The Destructive History of Agriculture & Monocultural Revolutions
Immortalist
devastation of prairies and forests, driving countless species
extinct, altering the climate, and destroying the topsoil.
In order to save the planet, food must come from within living
communities, eating locally and sustainably and we should encourage
those with the resources to grow their own food.
What is needed is an account which goes beyond health choices [vain
narcisitic health practices] and a challenge to the potential moral
issues from eating-or not eating-animals.
http://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myth-Food-Justice-Sustainability/dp/1604860804
...agriculture has created a net loss for human rights and culture:
slavery, imperialism, militarism, class divisions, chronic hunger, and
disease. “The real problem, then, is not to explain why some people
were slow to adopt agriculture but why anybody took it up at all, when
it is so obviously beastly,” writes Colin Tudge of The London School
of Economics. Agriculture has also been devastating to the other
creatures with whom we share the earth, and ultimately to the life
support systems of the planet itself. What is at stake is everything.
If we want a sustainable world, we have to be willing to examine the
power relations behind the foundational myth of our culture. Anything
less and we will fail.
Questioning at that level is difficult for most people. In this case,
the emotional struggle inherent in resisting any hegemony is
compounded by our dependence on civilization, and on our individual
helplessness to stop it. Most of us would have no chance of survival
if the industrial infrastructure collapsed tomorrow. And our
consciousness is equally impeded by our powerlessness. There is no Ten
Simple Things list in the last chapter because, frankly, there aren’t
ten simple things that will save the earth. There is no personal
solution. There is an interlocking web of hierarchical arrangements,
vast systems of power that have to be confronted and dismantled. We
can disagree about how best to do that, but do it we must if the earth
is to have any chance of surviving.
ZerkonXXXX
> In order to save the planet
This Wiccan lingo must stop. It is self defeating. The 'planet' does not
need 'saving'. This forces a false moral base. What is built upon this
base, even if perfectly sensible, is made weaker.
> agriculture has created a net loss for human rights and culture..
Might as well say 'human hunger' has created this. It was or is not
agriculture which caused these horrors but how it was and is being
treated in specific and changeable human systems of economics.
A specific and well defined relative issue here is the political
economics behind Genetic Modification. Attacking this stupidity and greed
as a moral issue of 'saving the plant' forces polarization and a
unnecessary alienation in those NOT believing in some earth mother.
> If we want a sustainable world...
The world is a planet. By all indications, no planet or sun or any
'thing' is sustainable. What 'we' want is to sustain ourselves.
This issue must now be torn away from passions. Passion, as is evident
here, just can not be trusted. It is the least sustainable aspect in
human nature no matter how good it feels and how simple things become or
how well intentioned. It can help lead us but it will not work once we
arrive. Many of the 'we' have arrived.
Michael Coburn
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:54:44 -0800, Immortalist wrote:
>
>> In order to save the planet
>
> This Wiccan lingo must stop. It is self defeating. The 'planet' does not
> need 'saving'. This forces a false moral base. What is built upon this
> base, even if perfectly sensible, is made weaker.
"moral" is from the Latin "moralis" that is "of manner and custom". So
YES, saving the planet is not the objective. Saving the people that must
subsist upon the planet, however, is a different kettle of fish. Unless
someone can prove to the majority of us that extermination of all roaches
will harm humanity, then the elimination of that species is "moral".
>> agriculture has created a net loss for human rights and culture..
>
> Might as well say 'human hunger' has created this. It was or is not
> agriculture which caused these horrors but how it was and is being
> treated in specific and changeable human systems of economics.
>
> A specific and well defined relative issue here is the political
> economics behind Genetic Modification. Attacking this stupidity and
> greed as a moral issue of 'saving the plant' forces polarization and a
> unnecessary alienation in those NOT believing in some earth mother.
True story. The moonbat foot shooting seems to continue unabated.
>> If we want a sustainable world...
>
> The world is a planet. By all indications, no planet or sun or any
> 'thing' is sustainable. What 'we' want is to sustain ourselves.
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.
> This issue must now be torn away from passions. Passion, as is evident
> here, just can not be trusted. It is the least sustainable aspect in
> human nature no matter how good it feels and how simple things become or
> how well intentioned. It can help lead us but it will not work once we
> arrive. Many of the 'we' have arrived.
Too many have not. They are called RIGHTARDS and MOONBATS.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Demon Buddha
> New Studies expose the destructive history of agriculture-causing the
> devastation of prairies and forests, driving countless species
> extinct, altering the climate, and destroying the topsoil.
People have been going on like this for thousands of years. Are we at
the edge of destruction.... again?
>
> In order to save the planet, food must come from within living
> communities, eating locally and sustainably and we should encourage
> those with the resources to grow their own food.
This I can agree with, especially given the term "encourage" rather
than "force".
>
> What is needed is an account which goes beyond health choices [vain
> narcisitic health practices]
Good health practices are vain and narcissistic? What a quaint idea.
> and a challenge to the potential moral
> issues from eating-or not eating-animals.
Moral issues? What moral issues? Living things eat each other. I see
moral issue. Perhaps you could point to it.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myth-Food-Justice-Sustainability/dp/1604860804
>
> ...agriculture has created a net loss for human rights and culture:
> slavery, imperialism, militarism, class divisions, chronic hunger, and
> disease. �The real problem, then, is not to explain why some people
> were slow to adopt agriculture but why anybody took it up at all, when
> it is so obviously beastly,� writes Colin Tudge of The London School
> of Economics.
Well, what else would you expect from some English academician who was
most likely raised to hate himself and, consequently, everyone else?
> Agriculture has also been devastating to the other
> creatures with whom we share the earth, and ultimately to the life
> support systems of the planet itself.
Uh oh... I smell a watermelon marxist.
> What is at stake is everything.
> If we want a sustainable world, we have to be willing to examine the
> power relations behind the foundational myth of our culture. Anything
> less and we will fail.
And do what? Return to hunter-gatherer lifestyles? You have a nice
time picking berries. In the meanwhile, I'll keep what I have - but
thanks for the thought.
>
> Questioning at that level is difficult for most people. In this case,
> the emotional struggle inherent in resisting any hegemony is
> compounded by our dependence on civilization, and on our individual
> helplessness to stop it. Most of us would have no chance of survival
> if the industrial infrastructure collapsed tomorrow. And our
> consciousness is equally impeded by our powerlessness. There is no Ten
> Simple Things list in the last chapter because, frankly, there aren�t
> ten simple things that will save the earth. There is no personal
> solution. There is an interlocking web of hierarchical arrangements,
> vast systems of power that have to be confronted and dismantled. We
> can disagree about how best to do that, but do it we must if the earth
> is to have any chance of surviving.
Spoken like a true collectivist. If he is so concerned for the future
of the earth, why doesn't he go home and kill himself in sacrifice to
that future?
>
> http://www.lierrekeith.com/vegmyth.htm
Kwanzaa Quango
> Spoken like a true collectivist. If he is so concerned for the future of
> the earth, why doesn't he go home and kill himself in sacrifice to that
> future?
>>
Hear, Hear. Soylent Green anyone?
Cannibalism for a Healthy Planet!!
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:54:44 -0800, Immortalist wrote:
> > In order to save the planet
>
> This Wiccan lingo must stop. It is self defeating. The 'planet' does not
> need 'saving'. This forces a false moral base. What is built upon this
> base, even if perfectly sensible, is made weaker.
Anything that starts out with with an appeal to "save the planet" is
inherently nonsense. It's nothing but new-age feel-good claptrap.
All the rest of the guy's spew is irrational Luddism.