Hacker News Reader

Comment by mr_cyborg | Hacker News Reader

This sounds a little too much like what happened in Sri Lanka[0]. Is now a great time to go messing with food supply anywhere? Pricing and availability is VERY out of wack in my part of the US still.

0: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/18/a-food-crisis-looms...

View on HN

I kinda think that we aren't too far away from developing a western version of something similar to Lysenkoism [1]. It will probably start with a propaganda campaign "fact-checking" the efficacy of fertilizers and suggesting "alternatives".

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

I think most people read the SriLanka situation in reverse. My understanding is that they ran out of money to buy fertilizer and hence switched to organic as a cheaper alternative which also fizzled out - the one they imported from china turned out to be unusable.

No it doesn't. Working towards a modest reduction in emissions is massively different than banning fertilizer use overnight.

The problems of doing so don't change depending on how fast you do it, in this case.

Well, doing over time means you can steer (i.e. adapt to new situations and learning). Among the problems with Sri Lanka's decree is there was no time to adapt.

For example, it takes time to switch a field over to organic, and who will pay for the more expensive yet not yet qualified organic crop? Where are the distribution chains (never mind the supply chains).

I don't know enough about Canada's plan (only this article) to criticize or praise it. But I do know that your criticism, on its face, is not appropriate.

I think it is different. One thing is banning immediately all fertilizers and tell people "we just grow everything organic way, but you should figure out how... Now". And another thing is reducing their quantity so that farmers adapt by learning techniques to optimize the growth and (maybe) they'll start producing more compost to compensate deficit of 'classic' fertilizer

Reply on news.ycombinator.com