Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TR: Turning the gain up on this shit.

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 192746 times) previous topic - next topic

Wally, DaveGodfrey, Dave Hawkins, VoxRat, entropy, whiterabbit and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39000
Which one tried it in the rainforest?

The Godfather, Allan Savory, has done it in Zimbabwe ... similar climate with rainy season and dry season.

You know ... where Testy's firehose washes all the soil away?
LOL. Zimbabwe isn't even close to rainforest, Dave.
I don't know of anyone who has actually done exactly what I am proposing in the Amazon rainforest.
So how do you "know" it works there?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39001
Which one tried it in the rainforest?

The Godfather, Allan Savory, has done it in Zimbabwe ... similar climate with rainy season and dry season.

You know ... where Testy's firehose washes all the soil away?


Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39002
Which one tried it in the rainforest?

The Godfather, Allan Savory, has done it in Zimbabwe ... similar climate with rainy season and dry season.

You know ... where Testy's firehose washes all the soil away?


that made me laugh
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39003
It made me wonder if [Serious] had hacked into Dave's Goats' account.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Fenrir
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39004
Maybe David accidently mailed them to Zimbabwe to get them sweet dollars promised by that nice lady who emailed him out of the blue asking for help.

Would explain a lot.
It's what plants crave.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39005
It made me wonder if [Serious] had hacked into Dave's Goats' account.
You didn't know i was a goat?

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39006
[Serious] Goat:


  • Fenrir
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39007
Hey David, wrt the paper Testy linked, care to explain your understanding of the difference between erosion and leaching?
It's what plants crave.

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39008
Which one tried it in the rainforest?

For which one is actual comparable objective data available? For anywhere?
Dave don't need no "actual comparable objective data"! He got everything he needs from the horse's mouth!
You'd think Dave would pause, evaluate the reason and evidence for his fervent, religiously-held HMG beliefs. But no. Our Dave is not interested in what is most likely true, he believes on Savory, akin to Jesus, the great ecological prophet from whose mouth tumbles pearls, wasted on the swine at TalkRational. Dave's never been about objective evidence, for any of his wackadoodle ideas (pyramids, turkey gut crude oil, helium in zircons showing young Earth, asteroid belt blown from Earth's Fountain of the Deep, etc.). 

Dave needs the horsemouth, the charlatan-he-can-believe-in, it's always been so, since Daddy preached to the savages and saved their souls. He's not gonna change.

Just let his fantasies die where they belong, unacknowledged in the futile dustbin of history. We collectively are giving him too much credence. He does not deserve any. If he wants legitimacy, he can support his claims. If not, he remains the impotent hobbyist, railing into the darkness about how unfairly his Really Really Real and True Ideas are not being taken seriously!

Poor, poor, David.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39009
Hey David, wrt the paper Testy linked, care to explain your understanding of the difference between erosion and leaching?
Don't know. Don't care. It's not relevant to what I'm doing in Missouri or what I am proposing to do in Guyana.  You guys are always asking the wrong questions.

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39010
Hey David, wrt the paper Testy linked, care to explain your understanding of the difference between erosion and leaching?
Don't know. Don't care. It's not relevant to what I'm doing in Missouri or what I am proposing to do in Guyana.  You guys are always asking the wrong questions.
Yep, don't know, don't care is what holism really is, ain't it?

Matthew 27:46
For they asked the Lord Jesus, "Tell us, O Lord, what is best in life?"
And to the multitudes He replied "Don't know, don't care, you guys are always asking the wrong questions, for fuck's sake!"

  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39011
Hey David, wrt the paper Testy linked, care to explain your understanding of the difference between erosion and leaching?
Don't know. Don't care. It's not relevant to what I'm doing in Missouri or what I am proposing to do in Guyana.  You guys are always asking the wrong questions.
You clearly want to say something, so spit it out already. Tell us, O Fisher King, what is the right question? How can we heal thee of thy dolorous stroke, and gain our Holy Grail?
  • Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 10:34:31 PM by uncool

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39012
The right question for dave is how can we help bring his enlightened vision to the world.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39013
The right question for dave is how can we help bring his enlightened vision to the world.
First the guru refines his pitch, then he needs the gullible, vocal, obedient rubes.  Dave's looking in the wrong place.

  • Fenrir
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39014
Hey David, wrt the paper Testy linked, care to explain your understanding of the difference between erosion and leaching?
Don't know. Don't care. It's not relevant to what I'm doing in Missouri or what I am proposing to do in Guyana.  You guys are always asking the wrong questions.

Oh how terribly brave and manly you're being David.

This is absolutely central to your Guyanan fantasies.

So, anyway, erosion is talking about bulk material while leaching is referencing transport of water-soluble nutrients.

Rainforest soils are generally of low fertility, and heavily leached, which has a fair bit to do with that. Nutrients cannot build up in the soil as they are leached out faster than they are deposited.

In order to cope with the physical conditions rainforests have developed very rapid nutrient cycling and this is why most of the nutrients are in the biomass. Organic material is not stored in the soil. Organic material is rapidly returned to biomass.

Grass and pasture simply can't hold nutrients long term under those conditions, which is why savannas, with different physical conditions, are different to rainforests, and how often you move your stock and how stompy they are has no impact whatsoever on that reality.

Even if your imaginary HGM "uppening" was something you could actually demonstrate as being significantly greater than ordinary pasture management practices can achieve, even then it is utterly irrelevant in a tropical rainforest.

Bulk erosion leading to landslip and landscape collapse, as common as it is in cleared rainforests, is just the icing on the cake.

Got it?
  • Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 10:51:23 PM by Fenrir
It's what plants crave.

  • nesb
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39015
Quote
"uppening"

We all have those moments where we forget common words, but still. He could have used "increased" or even "go up," in that sentence. I'm going to forgive "uppen," because it's a creative substitute for various common terms which might have slipped memory. I'm not forgiving of a position of: let's chop down the rainforest, because I think a particular subsistence ranching lifestyle I haven't myself completely adopted, should be adopted universally.
  • Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 11:15:00 PM by nesb

  • Fenrir
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39016
I quite like "uppening". It's kinda meaningless but reminds me of "biggering" a la The Lorax.

An excellent primer* on ecological principals that everyone should read. Pity David can't.


*The Lorax, the book by Dr. Suess, not that festering confused abortion of a movie.
  • Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 11:33:06 PM by Fenrir
It's what plants crave.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39017
Hey David, wrt the paper Testy linked, care to explain your understanding of the difference between erosion and leaching?
Don't know. Don't care. It's not relevant to what I'm doing in Missouri or what I am proposing to do in Guyana.  You guys are always asking the wrong questions.
Yep, don't know, don't care is what holism really is, ain't it?

Matthew 27:46
For they asked the Lord Jesus, "Tell us, O Lord, what is best in life?"
And to the multitudes He replied "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women"
FYP
Why do I bother?

  • Zombies!
  • We're in the pipe, five by five.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39018
Criticizing ideas
:no:
Dave, what ideas were you talking about when you called people on this board child molesters?
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on Sat May 19 2018
Go fuck yourself until you can learn how to respect me. Then we'll talk. And if this offends you and you don't want to participate in this thread anymore, then fine. There's plenty of other science threads to participate in.

  • Zombies!
  • We're in the pipe, five by five.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39019
Quote
Quote
But they go beyond that.  They accuse ME of being a child molester so I just respond in kind.

All I've done is defended the one Maasai couple because I had a factual basis for doing so and I've also supplied an article about Maasai wives getting to have boyfriends in response to their criticism that the poor girl won't have any fun with an old duffer that can't get it up

They take these two things and go on and try to imply - and in fact accuse me openly - of being a pedophile.

THAT'S out of bounds.

You're an Admin.  Put a stop to it.
Quote
Quote
Quote
But they go beyond that.  They accuse ME of being a child molester so I just respond in kind.
Bullshit. I never accused you of being a child molester, but you tried to lay it on me. I haven't checked, but I'm sure you have done it to others too.
Yep.
He did it to Faid, also.
He got me too, and then got shitty when I ask him to retract it.  Never accused him of the same.  He's having a meltdown, probably holiday related.  Nothing under the tree, not invited to holiday parties, etc must be horrible to a brilliant former fighter pilot millionaire.
Totally honest.  Except when lying.  Like calling folks child molesters. Fucking shitty little muppet. ::)
Here we go.  Dave got butt hurt, and started insulting people with the worst accusation he could think up, smearing people who didn't make those charges.
Not a high point for you, Dave.
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on Sat May 19 2018
Go fuck yourself until you can learn how to respect me. Then we'll talk. And if this offends you and you don't want to participate in this thread anymore, then fine. There's plenty of other science threads to participate in.

  • Zombies!
  • We're in the pipe, five by five.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39020
I dare say that I am more interested in feeding hungry children than ANY of you people are.

But I'm not going to do it by stealing YOUR tax dollars. I'm going to do it with MY money.  And it won't be handouts. It will be help of the "teach a man to fish" variety.
So how many children have you fed since this attempt at preaching?
Dave? ^^^^
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on Sat May 19 2018
Go fuck yourself until you can learn how to respect me. Then we'll talk. And if this offends you and you don't want to participate in this thread anymore, then fine. There's plenty of other science threads to participate in.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39021
OK I'm in the mood ... let's look at this closely ... Fenrir is supposedly a professional ecologist IIRC ... let's see how much she's actually using her mind vs. how much she's just repeating assumptions that she's accepted ...
Hey David, wrt the paper Testy linked, care to explain your understanding of the difference between erosion and leaching?
Don't know. Don't care. It's not relevant to what I'm doing in Missouri or what I am proposing to do in Guyana.  You guys are always asking the wrong questions.

Oh how terribly brave and manly you're being David.

This is absolutely central to your Guyanan fantasies.

So, anyway, erosion is talking about bulk material while leaching is referencing transport of water-soluble nutrients.
So far so good.  Seems like an accurate statement.  The problem with this is not the statement itself ... the problem is that Fenrir thinks that "transport of water-soluble nutrients" is relevant to anything I'm doing in Missouri or proposing to do in Guyana.  In short, the problem is with Fenrir's ASSUMPTIONS.  Assumptions, I have discovered, are almost always the central problem with almost every topic you guys write about.  "Transport of water-soluble nutrients" IS relevant if you are a megafarm killing soil with your gigantic diesel guzzling John Deere tractor and plow, thus destroying the entire soil ecosystem in the process, necessitating the application of thousands of lbs of harsh, water soluble chemical fertilizers.  It IS relevant to that.

But that's not what I'm interested in doing.  Don't know why you keep talking about "water soluble nutrients."  (Well yes I do ... it's because you've never been taught about any other type of nutrients.)  Dr. Patricia Richardson has a neat little YouTube video which explains "non-water soluble" nitrogen.  Ask me if you're interested and I'll find the link.  You should be interested ... if you're not, then we might as well not call you an "ecologist" at all.

Rainforest soils are generally of low fertility, and heavily leached, which has a fair bit to do with that. Nutrients cannot build up in the soil as they are leached out faster than they are deposited.

In order to cope with the physical conditions rainforests have developed very rapid nutrient cycling and this is why most of the nutrients are in the biomass. Organic material is not stored in the soil. Organic material is rapidly returned to biomass.

Grass and pasture simply can't hold nutrients long term under those conditions, which is why savannas, with different physical conditions, are different to rainforests, and how often you move your stock and how stompy they are has no impact whatsoever on that reality.

Even if your imaginary HGM "uppening" was something you could actually demonstrate as being significantly greater than ordinary pasture management practices can achieve, even then it is utterly irrelevant in a tropical rainforest.

Bulk erosion leading to landslip and landscape collapse, as common as it is in cleared rainforests, is just the icing on the cake.

Got it?
Yeah I got it.  And you're absolutely right in the context of a discussion about transforming rainforest into megafarm land.

But we're not discussing that topic, are we?

Please let me know when you'd like to join this discussion instead of some other one.

Thanks.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39022
Quote
Quote
But they go beyond that.  They accuse ME of being a child molester so I just respond in kind.

All I've done is defended the one Maasai couple because I had a factual basis for doing so and I've also supplied an article about Maasai wives getting to have boyfriends in response to their criticism that the poor girl won't have any fun with an old duffer that can't get it up

They take these two things and go on and try to imply - and in fact accuse me openly - of being a pedophile.

THAT'S out of bounds.

You're an Admin.  Put a stop to it.
Quote
Quote
Quote
But they go beyond that.  They accuse ME of being a child molester so I just respond in kind.
Bullshit. I never accused you of being a child molester, but you tried to lay it on me. I haven't checked, but I'm sure you have done it to others too.
Yep.
He did it to Faid, also.
He got me too, and then got shitty when I ask him to retract it.  Never accused him of the same.  He's having a meltdown, probably holiday related.  Nothing under the tree, not invited to holiday parties, etc must be horrible to a brilliant former fighter pilot millionaire.
Totally honest.  Except when lying.  Like calling folks child molesters. Fucking shitty little muppet. ::)
Here we go.  Dave got butt hurt, and started insulting people with the worst accusation he could think up, smearing people who didn't make those charges.
Not a high point for you, Dave.
Also baby killers. And then trying to justify it by saying he criticized their "killer MO". No it doesn't have to make sense, dave says so so it's right youre all morans nyah nyah.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39023
OK I'm in the mood ... let's look at this closely ... Fenrir is supposedly a professional ecologist IIRC ... let's see how much she's actually using her mind vs. how much she's just repeating assumptions that she's accepted ...
Hey David, wrt the paper Testy linked, care to explain your understanding of the difference between erosion and leaching?
Don't know. Don't care. It's not relevant to what I'm doing in Missouri or what I am proposing to do in Guyana.  You guys are always asking the wrong questions.

Oh how terribly brave and manly you're being David.

This is absolutely central to your Guyanan fantasies.

So, anyway, erosion is talking about bulk material while leaching is referencing transport of water-soluble nutrients.
So far so good.  Seems like an accurate statement.  The problem with this is not the statement itself ... the problem is that Fenrir thinks that "transport of water-soluble nutrients" is relevant to anything I'm doing in Missouri or proposing to do in Guyana.  In short, the problem is with Fenrir's ASSUMPTIONS.  Assumptions, I have discovered, are almost always the central problem with almost every topic you guys write about.  "Transport of water-soluble nutrients" IS relevant if you are a megafarm killing soil with your gigantic diesel guzzling John Deere tractor and plow, thus destroying the entire soil ecosystem in the process, necessitating the application of thousands of lbs of harsh, water soluble chemical fertilizers.  It IS relevant to that.

But that's not what I'm interested in doing.  Don't know why you keep talking about "water soluble nutrients."  (Well yes I do ... it's because you've never been taught about any other type of nutrients.)  Dr. Patricia Richardson has a neat little YouTube video which explains "non-water soluble" nitrogen.  Ask me if you're interested and I'll find the link.  You should be interested ... if you're not, then we might as well not call you an "ecologist" at all.

Rainforest soils are generally of low fertility, and heavily leached, which has a fair bit to do with that. Nutrients cannot build up in the soil as they are leached out faster than they are deposited.

In order to cope with the physical conditions rainforests have developed very rapid nutrient cycling and this is why most of the nutrients are in the biomass. Organic material is not stored in the soil. Organic material is rapidly returned to biomass.

Grass and pasture simply can't hold nutrients long term under those conditions, which is why savannas, with different physical conditions, are different to rainforests, and how often you move your stock and how stompy they are has no impact whatsoever on that reality.

Even if your imaginary HGM "uppening" was something you could actually demonstrate as being significantly greater than ordinary pasture management practices can achieve, even then it is utterly irrelevant in a tropical rainforest.

Bulk erosion leading to landslip and landscape collapse, as common as it is in cleared rainforests, is just the icing on the cake.

Got it?
Yeah I got it.  And you're absolutely right in the context of a discussion about transforming rainforest into megafarm land.

But we're not discussing that topic, are we?

Please let me know when you'd like to join this discussion instead of some other one.

Thanks.

Dave, that was too much time and effort spent for essentially saying "well MY way has no such problems because it doesn't".
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39024
Also:
Quote
Don't know why you keep talking about "water soluble nutrients."  (Well yes I do ... it's because you've never been taught about any other type of nutrients.)
Wouldn't that mean that fenrir would NOT talk about water-soluble nutrients, but nutrients in general?


:rofl:

Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.