The insect stuff may need its own thread

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by iceaura, Feb 11, 2019.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Some journalistic misimplications in the article, but the study does say what it says.
    What a 2.5%@yr decline looks like:
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member


    those sudden freezes in the USA & Europe in summer are a bit of a worry because they will turn the breeding cycles upside down assuming they don't completely wipe out local colonies etc.

    humans wont survive without insects, but many humans claim to hate insects and attempt to kill them all with pesticides etc.

    Organic farming could not come soon enough.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Would that be a panacea ?

    Can/could organic (or insect friendly) farming and horticulture feed the planet?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    dare i enter...
    what say you the nature of "Feed" & "Planet" ?
  8. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    I've read that organic farming harms the environment through reduced yields, which require more farmland to compensate resulting in deforestation.
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    There has been no deforestation in consequence of reduced yields from modern organic farming. It has never happened.

    Deforestation has been driven by the financial profits available from industrial agriculture, which make marginal lands whose production and service value has not been monetized worth clearing and reward maximum short term exploitation at the expense of long term yield and sustainable farming practices. This is an example of the general pattern known as the "Tragedy of the Commons" - the history of agriculture is full of such tragedies, such as the deforestation of the British Isles, Icelandic, and northern Mediterranean landscapes.

    If "organic" (i.e. sustainable) farming is in need of improvement - in yield, etc - then we should get cracking. At last word, even the existing rinky dink efforts like the Aldo Leopold research center - despite their high payoff for so little money - were being cut.
  10. geordief Valued Senior Member

    It is a common expression that I tried to use in its common meaning.

    "The planet" means firstly its human population and "feed" means "provide healthy,sustaining food"

    That was all I meant on this occasion.
  11. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Good, but I didn't claim that. The study projected what could happen if organic farming completely replaced present methods.
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Which would be bullshit - organic farming will not expand into marginal lands or pressure deforestation. That stuff requires heavy industrial methods to make money.
  13. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    So you are counting on limited popularity for your proposal.
    Better not propose very hard.
  14. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    ok thanks 100% political dog whistle stuff then.
    thats what i suspected.
  15. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member


    mono culture corporate industrialized farming to compensate for massive over population in city areas where there is no arable land has not been added to the balance sheet.
    all the "wont feed the world" bullshit is propaganda.

    massive urban developments in the usa for easy modern reference, where there is no food being grown and lots of people.
    add that to the city density and the fact that USA incarcerates its poor into city living where there is no ability to grow food.
    it makes low income working class dependent on charity which is then controlled by the rich elite.
    it is a system designed and run to fail
  16. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Perhaps you could explain why you say that?(it is not clear to me)
  17. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    i was asking for you to specify your idea around providing food for people, including those who cant afford it/dont/cant grow it.

    the mechanism around growing food and delivering it to citys etc...

    the "feed the world" comment has become quite redundant from excessive partisan ideological controls of economic systems and structures.

    thus if it were just a matter of feeding everyone, it would be easy.
    but it is not. thus it is highly complex.

    i am asking for you to give a bit of an idea about some forms of mechanisms that would alleviate the profit based controls that prevent low cost food being provided to the poor so economic equality as a primary source of food & shelter is achieved in some ideological form of process.

    in retrospect i over simplified.

    socialist country's have not seemed to achieved it
    capitalist country's have not seemed to achieve it
    mixed market socialist base country's barely sustain it and provide a less than reasonable level of nutrition(this has been documented many times by different body's in different country's)
    i am pro "feed the world" i am also pro capitalism with regulation & pro democracy and primarily pro-mixed market economy.
  18. geordief Valued Senior Member

    So the problem of feeding populations is not a simple one,but your post
    seemed to me to imply that organic farming would be a major step in this direction.

    Do you stand by it?

    My own view is that it would be more effective to tax farming that is over burdensome of resources such as raising cattle for meat (and perhaps dairy).

    Even organic farming seems more feasible in this context (as well as preserving the ecosystems that sustain us)

    The political side of "feeding populations" is clearly also hugely important ,but not what I was considering when I answered your post with my question.(a question ,and not an assertion or even an implication although my use of "panacea" was lazy -I meant a "successful policy")
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  19. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    my general perception is yes.
    though a different process is required.
    as mechanization develops it should allow farming of smaller areas much more affordable as organic production.

    with profit set to reduce cost as a primary process there is no way the money can get back into the land.
    that needs to evolve to put more profit into wider areas that produce a greater quality of food which in turn reduces over all food quantity requirement.

    ideas like you suggest around taxing of red meat production which guarantees that taxation goes directly back into farming alternative organic options that allows the capital investment to diversify without compromising the economic system.
    that is not easy on a political level because it requires a great deal of cooperation between small and large businesses while maintaining high quality regulations and standards.

    massive investment in fish farming(on land preferably) would be a good start in my opinion

    changing customer behavior is key.
    like modern people now have a cell phone as a compulsory item.
    diet needs to move in that direction with a higher quality of food which in turn reduces need for massive crops of low quality food.
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    1)It's not my proposal.
    2) It works better the more popular it is - especially, when it attracts more research and infrastructure.
    3) The expansion of industrial methods into lands better suited (and more productive, long term) for other use has nothing to do with "popularity". It is a tragedy of a commons, driven as usual by market failure - rational self-interest leading not to higher efficiency but self-destruction, when a market fails to include significant costs. "Organic" methods - by fortunate chance, not moral virtue - do not lead to market failure as often, because they include more of their costs in their markets. So less deforestation, not more, is likely from their adoption.

    Takehome: The idea that adopting better and (usually) more "organic" methods of farming will lead to more deforestation is bullshit. (The key deceptions: that yield is the limiting factor in food supply, that "organic" methods are low yield, that deforestation is driven by yield).
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  21. geordief Valued Senior Member

    More labour intensive is what I thought...would that be right?

    That wouldn't have to be a disadvantage ,I would say.
  22. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    "Labour intensive" is a bit of a loaded word.

    even more soo when your talking about specific scientific concepts.

    injecting the term "labor intensive" into a scientific discussion makes you look dishonest.

    you need to know what your talking about.

    what is labor intensive in agriculture ?
    picking ?
    planting ?
    pollinating ?
    selling ?
    storing ?

    does "labor intensive" have a negative value against quality of product ?
    = not usually as most labor intensive products are defined as "custom" or exclusive and have a much higher market value.

    is that consistent with the subject nature of the discussion or does it make you/whomever appear dishonest ?

    there is a massive quantity and instance of false data, dishonest intent and dishonest discussion around this subject so you need to be mindful your not wasting your time falling into other peoples Bullshit conversations.

    what do you mean by "labor intensive" ?
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2019
  23. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Weĺl I intended it to convey that whilst labour costs would be higher ,nevertheless it would provide worthwhile employment for people.

    I am sorry if my engagement in this discussion appears shallow but that does reflect my intellect (perhaps sadly)

    I tend to have more questions than answers in most areas of discussion and also seem to be hardwired into a fault finding approach rather than a problem solving one.

    Allied to an intellectual laziness that makes it hard for me to keep up my end of the conversation whether or not I happen to agree or disagree with my collocutor.

Share This Page