>If they could increase production by 60% with any additive at all, it would immediately see widespread use.
1. No, that's not true at all
2. It's astounding how everywhere I go online there is someone spouting off nonsense which is then repeated and perpetuated.
3. Go listen to Gabe Brown, he saves thousands and thousands by not not paying for synthetic fertilizers.
"Above every surface acre on earth there's approximately 32,000 tons of atmospheric nitrogen, why would any farmer want to write a check for nitrogen?, I just can't figure that one out" -- Gabe Brown
> Go listen to Gabe Brown, he saves thousands and thousands by not not paying for synthetic fertilizers.
> "Above every surface acre on earth there's approximately 32,000 tons of atmospheric nitrogen, why would any farmer want to write a check for nitrogen?, I just can't figure that one out" -- Gabe Brown
It's not hard to learn. This is a topic of intense interest to many, many people.
The answer is that plants get their nitrogen from the dirt, not from the air. And if nitrogen in the air were prone to react with the dirt, there wouldn't be much nitrogen left in the air.
> And if nitrogen in the air were prone to react with the dirt, there wouldn't be much nitrogen left in the air.
Our atmosphere is almost 80% N₂. If it weren’t for the fact that N₂ is basically inert and doesn’t like reacting with anything at all, life would be borderline impossible.
> If it weren’t for the fact that N₂ is basically inert and doesn’t like reacting with anything at all, life would be borderline impossible.
I don't think this argument can work; the stylized rest of the atmosphere is quite reactive.
That did indeed make life impossible for the forms of life that were around before the oxygen was there, but it didn't do anything to make life impossible in general.
1. To be frank, I'm not dying on a hill for a penny. A fool and his money...
2. Even if you point it out... What changes. Has anyone ever seriously reconsidered buying a product when you tell them it's $500 instead of $499? What's the harm being done here?
3. What call to action are you suggesting? I'd rather work for laws to include sales tax in US goods' prices than fix this "mind trick".
I can't tell you how to live your life. But those are the reasons I don't really care.
Regarding point 2, it seems strange to ask 'what changes?' when the point of the article you're commenting on is showing how and why you spend more when presented with 9-ending items. If it was found to make consumers spend 8% more, quite a lot changes - and in a time of unprecedented household debt in the US, it seems like tactics contrived to get people to spend more are very much worthy of discussion.
Either way, it's a bit disingenuous to frame it as 'just a penny' (the actual quantity of money being spent isn't the point, it's the effect on people's spending habits) and bringing up some other problem to nullify concerns around this one is just bald-faced whataboutism. You can say you don't really care, and that may be true about addressing the problem, but making arguments for why this isn't actually a problem suggests you care about the topic in a way that compels you to dismiss it, at the very least.
My argument is different. The article is studying the macro situation, my comment focuses on the micro. You can argue an exploitative strategy on the macro, but the individual themselves is still getting a product they are assumedly fine paying for (and there's a big assumption that "people wouldn't buy it otherwise" if priced a cent above) .
The harm on the micro level is negligible, and you can even argue the macro level doesn't fundentally harm society like so many other modern tactics. Environments aren't impacted, liberties are not breached. Children are not exploited. There's no slippery slope towards some gambling addiction. It's not opening a door for hate.
>You can say you don't really care, and that may be true about addressing the problem, but making arguments for why this isn't actually a problem suggests you care about the topic in a way that compels you to dismiss it, at the very least.
It's a discussion, I care about seeing others viewpoints. But I don't feel very challenged here. The questions above are all the things I'd hope to have more viewpoints revealed on when I made my comment up chain. So far it's simply been 2 instances of "why are you defending this?" a question on me instead of a glimpse into you and the GGP.
It's a conversation, not a debate (invoking privation fallacy doesn't exactly change my mindset here. Even if I'd "lose" a formal debate). So I answered that question. I'm "defending this" because it feels trivial but so many are riled up about this. Claiming they won't even participate in purchasing such products. Which is baffling to me.
I More than free to clarify if that's unclear, but I hope I can hear others' viewpoints as well. Because I don't get the big deal outside of in a moral vaccuum. In reality, it's comparatively trivial even if we only focus on how pricing works (e.g. The US sales tax problem).
Fair enough, perhaps I'm bringing some biases into this since I think online discussion has a tendency to be very dismissive of less sensational or impactful topics. I really don't think you're defending the pricing strategy, trivialization of criticism isn't necessarily a defense of the object of criticism, although for how often the two are conflated I could see why you would think that is how your opinions are being seen.
I don't think households need to be spending 8% more of money they don't have (if we're considering rising household debt) when they go out shopping. The issue is probably more evocative than it logically should be for some people because of the aroma of deception around it. Making superficial changes to price to take advantage of human distortions in quantity to get them to spend more has at least a shade of deception to it (I don't say that as a valid argument, just hoping to lend some context for why people would get worked up over it).
If you don't think that's adequate to make it a 'problem'... well, fair enough, I'm not entirely convinced either. But I'm not seeing a very strong case being made for the contrary, besides 'other things are more important' and the interesting claim that consumers must not be impacted because they're still buying these products ("Of course they love their job, wouldn't they quit otherwise?")
>The last Extreme (G5) event occurred with the Halloween Storms in 2003.
>so it's not very serious
Why are there so many people misrepresenting information? What's the purpose?, we're just going to look it up ourselves and see that you were wittingly or unwittingly lying.
>"The whole point of beef is utilizing marginal land that can’t grow human food."
FYI: 36% of corn is grown just to feed cattle/livestock. I'm trying to breed chickens that are less dependent on commercial foods, so I'm somewhat familiar with the topic.
That's also very misleading because the vast majority of the corn we feed cows isn't fed to them fresh. It's distillers grains, an industrial waste from ethanol production: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distillers_grains
It's a cheap type of corn [1] only grown on marginal farmland that is one step above pasture land.
Individual death is not the same as an extinction. And after doing so they wouldn't be able to spread their idea, they'd be removing themselves from any ability to intervene.
A more appropriate response that still points out their absurdity would be to ask why they aren't committing any mass murders.
But then you need to reassess why cities are better for the environment.
I'd gather most is due to saving the commute by car to work, which is already failing in many US cities, but holds pretty well in the rest of the world.
If you move to the countryside and don't commute to work, is that really worse for the environment?
Especially since cities are overbooked in terms of space anyway. Every family that moves to the countryside frees up apartments for those that have to commute to work and can then live in the city instead.
I think remote changes a lot of these calculations.
People are not moving to the countryside to be subsistence farmers, they are moving to the suburbs and exurbs where they are living in massive houses, making far trips to get groceries, etc.
This is the case in poor countries where rural populations have a minuscule carbon footprint, and city dwellers have a greater one.
It is absolutely not the case here in developed countries. A city dweller who bikes to work is not equivalent to a suburbanite driving around their SUV just to pick up bananas from the grocery store.
Suburbs are, in my opinion at least, urban areas and part of cities; at least when looking at statements concerning human migration from rural non urban areas to urban areas.
FWiW I have mostly always lived and worked in rural | remote areas and where I currently live most people walk to the local shop and are almost all eating the bulk of their food from sources in the surrounding area.
It's small town that was once a first inland european settlement point in Australia - lot of large scale farmers with big town lots that have old fruiting trees, food plots, chickens, etc.
Lots of meticulously restored, maintained, and used cars from the 1920s - 1960s, and a surprising amount of bleeding edge tech.
Regardless of your personal definition, suburbs and urban areas are a very meaningful distinction. With regards to both human migration due to covid, and waste/consumption patterns.
1. No, that's not true at all
2. It's astounding how everywhere I go online there is someone spouting off nonsense which is then repeated and perpetuated.
3. Go listen to Gabe Brown, he saves thousands and thousands by not not paying for synthetic fertilizers.
"Above every surface acre on earth there's approximately 32,000 tons of atmospheric nitrogen, why would any farmer want to write a check for nitrogen?, I just can't figure that one out" -- Gabe Brown
https://youtu.be/uUmIdq0D6-A?t=1h13m58s