In “No-Till: The Quiet Revolution,” David R. Huggins and John P. Reganold argue for no-till farming as a more sustainable alternative to plow-based agriculture and describe how herbicide use has enabled growers to effectively practice no-till on a commercial scale. I cannot believe that anyone other than the herbicide manufacturers is seriously proposing that flooding the earth with lethal chemicals is any solution to the problems of agriculture. Their effect on humans and other animals is known, and their effect on soil and groundwater is potentially disastrous (even if the Environmental Protection Agency gives out assurances about the latter). Producing enough food to feed the world’s population without harming the earth is a hard question; this is certainly not the answer.
Louise Tremblay Cole
THE AUTHORS REPLY: As we have stated, reliance on herbicides is a weakness of no-till as it is currently practiced. We contend, however, that no-till is a positive step in the evolution toward more sustainable farming. In addition, we support and are actively engaged in research efforts that integrate no-till into strategies that limit or even eliminate synthetic pesticide use, as in organic production.
Tillage exposes fertile topsoil to the ravages of water and wind, resulting in soil erosion rates that are greater than soil renewal rates in many parts of the world. Sadly, this practice imperils worldwide food security and environmental quality. The fall of past civilizations has been “written on the land,” as soil erosion claimed their capacity to produce food. No-till agriculture preserves precious topsoil, bringing erosion rates into line with those of soil formation. But no-till currently comes with the trade-off of using herbicides.
We share Cole’s skepticism about herbicides—not all is known about their impacts—and support science-based efforts to assess the short- and long-term effects of such chemicals as well as other agricultural tools and practices within the guiding precepts of sustainable agriculture. We also share Cole’s concern of feeding the world’s population while protecting the environment. We believe we will not only need appropriate emerging technologies and traditional conservation farming practices but also good government policies, smart business models and social ingenuity to accomplish this.
In “The Self-Organizing Quantum Universe,” Jan Ambjørn, Jerzy Jurkiewicz and Renate Loll describe how, in looking to reconcile quantum theory with Einstein’s general theory of relativity, they developed a new approach to quantum gravity called causal dynamical triangulations. In this approach, on the smallest scales spacetime has only two dimensions (approximated as a series of triangles), but on larger scales it smoothly transforms to three, then four dimensions (approximated as the triangles constructing curved shapes).
Could this fact mean that quantum mechanics would apply only to particles that experience less than four dimensions and that relativity would apply only to the four-dimensional universe?
If so, there would seem to be no point in looking for a mathematical framework that can join these two pillars of physics.
Ambjørn, Jurkiewicz and Loll state that “space keeps its overall form as time advances; it cannot break up into disconnected pieces.” How, then, is the expansion of the universe explained by the geometric spacetime structures they describe? Perhaps new pieces keep getting created in between and push away the others?