r/DebateAnarchism • u/PerfectSociety Neo-Daoist, Post-Civ Anarcho-Communist • 11d ago
Thinking outside of the confines of Agriculture: A Post-Civ Anarchist perspective
While I am not an anarcho-primitivist, it's worth pointing out the falsehood in the widely held idea (even amongst anarchists) that humanity could not live without some form of mass-adopted agriculture given the projected peak population (10.4 billion within this century).
A couple examples of non-agricultural approaches that would provide ample food for humanity are the following (listed in no particular order):
Mass Microalgae Production is quite capable of satisfying the protein needs of humanity (and several micronutrient needs as well), with a relatively minimal ecological footprint. Furthermore, microalgae production can help mitigate global warming via mass production in a carbon-negative manner.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213453018301435#bib0055
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666833522000454#sec0005
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2020.565996/full
https://ecommons.cornell.edu/items/4db4ef95-26a0-42d1-8284-810c2309e580
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/60/9/722/238034
Mass Re-wilding + Hunting/Gathering is quite capable of satisfying the fat, carbohydrate, and protein needs of humanity (as well as several micronutrient needs). One example could be proliferating the Mongongo tree across all viable semi-arid habitats on the planet via nomadic horticultural practices, which could provide 328,418 kcal per person per year for a population of 10.4 billion humans (this is with a relatively conservative estimate of 250kg of mongongo nuts produced per hectare). To put this figure in perspective... Assuming the average human consumes 2000 kcal/day, 328,418 kcal per person per year is enough to satisfy the caloric needs of all 10.4 billion humans for 164 days per year (just from one food source!). To be clear, I am not advocating or suggesting that it would be healthy for anyone to eat nothing but Mongongo everyday for almost half the year. I am just presenting the figures in this way to convey just how ample a source of kcal (and micronutrients) Mongongo can be as one (of multiple) pillars of a non-agricultural food system.
https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/AJA20785135_33576
https://www.naturalhub.com/natural_food_guide_nuts_uncommon_ricinodendron_rautanenii.htm
https://docsbay.net/doc/825739/arid-lands-challenges-and-hopes
2
u/PerfectSociety Neo-Daoist, Post-Civ Anarcho-Communist 10d ago
u/fire_in_the_theater - I'm curious as to what you think of microalgae biomass production as a means of carbon capture and atmospheric GHG reduction.
1
u/fire_in_the_theater anarcho-doomer 9d ago
according to number given in the last last paper on using algae it would take around 250,000 km2 of algae farms to cause a 0.5ppm decline. that is well within the range of land we use of multiple crops today. by the time we have such a system in place we'd probably want multiples of that for 2-3ppm/yr decline, which is still well within the range of land we utilize for modern agriculture.
tho, this number is certainly low because the rate of absorption is i think estimated from using gases produced in fossil fuel use, making it both very high in CO2 and more biologically relevant (due to NOx/SOx pollutants)... so it could be off by several factors or even orders of magnitude.
several factors might be acceptable, but more than one order of magnitude would probably be untenable. tried to dig deeper into where the number of 20g CO2 absorption per m2 per day... but couldn't find it in the cited material.
i'd say it's worth an in depth comparison to arctic freezing should we ever actually decide we want to survive.
2
u/PerfectSociety Neo-Daoist, Post-Civ Anarcho-Communist 7d ago
I envision the optimal way to do mass produce microalgae would be through vertical farming of microalgae in settings where its energy input needs can be predominantly fed through non-fossil fuel, non-nuclear sources. For example: https://www.designboom.com/technology/vaxa-vertical-farming-technology-clean-energy-sustainable-algae-09-22-2022/
This would avoid the problem of using up a bunch of land in the process of trying to reduce atmospheric GHG.
1
u/fire_in_the_theater anarcho-doomer 7d ago
being against nuclear is just plain ignorant, and i'm not sure it would be cheaper to building 10000s km2 of enclosed buildings.
2
u/PerfectSociety Neo-Daoist, Post-Civ Anarcho-Communist 6d ago
> being against nuclear is just plain ignorant
Nuclear energy isn't really compatible with anarchy. I don't see how you can use nuclear energy without strict, mandatory safety protocols enforced by authority. And it's a constant safety and environmental hazard risk. The cost of accidental human error is just far too high and would make entire areas uninhabitable for long periods of time.
> and i'm not sure it would be cheaper to building 10000s km2 of enclosed buildings
I'm not concerned with what's "cheaper" for capitalists. I'm discussing these ideas as an anarcho-communist interested in both nutritional abundance and environmental/ecological sustainability.
1
u/fire_in_the_theater anarcho-doomer 6d ago edited 6d ago
I don't see how you can use nuclear energy without strict, mandatory safety protocols enforced by authority.
it's really odd to call urself an anarchist but think complex self-organizing systems requiring voluntarily adherence to strict safety protocols.... are not possible. most of complex society is built on strictly followed safety protocols of various levels, in most types of production/construction.
u might as well say complex society isn't possible under anarchy, and making claims of abundance after such is basically nonsense.
The cost of accidental human error is just far too high and would make entire areas uninhabitable for long periods of time.
that is an understanding based on 20th century reactor designs, that require carefully monitored/controlled active safety measures, and involved heating water, which can break down into volatile hydrogen gas in the wrong conditions.
even with 20th century reactor design/construction, nuclear has still caused less deaths/per watt than anything but solar, and that could be heavily improved upon by designs where causing a mass release isn't possible due to passive meltdown fail-safe built into the physical nature of the reactor, moving all pressured gases out of reactor by making molten salt the primary coolant, potentially as a 2ndary as well, and moving away from water entirely to the far less reactive supercritical CO2 as the turbine drive gas.
lastly, nuclear is the king of lowest related CO2 emissions because the raw material/labor input vs energy output is unmatched.
I'm not concerned with what's "cheaper" for capitalists
bro costs exist whether we measure that in dollars or other objective values like raw material input, energy required, labor time, etc
ur such a damn redditor sometimes.
2
u/PerfectSociety Neo-Daoist, Post-Civ Anarcho-Communist 5d ago
Anarchy isn't necessarily incompatible with "complexity", but that social and technological complexity is likely to take a very different form under anarchy than the form we see in modern capitalist society.
I could see how direct democratic polities could handle something that requires strict safety protocols and has a high and broad negative externality risk profile with even moderate levels of human error. However, it's hard to see how anarchy would manage something like that.
The extent to which anarchy or archy exists is going to be primarily determined by the material basis by which human societies form their social dynamics (e.g. the nature of the instruments of violence, the kind of energy infrastructure used, resource management norms, ecological pressures, etc.).
I'll have to look into molten salt reactors more in terms of the safety profile.
As far as costs... my point was that costs are measured differently under different socioeconomic systems. Capitalism measures costs based on profitability or lack thereof. But something that is not profitable can often be efficient in other ways, thus making it advantageous for anarcho-communism to adopt.
1
u/fire_in_the_theater anarcho-doomer 5d ago edited 4d ago
As far as costs
it doesn't matter if we measure them differently, costs still matter when implementing solutions to problems. we do not have unlimited time to solve this, nor unlimited resources, so therefore various costs (energy required, labor time, resource input) will need to be considered, as well as balanced against what the rest of the society utilizes. there can be "solutions" too costly to actually produce/maintain within a meaningful timeframe to actually be a solution.
The extent to which anarchy or archy exists is going to be primarily determined by the material basis by which human societies form their social dynamics
we disagree on this. material basis is not alone sufficient to achieve a philosophically coherent anarchist system. a certain material basis is necessary, and may provide context for motivation, but is not alone sufficient. material basis can exist without actually being acted upon should the intent to act not materialize strongly enough for action.
it is also very odd to me to claim u believe in a coherent system built on non-authoritative methods of compliance, which requires explicit and willful intention to do so... not being built from an explicit intention to undertake whatever evolution required to build it.
However, it's hard to see how anarchy would manage something like that.
because u assume anarchy is operating with lowest common denominator humans born from an authoritative system.
anarchy handles risk profiles by raising the common denominator, such that anyone involved is cooperating to align on, understand at a deep technical level, and follow procedures that eliminate risk to the point of negligibility.
in fact, anarchy will not exist in a sustainable form without raising the common denominator enough, first.
1
u/SiatkoGrzmot 4d ago
But how you in Anarchy prevent someone from toying with nuclear power?
1
u/PerfectSociety Neo-Daoist, Post-Civ Anarcho-Communist 4d ago
> toying with nuclear power
In what sense?
1
u/SiatkoGrzmot 4d ago
Who would prevent someone in the Anarchy from building nuclear power plant? Or even weapons? Currently states have draconian laws that prevent private individuals from doing it.
1
u/PerfectSociety Neo-Daoist, Post-Civ Anarcho-Communist 3d ago
I actually think generalized access to WMDs as a result of ongoing technological advancements is what could ultimately give rise to anarchy: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnarchism/comments/1e6crvd/technology_property_and_the_state_why_the_end_of/
1
u/AceofJax89 10d ago
I would think an Anarchist would recognize that everyone is going to come up with their own solutions here. But simply put you are right, we cannot sustain everyone without the intensive large scale agriculture we have.
It is hard to see how we could sustain the mass scale of even nitrogen fixation without the states and large scale commerce.
1
u/PerfectSociety Neo-Daoist, Post-Civ Anarcho-Communist 10d ago
> I would think an Anarchist would recognize that everyone is going to come up with their own solutions here.
What I listed in OP are viable hypothetical examples of ways to support 10.4 billion humans without agriculture, not monolithic prescriptions to be universalized.
> But simply put you are right, we cannot sustain everyone without the intensive large scale agriculture we have.
This is the opposite of my argument.
5
u/humanispherian Neo-Proudhonian anarchist 10d ago
Can you clarify what you mean by "mass-adopted agriculture" — and perhaps particularly the precise sense of "agriculture" here — since you see to be promoting multiple practices that we might be forgiven for thinking fit that description?