Latest Page Discussions/Comic Update Chitchat

[JoB]

So, nobody's guessing what the letter contains?

Ah, durnit, I just posted a lengthy comment almost on that to Disqus ... lemme do some copypasta ...

Spoiler: shameless self-plagiarizing • show

Not many have yet placed bets on who that letter is from, so let me have a try before the next page is up ...

One possibility is, of course, Reynirs family having gotten wise to where he vanished to, and trying to tell the team to get him back at once, being a little unclear about how far Finnish Posti is willing to follow our heroes into the Silent World. But that would remain totally insignificant to the plot, so I doubt it.

What about the other families? Onni and Lalli have no close relatives anymore, Taru seems to be the closest, and she's not just family but a member of the Quandary Quartet. The families of Sigrun and Emil would rather address their concerns to The Quartet if they cannot contact the team directly. That leaves Mikkels family, but they supposedly are very much used to him vanishing without a trace for a good while ...

Then the mail could be from The Quartet itself, for a variety of reasons starting with another job offer. But then again, if Taru can just "swing by Keuruu" on her trip from Iceland to wherever the newly-founded "expedition agency"'s HQ is, wouldn't they visit in person, like they did before adv1?

Then there's the Nordic Council, the almost-forgotten nominal organizer of the first expedition. They're HQed in Iceland post-Rash, so they definitely could get the intel where the team went to lately. And I suppose that the various national militaries could get it if they really want it, too. Also, a photo of the team - Icelandic newspapers distributed a gazillion copies of that all across Iceland, if not further.

So, could someone else have cut the photo out of his newspaper and sent the letter? To try and hire the team to search for his (insert relative or SO here) who went missing in the Silent World the year before, or lately? Well, yes, but how would he know to send that request to Finland ... ?

... so, in conclusion, my money's on the Nordic Council or a national military, trying to hand some sort of task to the team. And if I were Minna and wanted to stop SSSS at this point, I'd prefer to leave the actual task open and make the letter just a summon to whatever HQ for further discussion/instructions ... but why have the letter appear at all at this point, then? Could it rather serve to tie up some loose end?

I suppose it could nail down that the team has a future allowing them to stay together and continue to do what they we love them doing. And the military definitely wants to do recon missions into the Silent World when a) even some civilians deem it doable, and b) there's intel about things like murderghosts and attempted cures to be gotten there. So, to sum it up, my guess is that the letter will ask the team to join a military version of the expedition agency (or even the agency, assuming that the military commandeered it out of The Quartet's hands).

[Jitter]

Minna has said that she will leave the story in a place where she can pick it up if at some far future time she feels like it. Now don’t get your hopes up, this is not a likely possibility. But just to take into comments about the letter. So, some sort of new job / mission opportunity seems likely.

On the other hand, the epilogue is supposed to tie some of the loose ends. So, if the epilogue shows something of the future, wouldn’t that make any “this is what they’re doing next” conclusion to the story itself moot? Or will the epilogue look into the past? (Emil’s fire…) Or very distant future?

I like the last couple of pages BTW. Their arrival was very sudden, but the pages themselves are good.

[tehta]

I like the idea of orders from the Nordic Council! The team is multinational so should be commandeered by a multinational body. And I can think of all sorts of missions that would bring benefits to the whole Known World.

For example, how about a mission to recover seeds from Svalbard? (I think Minna said it hasn't been accessed yet?)

[JoB]

For example, how about a mission to recover seeds from Svalbard? (I think Minna said it hasn't been accessed yet?)

More specifically, she said that the post-Rash societies have not yet seen a need to pop it open. Of course, Svalbard is polar bear territory even pre-Rash ...

[thorny]

More specifically, she said that the post-Rash societies have not yet seen a need to pop it open.

That actually strikes me as pretty unlikely.

They may have enough seed without it to plant all the land that's safe to plant, yes -- but the point of that seed storage isn't quantity; it's variety. They've been dealing with a sudden change in environment including a massive change in what species are present and in what numbers (which is going to affect everything, not just mammals); probably a significant climate change as almost all human climate influence suddenly disappeared; and the results of there no longer being human supervision of large numbers of sites of storage of hazardous materials all over the planet -- some of those time bombs are most likely still going off, and while they've probably defused all the remaining ones within the Known World some of the ones in the Silent World will have repurcussions for quite a distance.

All in all, the crops and specific varieties of crops that did well in what's now the Known World in year 0 - 1 are unlikely to be the ones that will do the best there in year 90; and the ones that did best in year 10 and year 50 may not have been the same as either the best ones for year 0 - 1 or year 90. They need genetic diversity to work with; which is exactly what Svalbard is for.

[JoB]

They may have enough seed without it to plant all the land that's safe to plant, yes -- but the point of that seed storage isn't quantity; it's variety. They've been dealing with a sudden change in environment including a massive change in what species are present and in what numbers (which is going to affect everything, not just mammals); probably a significant climate change as almost all human climate influence suddenly disappeared; and the results of there no longer being human supervision of large numbers of sites of storage of hazardous materials all over the planet -- some of those time bombs are most likely still going off, and while they've probably defused all the remaining ones within the Known World some of the ones in the Silent World will have repurcussions for quite a distance.

Hm, I can't quite comment on the "time bomb" part, because I honestly have no idea how much of whatever noxious substances may be in storage at any given time; I'd be pretty confident that the plants producing them aren't running and producing any more of them, however. Chemical hazmats aren't quite up to the levels of nuclear waste or biological weaponry WRT required longevity of precautions, luckily.

The rest, however, I'd like to doubt. Agriculture doesn't have much of a problem with the established fauna going away, short of the pollinators, and bees, for one, are quite cosmopolitan. And it's not like we really reacted to the ongoing climate change with the selection of plants yet AFAIK, so those changes reverting would restore favorable conditions for the long-standing selection ...

(Yes, I know that the foresters here are already running experiments with new tree species, but OTOH they think in multi-decade cycles.)

[tehta]

Not sure about the changes in fauna/climate/whatever, but I would suspect that:

• [The types of plants that work best right now, with all the technology available for both farming, storage, and transport, might not be the best ones for smaller-scale and more local agriculture.
• The fact that agriculture will need to be more local will change the optimal crop selection. Currently, many regions specialize and export a lot of their produce, then import the things they don't grow. (Actually, most European countries import more than they export, don't they?) I bet agriculture is a lot more mixed post-rash. Plus, there is the fact that there are no trading partners outside the Known world, so if people want crops that were grown further south, they will have to make them work up north, perhaps in those Icelandic warehouses.

[thorny]

The rest, however, I'd like to doubt. Agriculture doesn't have much of a problem with the established fauna going away, short of the pollinators, and bees, for one, are quite cosmopolitan.

It's not going to be just a matter of no mammalian critters eating the crops. Removing almost all the mammals from the ecology is going to produce huge shock waves. Minna may not have been thinking of this; but that will throw everything wildly out of whack, and yes it will impact those species not susceptible; plants and insects and birds and fungi and all sorts of soil life normally interact with mammals as well as each other in a net of interconnections we've only recently started paying any attention to. The effects are going to be by humans unpredictable, but they'll be considerable, and will take years to settle down -- they may well have mostly worked their way out by year 90, except for some of the longest-lived species; but it's going to be a big part of what people are dealing with in the early decades.

And it's not like we really reacted to the ongoing climate change with the selection of plants yet AFAIK, so those changes reverting would restore favorable conditions for the long-standing selection ...

Much of the problem we farmers are having with the climate right now is that it's become wildly erratic. Suddenly yanking human influence out of it wouldn't produce 1950's conditions within a couple of years. The erraticness would almost certainly be even worse for a while; and when it did settle down, it probably wouldn't be into 1950's weather which had also been considerably influenced by humans even though we didn't recognize it yet; it might bounce us back to 1800's or earlier "normal", which is not really what modern varieties of crops are adapted to.

And tehta's entirely right: the varieties that work for large scale monocropping of crops grown in large part for export from their local area are rarely the ones that work best for subsistence agriculture. Most modern crops are developed for appearance, shipping ability, and high yield measured in weight per acre, and also designed to grow with considerable inputs from machinery, pesticides, and synthetic fertilizers. Producing the most nutrition (which is very different from producing the most pounds of a single crop) in a limited area, for local consumption, and with many of those inputs either unavailable or available only at high costs, really doesn't call for the same genetics. Whatever's growing in people's home gardens will be a lot more useful than whatever's being grown on the farms; but most people's home gardens contain only limited produce and no grains.

[tehta]

Okay, let the betting begin: who will disturb Emil?

[moredhel]

And tehta's entirely right: the varieties that work for large scale monocropping of crops grown in large part for export from their local area are rarely the ones that work best for subsistence agriculture.

I am not sure if the best variety of plants is the main problem for agriculture in a society without today's energy intensive industry. I think nitrogen supply would be what is limiting the ammount of food you can grow. Nitrogen would be a problem. As stated here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Economic_and_environmental_aspects on a worldwide scale between 1% and 2% of our huge energy use is just for nitrogen fertilizer.
It has been like this in the past. In the same past where a giant number of sorts and variants of plants was grown. If it would have made much of a difference wich sort is planted there would be a few sorts of every crop in the past and not hundreds.

The climate in the post rash world should be very complicated but the tendency would be colder. Because the regrowth of forests woulc consume a lot of carbondioxide. And less humans use less coal and gas.

[thorny]

There are crops which are nitrogen fixers: in combination with the right bacteria living in their roots, they pull nitrogen out of the air, making it available for themselves and for the following crop and/or for other crops grown intermixed with them in the field.

There are also varieties of crops that have lower nitrogen needs than others. Modern agriculture often uses heavy feeders because they'll give more weight per acre.

A giant number of varieties were grown in the past exactly because it makes much of a difference what sorts are grown. People were growing the ones best suited to their particular microclimate -- and I do mean micro, different varieties of potatoes, for instance, were grown at different altitudes on the same hillside farm; as well as the ones best suited to specific soil types, which in any area that's ever had glaciers can vary drastically even within one field. Modern agriculture only grows a few partly because the standard bulk market wants consistency, and partly because it aims primarily at the most pounds per acre of a monocrop -- which again, isn't the same thing as the most nutrients per acre. Aiming for the highest possible weight often results in less nutrition per mouthful; and mixing crops in the same field, as well as eating those "weeds" which are edible instead of herbiciding them, gives the greatest nutrients per acre although there will be less from any individual crop in that field.

[Róisín]

Exactly that, thorny. Our Rare Fruit Society here has been onto the danger of monocropping for decades. As has the Soil Association. Even in our area, which is in the triangle of land where the south-eastern part of the Barossa Valley, the western edge of the Murraylands and the northern end of the Adelaide Hills meet up, the climate has grown hotter, drier and more windy over the last few decades. It is still an important food growing area for vegetables, fruit and wine, to the point where we get a lot of gourmet food tourism, but it is in danger from climate change. Hence I have been experimenting with new plants for years. This year I expect a crop from my pomegranates and jujube trees, as well as still getting something from my collection of heritage apples, pears and plums. My goji berries are also doing okay, as well as the more traditional marionberries, raspberries and strawberries. A farm about eight miles away, in a higher area where they used to get snow nearly every winter, is now growing mangoes and pistachio nuts.

Small mixed farms are the way to go, in my opinion. I grew up on such farms in Ireland and Australia, worked on one in France as a young adult, and know well that there are many ways to improve soil fertility in the long term other than artificial fertilisers. Better for the land in the long term also. And yes, among my vegetables I grow edible and medicinal plants native to my area, including karkalla, muntries, yam daisy, native lime and bush tomato.

[moredhel]

There are crops which are nitrogen fixers: in combination with the right bacteria living in their roots, they pull nitrogen out of the air, making it available for themselves and for the following crop and/or for other crops grown intermixed with them in the field.

There are such plants. And in the region where I am from they where traditionally grown before growing wheat or barley. They where not edible but they bring a lot of nitrogen into the ground. Growing nothing edible for regenerationin in my opinion is a clear sign that nitrogen was the limiting factor for agriculture.

[JoB]

It's not going to be just a matter of no mammalian critters eating the crops. Removing almost all the mammals from the ecology is going to produce huge shock waves. Minna may not have been thinking of this; but that will throw everything wildly out of whack, and yes it will impact those species not susceptible; plants and insects and birds and fungi and all sorts of soil life normally interact with mammals as well as each other in a net of interconnections we've only recently started paying any attention to. The effects are going to be by humans unpredictable, but they'll be considerable, and will take years to settle down -- they may well have mostly worked their way out by year 90, except for some of the longest-lived species; but it's going to be a big part of what people are dealing with in the early decades.

OK, that I can believe. But the minor problem with this scenario is that that entire vault in Svalbard isn't going to simply hand you proven-suitable crops for an ecosystem that just fell out of the mixer and has never existed on the planet before. In order to solve a problem of that magnitude, we'd need experiments, cross-breeding, possibly downright genetic manipulation, possibilities which the post-Rash society, reduced to subsistence farming, may simply not have ...

Whatever's growing in people's home gardens will be a lot more useful than whatever's being grown on the farms; but most people's home gardens contain only limited produce and no grains.

Yes, most. But keep in mind that the survivors in the early post-Rash times had to find refuge and immediately jumpstart their own food production in pretty rural areas, which must've led them to raid however few suitable gardens they could find ... my mother always wanted to redesign our family's gravesite "medieval style", i.e., into sort of a herb-and-small-produce garden, as graveyards were (surprise!) the most nutrient-rich uncovered soils within city walls, so I guess one can find a couple such graves on every larger graveyard ... (Never got a round tuit, as we didn't live nearby anymore, though.)

Spoiler: show

Also, back in medieval times, common belief in ghosts of the ancestors that can get angry at you helped keeping down the theft rate of such gardens ...

Okay, let the betting begin: who will disturb Emil?

The innkeeper, not speaking any other language than Finnish, will knock, come in, and hold up one of the signs he has at hand to make standard communication with non-Finns.
"FoOd?"
[cue Emil-shaped hole in the wall]

[Suominoita]

There are such plants. And in the region where I am from they where traditionally grown before growing wheat or barley. They where not edible but they bring a lot of nitrogen into the ground. Growing nothing edible for regenerationin in my opinion is a clear sign that nitrogen was the limiting factor for agriculture.

Ah, but peas are edible and bring in nitrogen. Or maybe you treat it with ash or compost soil? And well, you can also have some other piece of land growing the crops while this one is getting nitrogen treatment...