Hi! Brian C. wrote:
>Mish, (or Keith?) > >True perhaps, as far as sustainability and efficiency >are concerned, small farms are the best solution. >However, we have overpopulated this planet to such a >degree that there would never be enough land to >support our populations with only small, efficient >farms. > I disagree with this statement. It takes very little land to support sustainable food production. For example 1 acre of land can provide food for a family of 4, IMO. Alex > > > > > > >--- Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Hi Kirk >> >>Interesting one - I posted it before, but no harm in >>posting it >>again. There was some discussion on it: >>http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/BIOFUEL/31859/ >> >>A couple of weeks ago it came up at SANET, the >>SustAg list, with >>quite a lot more discussion, including some >>objections by Biofuel >>member Kim Travis, with which I agreed. I posted a >>response to the >>original post there, from Misha - sustainable food >>production and >>sustainable fuel/energy have a lot in common, quite >>a lot about both >>in my reply, so I'll post it again here: >> >> >> >>>Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 06:46:29 +0900 >>>To: Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion >>> >>> >>Group >> >> >>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>Subject: Re: The oil we eat >>> >>>Howdy Misha, and all >>> >>>And peace be unto you too. But hey, cheer up a bit >>> >>> >>- we haven't >> >> >>>quite managed to destroy exactly everything yet. >>> >>> >>"Abandon hope all >> >> >>>ye who enter here" is what it says on the gates of >>> >>> >>hell, and we >> >> >>>ain't there yet either. As David/the Dalai Lama >>> >>> >>said, optimism is >> >> >>>the only option, and not only that, it makes sense >>> >>> >>- could even be a >> >> >>>bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you get it >>> >>> >>right (an >> >> >>>optimistic view!). >>> >>>Anyway, as one poverty-level-income community >>> >>> >>activist to another, >> >> >>>yes, I saw the piece, and posted it at our Biofuel >>> >>> >>mailing list, >> >> >>>where it got itself discussed some, though not as >>> >>> >>much as I'd've >> >> >>>liked. Pleased to have it in our archives though, >>> >>> >>along with a few >> >> >>>others such. It's here: >>> >>>http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/31846/ >>>The Oil We Eat: Following the food chain back to >>> >>> >>Iraq >> >> >>>Here's another one: >>> >>>Eating Fossil Fuels >>>by Dale Allen Pfeiffer >>> >>> >>http://idaho.indymedia.org/news/2004/01/6361_comment.php >> >> >>>Another: >>> >>>Eating Oil - Food supply in a changing climate. >>>By Andy Jones >>> >>> >>>from Resurgence issue 216 >> >> >>>January / February 2003 >>>http://resurgence.gn.apc.org/issues/jones216.htm >>> >>>The Biofuel mailing list, by the way, run by >>> >>> >>Journey to Forever, is >> >> >>>rather wide-ranging. Biofuels as alternatives come >>> >>> >>with a context, >> >> >>>the full energy context, and it all gets examined >>> >>> >>there, by a very >> >> >>>international membership. >>> >>>Anyway, what did I say about it... I enjoyed >>> >>> >>Manning's piece, a good >> >> >>>read, but he didn't take it far enough, IMO. >>> >>> >>Indeed, industrialised >> >> >>>agriculture's extraction and "value"-adding "food >>> >>> >>system" is not >> >> >>>farming at all, and nothing about it is >>> >>> >>sustainable, not even its >> >> >>>perpetrators' bottom-lines. But where all these >>> >>> >>articles have been >> >> >>>weak is in failing to realise the potential of >>> >>> >>sustainable >> >> >>>agriculture, which after all is not just some >>> >>> >>idealistic >> >> >>>head-in-the-clouds theory, it's something millions >>> >>> >>of farmers >> >> >>>worldwide are doing, with millions more joining >>> >>> >>them all the time. >> >> >>>Organic farmers grow maize without the use of >>> >>> >>fossil-fuel inputs, >> >> >>>getting the same or better yields and better >>> >>> >>prices. And not >> >> >>>wrecking the place, no "externalities". Nothing >>> >>> >>special. Richard >> >> >>>Manning gets it more right than the others have >>> >>> >>done - at least he >> >> >>>realises there is such a thing as a sustainable way >>> >>> >>of doing it, but >> >> >>>not how far it goes. As Kim said, just about >>> >>> >>everything it says was >> >> >>>predicted decades ago by the pioneers of modern >>> >>> >>sustainable farming, >> >> >>>who also showed that none of it is at all >>> >>> >>necessary. >> >> >>>But I don't agree with Manning's main thesis. The >>> >>> >>sentence you quote >> >> >>>struck me too: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Writes Manning: "[The rise of a]griculture was not >>>> >>>> >>so much about food >> >> >>>>as it was about the accumulation of wealth. It >>>> >>>> >>benefited some humans, >> >> >>>>and those people have been in charge ever since." >>>> >>>> >>>I rather agree that "they" have been in charge ever >>> >>> >>since, but not >> >> >>>for that reason, and I don't think that's how it >>> >>> >>happened. Even if >> >> >>>it did happen that way, why did some benefit more >>> >>> >>than others? What >> >> >>>gave them the edge in the first place? >>> >>>G.T. Wrench, in his "Reconstruction by Way of the >>> >>> >>Soil", paints a >> >> >>>vivid picture of the tension between the nomadic >>> >>> >>pastoralists of the >> >> >>>plains and settled peasant farmers in the river >>> >>> >>valleys, the latter >> >> >>>following the law of return and the former abusing >>> >>> >>it, overriding >> >> >>>it, via overstocking. "In this character, indeed, >>> >>> >>they were like to >> >> >>>other kinds of speculators, many prominent at the >>> >>> >>present time." And >> >> >>>when they'd overgrazed the land, burnt all the >>> >>> >>trees and the >> >> >>>droughts came... "Then, with increasing numbers, >>> >>> >>they might >> >> >>>successfully make themselves masters of the land of >>> >>> >>settled farmers >> >> >>>and the food and wealth, which they had not the wit >>> >>> >>to get by their >> >> >>>own skill and toil. Hence they praised war, not as >>> >>> >>a means of >> >> >>>defence in the way in which a sturdy peasantry has >>> >>> >>so often >> >> >>>successfully defended itself and its soil, but as a >>> >>> >>means to mastery >> >> >>>and wealth. To them life was not only a struggle >>> >>> >>for existence, but >> >> >>>a will to power over their enemies, an assertion of >>> >>> >>the right of the >> >> >>>better-armed and of the more savage nature over >>> >>> >>what they regarded >> >> >>>as possible, and if possible legitimate, prey." >>> >>>This seems to me a better explanation of why some >>> >>> >>benefited from >> >> >>>agriculture more than others did. >>> >>>Conversely, peasant communities under threat of >>> >>> >>attack by brigands >> >> >>>and bandits if not hordes of marauding nomads might >>> >>> >>well have been >> >> >>>sturdy enough as Wrench says, but defending the >>> >>> >>community in an >> >> >>>emergency requires a different social structure >>> >>> >>from that suited to >> >> >>>cultivating a river valley: it needs a command >>> >>> >>structure, with >> >> >>>emergency powers. It's easy to imagine how such >>> >>> >>powers might >> >> >>>increasingly be to a commander's liking, until the >>> >>> >>day the battle is >> >> >>>won but peace fails to break out, and the command >>> >>> >>structure becomes >> >> >>>permanent, and enforced. >>> >>>There are many possible permutations of this >>> >>> >>picture, and they're >> >> >>>easy to find supporting references for. Toynbee, >>> >>> >>other historians, >> >> >>>see something similar. >>> >>>So instead of Manning's problem of agriculture, we >>> >>> >>have instead the >> >> >>>problem of power, rather more convincing, IMO. >>> >>>Huxley said only angels can handle power >>> >>> >>responsibly but they're not >> >> >>>interested in the job, or something like that. Most >>> >>> >>people aren't. >> >> >> >=== message truncated === > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam >http://mail.yahoo.com > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Biofuels list archives: >http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. >To unsubscribe, send an email to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
