[petewailes]

Rural person here. We've been having this argument in the UK for the last... Oh, 400 years at least. It basically boils down to, some muppet in Whitehall shouldn't be making laws about what to do with sheep/cattle/pasture/abattoirs/grain coatings...

There's a lot of truth in it. You think there's bad regulation in tech? It's nothing compared to regulation on farming and ag generally.

In terms of solutions, the only one I've ever seen proposed which I think could work would be to have governing bodies for rural areas (and this could apply more broadly to areas of society), where they are free to make laws as it pertains to the area of responsibility of the group, with a coordinating body overseeing the groups to design for efficiency and arbitrate where conflicts arise.

[cmrdporcupine]

Also a rural person living next to working farms, I'll just say this: Many things make more sense when you realize that farming is industry (and a workplace) and has to be managed by the state as an industry with similar regulatory, health & safety and environmental concerns.

The bucolic picture of farms as family homes combined with a flock of peaceful sheep, a family dog, and some silly chickens and a hard working sole proprietor is really hobby farming and a primarily aesthetic thing at this point.

The real world of the countryside is one of industrial extraction/production, but where somehow homes are mixed in. Not saying this is ideal, but a lot of the conflict that arises is around the disjoint nature of our traditional view of "the countryside" vs what it's actually "for" (industrial farming + future suburban development + mixed residential uses)

[engineer_22]

>The bucolic picture of farms as family homes combined with a flock of peaceful sheep, a family dog, and some silly chickens and a hard working sole proprietor is really hobby farming and a primarily aesthetic thing at this point.

I think the truth of your statement depends on local environment. In the area I grew up there are still small families running dairy operations. They have admitted it's getting harder to keep the farm competitive.

I agree farming has consolidated considerably since the mid 20th century. It's consolidation by design - the federal gov't has pursued policies to encourage consolidation. From a cost efficiency standpoint, it makes a lot of sense, but it has cost a lot of people their livelihoods.

The joke is, to make a million dollars in farming, start with two million.

[mistrial9]

> really hobby farming and a primarily aesthetic thing

no one can say that with certainty, you use the same rhetorical trick as people in politics when "progress is inevitable"

bad news for everyone -- the industrial world has spoiled the nest.

[bombcar]

> In terms of solutions, the only one I've ever seen proposed which I think could work would be to have governing bodies for rural areas (and this could apply more broadly to areas of society), where they are free to make laws as it pertains to the area of responsibility of the group, with a coordinating body overseeing the groups to design for efficiency and arbitrate where conflicts arise.

This is basically subsidiarity which says to make decisions at the lowest possible level.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

[Neil44]

Without getting bogged down in specifics there's definitely a sense sometimes that laws and policies are set by people who rarely set foot outside London.

[walthamstow]

As an 'only-half-joking' London nationalist I feel compelled to tell you that London too is governed by voters in the rest of the UK who know nothing about the city, its economy or its people.

This isn't a disagreement, I'm just pointing out how great regionalism/federalism could be for the UK

[tstrimple]

We have relatively few regulations on ag land usage so farmers saturate their fields with nitrates which inevitably run off into our water system to the point where there isn't a river in Iowa which isn't unsafe for swimming and drinking water becomes polluted.

https://apnews.com/article/politics-environment-iowa-des-moi...

Farmers don't care. They care about profits, not sustainability which is why they are fine letting the top soil just erode away. They know at some point they will be bailed out despite their complete irresponsibility in managing their resources.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-say...

Finally, there is some talk about gravel roads being the right choice for rural areas but that's not so clear cut. The cost for maintaining gravel roads is significantly higher than indicated and you often need more than just a grader and dump truck because these roads are prone to washing out which requires major repair. The initial cost of paved roads is higher up front, but the maintenance costs are lower over time. Gravel needs to be maintained yearly.

https://blog.midwestind.com/road-maintenance-costs-unpaved-v...

Rural residents rarely feel the actual cost of maintaining their lifestyle. Miles and miles of county roads servicing a handful of people a day. In Iowa roughly 40% of the population lives in rural areas and there are 98,000 miles of road to support them. While the other 60% of the population needs 17,000 miles of road to support their daily activities and that's putting all highways on the city side of the budget. Rural residents love to talk about how much cheaper their lifestyle is, but they are being heavily subsidized by people who live in the suburbs and urban areas while pretending to be "fiercely independent" and "self sufficient".

[LatteLazy]

I won't defend the mess of current rules. But let's not pretend here either: the reason agriculture has to be run more centrally is because farmers are actually amazingly bad at farming. There are entire offices filled with people who's job is to try and convince farmers to do things that work. From new crops to new technology to when to plant to climate change, farmers just refuse to budge. One of the longest UK radio programs is dedicated to getting farmers to farm better. We have a special program that pays farmers to retire, because it's cheaper than dealing with how bad they are at their jobs (imagine that in any other sector...).

That's the issue here.

We could solve it the way you say, but then we'd need an actual market, and when supplies ran low to import and to accept many farmers going bankrupt and their land being sold off to farmers who do do it right. That's been politically verboten for at least 50 years.

[P5fRxh5kUvp2th]

This feels akin to architects armed with diagrams telling the developers who have been working on the system for 5+ years why they're wrong.

Maybe it's true, but how likely is it?

It's more likely the farmers have concerns that are not being addressed. I can easily see "You should do this because it will make more crops and we don't care about your increased financial burden from it".

[Floegipoky]

> farmers are actually amazingly bad at farming

Remember that each farm is a complex system, often managed over multiple human lifetimes. Consider that farmers may have management goals beyond producing the optimal-on-paper calories/hectare this year, or whatever other arbitrary definition of "good" is chosen.