|
|
|
|
|
|
by another-one-off
2876 days ago
|
|
|
> that unbalancing them disturbs our interests I've talked to farmers on trains, I've lived in cities, I've worked in mines. This doesn't reflect my experiences, we have shredded the natural environment to our benefit in all those places. Farms are a long way from a natural environment, the modern farming process is awash with chemicals and such. Lab grown meat is an exciting possibility. Our success as a species have come through striving to transcend the limits of nature. Nearly all humans are urbanised. Urban environments are as far from natural ones as we can reasonably make it. There is almost no fauna larger than a dog, flora is controlled. When given the choice, as a mass, we choose to be as far from nature as possible and visit it for short and very controlled periods of time. The moral aspect I suppose we shall agree to disagree. Are you sure the cadmium isn't going to be used for solar power? Or that the 'creative means' that you would like to see won't benefit from it when the science comes in? |
|
|
It seems you are viewing industrial, monoculture farming techniques as a justification for what humans should be able to get away with as far as land or resource use. It is not at all self-evident that such an approach works best. There is an opposite viewpoint that traditional, diverse crop farming could produce higher quality, higher nutrition output without using too much inorganic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.
My point is that you seem to conveniently accept the "obvious superiority" of a modern approach and ignore other viewpoints or approaches wherein biodiversity fits in naturally.