/cyber/ - Cyberpunk & Science Fiction

bump, because 8chan is broken and has a catalog glitch. thread wont show up.

>>36513

You sound like a gigantic hippie shazbot that's paranoid for all the wrong reasons. Try >>>/leftypol/ instead.

>read what you can before it 404's

or i can just continue to ignore all the shazbots who sperg out over the silliest shit and give crazies the impression that they're paid shills rather than merely autistic.

fuck shills. i wonder what those people tell their parents when they ask what they do at their job.

>>36531

>>36549

>Corporatist shills probably from the that thread: >>>cyber/25766

>Calling anyone a hippie if they grow organic food and don't fund Monsanto

>Thinking corporate appeasement == /cyber/

>>36568

* >>>/cyber/25766

>>36568

I swear, this shit has to be a really subtle raid by lainchan. I bet you're the same guy as the person who made that call to nature thread. On a cyberpunk board.

Here's some perspective from someone who grew up on a small farm.

>you're not going to be able to grow enough to feed yourself completely without some serious land available

>organic food is a gigantic sham driven by the USDA; it simply restricts the exact pesticides you can use to non-engineered ones; copper sulfate is a good example

>>>as a result, you're generally stuck using even more harmful pesticides that are still less effective, decreasing crop yields

>>>going without pesticides at all means crop loss of well upwards of 90%, and the remaining food looks like ass

>>>my family looked at getting certified as organic because we could jack our prices way the fuck up, but certain pesticides we would have had to use would have quite literally exterminated all 12 of our beehives

>>>>>we'd also have had to wait 7 years, using organic pesticides only, before we could actually label anything "organic", which would have put us out of business

>>>the widespread use of "organic" pesticides is why organic food looks so nice - if you were an actual hippie back in the 70s and 80s, you'd know that most of the organic food back then looked like ass; it was only when lots of organic pesticides were approved by the FDA that organic food could be made to look nice (and therefore appealing to consumers) without sacrificing the vast majority of your yield outright, or at least selling it to be processed

>organic farming methods on a commercial scale are absolutely brutal to the environment, because most pesticides don't break down quickly enough; fertilizers used are just as damaging as conventional farms

>the organic food model is not globally scalable, and the prohibitive costs are only offset by the absurd amount of brouzouf that first-world yuppies and hipsters will spend on anything with an organic label

The attitude about "chemical-laden foods" is the same kind of attitude that anti-vaxxers are driven by, and there's often a lot of overlap between the two crowds. A healthy degree of paranoia is a fantastic thing to have, but in this case, it's just buying into another corporate scheme, one backed by the government via the USDA.

>>36584

>you're not going to be able to grow enough to feed yourself completely without some serious land available

Not so. Your mentality is stuck in the decades-recent "better living through chemistry" past. This isn't the 60s, 70s, and 80s. My main ingredients are solar, lighting, batteries, and water. Land is nice too. Concerned about killing bees? Oh, the irony. USDA Certified Organic is indeed a profitable scheme. Out of all the certification schemes on earth, it could be much worse. Different Organic Certified farms have wildly different practices ethically speaking. Are you surprised that a solid timespan is imposed before a Monsanto-raped land suddenly converting over can earn approval? The food I had in 80s looked great just as it does today, a lot better than "perfect" color injected foods in typical stores today. Then again, my aesthetics aren't dainty and deluded. Maybe it's now /cyber/ to be weak and care if tomatoes are uniformly marketable to soccer moms regardless of much else.

Fortunately for me and anyone who joins me, we don't care about USDA and FDA government approval of anything we do, especially into the future. As for farms, plenty of farms have extremely high, organic, and ethical practices but don't apply for certification, meaning they can't legally use the term on labels. That's respectable too.

>>36589

>My main ingredients are solar, lighting, batteries, and water.

So in other words, you know nothing about how plants work? This is basic biology shit here, plants need nutrients as well. Hydroponics don't use nothing but water, retard. I'm not stuck in the "better living through chemistry" past, I'm speaking from experience. You're speaking from seeing a post on some link aggregate about urban farms or some other unsustainable pretty-looking shit.

>concerned about killing bees

Yes. A good healthy hive in our area, depending on size, age, and how good the season was, yielded 50-90 pounds of honey. That brouzouf would have vanished if we had gone organic. Speaking of chemicals, you know how everyone was freaking out over colony collapse disorder? We got hit by it too. It wasn't neonicotinoids, it was Varroa mites. The only approved treatment for them was something like 10 years old. Most strains of Varroa had developed resistance because USDA refused to approve other treatments, and shit like sugar dusting and using drone frames is simply ineffective. We had hive after hive of Italian bees die off to them. Germans didn't do much better. We found a wild colony that was fairly resistant and bred them, but they all died during a particularly harsh winter. It simply got too expensive to order news bees every spring and hope that they make it through the winter so we could get a yield the next autumn.

>USDA is bad, but it could be worse!

Could say the same thing about Monsanto. Remember, they're brought to you by the same government that raids Amish farms for selling raw milk to their neighbors.

>Different Organic Certified farms have wildly different practices ethically speaking

[citation needed]

No, really, please, show me a large, successful organic farm that abides by your version of "ethical". Please go into detail on all fertilizers and pesticides used, methodologies, equipment, crop yields, everything that makes them tick. I'll be waiting.

>Are you surprised that a solid timespan is imposed before a Monsanto-raped land suddenly converting over can earn approval?

Yet again, you show how out of touch you are. We converted old horse pasture with packed clay for soil into rich farmland through compost and manure, and there were no farms for miles, yet we still have to undergo the waiting period. But you're letting your rhetoric get ahead of you here - "Monsanto-raped land"? You're not even trying to hide the fact that you've got an agenda to push, I'm just calling you out based on my own experiences because I hate seeing people peddle bullshit when they don't have a clue what they're talking about.

>The food I had in 80s looked great just as it does today

When you hand-select the top 10%, yeah, it'll look good. You'll also waste most of your crop, and that's not sustainable - unless you can get Portland and SanFran hipsters to pay out the ass for it. Seems like you fell for them.

>a lot better than "perfect" color injected foods in typical stores today

Please show me a good, proper source for your claim that food is "color injected".

Your entire spiel here reminds me of one time that a couple of joggers were going by our house while my dad and I were working in our front vegetable garden, and one of them commented to the other "Wow, what a great looking garden, they must be all organic!", to which good old pops stood up and hollered "lady, if we were organic, we'd be down to stumps!". It had been a bad season for blight on the tomatoes, we were infested with japanese beetles and stinkbugs, the aphids were fierce, and we'd already lost our apple harvest because we didn't spray for some obscure worm in the 3-day window required because of the spring rains. He was right, of course, we'd have lost everything that year if we'd been using organic pesticides - assuming of course that we used the safe ones. In fact, it was funny just how many people thought our products were organic because of the quality, when it was mostly a matter of good variety selection and careful tending with the right pesticides. Organic is great and all, and I spent a lot of time manually spraying corn ears with a squirt bottle of BT (you know, that reliable, safe, organic pesticide that's now vilified because Monsanto built it into their corn and some french guy did a poorly designed study on it that was later rejected by the journal that published it), but pure organic does not get you where you need to be sustainably, not if you want to be safe and careful.

>Then again, my aesthetics aren't dainty and deluded

But your ideals certainly are.

>>36568

I never called you a hippie, I called you an autistic shazbot griping over minor shit and trying to turn a one-time argument into a huge deal by calling anybody who bothers to waste time arguing with you a shill.

>this thread

See? You're fucking bumping your useless sorry thread about shilling and you want people to waste their time reading another shitty thread before it 404s.

You fucking shazbots.

>>36607

>I use nutrients.

Which you only just remembered after I brought up. What, by the way, are you doing with wastewater?

>You have your anecdotal encounters.

You have nothing but, I at least worked on an industry level.

>Your family's financial motivation and want of making a quick buck by slapping "organic" on items but not following through might have shaped a bias. But I won't assume that

We have never labeled anything we grew "organic". A quick buck? No, dad wanted his kids to have a warm house in the winter.

>I didn't use the word "large." You snuck it in to strawman me.

I snuck it it because it's not viable when scaled up.

>It's disingenuous to imply that organic certification is therefore equivalent to… raiding Amish farms

If you were familiar with the regs, you'd know that it's not.

>I'm honestly surprised you're asking.

I'm honestly surprised you were so smooth with dodging the question and didn't provide any sources.

>They're not. It's real. It works.

It really doesn't.

>If you're speaking of feeding the entire world anytime soon, then there are governmental and technological hurdles to overcome.

Boy, I wonder who would be working on the technological hurdles involved in feeding the world?

>Anyway, pre-and-post-apoc survival doesn't require me to personally feed the world.

Oh, I didn't know you were 13.

>Good luck to you and your farm.

We closed down several years ago, nothing left now but our veggie gardens, thanks to the fed and the state government. All us kids were growing up and moving out anyway.

>>36618

>[nutrients]

>Which you only just remembered after I brought up. What, by the way, are you doing with wastewater?

You're either unintelligent or trolling. It might be all you have left. I didn't forget nutrients. Notice that I used the word "main" instead of "all" ingredients. That's because I thought you were intelligent enough to comprehend a conversation where I needn't list basic things including air. Air takes priority over nutrients. Did you know that? Oh, then why didn't you mention it? […] If you were treated the same in conversations, holes would be poked in your every statement based on a perpetual lack of what you say. Few people (except trolls) stoop that low. Much of it is Kratky and rather clean. Practices involving low waste are surely new to you.

>You have nothing but, I at least worked on an industry level.

In other words: anecdotal. I said both of us have our anecdotal experiences. Yours are shaped by heavy bias for a particular method. It's a relief every farmer doesn't fall into the pit of your family's bias.

>We have never labeled anything we grew "organic". A quick buck? No, dad wanted his kids to have a warm house in the winter.

I know you didn't. You said you wanted to because the markup would be very high/profitable. Your family decided not to convert because the standards were too imposing. Read your own writing.

>If you were familiar with the regs, you'd know that it's not.

I'm quite familiar with the standards. I already said those instances are not equivalent. That's why I said it would be disingenuous (of you) to imply I have to put organic cert. requirements on the same [ethical level] as people being oppressed for selling raw milk, merely because they're both dominated by a spectrum of government. If, to you, a mostly voluntary system is ethically equivalent to active prohibition, then I can't help your reasoning here.

>It really doesn't.

It does.

>[pre-and-post-apoc survival]

>Oh, I didn't know you were 13.

If you think nothing is going to disrupt your small world in the future, you're ignorant to history and the human condition. Chances are you (and other mainstream people trolling) are in for a surprise. Best of luck.

>We closed down several years ago, nothing left now but our veggie gardens, thanks to the fed and the state government.

The feds and state burdened your farm to the point of failure? If so, that's unfortunate.

>>36633

>If you think nothing is going to disrupt your small world in the future, you're ignorant to history and the human condition. Chances are you (and other mainstream people trolling) are in for a surprise. Best of luck.

Aha, so you are the guy from the "In your nature" thread. I had vaguely figured as much. When do you start calling me a shill?

I don't see any point in continuing this discussion. You've made it clear that you have no experience in what you're talking about, and you're completely out-of-touch with agriculture. You're dodging all relevant points and latching onto abstractions and poorly-backed ideals. A lot of ideologies shatter when you put them up against science, and the people holding them will use any excuse they can to worm around it - again, the similarity to anti-vaxxers is startling.

>>36643

You expected people to bow before your failed farming experience and strong bias against organic food. Your vision is demonstrably ignorant to the present and future concerning organic ag-tech. Stay limited.

>>36646

>your vision

Look, it's Steve Fucking Jobs! That's right, we can make beautiful healthy crops through our "vision" alone!

Jesus Christ, you're so goddamn arrogant. You don't have a shred of experience, and here you are talking like you're the savior of mankind with your bullshit. Unscalable, unsustainable, useless for anything but growing a week's worth of food in a year and then bragging to your friends in the coffee shop about how green you are because of it. You even follow it up with some trite, snobby little phrase.

Derezz yourself, you "visionary" fuck.

>>36685

nice assumptions, projections, generalizations, strawmanning, and goalpost moving.

bumping this for freedom

I've learned this lesson the hard way, and though while I do not know if this is the best way to deal with shilling, and at risk of breaking these very suggestions, I do know that doing the following is less harmful than what has gone on in this thread:

-Ignore all preceived attempts at shilling

-Do not acknowledge shilling (yes, I'm rewording the first point)

-DO NOT acknowledge poor quality posts (yes I am repeating myself, but being more general; the assumption is easy ammunition due to lack of proof, because idiots and the misled will ALWAYS be some part of any given community)

Keep in mind the Streisand Effect. This exposure, no matter how real it is, is not productive to point out without any substantial solution. There is however a <i>good</i> solution, and it is the same one that we have used to best deal with low quality posts all along. Ignore, do not feed the trolls, etc.

And on a sidepoint, we should all be mindful of our own language. Being emotive and attacking somebody because they hold different views than ourselves is not productive discussion.

>>36679

I'm not invested in this argument at all, but those are some pretty shit sources, m8.

>>36717

okay shill

>>36718

I'm just saying that over half of those come from biased, illegitimate news sources.

>>36714

It's not about keeping knowledge from others. And you're certainly not attempting to do that. For example, try not using the same tactics found from googling "gentleperson's guide to forum spies pastebin"… yes, pastebin, because cryptome has been compromised.

I'm so fucking glad this thead is bumplocked. Mods here are actually decent… keep it up guys.

>>36720

everyone please believe this shill, because what they are saying must be true! ;^)

>>36746

>>36730

The mods here are either bumplocking threads that have shills in them consistently because people are nice enough to point them out, or they are bumplocking threads because they do not wish the shills to be pointed out.

The more logical thing to do would be to leave the thread up as a sticky to expose shill tactics and ways of defeating their logic.

anyways, you keep on shilling because that must be your great purpose in this great and vast universe and I will continue to do what I know to be the most honest representation of the truth.

>>36771

No, they're bumplocking them because they dislike your shitposting and terrible threads.

I'd sage, but, well, y'know…

>>36773

only you shills made low quality postings.

bump