• IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      If everyone gets away with the crafting glitch and goes too far with it, the waste generated severely affects the crop glitch on a global server level. And if nothing is done about the runaway crafting glitch, it can make the server unliveable

      • mhague@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 months ago

        That will only happen if a few chronically online players get together to use their resources to manipulate the playerbase. If that happens the game will die, but certain players just don’t care about anything but themselves.

  • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    It’s not that infinite without a way to refresh protein, such as mining ammonia, eventually you run out of soil resources and crash. It’s got a hard limit, so to speak.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      urine is a fantastic nitrogen fertilizer

      bonemeal for phosphorus

      wood-ash for potassium.

      Probably not concentrated enough to work on an industrial scale, but probably on smaller communal farms.

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        That alone is still not infinite. When you eat food you’re taking the nutrients that you need out of it and excreting what is left. So even if all of your shit went directly to manure then you’re still putting in less than you took out.

        • Lyrl@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          The energy input is the sun, and most of the calories come from the air (carbon dioxide). Given so much external input, harvesting from a plot without reducing soil fertility is totally possible. With nitrogen-fixing crops (soybeans being the poster child), even the nitrogen fertilizer comes from the air.

          • Lyrl@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            The plants use energy from the sun to turn carbon dioxide from the air into edible calories. When our animal bodies “burn” the food we eat, that turns it back to carbon dioxide, which we exhale.

          • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            That’s like counting tigers in the zoo as tigers in the wild. Dust from homes gets put in landfills, corpses get burnt or buried in boxes, human excrement gets treated and reintroduced to streams. It’s not finding its way back to the fields in such a way that it’s 100% efficient, not even close.

            • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Not all the matter in farming fields come from fertilizer. A lot of it comes from CO2 in the air, which will eventually go into some plant that we can eat. Also, all those ways that matter is lost, therefore not being 100% efficient doesn’t make matter disappear. Burning turns it into CO2 -> it will reach a plant. Excrements going into water streams -> plants will pick them up, or ocean wildlife will pick them up. Buried corpses -> microbes and plants will pick them up. The only way to “lose” matter is for it to leave the atmosphere into space or to be buried so deep that no life can reach it.

              The atmosphere loses matter at a rate that is (presumably) not affected by human actions.

              Matter buried too deep is compensated by matter coming out from volcanic eruptions.

              As long as the earth’s core is hot enough for volcanic activity and the sun doesn’t run out of fuel, the cycle keeps going.

      • lennybird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Was wondering, do Orchids do this, too? They have “air roots” and basically subsist off zero substrate.

        According to this article

        Like other epiphyte orchids, the roots of Phalaenopsis roots are covered with a spongy epidural tissue called “velamen.” Just a few cells thick, velamen helps orchid roots absorb water and nitrogen from the air.

        It’s probably my favorite plant. Hardy as hell despite a bad reputation for being picky. People don’t realize they just go dormant until Spring.

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        At between 20 to 300 lbs per acre, yes. Generally most legumes will need 60 lbs per acre, so most will be self sufficient in ideal weather.

        For 60 bushel per acre soybeans still require fertilizing with monoammonium and diammonium phosphates, as well as ammonium acetate, and to go beyond 70 bushels consistently supposedly does require supplemental nitrogen although this has yet to be recreated in studies.

        So, you still need to mine ammonia.

          • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            In the yield size we see, they didn’t. That’s the point. Food crops cannot sustain the current human population. Before humans came along an area had a variety of plants which did not have their stalks and fruit systematically harvested and transported elsewhere. They grew in the ground and their produce would rot where it landed, enriching the soil.

            • Qwazpoi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              I don’t think “Food crops cannot sustain the current human population” is the most accurate. I think adding on an “indefinitely” or something similar would be more accurate. The problem is that there’s plenty more land and resources that could go to crops, but it’s more of a problem of how sustainable it is long term.

              Topsoil erosion could outpace soil conservation especially with synthetic fertilizer, but if people aren’t getting food now or in our lifetime then it’s not caused by an inability to grow enough crops. It’s caused by companies being driven by the profit motive. It’s more profitable to let food go to waste than get it to people who can’t afford it.

              Currently the technology is there to make more than enough crops for everyone, but how sustainable that is in the long term is not something that has been a priority. If more effort is put into making factory farming actually sustainable, which is the way things are starting to go although pretty gradually, then the only thing stopping people from getting food is the incentive to destroy/ let it rot rather than take any potential loss from not artificially inflating prices

              • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                7 months ago

                How about this correction, then: “Food crops can only be sustained for some period of time at which point it won’t affect me and in that case it might as well be 100% sustainable because I completely lack empathy or attachment to humanity.”

                • Qwazpoi@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Echoing malthusian sentiments of “there’s not enough food for everyone” is not helping anyone.

                  Pointing out the actual problem which is that big farms that exist right now aren’t there to get food to people they are there to make money and they don’t care if it’s sustainable or if anyone gets to eat, is what I did. You’re the one glossing over.

            • Lyrl@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Modern industrial farming is not sustainable for the next hundred years, no, but there are a lot of levers to work to transform it into something that will reliably feed future generations.

              One lever is amount and kind of meat in the average diet. It takes something like seven pounds of grain to make one pound of beef. Modern chicken breeds are amazingly efficient at converting feed grain to chicken meat, but even they are something like two pounds in to one pound out. Reducing the percent of meat in our diets would make our food go significantly further.

            • I disagree with that. In Western countries typically half to two thirds of agricultural land are used for meat and dairy production. We have plenty of food available to sustain the current or even growing populations without depending on mineral fertilizers. Farming techniques have significantly evolved over the past two hundred years and the crop yield of an intelligently managed field without mineral fertilizers is not signficantly lower than what is achieved by conventional farming. With the added difference that conventional farming is actively destroying the soil and killing the insects that are vital to maintaining agriculture.

              • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                So you’re saying that agricultural practices need to change to make is sustainable but you also disagree that it isn’t sustainable? It doesn’t sound like you disagreed at all, mate.

              • person420@lemmynsfw.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                They did exist (or some form of it), just not in quantities that could feed billions of people.

                Most of the plants we eat today are products of selective breeding to make them more palatable and easier to mass produce.

                • And where did the Dinos get the poo from? From eating plants. Plants that either used bioavailable nitrogen or captured nitrogen from the air.

                  The nitrogen cycle has been interconnected between soil, air and biomass nitrogen since forever. There simply is no fundamental need to use mineral fertilizers, as was claimed in a comment earlier.

  • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Most of us don’t want to till fields and milk cows, and we’d rather trade things like iPhones with people who are cool with shovelling cow shit.

    I know, that’s surprising. We’ve only been trading like that for a few hundred thousand years. Fucking millennials.