this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2026
74 points (100.0% liked)
World News
1958 readers
942 users here now
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
Rules
Be excellent to each other
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Good thing plants can grow without fertilizer… it’s not the end of the world
We can’t grow them fast enough to feed everyone without fertiliser. Unless capitalism and supply chain issues were resolved in the meantime this means starvation for many.
If it’s that big of a problem, alot of areas can increase land usage to help.
Are you deranged? Genuinely, are you stupid?
I’m sorry but how is this level of response is warranted? Do you realize in a lot of areas of the world, farming landmass can be increased by significant amounts. How is this not even in the discussion if lack of fertilizer is not an option? What are we supposed to do, nothing and just die off as a civilization? Humanity has existed for an extremely long period of time without them. Modern chemical fertilizers are an extremely recent invention in the time scale of humanity. Maybe you are the one who is genuinely stupid for not even considering other options to try to survive.
How quickly do you think that will happen? Who do you think owns that land? Who is going to work that land suddenly? Where are the tools to do it? Where is the water for those plants, as in many areas you need extensive irrigation networks for that? Industrialized farming is the method that we have been feeding billions, and if you suddenly turn off one of the inputs, MANY MANY POOR PEOPLE WILL DIE. You can't just DOUBLE THE ARABLE LAND COVERAGE in a few months.
I expect that many people will try to do what you suggest and it will be woefully inadequate and there will remain a devastating famine.
And your response was "eh it'll be fine."
To my knowledge, fertilizer largely increases yields rather than significantly speeding up the harvest cycle.
Based on this information you should understand that it is critical to the food supply. Yields are kind of important.
Mike Judge was a prophet.
Based on this information, you should then understand that your original objection is incorrect, as what I objected to, and what you said, was
Fertilizer increases yields, but we are in a system that struggles with overproduction and poor distribution, not underproduction. It is a issue regarding the long-term financial health of farming firms (ie including and especially smallholders who are at risk of being bought out by large landowners), just not the one being asserted.
That’s all cool but have you wondered how would such a change get implemented overnight? You guys are all dreaming of solarpunk while the reality is much more immediate.
... what change did I propose to be implemented overnight? The core of my point is that reduced yields for a single year from expensive fertilizer is damaging to the financial health of firms, but not an actual famine-causing incident.
I reiterate, since you apparently didn't read closely:
Food production and distribution system remains the same as it was, the ownership didn’t change, and so we will bear consequences of not having enough fertiliser that will be amplified by inefficient system. It doesn’t matter that it can be solved by more forward thinking because there are no functioning adults in power that would actually implement it.
But then we might have to employ sustainable practices like composting and crop rotation, and that will cut into our profits by several whole percentage points 😭
Neither of those things will do jack shit if we have a famine this year. There will be nothing to rotate next year and if it wasn’t already happening then we’re fucked for this year.
A famine is not the concern here - or at least not a serious one. Increased government spending in subsidies, or increased debt burden on farming firms, is.
That's not how famines work.
Please do explain how famines aren’t the result of decreased food output.
As explained in the first two sentences, the fundamental issue being created here is of increased cost of fertilizer which will require subsidizing by government or farms taking on more debt - something acknowledged in the article itself.
Even pre-modern famines do not typically result in seed grain being eaten up.
Famines are not simply 'decreased food output', but require a massive drop in food output without any ability to meaningfully make substitutions from other sources. including storage. Assuming no substitution and all fertilizer instantly disappears from the market, totally unused in agriculture for the next year, you're only looking at yield drops of ~20% - in a society that wastes hundreds-of-millions-to-billions of tons of crops, spits a similar amount into uses like biofuel and raising animals for slaughter, and spends billions of dollars paying farmers not to use land in order to artificially keep crop prices high.
We live in a highly integrated global market wherein the only famines that have happened in the past 50 years have been predicated on widespread societal breakdown in the countries more than poor yields. For that matter, they also are pretty universally accompanied by a lack of serious action on the part of the global community to alleviate the issues in the global market, since the issue is localized rather than general, and governments are fucking great at ignoring anything that doesn't affect them directly. Short of mismanagement of a grotesque and absurd level on an internationally coordinated scale, the chance of this evoking famine conditions are pretty low.
You’ve misread. This sentence you are referring to “The fertilizer shortage is putting the livelihood of farmers in developing countries — already troubled by rising temperatures and erratic weather systems — further at risk, and could lead to people everywhere paying more for food” is talking about the costs from a lowering of supply, not from things just “getting more expensive”. Later in the article:
Crop failures and lower yields are both very very bad to be happening globally.
Nobody said anything about seed grain being used up, what are you talking about?
So…. Exactly what is happening right now then?
Why are you bringing these things up anyway? I was commenting on your comment that stated we should be doing crop rotation. Crop rotation doesn’t work unless you’ve been doing it for years, if we have crop failures and shortages, we will be unable to start crop rotation. It’s a solution that won’t work at all unless we started a decade ago. If there are global crop failures then we wont have nutrients in the soil to even make rotation a possibility.
No, the issue I'm referring to is the broader issue addressed by most of the fucking article, the increased expense of fertilizer, the direct issue which is being discussed and does not have a serious possibility of leading to widespread famine.
"Global market prices going up is widespread society breakdown on the regional level."
Yes. You got it in one. Brilliant.
Then why the fuck do you think that crop rotation would be impossi-
Oh, Jesus fucking Christ.