this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
453 points (98.9% liked)

World News

39033 readers
994 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MrNesser@lemmy.world 49 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

Think of all that tobacco farmland that could be converted to food crops

[–] Shard@lemmy.world 61 points 10 months ago (3 children)

You want to convert something to useful land? Get rid of golf courses.

[–] Kingofthezyx@lemm.ee 12 points 10 months ago

Por que no los dos?

[–] ClockworkOtter@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (4 children)
[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 20 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Livestock is more useful than tobacco and golf courses

[–] Shalakushka@kbin.social 18 points 10 months ago (1 children)

We have way more than enough livestock. Humans should be eating less meat.

[–] ClockworkOtter@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Sorry for not being clear; that was the point I was trying to make.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world -4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Livestock is one of the reasons we can feed everyone...

[–] ClockworkOtter@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Quite the reverse in fact! Livestock produces fewer calories and nutrients per square meter than crops.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

And enough pavement that anyone can store their cars close to pretty much any destination they have in mind.

[–] cbarrick@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Do we actually need more food crops though?

I thought we already produced enough food to feed the whole planet. Distribution is the real problem.

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Smaller more diverse farms would help, but the grocery stores would have to learn how seasonal, regional crops work. Instead of offering pineapples, kiwis, and strawberries 365 days a year.

[–] aidan@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Instead of offering pineapples, kiwis, and strawberries 365 days a year.

Why can't they? At least in North America refrigerated railcars make year round fresh fruit an option. Plus frozen fruit is an option anywhere

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I vote just keeping the fields dormant so we can actually do crop rotation and stave off massive crop failures.

[–] MrNesser@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Personally I'd like to see the fields replaced with the forests that were cut down for them in the first place but that's not likely to happen

[–] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

They'd just be replaced by soft woods to be cut down every 20 or 30 years. Trees are nice, but North America's old growth forests are what they are at this point. They're not a great carbon sink, either.

IMHO, trees got stuck in the mind of the environmentalist movement in the 1970s, and it distracted from a bunch of things that were way more important. I'd almost call it controlled opposition.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago

Arguably we need more algae and other water dwelling carbon sinks.

[–] Ozymati@lemmy.nz 1 points 9 months ago

Would work if we decentralized the fuck out of everything and people could live in the forests