When capitalism comes crashing down will we all be living like Varg?

Nitrogen is litterally not an issue. Phosphorus is, which we cant really make ourselves efficiently and were using up the minerals slowly.

Sorry, accidentally hit send.

Algal blooms. The problem is that the nitrogen is washed into water ways and algal blooms pop up. There are ways around it, sure, such as man made swamps to process the water for heavy metals as well as nitrogen, however they too suffer from an over abundance.

I am well aware of the Haber process. Sure, it let the population keep growing, but that's not what we needed.

I'm fairly certain that same nitrogen is used in the production of potassium nitrate for bombs. However I haven't done a chemistry class in a while so I'm not sure. Just a side note.

But anyway, we are loosing soil at any rate.

I'm aware.

However it's not a production issue. The PROBLEM is that we produce tones of nitrogen cheaply and wash it into water ways.

And Nitrification isn't even the biggest problem. It's the destruction of fertile land as well as soil derision. People talk about how little fresh water there is on the planet, but for some reason no one ever talks about the finite amount of fertile soil that exists. Modern farms survive solely on fertilizers these days as farming kills soil fungi and fauna. For this reason there is no intensive for sustainable farming.

Call me crazy, but I think the talk of big pharma, big oil, and big coal aren't the only topics worth investigation. You've got to wonder why you never hear of anything of that sort from the producers of the most in demand substance humanity has ever encountered.

Have you ever considered that big agriculture has slipped under the radar unduly?

Ammonia is a precursor to both explosives and fertilizer, yes.

Runoff from fertilizer causes algal blooms, but is probably not going to kill us all. Moreover, if it does start to kill us, we'll respond by using better management practices than none at all.

Algal blooms suck but they are not a doomsday scenario. Soil depletion can similarly be solved by management once people bother with it at all.

Which from what little I know about agriculture isn't going to sustain our fat unwashed asses for much longer. Modern agriculture has problems inherent in it. Biological matter that is present in good soil dies with the industrialized mess that is modern agriculture. I know of no ways in which nitrogen can be cut down on that won't adversely impact yield.

We've got third worlders breeding out of control and western civilization con summing more and more grain to feed their fat selves and feed their fat cows so they become fatter so they can feed their fat selves more fat cow and grow fatter.

In my country, soil erosion is fucking raping us. We are loosing farmland in between the cyclones and the soil erosion as our most precious resource, good fucking soil, gets literally washed out into the ocean.

You know it takes fucking years to repair soil? Like, tens of years?

So my point is that if you plow the shit out fo the land, plant crops homogeneously, and rely on fertilizer, you're gonna get fucked, and "management" won't fix it.

Which brings me to my next point. Perhaps I could call it 🍀🍀🍀management🍀🍀🍀. Call it da joos or porky (or should I say corny? huehue) I'm not connived that agriculture is filled to the brim with corruption just like everything else in this capitalist hellhole of a world. If it's not convenient at the moment, you'd better hope your commie revolution comes soon, because business won't have a fucking lick of it unless they are making PHAT B U C K S.

I suppose I should also mention that my thoughts are always scantily clad together messes and you should try not to take me too seriously even though I do.

Topsoil was cataclysmically destroyed in the Dust Bowl. You can see the little dip here prior to shooting steadily upwards.

Also, total human population is on track to peak at 9 or 10 billion. More than half of all humans now live in countries with sub-replacement fertility, and it's dropping globally.

TBQH, it doesn't sound like you know very much about the subject.

In 10 or 20 years, you'll probably be freaking out about how the human population's on track to decrease. (Which means it will of course decrease forever until we go extinct, because trends never, ever change)

Sorry for being impolite, btw. I'm just an asshole.

The end goal of marxism is to destroy christian slave morality and reunite us with the old gods of our ancestors

I want the human population to decrease by natural means if possible. It probably will. I'm not some liberal mouth breather that thinks that everything in nature increases and decreases linearly by one gradient forever. I'm well are of the oncoming decline. However my argument is that we are loosing food productivity faster than we are loosing people (or more accurately, WILL be loosing people)

And this "top soil" is second rate garbage that can only grow good amounts of food if supplied with fertilizer. Once you destroy the ecosystem, the soil dies as well. Trees are cut down and crops are placed over it. Eventually, you find that food isn't quite as nutritious as it used to be because soil is not only a finite resource in itself, but it also contains many finite resources. And further, you find that you REQUIRE fertilizer.

If you've ever gotten into gardening like my faggot self has, you'll know that you need to BUY good soil. Plant it in you back yard with nothing but grass and you'd best be on top of those nitrogen and phosphorus supplements. The GOOD soil, you might notice, has a white substance inside of it (closer to the center of the huge dirt mounds it comes from). It's a fungus. It distributes nutrients and is a good sign of healthy coil. Farmland kills it.

I think I covered everything. My fingers hurt.

Don't worry about me. I'm 4/pol/ diaspora. Cuntish people make me feel at home. Not that you're being cuntish.

The two biggest problems we face right now is access to rare metals and a sustainable, highly efficient source of energy. If those two were solved we could easily switch to more efficient forms of farming, such as hydroponics and aeroponics that do not depend on soil quality and our style of living can be architecturally redesigned in the first place as to be incredibly energy efficient. It would need of course an economy based on use value to lead towards this.

But food production isn't decreasing, nor are nutrients becoming unavailable. Food production has been steadily increasing for many decades. Every predicted malthusian catastrophe has been evaded. And to stave off this latest one, we don't even need to keep growing. Just maintain current food production for another half a century.

Local food availability certainly has problems, but these are caused by complex economic issues.

For instance: Africa's main problem with food security is subsidized first world agriculture. The US is the world's largest food exporter, and it's not because we're just so good at growing food. We pay farmers to grow at economically unsustainable rates. We operate our entire food production industries at a loss and dump the results on the world market where third world growers can't compete. (Then we subsudize them with aid and loans so they can buy our subsudized food)

The thing to remember is, food is less than 1% of the US GDP. If food became twice as expensive, it would become less than 2% of GDP. The only reason people in the US give a shit about food prices are:
1) The large markup that occurs. (Grocery costs increase even as commodity prices don't. It's purely markup to derive greater profit)
2) The great amount of income inequality in the US. If people received pay commensurate with the scale of the US economy, grocery costs would seem unimportant.

Speaking of artificially high food prices, isn't it interesting that Iowa's tax-hating Republican governor just vetoed a tax cut on food? He wants to slash taxes on capital gains, but groceries? Gotta squeeze every penny out.

You are right when it comes to the analysis of nature and its use for agriculture and animal herding.

But consider following events. First industrial revolution essentially stomped out from the ground a mass of people, the proletariat. Then second industrial revolution and its invention of Haber-Bosch process created another bigger mass of people literally out of thin air.

The natural soil is the best soil one can get. But there can be invented artificial soils. Grinding minerals to a specific grain size, proper mineral composition, proper bacterial culture. Just because it is incredibly hard does not mean it is not impossible. In capitalism, it is not profitable to create new soil because the process would be slow and inefficient if made for profit.

There are limits on human life when it comes to material inputs and outputs, and also there are limits on the information processing power of human being and a network of human beings. Tribalism works around these limitations by never allowing humans to venture beyond these limits.

The /varg/pill is a statement of powerlessness in the face of enemies who profit on keeping the general populace pacified and uneducated, yet properly schooled in terms of being the cogs in the system. Either the non-glamorous working class, who are slaves to capital to not starve, or the glamorous bourgeoisie who sold their soul into slavery of the capital. And the capitalists in their corruption put obstacles in any human emancipatory movement.

Tribalism is the most unsustainable system imaginable. It literally only worked because population levels were so low, and even then they caused massive environmental devastation (google slash-and-burn agriculture).

Holy shit. Nigga you blew my mind. I've never considered hydroponics before… But how would you get all of the ground nutrients to put into the water system? And is is as good for yield meter for meter? Maybe it would work if we stopped eating meat and didn't have to feed a gorillion tones of grain to get a single fucking tone of miserable fat cow.

This changes everything…

Sadly if we don't suffer from a food crisis then the gommunists might win and I won't get my tribal society… Or maybe the Fascists… I dunno who really cares. My money is on roided angry right wingers TBHFAM.

I shouldn't have said food. I'm aware we are getting more food hence more people. I just don't see it becoming sustainable. I'm talking about the death of good soil.

And food is becoming shiter. Grains get many of their nutrients from the ground, and those reserves dry up. If I ever get access to a lab during my degree (might switch to chem because physics is kinda gey) I want to run some tests on Australian forest soil (gum, not Eucalyptus, as Eucalyptus, like physics, is gey) compared to the shit on farmlands. I'm almost sure that farm soil has fuck all nutrients in it. Or do I mean minerals? I didn't pay attention in high school health, I'm not even sure there is a difference.

I try running this shit by Ancaps all of the time but because I'm from 4/pol/ they don't care if nigers starve. But yeah, I'm aware. Some places in Africa are very fertile and resource abundant. (muh environmental determinism BTFO). Not much is stopping them from growing their own food bar capitalism. As an ex libertarian this hurts like fresh cognitive dissonance.

But yeah. My argument is that if agriculture continues as it is, we're going to run out of soil. Top soil ain't even what I'm talking about, I'm talking about good soil that doesn't need fertilizer. I'm talking permaculture.

That's a good point. My next argument was that the artificial revitalization of soil is expensive and business doesn't want it. Then I remembered you were all commies and the market doesn't matter to you. Gommunism is truely a magical thing. Much more interesting to learn about than ancap pontification on shit neither they nor I have a right to pontificate over what with our limited knowledge. Now, pontification isn't a word, but it should be.

We don't go past those limits without some dude inventing agriculture. I agree that it's inevitable, but my iteration of the /varg/pill has some chaos pill in it. The /varg/pill is good because I think tribalism is ideal, however just like anarcho-capitalism, it's hard to suppress the spiral into the thing you tried to get rid of. (in my case, civilization, and in their case, the state, in case you didn't catch that, although you probably did).

I actually just think tribalism is idea.

Permaculture in Europe eliminated the need for destruction of the forests, which were sacred to my ancestors.
And the population doesn't increase if you don't invent agriculture.

Hydroponics is incredibly efficient. I'm not familiar with the specifics, but apparently it's not too hard and 5m² of hydroponics are enough to deliver 90% of the nutrients an average human needs. You can be basically self-sufficient with hydroponics and aeroponics, although consuming luxury products and animal products (dairy etc) will be out of the question unless you want to put in a lot of time, bread too. Everything else, beans, potatoes, rice (although rice takes a lot of water), fruits, veggies, no problem. I don't get why you think communism means no "tribal" society, every communist society that is not state capitalism must by necessity put the emphasis back on the local organization.

Hunter-gatherer societies were known destroyers of forests. Densely grown forests don't make good hunting grounds, so they would burn out clearings so they could actually see the animals under the thick brush. One of their favourite hunting techniques was setting fire to the forest and shooting the animals as they fled.
Also, I happen to live in Europe, in a country where half of it is barren heathland because my neolithic ancestors chopped down all the forests. Sacred my bloody ass.

By tribal I mean traditional European tribalism, not gommunistic type pseudo tribes. I'm talking patriarch and spiritual culture. I heard that gommnuists aren't to fond of tribal values, which I might add,include patriarchy and spirituality.

This hydroponics concept is fascinating though. If you're right, and we have the water and artificial nutrient production capabilities, I might never get a tribal societies, and you gommunists will need to fight the fash and the capitslists.

I almost hope we can't make enough food tbh. If we do I'm going to have to put my faith into gommunists or fascists.

I would also add that hunter-gatherer societies were often migratory because they ended up depleting the animal population. So no, they were not sustainable.

What part of Europe do you live in in which pagans cut down forests?

And the forests of northern Europe aren't Australia tier dense. I also can't recall any evidence of Europeans burning forests to make it easier to hunt. When you know what you are doing, you don't need to clear a forest to hunt. Trust me, I'm a hunter.

I will admit, I have a narrow view here. I know about Northern Europe. You are in a position to educate me on the celts, Romans, and Greeks.

There were clearings of forests for certain ritual practices, but that typical consisted of one small clearing for a mound or bunch of mounds.

Once the tribes started to mobilize for war against the Romans, everything changed tho.

Northern tribes have existed consistently and continuously for tens of thousands of years as Shepard, nomadic, and permanence culture based people.

Thing is, modern agriculture relies on fertilizer, but we have that fertilizer. We can keep fixing nitrogen, and fossil fuel is nowhere near rare enough that we'll run out of petroleum-based fertilizers.

A lot of modern food has shitty nutrients, but that's because of what we're growing, not how we're growing it. A modern cornish-cross chicken tastes bland because it's bred to grow insanely big insanely fast. Tomatoes don't taste as good as heirloom varieties because they're bred to be easy to ship, shiny, long lasting, etc.

That's before you get into horrible processed food.

HOWEVER, there's upsides, too. There's a lot more quality-assurance. If you look up an old cookbook from the 30s or 40s, it should have sections on what to do with low quality food. Shitty meat, bad vegetables, fucked up eggs. Boil the fuck out of it until it's safe-ish.

Besides. If you're worried about micronutrients, eat a multivitamin and you're fine. (Note: Most people do not require a multivitamin. There's studies)

Food sucks in a lot of ways, but in other ways it's better than ever.

Anyway, soil depletion is an issue, but it's a manageable one. It seems to me that your fear is based on ideation of terrible thoughts rather than hard facts.

PS: 'Nutrients' refers to everything the body needs in food. There's Macronutrients, which are Carbs, Protein, and Fats, then Micronutrients, which are Vitamins (such as Vitamin C, produced by fruit-bearing plants) and Minerals (like magnesium).

Most of this stuff is synthesized, not just sucked out of soil. The sugar (and by extension all carbs) in plants comes from atmospheric carbon, water, and sunlight.

Alright, cool. I thought that science people didn't like the terms mirco an micro nutrients anymore. I'm aware of these definitions. But I didn't know magnesium counted as a mineral. I suppose it's in an ionic form so whatev.

I don't see how the soil problem is manageable. Not without people mass producing new soil. You CAN'T till soil violently over generations and keep it good. Someone suggested hydroponic, or the mass artificial production of soil, but I don't think it just a management change away from being fixed. I think it's about an overhaul.

As for food, there are less nutrients in the food. Sure, most people don't require vitamins, but that's a change from LITERALLY FUCKING NO ONE needing them.

I'd go on but I need to post this now and do shit. I'll respond shortly.

Denmark
Yeah, because hunting in today's forests is totally comparable to hunting back then. Even if you use a bow or whatever the terrain is still very different. Even the so-called Scandinavian wilderness has been heavily manipulated by humans throughout history.
Northern Europeans never fought the Romans, except in the very late Roman period where the Jutes among other cultures began invading Britannia. The Romans never even conquered the German tribes, let alone those further north. Furthermore, by the Roman era none of these tribes were hunter-gatherers. They were iron-age farmers, and they didn't engage in permaculture. They would cultivate the forests for plants and timber, clearing out paths and even shape the trees to get specific shapes of wood (coppicing, for example), but for actually growing food they used intensive and very inefficient methods (but far more efficient than hunting and gathering, mind you).
No, stop fetishising tribal life.

You could always re-collect the runoff.
Half of Louisiana is made from silt deposits from topsoil runoff down the Mississippi. If we really get desperate, it could become economical to dredge the Mississippi, its delta, or even the Gulf of Mexico for washed-away soil. Those sorts of deposits made the Nile so fertile in ancient Egypt.

More likely, it'll stay cheaper to do what we're doing now, until someone invents an even cheaper way to fertilize.

That's not really true, though. Dietary deficiencies are as old as humans. Older, I suppose.

There's a reason people used to be much shorter.

That's because the forests were already cleared by your ancestors, you fucking mong.

But they fucking weren't, idiot.

I hunt in VERY dense forests sometimes.

And what part of the world do you live in where you can hunt in this primal paradise of bounty?

Good fucking luck hunting game in this forest. You won't even be able to see them until you literally step on them. You think your ancestors would want to hunt in this?

Maybe if you're a manlet this is a problem.

Not all forest is like that anyway.

I'd be confident to kill something in there.

Your ancestors were probably manlets.

Australia. The forest is worse here, however I've been to good Euro forest, and It's not all dense cancer. There are less dense areas. Rivers are good places, for example. Look for something drinking there.

This would be a problem for anyone. Most of the game would be invisible under the brush. Any hunter with common sense and whose life depended on it would torch that shit.

Then why the fuck are you talking about Northern European tribes as if you know shit?

If this is an isolated patch of Fern in that it clears out around it, which they often do, you can get pretty close, or even from slight elevation.

An arrow, a spear, or a bullet won't care about shrubs once you see it's back.

I doubt a deer standing up would be anywhere near invisible when in that shrub if i'm honest. It looks waist height.

I know heaps about northern European Tribes. You sound mad.

It's a pet fascination of mine.

I've been there as well. I've seen the forest.

In areas out here in which there is no civilization, you would drop you're fucking jaw at the sheer amount of wildlife that develops. I'd imagine it'd be the same there if you weren't so developed.

I mean, it's like you've never heard of a fucking book, you nigger.

Yeah, except for the fact that it likely wouldn't be an isolated patch if the forest overgrown. Not to mention all the debris that would develop over time. This forest has probably only been left for a few decades. A few centuries and it would probably be unnavigable. This is not even accounting for different types of wood.

You obviously don't, since you were blabbering about northern hunter-gatherer tribes mobilising to fight the Romans. Read Bookchin.
And it probably looked nothing like that back before they started clearing it. Again, I live in northern Europe, and literally only have to take a two-hour drive to walk in a heath that was cleared out by the society you so fetishise.

Forests don't build up and pile over themselves. That's not how it works. healthy forest has a decaying later of biomateral.

And the tribes were forced into developing rapidly when threatened. The tribes mobilized,not necessarily hunter gathering tribes. For most of their history they were into permaculture anyway.

I'm pretty sure you don't have a clue mang.

You've never hunted a day in your life.

The fact is that for 10 thousand years these tribes have existed and the European forest has also survived up until modernization. Their practices even if they are as bad as you say, ARE NOWHERE NEAR as bad as what you see today.

It's at least RELATIVELY sustainable.

Yeah, and this forest isn't even close to reaching climax. Notice how there's not a single fallen tree.
Threatened by whom? No civilisation has ever been in any position to threaten tribes that far north. Their only real societal threats were resource depletion and migrating tribes. And they were never into permaculture. I have not read a single source saying they were and read several suggesting they weren't. Danish tribes in the stone-, bronze-, and iron age actively cleared vast swathes of land for intensive agriculture. The only reason why places like Norway or Finland are relatively (and I mean relatively) pristine is that they were and still are underpopulated, and they still show signs of manipulation.
I'll admit that, but you've still not proven how your experiences hunting, with a bow or whatever, can in anyway be compared to hunting back then. The forests, before clearing, were more dense and harder to hunt in than modern forests; the game was likely less plentiful, since there was a sizeable population of large predators and more humans hunting; and the game, outside of the Scandinavian peninsula, was and is smaller and harder to spot.
There is pretty much only one northern European tribe left today and that is the Sami, and they only survive because the area they live in is absolutely enormous. Their lifestyle is not sustainable at higher population densities. Most of the European forest was cleared well before the industrialisation, an example is with my country, as I have mentioned several times. There is more forest in Europe today than there was in the pre-modern era, I kid you not.
No, it's not at all sustainable. Like I said in my very first post, their lifestyle could not sustain a significant population and even with the population they had they still caused massive ecological damage. Our society is only looks more damaging due to scale and the nature of Capitalism. If we went back to a hunter-gatherer society with even a tenth of our world population we would face a major crisis in short order. Even back then their lifestyle caused them major problems. In Denmark, which was an extremely rich in food and game back then, we ended up facing a major overpopulation crisis as all the food sources were depleted and never recovered, and this crisis was only resolved when migrating agricultural tribes settled and killed all the hunter-gatherers.

you mean on welfare and cheap land?

There won't be any cheap land by that point

i would.

Yes, but what meant was that Varg lives on a cheap area of land in rural France and off of government farming subsidies and welfare