Serious The environment asks for help, do your part!

[Mimas]

The environmental issue is being considered increasingly urgent and important for society, since the future of humanity depends on the relationship established between nature and the use by man of available natural resources. While the environment goes through a crisis, humanity lives another, even more serious: a conflict of values, which can define the future of the planet. Ever since the industrial revolution in the 18th century, man's vision of the world has changed: he has left the role of mere adjutant and has become the protagonist, with the right to dominate nature and use its resources, as if it existed only to satisfy its needs. For this, efforts and sacrifices would be made, without considering the damage to biodiversity, the environment is the life of thousands of plants and species, as well as human life. The result of this direction is the current environmental crisis, which is fiercely manifested by changes in temperatures, polar melting, extinction of terrestrial and marine specimens, climatic events such as tsunamis, cyclones and hurricanes, such events clearly show that unscrupulous extraction must end as soon as possible.

The technology employed has evolved rapidly with undesirable consequences that worsen with equal speed. Exploitation of natural resources began to take place too intensively. Non-renewable resources, such as oil, threaten to be scarce. From where a tree was removed, hundreds are now withdrawn. Where some families lived, consumed some water and produced few debris, now millions of families live, demanding immense springs and generating tons of garbage per day, greater than the capacity for renewal of the planet, provoking water pollution, diseases ... These differences are determinant for the degradation of the environment where man is inserted. Whole systems of plant and animal life are drawn from their equilibrium. And wealth, generated in an economic model that favors the concentration of income, does not prevent the growth of misery and hunger. Humanity has become industrial is the result is that the atmosphere surrounding the planet has become increasingly loaded with gases from factories and cars. In addition, the deforestation of the forests and the construction of cities with little green and very concrete also contribute to disrupt the climate.

At school it is possible to work with the objective of showing students that all action and attitude to the environment can generate a positive or negative impact emphasizing that despite the size of the universe, the earth is the only known planet that provides conditions so that life exists and thrives. Temperature, air and water are the main factors that allow us to live here, and it is necessary to make future generations aware that they have more respect for the environment. They are small actions and attitudes in everyday life that can make a great difference.

The relationship between man and the environment, based on the undesirable tripod of noncompliance, inexhaustibility and irresponsibility, could lead to the most catastrophic predictions of the scarcity of natural resources, especially water, rendering life on earth in a few years' time impossible. Therefore, it is fundamental to substitute a vision based on the principles of sustainability, rationalization and responsibility, within which we are an integral part of the environment and responsible for protecting and raising the quality of life on the planet. The observation, the selection the information gathering the involvement of the student and also important for it to incorporate ethical values.

Through this thread, I would like to have a discussion about this big problem experienced by contemporary society with the environment. It is obvious that the environment aks for help, every day is a new challenge for all living beings, including the cause of this chaos, humans. A tip, an argument, a video, anything that serves as an awareness is more than necessary for us to acquire more knowledge, more ways to help the environment, do your part!

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

I really like what Ted Kaczynski said about the environment. He said, and I quote, "The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries."

I really do think we should do more to connect with nature and reject things like IPhones and shit. Thats probably where most depression comes from is being cut off from the environment and nature and whatnot. Human beings werent made for parking lots. Its nuts.

 

[Mimas]

I really like what Ted Kaczynski said about the environment. He said, and I quote, "The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries."

I really do think we should do more to connect with nature and reject things like IPhones and shit. Thats probably where most depression comes from is being cut off from the environment and nature and whatnot. Human beings werent made for parking lots. Its nuts.

Unfortunately he portrayed nothing more than the reality of our current society. A society where children already use expensive mobiles, spend more time in front of technologies and increasingly decrease their contact with nature. A society where the most expensive is the best, the most developed is the most interesting. People still have what to learn, all this is due to implanted capitalism, a flawed, unnecessary system.

 

[THE_IRON_...KENYAN?]

Yeah, its too bad that he wasnt as successful as intended. He would have been a great voice of reason in today's hyper capitalism

 

[orch]

Generally the best way to help out environment is noninterventionism. It's humans trying to modify ecology that messes it up in the first place. The interactions and evolution will fix itself over the time. Although, it's a too long term goal for humans practically.

I think that the best way to contribute to your local ecosystem is to work on your property. Look up field guides for flora and fauna for your area. See what they like to eat and how they survive. Create habitats in your garden to support them. For example, planting common milkweed to attract monarch butterflies in North Eastern America. The milkweed is a nectar heavy plant, so you'll attract tons of insects in general and this will lead predators being attracted to your property and so on.

Important note: hybrids created by horticulture industry are usually sterile and ecologically worthless. Try to locate species plants. Nativity is an interesting concept, but ultimately a misled idea in my opinion.

P. S. This conception that nature is all oohm and peaceful is utterly and completely false. It's a romantic marketing image. The reality is that the life is the chaos itself.

 

[Ivy]

Florida has been under the ocean for most of the hundreds of millions of years it's existed in a recognizable form. This is just God's way of putting it back in its place.

 

[Deck Knight]

The relationship between man and the environment, based on the undesirable tripod of noncompliance, inexhaustibility and irresponsibility, could lead to the most catastrophic predictions of the scarcity of natural resources, especially water, rendering life on earth in a few years' time impossible. Therefore, it is fundamental to substitute a vision based on the principles of sustainability, rationalization and responsibility, within which we are an integral part of the environment and responsible for protecting and raising the quality of life on the planet. The observation, the selection the information gathering the involvement of the student and also important for it to incorporate ethical values.

Counterpoint: Life on Earth has survived extinction-level events like the meteor impact theorized to wipe out the dinosaurs and subsequent volcanic winter. Most of earth's species have an evolutionary toolbox developed over eons with genes that here-to-fore have never needed to be activated but still exist within their genetic code or epigenetics (Here's a cool article on corals!).

One other thing worth pointing out is that humans are extremely good at avoiding slow moving threats. "Peak oil" was constantly talked about from the 70s to the 90s and then fracking was invented to solve the issues of that method of oil extraction. This includes advances in how we understand what oil is and how efficiently we can use it. The earth is also greener now than it was 20 years ago due to tree-planting programs.

Stewardship of the environment is very important. However technology is not the enemy here, it is our greatest ally. Remember the meteor impact I mentioned earlier? What species do you purport has even the dimmest chance of preventing a future cataclysmic event for all life on earth? Only the one typing away at our keyboards. Sorry SMOD, you've met your match!

There is one thing I'd like to say about the climate and biodiversity though, which is that windmills are the most useless and counterproductive form of "green" energy ever proposed. They are basically a giant hunks of steel that produce nothing but noise pollution and chaos in animal populations for nominal, intermittent additions to the energy grid. Michael Shellenberg had a good TedEx talk on this.

 

[orch]

Let's discuss about green energy.

Planting trees and gathering petrol resources for energy is not a long term solution. Yes, it was politically convenient to keep the oil based infrastructure and to continue the corporate welfare for oil companies. IMO, it's far better to "pull the plug" sooner than later.

Solar energy is a niche solution. It only works in the day and clear-cutting existing habitats to create more solar farms is counterproductive and destructive for environments. IMO, the solar energy should be only be confined to house roofs.

Dam-based hydropower is far too ecologically destructive to be viable.

Bio-fuel is an okay solution. It is carbon neutral. I think that the petrol industry should embrace the bio-fuel for highly portable and energetically dense niche. I am against the idea of using agricultural mono-culture for bio-fuel. I would prefer to see natural prairies/meadows to be used as for the source of cellulose and lignin even if it's less efficient.

Using tide is incredibly underrated and under-marketed method to gather energy. There are solutions that move slowly to avoid harming fauna. The aquatic creatures' habitats are mostly limited by photic zones and surface area. The algae/plants will grow on the tide power instruments and create habitats for aquatic creatures. It works 24/7.

I am skeptical of nuclear power. Yes, it is truly the best solution for energy in terms of efficiency and space required. However, the risks are unacceptably high.

 

[Ivy]

Nuclear power is great; meltdowns only leave a small area unsafe for human habitability for 100 or so years and are extremely rare. There is ample storage for spent nuclear waste, too, it's just the matter of transportation being expensive.

 

[Mimas]

Generally the best way to help out environment is noninterventionism. It's humans trying to modify ecology that messes it up in the first place. The interactions and evolution will fix itself over the time. Although, it's a too long term goal for humans practically.

I think that the best way to contribute to your local ecosystem is to work on your property. Look up field guides for flora and fauna for your area. See what they like to eat and how they survive. Create habitats in your garden to support them. For example, planting common milkweed to attract monarch butterflies in North Eastern America. The milkweed is a nectar heavy plant, so you'll attract tons of insects in general and this will lead predators being attracted to your property and so on.

Important note: hybrids created by horticulture industry are usually sterile and ecologically worthless. Try to locate species plants. Nativity is an interesting concept, but ultimately a misled idea in my opinion.

P. S. This conception that nature is all oohm and peaceful is utterly and completely false. It's a romantic marketing image. The reality is that the life is the chaos itself.

I fully understand your opinion, on the one hand I agree, but we should not expect to do when the worst is already happening, and it is this sense that people need to have: the world is not over, but it is ending. The thread was designed and made to give suggestions and innovations for people to act on their own property, two hands often work better than one. Also, it is totally important for you to discuss these things yes, even more so in a generation where children are no longer having contact with the environment.

 

[Mimas]

Counterpoint: Life on Earth has survived extinction-level events like the meteor impact theorized to wipe out the dinosaurs and subsequent volcanic winter. Most of earth's species have an evolutionary toolbox developed over eons with genes that here-to-fore have never needed to be activated but still exist within their genetic code or epigenetics (Here's a cool article on corals!).

One other thing worth pointing out is that humans are extremely good at avoiding slow moving threats. "Peak oil" was constantly talked about from the 70s to the 90s and then fracking was invented to solve the issues of that method of oil extraction. This includes advances in how we understand what oil is and how efficiently we can use it. The earth is also greener now than it was 20 years ago due to tree-planting programs.

Stewardship of the environment is very important. However technology is not the enemy here, it is our greatest ally. Remember the meteor impact I mentioned earlier? What species do you purport has even the dimmest chance of preventing a future cataclysmic event for all life on earth? Only the one typing away at our keyboards. Sorry SMOD, you've met your match!

There is one thing I'd like to say about the climate and biodiversity though, which is that windmills are the most useless and counterproductive form of "green" energy ever proposed. They are basically a giant hunks of steel that produce nothing but noise pollution and chaos in animal populations for nominal, intermittent additions to the energy grid. Michael Shellenberg had a good TedEx talk on this.

I found it super interesting that you make a return to the past, and really, technology is not being the main enemy here, however much it can also hurt if it is misused. Humans are too intelligent, I agree. Well, we are so smart that we can stop a problem that can become gigantic, like the global warming!


Responding to your placement on green areas. They may be more valued in certain parts of the world, or in a good part, but as a Brazilian, I can portray our main forest: Amazon. With each passing year, the rate of deforestation of the forest increases, which can lead to the extinction of animal species and the destruction of flora. I'm sure there are movements that aim to protect this area, but there is still a lot to work on.


As for the question of windmills, I have always seen it being highly praised, I will research more about and, I found this curious about damaging the hearing of the animals, thanks for sharing.

 

[Mimas]

Let's discuss about green energy.

Planting trees and gathering petrol resources for energy is not a long term solution. Yes, it was politically convenient to keep the oil based infrastructure and to continue the corporate welfare for oil companies. IMO, it's far better to "pull the plug" sooner than later.

Solar energy is a niche solution. It only works in the day and clear-cutting existing habitats to create more solar farms is counterproductive and destructive for environments. IMO, the solar energy should be only be confined to house roofs.

Dam-based hydropower is far too ecologically destructive to be viable.

Bio-fuel is an okay solution. It is carbon neutral. I think that the petrol industry should embrace the bio-fuel for highly portable and energetically dense niche. I am against the idea of using agricultural mono-culture for bio-fuel. I would prefer to see natural prairies/meadows to be used as for the source of cellulose and lignin even if it's less efficient.

Using tide is incredibly underrated and under-marketed method to gather energy. There are solutions that move slowly to avoid harming fauna. The aquatic creatures' habitats are mostly limited by photic zones and surface area. The algae/plants will grow on the tide power instruments and create habitats for aquatic creatures. It works 24/7.

I am skeptical of nuclear power. Yes, it is truly the best solution for energy in terms of efficiency and space required. However, the risks are unacceptably high.

Talking about my country: Brazil. I would like to highlight a renewable sources that I do not like very much: hydroelectric plants. Hydroelectric plants: The source is renewable because water is not lost, however, the construction of a hydroelectric plant can represent a major environmental impact. Recently I watched a documentary at the school in geography class about the construction of a hydroelectric plant in a city not so big and well known in Brazil: The Belo Monte mill.

The construction of the Belo Monte Hydroelectric Power Plant in the course of the Xingu River has generated much controversy regarding the environmental issue and the energy issue. On the one hand, traditional and indigenous populations, as well as activists and environmental groups who question the impacts of the construction of this plant; on the other hand, the government and other activists who defend its construction in favor of the increase of the energy production in the country and the end of the fears of an eventual energy crisis. Once completed, Belo Monte would become the second largest hydroelectric power plant in the country, the largest 100% in Brazil and the third largest in the world, according to Federal Government data. Several environmental groups warn of the impacts caused by the construction of the hydroelectric plant in the Xingu valley. About 100 km of the stretch of river will have reduced flow and may even dry. Another concern is the maintenance of forests, as part of them is being destroyed during construction, another part will be flooded by the dam, and with the arrival of immigrants and workers to the work, more devastation may happen. In addition, communities warn that the environmental impacts of the work have not been fully studied and clarified.

This made me think that even though it is a renewable source with abundance, although hydroelectric plants are the main sources of energy for Brazil. I believe that there could be other investments so that the impact like that of Belo Monte will not happen in future with other regions.

 

[GatoDelFuego]

One other thing worth pointing out is that humans are extremely good at avoiding slow moving threats. "Peak oil" was constantly talked about from the 70s to the 90s and then fracking was invented to solve the issues of that method of oil extraction.
There is one thing I'd like to say about the climate and biodiversity though, which is that windmills are the most useless and counterproductive form of "green" energy ever proposed. They are basically a giant hunks of steel that produce nothing but noise pollution and chaos in animal populations for nominal, intermittent additions to the energy grid. Michael Shellenberg had a good TedEx talk on this.

http://environmentalprogress.org/bi...pt-of-michael-shellenbergers-tedx-berlin-2017

Mind pointing me to literally anywhere that this guy says wind energy is bad...?

 

[Mimas]

http://environmentalprogress.org/bi...pt-of-michael-shellenbergers-tedx-berlin-2017

Mind pointing me to literally anywhere that this guy says wind energy is bad...?

Well, I am asking this to myself, because I always heard that wind energy is one of the best green energies to the environment with solar energy. I used to search because for me that was a curiosity.

 

[Cresselia~~]

Let's discuss about green energy.

Planting trees and gathering petrol resources for energy is not a long term solution. Yes, it was politically convenient to keep the oil based infrastructure and to continue the corporate welfare for oil companies. IMO, it's far better to "pull the plug" sooner than later.

Solar energy is a niche solution. It only works in the day and clear-cutting existing habitats to create more solar farms is counterproductive and destructive for environments. IMO, the solar energy should be only be confined to house roofs.

Dam-based hydropower is far too ecologically destructive to be viable.

Bio-fuel is an okay solution. It is carbon neutral. I think that the petrol industry should embrace the bio-fuel for highly portable and energetically dense niche. I am against the idea of using agricultural mono-culture for bio-fuel. I would prefer to see natural prairies/meadows to be used as for the source of cellulose and lignin even if it's less efficient.

Using tide is incredibly underrated and under-marketed method to gather energy. There are solutions that move slowly to avoid harming fauna. The aquatic creatures' habitats are mostly limited by photic zones and surface area. The algae/plants will grow on the tide power instruments and create habitats for aquatic creatures. It works 24/7.

I am skeptical of nuclear power. Yes, it is truly the best solution for energy in terms of efficiency and space required. However, the risks are unacceptably high.

Planting trees is way too slow. Planting bamboo and growing algae is the way to go.

Solar energy doesn't only work in the day. During the night and rainy days, there is still enough background radiation to keep solar panels going.
Unless you are talking about really old solar panels (over a decade ago) that used Sunlight to heat water.
Solar panels nowadays don't have water in them.

I personally find biofuel promising.
Especially with algae oil.
Algae has been a hot topic in biological sciences since the last decade and is still growing strong. If you read the prospectus of marine biology in most top universities, you can see that a lot of professors are researching on algae.

 

[Myzozoa]

Most ecological destruction (water waste, land mismanagement, killing of endangered species) and pollution is done by corporations and governments that are invested in turning climate change into an opportunity to get ahead in w.e Octavia Butler or Mad Max post-capitalist race to the bottom world you'd care to consider. To me, it isn't people's ignorance about correct recycling or taking too long of showers thats killing the planet. I do my part, as an individual, simply by not participating in the consumption of meat and by driving minimally, and trying to be mindful of everything that most people are mindful of, but all that effort by each of us as individuals 'doing our part' isn't gonna save the planet. A shift towards ecologically mindful living and industrial compliance is needed, but seems unlikely to be brought about to the extent necessary to stave-off the collapse of a Western liberal-capitalist political order given the contemporary state of political economy.

ps: a big un-addressed near-term threat is the collapse of ocean ecosystems from over-fishing, overuse, and pollution, so stop eating fish unless ur sourcing it ethically according to some type of aquarium guide or some other reliable source

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

This is a serious and grim discussion, but I like to brighten the mood a little by saying I'm volunteering at the Bolsa Chica conservancy monitoring and counting the federally endangered California Least Tern and helping the conservationists succeed at increasing that population. I watch potential nests being established and will watch the chicks once they hatched. For this conservancy, the biggest enemy is housing development. I really don't want a beautiful hotbed of biodiversity that rivals or even overtakes rainforests be converted into a crummy marina and housing all of us probably can't afford. The biggest allies in conserving the wetlands is surprisingly the oil companies because development will surely disrupt the resources they're harvesting, but I do love seeing something normally maligned actually working with conservationists for benefit of the environment.

 

[tcr]

I have to agree I just didn't know how to word it correctly.

I'm all for stewardship, I try my part to recycle and not use my car and to be less throwaway, and have tried going vegetarian in attempts of environmental activism, but the fact of the matter is that that just won't do anything. Just 100 or so companies are responsible for 71% of emission gases released since 1988, so Jo Ann from accounting deciding to forgo plastic does absolutely nothing to help the issue, and is the equivalent of your boat flooding in the ocean and you using a thimble to try to get rid of the water.

I see any attempt of getting the common man to "just take less showers and use less water" as another attempt of people holding the common person accountable, when in reality whether or not I take two or three showers a day has little to no impact on addressing climate change issues. The narrative that people are wasteful and just need to buckle down more is spun by media and science lobbying groups who don't actually want to tackle the real causes behind the issue; why would they when they could just pin it on suburbia and they can get away with it?

Some things you can actually do to help mildly would be to help plant trees in tropical and temperate climates. A dense, rich ecosystem of plantlife in temperate and tropical areas of earth help to increase albedo in the area, helping to reflect the sunlight back into the ozone rather than being absorbed and increasing the temperature in the surrounding area. Trees and plants helps to consume carbon dioxide while providing rich oxygen, which has seen great benefits in areas like China. Lastly they help create habitats for burgeoning species, increasing numbers of those who are endangered or critical, and in general biomass is excellent for cultivating an ecosystem.

From a consumer side the best things you can do would be to speak with your wallet. That means attempting to reduce meat intake due to rising amounts of methane on meat production farms, trying to buy food (usually ORGANIC and not from Green Revolution inspired farms) that have had good farming methods, like food from vertical or terraced farming in order to promote those styles. People could immigrate more to cities, where there is less need for one to use a vehicle due to public transport and close proximity, thus using a car less (though realistically it doesn't matter). Lastly there surely are the traditional conservation methods they taught you on Earth Day in 5th grade.

Really though I think that humanity is just fucked. It would take a scientific breakthrough akin to the industrial revolution or a social revival that spurns materialism and rampant resource extraction in order to combat anything, and the people advocating for stewardship don't have the stones to do anything concrete about it. This is why oil companies knew in advance about climate change but chose to continue peddling their already aged product, as ethical capitalism is and has been dead for centuries. The best options available to humans right now are either to thanos snap the populations and attempt to stave off an overpopulated environment before the population yield reaches capacity and resources dry up or to start rolling heads of oil conglomerates, but revolution will never be televised and most people could give a damn about researching where their product comes from, and most people are embroiled in more recent and personal life problems to also care about something that will happen 30 years from now.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

From a consumer side the best things you can do would be to speak with your wallet. That means attempting to reduce meat intake due to rising amounts of methane on meat production farms, trying to buy food (usually ORGANIC and not from Green Revolution inspired farms) that have had good farming methods, like food from vertical or terraced farming in order to promote those styles. People could immigrate more to cities, where there is less need for one to use a vehicle due to public transport and close proximity, thus using a car less (though realistically it doesn't matter). Lastly there surely are the traditional conservation methods they taught you on Earth Day in 5th grade.

Organic actually uses more land iirc for some crops, it's very industrial (you're not avoiding big agriculture corporations like ConAgra), it still uses pesticides (important), and its methods aren't really based on science. Organic is counterproductive to conservation. IMO what you should do is avoid "NON GMO labels" as GMOs should be viewed as a huge potential ally for environmental and societal causes.

 

[tcr]

Organic actually uses more land iirc for some crops, it's very industrial (you're not avoiding big agriculture corporations like ConAgra), it still uses pesticides (important), and its methods aren't really based on science. Organic is counterproductive to conservation. IMO what you should do is avoid "NON GMO labels" as GMOs should be viewed as a huge potential ally for environmental and societal causes.

I can only assume you get your knowledge from the articles out there like this that routinely cherry pick their data (such as the one example linked that used crop yield percentages from 2013 through 2015) and misrepresent statistics, and even what "organic" is. The claim that organic farming and sustainable agriculture is antithetical to conservation is a false one, as backed by a great many studies and organizations, like the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN. The benefits of organic farming include, but aren't limited to, rising soil fertility rates, vitally important to the development of primary producer ecosystems. The ideas that it uses more land for some crops is based off of previous studies in the early 2000s that found the crop yield to be significantly lower than conventional methods, but if one takes a more modern look at things then you might find that issues of maximizing land potential are and have been addressed. Organic farming tends to produce much less (by about 40%) greenhouse gases, has roughly the same crop yield, and is more efficient, using 45% less energy than conventional industrial methods (source). Organic methods of rotational grazing for organic meat farms tend to produce less pesticide and nitrate runoff into water supply. They have serious benefits both ecologically, such as the increase in populations of grassland birds at minimal to no cost to the farmer and lead to an increased yield in beef and dairy farms. I'm not sure why you stated that organic farming uses more land, because while yes technically it can, there are many modern methods of farming and sustainable agriculture out there that can maximize land use to produce higher or even yields compared to conventional farming methods.

As stated the impact organic farming has on soil is understated. Soil is quite possibly one of the most vitally important aspects of an environment, and organic methods have shown to have increased carbon storage in the soil. This is important because carbon in soil maintains the temperature of the soil, provides food for microbes within the soil, helps keep it compact, and influences water storage and aeration in the soil. More carbon in soil can be interpreted as functionally better. Additionally, synthetic methods of introducing nutrients into the soil tend to be leached off into water supplies, which is where you get "they're putting fluoride in our water" conspiracies. Introducing organic nutrients via natural fertilizer doesn't have this problem as the nutrients stay within the soil longer. So when it rains or any other precipitation the soil is not as heavily impacted as it would be via runoff.

As to pesticides, it uses natural pesticides rather than synthetic. By definition if it uses a synthetic pesticide it cannot be labeled as an organic product. Here is a forbes article on pesticide use and diseases in humans, in which no correlational link has been found. While there are certainly harmful pesticides out there that introduce toxic minerals and metals and can have toxicological effects on humans, most of those are found in conventional agriculture anyway. You would be very hard pressed to find an agricultural farm that does not use pesticides in order to increase crop yield, and when organic farming already lowers the runoff impact on the environment then frankly I don't see the problem, as pesticide use is not an immediate disqualifier considering a vast majority of people are perfectly comfortable with conventional farming methods which use far more dangerous toxicological methods.

Organic farming does not typically use GMOs, no. This is because GMOs simply are not completely understood, so rather than take a risk cultivating genetically modified fruit and vegetables the techniques involved tend to lean towards the natural. That said I agree that GMOs can be very fruitful for maintaining an increase in crop yield and have the potential to seriously impact farming methods. While I definitely agree with GMOs being fine and more sustainable I think, however, its a little disingenuous to write off organic farming as counterproductive to conservationism (especially when your proposed alternative is...what, conventional Green Revolution farming methods which have a studied worse environmental impact?) and then praise GMOs as the one true savior of this ecological problem. The environment is a vastly complex entity, one in which there simply is no magic solution, no matter how much one wishes GMOs were. The point of the matter is that modern organic farming techniques have evolved far beyond 2002 when most of the studies on how organic farming sucks were done. I suggest researching more on the topic. This seems to answer most of your concerns concerning crop yield (which is the main point behind your claim of "organic needs more land").

 

[Myzozoa]

organic agriculture is just a code term for ecologically minded agriculture, obv the corporate supermarket selling you an 'organic' potato is not what is being referred to when 'organic agriculture' is brought up as a set of agriculture practices that does not use petro-chemical pesticides and does not require more land as it is actually more productive than contemporary monoculture agriculture.

 

[LeftyGreenMario]

Well, that was an interesting post, but there are some points of contention I'm going to address. I'm probably going to engage in a little more research of crop yields though.

As to pesticides, it uses natural pesticides rather than synthetic. By definition if it uses a synthetic pesticide it cannot be labeled as an organic product. Here is a forbes article on pesticide use and diseases in humans, in which no correlational link has been found. While there are certainly harmful pesticides out there that introduce toxic minerals and metals and can have toxicological effects on humans, most of those are found in conventional agriculture anyway. You would be very hard pressed to find an agricultural farm that does not use pesticides in order to increase crop yield, and when organic farming already lowers the runoff impact on the environment then frankly I don't see the problem, as pesticide use is not an immediate disqualifier considering a vast majority of people are perfectly comfortable with conventional farming methods which use far more dangerous toxicological methods.

"Natural" isn't a gold bullet and its definition is meaningless and arbitrary to begin with, as with organic. In some cases, synthetic pesticides is superior over the "natural" variant as some "natural" variants include undesirable risks. For instance, manure carries a lot of undesirable pathogens that can contaminate crops. See here too

Now, at this point, you may be thinking that organic crops aren’t healthier, but surely they are better for the environment. However, that is also a misnomer. Some practices that are typically associated with organic farming are better for the environment, but those practices are sometimes included in non-organic farming as well, and organic farming has serious drawbacks, such as the fact that it often uses far more land and resources than traditional farming (Tuomisto et al. 2012) [broken link]. As a result, you can’t make a blanket statement like, “organic farming is better for the environment” because in many cases it isn’t. For example, Bt GMOs have substantial environmental benefits compared to their organic counterparts, including reduced pesticide use, fewer effects on non-target species, and reduced land usage (details and sources here).

I'm not arguing that pesticide use in of itself is a problem for organic farming but that organic farming allowing pesticide is actually not understood by a lot of people and that the idea that is has to be "natural" pesticide is not based on any science and more on fears of "chemicals".

Organic farming does not typically use GMOs, no. This is because GMOs simply are not completely understood, so rather than take a risk cultivating genetically modified fruit and vegetables the techniques involved tend to lean towards the natural. That said I agree that GMOs can be very fruitful for maintaining an increase in crop yield and have the potential to seriously impact farming methods. While I definitely agree with GMOs being fine and more sustainable I think, however, its a little disingenuous to write off organic farming as counterproductive to conservationism (especially when your proposed alternative is...what, conventional Green Revolution farming methods which have a studied worse environmental impact?) and then praise GMOs as the one true savior of this ecological problem. The environment is a vastly complex entity, one in which there simply is no magic solution, no matter how much one wishes GMOs were. The point of the matter is that modern organic farming techniques have evolved far beyond 2002 when most of the studies on how organic farming sucks were done. I suggest researching more on the topic. This seems to answer most of your concerns concerning crop yield (which is the main point behind your claim of "organic needs more land").

GMOs are completely understood and are actually more controlled than conventional breeding. There is a 92% consensus on the safety of GMO food based on meta analyses literally thousands of papers, and all national scientific organizations pretty much say the same thing, that GMO is safe. It rivals climate change agreement. Now, there are problems with GMOs but those aren't restricted to GMO growing as those problems are applied to general agriculture. This isn't a thread on GMOs, but we should be using sustainable growing like crop rotation as well as supplementing it with GMO technology to amplify those benefits.

 

[orch]

organic agriculture is just a code term for ecologically minded agriculture, obv the corporate supermarket selling you an 'organic' potato is not what is being referred to when 'organic agriculture' is brought up as a set of agriculture practices that does not use petro-chemical pesticides and does not require more land as it is actually more productive than contemporary monoculture agriculture.

do you have reliable paper that confirms organic farming is more productive than monoculture petrol-based agriculture?

almost all works i've seen say the opposite. that's why we do it.

 

[orch]

im excited about the upcoming hydroponics corporations. it solves the issue of fertilizer leaching into environment, eliminating pesticides, and taking up less space.

https://www.plenty.ag/

 

[Mimas]

Planting trees is way too slow. Planting bamboo and growing algae is the way to go.

Solar energy doesn't only work in the day. During the night and rainy days, there is still enough background radiation to keep solar panels going.
Unless you are talking about really old solar panels (over a decade ago) that used Sunlight to heat water.
Solar panels nowadays don't have water in them.

I personally find biofuel promising.
Especially with algae oil.
Algae has been a hot topic in biological sciences since the last decade and is still growing strong. If you read the prospectus of marine biology in most top universities, you can see that a lot of professors are researching on algae.

I greatly appreciate the evolution of the solar screens over time. Particularly I think this is one of the best ways to save energy, since you basically do not even need to pay for the light bill and the light you receive is totally natural. And yes, algae are being studied a long time ago, even because they play a super important role in our lives too, I would definitely bet on algae oil.