New article in Nature says that growing your own food in your own garden is bad for the environment. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44284-023-00023-3.epdfThis means that all of the massive amounts of criticism heaped on conventional agriculture and farmers by environmentalists is completely unfounded. Does anyone else find it to be no surprise at all that the lazy pseudointellectual urbanite know-it-alls who have ample free time to spend pontificating about agriculture on social media sites like this one have absolutely know idea what they're talking about? No only are they too lazy to have productive jobs like farmers do, the urbanites are also too lazy to do any proper research before shooting off their mouths on any and every topic
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.
>>16273189let 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?
>>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.
>>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>>16273713kys Monsanto shill. Ban glyphosate.
>>16273713I 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 thingIn 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
>>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.
>>16273154The 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.
>>16273729Yes 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
>>16273736>animals put it in their mouths so it must be fineAnimals eat poison ivy.
>>16273154An anti-urbanite thread is not a science thread.>>>/pol/Come back when you're done venting your anger.
>>16273715>industrial farmingyou mean tillage. There is, for the most part, no "industrial" farming beyond there being tractors.
>>16273736Wild animals die from pathogens all the time.Or they just get parasites.Enjoy your cryptosporidium
>>16273852imagine thinking you belong on the science board while using "industrial" as an epithet
>>16275078Industry 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.
>>16273786farmers are good for the environement, why does that upset you so much?
>>16273154Your 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.
>>16273732>>16276673These. Nobody else ITT read the paper.
>>16273154Of 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
>>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 hilarioustheres a reason nobody trusts modern science and that reason has a large hooked nose
>>16273727>i steal fruit from my neighbors, stores are such a scam
>>16273154Too bad bitch, I'm not removing my apple trees or rhubarb
>>16273154Surely, building giant "food factories' so we can all eat completely artificial shit is better for the environment!
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?
>>16281986they're not smart enough to think that hard. urbanites think food comes from uber eats.
>>16273154growing my own food, raising my own animalsfuck BIG farms
>>16273154Article 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 unfoundedThat'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....
>>16277170If the branch extends across the property line over the sidewalk/public right of way, the peach is public property.
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 scienceTranslated: 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.
>>16273713Kill 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.
>>16284120OP can barely read I'm sure.
