Brian wrote:
>I am paid for doing my job, just about enough to provide for the
>subsistence needs (granted, somewhat inflated in the U.S.) of myself
>and my two children. That is a completely different economic process
>than the accumulation of profits, which is what drives agribusiness.
It's the same economic process. Since you are not, apparently, a
self-sufficient economic unit supporting yourself with your own production, you
are engaged in creating value for others, who exchange the things they create
with you. Those who accumulate profits merely create more value than their
subsistence needs. This is not inherently bad, but is, rather, quite beneficial
to all concerned. Anyone who was so productive in a primitive village would be
praised for her efforts, since all villagers benefit from the increased
production, even though they must trade for it.
So it's not profits that are bad, nor is it "agribusiness." All farming is a
business. It's the way the land is treated, the short or long term view of
resource use, the concern for the ecological balance. Don't think that because
a farm is small that any of these issues can be taken for granted. Also, I
would ask you to examine the way that socialist countries virtually ignore
environmental concerns in their production processes. It's not profits that
cause the problem.
I had said earlier: "You can't grow worthless crops and make money." To which,
Brian replied:
>On the contrary, it's rather difficult to grow WORTHWHILE crops
>and maximize profits. Huge portions of agribusiness are devoted to
>arguably worthless crops such as opium, tobacco, grains for fattening
>cattle, etc. These crops have little to do with meeting important
>human needs and a lot to do with accumulating profits.
These crops are clearly not worthless to the people who buy them. Who are we to
say that they shouldn't be produced because we think that other crops would be
more "worthwhile?" Obviously, the fact that these crops make so much money for
their producers indicates that they are highly valued commodities. Part of the
socialist critique of capitalism has always been that unimportant things are
being produced. Says who? Who should have the power to dictate what gets
produced and what doesn't?
I had said earlier: " If the law required that any agricultural activity,
large or small, family or corporate, had to show that it was not damaging the
environment, and had to leave the land as fertile as it was before, then the
size of the farming entity would be irrelevant to the environmental issue,
Brian responded:
>The last clause doesn't follow. Regardless of what the law says or
>doesn't say, certain kinds of large farming systems (such as
>confining tens of thousands of farm animals in a shed, which
>dangerously accumulates manure) are necessarily damaging to the
>environment.
But it does follow. Assuming that the factory farm damages the environment,
let's make it illegal to do it. Let's enforce the law. The farmer will have
to find the size of operation that is most efficient without using the harmful
method. That is really my point. It is not capitalism per se, nor profits,
nor large enterprises that damage the environment. It is certain practices
that are currently allowed that the perpetrators don't have to pay for, and so
they inflict their costs onto others. Make them pay for the harm they cause to
the environment, and they will stop causing it.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 31 13:15:41 MST 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 31 13:15:40 1994
Received: from utdallas.edu (utdallas.edu [129.110.10.1]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id NAA06373 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 31 Oct
1994 13:15:39 -0700
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from gaia.utdallas.edu by utdallas.edu (ZMailer 2.1.3 #231) with BLIMP id
<20611>; Mon, 31 Oct 1994 14:18:17 -0600
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Regional consumption
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 14:13:53 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: writes
>You can't grow worthless crops and
>make money. Is it that they are not growing the crops that you would have them
>grow if you ruled the world?
I think that Brian probably meant the use of the land NOT just to feed people
and provide a living for a farmer, but the use of the land by corporations
to make huge profits, and not using sustainable farming techniques that would
ensure the usability of this vital resource for the years to come.
>If the law required that any agricultural activity, large or small, family or
>corporate, had to show that it was not damaging the environment, and had to
>leave the land as fertile as it was before, then the size of the farming entity
>would be irrelevant to the environmental issue, and would be as large or small
>as economies of scale allow. Small can be beautiful, but big can be efficient,
>and that reduces the price of things to those who can least afford to pay high
>prices.
This is true. My question is, can big be effiecient AND environmentally sound?
I think it could...we have been inventive enough in the past to do seemingly
impossible things. But at this juncture, big is not environmentally sound.
Big is just efficient. And prices do not always reflect this. Produce is much
cheaper in a farmers market or roadside stand. Overhead. But then, Dole bananas
won't be found there at 39 cents a pound.
>Some people care more about animals than others.
If you don't care much about the animals being slaughtered to provide you with
protein and fat and who knows what hormones, then what about the use of ground-
water to water the animals, the disposal of their feces, the disposal of their
entrails upon slaughter, the amount of land it takes to raise the feed or the
destruction of land by grazing? What about the clear-cutting of rainforest for
cow farming? Do any of those issues concern you? Do you think they are relevant
to ecofeminism or ecohumanism?
amy
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 31 16:39:06 MST 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 31 16:39:04 1994
Received: from gold.tc.umn.edu (gold.tc.umn.edu [128.101.115.11]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id QAA15860 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 31 Oct
1994 16:39:02 -0700
Received: by gold.tc.umn.edu; Mon, 31 Oct 94 17:40:51 -0500
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 17:40:45 -0600 (CST)
From: Jonathan M Poppele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: agribusiness
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Multi-billion dollar industries will not allow themselves to be
redesigned through environmental regulations. Through propaganda and
lobbying these industries do have the power to steer our legislative
system. Environmental regulations are not the answer. Changing our own
behavior by purchasing local, organic grown food is (or better yet,
growing it ourselves).
Also, profit IS necessarily bad. Profit is defined in our culture
as taking more resources than you need. Given that we already take too
much from the earth to sustain our activities profit is by definition
destructive.
Jon.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 31 18:28:06 MST 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 31 18:28:05 1994
Received: from mason1.gmu.edu (mason1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.11]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id SAA21672 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 31 Oct
1994 18:28:02 -0700
Received: by mason1.gmu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3/GMUv3)
id AA14190; Mon, 31 Oct 1994 20:30:42 -0500
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 20:30:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Jayne S Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Negotiation
To: Deborah Rudacille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 31 Oct 1994, Deborah Rudacille wrote:
> Brian said
> < Is it really rule by the people when the two primary parties to the
> negotiations are the state and the corporations, and the corporations
> are virtually unaccountable to the people.>
>
> It is indeed, Brian, and I can give a concrete example of how it
> works. For the past three years, I have been affiliated with the
> ........Far from being "unaccountable"
> to their customers, the corporations have invested huge amounts of
> money into the search for alternatives. ....
> When
> consumers vote with their pocketbooks, corporations listen--they have
> to if they want to survive. Laws do make a difference, even if they
> are not always enforced as rigorously as we might like. But the
> people must make their voices heard and demand change if this system
> is to work !
Deborah,
The only problem is that "voting with your pocketbook" is an option open
*only* to those who are privileged enough to live above the margin of
subsistence. Those who are truly marginalized are frequently unable to
vote with their pocketbooks and their voice is, therefore, unheard. So,
while I would agree with you that it is a bad idea to assume that
corporations, etc do not listen... I would simply remind you that this
type of vote is not available to *everyone* and that the way the middle
class and wealthy vote with their pocketbooks is not always in the
interests of the poor and marginalized. This is one of the reasons that
environmental racism is a real phenomenon and not just some catchy phrase.
>Another interesting observation is that the greatest
> obstacles to change come from the "true believers" on both the right
> and left who are so convinced of their own moral or intellectual
> superiority that they refuse to dialogue and/or compromise with
> those whose viewpoints differ. When I used the word "fascism" in my
> last post, I met it in a generic sense (autocratic or dictatorial
> control) rather than the historical sense; perhaps
> "fascism/totalitarianism" would have been a better construction.
As someone who works in the field of conflict resolution I certainly have
to agree with you that ideolgues on both sides can prevent real dialogue
and transformation. I guess I would just caution that, in my experience,
dialogue is not always the answer and compromise is sometimes a sellout
to forces of real evil and oppression. I know that this is an issue
which is of great concern to the people I work with and we constantly
struggle with out own decisions about when and how to practice conflict
resolution. My point about reg neg was based on my study of some cases
in which this process was used and the voice of the poor, marginalized,
etc was no more included than it was in the marketplace where people vote
with their pocketbook.
Jayne
