Is the world being destroyed?

I probably agree with you about US corn subsidies. I don't think it is significant on the scale of global food policy. The stated purpose of farm subsidies is to keep farming and food production in the US. It is a complicated subject... but I know that small farms in the US use subsidies. You are talking about "factory farms"... I suspect the line between family farms and factory farms is blurry. Even "factory" farms provide national food security as well as jobs for the American who work there.

My point is on the global scale, we need to be able to produce lots of food at a low cost. The alternative is that poor people will starve.

Assuming that "factory farms" (we have to define this term; every farm meets the definition of "factory") reduce global warming gasses by producing the food the world needs using less land, and fewer resources...

would you support it? Or do you oppose it on principle?

A crackpot is a person who starts with a political or religious ideology. Then they assemble all the facts they can find to prove their ideology true. Every conspiracy theory lists of the facts that "prove" that the moon landings were fake, or that the world is flat, or that the government is running a pedophilia ring. When someone starts ranting about "facts", it should raise an alarm bell.

The question should be; What data or evidence would prove my belief wrong? If you can't answer that question, then you aren't thinking critically.

On scientific and economic questions, I have to rely on experts. I simply don't have time to gain expertise on every subject (even in science where I do have some real expertise). You will note that I rely on the reputable institutions of science (and economics, and health etc.). If they disagree with me on something I believe, I change my mind. That is one way to answer the question.

Chris Crugston has a rather extreme ideology. He has no expertise, no peer review. From what I have read, his ideas run into logical problems pretty quickly. And yet he is pushing these ideas and gaining disciples... that is why I call him a crackpot.

You telling me he has "facts" doesn't impress me. QAnon has facts. Any crackpot has "facts".

Ah - Some have alternate facts. Not mentioning any names.

For scientific facts, I accept the scientific community. If the reputable scientific organizations all say something, I accept it whether it fits my ideological beliefs or not. Many on the right reject the scientific community on climate change. Many on the left reject the scientific community on genetically modified foods.

I just accept the science. I wish everyone would do that. Facts are objective.

That's no different than "assuming" that organic agriculture will reduce global warming gasses by producing the food the world needs using less land and fewer resources...or "assuming" that some as yet undiscovered mechanism will perform a similar function.

This is what I know of the claim that "industrial agriculture" (I know you'll complain about this term, but most people who are familiar with the subject have a good idea what it means): If the land which is no longer being farmed is either reforested or planted with specific plants which will capture CO2, and soil micro-biology is restored, the amount of greenhouse gases being released from agricultural activity will decline globally. So sure, if these farms are run sustainably and a commitment is made to create new green spaces in unused farmland I wouldn't be opposed.

But this doesn't really solve the problems associated with changing weather patterns, the depletion of aquifers, the irresponsible use of non-selective pesticides, etc.

Material facts can be disproved. That you haven't done so with regard to the issues Clugston and the Finnish study raise indicates that your dismissive attitude is simply a reflection of your "ideological narrative©" and nothing more.

If "industrial agriculture" produces more food with fewer resources, then it DOES address the problems with changing weather patterns. We need to reduce atmospheric carbon. This is one way to do it.

The rest of your parade of doom can be addressed with regulation, as it should be (and often is).

No they can't. There is no way to disprove QAnon or Clugston. How do you disporove the "fact" that Hillary runs a pedophilia ring. They just keep repeating it and bringing up more facts from Pizza Restaurants and Finnish Geological Surveys.

I don't even try any more.

Crackpots on the Internet can literally say anything, and some of them drum up enough attention to get book deals. That doesn't make them experts.

Yes, it has been widely reported (even in US media).
Additionally, there are numerous scientific reports about that.

Yes. I accept that. That is a bigger effect than I thought.

1. I have never heard anyone ever make this particular assertion.
2. Maybe your assertion is true or maybe not.
3. Can you provide any evidence that supports this assertion you are making?



1. Why do you say that people in Europe have the luxury of wanting organic food?
2. Take note that I put emphasis on your use of the word "wanting."
3. I want organic foods.
4. I also believe that people all over the globe want organic food.



1. I don't know if organic food is globally sustainable.
2. Maybe it is. Maybe it it isn't.
3. Maybe it can be done. Maybe it can't.
4. It appears that you are saying that sustainable organic food is not an issue in Europe.
5. If this is true, do you think that other nations and continents could possibly learn from Europe and have similar results?


1. Noted.
2. Nor do I.
3. First thing is to acknowledge that neither you or I know much about food economics in Europe.
4. Wouldn't it be wise to at least learn more about food economics in Europe before making what could be false assertions?

Huh?

1) Organic food is significantly more expensive than conventional food.
2) European countries have very high incomes and standards of living compared to most parts of the world (i.e. Africa, Asia, South and Central America, etc.)

Do you really have a problem with either of these facts?

I just checked. The top 8 consumers of organic foods on the planet are all in Europe (in Euros spent per capital). Numbers 9 and 10 are the US and Candada. Organic food is primarily a rich White person thing (just go to your local Whole Foods if you don't believe this).

The two aren't remotely comparable. You obviously haven't read Clugston's book, which I have sitting next to me on my desk. Nearly every page cites respected economists and prominent historians, the book is filled with charts and graphs all of which are sourced. If he lists the levels of bauxite production at any given time, that is a claim that can be verified or disproved. If he distinguishes between an anthropocentric perspective and an ecological perspective with regard to, say, the agrarian revolution a reader can decide for himself whether or not the distinction makes sense. Maybe he makes a claim that you personally disagree with, like this:

Okay, so you reject that because it doesn't conform to your "ideological narrative©", but you'll have to take it up with the World Health Organization as they compiled the data. Q-Anon makes claims which are unverifiable. Clugston's book uses economic and historical data that, if false, can be easily disproven. You're not making your case any stronger by labeling him a "crackpot".

Does anyone here think that subsistence farming is a good idea? It is not.

For the first time in human history we have eliminated widespread starvation across the globe. Throughout human history there have always been famines and mass starvation... until now.

We have done this through economy of scale, and technology.

When we had small farms without trade, the food supply was seasonal. When there was a disruption like famine or disease, a lot of people died of starvation.

If anyone thinks that we should go back to that point, they are crazy.

The 9/11 truthers list tons of facts about the burning point of jet fuel, to civil engineering tables on steel tensile strengths. They have at least as many "charts and graphs, all of which are sourced" as Clugston.

Notice how Clugston looks at the increase of commodity prices from 2000-2008 to make his point about prices. But he looks at the death rate from 2007-2011. Did you notice that little trick Hightor? He is selecting little 4 or 8 year graphs that he claims prove his point. Clugston is a huxster.

Clugston is just another conspiracy theorist.

Certainly true fro many of the 47 European countries, but also untrue for quite a few others.

1. Are you or are you not implying that Europe is generally more wealthier than the United States?


1. Are you or are you not implying that European have the luxury of wanting organic foods because Europe is generally wealthy?
2. If that is what you are implying, then wouldn't the United States have the luxury of wanting organic food because the United States is generally wealthy?


1. Are you implying that the reason sustainable organic food isn't an issue in Europe is because Europe is generally wealthy?
2. If that is what you are implying, then do you also think that sustainable organic food should not be an issue for that same reason in the United States?
3. I don't know if organic food is globally sustainable.
4. Maybe it is. Maybe it it isn't.
5. Maybe it can be done. Maybe it can't.
6. It appears that you are saying that sustainable organic food is not an issue in Europe.
7. If this is true, do you think that the United States could possibly learn from Europe and have similar positive results?


1. Noted.
2. Nor do I.
3. First thing is to acknowledge that neither you or I know much about food economics in Europe.

There are enough social, environmental and economic benefits
local food systems, and consumers in Europe want sustainable regional food.

So not only farm shops are booming, but even small towns now have their (bi-) weekly market back. And even the grocery department in the big and small supermarkets offer local, regional seasonal stuff.

La Ruche qui dit Oui, founded 2010 in France, is an e-commerce platform where users group themselves to buy directly from their local farmers.
The company organises a network through which exclusively regional food is offered. The business model is based on a combination of online shop and farmers' market. Products are ordered and paid for in advance via the platform. The purchase is received, for example, once a week at the respective pick-up point.

The distance between the producer and the distribution point is determined by the participants, and is on average 27.3 km. Sales take place on a weekly basis. Once a week, members order food from the region via the website. After the sale closes, local distribution takes place two days later. Producers or hosts are then on site in person for 2 hours, so that in addition to the sale, personal contact can be established between members and producers.

In 2014, the concept was transferred to the UK, where the company operates as "Food Assembly". This was followed by Spain, Italy, Belgium and Germany. In Germany, the company Equanum GmbH is responsible for the website. The first Marktschwärmerei in Switzerland opened in December 2016 in the Markthalle Basel. In total, there were over 1200 local distribution points in Europe in 2016, 800 of which were in France alone.

You obviously haven't read the book. I did happen to notice your little trick. You select two graphs which have nothing to do with each other and claim they prove your point. You're a huckster.



Where's the "conspiracy"?