Even if everyone switched to a full vegan diet and we culled every farm animal immediately, it would be a bandaid.
We’re propped up by non renewable phosphate fertilizer and virtually no country tries to reclaim what is used.
I’m pretty sure one small wastewater plant in England reclaims it, the rest gets flushed out to the ocean where it causes further issues and becomes for all intents and purposes irrevocable.
Like, I’m not saying going vegan is pointless, I’m just saying it’s the equivalent of paper straws on a global timeline.
We’re fucked, and we’ve been fucked longer than any human has been alive, we just haven’t realized it yet.
Removing fertilizer would cause a major economic downturn but most agriculture isn’t grown for human food. It’s calorie crops that get turned into feed and fuel. We would see temporary depressions in many farm areas until they rebound into food or clothes plants like cotton or flax. And that’s only a year or two for the farmer to learn their crop. Good land doesn’t stay empty for long.
Removing fertilizer would cause a major economic downturn but most agriculture isn’t grown for human food. It’s calorie crops that get turned into feed and fuel.
Everyone is agreeing with that…
Good land doesn’t stay empty for long.
The problem is “good” land.
Even if we only grew the most efficient crops and utilized proper crop rotation, we wouldn’t be able to feed just humans without fertilizer.
And not only are we going to run out, the runoff into the environment is fucking shit up.
Like, that’s what people aren’t understanding, and I honestly can’t think of an easier way to explain it.
Saskatchewan produces 30% of the world’s fertilizer and it’s nowhere close to the end yet
As I said:
any that thinks we can isn’t thinking on the right timelines.
I’m assuming you’re talking about ammonia fertilizer tho.
Do you know that process requires fossil fuels?
Do you understand that burning fossil fuels isn’t sustainable?
Phosphate and potash are both mined, and eventually we’ll run out of that just like the liquid natural gas to get the ammonia. But we need all three in specif percentages, we can’t just use any combination, they don’t do the same thing…
Continuing to use fertilizer to support an ever expanding population is as sustainable as turning the AC up to mitigate climate change.
It only “works” if you don’t understand the problem, unfortunately lots of people get belligerent when they realize they’re not thinking thru something.
No. Please don’t assume. Go find data that backs you up.
Ammonium sulfate and potash are both commonly used fertilizers in agriculture, but they have different compositions and functions. Ammonium sulfate is a nitrogen fertilizer that also contains sulfur, making it ideal for promoting plant growth and improving soil quality. Potash, on the other hand, is a potassium fertilizer that helps plants develop strong roots, resist disease, and improve overall health. While both fertilizers are essential for crop production, they serve different purposes and are often used in combination to provide plants with a balanced nutrient supply.
Fertilizer isnt sustainable…
We’re gonna run out, but before we do it’s fucking up the entire ecosystem.
There’s no way to sustain the population we have now, any that thinks we can isn’t thinking on the right timelines.
We absolutely can sustain the population we have now. The majority of crops grown don’t even go to humans.
No we can’t…
Even if everyone switched to a full vegan diet and we culled every farm animal immediately, it would be a bandaid.
We’re propped up by non renewable phosphate fertilizer and virtually no country tries to reclaim what is used.
I’m pretty sure one small wastewater plant in England reclaims it, the rest gets flushed out to the ocean where it causes further issues and becomes for all intents and purposes irrevocable.
Like, I’m not saying going vegan is pointless, I’m just saying it’s the equivalent of paper straws on a global timeline.
We’re fucked, and we’ve been fucked longer than any human has been alive, we just haven’t realized it yet.
Removing fertilizer would cause a major economic downturn but most agriculture isn’t grown for human food. It’s calorie crops that get turned into feed and fuel. We would see temporary depressions in many farm areas until they rebound into food or clothes plants like cotton or flax. And that’s only a year or two for the farmer to learn their crop. Good land doesn’t stay empty for long.
Everyone is agreeing with that…
The problem is “good” land.
Even if we only grew the most efficient crops and utilized proper crop rotation, we wouldn’t be able to feed just humans without fertilizer.
And not only are we going to run out, the runoff into the environment is fucking shit up.
Like, that’s what people aren’t understanding, and I honestly can’t think of an easier way to explain it.
Yes, we can. The issue isn’t a lack of resources, it’s a lack of proper distribution to where the resources need to go.
Saskatchewan produces 30% of the world’s fertilizer and it’s nowhere close to the end yet.
The only problem for America is they have an idjit in power who can’t see far enough ahead to NOT tariff the shit out of it.
As I said:
I’m assuming you’re talking about ammonia fertilizer tho.
Do you know that process requires fossil fuels?
Do you understand that burning fossil fuels isn’t sustainable?
Phosphate and potash are both mined, and eventually we’ll run out of that just like the liquid natural gas to get the ammonia. But we need all three in specif percentages, we can’t just use any combination, they don’t do the same thing…
Continuing to use fertilizer to support an ever expanding population is as sustainable as turning the AC up to mitigate climate change.
It only “works” if you don’t understand the problem, unfortunately lots of people get belligerent when they realize they’re not thinking thru something.
No. Please don’t assume. Go find data that backs you up.
https://thisvsthat.io/ammonium-sulfate-vs-potash
No what?
You linked a source saying that ammonium sulfate and potash are different and have different functions…
Which is what I said:
I don’t understand what you’re trying to disagree with, or what “assumptions” you’re talking about?
The only assumption I made was that you were talking about ammonia, but if that’s what you meant your link makes zero logical sense…
What are you trying to say?