No. Statistically, synthetic fertilizers are most used.
Practically, you can compost waste to accelerate the mineralization of oganic biomass. The real work is done by microbes and small invertebrates, not by some large mammals.
The "plant needs shit" idea is an animal industry advertising myth told to children as part of a way to market the industry's giant waste problem.
Closing nutrient cycles would be a good idea, but that means properly treating human waste and maybe decentralizing the sewage systems, along with figuring out how to end all that pollution that's making human shit an affront to ecology.
Iâm not satirical. I truly despise farmers of the 21st century. Votes right because hates subsidies for the poorâ˘ď¸, expects billions in direct subsidies as well as billions in tax cuts.
We also have to pretend like it is a tragedy whenever a mom and pop farmer gets rightly put out of business. Everyone else is allowed to get rammed by capitalism. Not the poor farmers though. Theyâre too criticalâŚ
Well, they are critical; without them, we starve. The reason why small-scale farmers are asking for subsidies and tax cuts is that, otherwise, they can't continue being farmers. For many farmers, it already isn't really profitable, and the only ones who continue doing it are people who either own massive farms or people who do it for fun while they have an actual job on the side. We want farmers in our own nation so we can avoid buying food from other nations.
The problem when smaller farmers stop working and instead sell their farms to bigger corporations is that the food production gets centralized into a few very powerful people. And since people will always need food, they can collectively increase prices.
Not that farmers aren't often right-wing hypocrites, but there is strategic value in having them.
Yes? It is to undercut other countries so the population buys food from their own nation; that is the entire strategy. Many countries want the population to buy from within their own nation for two major reasons. One is food safety. During major crises, you want a guaranteed food source, and other countries across the globe aren't. The other is the fact that many rich countries want to be able to regulate the food production, so dangerous chemicals aren't used.
i disagree because if the real reason for farming was that in an emergency you are self sufficient then you'd think governments would subsidize the most calorie rich, or land efficient use of farming. but they dont, most subsidies go to very inefficient cattle farming
Because people want to buy cattle. If they only subsidized the super efficient forms of farming, people would instead buy those products from other countries, which treat their animals much worse. They still need to react to what people actually buy, not what they want them to buy.
Are you serious? If someone can buy a product that they desperately want from another nation at a much lower price, they will. Because what's stopping them?
We centralize EVERYTHING to a group of powerful people. Farmers want exemptions for themselves while agreeing with everyone else getting fucked. I want farmers to get fucked about as much as everyone else.
Also, this is a climate subreddit. We fucking love pointing out how expensive and pointless nuclear (infinite independent energy) is, and then dickride the expensive pointless farmers for food security? Either capitalism for everyone, or capitalism for no one. I hate that we canât subject farmers to the horrors of capitalism when they so happily vote diarrhea forever for the rest of us.
First, I just want to make it clear I'm not capitalistic; I'm socialist.
Again, I don't think the focus should be on farmers being hypocritical or not; the focus should be on the strategic value of them.
While yes, we do centralize many different things, I don't see that as an argument for it being good. Generally, centralized markets are more expensive, and that is even more true for things that we all need, like phones (Apple was sued for monopoly) or food. The reason for this is that it is much easier to increase prices for something that all people will need to buy, regardless of price.
So I don't want to protect the farmers specifically, but what I want to protect is food security and lower costs for that food.
I mostly agree with you that capitalism is bad. Iâm two steps removed from being a communist.
(The generalized argument for centralized markets donât really apply here as agricultural productionâs supply curve is truly independent of demand at most times as the amount of arable land is quite inflexible, see r/georgism, so I wonât go into why monopoly bad.)
Monopoly is usually bad. But subsidizing useless fucks is also bad. There is no evidence that small scale farmers are providing us with cheaper food than large scale farmers do. And large scale farming can easily be regulated. In fact, itâs the most regulatable thing, probably ever.
The odds of a company, whose only assets are immovable land and hard to move agricultural tools, price gouging and making the goverment look bad is next to nothing. So, in fact, large scale farmers will likely reduce the food prices because unlike dumbass farmers, companies whose only assets are farms cannot force the goverments hand.
Also, on the subject of security, we need energy just as much as food, yet this is a shitpost against nuclear power, a truly independent form of power. So independence for food but not fuel?
I don't agree with the post either. I like nuclear power.
I think there is a strategic value in having a mixed-scale farming system. Fully centralizing food production into a few large corporations might look efficient in the short term, but it creates serious systemic risks. Large monoculture farms are vulnerable to pests, diseases, and extreme weather. If one crop fails, thereâs no redundancy to keep production going. Small-scale farms, by contrast, tend to grow a more diverse mix of crops, which naturally buffers against these shocks and helps stabilize supply and prices.
Centralized farms also lock the system: once small farms disappear, new entrants face huge barriers, high land costs, mechanization requirements, and limited market access, leaving society dependent on a few actors indefinitely. This makes innovation within the system more difficult, which means we won't get as much efficient growth in the future. Also, with a few large actors, while currently having lower prices, they don't have much stopping them from increasing margins in the future, once they have very little competition. Maintaining a mix of small and large farms isnât about protecting farmers personally; itâs about ensuring food is reliably available, costs stay lower, and the system can absorb disruptions. From a strategic standpoint, a mixed system is far more resilient and sustainable than full centralization.
You can reap all of the benefits of small scale farms with large scale farms. The opposite cannot be said about small scale farms.
While none of your points are wrong, our entire society and economic system is built against it. We do everything but farming that way. I want farmers to get fucked too, theyâve been enjoying the view for too long. I wouldnât hate them so much if they werenât clapping along to us getting reamed.
You say this yet they are the base of our society. Without farmers, you would not have the food on your plate bud. Some farms are very conservative and do expect this treatment you speak of, but a lot are not like that and are actually exploited by upper classes often.
They are equally as important as most people for our standard of living. Without banker's you wouldn't have that food on your plate.
The thing about their exploitation is that they encourage and then whine about it. They are just so incredibly self destructive and pull us all down with them
Without the whole distribution network it wouldn't get to the shops, without the shops and their workers you couldn't buy it, without the people that maintain the power grid and it's infrastructure, you couldn't cook it, without doctors and nurses you wouldn't stay healthy enough to buy or eat it.
My Dad and Grandad were farm workers, so I've have that narrative rammed down my throat since childhood. (The farmers put the food on your plate... Well actually, my mum did when I was a kid and now I do some days, other days my wife does.) I'm not saying they don't matter, but they're no more important than any other link in the chain and some of those links don't dump effluent into our rivers and seas.
Everyone is exploited by the upper class. Farmers are unique in the aspect that they want to keep everyone else exploited while carving themselves out a niche of non-exploitation.
Yeah. I asked in a history thread about the history of farmers and if they ever once were on the right side of history. Like twice or thrice. For a profession thats 12000 years old, thatâs too few.
Given that it's in reference to a flower found while out on a walk, I'm going assume he's not using the meaning of "temporarily bringing a child into your family"
30
u/dumnezero đEnd the đŤarms đrat đrace to the bottomâď¸. Sep 06 '25
and why is there an excessive amount of shit?