Is the world being destroyed?

I have no problem defending modern life and modern technology.

150 years ago, millions of human beings died of famine because there wasn't enough food. At this time, people expected to live to an age of 40 or 50 years (old age was a rare exception). And and at this time the infant mortality rate was about 20%, most families lost at least one child.

Now I expect to live to at least my mid eighties. The loss of a child is unknown to me and is considered rare . And, it is rare for people to die of starvation even in the poorest countries (except in cases of war).

I think modern life is pretty good. Sure, we have prpblems... but our problems are fewer and our lives are better than at any time in history.

Do you really want to go back?

Yes I worry about the bees... and we should figure out how to solve this issue.

But to give up modern artificial fertilizer and pesticide at the cost of tens of millions of human lives isn't something I think is reasonable.

I don't consider liking to live healthy and to save the nature being "to go back".

Modern life and modern technology is not a contradiction to take care of the environment and the well-being of the animals, for example.

We need the bees to be able to enjoy many foods like cucumbers, cherries, apples, limes, lemons ... ....
All these food crops would not be there if bees disappeared. And then "tens of millions of human lives" ...

And organic alternatives to artificial fertilisers and pesticides work very well.
Organic farming largely dispenses with synthetically produced agricultural chemicals, such as pesticides like Glyphosate. Organic farmers do not use mineral fertilisers, but manure, compost or ploughed biomass. (The only exceptions are certain rock meals and lime.)

Organic farming has a positive effect on biodiversity: the mean number of species of arable flora is increased by 95 percent, that of field birds by 35 percent and of flower-visiting insects by 23 percent.

But above all: organic farming means that fewer fertilisers and pesticides end up in the groundwater and thus also in the drinking water - and ultimately in our bodies.

I don't think you do. The fact that you refer to them as "political feelings" instead of just an opinion or something that bothers me demonstrates that you've already relegated my statement to an expression of "leftist ideology". Can you understand that someone may simply look at the effect of corporate policies and conclude that the pursuit of profit has led to farming practices which are destructive to the environment and lock farmers into dependence on these corporations? Monsanto may do some good things — the problem I have with them is not that they are a "big corporation" but that some of their policies are not well thought out and are designed to deliver dividends to shareholders as opposed to making food production more sustainable.


It points to the problem of conjuring up "ifs" that don't actually exist, i.e. "But if they have a product that factually benefitied humans and the environment, would you be able to accept the facts?" Get it?

Four years ago you were just as ignorant:



And I doubt that you ever will.

I would like to keep the bees. We need to keep modern agriculture. If we are thoughtful about it, we can do both.

You are simply wrong that there are viable organic alternatives to artificial pesticides and fertilizers. Any solution needs to be sustainable on a global scale. Organic farms produce less food, use more water, and ate more susceptible to problems that lead to lost crops.

Read about the nitrogen cycle. Providing a reliable food supply to the world without artificial fertilizer is scientifically impossible.

Organic farming is not sustainable on a global scale of your goal is to avoid large scale starvation. That is just reality.

Neither is the continued growth of the human population in a closed system facing existential threats from climate change.

Agricultural practices need to change to meet the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. And methods to do it are taught.

But I just rely on what is published, I'm no agricultural scientist.

That is a different issue. I would like to limit human population growth by limiting birth rates in a responsible way (and we are actually doing this world wide)

Causing mass starvation doesnt seem like a responsible way to address concerns about overpopulation. But that is just my opinion.

I skimmed over these. I don't see anything I disagree with.

They say that we need to use chemicals responsibly and understand their effects on the environment.

They didn't say we should restrict the use of artificial pesticides and fertilizers.

Without artificial fertilizer, hundreds of millions of people would die of starvation.

This is a simple scientific fact. The global food supply requires far more Nitrogen than can be supplied by natural sources. We rely on artificial fertilizer to meet this need. This has been true for 100 years.

Does everyone accept this basic fact?

Yes, it is also a fact that artificial fertilizers have a negative impact on natural systems. One fact doesn't negate the other.

You’re talking to a fanatic who puts profits over planet.

He constantly ridicules and belittles environmentalists.

It’s what the far right does, overly patronising, insulting and attempting to label all criticism as extreme.

Some people can’t be reasoned with.

If that is a " simple scientific fact" - why is it taught at agricultural faculties differently? (I admit: I only looked it up at German universities' and universities of applied science's faculties/department websites.)

Could you provide a link?

There are hundreds that back up the fact that we rely on nitrogen based fertilizer.

https://ourworldindata.org/fertilizers

I didn't study agricultural science but just looked through the manuals for BA MA courses.

But via some research institutes' websites I've learnt that there quite a few universities (e.g. in Nigeria, South Korea, Peru) teaching "organic crop cultivation in the developing world". (by now, we've got here in Germany a couple of specialised an-institutes for organic agriculture at universities.

The agricultural department of the university of applied sciences in my district town is currently running a project aimed at minimising the use of insecticides and how to better integrate organic pest management into farm operations.

That doesn't change the fact that nitrogen (and phosphorous) have a particularly devastating effect on soil fertility and waterbody quality.
There are new EU regulations to boost the use of organic and waste-based fertilisers, but unfortunately, our conservative agriculture minister doesn't want to transpose them into national law.

You are making an "either/or" argument where in reality more than one point can be true.

1. Reudicing the use of insectcides doesn't mean prohitibing the use of insecticides. Obviously reducing the use of insecticides is a good thing as long as it doesn't reduce crop yields. It is a balance

2. I know about the importance of synthetic Nitrogren-based fertilizers because of my background in Physics and my stint teaching Earth Science in high school. The science of liberating Nitrogen for use of nitrogen is interesting in itself. There is no question that the development of synthetic fertilizers greatly reduced the amount of starvation in the world.

The "Haber" cycle is an intersting story in itself. Haber was German scientist who pushed the use of chemical weapons in WWI. There are some truly horrific stories about him including some quotes that no modern person would find palatable.

However, the Haber Cycle he developed was a revolution in agriculture and with out question has saved hundreds of millions of people from starvation. He understood this and wanted to be seen as helping to save the world by ending starvation.

It is a difficult historical figure. A man who killed and saved. But life is complicated, and that is how reality works.

1) Nitrogen based synthetic fertilizer is essential. There is no replacement that can be used on a global scale and without it hundreds of millions of people would die of starvation..

2) Nitrogen based syntetic fertilizer damages the environment and has caused drastic changes to local environments.

They are both true. You are going to have to make the value judgement yourself. But to deny facts that don't fit your narrative isn't reasonable,

We cross-posted. They are both true. Reality is like that.

There are several ways I think EU regulations are silly, EU scientists disagree with EU political regulations in several instances (GM foods and 5G, for example). I don't have much respect for the political weirdness in the EU. That is an issue for another thread.

Well, the "EU scientists" (actually it's the European Commission's knowledge and science service, the Joint Research Centre (JRC), a Directorate General, "plays a central role in creating, managing and making sense of collective scientific knowledge for better EU policies".

Might be that this directorate disagrees with the regulations.

GM food is regulated by national law (Member States may invoke a safeguard clause to temporarily restrict or prohibit use and/or sale of a GMO crop within their territory.)
5G has been funded by the EU since 2013 - here, too, it is up to the member states to decide how to push ahead with the expansion.