[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: John Hagelin: Old vs New Approach in Agriculture

Evil One wrote:
> 
> "B. McClinton" <b.mcclinton@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 
> >I've seen stats similar to these as well. But this doesn't change
> >the fact these same third world children are also lucky to make past age
> >five. This will also not do much to save natural areas in these countries
> >from being plowed for food production. This is already happening with the
> >deforestation of rainforests in Central and South America for farmland.
> >Habitat loss is the biggest threat to wildlife.
> 
> >Malthusian predictions about resource depletion have never been realized
> >because an alternative resource were always found. For example, we no
> >longer need copper wires to transmit telephone signals, glass fibres and
> >free air are being used as well. The same will eventually happen with
> >fossil fuel use as well as other energy sources become relatively more
> >economical.
> 
>         Malthus did not reject the idea of technological fixes. Rather he for
> saw a point where the fixes would no longer correct the problem. His
> solution for this was restraint. In other words a moral birth control.
> Being a minister hecould not countenance artifical controls, but
> morality fit right in.
> 
>         The problem with technology is the fact that we can no longer depend
> on tech. fixes. The reason England in the 19th century could supply
> enough food from a fixed amount of land was through better management.
> This was the period where "enclosure" was introduced. By this means,
> land was no longer tilled in small plots by peasants but rather in
> fields under the guidance of managers. As well the four field system
> was put in place where one field would grow grain crops, another feed
> cattle, another root crops and another lie fallow.
> Big Snip:

>         So, perhaps what we should be doing, rather then hoping for an 11th
> hour solution through science, is to take a hard look at how we
> produce food now. Perhaps it is time for another form of *enclosure*.
> This is not a pleasent pill to swallow, but none the less a possibly
> necessary one.
> 

I do not agree with you that we can no longer depend on technological 
fixes. The evidence does not support this hypothesis at the present time. 
However, this will likely change sometime in the future unless population 
growth is stabilized. There is also potential to improve agricultural 
production in developing nations with existing technologies.

Contrary to what Malthus believed, the evidence shows that high 
birthrates are directly related poverty levels. The population growth 
problem will likely disappear as the wealth of third world peoples 
increases.

regards,

Blair McClinton
Follow-Ups: References: