Hacker News Reader

Comment by simulate-me | Hacker News Reader

GMO, as a technique, is not inherently bad. However, one common use case is to create pesticide resistant plants, which allows for higher pesticide usage, especially as resistance develops to the pesticide increases: https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-471...

Basically, if you’re fine with your kids ingesting higher levels of pesticides, then go for it!

View on HN

What about plants with insect genes to make them resistant to pests and thus require less pesticide? It seems like you are against specific applications of GM where we should be using it to reduce the presence of harmful things a we don’t want our kids eating.

Pesticide resistance plants mean a lot less CO2.is.emitted running plows through the earth. Soil that doesn't get disturbed with all those plows also holds absorbed CO2 better. While it is more chemical used, they generally harmless.

Your position is a major environmental disaster.

While it's important, CO2 isn't everything. The use of pesticides (and monocrops) leads to dramatic loss of biodiversity, and that is an environmental disaster.

Are you seriously arguing for more use of pesticides on the plants that become our food? Maybe I misunderstand?

This topic is complex and multi-variate. Focusing only on one (whether that’s CO2 or pesticide usage) is not going to lead to generally productive debate.

We might both agree that pesticide usage alone should have a negative coefficient on whatever global fitness function we consider, but that a usage of zero pesticide is still sub-optimal.

I lived in a farming community most of my life and I haven't seen a plow dragged behind a tractor in over thirty years. No idea what you are talking about. Everyone is doing no-till, which includes dumping shit tons of nasty chemicals (created and shipped at great CO2 costs) all over the land and in the air. Living next to these fields, you experience allergies, sinus problems, watery eyes and other random problems depending on the person. Even harvest season is torture--from the dust alone. Anyone living next to a farm or eating the crops coming out of them is investing harsh chemicals. Half the things we do in the US are banned throughout the world. It results in greater yield for sure, but not without cost.

Nobody has used a plow in 30 years because they are such an environmental disaster. Chemicals are the answer. Some CO2 is used for chemicals, but not nearly as much as a plow would use, and that is before we look at the other disasters of the plow.

Dust from harvest causes allergies, but don't blame it on chemicals. Well other than everything is a chemical.

This is probably something I can google, but could you point me to some info about why the plow is a disaster? It seems like one of those things that made it possible for a huge increase in the number of people not starving before it became a disaster.

I imagine it has something to do with erosion, but I'd like to know more, and you seem to have a position on the topic.

Tilling effectively kills the soil and micro organisms in the soil over a long period of time. It takes a lot of work and time to add life back into dead soil on historic farms where tilling was commonly used.

For CO2, it takes a lot of energy to move that soil.

For the soil itself, it brings up subsoil which has microorganisms that work better in low air enviornment (because that is what they are from) and move the near surface microorganisms down below where they don't get the air they need. It also breaks up organic matter making them break down faster (into CO2 if there is O2 available, and the turning just added a bunch). Also all those broken roots no longer hold the soil in place. so the soil will erode much faster.

Erosion is part of it, but even if the soil wouldn't erode the loss of organic matter is still a big deal.

The amount of pesticide and herbicide used of crops is an environmental disaster on it's own. There is mounting evidence that glyphosate is responsible for increases in cancer and birth defects, lower fertility rates, and is implicated as a likely partial cause for celiac disease.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com