this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2024
56 points (92.4% liked)
Asklemmy
43890 readers
773 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Chemical fertilizer. World population would probably be half the size without it and starvation rates much higher.
One of the guys who invented the process for large scale production was Fritz Haber, to make explosives and chemical weapons. He's also responsible for using chlorine gas on the battlefield in WW1. His wife was a chemist and an activist, who shot herself in the heart after learning about his involvement. Haber left within days for the Eastern Front to oversee gas release against the Russian Army.
He ended up saving more lives than he destroyed, but what a story.
There's a really good section on him in the book, How to hide an empire - a history of the greater united states.
I don't believe this, is there a convincing argument to be made or does it hinge on destroying the environment to reduce cost to the consumer?
What a wild question.
Why? They are extremely damaging. The runoff destroys entire ecosystems like the wetlands where I used to live. Now filled with toxic microorganisms feeding on the fertiliser accumulating there
You are making a red-herring argument.
The post's question is: "What technology made the most impact in modern times?"
A poster says "Chemical fertilizers" and detailed the reasons.
And then you come in and say "NU-UH, IT DESTROYS THE PLANET!!!" an argument that has nothing to do with the question.
If your interpretation is that "impact" includes negative sentiment and mine did not then sure
Impact
noun
a marked effect or influence.
My interpretation of impact includes both positive and negative sentiments.
Whereas you are saying that a negative thing doesn't count as impact.
This should not be down voted.
Those of you that are down voting this comment just because this skepticism doesn't match your worldview or what you were taught from a textbook (which never tell the whole story) should stop and do a bit of research on your own. There is plenty of accessible evidence that points to nitrogenous fertilizers harming the environment and contributing to global warming without even digging into primary scientific publications.
It doesn't mean that the comment about chemical fertilizers are wrong, that's a more difficult claim to check (fertilizers increase crop yields, but could we support our populations without them if we didn't focus on overproduction). That said, it's what's driving much of the recent research into alternative fertilization methods right now. Chemical fertilizers are damaging and we need alternatives.