Re: [Monbiot] Digest for monbiot-discuss@googlegroups.com - 4 Messages in 1 Topic

[Andrew Inglis]

One can be gloomy , but look at some of the characters of history:
Michelangelo, Ghandi, Lincoln,Mandela treating setbacks as new
opportunities creating work and inspiration for others even in the
midst of war, drought and changing political vicissitudes. Best to
plan for uncertainty and if better than that happens well, its atrue
blessing even if wishful thinking

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 7:53 AM, <monbiot...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>   Today's Topic Summary
>
> Group: http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss/topics
>
> Hi [4 Updates]
>
>  Hi
>
> Roger Priddle <roger....@gmail.com> Dec 08 01:45AM -0500
>
> Patrick - Do you truly believe that we will be able to "avert catastrophe"?
>
> I try to act as though survival without oil is possible in the long
> run, and when I talk to others I sound absolutely convinced that "we
> can do it!", but in the dark of night...
>
> I absolutely accept that the standard of living Western society has
> enjoyed for the last 100 years is a bubble, borne on the twins of
> cheap energy and willful disregard of our "messes". So I live
> off-grid and recycle and eat local food...but I worry.
>
> If you have some vision of a post-oil world that doesn't include mass
> starvation, food riots and wars, I'd really enjoy reading it. Think
> of it as an early Christmas gift...
>
> Roger.
>
>
> --
> Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the
> music. (George Carlin)
>
> First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you,
> then you win. (Mahatma Gandhi)
>
> Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed individuals
> can change the world: indeed, it's the only thing that ever has!
> (Margaret Meade)
>
>
>
> Duncan Hewitt <dun...@kopperdrake.co.uk> Dec 08 09:43AM
>
> I believe we can Roger. It won't be the world we know now - it will be a
> world where most people will be working towards their own food
> production in some way, where world numbers will need to shrink, and
> where energy is more scarce. But we will still have technology that we
> never used to have - whether we like it or not we will have nuclear
> power, and we will also have the renewables. There won't be anywhere
> near enough for the excessive amount we now use, but there may be enough
> for the necessities - medicine, production of needed tools,
> communication etc. Transportation will be cut, we will become more
> local. The hardest part, and the main worry to me, is trying to convince
> the masses that they *must* wean themselves off the consumerist society
> we now have if we are all to survive. If we can't convince people that
> they need to all jump on this band wagon, then the anarchy that will
> possibly ensue afterwards will be our downfall. We need grassroot
> community projects *now*, but I think this will partly happen as a
> matter of course through individuals as the cost of energy shrinks
> societies to a more manageable and natural size.
>
> Duncan
>
> On 08/12/2011 06:45, Roger Priddle wrote:
>
>
>
> Susan Braddock <bradd...@gmail.com> Dec 08 05:14PM +0100
>
> Hi all,
> Nice to see some discussion again - not been saying much as I find it hard
> not to be too depressed about everything!
> Call me a doomer but,I think I agree with Roger regarding 'mass starvation,
> food riots and wars' being the most likely result of the current route
> humanity is taking. Unfortunately, I'm also not sure that renewables
> technologies will be sufficient even for a much reduced society - due to
> their reliance on other (other than oil, I mean) scarce resources (trace
> elements etc).
> However, I do also believe there can be some mitigation if only the masses
> can see that things such as the financial crises are ultimately due to our
> overuse of the world's scarce resources.
>
> Susan
>
>
>
>
> DavidT <grap...@tmprinting.ie> Dec 08 04:34PM
>
> On 8 Noll 2011, at 16:14, Susan Braddock wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> Nice to see some discussion again - not been saying much as I find
>> it hard not to be too depressed about everything!
>
> I know what you mean. While we have to have some hope, we must also
> meanwhile face realities.
>
> I quite like the thinking of John Michael Greer. If you have an hour
> or so to spare, it's worth reading some of his blogs: the last few
> have been particularly resonant, what with all the vapid 'thinking'
> going on in Europe at the moment about how to breathe life into our
> economic dinosaur.
>
> first:
> http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2011/11/bringing-it-down-to-earth.html
> then:
> http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2011/11/pepperspraying-future.html
> and especially the last:
> http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2011_12_01_archive.html
>
> There's plenty to read in his earlier blogs but those three are
> particularly topical.
>
> BTW, be warned he's not a big fan of George Monbiot...
>
> David
>
>
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group
> monbiot-discuss.
> You can post via email.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an empty message.
> For more options, visit this group.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Monbiot Discussions" group.
> To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.

[Roger Priddle]

You know, I was watching TVO tonight (Ontario Public Television) and they ran 3 episodes of "Victorian Christmas".  it's a BBC production of "life in the 19th Century.

To be blunt, I'm not nostalgic for an era I never knew, nor for a return to life expectancies of 50 years.  But - after oil - I'm not sure that our descendants will have a choice.  

The most interesting thing I've seen over the last few years is the development of "appropriate technologies" for places like sub-Saharan Africa.  Given the problems they have and the lack of resources, some groups have done some real work on creating low energy/high efficiency solutions.  The last hundred years has taught us many things, including the value of heirloom varieties of plants but also how to breed newer varieties to meet "modern" challenges.

On television, I watched a farrier shoe a Shire horse.  The skills and expertise required are staggering.  Then I remembered the saying that "they shall beat their swords into ploughshares."  Ok, now I have a horse and a plough - but I have no idea how to use those two to plough a field! Let alone grow the wheat, harvest and grind the wheat and make bread.

Do I think we're doomed?  No, but there's a lot we need to re-learn.  And a lot of expertise that needs to be recovered and cherished.  If I had a grandchild, I would encourage him/her to become a blacksmith and farrier.  After all, the horse is the ultimate "solar powered tractor"!

Just trying to find the positive...<smile>

Roger.

[Duncan Hewitt]

Funny you should say that, I totally agree with the blacksmith idea and when my son mentioned about becoming a blacksmith (when he discovered it involved flames and swords as far as his Beast Quest books depicted) I could only encourage him.

The underlying concern is one of the main reasons I took up gardening veg - I realised my generation missed it completely, yet we're the bridge between our parents, whose parents themselves were the post-war allotmenteers, and our own children. Already our kids are being exposed to growing their own food and understanding the food-chain story and it's relationship with the land and all we do to it. My son still chuckles at the thought that we're all eating his own wee ;)

As far as heritage varieties go, I'm gradually replacing all seeds with older varieties that seem to do well in our soil, and resizing seeds from the largest and healthiest specimen.

It's good to make fun from a potentially bad situation.

Duncan

[Roger Priddle]

For several years, I've been thinking about how to store/retain such knowledge as I'm able to glean, especially information specific to my community/neighbourhood.  Lots of this stuff is available on-line but what would it take to make "on-line" nothing but a fond memory?  Up here, one big freezing-rain event could eliminate grid-based power and related infrastructure for months....

There are some great resources, especially if you are a historian, in terms of old practical books written in the 19th C but, if push comes to shove, I don't want to reinvent the Victorian era - I want to adapt my life to a lower energy mode, including everything we've been able to learn in the last century.

For example, I found a great website that describes how to make an Icebox.  Not too exciting, perhaps, but this person is able to freeze a huge block of ice in the winter and use that to keep food cool for about 9 months of the year - without taking everything down to the local stream for cooling.  Think what that would be in terms of saving food and time...

My interest at this time is how to save that information - printed using stable inks on acid-free paper, laminated and stored away from heat and light.  That might preserve those pages for a century or more - at least a couple of generations...  Hand copying with lead based inks onto velum doesn't seem like a practical solution...

Saving seeds, encouraging those traits that improve survival rates - I think these will all be useful skills and teaching them to our children may be one of the nicest things we do for them...

Roger.

[tmgraphics]

On 12 Dec 2011, at 04:17, Roger Priddle wrote:

On television, I watched a farrier shoe a Shire horse.  The skills and expertise required are staggering.  Then I remembered the saying that "they shall beat their swords into ploughshares."  Ok, now I have a horse and a plough - but I have no idea how to use those two to plough a field! Let alone grow the wheat, harvest and grind the wheat and make bread.

Do I think we're doomed?  No, but there's a lot we need to re-learn.  And a lot of expertise that needs to be recovered and cherished.  If I had a grandchild, I would encourage him/her to become a blacksmith and farrier.  After all, the horse is the ultimate "solar powered tractor"!

Because a lot of pre-oil farming output went (will go) towards feeding the animals, it makes sense to study methods of feeding humans which require far less input.

I'm not convinced about ploughing, for instance. It exposes a lower layer of soil to the elements; drying out, killing creatures underneath and losing soil and nutrients to erosion. We should be looking at plants that survive in situations where the ground is held together, not torn apart.

I'm not saying that ploughing doesn't have its place. It probably does but not on the scale we starrily-eyed believe it does.

David

[Roger Priddle]

Hmm  I think some form of cultivation will always be necessary unless one can reliably scavenge, and that won't feed enough people. I have heard of "no-till" planting, but I suspect it's too labour intensive and has too low a yield per acre.  (Note: I'm not say that yield is everything but agriculture has to return enough to feed a family, provide seed for the next crop and to allow storage against famine or crop failure.)

There is also a huge difference between the "one horse open plough"  (oops, Christmas is just too close <grin>) and the multi-gang multi-bladed things that rip up prairie soil 8" to 12" deep.  (Interestingly, a few years ago I heard from someone that up to 25% of the North American prairies are now no longer considered "arable soil" from over farming, overuse of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, and general "mismanagement".  Not good.)

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.

[Lila Smith]

Do you know that there is only 18 percent of carbon left in the worlds top soil, after all carbon is dead leaves that fall from trees and waste matter from foliage, as in a true forest form, so in ploughing and using land we simply do not return carbon like nature can

shockingly 18 per cent is not going to be enough to start to turn the worm back to healthy top soil, the worlds top soil is stuffed and will take probably an ice age or similar to stop us viral humans from robbing and destroying.

 

If you have a paddock to grow food don't plough, never plough, that is the first mistake, instead load the surface with whatever you can, put truckloads of anything like straw, absolutely anything organic, let the weeds grow, then mow them and leave it on top of the soil to break down, its like the no dig gardens, you simply put layer and layer of organics on top and let the compost worms develop, the world is not going to starve you overnight, just return to forest thinking, ploughing destroys worms and microorganisms...simply cover the soil and leave and let nature take its course

Lila Smith
www.windwand.co.nz
Taranaki Tourism Website
www.windwand.co.nz/organickitchengarden.htm
Organic Kitchen Gardening
Mob 021230 7962
06 7512942
201 Omata Road
New Plymouth
New Zealand

[DavidT]

On 13 Noll 2011, at 18:31, Lila Smith wrote:

If you have a paddock to grow food don't plough, never plough, that is the first mistake, instead load the surface with whatever you can, put truckloads of anything like straw, absolutely anything organic, let the weeds grow, then mow them and leave it on top of the soil to break down, its like the no dig gardens, you simply put layer and layer of organics on top and let the compost worms develop, the world is not going to starve you overnight, just return to forest thinking, ploughing destroys worms and microorganisms...simply cover the soil and leave and let nature take its course

That's excellent advice Lila. My thoughts exactly. Nature has far more experience than us.

David

[jonnyz]

Actually, it's rotten advice. How much fuel are you going to spend
mulching an entire field? Your result will be a nitrogen deficit until
everything breaks down. Then you will have a bumper crop of weeds to
out compete anything you plant, er, broadcast on top. Of course if you
are gardening a tiny plot, you can hand weed, but you cannot farm like
that. If you really want to eliminate cultivation, well, good luck
with that, but there is no reason to prefer spreading volumes of plant
material over compost.

Roger, "no-till" is a movement promoted by big agriculture, convincing
some large scale producers that cultivation can be replaced by
additional applications of herbicides and fertilizer. I'm not talking
about the one straw revolution, but its author had the advantage of
flooding his fields to purge them and soften the soil.

[Roger Priddle]

Jon - thanks for this.  Your comment (and Lila's) points out that nothing is simple, that the Law of Unintended Consequences is ever with us.  Also, seems to indicate that the "One size fits all" solution is not actually very common, that many solutions may be applicable to similar (but not identical) situations.

I might argue that there are NO identical situations, but that would require expertise I just don't have.

If nothing else, this thread is reminding me of the benefit to having as many potential solutions as possible available.  It also reminds me of the saying, "it's amazing how everything looks like a nail if the only tool you have is a hammer."

I'm quite sure that the solutions that would work for me - in Central Ontario where a sub-freezing winter is about to set in, on the edge of pre-Cambrian shield, with shallow highly-acid soil - might be very different that appropriate solutions for someone even 200 miles south of here, let alone in Western England, or New South Wales or Buenos Aires.

That's what I like about these discussions - physical reality meets philosophy meets wants and needs.

Roger.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.

[Lila Smith]

well its not bad advice at all, first of all I said this the way the world
developed, this is the way that nature makes its statement, how can you
ignore nature, you are talking modern mixed with old world, don't think for
one moment that I AM WRONG...take advice from mother nature, for thousands
of years mother nature provided everything and then along came man who
wanted to produce more, and from that came the thought that ploughs were
needed, it is because the process is fastened, think about
it............................ just for one moment think about is, and we
have the culture that is developed from modern man..but take one second to
think about how mother nature would replenish the top soil and it is far
from what your mindset is..we have to return to mother nature of thinking
and you are talking about producing for thousands, I am TALKING THE OLD
WORLD NOT MODERN THINKING..how wrong can you be to keep thinking we can
produce more than mother nature can provide on a singular basis..you INSTEAD
ARE THINKING MONEY MAKING. ITS NOT ABOUT MONEY MAKING IN MY BOOK ITS ABOUT
LOVING THE LAND YOU LIVE ON..END OF STORY.
ITS ABOUT SURVIVING THE NUCLEAR WINTER WE ARE HEADING FOR BELIEVE IT OR
BELIEVE IT NOT..........

Lila Smith
www.windwand.co.nz
Taranaki Tourism Website
www.windwand.co.nz/organickitchengarden.htm
Organic Kitchen Gardening
Mob 021230 7962
06 7512942
201 Omata Road
New Plymouth
New Zealand

--

[DavidT]

Surely it's down to appropriateness? Not everyone supports big ag. and
of course 'gardening' as opposed to 'farming' is much more productive
per person hour when trying to equate jobs.

David

[Andy Williamson]

I first came across 'not ploughing' in Rebecca Hosking's film 'A Farm For The Future' - made for the BBC. You can see the whole thing here:

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCIQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D2750012006939737230&ei=tLT5TrbLNcrH8gO9i721AQ&usg=AFQjCNFPpXKXmt9MrYhdZGa1V-Dnp89ERw&sig2=9xbNW0Zke03AHU33Zbnyvg

It's a beautiful film, attempting to answer the question: Could a traditional farm be run without oil? She looks at all kinds of things, including permaculture and forest gardens. There are some amazing claims by some of the people involved. Though they come across as credible in that they don't seem to me to be setting out to prove anything - they're just getting on with it.

I was prompted to post this in response to the claim that 'no till' is being promoted by big Agribiz. If so, are they trying to subvert the whole thing? In this film, not ploughing is definitely an alternative option involving things like planting old varieties of grasses rather than using extra fertiliser. I'm not a farmer - just an interested observer.

Andy

Sent from phone, so apologies for brevity and any typos.

[Roger Priddle]

This is an iffy tie-in, but I've been reading about Polyface Farm (in US).  His premise is that he "grows grass", that the animals he raises then eat etc.  The thing is that he never discusses (or at least, I haven't come to it yet) how he grows any crops - vegetables, grains, etc.

Not just varieties but mechanics - ploughing, harvesting, etc.  I've also been watching BBC "Victorian Farm", using 19th C technology - Shire horse (solar-powered tractor <grin>) etc.

I'm really curious if anyone knows of any examples where the various disciplines of sustainable living have been successfully combined - no petroleum, indigenous and heirloom varieties of plants and animals, no degradation of soil, etc - in a way that can create a surplus, ie more than subsistence living.

Any ideas?

Roger.

[tmgraphics]

On 27 Dec 2011, at 12:15, Andy Williamson wrote:

> I first came across 'not ploughing' in Rebecca Hosking's film 'A Farm For The Future' - made for the BBC. You can see the whole thing here:
>
> http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCIQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D2750012006939737230&ei=tLT5TrbLNcrH8gO9i721AQ&usg=AFQjCNFPpXKXmt9MrYhdZGa1V-Dnp89ERw&sig2=9xbNW0Zke03AHU33Zbnyvg
>
> It's a beautiful film, attempting to answer the question: Could a traditional farm be run without oil? She looks at all kinds of things, including permaculture and forest gardens. There are some amazing claims by some of the people involved. Though they come across as credible in that they don't seem to me to be setting out to prove anything - they're just getting on with it.
>
> I was prompted to post this in response to the claim that 'no till' is being promoted by big Agribiz. If so, are they trying to subvert the whole thing? In this film, not ploughing is definitely an alternative option involving things like planting old varieties of grasses rather than using extra fertiliser. I'm not a farmer - just an interested observer.
>
> Andy

Agreed, everyone involved in agriculture should watch that film. Very balanced and intelligent. I'm also reminded of the technique of 'foggage', which is running a grassland where they say the work tends to be opening and closing gates!

Grass is left to stand and cattle, sheep are moved around according to requirements. I believe it requires a good drying season for winter grass and is not as 'productive' in big pharma's terms terms but still appropriate in more cases than not.

David

[PAdam...@aol.com]

I too was very impressed by Rebeca Hoskins "A farm for the future".

 

The thing that strikes me about modern farming is that its far too specialised. By just mass producing 2 or 3 animal species and a couple of grain plants, it simply mines the soil without regard to the potential food production. There has to be a better way, and the film points to it. Nature is about biodiversity, not monoculture.

 

Theres also alot of good top soil going to waste in urban areas. Far too much land is sterilised for vehicles, and too much attention to exotic ornamentals in gardens. Many farms for the future will be in urban areas.

 

Patrick

 

 

[Roger Priddle]

What a great film.  I have a neighbour/farmer that I want to pass this on to with the hopes that he will try some of the hedge-row ideas.

However, while the film discusses alternatives to cereal crops, I'm not sure most of the suggestions about nuts will work here.  At least, I don't see that many native edible nut trees in my area.

I guess, yet again, my problem is bringing the ideas down to the local level.  And I am neither farmer nor gardener - more of a salesman <grin>.

Meanwhile, Patrick, I agree with your ideas about the need to increase the level of urban agriculture.
 
Roger.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.

[Lila Smith]

'no till' is being promoted by big Agribiz. If so, are they trying to
subvert the whole thing?

Well do you have to till or plough with chemicals, its about broadcasting it
by plane or tractor, and the rest is history, but bad news for worms?..

I know many farmers who just use planes to broadcast chemicals, no tilling
no ploughing how simple is that, just dump the chemicals on the ground.

In my opinion and from the Westpac (A BANK) updates, its still about money,
not the environment. THEY WESTPAK PROMOTE BIG AGRIBIZ.

Lila Smith
www.windwand.co.nz
Taranaki Tourism Website
www.windwand.co.nz/organickitchengarden.htm
Organic Kitchen Gardening
Mob 021230 7962
06 7512942
201 Omata Road
New Plymouth
New Zealand

David

--

[Lila Smith]

Right on its still about big business, such a shame.

Lila.

Lila Smith
www.windwand.co.nz
Taranaki Tourism Website
www.windwand.co.nz/organickitchengarden.htm
Organic Kitchen Gardening
Mob 021230 7962
06 7512942
201 Omata Road
New Plymouth
New Zealand

----- Original Message -----

From: PAdam...@aol.com

To: monbiot...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 12:19 PM

Subject: Re: [Monbiot] Re: top soil and carbon.

--

[Roger Priddle]

Lila, I'm not sure I understand your point.  Both Polyface and the farms in this film abjure the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, as near as I can make out.

True, these are not small farms (at least, Polyface isn't) but they seem to be following permaculture principles...?

I'm not trying to argue - I just don't understand the point you're making.

Roger.

[Lila Smith]

synthetic fertilizers are made from oil........

:::??

[Lila Smith]

even guano is in its natural form is washed in hydrochloric acid... and that goes into the land.

[Roger Priddle]

Hmmm - didn't know that about guano, but...

My understanding from the clips is that no fertilizers from external sources are used, that they rely on carefully managed grazing and manure.  Using a variety of livestock (i.e. cattle, pigs, chickens (but I think that other species could be substituted)) in succession ensures that the land is not over-grazed and is "fertilized" by the different manures.

Petroleum products are used to power equipment but not in the form of either pesticides or fertilizers.  I'm not sure about GM seeds but I'd be surprised.

Maybe I'm reading the information incorrectly, but that's what I'm seeing.  I'm more interested in gathering accurate information than being right so if you're seeing other stuff, I'd love to hear it.  Seriously.

Roger.

[john]

The Rebecca Hoskins film was fascinating, though very sketchy- by
necessity, in a short film.
It brings home the sheer strangeness of the conventional farming
method- that is, to kill, as much as is possible, every organism
within a defined area, then pour physical and chemical energy into
trying to mitigate the disastrous consequenses of this. Also, what
should be the blindingly obvious advantages of extending fertile
acreage vertically as well as just horizontally.

The problem with these techniques in the present economic model, of
course, is precisely also one of their best attributes; that is, it
would be hard to see how it could be profitably promoted by large
vested interests in the way that say, GM can be. The world is run by
and for the economically powerful elite, and it is simply not in their
interest to see permaculture thrive. As the film made clear, it is
inherently suited to the small-scale, and the structurally diverse.
Feeding the world sustainably will always be, and to some extent, has
always been, a fight against simple, top-down, mono-cultural (in both
senses of the word) solutions. The fact is that the world is still
moving further TOWARDS, not away from, those oil-based industrial
methods of food-production.

On Dec 27 2011, 12:15 pm, Andy Williamson

<andywilliamson...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I first came across 'not ploughing' in Rebecca Hosking's film 'A Farm For The Future' - made for the BBC. You can see the whole thing here:
>

> http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCIQtwIwAQ&url=...

>
> It's a beautiful film, attempting to answer the question: Could a traditional farm be run without oil? She looks at all kinds of things, including permaculture and forest gardens. There are some amazing claims by some of the people involved. Though they come across as credible in that they don't seem to me to be setting out to prove anything - they're just getting on with it.
>
> I was prompted to post this in response to the claim that 'no till' is being promoted by big Agribiz. If so, are they trying to subvert the whole thing? In this film, not ploughing is definitely an alternative option involving things like planting old varieties of grasses rather than using extra fertiliser. I'm not a farmer - just an interested observer.
>
> Andy
>
> Sent from phone, so apologies for brevity and any typos.
>

[PAdam...@aol.com]

It simply doesn't occur to most people that agriculture can be 3 dimensional. On the other hand, the recent proposal to build multi-storey urban farm blocks does exploit the vertical potential to an artificial extreme.

 

We need to completely rethink how food is produced. That means extending the range of species, both plant and animal, which are used for food.

 

GM technology almost certainly has a role in fast track selective breeding. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the technology, provided it is used responsibly and for the right reasons. Compare nuclear power. The question is, how can these powerful but dangerous technologies be harnessed for the benefit of wider society without further entrenching the stranglehold of the elite few. A good science education for all would be a good start.

 

Patrick

[Roger Priddle]

John:

While I can't disagree with anything you're saying, I can't help but feel that the dominance of the current model is under serious time constraints.  Conventional Agri-business has worked on the premise of steadily declining food prices making local, sustainable seem too expensive. 

However, whether this year, next year, or ten years hence, rising oil prices are going to cause increases in the price of industrial food, decreasing the gap.  As the cost of imported, processed food (along with the increasing cost of all the rest of energy consumption) rises, the value of producing food "at home" (whether by the local farmer or in a community garden or the front yard) will become more and more evident.

Changes in the "standard of living" will be interesting to document.  Will people choose to continue driving inefficient vehicles, and start growing food?  Will the accumulation of "stuff" take precedence over the hot tub and a 72f setting on the thermostat?  For a while, these kinds of choices will be possible but as oil runs down (and the price continues to rise), I expect that the number of options will be fewer and fewer. 

"May you live in Interesting times."

Roger.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.

[Roger Priddle]

Patrick:

The development of GM foods is (perhaps) fine provided that the grower can save the seeds for replanting.  (What the long term effects of GM (especially transgenic) foods will be on the human body is anybody's guess...)

But if Monsanto (for example) claims proprietary rights to the seeds, or produces crops that can't reproduce (either due to non-viable hybridization or "terminator genes"), then I believe we're all going to regret it.  Farmers need to be able to plant next year's crop from this year's seed.

As for nuclear energy, I'll be all in favour as soon as (but not until) we have a secure way of dealing with the radioactive waste.  So far, we don't.

Roger.

[PAdam...@aol.com]

Indeed. But, what if we want to enhance the productivity of a new food crop, such as beech. to make the nuts a viable high value food? We don't have the luxury of centuries of conventional selective breeding.

 

As for nuclear, yes we must deal with waste. Less of a problem with Thorium reactors though. Dangerous as nuclear waste is, the waste from coal burning (CO2) is probably even more dangerous.

 

Patrick

[Roger Priddle]

Patrick:

I wouldn't disagree with you at all about CO2 - we (as a species and society) waste so much energy (and create so much other waste) that we're burning ourselves into disaster.  My concern with nuclear is that the waste from it is so long lasting (half lives of some are 25,000 years, and 10 half lives are required for them to decay to background levels) and so toxic in even the smallest quantities that any tiny mistake could be catastrophic.  CO2, on the other hand is potentially much more manageable.

I keep challenging students to imagine a container that would keep the most toxic substance on earth absolutely safe.  Given an unlimited budget, how long could they imagine securing this substance?  (Ok, they're high school students, not engineering or materials specialists but I'm inviting them to dream on a grandiose scale.)

The most optimistic response I've had so far is 1,000 years - guaranteed safe enough to house their (future) spouses and children with.  Even then, most don't think they would risk the lives of their loved ones for even 100 years.

Still, we produce a waste that will kill for many, many more years.

The challenge to consume less and to waste less is much easier for them to imagine.  That's what I try to encourage - ideally, nuclear waste will be unnecessary and we can stop burning coal and oil. 

Real conservation is possible, just not politically popular.  No-one makes money on reducing consumption.  (Well, people could but not corporations.  Or, at least, not the existing corporations...)

We make choices and choices have consequences.  We're just not prepared to look at the long term consequences seriously where they compete with instant gratification.

Too bad for the kids.


Roger.

[PAdam...@aol.com]

Hi Roger,

 

I meant chestnut, not beech. It was suggested in the film that it could be used as a staple food.

 

I agree that waste and over-consumption need to be addressed, but the challenge is to make that fit in an economic system which is driven by consumption, whether it be useful consumption or waste.

 

Patrick

[Roger Priddle]

Patrick - here's a dumb question.  What happens when energy costs triple? 

When food goes back to costing 18% of the family's annual income?  When fuel rises from $1.20/l (in Canada) to $3.60?  When the individual's ability to produce "surplus" from an 8 hour day is removed?

Somehow I think the "economic system which is driven by consumption" may have to be the model that has to change, when economic growth and consumption are no longer possible.

After all, infinite growth is not possible in a closed system of finite resources.  And especially when some of those resources are non-renewable.

Was reminded a couple of days ago of a thought experiment.  Imagine a test tube full of nutrient, and one bacterium.  Each day the bacterium doubles.  Assuming the test tube will be absolutely full of bacteria and no resources left on the 30th day, when will it be half full? 

How full will  it be 5 days before the crisis?  IOW, after 25 days, if the bacteria all get together to discuss their situation, how much of the resources are already gone?

And where, on a similarly finite Earth, are we?

Roger.