I keep saying for a while that Precision Fermentation is the future. Because if it isn’t, that probably means there isn’t one.
Using the lowest trophic level possible to grow our sustenance directly is the only way to ensure the least destruction possible. Which ensures the most environmental and ethical efficacy. As there should never be anything to distinguish between them in the first place.
Have an acount on both and use them to verify each other.
I have a Proton mail account. While I’m ready to scold them for stop posting on Mastodon while still posting you know where!!.. I think the stupid tweet that Andy Yen posted got way too out of hand. It was one tweet. You should find the tweet and read it yourself. It’s just a dig at the “Left” in the vein of “wait, since when is a Republican defending small tech from Big Tech more than the Left?” It was tone deaf, and dumb and calls caution to the fact that this may be another dumb tech Bro who likes to tweet irresponsibly just as much as the idiots we know too well. But it wasn’t any form of endorsement at all. Just a tone deaf attempt to create social pressure for the supposed “Left” to do what it is supposed to do. And oh boy, did the tone deaf tweet backfire.
But anyway, I belive, like many people here do, that one shouldn’t put all of one’s efforts to just one bet. That is how we got Google in the first place. You should also have a Tuta Mail as well, especially if you seem inclined to and don’t have an alternative mail to Proton. I’m always ready to jump at any time that I find something that displeases me. And that includes Proton.
There’s also personal preferences at play. What works really well for one person, might not for another.
We should try to spread our choice amongst all the villagers. Do not replace your entire Google suite for the Proton one. That’s how we get another powerful conglomerate.
I’m not sure if the OP is trying to expose this article as an idiotic thing or not, but I can’t take this nothingness of an article seriously.
I’m 40 and I’m sure that I “gave” this supposed “stare” to both older and younger people several times this month alone. And we’re barely past midway through it.
Yes, it is smug and rude and most of the times uncalled for. But I don’t remember a time when this wasn’t around. I’ve given this look and received it since I’m able to remember existing. It’s not a generational feature, it’s not even a cultural one, as I’ve met people from all ages and places that do this my whole life.
And it’s not that the young are more rude, is that everyone is more rude now.
We all know that social exchanges took a turn for the worst since algorithmic social media really started to take off circa 2010, and it only got worse when everyone got locked with it as their only form of social exchange during covid lockdowns. This is not a GenZ problem, nor a U.S. problem, this is a problem for most people in most places now.
Blaming this on the young when they had no saying in establishing this mess and when they were obviously never in charge of any decisions that led us here is the typical nonsense to expect from the most idiotic reasoning of the establishment and legacy media.
“Oh, you know who we should blame for the shitty world we have? The people who were never in charge of anything and never had any saying in a single thing whatsoever. That’s who!!”
I’ve witnessed this nonsense too many times my entire life and I don’t know how people fall for something so easy to recognize as inconceivable. And not with just the youth. It’s always stupid to assign blame to the people with the least available agency in the room, or in the world.
And I hope you all catch it and stop it everytime someone is trying this nonsense in front of you.
This article deserves the very “stare” that is trying to attribute to GenZ. If they do indeed do it more than others, articles like this only re-enforce that they should keep doing it. Because it very much earns that reaction.
And how many people kept warning everyone of this and for how long?
I am a bit tired of the lack of foresight. In reactive vs proactive measures people only seem to understand reactive ones.
I’ve been telling people about the dangers of the lack of digital sovereignty, in relation to nations, communities and individuals for I don’t even know how long. As many many others have for even longer.
It’s as if one keeps telling someone to fix the fissures in the hull of their boat while on shore, but they only seem to understand what you mean when the boat is leaking through these same fissures at sea.
It’s only then that it starts to sink - pun very much intended.
By that point it’s too late. And the outcome might be a tragic one.
It’s the same with the environment.
It’s the same with their own health.
It’s the same with everything.
One doesn’t need to ponder about this for very long to pinpoint that this is because the absence of reference is what makes it harder to acknowledge it. Because one has a harder time understanding what one doesn’t have a frame of reference of, and then the subsequent dismissiveness ensues.
The great tragedy of all the proactive efforts is that when they are successful, something has been avoided, and therefore unseen.
We register rescue, not prevention.
And it’s only in the rescuing that the understanding of what could have been avoided starts to be perceived. Not everyone is like this, but most people seem to be.
But I don’t know how as one gets older, sees what might be a cliff ahead and finds only reasoning for a faint downslope.
And I no longer care to know if it is due to denial, laziness or ignorance anymore. Because I’m quite exhausted of this.
I understand you being protective of the communities you manage and that it’s a delicate task to begin with. And an effort that so often goes unrecognised and unappreciated.
But please, don’t feel accused or worse, insulted, because I oppose banning. My opposition to it is not a personal stance against you or anyone else.
In relation to upvotes/downvotes, I use them to generate a quick dislplay of engagement in the communities I follow. But even though I do it, I still find that it is always a lazy form of engagement that is both unappealing and uninteresting and on top of it all it is a system that lacks clarity and it’s easy to hijack with bots and brigade hits. And it is that way because it requires very little effort and time to do so. So I always found that we could do without that system and I would much prefer it.
In relation to banning, I think it is possible to devise other methods of guiding online spaces. I never like when I see a comment or a post removed. Never. I would much prefer that in the case of mods, a system of different flags used for flagging different circumstances was set in place. Like one for trolling, another one for spam, a different one for toxic and insulting use of language, and especially the one for the ban that upsets me the most out of all the banning choices, the off topic one. As I’ve said in another comment in this thread, I’ve never been banned from any community in any platform. But I have had comments removed where I was merely responding to other people and a new branch of conversation emerges amongst a few of us, only for our comments to be removed and our conversation ended with total disregard or respect for the conversation we were having. This is insulting to everyone involved, as any good conversation can lead us anywhere and these are not in person or broadcast events running on a clock. People can respond at their own leisure, and anyone who is not interested can just collapse the comment branch and move to the next branch within the thread. This way of fencing topics is a community killer and I’ve left quite a few communities over the years because of this type of moderation alone and not the community itself. It is not of my interest to be in a space where people are shut down, especially when everyone involved is being respectful and we’re doing what these platforms were really intended for, which is to take in different perspectives from all types of people from anywhere in the world. If not for that, I have a life and this is of no interest to me to waste my time on if I’m not reaching and accessing people and realities that are not my own.
But this is my opinion. And by definition I’m a commenter not a poster. And I’ve never been interested in moderating. Because I like the equalitarianism of being amongst others sharing ideas without any disparity to differentiate us. Which is another reason as to why we could do without the lazy upvote/downvote system which interferes without engaging.
But I am going to repeat what I said at the beginning… I understand you being protective of the communities you manage and it’s a really delicate task to begin with. And it truly is an effort that so often goes unrecognised and unappreciated.
So, regardless of what our differences of opinion might be, I’m still grateful for your efforts and I’m glad that there’s still people around that care enough to try a hand at what is a hard bargain from the get go.
Yeah, I agree that the complexity is larger in practice than just saying no bans. And I’ve even commented recently that I’ve heard directly from coders that it is easier to code and built the platforms than it is to manage the user base. I also said I’m not a coder so I can’t make that claim. But I’ve heard it first hand.
But I still can’t agree in principle with the blank nature of banning. I have to say that I’ve never been banned from any online space. Not once. Not on reddit, not on Lemmy, and I hope that continues now on Piefed. So, I’m not defending this principle on a basis that I’ve experienced a ban in its true opressive form like some people are sharing in this thread. Because I haven’t. But I have in the past taken a stand in defence of people that I vehemently disagreed with, because I believe however heinous their comments or choice of words were, I want them to be out in the open. That is how the accountability can actually occur. And that is how they get to be challenged. Not cast out without reasoning. If they leave to set up shop somewhere where only the heinous will follow, that’s how we allow this wound to fester and spread its putrefaction. And no form of accountability or consequence actuality took place. None whatsoever.
And it was extremely bad news when I saw the freedom of speech starting to become a proud talking point of conservative and retrograde outlets more than a decade ago. Which was in my impression at the tail-end of Gamergate. ( But did it ever end though? SJW versus Anti-SJW just got rebranded as Woke versus Anti-Woke) But sill, I think back then was when all the grifters that are now famous spotted this great online grift : Say something obnoxious or questionably dubious, then let in the brigade that want to tell them they can’t say that, so that they can sound the horn and call the free speech absolutists and cry out that freedom of speech is under threat and nearly gone. All while they have the freedom to recycle and repeat this nonsense over and over.
This type of political play has been around for a long time…
But here, online, it’s truly the same method of the old online Troll. I mean, I even found some trolling in the past absolutely ingenious and even hilarious in some cases. But I guess a lot of people didn’t learn the old ungated ways of the internet, where we would spot the Troll and know not to feed it. As the online spaces became more deranged it became harder to distinguish and we went from playing “spot the troll” to playing “is this satire?” really quickly.
But still, anyone perceptive knew these rising grifters only wanted to defend this right so they could get to opress the rights of others and control the narrative all while cashing in on furthering the protective barrier for the wealthy class to keep hoarding more wealth and control. I believe some were even being sponsored to do so. And there’s been some evidence uncovered of some extreme far right groups even directly funding this type of bait in Europe. I mean, it was always clear as day, but they managed to garner a lot of suppport from gullible people who thought they were being virtuous in the defense of freedom. But they were surrendering control to the faction and people who want to control speech the most. Because they always have wanted to control it the most all along.
But this was only possible because some people really intended on policing speech instead of disarming the nonsense with facts through the same freedom. As righteous as their motivations might’ve been, this was a truly misguided step.
The righteous path cannot mimic the behaviours and practices of oppression and tyranny. It will only bring about the same cycles of resistance. As it obviously has.
Nothing that is merely enforced is ever truly learned, and this way true progress is never achieved.
The upvote/downvote system was always meant to be in relation to one agreeing/ disagreeing or liking/disliking with what one is interacting with, and I do believe that it is the inescapable function of it, regardless of how much thought one puts into it or not. One would have to find a bizarre thought process that could result in one avoiding that inevitability. Like someone who chooses to upvote what they disagree with or downvote what they agree with. Doesn’t sound conceivable. Maybe in an algorithm driven platform one could use this as a thought experiment to find the opposite of oneself or one’s own opposition in suggested content, but here without an algorithm to drive it, not even that is conceivable.
In regards to people piling on and using downvotes in a form of a brigade attack, similar to review bombing pieces of media… While I dislike this profoundly and find it enormously toxic, it is still within the realm of public expression. If one means to silence it, one means to suppress the freedom for others to express themselves as both individuals and as a group. As much as I find it despicable or toxic in a lot of contexts, I can’t bring myself to justify the act of banning this form of expression in showing discontent. As I’m sure we’ve all found moments in which we agreed with a form of public outrage expression such as this one. But we’re still all being baited into pack mentality which is an essential feature to maximise engagement in algorithmic platforms. And it is why it is a key requirement for me now that if I’m to join any platform that this feature needs to be non-existent. No algorithm driven platforms for me, thanks. If the user is not driving the experience, I find it repulsive, and so should anyone else.
As to banning in general… The user as an individual can block whomever they so desire, including entire instances. That is the control that anyone should be allowed to have as an individual. But not banning. Moderating or not, I find banning a suppression tool that can be used to suppress legitimate criticism, and it does happen all the time. Everywhere. So, I’m opposed to banning. Even in extreme cases of crude language and abhorrent and toxic behaviour. As I find that banning is sweeping the problem under the rug and not allowing it to be seen, identified, analysed and to further uncover the root causes of that said problem. Be that of an individual or any type of mob mentality. Back when I left reddit, I didn’t leave because there were too many shitty users, I left because they were being rewarded with attention without examination. And the algorithm there was what did that and still does. There and everywhere else.
I’m 40. Even recently someone here reminded me of the concept of “Eternal September”. I hadn’t heard it in a long time. But I’ve seen it happen many times. The absence of an algorithm alone is enough to build a fence to stave off some of the largest problems of modern online spaces.
For anyone who doesn’t know, not even the incel community was a toxic one when it started. In the late 90’s it was just people sharing their insecurities in those forums. And it was composed of both male and female users seeking to find connection through the act of sharing their insecurities in an attempt to find a way out of loneliness. Cut to now and what the hell happened? I was too young back then to parse through the nuances and complexities of what was going on those forums. But one thing that I always pondered was if whatever happened there was the prelude to Gamergate. Because I think Gamergate was what “trained” algorithms to reinforce toxicity because it tracked the maximising of engagement that occurred, and then reinforced it because maximising engagement was what it was supposed to do. And just like people swept under the rug the incel community gone terribly wrong by dismissing it as some trivial internet phenomena, people did the same with Gamergate as they dismissed it as some trivial dumb gamer thing. And now look at where we are. But the fact is that this was and has been growing for a long time, people just didn’t bother to assess it, and banning this to the outer margins was one of the reasons it grew. And then the algorithms came and rewarded and emboldened it all.
If I had to sum it up I would say… Modern civilization isolates people, which generates loneliness, which generates resentment for others and an enormous need for connection, which then finds connection in resemblance in the loneliness and resentment of others online, with the internet not solving the loniless that is seething underneath of it all and even reinforcing it. It’s a loop. And it is not secular to men or young men, it’s everyone without a social life and real connections that gets caught in this loop. And the algorithimc influence only accelerates it.
This all to say that banning people is another one of the contributors that leads people down darker and darker paths to find somebody that will listen to them. As uncomfortable as it might be to encounter this, I want all this in plain sight, and I want everyone of sound mind to try to engage and try to disarm what is causing the people in question to spiral down.
I know it’s not pleasant nor easy, but if we avoid it, the result will be even more unpleasant and harder to deal with.
Just take a look at the world now… Loneliness was weaponized by the indecent, because the decent refused to engage. And it is still going on and on.
And the antidote can’t be the continuous matching of resentment nor to allow the conditions that set this in motion to remain unacknowledged.
While I do share your deep frustration regarding how the attention scale tips a lot more for the frivolous in the face of calamity, I have to say the way you are commenting is just a good example of how to not communicate with others in behalf of a cause.
You could harness the enthusiasm of people for this cause and redirect their attention to other issues, by claiming that this is a good example in how we can indeed fight back against the many injustices that are reigned over us.
If you instead intend to belittle people into it, you’ll get nothing but what you are getting here, which is… well, you can see for yourself.
Not to mention that you might be successful in demotivating people even further.
I try to raise as much attention as I can to Permaculture and syntropy or the syntropic method, and try to promote movements such as Degrowth, Veganism, Zero Waste and I never shut up about Precision Fermentation. But there’s a reason why I don’t call myself an Environmentalist, a Vegan or a Zerowaster and so on… even though in practice I technically do practice all these things - well, not all, not Precision Fermentation because I don’t have the money or infrastructure to do it, otherwise I would, and that is why I probably can’t shut up about it. But I don’t use distinguishing labeling to describe myself that may generate a sense of otherness to others. There’s literally nothing different about me because I do or practice any single one of these things or all of them. Any person can choose to do any of them or all of them at any point, and the only obstacle might be that they didn’t have the knowledge as to how or they didn’t or don’t have time and support to learn it.
When fighting for the environment or fighting fascism (It’s literally the same fight against the capital influence that dictates these conditions because of the few that want to thrive at the cost of everything else), it needs to start with making people feel less alone in the face of it all, and then reaffirming their sense of belief that any difference that they can make is a difference worth making.
You’re doing quite the opposite here. And believe me when I tell you this. Because I am on your side. Even your feeling of anger and resentment is one I share when seeing the apathy and complacency in the people around me everyday. I just learned my lesson that the pessimistic attitude and outbursts got me nothing but alienation. And from time to time I still need someone to do the same for me as what I am doing here for you now, someone needs to snap me out of all the rage and loathing because it accomplishes exactly the opposite of what I want to happen in the world.
I apologise if my very long message feels condescending, or if it makes you feel like telling me to go fuck myself. If it does, remember this… I’m on your side. I really am.
Notice that my comment was meant as a compliment to him. And a dig to myself for not allowing the belief that this might just be a decent person. That was the joke. That we are almost all conditioned to have a pavlovian level of reaction towards politicians, in which they speak and we doubt them immediately.
I know two people that are members of political parties and they are genuinely two of the most decent people I know. But at the same time, they are not raising ranks within their respective parties. Which are also not the biggest parties to begin with. I don’t doubt that there are decent people that are trying to be decent politicians. I just think that the capital influence and its respective interests don’t usually allow these decent ones to reach actual positions of power and they even get actively placated as a result of their integrity hindering the consolidation of that very same capital influence.
What’s this?? A politician in a position of power taking a stand on a principle with integrity?? Especially these days?
How did he sneak in?
They’re usually not allowed in the establishment.
Hmm… Suddenly I can’t trust him anymore. That’s how fucked I am with the political class. Like, immediately it just pops “what’s his angle besides some PR glow?” - that’s where my mind goes instantly.
It’s exhausting…
We lost track of what money was supposed to be for… a representation of the resources and services in circulation. In which it was supposed to facilitate trade by creating tokens to facilitate transactions without the requirement of trust in the absence of a good, like when a farmer would need a tool from a blacksmith but the goods that the farmer has are only available when harvested in which the tool that the blacksmith has is required to retrieve them. In the presence of trust, the blacksmith was going to still trade and expect the goods when time was due. In the absence of trust, like in relation to a stranger, this trade wouldn’t go forward. Money as a representational token solved this sort of common issue. And this became a necessity when tribes went above the Dunbar’s number.
Cut to now…
What the hell is an economy even supposed to represent anymore? It is certainly not a representation of the resources and services in circulation, that’s for sure. 6 out of 9 planetary boundaries already breached all to ensure the survival of this abstraction. Some even call it Moloch as a reference to the pagan god which required human sacrifice. I thinks it’s worse, as it requires the sacrifice of everything, not just humans. But it is certainly a clever nod to something that was only real because people believed it to be.
Back to your project. A FOSS Barter Facilitator. There’s nothing I don’t like about this. Just make sure the protocols remain open to federation of future FOSS Barter Facilitators and you have a slice of Utopia to challenge the dystopian hell we’re in.
You have something here that can alleviate people’s lives in times of great need. Resource collapse is imminent now. If that is not at least partially avoided, that makes the collapse of the global economic system inevitable. What happens after that is a fool’s errand to even attempt to guess. We only know it’s not gonna be peaceful and nice given the stupidity in human nature. Scarcity always leads to the forming of new predation systems. That is how predation was formed in Nature. The incapacity for self-regulation led to animals to reproduce and consume more than the regenerative availability of their setting allowed, leading them to predate on each other. This is how violence emerged in Nature and still does to this day. When we lose track of self regulation we return to the scavenger’s rule of the wild.
But this helps in giving people access to trade without the requirement of capital tokens. Huge spikes in inflation, unemployment and mass migrations are only going to increase in volume and in rate as resources continue to collapse worldwide. We’re in a feedback loop and war and A.I. will only accelerate the velocity of it.
Or, you know, we could have more ideas like yours and reduce resource intake, increase individual resiliency and in doing so, lessening the panic in the common struggles.
So…
I’m certainly saving this post and link and share it with anyone who is inclined to listen.
I’m not a coder, so I thank you for such a wonderful contribution to the world.
I understand your tempered position. I really do.
But allow me to go on a bit of a rant here…
All the big tech companies in Silicon Valley have aways been heavily subsidised by the U.S. government without the U.S. taxpayers having any stakeholders’ position afterwards. These should have always been partially within the public owned infrastructure given how they were funded by the public. Amazon is probably the most ridiculous case in the world in how long they weren’t profitable and remained subsidised by the government to even be able to exist.
So, in regards if FOSS should be tax funded… yes. Because of the very reason I just mentioned. All big tech was and still is tax funded. With them taking even more money from people as costumers after already having taken money from them as taxpayers. While also just selling everyone entirely as a profile to get ad revenue from or as a surveilled citizen to serve on a platter to whichever government they want to influence further. This is insanely corrupt as a system. It should’ve not been allowed to even establish itself.
I think everyone who supports FOSS and open protocols is very aware of the pitfalls and uphill struggles to implement them against the current system. But I find that the general apathy and the further complacency of the general public is the true paramount adversity.
When you say “this is me being a realist”, it is you accepting the reality that was imposed onto you by the people who are benefitting from its’ imposition. Even more than the typical manufactured consent of capitalism, this is enforced submission to those rejecting the manufactured consent. Because from the rest of your comment, and the fact that you are here on Lemmy, you clearly do not consent to this reality, but you’ve accepted it as an inevitability. Which it isn’t, as we are not in the grounds of that reality having this exchange right now.
Taxpayers should fund FOSS and open protocol software because it protects them long term. One quick example would be how to this day nobody can close protocols on email and how anyone can create their email and host the server if they so desire. It obviously requires skill and knowledge, but if one has them, nobody can prevent them from doing it for themselves or even others if they so desire. This is an absolute insurance that the system can’t dictate one’s individual terms.
And while the Fediverse may be very small in comparison to the general establishment, it is large enough as proof to present anyone who doubts that there is a way to get back to the true promise of the internet and that we can indeed get back our sovereignty from the conglomerates that destroyed that promise.
And the political winds can change in whatever direction they may, it doesn’t matter, as it can’t and won’t destroy the resiliency of the concept. I just joined piefed.social after the Lemm.ee shutdown, and it doesn’t matter because this is a resilient concept. And that is also the reason it cannot be contained or controlled by anyone over anyone.
Sorry for the very long reply. I hope I wasn’t as annoying to you as I feel I am being. If so, I apologise even more.
Cheers.
deleted by creator
Oh, thanks. That is very good news.
In regards to Meredith Whittaker and Signal… If I remember correctly when I read that rumour, it was in regards of the push that the EU has going on for Message Apps to open their protocols.
Delta Chat for example, already has open protocols with emails. But there’s no allies joining in on the message app front.
As one would expect, Meta is fighting this with WhatsApp and Messenger. The fact they don’t connect both of these, with them being within the same company tells us all.
But I haven’t been following this as closely as I probably should. So don’t know if that Signal rumour is remotely true.
The EU push for it is true though. But if they’ll manage to enforce it is another conversation entirely.
Yeah, I think the same. But if they work towards federation, they’re at least on the right side of things. Unlike Meta, X and most of Silicon Valley.
Good. That means she actually cares enough to go for other possibilities. I’m also certain that there’s at least a portion of their supporters who would crucify her if she wasn’t also on Bluesky.
By the way, do you know if BlueSky is open to the idea of federation? As anyone heard if there’s interest in it?
I read somewhere here on Lemmy someone commenting that the CEO of Signal Meredith Whittaker was inclined to be a part of the push for open protocols as well. Don’t know if that is true though. Didn’t seek to verify it.
But I always want to know who does support the good fight for what the internet is supposed to be.
Yeah, I agree that with the people with larger numbers of followers there’s an inherent fear of losing relevance.
But surely there’s a sunk cost fallacy at play as well. Especially when I see no effort of these people to build a lateral following in alternative platforms. They can use that same volume of followers to platform the alternatives and pave the road for both themselves and others to find a viable way out. Without that effort in sight, I’m forced to question their intelligence or their intentions. Or both simultaneously.
Having said that, I still can’t justify the ones with no great following that decide to stay.
I know people probably think that they’re taking some level of “warrior keyboarding” right to the other side’s doorststep. All in behalf of raising awareness.
But…
these are not FOSS platforms with no algorithmic reinforcement for engagement. Precisely the opposite. So, all that people do is maximise engagement, and with that raise profit margins for the very people they’re trying to “take down”, and who can control what is visible and what isn’t from the get go.
If all these “nobodies” like myself decided to delete their accounts in these platforms and move on to the FOSS alternatives, and if we all continued to seek legislation to continue to open protocols online as the original promise of the internet that was taken from all of us, then people like Elizabeth May would have to leap as well, as the numbers that made them relevant would be gone elsewhere. And with that, these closed gated platforms with their shitty algorithms would be left in irrelevance with a user base akin to the size of something like TrueSocial. Given their current expenses they would be forced to downsize or file for bankruptcy.
This is the only way to fight conglomerates and their grip.
Doesn’t matter if it’s social platforms, digital services, supermarket chains, fast food giants etc etc
Boycotting accompanied by alternatives aligned with decentralisation and further legislation to insure sovereignty for everyone everywhere.
Absolutely.
I can’t fathom what the hell are the justifications that people will fabricate to keep themselves there. I mean, I understand what the Neo Nazis, incels, Maga and so on are doing there. But everyone else? It has to be morbid curiosity at this point, addiction to rage or something like that. Maybe they want to get acquainted with the new Grok AKA the self-named “Mecha-Hitler”… Urghh
I actually had a Mastodon account for a while, but I never got into the microblogging thing. It’s why I never liked Twitter either. Just isn’t my jam I suppose.
But I’ve started to notice some small companies and newspapers having the mastodon link on the bottom of their websites and that makes me glad to see it.
I’m not entirely clear as if you just meant that as a thought experiment… Because I wasn’t suggesting anything in that direction, actually. I was merely stating that the ratio of space required to grow food for the population in cities should match the vertical design of cities themselves. And even include these vertical farming structures within cities themselves. It all needs to match the design of efficiency in housing. Otherwise, it’s just a race to the bottom in how to run out of surface land and resources the fastest way.
Also, I want to mention that this idea that the entire lives of people would have to be dedicated entirely to farming has always been greatly exaggerated as to scare off people from procuring sovereignty for themselves and their communities. My girlfriend and I grow some of our food. I would say even if I took the task alone with the intention of feeding us both entirely all year round, it would take me about less then 2 months worth of work spread out across two seasons. That out of an entire year leaves a lot of time to spare. Not to mention, that I could use the same time to grow more for more people. After you put what you need in the ground, setting an automatic irrigation system, the maintenance work is not that much of a hassle, especially using the syntropic method within a permaculture design. The early stages of setting this up are laborious indeed, but after that, not really, not really at all.
This all to say that this is another one of those myths that capitalism has ingrained falsely in people as to keep the labour of the masses retained to the benefit of the few who gain the most from it. It’s about insuring the conditions where the elite can keep manufacturing the consent in others to exploit them. And insuring dependency is always the way to do it.
Farming wise, and regarding our current food systems, I think that people in general should learn more about syntropy if we are to communicate better as to what needs to be achieved. As it will mean different approaches depending on geography. Not to mention Urban vs rural settings would also require different approaches as well.
Then it would also be easier to gather support for innovations such as Precision Fermentation. Because using bacterial and microbial life to grow our sustenance is ingenious. The lower the trophic level we consume from, the lesser the destruction. And it would also be faster. Always.
If we truly insure true efficiency, we truly minimise destruction. And maximise the potential for prosperity for all, including non-human animals, plants and all other organisms.
Unfortunately the only efficiency that our current systems are designed for is to maximise profit. Which requires continuous growth, which is unsustainable and will ultimately lead to its own inevitable collapse. 6 of the 9 established planetary boundaries have already been breached. It’s only a matter of time now. As to how much time that will take and how much of the world will be taken with it, that is all tied to massive amounts of data for us to even fathom to process.
And AI is currently accelerating all this race to depletion in all fronts.
So, yeah, optimism right now, would be indeed for fools as you say.
There is nothing wrong with weeds. Though there is something wrong with Monocultures that have no place for them and in turn produce nutrient deficient sustenance.
Permaculture and syntropic farming have for decades now integrated them without any use of pesticides. Insuring soil nutrition and nutrient dense foods in the process.
They keep trying to find better ways to do the wrong thing. Yes, this would be better than the pesticide use, but always worse than the alternatives I just mentioned.
And if anyone has the question “is it scalable?” The answer is yes. But it depends…
Because I would still say that given that more than half of the world’s population lives in cities, we need to match the vertical axis of them when we grow their required sustenance. To stack up people vertically and then still spread their consumption horizontally it’s how we get a problem of space ratio as we have.
But even in this form of vertical indoor farming, this should still be moved into the cities or as close to them as possible with the Permaculture philosophy incorporated in them. Vertical Indoor Farming also creates resiliency against weather events and potential pests given that the growing cultivation is isolated inside. All while able to create the appropriate conditions to grow anything all year around. This would help in releasing more surface land from the eroding practices of monocultures and their required plowing and harvesting cycle which destroys the integrity of the soil and leads to erosion. Allowing these spaces to be free from these harming practices while integrating practices of reforestation would be indeed a great development in the right direction.
Not to mention that alongside all this, Precision Fermentation is also an absolute requirement to feed a growing population into the future.