Neoliberalism, technology, and agriculture


#1

@andy_hilmer

Fracking and DDT? Whatever.

Those two technologies cut to the heart of the kinds of tradeoffs we need to discuss intelligently to make any progress on environmental issues, so you have nothing to say about them. This is a really spectacular performance on your part. I have tried at every turn to get you involved in a good faith discussion about the issues at hand when you have only been misrepresenting and lying about my comments at every turn.

The fact that the only technology you bring up is no-till means that your “most” really does mean “all”, especially since you don’t talk about what you mean by no-till.

How does that even remotely follow? You’re really straining here. I gave one example to highlight a particular point – a very common rhetorical strategy. I did not bother trying to present an exhaustive list of such technologies because – as I already mentioned – there are thousands or possibly millions of such technologies. Also, I linked the wikipedia article on no-till, which explained what it is in great detail. Covering the same ground in the comment would only contribute to the “wall of text”.

But this is just bullshit, because a few sentences later you criticize me for making “walls of text”. Do you want an exhaustive discussion of literally thousands of topics, or do you want me to avoid making walls to text?

Given your predilection to ignore innovation, might I suggest the humble condom as a reduction of inputs? No doubt you would see it as too people-centric.

Not at all, the humble condom is a great example of a technology that does not require a huge supply chain or toxic chemicals to produce a huge impact on human well-being and quality of life. Why do you assume I’m against it?

And why do you continue to baselessly accuse me of hating humans? You have literally no reason to make that accusation.

As far as bullying goes… I consider the worse form to be putting up walls of text that suggest that humanity is useless, and suggesting nothing credible to improve things,

That is not even a remotely fair characterization of anything I said in this thread, hence the accusation of “bullying” in the first place. Why do you think it’s reasonable to make false accusations and put words in my mouth? Do you think doing so is going to convince me you’re in the right? On the contrary, it suggests to me that you have an ulterior motive and that you’re trying to shout me down instead of having an informed and fair discussion in good faith.

As I pointed out above, you criticize me for making “walls of text” and for not giving enough examples of what I would consider technologies whose benefits outweigh their costs. This is a contradiction.

As far as suggestions to improve things…the point of my comment was to criticize the OP, not solve all of humanity’s problems in one fell swoop. For that matter, the OP didn’t make any suggestions to improve things, and neither do any of your comments here. This, like all of your other suggestions, is completely specious.

and denying that the original poster has any point at all… and being so disappointed in the boingboing.

I did not express disappointment in boingboing. Why would you even say this when it is rather clear that I didn’t do so at any point in this thread? I’m seriously curious – why do you make shit up about what I’m saying or thinking in every response you make to me here? If you don’t feel like any of what I write is worth thinking about, why not just ignore it rather than make up lies about it?

Also, I did not deny the original poster has any point at all. I argued that: 1) Cory’s discussion of agricultural technologies is too unsophisticated to even begin grappling with the problems involved, and that his dismissal of technologies associated with organic farming and permaculture is therefore unjustified, and 2) that Cory is using the words “science”, “scientific”, and “unscientific” in inaccurate and propagandistic ways. That you would conflate disagreement with dismissal is ironic, since you have been claiming to disagree with my points while actually dismissing them instead.


#2

Hey Andy, I really enjoy seeing your powers of withering scorn blasting forth upon the Scum, but it’s not such a great look when you take aim at your fellow humans, mate…


#3

I’m not reading that wall of garbage. I “pffed” ddt and fracking because it wasn’t relevent and you were obviously fishing for… whatever the fuck temporarily embarrassed douch-

I kid. I’m tired of calling out your voluminous unreadable screeds. I’m not taking it personally any more. Still, I’m not reading that wall of… whatever.

So. DDT was a government contract gone wrong into marketing bullshit-land. It was a harbinger, one of many, of the military-industrial-lawmaking-complex disasters of the Cold War and beyond. Assuming that it actually was a global avian near-extinction. Which you may or may not want to argue about.

Fracking is nothing close to economically necessary (if that is ever a real thing when it comes to a single sector of a single industry), and the spoiling of water is pretty undemocratic, especoally given that there are untold deposits (of both oil and unpotable water) offshore, renewables are competitive even with the massive imbalances in the market for petroleum and gas, and as you’ve mentioned, it isn’t sustainable. Like DDT, it’s a jobs program for industry lobbyists and other useless people on the teat of the tech IP-holders. Drilling and mining technology is even worse for that than software. Though not as much as the all-shittiest energy sector embodied by GE.


#4

Also, no love for condoms? If you don’t care to respond to that, why do you stalk me so?


#5


#6

Sea lion vs. sea lion.


#7