/hobby/ - Hobby

>>31731
>I do like the idea of community gardens and preparing meals your self instead of eating processed fast food. But It would be crazy to go back to an agrarian mode of production. You cannot turn back the clock on machine automation. If you want to do permaculture methods instead of traditional farming methods you still need to use lots of machines as labor saving devices.
Fuck off capitalist agribusiness shill. Communism is a radical change in the mode of food production. Read the thread. Even few posts ago. Mechanization of common human tasks is always possible. But the underlying ecology takes primacy on the matter of climate change. So figure it out, its the task we face.

permaculture maintains its own environment and micro-climate which automatically maintains its life functions while continuing to bear usable plants which self-replenish. modern agriculture on the other hand has to continuously pump in its ingredients from other places, both needing replenishment and leaving residues and degradations to the original environment. in other words, it's objectively worse than a mature permaculture food forest based agricultural system

>>31733
>That doesn't account for the labor that goes into every aspect of the food industry besides the direct production of food, including all the labor involved in the industries that support agriculture, like producing fertilizers or the machines that are involved in said mechanization.
Giant chemical production plants for fertilizers usually only need 100 to 300 people to run it and can produce enough fertilizer to support food production for tens or hundreds of millions of people. You seem to have no idea how ridiculously high labor productivity in primary sector industries has become.

>The key labor saving "device" in permaculture is the fact that when you intelligently design the system, it can function productively with little input. Instead of having to repeatedly plow fields, drop fertilizer, spread pesticides, and so on, you account for these needs with the species you include. Plants and animals function best when they are in an ecosystem that suits their needs.
That sounds very good, but how can that be true ?
Permaculture isn't new, people have been doing that for thousands of years.
People in the pre-industrial past were not stupid, if there was a way to design a biological system with an array of flora and fauna that just spits out lots of food without much labor inputs they would not have worked them self's to the bone manually plowing fields with oxen and horses.

Your claims about the labor inputs of permaculture do not pass the sniff test.
I have done a cursory online search and actually existing permaculture farms may have a tendency to subsidize them self with education rackets where students are required to pay money and donate free labor
https://medium.com/invironment/permaculture-design-courses-the-free-labor-problem-152000bb420b
I don't know how common this is but my guess is that permaculture in it's present form is very labor intensive compared to other methods.

If you were to be advocating for a scheme that proposes modifying/replacing tractors and combine-harvesters with farming machinery designed to do permaculture specific tasks , as in mechanized permaculture, i could see this as something interesting worth investigating and trying. But if you insist that you can make the plants and animals do all the labor, i can't take you seriously. People have been trying to do that for at least 10k years, if that was possible it would already be the default farming technique. I get the same vibe from you as those people futilely trying to build "free energy" perpetual motion machines who endlessly tweak their mechanical contraptions, just replace mechanical contraptions with plant compositions.

If you position permaculture in opposition to industrial production, it's never going to catch on. What you are doing is not effective advocacy.

>>31794
>i can't take you seriously
>I get the same vibe from you
>it's never going to catch on
>Your claims do not pass the sniff test.
This isn't twitter.

>Giant chemical production plants for fertilizers usually only need 100 to 300 people to run it
Where do they get the raw materials though? Factories don't make things out of thin air.
The inputs for fertilizers involve mining for phosphorous and calcium components which is not sustainable and in many parts of the world is still labor intensive (and a lot of the stuff used in industrialized countries gets imported from countries where it's labor intensive production). And the factory has to be built first, as well as integrated into the production supply chain. All of this is additional process that is often not necessary when fertilizer can be produced nearby or on site with the proper organisms. And that's to say nothing of integrating waste disposal systems to recycle human waste into fertilizer.

>People in the pre-industrial past were not stupid, if there was a way to design a biological system with an array of flora and fauna that just spits out lots of food without much labor inputs they would not have worked them self's to the bone manually plowing fields with oxen and horses.
Well they did that in some parts of the world while in others people figured it out. Either the premise that people will figure out a solution if it's possible is wrong or the conditions simply didn't allow this in many places. Or both. Another likely reason is that permaculture and similar methods make it harder to establish property boundaries that are necessary for a ruling class to emerge. Fields tend to have clear borders while a food forest blends into the natural woodland and people's living spaces. How food production is controlled has huge political implications. Another big reason is that deforestation was carried out in many places (especially Europe) which significantly reduced biodiversity making it harder to create a full ecosystem of production. Desertification is a major issue with cutting down forests to operate monoculture fields, because it further reduces the fertility of the land and erodes it.

>I have done a cursory online search and actually existing permaculture farms may have a tendency to subsidize them self with education rackets where students are required to pay money and donate free labor
That's not an analysis of the required labor inputs. It's just pointing out part of what (the trademarked version of) permaculture does. Which they do because part of the goal is to educate people. Free labor from students might be dubious, but people in capitalism follow the rules of capitalism. You have to actually do things to be trained, and the money they make and save allows them to promote the process more. Nothing is stopping people from learning it on their own or from elsewhere and implementing it. There are plenty of examples unrelated to the Permaculture™ education industry if that's what you don't like.

>If you were to be advocating for a scheme that proposes modifying/replacing tractors and combine-harvesters with farming machinery designed to do permaculture specific tasks , as in mechanized permaculture
The problem with this is that those machines and monoculture have developed in tandem and mechanized permaculture would need to pretty much go back to the drawing board with machines because by design you don't have huge fields of a single plant that you can mass-harvest. Part of the reason why some parts of the world did things that way is because once you start going in that direction, the optimizations required for that method make it more difficult to pivot into any other approach.
>But if you insist that you can make the plants and animals do all the labor
Nobody said all the labor. The point is to leverage what the organisms will naturally do and reduce the need for mechanizing in the automation process. There's more to efficient production than the ratio of labor to capital. If you can produce the same amount or more with equal labor but less capital, it's "more labor intensive" even if people do the same amount of labor, simply because the capital side of the ratio was simplified. And the truth of the matter is that the organisms are already doing a significant portion of the work in a physical sense, but this is simply ignored in your calculations in the same way as businesses ignore externalities like pesticide and fertilizer runoff. The notion that we need to keep mechanizing and definitely can't reverse because of the labor:capital ratio is the same kind of abstract economics brain rot as "line go up."

>>31796
> fertilizers is not sustainable
Current methods are not sustainable , true, but they do need very few labor inputs.
Industrial fertilizer production could however be made sustainable, the science and engineering problems are solved, it's just that capitalists don't like to invest in upgrading their means of production if they still can milk profits from the old capital stock.
Upgrading fertilizer production to sustainable techniques would of course also require labor inputs, but that's going to be a one-time expense, not an ongoing one.

Remember I'm replying to your original assertion that industrial food production has high labor inputs, which is patently false.
You have indirectly made an additional argument that industrial production can't be sustainable, that is an altogether different point, and in my opinion also false.
Industrial production means human labor-power enhanced by machines, there is nothing inherently unsustainable in this. You appear to be making a false generalization, because currently some (by no means all) industrial praxis is not sustainable. Alot of industrial un-sustainability can be explained with capitalist investment reluctance, and has little to do with industrial production in general.

>they did permaculture in some parts of the world
If permaculture had used less labor inputs, these parts of the world would have been able to develop faster and become the dominant system.
Remember that making food production less labor intensive paved the way for societal and technological development.
Given that before the industrial revolution and the green revolution, roughly 90% of all labor was spend on food production, having a farming technique that required less labor would have been a huge advantage. There is no way that the people with the inferior food production method are able to become the dominant powers in the world during that time . Even if we stipulate something preposterous like permaculture food makes people peaceful and unwilling to conquer, they would still have developed so much faster that they would have been indomitable. There would be peaceful scifi countries in the world that would have been invulnerable to conquistadors showing up with sail/steam-boat gunships, filled with musket wielding soldiers.

>Nothing is stopping people from learning it on their own or from elsewhere and implementing it. There are plenty of examples unrelated to the Permaculture™ education industry if that's what you don't like.
So what prevents permaculture from taking over ? Capitalism does try to minimize investment into machine capital and labor inputs, you are saying that perma-culture uses less labor and less machines. it doesn't add up. Why are they still scamming students instead off out-competing big-agro-business ?

>The problem with this is that those machines and monoculture have developed in tandem and mechanized permaculture would need to pretty much go back to the drawing board with machines
This sounds true, but why is that a problem ? Having to design new machines hasn't stopped us before.

>The point is to leverage the organisms
No the point is to make food, and the ultimate goal is to have a hole in the wall that will molecularly construct a cup of tea from a material-cartridge if you say "Tea, Earl Grey, Hot!"

>There's more to efficient production than the ratio of labor to capital. If you can produce the same amount or more with equal labor but less capital, it's "more labor intensive" even if people do the same amount of labor, simply because the capital side of the ratio was simplified.
I only care about the ratio of labor to capital because there's a maximum amount of capital that can be sustained at any given technical level, that's relevant on a societal level and i don't see the connection here.
Not sure where this came from, but to be clear i think un-mechanised permaculture would produce less food per unit of labor power inputs.

>And the truth of the matter is that the organisms are already doing a significant portion of the work in a physical sense, but this is simply ignored in your calculations
that's true, but I only care about human labor, plants are just biological machines.

> businesses ignore externalities like pesticide and fertilizer runoff.
that's also true, but the environmental cause has to be about building cleaner machines not going back to working people harder

>>31794
>Giant chemical production plants for fertilizers usually only need 100 to 300 people to run it
Great, but you forgot all the workers that run the companies that give them their input raw materials, transport them, build the cars that transport them, drill and process the oil that powers the transportation, maintain the financial system that links all of this together, etc.

>>31794
>People in the pre-industrial past were not stupid, if there was a way to design a biological system with an array of flora and fauna that just spits out lots of food without much labor inputs they would not have worked them self's to the bone manually plowing fields with oxen and horses.
Yeah and that's exactly what they did in many cases. But modern agricultural production allows predictable and uniform production of food. Permaculture is sporadic and harder to understand and use the products, but it makes better effective use of the soil, square footage, and takes care of the soil and creates micro-climates. You have to look at the greater system not inputs and outputs, you have to look dialectically at what it means when a region of land is enclosed and turned into and input output system

>>31794
>I have done a cursory online search and actually existing permaculture farms may have a tendency to subsidize them self with education rackets where students are required to pay money and donate free labor
It's not profitable, it's not compatible with capitalism, but that's the point

>>31794
>But if you insist that you can make the plants and animals do all the labor, i can't take you seriously
Why are you just making up shit?

>>31803
>So what prevents permaculture from taking over ? Capitalism does try to minimize investment into machine capital and labor inputs, you are saying that perma-culture uses less labor and less machines. it doesn't add up. Why are they still scamming students instead off out-competing big-agro-business ?
Anon, permaculture requires more human labor than an individual field growing crops using modern agriculture. That's because of capitalism's division of labor. The net labor to produce one edible food though is much lower with permaculture since entire industries and supply chains are avoided. And minimizing labor isn't even the only goal, another is preventing climate change from happening further which will require massive quantities of future labor to undo the harm from and adapt to in more extreme circumstances. Your reductive attitude is really missing the bigger picture and other interconnected issues

>>31803
>I only care about the ratio of labor to capital because there's a maximum amount of capital that can be sustained at any given technical level, that's relevant on a societal level and i don't see the connection here.
>Not sure where this came from, but to be clear i think un-mechanised permaculture would produce less food per unit of labor power inputs.
Nothing's going to replace mechanically harvestable fields of grain for net efficiency of human labor for resultant calories. But you aren't realizing this will be stopped by climate change. When water supplies rapidly dry up and shift, when climate change makes entire regions not able to produce similar crops, when massive swarms of disease and pests can take out entire monoculture fields of crops, the efficiency will not be maintained.

Only permaculture food forests, note the "perma" in its name, can keep self-maintaining ecosystems of food producing plants thriving. If you don't think we can rapidly produce robots to reduce the human labor if we truly needed to, think again
>Drones that automatically scan forest for harvestable food above and below ground
>Communication systems that tell workers where to go to harvest
>Robots that come and harvest it and transport it to transportation vehicles

None of this is developed because permaculture has not been done in the modern age on any mass scale. And it won't because the capital requirements are too high, and profit opportunity low. It's a socialist technology

>>31806
>Nothing's going to replace mechanically harvestable fields of grain for net efficiency of human labor for resultant calories.
Another problem that tends to get ignored on this topic is that maximizing calories has been to the detriment of nutrition. To get a wider variety of foods that form a better balanced diet, you necessarily have to sacrifice calorie output. It's not like industrial agriculture operates on the margins either - it's able to produce vastly in excess of what people actually need, to the point that it has caused major crises of overproduction. Like the guy coming ITT to complain seems to think that we are in danger of starvation if we don't produce food maximally and with the lowest labor input possible, but the reality is that we're in danger of starvation because the current system is destroying the material basis of its own existence…

>>31807
Great point. A varied and even seasonal diet as well as individual canning abilities and food preservation knowledge would go a long way to improving nutrition. Starvation is not something we are on the brink of, rather as you said capitalists prevent us from building truly strong food systems like permaculture which are not profitable because they are inherently communal

>>31803
>I only care about the ratio of labor to capital because there's a maximum amount of capital that can be sustained at any given technical level, that's relevant on a societal level and i don't see the connection here.
Then you should love permaculture because the whole point is automating the system through ecological design instead of being dependent solely on mechanization! Less mechanization (capital) used in agricultural production means that more capital can be used for other things.

>>31803
>No the point is to make food, and the ultimate goal is to have a hole in the wall that will molecularly construct a cup of tea from a material-cartridge if you say "Tea, Earl Grey, Hot!"
Nice scifi shit. The point actually is to achieve worker control of the means of production and achieve "to each according to their need, from each according to their ability", remember what board you are on.

>>31803
>Given that before the industrial revolution and the green revolution, roughly 90% of all labor was spend on food production, having a farming technique that required less labor would have been a huge advantage. There is no way that the people with the inferior food production method are able to become the dominant powers in the world during that time .
The roadblock in most cases was lack of resources. The average peasant only had access to the seeds of certain local plants, whereas today people around the world can obtain seeds to grow anything that will survive in their environment. And even if peasants could get their hands on any seeds, they wouldn't know anything about the foreign plants in terms of what they need or their effects on the environment around them. Today we have the internet and most people could feasibly research these things.

Additionally, it was typical to practice widespread logging both to provide lumber for building and to better control the land (it's easier for bandits and rebels to hide among the trees). The loss of forests isn't just the loss of trees, but all the other ecological niches in a forest biome. Farmland and grazing land is a very different environment that supports different (and fewer) species. There used to be people surviving on agroforestry as a kind of intermediate method between gathering and "agriculture." In many cases they were conquered by other people who were driven to expand their territory. While "traditional" agricultural methods allow for a division of labor, they also degrade the land and require acquisition of new territory to farm, which acted as a driver to take over cultures practicing sustainable or regenerative food production, replacing that with "traditional" farming.

>>31804
Current industrial food production really does not involve a lot of labor-power, that's not some capitalist accounting cheat, that's looking at the entire system. People in the past were not too stupid to use permaculture, seriously wtf?. They also were able to modify food so that it lasts a long time, and they were able to plan for sporadic production. And square footage of soil is not that important, it doesn't justify wasting more labor power than necessary

I think un-mechanized permaculture is not profitable because it's using too much labor. While socialism doesn't care about profits, it still cares about getting stuff done with as little labor as possible. Nobody likes to work more than they have to.

>>31805
>The net labor to produce one edible food though is much lower with permaculture since entire industries and supply chains are avoided.
I could believe that if you were advocating for mechanized permaculture, maybe the industrial stack for perma-culture would use less labor. However Industrial systems tend to be orders of magnitude more effective compared to manual labor praxis, in term of the ratio for labor input versus production output. What you are saying isn't even remotely plausible.

>>31806
>Nothing's going to replace mechanically harvestable fields of grain for net efficiency of human labor for resultant calories.
Well, lets not be to hasty, there's always fully synthetic food production that might eventually get more efficient, and maybe also more palatable ;)

>But you aren't realizing this will be stopped by climate change. When water supplies rapidly dry up and shift, when climate change makes entire regions not able to produce similar crops, when massive swarms of disease and pests can take out entire monoculture fields of crops, the efficiency will not be maintained.
If that's true and the situation for food security gets as dire as you say, i guess maybe synthetic food production will get more popular. You know the artificial starch-synthesizer powered by the nuclear reactor next to it might not look as bad when food is super expensive and scarce.

>rapidly produce robots to reduce human labor
>Drones that automatically scan forest for harvestable food above and below ground
>Communication systems that tell workers where to go to harvest
>Robots that come and harvest it and translport it to transportation vehicles
Big thumbs up for that plan
This sounds like perma-culture i could get behind.

> It's a socialist technology
maybe

>>31812
>If that's true and the situation for food security gets as dire as you say, i guess maybe synthetic food production will get more popular. You know the artificial starch-synthesizer powered by the nuclear reactor next to it might not look as bad when food is super expensive and scarce.
You're so desperate for things to get bad that you somehow fail to see permaculture is the way to prevent them from getting bad. We literally want to re-forest the world with edible plants and you want "artificial starch powered by nuclear reactors" give me a break

>>31812
I also hate your smug attitude coming into the permaculture thread as if you're the expert on something because you can posit bullshit about nuclear reactors, and write every other sentence in the form "I can't get behind this", "I could believe this if you were advocating for" when you clearly don't even know anything about permaculture or human dietary needs

>>31812
>Nobody likes to work more than they have to.
People like making their own food though. Gardening is a very popular hobby. If you knew your Marx you would be aware that he says communism is supposed to abolish the distinction between work and leisure. A more labor intensive food production process (which isn't even necessarily true) like permaculture is serving other purposes as well, including ecological repair, social cohesion, and personal enjoyment.

>>31812
>fully synthetic food production
This is basically magical thinking. Synthetic food production still requires raw inputs and all the industries required to make the food factory exist. You criticize permaculture for being impractical and you posit literal food replicators from Star Trek as the real viable future.

Bro you are dumb as shit.

>>31815
>Gardening is a very popular hobby
Yeah. The poor are actively prevented from having a place to grow their food. Historically peasants and slaves were allowed (forced) to grow their own food to survive. But the proletariat is not even allowed to do that, they're forced to purchase it in commodity form. Beautiful nature and gardens are reserved for the bourgeoisie or wealth proletariat.

I want this for everyone, even the poor, and for it to be livable. This is do-able, in fact I would posit that the native plants of every bio-region are enough to survive on when placed into a well designed food forest. There are exceptions and help that can be had by non-native plants and even transporting food though, that doesn't need to be abolished

>>31813
>You're so desperate for things to get bad
You brought that up stop projecting. You have to admit that if things get bad, within the current structures, industrial food synthesizers are way more likely than billions of people starting their own perma-food-garden, at least 50% of the population lives in cities where food-gardens can't possibly produce enough for bare survival subsistence level. Do you think all those people will move, and start the largest migration in human history, or do you think they go for a techno-fix that lets them continue with their life-style even if it doesn't taste very good.

>>31814
Nuclear reactors could also power farming robots for mechanized perma-culture.
And i dislike you to, because you want to have a nature-essentialism circle jerk, and exclude discussion about applying industrial methods to stuff like perma-culture

>>31815
>People like making their own food though. Gardening is a very popular hobby.
it's fun as a hobby, sure, but if you have to live of that, it's not fun at all, it turns into brutally hard work.

>>31816
>This is basically magical thinking.
No , it's near future stuff, the basic food stuffs can be made.
>Synthetic food production still requires raw inputs
Sure but there is no reliance on weather or climate conditions.
>You criticize permaculture for being impractical and you posit literal food replicators from Star Trek as the real viable future.
No i don't think perma-culture is impractical, i'm criticizing the people that do not want to apply industrial methods to perma-culture.
>you posit literal food replicators from Star Trek as the real viable future.
As an aspirational goal, so people can understand the direction it's going.
I know scifi replicators are a bit unrealistic, if you move that many individual atoms quickly they would heat up from friction and Picard's tea would be as hot as the sun and burn him to death just from standing next it, but that's not really the point.

>>31818
>Sure but there is no reliance on weather or climate conditions.
Instead is just relies on a functional global supply chain, which definitely isn't threatened by climate change!

Has anyone tried raising lobster in a permaculture farm? I've heard of people doing fish, lobsters have legs so I dunno if they'd stay.

>>32343
https://aquaponicsadvisor.com/raise-lobster-at-home/
seems doable but probably requires a lot more effort than just doing fish or something. Skimming this article the biggest hurdle seems to be that lobsters are territorial so youll need a lot of space

>>32343
also if the point of the post was to say
>lobsters have legs so Idk if they will stay
I did indeed laugh

>>32343
Pretty fucked up to pen in animals in general tbh desu

>>32343
>I dunno if they'd stay.
Then make it nice for them smh

>>32343
Have a feeling a saltwater aquaponics system would be pretty intense to upkeep. Additionally, have a feeling lobsters need a lot of space between them, so you can't get as much meat per tank as you can w fish.

>>32358
Very cool.

>>7141
this was an interesting read. Where is it from?

Anyone running a permaculture garden? I really want to but can't get land

>>33020
Do it in big pots seriously free veggies and maybe fruit

>>33021
Herbs

>>33020
>I really want to but can't get land
Which is why the whole permaculture bullshit is nothing but a pettit boug or actual boug bullshit. It's likt dong charity without doung actual charity, but still acting like you are saving the world.

Permaculture is mostly an overblown fashion trend. Most of it is not really applicable to to climates outside of subtropics. And where it is applicable it's not going outside of some wealthy snob garden because it can't compete in profits with industrial agriculture techniques.

>>33023
Imma grow herbs and maybe veggies in a terrarium in my cupboard just to spite you

Also seedbombing

>>33024
lessee the coolest method I can think of for the cupboard terrarium is red light emiting diodes a few blue and hook it all up to a battery and a solar panel in the window

I suspect it'd grow interesting chillis and garlic done right

>>33024
That ain't permaculture, lol. Seem like most of you retards don't even know what you are talking about.
>>33028
>red light emiting diodes a few blue and hook it all up to a battery and a solar panel in the window
Sure, you can grow something like that. It's just gonna cost you several times more than what you can buy in the store or market.

Like i said, for people like me gardening is way to get sustenance, for people like you it's an expensive hoddy that makes you feel better.

>>33030
>Sure, you can grow something like that. It's just gonna cost you several times more than what you can buy in the store or market.
It's a motherfucking terrarium the point of those is that you can just leave them sitting for years in a corner and water then once in a blue moon

Just cut a bit of glass and make a box air seal the seams and you can leave it in a corner and just add a bit of water once every few months

My brother in Marx seedbombing is indeed permaculture if you make the plant you choose a useful edible tasty endemic weed
FUCK THE CONSERVATIONISTS PEACE LAND AND BREAD

>>33033
>It's a motherfucking terrarium the point of those is that you can just leave them sitting for years in a corner and water then once in a blue moon
Add the cost of lights that aren't gonna kill your plants to the cost fo solar panels. Each of those has a limited time of working before it breaks down. See how many harvests you gonna get from that time. Divide the costs by harvest, asess how much crops you have per harvest. Do the math, dumbass.

At least grow the shrooms or something.

>My brother in Marx seedbombing is indeed permaculture if you make the plant you choose a useful edible tasty endemic weed
Anarcholibs are not my brothers. Second, permaculture differs from regular organic gardening by being "perma" (who would have thought, right?), meaning that it focuses on crops that can give something without being destroyed. Graclic is definitely not the permaculture crop. At least read Permaculture One or something, booklet.

>>33035 (me)
>Second, permaculture differs from regular organic gardening by being "perma" (who would have thought, right?), meaning that it focuses on crops that can give something without being destroyed
Also it aims to create sustainable ecosystem that you disrupt as little as possible. Terarium with garlic is not. I don't think that would even qualify as organic gardening. What is your plan to help the soil in restoring itself, for example?

>>33037
You'd be amazed at the efficiency gains plants are green because they reject that spectrum precisely

More importantly garlic and presumably other aliums grows great in dog poop and human feces

You'll thank me if the lights go out for several years a person can live on onions potatoes and carrots

Now let's talk about Cuba's food gardens that some people call degrowth even though in reality it is a kind of regrowth within an austerity caused by the United snakes blockade

>>33038
You NEVER grew crops in your life, am i correct?

Good luck with doctor's appointment, i at least hope you are not in burgerstan and can recieve healthcare services that don't cost exurbitant fees.

>>33041
I've grown shit on literally cracks in the pavement
What crops have you grown?

>>33043
Everything, from potatoes and cabbage to cucumbers and tomatoes, to berries and nuts. I grow food to eat, dumbfuck. I grew up in a family where we had to grow our food or starve and for the last 7 years i have my own garden to fulfill like 70% of what i need in food another 25% comes from other villagers and remaining 5% from stores (stuff like salt and tea).

Good luck growing garlic on shit, but at least use your own, that way on the off chance you don't kill it with too much nitrogen, you at least not gonna acquire some exciting guests in your guts.

>I've grown shit on literally cracks in the pavement
Are you retarded or pretending to be one for some reason?

>>33044
You are based anon, please redpill us on self sufficiency?

New thread:
https://leftypol.org/hobby/res/33648.html
https://leftypol.org/hobby/res/33648.html
https://leftypol.org/hobby/res/33648.html
https://leftypol.org/hobby/res/33648.html
https://leftypol.org/hobby/res/33648.html
https://leftypol.org/hobby/res/33648.html
https://leftypol.org/hobby/res/33648.html
https://leftypol.org/hobby/res/33648.html
https://leftypol.org/hobby/res/33648.html
https://leftypol.org/hobby/res/33648.html
https://leftypol.org/hobby/res/33648.html
https://leftypol.org/hobby/res/33648.html
https://leftypol.org/hobby/res/33648.html
https://leftypol.org/hobby/res/33648.html
https://leftypol.org/hobby/res/33648.html
https://leftypol.org/hobby/res/33648.html

>>33649
Learn to link, moron >>>/hobby/33648

>>12983
>>>19342
This was a post replying to >>12751
I have found it and am reposting it finally with the pdfs and images that were included
Wayback is how I found my old effort post
https://web.archive.org/web/https://bunkerchan.xyz/hobby/res/12707.html

This was the father of Soviet agriculture and biological study.

One of the people who were inspired by his work was Lysenko. As part of anti-sovietism the man who was researching then unknown sciences is often scorned today, including by leftists. The reality is somewhat different. Like Vavilov, his contributions are forgotten and dismissed and the fact that he was a respected man by many contemporaries is ignored.
https://inbredscience.wordpress.com/essays/in-defense-of-lysenko/
http://www.rusproject.org/pages/analysis/analysis_10/nauka_lisenko_miron.pdf
http://www.lalkar.org/article/295/lysenkosgreat-contribution-to-the-understandingof-heredity
https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neretin/misc/biology/Zhivot.pdf
The claim that some of Lysenko's ideas were disproven or false is meaningless. Darwin's work is also not perfect and has errors, as did famed biologists and naturalists like Lamarck and Cuvier. It is also interesting to note that in
The Lysenko Controversy as a Global Phenomenon, Volume 1: Genetics and Agriculture in the Soviet Union and Beyond, Lysenko correctly identified Wheatrust's impact on the 1932 famine. (Pg 112, Tauger)

Lysenko's biggest flaw would be his ideological obsession (something that much of /leftypol/ who dismiss Lysenko are ironically also afflicted with). Stalin removed all mention of “bourgeois biology” from one of Lysenko's reports, The State of Biology in the Soviet Union, and in the margin next to the statement that “any science is based on class” Stalin wrote, “Ha-ha-ha!! And what about mathematics? Or Darwinism?” (Rossianov, 1993). One of Lysenko's most outspoken critics was the East German geneticist Hans Stubbe (1902–1989), Director of the Institute of Crop Plant Research in Gatersleben, who demonstrated that Lysenko's experiments on graft hybridization were not reproducible and concluded that he was a fraud, vehemently fighting the influence of Lysenkoism in the German Democratic Republic (Hagemann, 2002).
https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.1038/embor.2009.198
However Graft Hybridization is STILL being researched and debated to this day, and the fact that Rabbage (Radish + Cabbage hybrid) and other such hybrids were made, implies that they weren't totally off.
>Inb4 he opposed Mendel
So did many other scientists, Mendel's ideas of hereditary traits was a heavily debated topic of the time. Lysenkoism was a product of this. Lysenko was discovering things and had to analyze what was discovered by other scientists at that moment. Moreover Lysenko was not anti-Darwin, but was critical of some Darwin's views because they were Malthusian rubbish. Having read Origin of Species, this can be stated to be true to an extent, and Malthus is certainly an ideologue.

Leone, Charles A. (1952). "Genetics: Lysenko versus Mendel". Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science. points out some issues
> Lysenko claims to have changed a spring wheat to a winter wheat in two, three, or four years of autumn planting. He asserted that Triticum durum, the macaroni wheat, was transformed into several varieties of Triticum vulgare, the bread wheat. Plant breeders and cytologists generally regard: this transformation as genetically impossible. The conversion of the tetraploid species with 28 chromosomes to a hexaploid species with 42 chromosomes in itself would not be impossible. The difficulty arises from the fact that the 28-chromosome wheat (T. durum) has only genomes A and B while the 42-chromosome wheat (T. vulgare) has genomes A, B, and D. Genome D cannot in any way be derived from genomes A and B. Lysenko may have planted a mixed lot of seed which contained the seed of the 42-chromosome wheat, and selected for these over the period of the experiment. American plant breeders are well aware of the ease with which such seed contamination may occur, even to the extent of wheat-barley, and wheat-rye mixtures. Lysenko's rejection of this criticism of his work was based on hisrandom inspection of the seed to see that it all looked alike
>In his book, Soviet Biology, Lysenko. (1948, p. 36) claims that "altered sections of the body of parent organisms always possess an altered heredity." He states that an altered twig or bud of a fruit tree, or the eye (bud) of a potato tuber, if cut away and grown separately (i.e. vegetatively propagated) as an independent plant will possess a changed heredity. Asseyava (1928, pp. 1-26), a countrywoman of Lysenko, investigated many such somatic mutations in potatoes and found in all cases that "the characters of the mutant are not transmitted through seed and its offspring are similar to the progeny of the original variety
While his idea of Vernalization being hereditary wasn't correct, he essentially discovered that fact itself and moreover Lysenko nor Mendel didn't know about a phenomenon called Epigenics nor did they actually know the details about genes and DNA and how it functioned. Part of the reason he opposed Mendel was the theory of one Thomas Morgan, which held that genes were a real thing you could find, and that the key to understanding biology was to discover the real gene and isolate it in a lab. Morgan's work is where we discover the chromosome, which is accepted in modern genetics.

A key thing to understand is that Darwin did not have a theory of genetics in his work, and the earliest research in genetics arguably began as an attack on Darwin and natural selection. In order for the theory of natural selection to work, it was literally impossible to have a static "gene" model for heredity without the possibility of mutation - which would mean, on some level, the "Lamarckian" theory of acquired inheritance had to be true, which is the centerpiece of attacks on Lysenko's theory. At no point was Lysenko saying "heredity is all bunk", it was commonly accepted by everyone that traits pass to offspring in a fairly regular way. It was more an attack on the genetics theories which, up to that point, had failed to make any meaningful progress in understanding biology or understanding what biological entities actually do. Even the aforementioned Morgan acknowledged that genetics was only really useful for understanding hereditary traits, and that the practical application would be genetic counseling (aka eugenics, still a prevailing belief in his lifetime).

Lysenko made a lot of colorful claims and exaggerations to be sure. Here's a good PDF of how Lysenkoism influenced Japanese study of genetics and biology, which is quite critical of Lysenko but acknowledges the debate rather than just saying "DURRR LYSENKO DOESN'T BELIEVE IN THE SCIENCE": https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.856.2064&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Today Genes are considered a theoretical construct in studies of heredity, not a "thing" you see in a microscope. If you're dealing with life at a chemical level, you're dealing with DNA, RNA. The abstract "gene" is used to look at hereditary traits, but you don't just splice in another "gene", because there's no bit of DNA you can isolate and say "this is a gene". If you're going to talk about something like "genetic engineering", what you're really talking about is working with DNA, or some sort of selective breeding process. It's pretty important to remember this if you're going to make claims about biology, biologists and the potential of genetic engineering or gene manipulation. I see the future in understanding what DNA is doing directly, and understanding the body mechanically in a better way than we do now.

TL;DR: Lysenko actually did discover new information regarding crop developments; he correctly determined that certain crops can develop traits of resillience in a few generations if exposed to the right conditions. We now know this to be 100% true, so discrediting him completely is pretty reductive. He is just like any other communist figure ever to have existed; a lot of what you'll read on him is bourgeois propaganda, and while he obviously was in the wrong for many things you need to assess him more critically than just believing every lie about him.

Moved to >>>/alt_archive/6160.