>"Synthetic fertilizers are a friend to saving nature because they reduce how much land we need."<p>Is this actually true or do we just use fertilizer to avoid improving the quality of our land?<p>>Farmers are already doing that. Fertilizer is expensive, so farmers have an incentive not to waste it.<p>Are they actually doing or are they just saying they are doing it?<p>>The pursuit of a chemical-free world is insane. Modern technologies like synthetic fertilizer make people's lives better. They especially make poor people's lives better. Banning them brings disaster.<p>Okay, just like Sri Lanka banned fertilizer, other countries should ban farming without fertilizer. Or maybe the problem isn't environmentalism or a lack of anti environmentalism but politicians banning fertilizer or non usage of fertilizer to cover up their corruption.<p>Something doesn't sit right with me in this article. The author doesn't actually care about Sri Lanka, he also doesn't care about reducing fertilizer usage, he also has the opposite extremist idea. Instead of choosing to restrict people's freedoms by anti environmentalism and pro environmentalism authoritarians maybe we should let them do whatever they want and adjust the tax system to account for pollution and externalities?<p>No, that would go against the current doctrine of left and right wing politics.<p>>The pursuit of a chemical-free world is insane.<p><a href="https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwoGCDdCzeU&t=1200" rel="nofollow">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwoGCDdCzeU&t=1200</a><p>It is insane indeed, it is insane how well it works.