global population under organic farming

[Daisuke Wolf]

A great curiosity has struck me. It came with the realization that much of the human population boom over the past centuries can be contributed to modern farming practices, i.e. synthetic soil enrichment, pesticide use, industrial scale farming. We now know that these practices are damaging to the environment and movements have arisen to reduce to stop their use in favor of "organic" farming. To clarify I am defining organic as the most natural form of farming, meaning no pesticides, only natural fertilizers, no hormones, no GMOs, etc.
Certainly there is a massive environmental benefit to using organic methods, that much is certain, but it's there a human cost to it that hasn't been considered? How many people can be supported of the entire human race used organic farming methods?
Then if it does turn out that possibly billions of people could not be supported by organic only farming, then what solutions do we have? Clearly we cannot ccontinue conventional farming on a global scale, the issue of sustainability would eventually result in a massive population reduction regardless.

[Hamelia]

Daisuke Wolf

A great curiosity has struck me. It came with the realization that much of the human population boom over the past centuries can be contributed to modern farming practices, i.e. synthetic soil enrichment, pesticide use, industrial scale farming. We now know that these practices are damaging to the environment and movements have arisen to reduce to stop their use in favor of "organic" farming. To clarify I am defining organic as the most natural form of farming, meaning no pesticides, only natural fertilizers, no hormones, no GMOs, etc.
Certainly there is a massive environmental benefit to using organic methods, that much is certain, but it's there a human cost to it that hasn't been considered? How many people can be supported of the entire human race used organic farming methods?
Then if it does turn out that possibly billions of people could not be supported by organic only farming, then what solutions do we have? Clearly we cannot ccontinue conventional farming on a global scale, the issue of sustainability would eventually result in a massive population reduction regardless.

For background, I'm studying environmental microbiology and mathematics. Plant biology is a side interest of mine, and basic population dynamics are a facet of any good education involving the word "environmental".

Welp, let's dissect this part by part.

Quote:

It came with the realization that much of the human population boom over the past centuries can be contributed to modern farming practices, i.e. synthetic soil enrichment, pesticide use, industrial scale farming.

Prove this. Due to a point I'm going to make later on, I'm fairly sure you're wrong. In fact, I'm almost absolutely sure that it has a lot more to do with industrialization, widespread medical advances, and the effect of exponential growth that's present in populations of any organism so long as the limits of relevant resources have not been reached.

Quote:

We now know that these practices are damaging to the environment and movements have arisen to reduce to stop their use in favor of "organic" farming.

Depends very heavily on which ones. We're still not entirely sure of the effects of GMOs. We know that there's little to no reason to be wary of the health effects of GMOs - but there are certain effects on the environment to be wary of, such as GMO use reducing biodiversity (easily counterable without actually quitting the use of GMOs). The greater issue is pesticide and herbicide usage - however, we were able to sustain industrial scale farms long before we started using pesticides and herbicides at the concerning level we do today. It used to be that pesticides and especially herbicides were applied conservatively due to the damaging effect they had on crops. This practice was sustainable, but sometimes annoying, on even large scale industrial farms. The practice of widespread spraying of herbicides and pesticides came as a result of GMO's being bred to be resistant to the negative effects of herbicides and pesticides.

What I'm saying is that there's no reason to think that we have to reduce industrial farming as an effect of the damage it does to the environment. All of the damaging aspects of it can be reduced, and previously were non-existent, without reducing industrial farming.

Quote:

To clarify I am defining organic as the most natural form of farming, meaning no pesticides, only natural fertilizers, no hormones, no GMOs, etc.

Perhaps you're not aware of what the word "fertilizer" means. Most fertilizers simply contain the chemical nutrients that are already present in healthy soil (mostly nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium, but there are other micro and macro nutrients present in fertilizers in much smaller amounts) but may not be present in soil that has been repeatedly used for farming. Fertilizing is not "unnatural". It has been hypothesized that fertilizer has allowed for significant population growth as an effect of making farmland more productive (due to the increased presence of natural chemicals).

I actually don't know a whole ton about the use of hormones, so I can only make limited comment on that. From what I've been able to read on short notice, it seems like the usage of hormones mostly extends to using hormones that are already present in plants in order to signal the plants to do certain things - i.e. we're not liable to be adding anything to the plants that the plants don't already contain at least some of.

I've already discussed GMOs. Their effect on the environment as simply a function of being GMOs is almost non-existent. GMOs themselves are rarely if ever harmful to the environment - there have been some off cases of them being harmful to humans due to poor testing and bad practices, but that's not really because GMOs are bad - we wouldn't say medicine is bad if a company released a poorly tested new medication and many people got sick. We'd say the company is bad.

GMOs work basically by speeding up what we already do with hundreds and thousands of years of plant breeding. We extract plant DNA, modify it in favorable ways usually using a bacteria such as E. Coli (this is due to the way that bacterias handle DNA, but it's not really relevant to the discussion), and return it to the plant (again, this is a simplification). Nothing about the process is harmful to humans - and, in fact, it's probably safer than many years of breeding, seeing as we know exactly what's being changed and can account for it.

The real danger is generous usage of herbicides and pesticides - which, as I've explained, are not as necessary as the companies that sell them make it seem.

Quote:

Then if it does turn out that possibly billions of people could not be supported by organic only farming, then what solutions do we have?

You're misunderstanding the population and food shortage problem.

The United States alone produces enough food to feed the entire world. There is no shortage of food, and there never has been a shortage of food. We have a widespread abundance of food. Even if cutting down on certain supposedly beneficial practices to reduce the environmental effect made farming less sustainable (it wouldn't - but let's go with the hypothetical anyways), we wouldn't be in any sort of deep trouble - there's more than enough food to feed the world over several times. At worst, we could cut out some of the cropland that we use stupidly (like the overgrowth of corn farmland for the dual uses of ethanol fuel (which is highly ineffective and has actually increased pollution due to the way it has to be farmed, rather than decreasing it) and corn syrup (which is highly, highly unhealthy and incredibly widespread) and instead put that farmland to use for farming actual food. Problem solved.

The actual reason that food shortages exist even today has nothing to do with how much food is produced, and everything to do with economics. In impoverished countries, there's no way to get the appropriate amount of food to feed a population - because there's no money to ship it in from the places that have the food, and no money to start the agricultural business necessary to grow the foods locally. Even when agricultural businesses in third world countries start up, often they're not economically sustainable - how can a farmer reliably sell his crops if all of his customers receive free food from charitable organizations? How can a farmer reliably run a business when there's rampant war? How can a farmer reliably run a business when everything in his corrupt government works against him? Et cetera.

We don't have a shortage of food. We have an economic problem, not an agricultural one.

Quote:

Clearly we cannot continue conventional farming on a global scale, the issue of sustainability would eventually result in a massive population reduction regardless.

As I've demonstrated above, this is the wrong conclusion to be drawn here.

[Daisuke Wolf]

I must say, this is completely not the response I thought I would get. I posed this question under the guise of a person that was completely opposed to everything deemed "unnatural" not expecting someone of a similar mind, especially on the internet to respond.
Though on a few points I have to disagree, foremost, and least importantly actually, the boom in the agricultural industry, that did benefit from as well as encourage and boost the industrial revolution, played a major role in the growth of population centers. Was it the only factor? No, rarely is there ever only a single factor to anything. But as a historian, I cannot overlook the significance of it.
Second, I am not going to presume people are going to change; Americans, Europeans, and other wealthy nations around the world are going to continue to soak up resources like a sponge. Changing that would be far more difficult than convincing the world to be GMO free. So I am not factoring that possibility into my analysis.
Speaking of GMOs, I have no problem with them and strongly encourage their, responsible, use and development.
As for hormones their use in the raising of livestock to encourage greater yields has been rather controversial, with critics claiming the hormones make their way into the food we eat, and having adverse effects on childhood development, particularly early puberty. Going along with this category would also be antibiotics, which many organic fundamentalists argue does serious harm to the people that consume the meat. You'll have to ask the fundies about proof of that.
Other than those pretty trivial points we pretty much agree. I swear this never happens. Normally I only come across people I disagree with, so I thought changing it up would result in a positive response. I guess people just like disagreeing with me.

[Hamelia]

Daisuke Wolf

I must say, this is completely not the response I thought I would get. I posed this question under the guise of a person that was completely opposed to everything deemed "unnatural" not expecting someone of a similar mind, especially on the internet to respond.
Though on a few points I have to disagree, foremost, and least importantly actually, the boom in the agricultural industry, that did benefit from as well as encourage and boost the industrial revolution, played a major role in the growth of population centers. Was it the only factor? No, rarely is there ever only a single factor to anything. But as a historian, I cannot overlook the significance of it.
Second, I am not going to presume people are going to change; Americans, Europeans, and other wealthy nations around the world are going to continue to soak up resources like a sponge. Changing that would be far more difficult than convincing the world to be GMO free. So I am not factoring that possibility into my analysis.
Speaking of GMOs, I have no problem with them and strongly encourage their, responsible, use and development.
As for hormones their use in the raising of livestock to encourage greater yields has been rather controversial, with critics claiming the hormones make their way into the food we eat, and having adverse effects on childhood development, particularly early puberty. Going along with this category would also be antibiotics, which many organic fundamentalists argue does serious harm to the people that consume the meat. You'll have to ask the fundies about proof of that.
Other than those pretty trivial points we pretty much agree. I swear this never happens. Normally I only come across people I disagree with, so I thought changing it up would result in a positive response. I guess people just like disagreeing with me.

When it comes to matters of science, whether I agree or disagree is a question of science.

I'm not saying that there aren't issues with the way we do farming now. GMOs are used in harmful ways, but it's not really inherently because they're GMOs - it's because a select few, massive profit-seeking companies are behind herbicides, pesticides, and GMOs. It's in their best interest to promote heavy usage of their products - and heavy overusage of their products is the problem, not the products themselves. Agricultural runoff is a major issue, "superweeds" developing resistance to herbicides is a major issue, et cetera. But the appropriate response isn't this "organic" nonsense that people are promoting as some misguided knee-jerk reaction.

I'm personally not an expert on livestock - plants are more my thing. I do think the way we do industrial farming with regards to livestock is at times unhealthy. Some farms are better than others. I think that animals should be treated humanely, and that we don't do that enough. But I don't think farming as a whole is an awful thing. It would be great if we had an immediately viable alternative right now, but we don't.

[Rationing]

Daisuke Wolf

A great curiosity has struck me. It came with the realization that much of the human population boom over the past centuries can be contributed to modern farming practices, i.e. synthetic soil enrichment, pesticide use, industrial scale farming. We now know that these practices are damaging to the environment and movements have arisen to reduce to stop their use in favor of "organic" farming. To clarify I am defining organic as the most natural form of farming, meaning no pesticides, only natural fertilizers, no hormones, no GMOs, etc.
Certainly there is a massive environmental benefit to using organic methods, that much is certain, but it's there a human cost to it that hasn't been considered? How many people can be supported of the entire human race used organic farming methods?
Then if it does turn out that possibly billions of people could not be supported by organic only farming, then what solutions do we have? Clearly we cannot ccontinue conventional farming on a global scale, the issue of sustainability would eventually result in a massive population reduction regardless.

It's a market - only a niche consumes organic food while mass production exists for the majority.

[The rose in spring]

Organic farming will not produce enough food for a population like this to be sustained. It won't even sustain a Victorian Era population.

[The rose in spring]

Hamelia

Prove this. Due to a point I'm going to make later on, I'm fairly sure you're wrong. In fact, I'm almost absolutely sure that it has a lot more to do with industrialization, widespread medical advances, and the effect of exponential growth that's present in populations of any organism so long as the limits of relevant resources have not been reached.

There was an interesting NPR article on this very thing.

http://www.radiolab.org/story/180132-how-do-you-solve-problem-fritz-haber/

[Hamelia]

The rose in spring

Hamelia

Prove this. Due to a point I'm going to make later on, I'm fairly sure you're wrong. In fact, I'm almost absolutely sure that it has a lot more to do with industrialization, widespread medical advances, and the effect of exponential growth that's present in populations of any organism so long as the limits of relevant resources have not been reached.

There was an interesting NPR article on this very thing.

http://www.radiolab.org/story/180132-how-do-you-solve-problem-fritz-haber/

I love NPR, but it and radiolab are not always the most reliable sources. The point here somewhat has to do with what we define as "organic."

First and foremost, it's important to understand how plants work: the vast majority of what a plant needs comes from the air, not from the soil. Carbon (and hydrogen and oxygen) is (are) the primary component(s) of pretty much every part of a plant. This is why it's entirely possible to grow many (water-hearty) plants in jars of water for extended periods of time. Hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen make up the vast majority of a plant, and none of that comes from the soil. Roots in the soil do three major things: it anchors a plant in place, it is conducive to collecting groundwater, and it allows for collection of certain macro- and micronutrients like nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorous (the three major, i.e. macro-, nutrients).

So where does "organic" farming come in? Well, most people who advocate for "organic" farming are opposed to things like pesticides and herbicides. This is entirely understandable: pesticides and herbicides promote natural selection for pesticide and herbicide resistant strains of weeds and insects and have chemical run off that can seriously contaminate groundwater and surface water sources. Some (very few) have been linked with health issues in the people who eat crops that have been sprayed with pest- or herbicides. Genetic engineering to accommodate for pesticides and herbicides also make some people nervous, especially due to the role of bacteria in the genetic engineering process.

So let's say we discount those things, and those things alone: pesticides, herbicides, and genetic engineering. I, personally, think that pesticides, herbicides, and genetic engineering have a limited role to play in crop growth, but for the sake of argument, let's entirely discount them.

Here's the thing: absolutely none of those things are necessary. They don't improve crop yields substantially. In controlled environments, such as in warehouse growing of food (which is becoming increasingly common and has shown huge improvements in crop yield - one warehouse was able to get a 90% increase in lettuce yield simply by optimizing light, water supply, soil chemistry, and plant spacing, which is huge), pesticides and herbicides are irrelevant. You can prevent pests and weeds without ever using chemical sprays. Most genetic engineering is done in order to make plants more conducive to these chemical sprays, making genetic engineering unnecessary as well.

That is why organic farming is entirely capable of producing the exact same yields that we have today, and that is why food shortage is not the result of reduced crop yields.

Some people argue that using store-bought soil or fertilizer is technically not organic, but for the most part, that's bullshit. Store-bought soil is literally just the exact stuff you'll find in the dirt outside your door, but with more of the macronutrients that you can find in the soil. It has absolutely no harmful effect on anything, and it's entirely natural. Fertilizer is the same thing: all you're doing is speeding up what nature already does. Nature naturally moves about organic matter and decomposes it over time, returning macro and micronutrients to the soil. Fertilizer is simply taking those macro- and micro-nutrients and spraying them over the soil in order to make it viable for future crops. Chemical run off isn't an issue if fertilizer is properly used, because the only thing that would get into the groundwater and surface water is stuff that's already found in the dirt: potassium, nitrogen, phosphorous, and minor amounts of a few other common micronutrients. You could even forego the fertilizer entirely and buy manure and you'd be doing the exact same thing.


So again, the NPR article is great. I read it. It's interesting. But I think if you understand the science behind this - and I'm currently pursuing a biology degree, and one of my major interests has always been plants; I'm currently doing undergraduate research on plants, so hopefully you can trust me on this - you'll see why organic farming is a non-issue when it comes to food supply.

[Vannak]

Hamelia

The rose in spring

Hamelia

Prove this. Due to a point I'm going to make later on, I'm fairly sure you're wrong. In fact, I'm almost absolutely sure that it has a lot more to do with industrialization, widespread medical advances, and the effect of exponential growth that's present in populations of any organism so long as the limits of relevant resources have not been reached.

There was an interesting NPR article on this very thing.

http://www.radiolab.org/story/180132-how-do-you-solve-problem-fritz-haber/

I love NPR, but it and radiolab are not always the most reliable sources. The point here somewhat has to do with what we define as "organic."

First and foremost, it's important to understand how plants work: the vast majority of what a plant needs comes from the air, not from the soil. Carbon (and hydrogen and oxygen) is (are) the primary component(s) of pretty much every part of a plant. This is why it's entirely possible to grow many (water-hearty) plants in jars of water for extended periods of time. Hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen make up the vast majority of a plant, and none of that comes from the soil. Roots in the soil do three major things: it anchors a plant in place, it is conducive to collecting groundwater, and it allows for collection of certain macro- and micronutrients like nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorous (the three major, i.e. macro-, nutrients).

So where does "organic" farming come in? Well, most people who advocate for "organic" farming are opposed to things like pesticides and herbicides. This is entirely understandable: pesticides and herbicides promote natural selection for pesticide and herbicide resistant strains of weeds and insects and have chemical run off that can seriously contaminate groundwater and surface water sources. Some (very few) have been linked with health issues in the people who eat crops that have been sprayed with pest- or herbicides. Genetic engineering to accommodate for pesticides and herbicides also make some people nervous, especially due to the role of bacteria in the genetic engineering process.

So let's say we discount those things, and those things alone: pesticides, herbicides, and genetic engineering. I, personally, think that pesticides, herbicides, and genetic engineering have a limited role to play in crop growth, but for the sake of argument, let's entirely discount them.

Here's the thing: absolutely none of those things are necessary. They don't improve crop yields substantially. In controlled environments, such as in warehouse growing of food (which is becoming increasingly common and has shown huge improvements in crop yield - one warehouse was able to get a 90% increase in lettuce yield simply by optimizing light, water supply, soil chemistry, and plant spacing, which is huge), pesticides and herbicides are irrelevant. You can prevent pests and weeds without ever using chemical sprays. Most genetic engineering is done in order to make plants more conducive to these chemical sprays, making genetic engineering unnecessary as well.

That is why organic farming is entirely capable of producing the exact same yields that we have today, and that is why food shortage is not the result of reduced crop yields.

Some people argue that using store-bought soil or fertilizer is technically not organic, but for the most part, that's bullshit. Store-bought soil is literally just the exact stuff you'll find in the dirt outside your door, but with more of the macronutrients that you can find in the soil. It has absolutely no harmful effect on anything, and it's entirely natural. Fertilizer is the same thing: all you're doing is speeding up what nature already does. Nature naturally moves about organic matter and decomposes it over time, returning macro and micronutrients to the soil. Fertilizer is simply taking those macro- and micro-nutrients and spraying them over the soil in order to make it viable for future crops. Chemical run off isn't an issue if fertilizer is properly used, because the only thing that would get into the groundwater and surface water is stuff that's already found in the dirt: potassium, nitrogen, phosphorous, and minor amounts of a few other common micronutrients. You could even forego the fertilizer entirely and buy manure and you'd be doing the exact same thing.


So again, the NPR article is great. I read it. It's interesting. But I think if you understand the science behind this - and I'm currently pursuing a biology degree, and one of my major interests has always been plants; I'm currently doing undergraduate research on plants, so hopefully you can trust me on this - you'll see why organic farming is a non-issue when it comes to food supply.

You're making a huge mistake a lot of hippie libs tend to make, in that you're thinking about the food it's possible to produce given land and weather resources and such, but you're ignoring the fact that we don't do based on what's possible, we do based on what's profitable. Sure, a farmer can grow the exact same amount of food, but will have to sell it at a higher price to continue to do so. So while genetic engineering isn't going to make more plants per square foot pop up, pest control is a necessary step, and not all options are equal in cost, even if they can be in effectiveness. The point isn't that we don't have enough food, the point is that we currently can make it cheaply enough to allow for a system of distribution that doesn't rely of fickle human altruism. Giving food away is nice, but if another country relied on us to feed them in 2006, by 2010 they'd have starved.

Also, most fertalizer is haber processed, and run off can cause algal blooms which can really ******** up lake pond and shore life.

[Hamelia]

Vannak

Hamelia

The rose in spring

Hamelia

Prove this. Due to a point I'm going to make later on, I'm fairly sure you're wrong. In fact, I'm almost absolutely sure that it has a lot more to do with industrialization, widespread medical advances, and the effect of exponential growth that's present in populations of any organism so long as the limits of relevant resources have not been reached.

There was an interesting NPR article on this very thing.

http://www.radiolab.org/story/180132-how-do-you-solve-problem-fritz-haber/

I love NPR, but it and radiolab are not always the most reliable sources. The point here somewhat has to do with what we define as "organic."

First and foremost, it's important to understand how plants work: the vast majority of what a plant needs comes from the air, not from the soil. Carbon (and hydrogen and oxygen) is (are) the primary component(s) of pretty much every part of a plant. This is why it's entirely possible to grow many (water-hearty) plants in jars of water for extended periods of time. Hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen make up the vast majority of a plant, and none of that comes from the soil. Roots in the soil do three major things: it anchors a plant in place, it is conducive to collecting groundwater, and it allows for collection of certain macro- and micronutrients like nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorous (the three major, i.e. macro-, nutrients).

So where does "organic" farming come in? Well, most people who advocate for "organic" farming are opposed to things like pesticides and herbicides. This is entirely understandable: pesticides and herbicides promote natural selection for pesticide and herbicide resistant strains of weeds and insects and have chemical run off that can seriously contaminate groundwater and surface water sources. Some (very few) have been linked with health issues in the people who eat crops that have been sprayed with pest- or herbicides. Genetic engineering to accommodate for pesticides and herbicides also make some people nervous, especially due to the role of bacteria in the genetic engineering process.

So let's say we discount those things, and those things alone: pesticides, herbicides, and genetic engineering. I, personally, think that pesticides, herbicides, and genetic engineering have a limited role to play in crop growth, but for the sake of argument, let's entirely discount them.

Here's the thing: absolutely none of those things are necessary. They don't improve crop yields substantially. In controlled environments, such as in warehouse growing of food (which is becoming increasingly common and has shown huge improvements in crop yield - one warehouse was able to get a 90% increase in lettuce yield simply by optimizing light, water supply, soil chemistry, and plant spacing, which is huge), pesticides and herbicides are irrelevant. You can prevent pests and weeds without ever using chemical sprays. Most genetic engineering is done in order to make plants more conducive to these chemical sprays, making genetic engineering unnecessary as well.

That is why organic farming is entirely capable of producing the exact same yields that we have today, and that is why food shortage is not the result of reduced crop yields.

Some people argue that using store-bought soil or fertilizer is technically not organic, but for the most part, that's bullshit. Store-bought soil is literally just the exact stuff you'll find in the dirt outside your door, but with more of the macronutrients that you can find in the soil. It has absolutely no harmful effect on anything, and it's entirely natural. Fertilizer is the same thing: all you're doing is speeding up what nature already does. Nature naturally moves about organic matter and decomposes it over time, returning macro and micronutrients to the soil. Fertilizer is simply taking those macro- and micro-nutrients and spraying them over the soil in order to make it viable for future crops. Chemical run off isn't an issue if fertilizer is properly used, because the only thing that would get into the groundwater and surface water is stuff that's already found in the dirt: potassium, nitrogen, phosphorous, and minor amounts of a few other common micronutrients. You could even forego the fertilizer entirely and buy manure and you'd be doing the exact same thing.


So again, the NPR article is great. I read it. It's interesting. But I think if you understand the science behind this - and I'm currently pursuing a biology degree, and one of my major interests has always been plants; I'm currently doing undergraduate research on plants, so hopefully you can trust me on this - you'll see why organic farming is a non-issue when it comes to food supply.

You're making a huge mistake a lot of hippie libs tend to make, in that you're thinking about the food it's possible to produce given land and weather resources and such, but you're ignoring the fact that we don't do based on what's possible, we do based on what's profitable.

First and foremost, I'm not a hippie liberal, and I'm not making that mistake. I'm educated on the topic, and I'm sharing my education in the thread. Keep in mind that I've said repeatedly that I am not advocating for purely organic farming. Again, I'm not a hippie liberal. I know that we overuse pesticides and herbicides, but I also know that herbicides and pesticides have a valuable but limited role to play in farming. Similarly, I'm a huge advocate of genetic engineering - genetic engineering is part of why I'm focusing on cell and molecular biology in my degree. But I believe that it has been abused in certain cases in the farming industry - while in other cases it has proven hugely beneficial.

I will systematically explain why I believe it to be more profitable to limit pesticide and herbicide usage - in fact, I'll even explain it from the standpoint of not using pesticides and herbicides at all, period.

Quote:

Sure, a farmer can grow the exact same amount of food, but will have to sell it at a higher price to continue to do so.

I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. As I explained in the post you quoted, warehouse farming is growing increasingly popular. Higher yields than in field grown crops are possible in warehouse farming. Significantly less space is used. In many cases, you have a much reduced role of herbicides and pesticides. In one case, a warehouse farm was able to increase productivity over a conventional farm 100-fold, cut water usage by 90%, cut discarded produce down from 50% to 10%, and grow 2.5 times faster than a conventional farm.

Do the math. The only thing that is more expensive here is the lighting. But to make up for it, you have vastly larger yields, huge savings on water, massively decreased waste, and significantly less space being used. Those are all massive savings. Economically, it's a gold mine. Keep in mind that if we cut out pesticides and herbicides, the only thing factoring into price for farmers is the cost of growing. In this case, growing costs are significantly reduced. With much higher yields, you have significantly more supply on the market, driving costs down for consumers.

Quote:

So while genetic engineering isn't going to make more plants per square foot pop up, pest control is a necessary step, and not all options are equal in cost, even if they can be in effectiveness.

Here's the thing: pest control to the extent it is used today is entirely unnecessary. For the vast majority of human history, we have not used pesticides and herbicides. But even for the vast majority of the time that we've had pesticides and herbicides, they have not been used across entire crops. They were used as careful spot treatments, rather than sprayed across an entire crop. This was effective.

Farmers only started spraying entire crops with pesticides and herbicides once genetic engineering produced pesticide and herbicide resistant crops, and the people selling the crops told farmers to spray their entire crops with the pesticide and herbicide even though it wasn't necessary. So now farmers are spending more money, unnecessarily, on pesticide and herbicide than they were before. It wasn't necessary. For farmers, the organic option would actually have been cheaper.

However, keep this in mind: organic farming does not have to occur in fields anymore. As I said, warehouse growing is a growing field, and it's because in almost every case, warehouse growing is more cost effective, has higher yields, and is, frankly, easier than growing on farm land. In a warehouse, herbicide is entirely unnecessary. Pesticide may be used, but in many or even all cases could be entirely foregone. I already explained the economics of this above.

Quote:

The point isn't that we don't have enough food, the point is that we currently can make it cheaply enough to allow for a system of distribution that doesn't rely of fickle human altruism. Giving food away is nice, but if another country relied on us to feed them in 2006, by 2010 they'd have starved.

Did I suggest at any point that we should be giving food away? I actually think the aid efforts that we conduct now in many third world countries are counter productive, actually. In my first post, I specifically outlined how us giving away food to third world countries has harmed those countries.

Food shortages are not a result of lack of food in the world. We have more than enough food in the United States grown each year to feed the entire world a couple times over. There is not a lack of food in the world. The problem in third world countries is that there's no economic power to bring that food to the countries, and there's no economic power within the country to start farms and begin agricultural industrialization. When we bring food to those countries and give it away, it actually destroys local agricultural industries: local farmer's markets can't compete with free food given away by international organizations, so growing local markets go out of business, thereby deepening the poverty that those countries are experiencing. Us providing food to third world countries actually hurts them.

I specifically advocate against giving food away. So I'm not sure what argument you were trying to make here.

Quote:

Also, most fertalizer is haber processed, and run off can cause algal blooms which can really ******** up lake pond and shore life.

Indeed it can, but that is a lot more controllable than pesticide and herbicide run off, which can leech into ground water. And again, there are perfectly viable and safe fertilizer alternatives that minimize or entirely eliminate this risk.





Once again, I do not advocate for eliminating pesticide and herbicide usage entirely. I think that it has a valuable, limited role to play. I'm entirely for genetic engineering. I, however, was explaining how organic farming is entirely capable of providing food for all 7 billion people on this planet, and I was explaining why pesticide and herbicide usage can and should be safely reduced, and done so in an economic fashion.

I'm not some hippie liberal trying to get you to throw away pesticides and herbicides and science and give away all of your crops. I'm an educated person, who understands the economics and the science involved, and I personally advocate for a rational approach guided by proper science and proper economic incentive.

The nice thing is, what I suggest is already happening. Warehouse growing is a growing field. Hands down, warehouse growing is more effective, more profitable, and cheaper for consumers and growers alike. It will outcompete conventional methods on an economic level. It's just a matter of whether we make that transition smoothly or not.

[Avgvsto]

No. There isn't much production costs, mostly human labor. The pesticides are mostly used for killing weeds, diseases and all that are generally negated through rotation and breeding practices. Most pro farmers don't use organic farming because you have to pick weeds by hand adding labor costs to their product. Another thing to note, farming is currently so efficient that a majority of the world's tomatoes comes from about one region of California, I know most of this stuff cause i was just at a tomato farm.

To clarify, I could, though I won't due to my own privacy concerns, post on here crop yields of my farmer friend and his brother's farm which are respectively nonorganic and organic farming that would showcase very similar yields.

[Kimberly Breaks Legs]

Solution to all problems: lots of gasoline, lots of matches