Jeff wrote:
> For the last year discussions on sustainable agriculture
> have been struggling with economics. One group keeps claiming:
> if you can't farm profitably then it isn't sustainable.
> I've tried to understand this viewpoint without any success.
I've heard this before too. I assume they mean that if they don't make
enough income / profit from the enterprise, then they won't be able to
sustain themselves and/or sustain the effort because their financial
situation will erode away making it impossible to continue.
I understand what they are saying, I just don't know if I like where that
takes us. I can see how coming up with a system of truely sustainable
agriculture that is also profitable would help us make the transition from
where we are to where we need to go. But, I don't know if I like combining
natural ecological systems of inputs and outputs with artifical financial
systems. There is a risk of loosing perspective and priorities.
> This is another example of "cultural immersion". Those
> inside a culture have a narrow viewpoint and can't get out of the
> box. They would rather change the definition of sustainable agriculture
> to be what is possible within that culture. Awareness that this
> means a different definition of sustainable agriculture as different
> countries make different rules, seems logical to them.
Good point. We still haven't realized that we are not playing the game by
Nature's rules. And there are no other rules, and we can't change the
game! An quitting doesn't sound too good to me either! We need to realize
our inseparable connection with Nature (We are Nautre, too!) and align with
Nature. Otherwise, we're just deluding ourselves that we can play by
ourselves in our little corner of the world.
Keep on ranting, Jeff : )
Eric:
