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

Re: John Hagelin: Old vs New Approach in Agriculture



evilone@interlog.com (Evil One) wrote:

>>>         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.

Much of the problem in Latin American and Asian countries has been the 
results of enclosure. People are kicked off of their land, or forced to 
produce a surplus under a peonage system. It was pretty hard for poor 
European people to swallow in the 17th-19th centuries, in fact by the 
19th century it was part of a concious effort to force people to starve 
or seek work in factories (people used to be much more up front about 
their economic aims). It also resulted in an increase in malnutrition. At 
the same time, it precipitated the famine in Ireland. Most of the Irish 
non-potatoe food production belonged to the landlords and was for export 
to England; exports of wheat, dairy and meat were actually up during the 
famine. I question your statement that English food production 
significantly improved, as subsistance production would have not been 
counted.

But, how do we go about it? You are talking about
>countries that have resisted change for years. Either due to
>governments or religion or culture. Do we just walk in and take over?


Don't look now, but we have walked in and taken over, and most "under 
developed" countries have under gone radical change in the last four 
decades. The bad agricultural situations in many 3rd world countries are 
caused by the so-called "green revolution" which should be renamed the 
"brown revolution." People are just beginning to find out the 
sophisticated and SUSTAINABLE nature of many native agricultural systems. 
Even slash and burn when done on a subsistance level can result in a more 
productive forest over all. Meanwhile these systems have been replaced by 
systems dependent on imported seeds, chemicals, machinary, which deplete 
soil resources, increase insect damage by disrupting predator/prey 
relations, displace people so that agricultural production can be used to 
enrich the upper classes, etc. If you want to know more details, I am 
sure you could find them on the web. I work in a research library, and 
judging from what goes over my desk the idea that food production is 
really increased by modern agricultural practices is a myth. 

It seems that here in North America, Welfare
>payments for years has been tied to the number of children a person
>has, the more children, the more money. Not in every case but enough
>to support the complaint.

Another myth. Payments per child have been going down as the birth rate 
has been going up. Practically noone has children because they want to 
cheat welfare. They DO have children for the same reason middle class 
people have children; they want them for the emotional stability of 
family life, and because being dirt poor without them isn't any worse. 

 The fact that here in Canada, 90% of the population lives
>on 10% of the land and that land comprises some of the best farmland
>in the country. And what do we do? Pave it over or build housing on
>it.

Now you ARE talking. Once there was a valley that produced more fruit 
than any other place on earth. You could grow corn and get 3 tillers and 
2 ears per tiller year after year without putting any amendments in the 
soil. Now it is such a desert they call it Silicone Valley. 




>	Peter
>
>egards,
>
>>Blair McClinton
>
>The use of the above address for unsolicited advertising mail
>will result in you finding out why I'm called The Evil One
>


-- 
Karen Stark
ks36@cornell.edu


We are like a big fish that has been pulled from the water and is 
flopping wildly to find its way back in. In such a condition the fish 
never asks where the next flip or flop will bring it. It senses only that 
its present position is intolerable and that something else must be 
tried.
                         
                                                      Chinese saying 
quoted by Perry Link in "China in Transformation"



Follow-Ups: References: