Berkeley ‘instructor’: ‘Rural Americans’ are ‘bad people’

Culturally poor you say. How often do you really think a city person actually goes to the museums and zoos each year. For example New York has a population of over 8 million with 13.5 million foreign tourists and 51.6 million domestic visitors many of them being hick country folk, the met only had 7.35 million visitors, how many of them do you think was the average New Yorker? My guess would be very very. Having the museums close does not make you cultural by osmosis. I have yet found a city that does not us culturally poor country folk in for a look around.

 

The internet moots many arguments against rural living.

 

I am a heartland farmer and I am not sweating the trade war. Corn yields for me are higher this year with a higher price than last year.

 

While calling rural people "bad people" was dumb - the idea that rural folks in general have better picture of reality is similarly silly.

 

Congrats! Are you going to claim Arian supremacy now?
WTF is the point of what your eye color is and how is it relevant to the discussion?

That’s wrong. While you do have your personality from before you were born, your political views are a function of your life experiences.

Nope, not even remotely close. Politics is preferences based on your life experiences. Nothing to do with your personality.

Link to those studies? It seems to me you read some racist garbage where generalized conclusions are being made about people based on their political views.

 

Good post. Nitrogen fertilization is, however, only one factor, the second factor is fossil fuels. Without them, there would be no large amounts of nitrogen fertilizer and, in consequence, no population explosion. In reversal of this thought process, it can be hypothesized that without nitrogen fertilization and mechanized agriculture based on fossil fuel use, the population of the planet has to revert to the mean (pre-fossil fuel levels). Yes, a scary thought that most people cannot grasp, because of recency bias.

 

Theer exist a process for coming here don't violate that process and no one cares where you come from. Nor will you be mailed or detained. Fusion Magazine has stated categorically that as many as 30% of Latino women and teens are being raped on the way to this country if you think the coyotes aren't forcing another 25 to 30% to be drug mules you are hopelessly naive. As many as 20% of children coming north aren't traveling with there biological parents and a significant number of those are being left on Uncle Sam's door step so the gang banger who kidnapped and quite possibly orphaned them in the process get into the interior of the country via our broken asylum system. Oh and by the way what should we do with a bunch of 6 to 12 year old orphans with no known kin? Send them off to some child trafficker which is what will happen if we just throw them out on the streets.

Yeah there's some people with blood on their hands but it isn't DJ Trump it's leftist open borders zealots that are using Latinos strictly as political props and additional fodder for their vote harvesting plantations

 

I don’t know how it turned out but a few years ago I read about plans to use wind energy to produce N fertilizer. Kind of a work around of the electricity storage problem. Wind energy that could be stored indefinitely.

But yes at this point fossil fuels are the “engine” of large scale food production. I believe genetics are the long term answer. We’ve already reduced nitrogen requirements in corn by over 25% in about 15 years (while substantially increasing yields) using genetic selection. At some point I think we will genetically engineer corn (and other cereal crops) to take advantage of nitrogen fixing bacteria similar to legumes.

As long as people are willing to accept changes such as genetic manipulation in agriculture, city and country folk will remain well fed even with population growth in the foreseeable future. Political/economical disruption are the threats. If we play nice together there’s no reason for anyone to go hungry.

 

The Haber Bosch process doesn't care where the energy is coming from, be it fossil fuels or renewables. Of course, using renewables would make the process more difficult, due to their lower energy density.

What should be started at are ammonia-eating bacteria and algea. They consume about half to 2/3 of the ammonia used in the fertilization process, producing unwanted nitrogen oxides in the process. Since the world fertilizinf business is >200 billion a year, there would be lots of advantages of cutting out those "moochers". Of course, the fertilizer companies have no incentive working on this, because the more waste is produced, the more money they make selling more fertilizer. And the externalities, like toxic algae blooms in lakes, or NOx pollution, are socialized, so win win for them.

 

Why do you think that. Do you assume that rural dwellers like me can't read or never lived in a city or have no education? Where on earth do you people come from.

 

I believe the wind farm that was going to try fertilizer production had limited access to retail sale of electricity on the grid at times so was diverting energy overproduction to fertilizer production.

Urease and nitrification inhibitors are in common use now in production agriculture. They are effective.

I agree the commercial fertilizer industry will push back on things that hurt their bottom line. Hopefully those companies incorporate new technologies into their business models so advancements can happen without so much resistance. We saw this happen in the genetics/pesticide sector of agriculture and it seems to be working fine. One huge advantage to agriculture producers going to models less dependent on fossil fuels is reduced input cost volatility. Sometimes volatility can be more harmful in the long run than a slightly higher price. For example, something like the inefficiency of your example of lower energy density sources could be mitigated by reduced price volatility of the end product.

 

I made no such assumption or inference. Stop building strawmen.

 

Ah yes. Leave it to the alt left extremists to rush to his defense.

Who woulda THUNK IT? lol!

 

Weird.. Most satellite service usually comes with CNN, MSNCB, ABC, CBS and all the liberal soap boxes. And as far as I know, every place you get conservative talk radio, you can also get NPR.

And why most Rural Americans do not read the paper.... it's a product of them already being at work when the kindling arrives.

 

You forgot that we love our guns, we believe in religion and traditional family values, we respect the law and law enforcement, we stand and cover our hearts for the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance, we are against sanctuary cities and drug use zones, we believe in capital punishment and an eye for an eye, we believe in being strict with our children and that abortion is murder but most of all we believe and love our country. By the way, I live in the third most populated metropolitan area in the country.

 

Here's more:

 

We should all live uncomfortable lives.

If you're comfortable, you're not trying.

 

"Why don't you try to have some appreciation for your fellow Americans instead of treating them like scum when you don't even know them to begin with?"

Maybe because they're tired of being treated like scum?

I don't know; it's just a guess.

 

And you wonder why people oppose that? Really?

You're opposed to treating criminals as criminals and then complain that others do.

Maybe, just maybe you might consider the possibility that your views could stand some reconsideration.

 

It's a different sort of crazy. A crazy hillbilly might have a peculiar diet, and probably has a few outbuildings that probably aren't quite up to code, but he's generally harmless so long as you aren't trespassing on his property. A crazy city slicker is somebody I'm not used to, and don't want to know. I've seen 'em, and I'll take ol' Jud who lives up on the mountain in a trailer that was new back in the 50s.

 

Please explain how people, surrounded by natural processes, would have a lesser grasp of reality than those who are surround by an environment which is made up of all things manufactured.

 

You are not understanding what is being stated - I never said those surrounded by natural processes have a lesser grasp on reality. It is neither better nor worse - depending on the person.

Second - What part of reality is being discussed ? - It is a completely general statement - which is why it is silly to say one or the other is better.

Nature is part of reality - "True" ... so is technology, so is history, politics, ideology, religion and so on. We all have the net these days. My comment is towards the silliness of such comparisons.

 

My point was that if you live in a major city, everything that you come into contact with - your entire environment has been manufactured. Yes it's reality, but it's a made-up reality.

 

I would hope farmers would be more in touch with nature - so what ? It is not like farmers do not have televisions - brainwashing them day in and day out like the rest of us

 

Some one needs to tell the idiot professor that at least us backward people here in the middle of the country dont crap in the streets like they do in SF. And BTW we dont harbor criminals and release them to to other crimes.