Which do you think is worse for the planet?

[GliderGuider]

Nuclear power or agriculture? How about fossil fuels vs. agriculture?

The reason I ask is because I'm reading "Sparing Nature: The Conflict Between Human Population Growth and Biodiversity" by Jeffery McKee, and he's spent a lot of time looking at how deleterious agriculture has been in terms of extinctions and biodiversity loss. That got me wondering which might be seen as a "worse" activity in terms of its effect on the planet.

I asked this question in a post in another thread, but I thought I'd bring it up top where it might attract some more opinions.

[angrycarpenter]

1. I am sure agriculture has been more harmful

but the potential harm of nuclear comes very close to negating the benefits. Nuclear power is still using 1960's and 70's technology. Update it and maybe my opinion will change.

[Glorfindel]

2. Obviously, agriculture; the REAL problem is human overpopulation

We can't just keep breeding like flies in carrion.

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. The impact of agriculture depends a great deal on the method used

For example, "slash and burn" agriculture has obvious devastating effects on the local ecology, but is also believe to be responsible for a large portion of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

Conventional farming is also hard on the soil, and is largely responsible for the "dead zones" at the mouths of major rivers.

Organic farming on the other hand is nowhere near as bad.

[GliderGuider]

4. How about the cumulative impact of agriculture as it has been practiced?

I'll stipulate that some forms of agriculture are less harmful than others, just as some nuclear reactors are better built and operated than others, and some forms of fossil fuel emit fewer pollutants than others.

When our historical patterns of use are considered, which of the three do you think has been worst for the planet?

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. I would say fossil fuels

Here's my reasoning...

Our use of fossil fuels seems to be bringing about a mass extinction.

To my knowledge, the same cannot be said for 10,000 years of agriculture or for nuclear power.

[losthills]

8. Yeah....

Because we all know that agribusiness is destructive, and we all know that better methods can be employed.

Like everything else..... Regarding the "Free Market" as a God is the basis of our destruction. We have to move beyond short term profits and demand sustainability

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. The ironic thing is...

Organic Farming actually appears to be more productive than conventional farming. (i.e. it's also good business.)

[flvegan]

5. Tossup: human overpopulation v eating meat.

[GliderGuider]

7. Is raising domesticated meat part and parcel of agriculture, or do you view it as a separate evil?

[Dead_Parrot]

9. I suspect it rather depends how it done

At one end of the scale is this guy:



Who would have to seriously insane to give up the sheep and try to get a combine harvester down that hill. On the other end of the scale...



Hacking down forest to grow soy or maize to feed to cattle in boxes half a planet away is the very essence of numb-fuckery.

Somewhere in the middle are systems like 4-field rotation, where the livestock are an integral part of the (fossil-fertilizer free) care of the land: Unfortunately, this doesn't feed as many people, or make as much money, as screwing the Earth 'til you're blue in the face.

[XemaSab]

12. For that alpine ecosystem

those sheep may as well be a nuclear bomb.

I think the destruction in both pictures is pretty appalling. :(

[malakai2]

16. To add

Even with a shepherd constantly present there will be predator removal. Removal of predators from top-down management systems can cause huge cascading effects across the ecosystem that can't be mitigated in any meaningful way.

Those sheep likely eat hay at some point while they are not grazing on the hillside. If that hay is not completely weed-free, it is likely that at some point those sheep will carry seeds of such noxious luminaries as leafy spurge or cheatgrass into previously intact environments.

I imagine that herd needs to visit water sources, which entails trampling riparian areas, dropping waste into the water, and all the downstream effects of those realities.

If they are grazing on private land or allotted public land, the stocking density probably probably leads to a grazing system more intense and more constant than that land would otherwise have experienced. That means erosion, loss of biodiversity, a trend toward weedy species dominance, and loss of productive potential.

If they are grazing on open public land, there will be no means to prevent overgrazing. Shepherds will beat that grass into the ground until the land is no longer productive because if they don't, someone else will.

Whoever owns the land, the herd owners will likely look to create "range improvements" to increase income. Those "improvements" typically consist of removing shrubs, removing any overstory trees, installing fencing, altering local hydrology to add or remove water from pastures, and deliberate introduction of exotic forage species.

Multiply that merry little band by several orders of magnitude to get numbers comparable to the continental stocking rate in Europe, North America, or Australia, and you'll start to get some nasty cumulative effects rivaling every other form of intensive agriculture. Now add the effects of cattle, pigs, horses, chickens, and any other conceivable form of livestock, and it starts to look ugly on a global scale.

But at the same time, a lot of this is done in land that is marginal or sub-marginal for crop growth to maximize food yield for an unsustainably large human population. Citizens of industrially advanced nations that use the lion's share of global electrical production could voluntarily (or involuntarily, as we shall see) reduce their electrical consumption, thereby reducing the impacts of fossil fuels and nuclear fuels. The same can't really be said of food production, and with a growing global population that will only intensify the effects of agriculture. Agriculture of all forms is easily the worst of the three because it makes more of us possible.

[GliderGuider]

17. What an excellent, perceptive analysis!

It matters not what prefix is used: horti-, perma- or agri-. Any such word that ends with the suffix -culture identifies a system that is inherently unsustainable and will eventually spell the end for many species due to the expansion of human numbers it supports.

As Jeffery McKee describes so eloquently in "Sparing Nature", humanity has been an extinction engine ever since we evolved into genus Homo. Once we invented agriculture 10,000 years ago the rate of demise of other species has skyrocketed. Agriculture has given us the numbers and the free time to figure out ways to finish that task more expeditiously (though we never quite thought of it that way), through the application of biocidal chemicals and vast quantities of carbon dioxide. It will be interesting to see how quickly we can work our murderous way up to the very top of the food chain, and stare into the mirror as we eat that last suicidal loaf of bread.

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. "...a system that is inherently unsustainable..."

It matters not what prefix is used: horti-, perma- or agri-. Any such word that ends with the suffix -culture identifies a system that is inherently unsustainable ...

Sorry, I don't buy this.

To say this essentially means that humanity itself is unsustainable, and homo sapiens have been sustainable for the past quarter million years or so.

Our current numbers may be unsustainable, but I believe that wise use of *culture is sustainable.

[malakai2]

20. Compare pre-agriculture to post-agriculture

For most of that quarter million years humans were sustainable in some sense because their population was closely governed by local ecology. The ability to manipulate food availability, and then the increases in our efficiency doing so, allowed the birth rate to greatly exceed the death rate. When each cohort begat a new cohort, and the new cohort was sufficiently bigger or faster in arriving than the original cohort, we shortened our population doubling time. All as a function of removing the limiting effect of food availability. Even if we stabilized the population where it is now and maintained it there through some form of culture, whatever the prefix, however environmentally friendly the method, we're still perpetuating all the problems of too large a population because we're still feeding it.

I don't believe agriculture is necessarily sufficient for this to happen, but it is necessary. I suppose a certain level of education and reproductive empowerment granted to women could prevent population growth, but there are always those families of 12 or 14 because the parents wanted more. If the number of couples self-selecting for zero or one child was insufficient to offset the growth potential created by the couples trying to set fitness records, then the easy, steady availability of food afforded by agriculture would be sufficient for population maintenance or growth. Take away half the global food production and see what happens to the population, and by extension, how the effects on the biosphere change.

[GliderGuider]

25. "... that humanity itself is unsustainable"

That is precisely what I believe.

It wasn't always so. I used to believe that our current unsustainablility was simply a question of our numbers and our practices, and that those were more or less under our conscious control. I thought that we could change our actions as a species through a combination of awareness and will. Unfortunately I no longer believe that our behaviour, especially in large groups, is easily altered from within. We may be able to change it in response to overwhelming, undeniable external pressures, but even then human behaviour is still shaped by evolved predispositions that can be modified but not entirely overridden.

Those predispositions that led us here -- to compete, exploit and reproduce -- have certainly been evident throughout recorded history. Many paleontologists now believe their footprints are visible in the fossil record back to our great diaspora out of Africa, and perhaps even before. Those ancient records hint at waves of biodiversity loss and outright extinctions that have followed humanity wherever we have gone, and constitute one of our species' more reliable signatures.

If that is true, then the neuro-psychological makeup that has ensured the historically constant increase in human numbers and activity strongly implies that as a species we are inherently unsustainable. That's an unpalatable suggestion, especially to those who believe that humanity is preternatural (or at least is more malleable than I think we are), but it's the conclusion I've reluctantly had to accept based on my understanding of the evidence.

[Dead_Parrot]

18. Certainly, compared to leaving it wild

My intention was to address Flvegan's and Paul's comments regarding horticulture vs husbandry: The point was that in the first example, the rearing of livestock can be done pretty much separately from a horticultural support system, and on land that couldn't be used for normal crops: in the second, the two form a destructive symbiosis; and in the old 4-field system they form a (comparatively) benign symbiosis.

But yeah, they're all destructive. :(

[PDJane]

6. Current agricultural practices

Are resulting in the loss of topsoil at an alarming rate, not to mention pollution and loss of bio-diversity, but nuclear waste is being dropped as weapons all over the planet, coal is causing severe damage to the environment, including mercury pollution, and fossil fuels and modern agriculture work hand in hand........it's all dangerous, and we very much need to change the way we do things. If we don't, mother nature will fix the overpopulation problem.

[conning]

10. When land is appropriated for agriculture,

it is usually not of much use to the planet's system of climate self-regulation. Horticulture and permaculture, on the other hand, allow for dual use --human food production, as well as planetary climate management. Hampering the planet's ability to manage itself is indeed much worse than introducing nuclear waste into the planet's system.

Since you are good at thinking systemically, I thought you might appreciate this perspective.

[The2ndWheel]

11. Nuclear power is only possible because of agriculture

Most of what we do, or at least the scale at which we do it, is only possible because of agriculture.

So nuclear power would allow us to continue to increase the scale of activity(which is the fundamental problem), including agriculture, but only because of agriculture.

Which is worse? Not sure. Would you rather be hit by a car or a train?

[XemaSab]

13. For nuclear vs. agriculture, it's no question: agriculture

For the second one, that's a really, really broad comparison to make. I'm leaning towards agriculture, but that's assuming that the fossil fuel extraction and use are done in a responsible manner, so no oil spills, scrubbers on the smokestacks, revegetation of mine sites, and so on.

The big problem with agriculture is it destroys habitats, uses clean water, and pollutes. Fossil fuels, when extracted and burned responsibly, use clean water, pollute, and contribute to climate change. But analyzing climate change impacts is a really difficult and contentious topic, while habitat destruction is much more quantifiable.

Ultimately, I'm worried that the focus on "global warming" takes energy away from other environmental battles, such as habitat protection and preventing pollution. :(

[Dogmudgeon]

21. Humans

We are a virus.

Our big new problem is: how do we make ourself a beneficial virus?

--p!
"Virus", in Latin, means "scum".

[losthills]

22. What's really whack is the premise of this thread...

Why are we being asked to compare nuclear vs. agriculture?????

Are they in competition? (whatever, man.....)

We could discuss various types of agriculture, some are more benign, and some are obviously destructive.... But agriculture is an essential. It feeds us.

We're supposed to compare the single most important human activity with what? A controversial method of boiling water to run electrical generators? Why?

We need agriculture and depend on it for our existence. There is no need for nuclear power. It's a choice, and one that we could easily live without --without noticing that it was gone.

How about let's compare the human heart to a beer can by the side of the road. That's the kind of intelligence we're dealing with, here.....

"Whack thread of the Decade-- Five Thumbs Up!"

(whatever, man.......)

[Dead_Parrot]

23. Nicely put

How about let's compare the human heart to a beer can by the side of the road. That's the kind of intelligence we're dealing with, here.....

Because, of course, one of them is the result of hundreds of millions of years of evolution, is built from sustainable materials and does not cause pollution, whereas the other is pissing away limited resources in an unsustainable fashion.

A bit like modern agriculture. Good analogy.

But I'm puzzled: Is it your opinion that agriculture has not caused massive environmental damage?

[Dead_Parrot]

24. Having said that...

It's just struck me I was getting so wrapped up in the up in the pre/post agriculture sub-thread, I forgot you were replying to the OP. With reference to which, what I should have said was:

How about let's compare the human heart to a beer can by the side of the road. That's the kind of intelligence we're dealing with, here.....

Good analogy, Because one of them provides vital power day and night, regardless of the weather, without falling back on fossil fuels when it's convenient; whereas the other is (still) pissing away limited resources in an unsustainable fashion (etc).

Hope that clears that up. My question Is it your opinion that agriculture has not caused massive environmental damage? still stands, obviously.

[losthills]

26. Ah, the beauty of nuclear power!

Well, I guess beauty is in the "eye" of the beholder.....