People Twitter

10395 readers

1991 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

Mark NSFW content.
No doxxing people.
Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
No international politcs
Be excellent to each other.
Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major celebrity, figure or any politician. You can replace the addres of .x.com to xcancel.com in the address. https://web.archive.org/save is an option. Archive.is is no longer recommended because they remove/alter content.
If a tweet (or similar) makes a statement of fact, either mark it as "satire" in the body or provide the original source link backing up the statement (see rule 6)

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

SendMeYourTaTas@sh.itjust.works

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works

595

Just so you understand... (discuss.online)

submitted 7 hours ago by VetOfTheSeas@discuss.online to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works

60 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

The problem: you need those pesky people to maintain and harvest complex biodiverse systems, and they want livable wages! Best call them savages and uncivilized, drive them away in the name of progess and force everyone to use your machines, fertilizer, pesticides, machinery and fuels.

Yeah, you can pretty much only do polyculture by hand, that's true. Are you suggesting we go back to unmechanized farming?

That would be super great for the planet, as it would cause the deaths by starvation of roughly 90% of the population, with the majority of the remaining humans forced into subsistence farming.

Neither corpses not subsistence farmers would cause much pollution. It might be somewhat hard to get volunteers for it though.

On the other hand, you can absolutely maintain a biodiverse landscape AND use mechanized monoculture fields. You just need to give nature time and space too, and that's something most farmers refuse to do. Which is why they should be forced to. I don't see why a factory gets banned from destroying biodiversity, but it's fine when farmers do it.

[–] schmorpel@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

give nature time and space

That's what a biodiverse landscape does? I didn't say unmechanized - but there's a difference between running giant machines over 200ha of the same and running a small tractor over a 2ha field. For the landscape it makes all the difference: having 2ha of one thing, then a hedge (that can contain edible fruits and berries), then something else, maybe have pasture with nut and chestnut on it, instead of just pasture.

Even in a small vegetable garden planting different plants together is so much easier. Higher plants give shade to smaller ones, aromatic ones protect pest-endangered ones ... recreating an actual ecosystem is the real deal.

Todays' rural areas are empty of people. They were bought out by those people who consented to being enslaved by the machine and fuel complex. The ones who were forced to leave had to become wage slaves in the cities. The ones who run the system now don't even want to touch the soil anymore! They just send a fucking drone to analyze where to dump how much of their chemicals. It's not a sustainable way of managing soil and water.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 hours ago

That's what a biodiverse landscape does? I didn't say unmechanized - but there's a difference between running giant machines over 200ha of the same and running a small tractor over a 2ha field. For the landscape it makes all the difference: having 2ha of one thing, then a hedge (that can contain edible fruits and berries), then something else, maybe have pasture with nut and chestnut on it, instead of just pasture.

I agree entirely, with pretty much everything you posted, but that's still monoculture. One crop per field, only much more ecologically friendly.