The dangers of agriculture

namedun · #1 10-12-2003, 11:43 AM

Has anyone ever reallized that almost every known problem with civilization can be releated to agriculture?

Be happy be nude
Namedun

namedun · #2 10-12-2003, 11:43 AM

Has anyone ever reallized that almost every known problem with civilization can be releated to agriculture?

Be happy be nude
Namedun

RalphVa · #3 10-13-2003, 04:07 AM

Examples?

Naturist Mark · #4 10-13-2003, 05:47 AM

quote:
Originally posted by RalphVa:
[qb] Examples? [/qb]

Well sure - without agriculture there wouldn't be civilization. Without civilization the problems of civilization would be minimized.

-Mark

Trailscout · #5 10-13-2003, 06:12 AM

Most of us would rather not live as hunter-gatherers.

Civilization is okay if we opt for appropriate technology, 100 percent renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, a steady state economy (similar to no-growth concept, but allows for technological improvements), and zero population growth (We can do this humanely ourselves or we can take the ultimate test of Malthus's premise by letting starvation, pestilence, etc. do it for us.

johny · #6 10-13-2003, 08:26 AM

Hi! But just I need to say that "zero growth concept" has died in own juice at the environmental management science theory. Just year ago when good book was published in US stating a "resilience" theory about "Big sleeping 8 shaped loop" designed in all of Natural processes. I shall tell it tomorrow morning (now is the evening) the authors and name. Sorry to correct You but I shall receive (hopefully) my Dr degree in this after year or ywo. Never trust on stagnation. Only good stagnant enough is a dead one. Its never was been an aim of "best available techniques" (huh) [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

johny · #7 10-13-2003, 08:44 AM

RE:
naturistmark1 posted 13-10-2003 05:47
""without civilization the problems of civilization would be minimized""

???? Ok. Without agriculture You seems want to say.

I read one fantastically good article time ago shown that our agriculture PARADIGM is the responsible one for that we are unable to feed even 5% of its capacity to feed up.

About 90% has ate by pests or rats in the way between fields and stores, another 1/2 are thrown to the ocean to "regulate" the prices (damn!) and for going across the will of nature in field manuring (solution for last is so-called RCW technique or ramial chipped wood You may search in Canadian Laval University homepage)are lost else 70-90% of all fruits. What is the rest for food??

Its as that a old joke about previous SU economy - "What is the most richest country in the world US or SU? - Oh comrade yeah, of course that SU, because we know that we may steel, steel and one more time steel but somehow something are anyhow rested to be available for other people."

Solution for pests and chemistry lies even deeper - in the monoculture principle. If we would grow an polycultures, then natural principles makes a concurence instead pests and no chemistry and manuring needed. And that article shown that choosing RIGHT cultures and sewing it in long LINES makes near the same effect as polycultures while it is possible to earn them as monocultures - by tractors.

So all the humankind enemy reduces to common miscommunication... Tha same reason plagues naturist involvement to be Good Boys at eyes of general population. You should know it.

Trailscout · #8 10-13-2003, 09:45 AM

Johny,

Thanks for your interest in this subject! I think naturists should think about the world in which their bodies live, going beyond thinking just of self and thinking beyond our lifetimes to the impact of our lifestyle on future generations.

When we are considering the merits or faults of the zero population growth, we really are talking about not exceeding the carrying capacity of the land and the natural resources that spring from it. If you have found a sustainable way to make the land more productive without diminishing the number of other life forms on this planet, then you have a justification for allowing a corresponding increase in human numbers in that ecosystem.

In nature, the rabbit need not worry about controlling its own population. The fox will do the job for him. But humans do not want to be eaten by foxes. We want to die of old age with our grandchildren gathered at our death bed.
If we do not limit our family size, do you propose that we let natural disaster do the job instead?

I look forward to your comments as soon as you are able.

Cordially, Trailscout

Jochanaan · #9 10-13-2003, 05:55 PM

Although I am no farmer nor a student of farming now, I grew up mostly on a ranch in the Midwest. It is true that farming and ranching have caused many problems, but my stepfather and the other ranchers in the area had a deep love for the land and a respect for its needs. Dad was always very careful not to overgraze his pastures and to fence out "blowouts," places where the topsoil had blown away to lay bare the underlying sand.

Unfortunately, with the ongoing death of the family farm, such loving stewards are being replaced by absentee owners who may hire migrants at abominably low wages to harvest crops in which they have no personal stake. There is hope in the cooperative movement and organic farming and ranching, but the corporations have become too powerful here as everywhere.

There is freedom in "everyone living under his vine or fig tree;" there is little freedom in being a hired hand to some corporation with offices in New York or Chicago.

johny · #10 10-14-2003, 01:34 AM

RE: Trailscout
""If you have found a sustainable way to make the land more productive without diminishing the number of other life forms on this planet, then you have a justification for allowing a corresponding increase in human numbers in that ecosystem""

Thats no I but Laval university, prof Guilles Lemiaux who discovered this revolutionary technology about 10 years ago and many times had submitted it to different science journals and even UNO FAO but nowhere found a hearing ears, sad. Technology boosts land yielding between 3 and 10 times (!) practically forever, introducing the tree-twig ecocycle and underground micro-creatures biocycles in one common "conveyer" with human artifical agrotechnology - that has named Sylva-Sol tech. But as I sayed before, coorporations and institutions has no a least interest about it (may be that has reasoned to include this as a chapter in my Dr dissertation.

RE: Trailscout ""we really are talking about not exceeding the carrying capacity of the land and the natural resources that spring from it""

The name of book I mentioned is : Environmetal management -PANARCHY - Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, 2002., Washington, by Lance H.Gunderson & C.S.Holling, www.islandpress.org, ISBN-1-55963-857-5

Key terms Nature resilient, Nature evolving, Sustainability and Panarchies, Theory of adaptive changes, Potential v.s. connectedness etc. Its worse to read it.