At my house, we've largely given up on growing "greens" because there are so many edible and tasty weeds that come up all on their own without any help. Our mainstays are chickweed, broad-leaf plantain, violet, dandelion, and lamb's quarters but there are a ton of others (amaranth, galinsoga, dock, burdock...) -- and it's worth noting that many of these were actually brought over by European colonists or were cultivated by Native Americans. They're just thought of as weeds today, but they make a fine salad.
Many of these would be bad to eat in large amounts, but humans are "generalists" -- we're built to eat smaller amounts of a variety of things together. The same is true for a number of our modern cultivated crops; off the top of my head the things in the mustard, spinach, and carrot families are mildly toxic, but we eat moderate amounts of each, so it works out.
This entire article could have talked about only oxalic acid and it would be a better article. It’s basically what all plants have to make themselves largely inedible and it the most common toxin in plants. You can eat all of the above but oxalic acid is just not good for you even small quantities. We’ve managed to get oxalic acid out of everything we’ve domesticated.
"deal with kidney stones down the line" isn't compatible with "not good for you even small quantities"
Some of those vegetables are staples in vegetarian cuisines like here in India. There would have to be a huge epidemic of kidney stones if the latter claim was true.
You're correct that many of those things have a lot of oxalic acid, but that domestication often reduces it -- but quite a few of our domesticated crops still have a large amount. We haven't gotten rid of it! The spinach, brassica, and carrot families are high in oxalic acid and/or oxalates, as are a bunch of fruits. And rhubarb is absolutely loaded with it, of course. All things to avoid if you have a family or personal history of kidney stones...
The other big toxins that come to mind are cyanogenic glycosides, lectins (improperly cooked kidney beans can kill!), and phytic acid. Those are well represented across a huge number of domesticated crops. But again, we use cooking and/or moderated consumption to deal with it.
What happens if people do eat the indigestible leaves? They might not get any calories from it, but people have more than enough of those already in the developed world. What's the difference between a leaf full of cellulose and something like psyllium husks?
Do people get nauseated if they have too many large pieces of leaves(I would imagine so, but I've never eaten random leaves so I don't know)? What about the various chemicals in them? There's gotta be at least chlorophyll and probably some other active stuff, right? What do those do if you eat them regularly? Are any of them beneficial?
Interesting premise for an article, but i was hoping for something a little deeper than - some leaves lack nutritional value (as being almost entirely fiber) and some leaves are poisonous.
Lacking nutritional value might not be too bad. I guess, it's better to munch on those than eg eat potato crisps? (Assuming your are otherwise getting your nutrient..)
Pine needles may be calorie-negative and unpleasant to eat, but they're very high in Vit C and available in the dead of winter. I would hardly call them inedible. You can make an oxymel to extract the vitamins & make it easier to eat.
I've been wondering about this in the context of supply chain disruption and food security. I live far from farmland and fear what might happen if that connection were cut due to war or civil strife.
How well could I survive eating local plants and whatever I can grow? How well could what we have nearby support the local population? Resources like the ones mentioned here could prove lifesaving.
> How well could I survive eating local plants [...]?
I don't recommend this. As someone who has been foraging for over a decade, I believe you are much better off stockpiling food, learning to raise chickens, owning some fishing gear, maybe growing your own crops, and even learning to hunt small game.
Here's my educated opinion:
Foraging is fine as a sort of hobby or interest, but most people shouldn't consider it for survival and the vast majority of people have no business doing it at all. That might sound extreme, but trust me. I've witnessed so much stupidity in foraging communities, online and offline, that I completely gave up participating. Having to constantly correct bad and even dangerous advice got really tiring.
Being good at ID'ing and using plants requires adequate time spent gathering knowledge and experience. Most people won't come close because they don't have the interest.
Many people just don't have the visual processing skills. Foraging is a very visual skill. Some people have it. Foraging came natural to me because I'm highly visual. I can ID things very easily after an experience. Others I've known are nearly incapable of ID'ing plants reliably. I'd say at least half of people are not good at ID'ing and probably never will be without some app on a phone connected to the internet.
Foraging is and historically has been tertiary to hunting and agriculture/livestock. Most wild plants simply don't have the energy density to justify the energy spent to collect and eat them. Those that are energy dense are usually only around for a few months out of the year and still may not be that plentiful.
At best, foraging is a stopgap while crops are growing. I'd love to say that it's practical merely live off the land, and while I think I might be able to get away with it longer than the average person, it's just not viable for most.
And also, Hunting & gathering/foraging will only support a far smaller population than our current agriculture based society.
So sure, you can live off foraging alone. When everyone else is not.
But when _everyone_ starts hunting and gathering you'll quickly realise how far agriculture has displaced us from the basic carrying capacity of the land, and then move onto the realisation of what happens in nature when the population of an animal exceeds the carrying capacity of their territory.
Starvation, conflict. Nothing great.
That's the problem with post-apocalyptic day dreams, they usually posit you as one of the few survivors. In reality, there'll be way more other survivors, either competing with you for resources, or, if you have a sweet bunker filled with supplies, forming a coalition that can overcome any advantage you have in firepower, by sheer numbers of desperate people.
(Peter Thiel take note, if the apocalypse comes, you can't shoot every Kiwi, and we're mighty interested in what's in your bunker. #AotearoaIsNotYourLifeboatRichPeople)
While on the face of it, this sounds right, I've started to think there's a chance we are wrong. Can you really prove that industrialised agriculture has a higher carrying capacity than untamed nature?
Supposedly the population of the USA pre-colonialism was comparable to today's population and, whatever way they were managing food systems, they were able to sustain that for millennia, rather than exhausting almost all the soil's fertility in a few generations.
Then there's recent findings that pre-industrial fisheries were often as productive as early industrialised ones[0]. But again, sustained for long periods rather than rapidly leading to vanishingly small returns.
Findings like this really lead me to the question of whether our current approach to feeding ourselves is actually so great or whether we should return to more "proven" methods.
I have 7 chickens on .24 urban acres. I'd definitely have to convert most of the 'land' to chicken feed if in an apocalyptic scenario but having 2-5 eggs a day is a wonderful blessing.
chickens are great, but in an apocalypse you are feeding chickens things you could eat instead. You would be better off growing potato on that land, as one the most energy per unit land dense crops.
for comparison, potato yields 40 tons a hectar, while wheat does like 8 tons and requires processing that most people won't manage by themselves.
Apples also give 30+ tons but thats a stranger diet.
It's probably best to think of supplementing rather than replacing external food supplies and sources. Raising perishable / vegetable crops and having a source of protein (fowl -> eggs, goat -> milk) would probably be your best bets.
You'd need to spend an extraordiary amount of time preserving harvest: drying, salting, smoking, curing, fermenting, and canning.
On a per-acre and per-hour basis, potatos are probably your best bet. A carb-heavy diet will tend to add pounds.
The traditional native American crops were the Three Sisters: corn, beans, and squash:
These are mutually symbiotic (the beans add nitrogen to the soil, I believe there's some pest-management aspect to this as well).
Preindustrial communities also relied heavily on fishing and shellfish --- another iconic pattern are shell mounds, literally the remnants of shellfish eaten. (See Shell Mound Road in Emeryville, as an example, in the SF Bay Area.) Grazing livestock was another standard.
Note that the native population of regions such as the Los Angeles basin may have been a few thousands, and for pre-Columbian North America (including Mexico and Central America) roughly 50 millions.
> You'd need to spend an extraordiary amount of time preserving harvest: drying, salting, smoking, curing, fermenting, and canning.
back in soviet times, we didn't have 365 day a year avaliability of fruit from another side of the planet, and our grandmother used to can hundreds of kilos of fruit and veg in the summer. She would fill up a storage room and that wouod supplement our diet in the colder months.
Its quite a bit of work, like a week or 2, but was normal withing living memory. Also you need equipment: a canning machine, and like 30+ 5-liter glass jars. And this is just one aspect of what you would need.
The epic exploration of east Asian technology, Joseph Needham's Science and Civilisation in China, devotes an entire volume (Vol 6, Part 5) to fermentation and food science. (The series itself is simply phenomenal.)
Canning arrived late to the scene, in the 19th century. It requires glass jars (which are re-usable), and in modern practice, lids which are replaced for each fresh batch. Prior to this, curing and fermentation were heavily relied on for long-term food storage: saurkraut, kimchee, salami, cheese, yoghurt, kefir, tofu, miso, tempeh, many forms of pickling, and of course, fermented alcohols (often employing grains or fruit).
I've seen difference estimates, but you need ~5 acres of land to feed one person for a year with a balanced diet. Intensive farming can reduce that if you focus on monoculture grain crops. Meat increases the land need. A backyard garden and local foraging doesn't cut it. And if you are feeding a whole community ... you need a lot of land.
It depends on what you mean by "balanced diet" (are you going to require meat?) but let's just work an example with sweet potatoes, which are pretty nutritionally packed and can be ludicrously productive.
Let's say you planted just one acre over with sweet potatoes; you could grow roughly 5 tons of usable roots, about 10,000 kcal/day. Swap some of that area out for other crops for nutrient balance and you'd still have a huge excess for one person, even accounting for a farmer's caloric needs. You might also end up hating sweet potatoes after a year, but that's why you specialize in a few calorie crops and then trade with others for what you need.
Anyway, it seems to me that an acre would be more than enough for a whole family.
An acre might be low, five acres might be high. Depends a lot on what the local conditions are like, what you can grow, what tools you have.
I keep bees, for instance, and my hives produce about 50-100lbs of honey per year. It's not super nutritious, but it's low effort per lb. Ten hives could produce a lot of raw calories. But it's also a skill, and you can kill your bees if you aren't careful.
The point I'm making is that, we're all bringing different skills and backgrounds. I've grown potatoes but never at the scale of an acre. I don't know what challenges that brings.
Bees don't steal anything humans want. Nectar and pollen are not something we collect ourselves. The bees, however, do pollinate the plants that provide us with food, so keeping bees can increase yields for neighbors who are growing things.
OP says they "live far from farmland". I assume this means they live in a big city, where most space is taken up by buildings and roads. Where are they going to find one acre to grow crops?
More to the point, how is everyone in a big city going to find that space?
I'm tired and this is going to come out all jumbled, I fear, but I think the maths just don't work with this kind of thing, just like you suggest. Imagine a high-rise building with say 10 floors, each with eight flats, each flat housing a family of 3 to 5 people. Now, each of those families needs an area to grow their crops that's at least as large as the area of the house they live in. Sure, they can plant the rooftop over their heads. The only problem is, there are 10 families under the same area of rooftop. So it just can't work.
I think this generally holds for living in cities. Since residence is basically vertical, it gets progressively harder to also grow and raise food vertically also. All the space is already taken. And all the space that isn't housing is infrastructure (roads, sewers, cables) that would all have to be ripped out in order to plant enough to sustain the city.
So the food production moves away from the city, and away from the people who need the food. The OP is right to wonder: what happens if the supply lines from the countryside are cut? That would be a huge disaster, and whenever this has happened throughout history, it was a huge disaster. E.g. when Greece was occupied by the Axis, in the 1940's, the people in Athens died in droves of famine while the people in the countryside, well, they subsisted. In fact, anecdotally, my friend's grandma told her there was no other time they were so fat in their lives because they ate all they had everyday, just because they didn't know if they would have any more food tomorrow. But the countryside had food to eat while the city was left with scraps. btw this was originally caused by the Nazis who requisitioned crops to feed their war effort, assholes.
in the greater Athens–Piraeus area alone, some 40,000 people died of starvation, and by the end of the Occupation "it was estimated that the total population of Greece [...] was 300,000 less than it should have been because of famine or malnutrition" (P. Voglis).[24]
You could feed a person off less then half an acre in regions with a decently long growing season. Even could support a few chickens.
The above is true with some qualifications. You will need decent soil and plentiful clean water. And a power source to pump the water. And fertility which you will have to bring in. The compost you make won't do it. A way to control pests, (ya ya muh organic, but we are trying to survive here). So some pesticides. Sprayers. More then one, they break. Maybe some herbicides as well so you don't burn so many calories hoeing. Some mechanical help like a rototiller will make this much more possible. Fuel oil and parts for that. Some fencing and trellising. Bird netting. A way to preserve harvests like canning, drying or freezing.
Most importantly (and most people will lack this rendering half an acre vs 5 acres moot for practical purposes) you will need a fair amount of expertise to pull it off. Generally from experience. And it will be a lot of work and mostly unforgiving of mistakes.
Source: I mostly made it up, but I am an agronomist and long time gardener. It's probably roughly right though.
The expertise isn't that much of a problem, unless you want to go it completely alone.
I'd assume even with massive supply chain disruptions, books still exist (and perhaps even libraries) and you can still ask other people for advice or even band together, division of labour is still a thing and useful.
You can either organise that as some kind of cooperative, or just like we organise companies today.
Well I don’t, but if you need some help I suppose you can use my profile for contact information. This could be delicate for both our families. KIDDING I’m pretty sure you meant fertilizer there.
And yes, your half acre number is much much closer to accurate.
> I've seen difference estimates, but you need ~5 acres of land to feed one person for a year with a balanced diet.
Check out “The Market Gardener” by Jean Martin Fortier. The quoted statement is a myth. Farms historically were nowhere near as large as today and we able to provide a balanced diet to those literally on the same block (think “in-fill market gardens”)
He usually goes by JM Fortier on YouTube and I think he’s great. He’s a real inspiration to me, for sure. He’s very open and has a lot of stuff up there on various channels about the development of his market garden.
He’s great if you want to garden as a business, but if you have a bit more flexibility and time, I’d recommend permaculture as a sustainable and lower cost starting point. Bio—intensive farming like Fortier advocates is great but more expensive to start.
> I've seen difference estimates, but you need ~5 acres of land to feed one person for a year with a balanced diet.
If it's one year’s output of that land to feed that person for a year, then it's just 5 acres for a person (and you can drop of then “for a year”, since the output period matches the consumption period.)
These folks: http://growbiointensive.org/grow_main.html have a system that produces a complete diet in 5000 ft² (465m²) per person. It also produces its own compost, so that the farm increases soil volume and fertility year-on-year too.
Vertical indoor farming is the paradigm shift we’ve been waiting for. Thanks in part to advances in LED lighting efficiency and cost.
Much more land and water efficient.
vertical farming makes no sence : you are loosing 90% of energy converting light into electricity and back into light for the plants, or you are burning fuel.
Normal greenhouses are much simpler, more efficient and have been in use for decades. They make full use of the sun.
Instead of a stockpile you replace every so often, it's a lot cheaper to just buy extra of the long shelf life things you use. Instead of keeping one jar of peanut butter, you have ten (or however many you'll reliably use before they go bad).
Regular rotation of shelf-stable products is the way to go.
Water is often the under-appreciated stock --- people use a lot of it for drinking, cleaning, and cooking (espeically with dried / reconstituted foods). Here a supply, and means of producing more potable supply (a quality filtration system, backpacker and marine filtering systems are useful) and purification (chlorine or iodine in liquid or tablet form) help.
It's possible to store grains (whole or ground, flour, wheat, rice, maize) for years, though you need to get rid of moths / worms first. That usually means freezing in smaller portions (2.5 -- 5 kg / 5--10 lb), and then transferring to airtight storage. Rodents can and will chew through both plastic and metal, isnpect frequently. Invest in a cat (or snakes). A chest freezer won't survive a long-duration power-outage, but is useful so long as juice flows, and can make this pest-proofing much more viable. These consume very little power.
The 2m of rainfall in Singapore won't do you much good if it's contaminated.
And water is far more essential to life. A person can survive only a few minutes without air, or a few days without water. It's possible to live without (or with sharply limited) food for weeks or months.
A single closet shelf might provide a very rudimentary sufficient food supply for weeks.
Average per-person household water usage in the US is 80--100 gallons/day (300--380 liter). About 1 gallon (4 liter) is for drinking, roughly twice that for food prep / cooking, and the remainder for cleaning and sanitation.
A 1m x 1m x 2m closet (2 m^3) could hold a bit over 500 gallons (2,000 liter), or about a week's worth of average daily water use for one person.
Under emergency conditions that could be stretched considerably, but even at 5 gallon/day (~20 liter), a week's supply of water for a household of four would be over 0.5 m^3.
My point: You need a lot of water, and will suffer quickly without it.
Figuring 5gal/d as a lower bound for daily consumption in an emergency sounds wrong. This is a situation where you need enough water not to die, which mostly means enough water to drink and a little bit for critical sanitation. The standard recommendation is a fifth of that: "one gallon per person per day" -- https://www.ready.gov/kit
So, let's take 1g/dy per person for a family of four and a 4-week (28-day) supply.
If you're storing that in 30WM1G bottles (an HDPE 1-gallon milk bottle), the dimensions are 6"x6"x10" per bottle.
You need 28 * 4 or 112 bottles.
That's 12,096 in^2, or 84ft^2, or 7.8m^2 of storage area.
If you've a 1 m^2 shelf, you'd need nearly 8 shelves spaced at roughly 30 cm, or 2.4 m vertical (7.8 ft) just for a month's worth of water storage.
You. Need. A. Lot. Of. Water.
For grains ... say, a 1.2 kg (42 oz) container of oats, you've got 150 kilocalories per 40g, or about 4,500 kcal per container. A human needs a minimum (we're talking emergency survival rations) of about 2500 kcal/day. Not a balanced or interesting diet, but for bulk calories, a starting point.
A month's supply for four is then just over 62 containers. Which takes up 1.2 m^2 of shelf space. Water requires 6.5 times the storage even with an absolute minimum daily allocation.
There are denser grains. Even with oats, steel-cut roughly doubles the caloric density per unit volume.
It's much easier to provision a long-term food storage than a long-term water storage.
This is why survival water planning often revolves around purification rather than, or in addition to, storage.
So, I do have that much water stored. I'm using 7gal water storage containers that are about 1 cubic foot each. Sixteen containers is a lot, but pretty doable if you have as much unfinished underutilized storage space as is typical in this part of the country (most houses here have basements).
> The 2m of rainfall in Singapore won't do you much good if it's contaminated.
If you collect it directly as rainwater, should be fine?
How clean your water has to be and how much you need depends also on your energy budget.
If you have limitless energy, you can distill almost basically source of water, and get something potable out. (If you have large but not infinite amounts of energy, you can eg condense water from the air. Our dew point in Singapore is typically roughly around 24C almost all the time.
There's no one approach which works for all locations and scenarios. There is a relatively fixed set of requirements for survival: air, shelter, water, food. Tools, equipment, and infrastructure.
The scenario initially proposed was a supply-chain disruption long enough to plan for at least one, and perhaps a substantial number of planting / cultivation / harvesting scenarios. In any significantly urbanised location (and Singapore is very highly urbansied), there's simply not enough arable land to provide food for the local population.
As a rough estimate, one person requires about 0.5 hectare of land to support them. Singapore has a population of 5.4 million on an area of 733 km^2 (73,000 ha). Given the per-capita requirement, the area could support a population of about 146,000, or the population of 5.4 million would require an agricultural area of 27,000 km^2 (2.7 million ha).
Considering other possible scenarios (hurricane / typhoon, major flooding event, tsunami, earthquake, wildfire, etc.) it's quite possible that structures or containers for large-volume storage would be destroyed, damaged, and/or contaminated. Again my point with water being that large quantities are required even in reduced-usage emergency scenarios and that quality and not merely quantity matters.
In most of these scenarios, your energy budget to a substantial extent is your body's own muscle power. That might be supplemented by fire (do you have fuel), animal power, or (do you have fuel) engines or generators.
Many regions have official or unofficial groups which provide training and coordination for disaster planning and contingencies. Participating in one locally might help in moving understanding from a theoretical to practical basis.
Yes, Singapore is a very urban area, so would not by itself survive anything for long.
(Just like New York City or London wouldn't be able to feed themselves.)
Luckily, at least we don't have to worry about hurricanes / typhoons, tsunamis, earthquakes or wildfire here. Flooding might still happen.
> In most of these scenarios, your energy budget to a substantial extent is your body's own muscle power. That might be supplemented by fire (do you have fuel), animal power, or (do you have fuel) engines or generators.
Depends on what kind of scenario you are planning for. Also, in Singapore you have plenty of solar power. So you could use some of that for evaporating water.
> Many regions have official or unofficial groups which provide training and coordination for disaster planning and contingencies. Participating in one locally might help in moving understanding from a theoretical to practical basis.
Oh, there's definitely groups for that one here. I'm actually happy to leave that to other people, and the government is also doing a pretty good job.
Btw, my original point wasn't actually meant to talk about Singapore as a city. I was just meaning to comparing water needs in Arizona vs some wet place. So I perhaps should have picked some place in rural Malaysia for our comparison. (Malaysia is a neighbour of Singapore.)
Rather than canned goods, prefer dry goods. In our basement we have 5-gallon buckets of lentils, chickpeas, millet, sunflower seeds, pepitas, and various other things. (Also cases of peanut butter, jarred tomatoes, various flours and such.) This isn't hoarding -- these are things we use! But we always make sure to reorder before a container runs out, which usually takes 6 months to a year.
When the pandemic hit, we just bought another 25 lb bag each of lentils and millet and called it good.
The way I've prepared is to have extra on hand for my less-prepared neighbors. And the way I hear it, a lot of "preppers" do the same. Strength in community.
> How well could I survive eating local plants and whatever I can grow?
Most likely not engough calories, but for growing your own greens in order to complement stockpiled food, I would recommend looking into passive hydroponics ("Kratky method"). It's easy, cheap and fun and it can provide a small constant supply of fresh food.
Spinach hardly qualifies as edible. It has essentially no nutritional value, and is poisonous/anti-nutritious due to its oxalic acid content.
Most leaves are this way. The plant doesn't use them for energy storage, doesn't want animals to eat them as part of its reproductive strategy, and actively benefits from discouraging animals from doing so.
We are regularly wrong when we try to come up with first principles when trying to make assumptions about nutrition.
Even "lectins must always be bad" turns out to be wrong.
You don't necessarily complete the circle here, granted, but I've heard it claimed many times lately by Twitter carnivore-diet influencers that plants must be bad for you because they don't have claws/teeth thus they depend on chemical deterrents.
It's a very arbitrary attempt at a first principle, not the least of which because it seems to suggest that we are incapable of even the most basic nutrition science.
Spinach is by a huge margin the most dense source of magnesium. Magnesium is needed for muscle growth and rebuilding. Its one of a number of nutrients that is usually under provided in supplements because it makes the pills too big and people don't like large vitamins. You'll see things like 10000% of vitamin A but the multivitamin will have like 5% for magnesium.
Transgenic edible plants would be incredible, introducing entirely new species and flavors to the palate.
Cellulose isn't the problem. Just the toxic and bitter organic compounds. Knock out a few genes and it should work. These genes shouldn't be necessary for plant growth.
> The sad truth is that people just can’t digest cellulose. We lack the enzymes.
Can we/should we try to add the enzymes?
Some time back I recall an adventurous citizen scientist that did DIY gene therapy to add back his ability to digest lactose, and I think he even used a bacterial enzyme for reasons I don't recall. I think a bunch of more knowledgeable people called this reckless, but it seemed to work. Could we give ourselves a gene to break down cellulose?
I did not consume a single calorie from a plant-based source in 2021 and I ended the year in the best shape of my life. It is astonishing how much more nutritious animal-based foods are in comparison to plant-based food.
Are you consuming entire animals? Just meat?
No snark there, either. Skeletal muscle alone isn't a complete diet. It's lacking in a few areas. Eating nothing but meat does seem to improve body composition, insulin sensitivity, some autoimmune conditions, some people report more steady energy levels... but, scurvy is eventually a problem, as will be hemochromatosis, among other things.
Can you tell me what areas this diet is lacking in? Scurvy is not a problem because fresh meat contains vitamin C. And hemochromatosis is not a problem either. It sounds to me like you're just hypothesizing here. In fact, people have known for centuries that fresh meat prevents scurvy.
yeah, it's 90% hypothesizing. Don't take it as me saying what you should or shouldn't do. Obviously, I'm not in a position to do that. It's just... if your neighbour pulled up with a car that's powered by cooking oil, you'd probably look at it and go "really? that can't work." and hope that he understands that it's curiousity, confusion and frankly a lack of knowledge of something so foreign.
I've seen a couple guys (father/son) try it out. Dad said it basically reversed his diabetes, son was pretty much OK the whole time I knew him.
I dunno man. Carnivore diets aren't for me. I just don't get how it works, doesn't mean that it doesn't work though.
A lot of mis-information on the internet. Even more unknowns.
You can't even assume if it doesn't kill one species it won't kill another. Sometimes it's age of leaves. If they are for meat, something's won't matter short term, but are bad long term for pets.
What's interesting is you can sup up cows with a rumen bacterium Leucaena inoculum which has skyrocketed productivity on some places. This goes from harmful to productive
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wj14UNTKpo
It's not the only rumen bacterium that works either, there is Fibrolytic rumen but you can't buy it yet, you just mix camels with cattle so they share it at drinking locations.
I think this would be interesting to hack in humans. It'd be nice to eat grass occasionally.
"Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—things like article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting."
There are peeves worth noting, and there is site breakage which crosses boundaries. I think this case crosses a line, or at least gets damnedably close.
In the case of paywalls (or other forms of content-gating, such as GDPR-attributed geoblocking), for example, HN has adopted the position that those which can be reasonably bypassed are acceptable. This has become increasingly harder over the years, though there's been an ongoing arms-race with various alternative-access mechanisms, ranging from Google Cache, cookie clearing, and at least in the past couple of years, Archive.Today which often (though not always) works.
Noting that a site has a hard and insurmountable paywall is a legitimate gripe. Many of my own comments are links which provide access, and I'll often include such comments with my own submissions.
The article here is literally impossible for me to read on either a full-colour tablet or my preferred driver these days, a monochrome E-Ink tablet / ebook reader. The site itself further discourages feedback.
In the longer term, my view is that if there's no push-back against such practices, the Web will ultimately become if not comletely unusable, then generally unreliable. It's well on its way there.
Similar issues affect other realms of information and communication infrastructure and systems. Robocalls, scams, and other forms of telephone abuse. The general death of broadcast television and radio into increasingly irrelevant and bottom-fishing advertising churn. Postal mail with its junk and bulk mail and scams. Newspapers devoid of news.
Ultimately people will simply desert these. And I'm not sure what replaces them, if anything, or whether or not an effective attempt can be made to keep the cycle from repeating. I'm ... getting more than a little tired of it.
I also remember what the Web was promised to deliver, and helped at least in part to make it do that. I'm feeling some aspects of a life wasted in that regard.
The article here is literally impossible for me to read
That's unfortunate but it's not really interesting or advancing the goal of curious conversation in any way. You can simply move on or try to find another way to read it. You don't have to read everything on HN and not everything posted on HN is readily accessible to everyone without some hassle. It's a bummer but it's well-settled as a terminally boring , repetitive discussion point and nothing you've said really addresses that. So the guideline still has this right.
That bothered me too. Trying a few though, it looks like they are 404s. Which is an interesting way to preserve a historical, but no longer valid link. If you are going to the trouble, it might be better to rewrite the links to point to Archive.org or something.
Linking an archived copy (and proactively making an archive submission when initially linking, which seems to be an increasingly common practice), would be preferable.
They clearly don't, despite 30+ years of whinging. (I've whinged plenty myself.) Preemptive defence is justified, necessary, and strongly advised.
The Web is not an archival platform, it's a publishing one. Each request is served in the moment it's requested, and absent specific measures for persistance can and will vanish at any time without notice.
Because they are broken, apparently. The CSS class for those is `broken_link`, and I tried on the "Primary and secondary compounds", sure enough it leads to an "access denied" response 403.
Many of these would be bad to eat in large amounts, but humans are "generalists" -- we're built to eat smaller amounts of a variety of things together. The same is true for a number of our modern cultivated crops; off the top of my head the things in the mustard, spinach, and carrot families are mildly toxic, but we eat moderate amounts of each, so it works out.