits over competitors. Kamps bakery[0] for example advertises itself as "just saying no" to GMO "for the benefit of the customers". Similar things have happened with "gluten-free", "lactose-free" and vegetarian products.

To be clear: I'm saying that gluten- and lactose-free products are being marketed to people without special dietary requirements who have become convinced that these products are inherently more healthy (just as with "diet" products before, which often advertised e.g. less fat but contained more sugar or vice versa; and with organic and "GMO-free" products which offer no plausible health benefit whatsoever).

[0]: A large chain of ~500 take-away bakeries mostly in the North-West of Germany.

5.3% of Germany is 4 million people. And a wealthy 4 million people at that. Organic food is not going to feed China, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, etc.

It is ludicrous to think that there is a chance that the 'local/organic' movement will ever...

Why are you conflating local and organic? Neither implies the other and they're two entirely different questions.

(local && organic) may never capture a huge share of the market, but that is an entirely unrelated question to organic farming

Yea I agree, the article largely conflated them and I was arguing with the article.

And yet in the US there is at least one supermarket chain running entirely on the premise that people do care. Whole Foods. Afaik they're pretty successful too.

The worst part is that unlike in Europe, I can actually taste the difference in the US.

> The worst part is that unlike in Europe, I can actually taste the difference in the US.

Yeah, I've heard about the taste thing from friends who visited US. And it makes me wonder - given that a sizeable part of the food we eat[0] is made by the same megacorps (Nestle, Unilever, etc.), where exactly does this difference come from? Is this about local ingredients? Slightly different manufacturing methods? Differences in legal landscape causing those?

[0] - the tastier part; doesn't necessarily mean the healthier part

The food in big supermarkets in the US/Canada often used varieties selected for their storage longevity, prettiness, and yield. Then they are often picked early and cold stored. It's miraculous that we can have year round supplies of cheap fresh fruit and vegetables, but we sacrifice taste and variety to get there.

I'd like to think this is the reason Whole Foods is successful - hierloom tomatoes that taste great etc, not did from the woo woo anti-aircraft lobby.

Sure but if this was the 1950s and the article was about abstaining from smoking, you could have made similar arguments.

The people of tomorrow will not think like the people of today.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com