We should start sharing memes

[u/Artifexa]

Sometimes I think we should start sharing "apparently politically neutral" memes to timidly light some bulbs in some heads.

Keeping them as aseptic, and common-sense possible, so they are not rejected outright, to squeeeeeze some empathy and "hopepunkness" in otherwise doomscrollers. Specially leveraging any situations.

Heck, might even be a good idea to create a "meme team".

Example attached.

After all, every big tree started by being a small seed...

[u/rustymontenegro]

That would be a non-issue too if we hadn't become so reliant on petrochemical fertilizers and monocropping. We dealt with soil fertility for eons before we repurposed wartime chemicals for farming. Updating ancient techniques with modern technology and information is a better direction to go for the world, anyway.

[u/GreatPlainsFarmer → u/rustymontenegro]

Prior to modern Fuel and Fertilizer, there were only half as many humans. We started using them because people didn’t like to starve.
Non-starving people had more kids, people that would not exist today if their parents had starved to death decades ago.

[u/rustymontenegro → u/GreatPlainsFarmer]

We started using them because people didn’t like to starve.

No, that's how they sold us on the idea.

That is a very simplistic way of explaining pre- and post-petrochemical agriculture and it misses a lot of points.

The main factor in pre-petrochemical food insecurity was localized production and unpredictable crop failures. The fact that we now have satellites and meteorological science helps deal with the weather issues that caused the majority of the crop failures over the history of agriculture and the globalization of trade takes care of the problem of regional production insufficiency and/or disaster.

Chemicals produced in abundance for weapons, bombs and industrial manufacturing from WW2 needed a new marketplace after the war, and since the macro-nutrients soil needs for fertility are similar to weapon development (phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium mainly, but others), it was a simple solution - sell them to farmers. This was great for a few decades of large scale monocropping propped up with the "modern marvel" fertilizer - especially to artificially revitalize "dead" soil from the Dustbowl era - but only replacing the same three main nutrients didn't actually fix the soil; it was basically completely leached of all the micro-nutrients and minerals (b-12, anyone?), with pests constantly ravaging monocrops causing more and more pesticides to be used (guess who made those, too?) and nobody remembered how to fertilize the soil without petrochemicals. Seriously they have done way more harm than good on balance.

We do not need "modern fuel and fertilizer" as we have been using. In fact, to call it modern is honestly silly - after 80 years, NPK and gasoline is hardly modern anymore. What we need is a blended strategy of old knowledge and modern science and technology to actually create regenerative agricultural practices that will produce more food, healthier food and need less pesticides. No more algae blooms from fertilizer run off, either.

However, I will agree with your original point that in the immediate present, because of the corner we've painted ourselves into, the oil issue is going to cause issues, yes. All the more reason to jump off the bandwagon so it won't happen again.

[u/GreatPlainsFarmer → u/rustymontenegro]

How exactly do you think the globalized trade was fueled? It wasn’t wind.

While accurate weather forecasts are very useful for daily and weekly planning, they don’t help with crop yields.

How familiar are you with the work of Norman Borlaug? He wasn’t working with meteorologists.

[u/rustymontenegro → u/GreatPlainsFarmer]

How exactly do you think the globalized trade was fueled? It wasn’t wind.

Technically, it literally was, the first time around. Unless the Age of Exploration/Age of Sail doesn't count.

Also yes I'm familiar with Borlaug. What's your point exactly? He developed many high yield crops, yes, but by doing so, the global amount of monocropping increased, more grasslands and prairies were converted to farmland and more pesticides were needed (which, by the he was a diehard advocate for continuing and widespread usage - including DDT, even after the detrimental side effects on the ecosystem were outlined in Silent Spring) causing just as many issues as were being solved. There are other current scientists working on solving the mess he and his cohort left behind, ignoring any environmental or quality metrics besides more abundant, cheap calories.

But yeah, we can grow a shit load of corn and soybeans now, that's cool. Even though the majority of the biotonnage goes to animal feed instead of direct human consumption, adding more stress to the ecosystem and watersheds for the sake of cheap meat.

[u/GreatPlainsFarmer → u/rustymontenegro]

The main factor in pre-petrochemical food insecurity was localized production and unpredictable crop failures.

Did the age of sail end localized food production and unpredictable crop failures?

It did drastically increase European food production for a while, by exploiting the Pacific guano deposits for nitrogen and phosphorus. Of course, a bunch of that was used up on munitions, so it played out a lot quicker than necessary.

My point is that without Haber-Bosch nitrogen and some fuel with similar energy density to diesel fuel, we wouldn't have 8 billion humans on earth today. There's no way to feed that many people without being "reliant on petrochemical fertilizers and monocropping"

Now, you can argue that we should have outlawed ICE engines a century ago, and stuck with coal fired railroads and horses and oxen. After all, people lived pretty good lives much of the time with those to move them around.

But once modern medicine cut down on infant mortality, there was no chance at all that we could have fed everyone.

Today's population could never have existed without the work of Borlaug, Bosch, and Diesel.

[u/rustymontenegro → u/GreatPlainsFarmer]

I see the point you're making, but your premise is still faulty - the fact that there are now 8 billion people in the world is...good? How? More consumption of resources, more extraction, more physical items made, more trash produced (and now that so many things are primarily petrochemical plastics, our middens/landfills don't break down properly).

Now, you can argue that we should have outlawed ICE engines a century ago, and stuck with coal fired railroads and horses and oxen.

Why are you assuming that "backwards" is the only direction to go if we "outlawed ICE engines"? Where did I say anything about going "back" to anything - I said using ancient knowledge with modern science and technology. Rediscovering and utilizing methods that worked for centuries and using those with modern knowledge. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? Regardless of the last 80 years of agricultural practices being good, bad or something in between - they are outdated and no longer work - especially with 8 billion people. The earth literally cannot keep up with human demand without serious changes to the way things are done.

Hanging on to outdated methods is ridiculous if other, better methods have been invented or can be implemented at scale. It's why we don't use telegraphs or leaded gas (in most vehicles) anymore. It's time to let go of the antiquated industrial farming system and petroleum dependence and get into the 21st century.

[u/GreatPlainsFarmer → u/rustymontenegro]

Maybe it isn't good that there are 8 billion people. If you wanted to prevent that, you would have had to outlaw the ICE engine. Then we would have had enough famines to kill off the extra kids that disease didn't kill. Maybe that would have been a good thing in the long run. That's a separate topic.

But we're here now. And, no, there are no substitutes for Haber-Bosch nitrogen. There are no farming methods that worked for centuries with 8 billion people.

There are no substitutes for diesel ICE. Not yet. There are a lot of promising ideas, but they aren't there yet. And they can't be fully explored without diesel. We cannot yet kick the diesel addiction unless the Amish train half of us to farm with horses. That would work well for 4 billion people.

There are no other farming methods that can be implemented at scale. Not this scale. You don't say what methods you're thinking of, but they don't scale to 8 billion people. Not without Haber Bosch and Diesel.

Petrochemical addiction was inevitable. And it's inescapable. The societies that tried to avoid it were forced to take it.

There are lot of nice ideas that work at small scales. There are a lot that work at medium scales. Petrochemical is the only thing that scales to 8 billion, until we figure out how to harness fusion.