Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The one big flaw with that interview is that it doesn't compare organic farming with western agriculture in terms of long-term viability. Yes, the carrying capacity of the Earth is only 4 billion with organic farming. But I don't know that mechanized farming can do much better over the long haul.

If we look at the third world, organic agricultural techniques actually do much better than mechanized production methods, even when measured in yields alone. The reason for this is that not everyone has forty feet of topsoil, like we do in Kansas. In a lot of places, the soil is marginal, and simply cannot hold up to intensive agriculture for more than couple of years. Mechanized agriculture on land like that is disastrous and leads to crop failure and famine within a decade (for example, Ethiopia). The only way to make these lands agriculturally viable is with organic farming techniques. [1]

That said, I do agree with the point you're trying to make, even if I disagree with the specific example. We should support or oppose things not because it is fashionable to support or oppose them, but because of reasons that we've worked out for ourselves.

[1] Scott. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Measures to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. Yale University Press. 1999. Print.

EDIT: fixed typo



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: