[algoatecorn]

Let's just take a pause and consider some key information:

-This is an association study

-If we CTLR+F "cause", "causing", "causal", etc, the only mention of causation is with extremely high levels of flouride and another mention with extremely high levels of glyphosate and zebrafish

Now let's zoom way out, and consider the use of glyphosate in general. If you plot grain yields over time compared to herbicide use over time and fertilizer use over time, you can see one thing quite clearly. The use of synthetic inputs, along with plant breeding and genetic engineering, has saved humanity from starvation and allowed unhindered growth.

Any experienced agriculturalist knows this. Any experienced commodity trader knows this. All this talk about commercial farming needing to be eradicated is fantasy talk. There are trade-offs to everything.

When you consider cost/acre and calories/acre, it is also abundantly clear that for all its flaws, modern industrial farming is a technological marvel.

When you look back into the history of herbicides, you can consider glyphosate to be way better than many of the past options. So things are definitely getting better.

As for the demonization of glyphosate, I would say that most of this literature is just provocative headlines for the sake of grant funding. It's very trendy to claim that glyphosate is causing X,Y, and Z. We saw the same thing with MSG as a food additive, and are still dealing with the proliferation of bad science, bad messaging, and a sticky belief system within genpop.

[xpe]

> When you consider cost/acre and calories/acre, it is also abundantly clear that for all its flaws, modern industrial farming is a technological marvel.

Modern farming seems optimized for the wrong thing all too often: cheap calories. Calories are important (for basic metabolic needs) but not the whole story. Nutrient density and sustainable practices are worth promoting.

[mvdtnz]

It's easy to be picky about nutrient density and sustainable farming when you have a full belly. Modern farming techniques have saved the lives of millions of people who would otherwise starve to death.

[xpe]

The only problem is (can’t tell if you intend it) an implied false dichotomy. Why do we have to pick abundant calories or nutritious food? This is a false choice. In the short term, it is a tradeoff given a particular set of technological and economic constraints.

Over the medium and long-term, the constraints change.

If people were wiser, {technological development, economics, and policy} could have led us to a better place.

Perhaps one with a better mix of agricultural offerings: a range of calorie dense & nutrient dense & combinations of both. All at prices that people are willing to pay, which of course depends on subsidies, earning power, and personal values.

Forgive me, but I’m going to preempt one kind of knee-jerk response someone might feel they need to write next: I’m describing a range of possible future outcomes, not a particular political philosophy.

Remember, my point is to reject the false choice. The tiresome (but classic) “next move” for someone would be to move the goalposts and criticize some particular policy they think I’m recommending. I’m not recommending a particular policy. I’m simply saying there are other possible futures that are available to us.

I challenge everyone on (and off) Hacker News to not fall into the obvious ‘debate’ patterns that add minimal value. I’m done with debate. I want to learn, and I want to teach. I’m not here to score points.

Synthesize. Be curious.

What do you all think are the most likely technological advancements that could revolutionize food?

[anon84873628]

If there was no modern industrial agricultural, probably fewer people would have been born to be at risk of starving to death.

When the synthetic inputs disappear (due to, say, war or supply chain disruption) or the soil is simply too exhausted & eroded altogether, lots of people starve.

People want "sustainable" agriculture so that the system is resilient to shocks. It's possible to have this and feed the same amount of people. Maybe even for a lower percentage of GDP. But it requires a drastically different approach to the problem.

[delfinom]

In countries that need it sure.

In the US, 40% of this food is wasted.

[xpe]

> It's easy to be picky about X when you have a full belly.

This is a cliché for a reason. Groan. See my other comment.

[tuatoru]

Well, yes, nutrient density is worth promoting.

But it seems to me that the populations of those who oppose herbicides like glyphosate, and those who oppose genetically modified crops with say extra niacin or vitamin D, overlap very heavily.

We have a new mental illness, generalized antiscience disorder. Motto: "It is better that a hundred million die of famine or epidemic disease than one person die of cancer."

[xpe]

There are many other explanations for people that have these views that are not anti-scientific.

The precautionary principle is one.

Not wanting agribusiness to create patented crops is another.

Recognizing that what we mean by nutrient-dense foods are more than just synthesizing more vitamin D or niacin in a plant.

But sure, there is plenty of irrationality to go ‘round too. Just be rational yourself in understanding why people oppose some of these ideas.

[tptacek]

Why don't you want agribusiness to create patented crops? Nobody's making you plant them. The stories of people unwittingly or unwillingly planting Roundup-Ready crops are easily debunked.

[xpe]

> Why don't you want agribusiness to create patented crops?

I didn’t say that. Please reply to my comment in the context it was offered if you want to discuss.

[tuatoru]

Applied science is all about the balance of harms.

In the paper we have a tenuous chain of correlations with no causal mechanism described.

Glyphosate has unambiguously improved crop yields and quality for decades. The causal mechanism is well understood: it kills weeds that would otherwise outcompete crop plants.

I don't care what other reasons there might be for not wanting GM crops; I was making an observation about populations.

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

These principles are the exact same principles as the anti-vax people.

Precautionary principle is also used by them a lot.

Glyphosate has been used for a long time with massive benefits to humanity.

I would guess it would compare pretty favorable in terms of percent exposed having issues to vaccines.

[xpe]

I’m not confident that you see the purpose of my comment in the context it was offered. My point was that “anti-science” is not the sole nor best description for people that have differing viewpoints w.r.t. modern agricultural practices.

Part of the problem more generally is that people literally lose the thread, but another part of the problem is that Hacker News doesn’t really encourage it nor design for it.

Lumping anti-vax people with people that have rational anti-big-agricultural perspectives is muddled thinking. There may be some similarities, but it is an overreach to claim these are the “exact same” principles.

I’d suggest reading some argumentation (such as policy proposals from think-tanks) by rational, pro-science people who criticize the current state of agriculture. After you do this, unless you select some obviously flawed example or fall prey to confirmation bias, you will learn they are _quite_ different than the prototypical anti-vaxxer.

The argument you are making suffers from the false equivalence fallacy. This is the kind of thing that Monsanto would do (and probably does, but I’d need to find proof). By conflating an extreme, poorly-supported viewpoint (anti-vax) with a reasonable one (rational concerns about the state of modern agribusiness), an instigator creates confusion and muddies the waters of public debate.

[Turing_Machine]

Tell me you've never had trouble affording enough calories to survive without telling me you've never had trouble affording enough calories to survive.

"Cheap calories" are what keeps the world from starving to death, and incidentally what allows some of us to be software engineers, novelists, and YouTube "influencers", rather than 95% of us being either agricultural serfs or foot soldiers.

[xpe]

Sort of, but you portray a false dichotomy. See my other lengthy comment.

[Turing_Machine]

It's not a "false dichotomy" at all.

Cheap calories = people don't starve to death.

"Organic", "free-range", etc. stuff is a luxury for the wealthy.

[tptacek]

That comment doesn't really say anything other than that you believe cost vs. calories is a false dichotomy, but since that's an extraordinary claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence.

[xpe]

> That comment doesn't really say anything other than that you believe cost vs. calories is a false dichotomy, but since that's an extraordinary claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence.

Let's start with this part:

> That comment doesn't really say anything other than

Three things. / First, this comes across as dismissive to many readers. I hope you are aware of this, and I hope you would choose different phrasing next time. / Second, it is a mischaracterization of my comment -- my comment isn't a mere statement of what I believe. There is considerable support for my claims about the _reality_ of how the world works (technological changes, economics, values, etc). / Third, writing one sentence in reply doesn't seem like a good way to make discussion more substantive as it progresses (per HN guidelines).

Now on to this part:

> but since that's an extraordinary claim, the onus is on you to provide evidence.

I get your reference to Russell's tea pot; it is unfortunate you went there; I'm not foisting some made-up thing as real. Nor am I positing some vague extraordinary belief.

Let's me flip this part of your comment on its head:

> the onus is on you to provide evidence.

My comment was lengthy and substantive. As such, it contains plenty of material to dig into. Have you dug into the area I discuss? If so, tell me what you've learned. In particular, why would there be a hard rule across all history and future states suggesting calories and cost are "at odds" with each other? When I state it this way, I think you can see your claim is the harder one to believe.

Also, why is the onus on me to write more? Why is not the onus on you to research more? Or at least write more?

I have one more thing to say about this pazt:

> but since that's an extraordinary claim

You've got it backward. Broadly, it is a much stronger claim to say "X and Y" are mutually exclusive than to say "over the long run, with technological changes, they don't have to be." That's what my comment said.

Again, to drive the point home, I'll state it a slightly different way: given many possible universes with various configurations, consider two quantities X and Y, it would be _much_ less likely for "X and Y" to be mutually exclusive. Do you understand what I'm getting at? This is a fundamental thought experiment based on probabilities.

If you can comment in detail and turn down the dismissiveness, I think a better discussion is possible.

Can you vouch that you have no ulterior motive or conflict of interest on this topic? I have no conflict of interest. My primary goal is rational, high quality, substantive discussion. My ulterior motive, so to speak, is that I believe people don't have to agree, but at the very least we can try to share and maybe even learn from each other.

[tptacek]

I found your comment lengthy, yes, but not as substantive as you did.

[mbrochh]

Your argument falls apart when you realise that grains are not in any way shape or form part of a proper human diet.

All those bellies that are filled with grains may feel full and therefore won't likely cause much trouble for the elites, but they are really just slowly rotting away and dying (and generating even more income streams for big pharma, owned by the... elites).

[Sammi]

"proper".

Meanwhile humans have been eating grains for millennia.

[codingdave]

When I did a control-F in the study, I didn't find the word "cause" at all. Nor "zebrafish". What document are you looking at?

[hombre_fatal]

Nitpick: all studies only show associations. We draw causal inferences from associations. e.g. Duhem-Quine thesis.

There’s a meme on social media where people think studies break down into association studies vs casual studies or something.

[Natsu]

If you merely observe thermometers and which days feel hot, you'll see a link but won't be able to tell which way causality goes. If you set the thermometer to a high value in a cold room and notice that you don't get any warmer, you'll quickly realize which way causality flows.

So I agree with the GP post, I want to see them modeling & testing causality here.