Post 9qX3Lu8MLzz7LyPgmW by jankoekepan@mastodon.social
 (DIR) More posts by jankoekepan@mastodon.social
 (DIR) Post #9qX0FxeS3xI0fAtm1w by dee@pleroma.site
       2019-12-31T17:50:06.676523Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @jankoekepan https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/12/weve-just-had-the-best-decade-in-human-history-seriously/I would love to know your thoughts on the agriculture section
       
 (DIR) Post #9qX3Jm8p6BvJzBcCB6 by jankoekepan@mastodon.social
       2019-12-31T18:02:59Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @dee It's a slightly confused message.  He acknowledges that agriculture is more productive per acre in the last half-century, to the point of reducing net land use worldwide, but doesn't consider the reasons.  He also has a way of confusing the difference between ongoing expenses and sunk expenses.  He handwaves by reference to the Simon award, but doesn't acknowledge that that doesn't mean that, for example, fuel supplies aren't infinite.(contd.)
       
 (DIR) Post #9qX3LtbkJFtfip9dwm by jankoekepan@mastodon.social
       2019-12-31T18:05:43Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @dee He comes heartbreakingly close to some important truths when recognising that you're trading one thing off for another, for example in accepting that (per yield - the unspoken element) organic farming is less efficient use of land than conventional.He's not reflecting on the fact that we had a lucky break with the gas boom which reduced fuel prices temporarily, but that they're creeping back up.  (contd)
       
 (DIR) Post #9qX3LttTFM4ibnRnZg by jankoekepan@mastodon.social
       2019-12-31T18:08:49Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @dee In summary, he's right that we've done better than before, but only because of pressures that pushed us that way.Analogy:  after WWI in the UK, agriculture mechanised very quickly.  Why?  Because the dole paid more than swinging a mattock in the fields, so farmers had to mechanise, or go out of business.  An optimist could have cheered that fewer people were pinned to the backbreaking labour of agriculture - correctly - while not acknowledging the cost in fuel and pollution.  (contd)
       
 (DIR) Post #9qX3Lu8MLzz7LyPgmW by jankoekepan@mastodon.social
       2019-12-31T18:12:59Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @dee Better questions could have been: how long can we run on fossil fuels?  Can fusion power supplant fossil fuels for our purposes, assuming it happens?  What if the Green Revolution comes to an end because of resources drying up?  How much land would we need then?  What do net reserves look like, and what are prices likely to look like when we draw them down?(contd)
       
 (DIR) Post #9qX3LuPNKjb0CkNHIu by jankoekepan@mastodon.social
       2019-12-31T18:15:36Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @dee As I've pointed out before, nobody cares if you have an infinite supply of oil based on faerie farts and goblin dreams for $1million/bbl, because at that price it might as well be on the moon.Now consider the same with, say, phosphate mine output.  Now consider farming without the P in NPK.With that in mind, take a fresh look at the acreage yield rates.  Fusion will solve some problems - but not all of them.  Not forever.  That said, by the numbers it hasn't been a bad decade.