Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 20:31:33 UTC No. 16273189

Oh yeah, it's finally happening. We will all eat the glyphosate ridden slop prepared using industrial scale farming of gmo crops and a side of crunchy bug proteins. If you resist this, you're a climate change denying Nazi incel chud.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 04:48:45 UTC No. 16273713

>>16273189
let me guess, you consider yourself more knowledgable on this topic than the people publishing in nature even though you've never studied it even at the freshman level and everything you learned about it and presume you know you got from goyslop media, is that an accurate assessment, dr. dunning kruger?

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 04:52:46 UTC No. 16273715

>>16273154
>This means that all of the massive amounts of criticism heaped on conventional agriculture and farmers by environmentalists is completely unfounded.
Mostly sure, your average environmentalist is a fucking retard. But soil depletion by industrial farming is a real issue.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 04:55:34 UTC No. 16273718

>>16273154
>nature confirms farms are good for the environment
>conclusions do not mention anywhere that traditional farms are "good" for the environment, just that they aren't as bad as urban farms and gardens
>>16273713
kys Monsanto shill. Ban glyphosate.

Stop guessing start learning at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 05:00:24 UTC No. 16273727

>>16273713
I agree with your characterization of Mr dunning Kruger and them in general. However I can’t in good faith understand how growing your own food is a bad thing

In my neighborhood for example lots of people have pear and peach trees growing in there yard.

On my walks I pick one off the tree and eat it. As I’m walking I always think how much we are getting scammed buying stuff from the store when Mother Nature gives it to us for free.

Sometimes I even drink freshwater from the creek and I shit you not it’s clear as it would be from the sink.

I don’t think the elites are being honest from my experiences with Mother Nature. So I understand both of your points

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 05:01:58 UTC No. 16273729

>>16273727
>Sometimes I even drink freshwater from the creek and I shit you not it’s clear as it would be from the sink.
Clear water can still contain pathogens, though.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 05:05:32 UTC No. 16273732

>>16273154
The study found certain crops consistently perform better in urban environments than with conventional agriculture. It also found 43% of urban farms and 25% of individual gardens outperform conventional agriculture.

Community gardens threw off the curve by consistently underperforming. Classic tragedy of the commons.

In summary, traditional farming for certain crops is just wasteful and growing your own food can easily be good for the environment if you just don't be an idiot, assuming 3 in 4 people are idiots, which is true at a minimum.

Stop guessing start learning at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 05:14:16 UTC No. 16273736

>>16273729
Yes but you have to think wild animals drink this same water and they are fine. I see coyotes squirrels and rabbits and birds.

If It doesn’t kill them and they are still thriving in nature then maybe the pathogen theory is overblown

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 05:47:02 UTC No. 16273762

>>16273736
>animals put it in their mouths so it must be fine
Animals eat poison ivy.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 06:23:16 UTC No. 16273786

>>16273154
An anti-urbanite thread is not a science thread.
>>>/pol/
Come back when you're done venting your anger.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 07:39:29 UTC No. 16273852

>>16273715
>industrial farming
you mean tillage. There is, for the most part, no "industrial" farming beyond there being tractors.

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 20:58:49 UTC No. 16274996

>>16273713
Shalom!

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 21:06:06 UTC No. 16275006

>>16273736
Wild animals die from pathogens all the time.
Or they just get parasites.
Enjoy your cryptosporidium

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 21:51:28 UTC No. 16275078

>>16273852
imagine thinking you belong on the science board while using "industrial" as an epithet

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 02:30:16 UTC No. 16275490

>>16275078
Industry has fuck all to do with science. An industrial process cannot be scientific because industrial processes count on not producing new or unexpected results.

That's not to say neither field uses the fruit of the other, but industry's as related to science as art is.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 22:57:46 UTC No. 16276667

>>16273786
farmers are good for the environement, why does that upset you so much?

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:00:08 UTC No. 16276673

>>16273154
Your conclusion was debunked and the authors had to explain that the retarded (the /pol/ and media type of retards) didn't understand the article.

Go back.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:21:35 UTC No. 16276696

>>16273732
>>16276673
These. Nobody else ITT read the paper.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 04:51:20 UTC No. 16276911

>>16273154
Of course farmers are good for the environment, they're the ones who grow all the plants. None of the environmentalists who constant screech their false concerns about the environment would ever bother lifting a finger to actually improve the planet and make it greener by growing plants, only farmers do that. """"environmentalists"""" are too busy shilling their doomsday fantasies and lies on social media to actually expend energy doing something good for the planet.
farmers are the real environmentalists

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 07:49:55 UTC No. 16276999

>>16273154
>STOP PRODUCING YOUR OWN FOOD
>enormous monolithic monocultures soaked in herbi- qnd pesticides good
>heres your onions, corn syrup and cricket "flour"
modern academia is hilarious
theres a reason nobody trusts modern science and that reason has a large hooked nose

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:30:14 UTC No. 16277170

>>16273727
>i steal fruit from my neighbors, stores are such a scam

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 15:06:59 UTC No. 16277367

>>16273154
Too bad bitch, I'm not removing my apple trees or rhubarb

🗑️ Barkon Approved Post at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 15:14:05 UTC No. 16277377

>>16273154
Absolute dog poo.

🗑️ Barkon Approved Post at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 15:15:48 UTC No. 16277383

Ohhhhhhh. I'm killing all of humanity soon and these people who commit all this perversity are about to go to hell. It happens today.

🗑️ Barkon Approved Post at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 15:16:50 UTC No. 16277387

<3

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 18:45:46 UTC No. 16277655

>>16273154
Surely, building giant "food factories' so we can all eat completely artificial shit is better for the environment!

🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 05:42:38 UTC No. 16278282

>>16276667
People who produce nothing of any value develop inferiority complexes with respect to those who do produce. Instead of bettering themselves, the non producers just get angry at the producers for making them look bad in comparison.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 03:14:15 UTC No. 16279780

>>16278282
same reason minorities all hate whites

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jul 2024 17:49:33 UTC No. 16280411

>>16277655
even those factories rely on farmers to supply nearly all of the raw materials

Anonymous at Mon, 15 Jul 2024 04:30:47 UTC No. 16281986

Why do environmentalists hate farmers so much? Imagine hating the people who supply all of your food for you, how retarded is that? What would you eat without farmers to produce food for you?

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 08:45:53 UTC No. 16283302

>>16281986
they're not smart enough to think that hard. urbanites think food comes from uber eats.

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 08:52:53 UTC No. 16283309

>>16273154
growing my own food, raising my own animals
fuck BIG farms

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 09:09:57 UTC No. 16283319

>>16273154
Article says that current economics and consumerism with its marketing for pretackaged home farm solutions promotes inefficient home farming, and that better practices that are not so wasteful should be explored.

THEREFORE retardo-op concludes:
>This means that all of the massive amounts of criticism heaped on conventional agriculture and farmers by environmentalists is completely unfounded

That's quite a stretch.

I guess you all believe that, if there is not a solution to your problems, then the problem given to you on a silver platter no longer exists!

Prrreeeettty scientific there.......
I wonder, as a scientist, how it life is when people are so stupid....

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 13:02:17 UTC No. 16283452

>>16277170
If the branch extends across the property line over the sidewalk/public right of way, the peach is public property.

Anonymous at Tue, 16 Jul 2024 21:31:24 UTC No. 16284120

Have you guys even read the article?? It is GARBAGE!

Fig. 1 tells you all you need about the statistical validity, and it is incomprehensible that this was allowed past the reviewers and published.

Also:
>This Article addresses these gaps through carbon footprint analy-sis of low-tech UA, covering 73 sites in France, Germany, Poland, theUnited Kingdom and the United States, using data collected throughcitizen science
Translated: hippies smoked weed and grunted out reports that we will not questiontoo much. Have you heard of the term garbage in, garbage out?

>However, select crops are carbon-competitive with conventionalagriculture.
Translated: amateurs grew stuff not suited for the place/climate/skillset and got poor yields. Sensitive crops did well. Weed smokers are suitably impressed.

>UA sites should invest in social benefits.
OK, so at this stage it is clear this is a political hatchet job, not real science.

Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 12:29:48 UTC No. 16284851

>>16273713
Kill yourself pseudo. Nature is political garbage now much like most every journal. I personally know of people who lied about their results blatantly and still got published in Nature. Sorry you can't think for yourself. Maybe pick a different life path. Like a fast food worker.

Anonymous at Wed, 17 Jul 2024 12:31:31 UTC No. 16284855

>>16284120
OP can barely read I'm sure.

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 07:49:24 UTC No. 16286200

>>16284120
>projection
you're only upset at it and see it as political because your own scientific beliefs originate with your personal political beliefs and not with any rational objective scientific observations. fortunately for the rest of us, not everyone is like you. some people are actually able to honestly interpret data and see scientific publishing as something other than just another vehicle for political propaganda. farmers are good for the environment, that becomes a pretty blatantly obvious fact when you travel through arid uninhabitable barren regions as see farmers turning parts of those areas into verdant oases teeming with life

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:27:27 UTC No. 16286559

depends massively on the farmer

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 20:33:11 UTC No. 16287720

>>16286200
>you're only upset at it and see it as political because your own scientific beliefs originate with your personal political beliefs and not with any rational objective scientific observations.
Rarely have I seen someone being this wrong.
>fortunately for the rest of us, not everyone is like you.
I know many, way too many, are naive and will lap up anything.
>some people are actually able to honestly interpret data and see scientific publishing as something other than just another vehicle for political propaganda.
I read and interpreted the article and demonstrated it was bunk.
>farmers are good for the environment, that becomes a pretty blatantly obvious fact when you travel through arid uninhabitable barren regions as see farmers turning parts of those areas into verdant oases teeming with life
Read again: I never had a problem with the farmers.

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 21:08:03 UTC No. 16287755

>>16273154
this is literally propaganda priming you for the ban on home grown food in the name of climate bullshit

hope you're ready for some socially engineered famine

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 21:15:44 UTC No. 16287762

Completely disingenuous interpretation. Conventional agriculture produces fewer GHGs than urban agriculture. Even just as far as GHG emissions go, that doesn't mean conventional agriculture is good, just less bad than urban agriculture. It can still be improved. This also says nothing about the other ways in which conventional agriculture harms the environment.

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 21:20:30 UTC No. 16287763

>>16287762
>REEEEEEEEE agriculture is bad!!!!
maybe you should stop eating to save the environment

NoKrAb at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 21:23:53 UTC No. 16287767

>>16287763
Why do you persist?

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 21:53:23 UTC No. 16287793

Crazy that growing food is bad for the environment. We really have fucked up this world beyond repair, we might need a caloric budget of 1500 calories per person to limit the damage.

Anonymous at Thu, 18 Jul 2024 21:58:10 UTC No. 16287796

can't wait for holodomor 2.0, thanks obama

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 01:23:00 UTC No. 16287934

>>16287762
They have examples of urban farms that outperformed the conventional ones too. Anyway, the dataset looks like it suffers tremendously from inconsistent self-reporting. Just look at fig. 3a and tell me they weren't making up numbers a lot of the time.

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 17:45:19 UTC No. 16288608

>>16287796
farmers and ranchers and everyone else who creates and transports food to the urbanites are all being dehumanized by those same urbanites.

Anonymous at Fri, 19 Jul 2024 17:47:31 UTC No. 16288612

>>16288608
hmm sounds familiar i wonder if this has happened before OH WAIT IT HAS, IN SOVIET UKRAINE, AND IT WAS IN THE BEGINNING STAGES OF WHAT IS CALLED THE HOLODOMOR

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 07:49:42 UTC No. 16289350

>>16288612
lmao if the urbanites are dumb enough cucks to to be meme'd into starving themselves to death. the holodomor victims were never that stupid. they weren't ukrainian either, ukraine in it's modern form wasn't created until 1939. the people who were starved were the same russians who sit on the front lines of the current war over there.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 08:25:35 UTC No. 16289366

>>16273154
Nobody grows their own food, including actual farmers so this is irrelevant. Growing a pot with a tomato plant isnt growing your own food.
You wont live from eating 1 tomato every 5 months.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:39:30 UTC No. 16289481

>>16289366
>He thinks you get one item per plant like a video game
Go outside.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 13:12:32 UTC No. 16289509

>>16289350
>the people who were starved were the same russians who sit on the front lines of the current war over there

they had their own language... the whole reason they were starved was to suppress their growing calls for ukrainian independence... and this isn't even the first time this kind of suppression of a ukrainian national identity happened

they've always done their own thing with some intermingling with surrounding countries and they've always had their neighbors trying to put a boot on their neck

i get it, you favor russian propaganda over western propaganda, but don't blame ukraine for being taken advantage of by the like of victoria nuland and her cronies

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 13:33:44 UTC No. 16289535

Guns allow weak men (You) to feel powerful. It's anti-natural, thus liberal. All the atheist liberal revolutions were due to the peasants having guns. And that's since the 1800s. Learn history, and not from CNN.

History went to shit when guns were used. It's a fact. Real men used swords, but with guns the peasants felt they were knights and this removed the boundary between the alpha aristocracy with the beta men.

You own a gun? then you are a liberal. Simple as.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 13:34:52 UTC No. 16289537

Farmers are pieces of shit who created the agrarian revolution glorifying weaklings.
agriculture promotes weaker men and the rise of women. The only activity farmers need to do is get up in the morning and planting stuff. Woah. And farmers are naturally centralized which gives women more power by giving them a bigger pool of beta cuk devotees.
So there you have it: beyond hunter gatherer, the ruling class appears and it's full of merchants controlling the money market and women controlling the sex market.

Anonymous at Sat, 20 Jul 2024 19:21:23 UTC No. 16289953

>>16289537
>t. doesn't hunt for his food

Anonymous at Sun, 21 Jul 2024 17:50:37 UTC No. 16291042

>>16289537
>glorifying weaklings.
before heavy mechanization farming was for huge muscular chads.

Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 07:47:37 UTC No. 16291886

>>16289350
reminder that western ukraine, which was massively jewish, wasn't included into ukraine SSR until the rest of ukraine had been mostly starved to death by the bolsheviks, who were also mainly jewish. that trick gave the jews local and national control over ukraine when western ukraine was made part of the SSR in '39

Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 07:54:08 UTC No. 16291890

>>16284851
NTA, but you sound pretty unhinged.

Anonymous at Mon, 22 Jul 2024 08:02:42 UTC No. 16291897

>>16273154
>https://www.nature.com/articles/s44284-023-00023-3.epdf


Go to method section...

>We evaluated GHG (greenhouse-gas emissions) intensity per kilogram of fresh crop to compare between specific crops.

Exclusivly focusing on CO2.
No other environmental burden, such as pesticides and herbicides are mentioned.

Not mentioning the fuckton of wasted crops with "mass farming":
>As much as 40% of all food could be wasted globally when both farming and post-farming are taken into account

>https://www.wwf.eu/?4049841/fifteen-per-cent-of-food-is-lost-before-leaving-the-farm-WWF-report

Mass producing buld food, with extrem unrequired yield to get government subsideries.
>throw it away.

While small gardens do not even waste their crops. It mostly consumed or turned into compost to be reused.

>Exclusing post farming processing for grains and sneed oils
>exlcuding the buckload of chemicals involved to generate sneed oils and remove saponins and rancid fats form sunflower oils or canola

Next retardo method used:
>Servings convertdifferent crops to a single, comparable unit based on their nutritionalcontent, which is similar to converting foods to caloric content

So they create a ratio between calories and GHG ?!
Meaning sneed oils and shitty carbs get better ratio ?!

No private garden grows "grains" or sneed oils, but water based stuff, such as "tomatoes" or "berries" which do weigh a lot but are mostly water and nutrients.
As if the current problem is "we eat to few calories".

Fucking retarded

Anonymous at Tue, 23 Jul 2024 02:43:33 UTC No. 16292999

>>16291897
>Exclusivly focusing on CO2.
>No other environmental burden
CO2 isn't an "environmental burden"
CO2 is plant food, adding it to the atmosphere makes plants healthier and as a result it makes nature in general healthier.

Anonymous at Wed, 24 Jul 2024 05:33:42 UTC No. 16294371

>>16291886
>when western ukraine was made part of the SSR in '39
AKA when western ukraine was stole from Poland by the communists.

Anonymous at Thu, 25 Jul 2024 03:54:00 UTC No. 16295594

>>16294371
How come France and Britain declared war on Germany in 1939 for invading Poland, but didn't declare war on the USSR, who also invaded Poland in 1939?

Anonymous at Fri, 26 Jul 2024 02:19:45 UTC No. 16296816

>>16295594
ussr was absurdly using the same currency and reserve banking systems that the western capitalists were while germany was not