• If you need help identifying a pepper, disease, or plant issue, please post in Identification.

How did our forefathers ever grow anything?

As much as I disagree with the statement and mentality behind it, I fully believe everyone should express their opinions without censorship.  It isn't rude or personally  offensive (ie he wasn't insulting anyone in the conversation) just expressing his values, which everyone should have the equal right to do regardless of how much anyone disagrees.  As long as it's done respectfully that is without making it personal.  I'm sure a mod will jump in if the thread devolves, but it's already pretty much beating a dead horse.
 
it was a sarcastic post inspired by "That's right, we'll eat bugs, eat weeds and redistribute the wealth.  God forbid anyone make a dastardly profit!  The UN knows what's right for us.  I mean, after all they are the ones who chose Khadafy's regime to chair the Human Rights division!  Sheesh!!  "
 
I actually cultivate Purslane in our landscape beds. Me and the grandchildren harvest, to eat, Thistle, Dandelion, Cattail, Lambsquarters, Clover, Dollarweed and several more "weeds". I purchased and grow several varieties of edible amaranth.

I was a union oil refinery worker for 37 years. And, before my health and age forced me to shut down my irrigation business, I paid the entire cost for 2 water wells to be drilled in Africa and paid for 1 to be drilled in the Honduras. I continue to this day to donate to that non-profit, but to a much smaller degree.

My concern for the hungry has been evidenced by my actions and by my money. Your sarcasm might better be directed toward where my criticism was. The United Nations. The UN has voted diametrically opposed to American interests for years. To use UN ideas to prove a point is weak in my opinion. Nearly every venture the UN has wanted to fund, that might be worthwhile, they expect the US to foot the entire costs!

I clearly stated that I am opposed to most of what the large Agri-businesses do and what they stand for. However, if anyone believes that the American public will resort to eating bugs and weeds, they are delusional. If faced with imminent starvation, maybe?

There were plenty enough potatoes grown in Ireland to feed the Irish people during the Potato Famine. However, the British government came in and TOOK, by force, the bulk of the potato harvest to mainland England. Over a million Irish people died and another million were forced to leave their country in order to survive. I contend the UN would gladly do the same to America if given the authority over our food supply or our food-growing techniques. Their record indicates, at every opportunity, they will vote in a manner most detrimental to the best interest of the American people. Just sayin!

I'm done with this thread.
 
Bigoledude said:
My concern for the hungry has been evidenced by my actions and by my money. Your sarcasm might better be directed toward where my criticism was. The United Nations. The UN has voted diametrically opposed to American interests for years. To use UN ideas to prove a point is weak in my opinion. Nearly every venture the UN has wanted to fund, that might be worthwhile, they expect the US to foot the entire costs!

I clearly stated that I am opposed to most of what the large Agri-businesses do and what they stand for. However, if anyone believes that the American public will resort to eating bugs and weeds, they are delusional. If faced with imminent starvation, maybe?
I would never have guessed you cultivated a wide range of "weeds" as edibles from your previous post, as you seemed part of the majority that believes only our current system will support our society.  Glad to hear you're aware and actively participating in teaching your grandchildren to think outside the box.
 
Whether or not the US or UN has the worlds best interest at heart is debatable, obviously we have different viewpoints.  Both sides have a long history of mistakes and supporting people who turn out to be dictators/sociopaths.  Which is why I also referenced outside sources like Michael Pollen, there are many more independent scientist coming to the same conclusion though.  The only studies I've read that support our current model are either from monsanto/dow/sygenta or government agencies that are subsidized by them.  I would love to read any independent studies supporting chem-ag to support your viewpoint.
 
I don't believe American's will choose to start eating bugs as the typical diet is based on highly processed and refined foods, meaning most don't eat many fresh vegetables that are cultivated, let alone alternative natural foods.  At least not until the current  model collapses, forcing them to shift or starve.  Most predictions are that we need to increase food production by up to 70% to meet rising populations, unfortunately chem-ag has typically had a rise in crop failure due to increased pest and "weed" resistance.  Especially now with GMO's creating super weeds that are immune to glyphosphates...
 
Maybe start a new post on the Hot Topic forum.

My opinion is that in general nothing ever goes back to the old ways of doing things.

For Farming all the small farmers could NEVER make it with the cost of operating except for specialty stuff.
There is less and less land that is suitable for farming as the population increases.

Where I grew up was ALL orchards and fields.

Now it's houses etc.
The few people that do farm are leasing land because it cost too much to keep going when they owned a lot of acres and the people in charge re zoned stuff and put them out of biz.
By the end of thje season they ended up with nothing for the work they did.
A lot of the small farmers contracted with different companies just to keep their land that the family owned for generations.
They are now more or less share croppers.
Like running a McDonolds,you have to do what the company wants...

Most farmers here have small stands and grow organic so they can get high prices for the little crops they can grow to make a living.
Since they are in the city they have to jump through tons of hoops just to get by.

I think going back to less harmful to nature ways might be ok in some places but you couldn't make a living the way things are.
I don't see it getting better anytime soon,if ever.
 
I agree that most small scale farms I've seen fail, but I don't think it's because of the economics, what I see is it's people who don't understand what their doing but are following ideologies.  Most are in the early to mid 20's, coming from urban backgrounds with no working concept of how to grow let alone farm.
 
Here's an example of a small scale, localized sustainable farmer who's grossing over 100k on a couple acres, if I remember correctly his net was over the typical 20k/acre of commercial farming (I heard his lecture at the organics conference). 
 
http://lagrelinette.com/
 
 So it is possible to have good returns on small plots.  Another example is SPIN farming, where people commonly gross over 20k/acre (often generating even more on less land).
 
When talking about developing nations, I just watched a documentary about agroforestry in Africa and how for minimal investment people and communities are becoming self-reliant through working with nature to restore balance instead of seeing it as the enemy.  If anyone wants it I can try and find the link again, I usually try and reference my sources but couldn't find it in my quick search.
 
When people talk about the increase in cost associated with organic production, they often don't consider how heavily subsidized the petro-chem model is, artificially decreasing the cost through hiding it in taxes.
 
Urban sprawl is a huge issue, once again societal though as we're chasing an ideal, not pursuing what's sustainable.  Look at the community of Arcosanti, through conscious design and choices they've kept the majority of land for agriculture use by concentrating their housing.  It's been running for 43 years now, which proves to me it is possible to live in a eco-friendly sustainable way through conscious choice.  That's a lot longer then we've tested GMO's as the only study longer then 3 months I know of found they (and associated pesticides) cause a significant increase in cancers and pancreatic damage.
 
I'm not advocating that we abandon technology, that would be absurd.  I do believe we'll all be better off if we return to a small scale, polyculture model of localized production and distribution where more people are involved in direct farming and fewer in the marketing/middlemen/highly processed sections of the industry as that's were a lot of the problems are generated.  Look at the waste produced by the current middlemen distribution system, we ship it all over the world costing huge amounts of fuel and wasting lots of produce to spoilage.  We lose even more because marketing tells us that fruit and veges should be pristine, with no blemish, even though that has no inherent value and means there's a preponderance of poisons used to create it.  So I advocate that we choose to abandon these artificial societal values that add no value at great expense in order to create a more sustainable society.
 
Food Inc. is a good introduction, focusing mostly on meat production, as to how dysfunctional our current system is.  Also how many hurdles small scale organic farmers face because of the lobbies and entrenched system that don't want to lose their the revenue stream.
 
If the mod's feel this has gotten too far off topic or is too confrontational it makes sense to move it to hot topics.  I try to ensure I'm just expressing my own views in a constructive manner but equally acknowledge that most people find my bluntness fairly a**hole-ish....

sorry for all the edits in the last post, my touchpad is over sensitive and likes to screw with me...
 
In a semi Virgin area I can see it working IF from the start it is set up as you want.

BUT you'll not have the choice land here anymore.
Nobody is going to level the housing tracks etc to make room for farming land.

I don't think your dream will work except in undeveloped places which isn't the case here.

It's hard enough to just keep a park or two here in the city,let alone some guy raising a few crops and a few animals.

Here most of the land was owned by families for generations.They knew what they were doing.

I did see a lot of Ex Hippies up north that are similar to what you say.
They had no clue as to how to successfully farm.

They got Tax deeded farms for cheap and went trial and error from there.
They thought,plant a seed,water it and pick the product in a few months-easy...Right?

Most seemed to fail but a few figured it out and were eventually successful.

Most that I knew were into organic growing but had no idea what the proper way of doing it was at the time.
No internet etc. Trial and error mostly.

You are using isolated cases as if it would work everywhere.
I don't think it will in reality.
It's probably not possible to change the stuff that is already in place here in the U.S.

People want their chemical free food but won't do anything but drive to the place that sells them.
A lot don't want chickens , Pigs Cows or whatever close by either...might mess with the value of their house or Condo.

I don't see anyone being able to mess with the big guys who are going to keep doing what they are doing.

I'm talking about California/the U.S. in general.
I don't know about other places but Ca. grows a lot of food stuffs.
 
There's a huge food movement in California and universities exploring the systems I've discussed as the best option for the future.  SPIN farming has been studied by american universities as a way to revitalize destitute cities (like Detroit) by creating local economies that also create food security.  Look at what Will Allen is doing with urban aquaponics to produce lots of veges and fish at minimal impact.
 
These are isolated cases as the whole shift is just beginning to happen, but if you look at the sharp rise in them over the last couple years it shows an upward trend where more people realize how fragile the current model is.  Especially as the younger, educated generation comes into age the shift is accelerating.  The majority of people interested in permaculture are now in the 20-30 year range as their kids are the generation that's expected to have a shorter lifespan with more health issues related to our current model.
 
Contrasted with the current system which is struggling more and more.  California's almond crop for instance is threatened by the lack of bees to pollinate it, due to colony collapse most likely caused by the pesticide/fungicide/herbicides we've become dependent on.
 
I agree though, at this point the big petro-chem agri corps control the market and government through lobbying and actively suppress any change.  It's in our best interest to stop supporting them and move to a sustainable system but people won't because of a lack of awareness of the inherent problems, at least in the States.  If you look globally France has banned GMO corn because of their long term studies linking it to cancer.  This happened because of strong political will supported by the people, the President forced it through despite warnings that it may contravene EU law because it was in the best interest of the nation.  Contrasted to the US "monsanto protection act" that was recently passed, giving monsanto immunity from prosecution for any health consequences related to their GMO's.  Both are equally big agri-chem countries (France is the 2nd or 3rd largest consumer of pesticides) the difference comes down to political willpower which comes from the people.

Can you provide examples of farmers that have been growing organically for generations that have failed because they couldn't compete?  I was thinking about your statement and that's also happened here, but usually those farms are working within the petro-chem model and fail because of the economics of scale.  Which is supported by government subsidies, which eventually will be curtailed as they continue to bleed money and get further in debt.  Once those subsidies end and the true cost is reflected, why wouldn't people buy organic sustainable food as the cost isn't that different.
 
I know someone already posted htis a while back... but I think its appropriate right about here:  
 
Oh... and on a side note, why would we start a new thread.... everything we've been talking about is relevant to the original post.... keep it going on this thread.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzZzZ_qpZ4w
 
That's another wonderful example, there are more and more everyday.  Some low tech, some high.  I saw one ted talk about a food factory, using LEtD lights and hydroponic methods to produce food in the center of major urban cities where real estate is at a premium.  They've just set up their first one, but it shows that many people, from many different backgrounds (ie. that's a corporate, profit driven model) are realizing the value of considering sustainability as part of the bottom line.
 
smokemaster said:
People want their chemical free food but won't do anything but drive to the place that sells them.
A lot don't want chickens , Pigs Cows or whatever close by either...might mess with the value of their house or Condo.
 
That sums up the societal issue in a nutshell, people sense that there's a problem, aren't aware of the impact of the choices their making and choose material possession/comfort over what's best because of that lack of awareness.  Which obviously has to change from within, no other country (or on a personal level) can change someone's decision making process unless they choose to become aware of the situation and impacts.
 
Once again, as I always stress, I would love to read studies showing that organic sustainable methods can't match petro-chem models.  Most that have been provided to me in the past are from either the companies themselves or government studies working on the assumption that the current system will continue indefinitely and therefor try to match their outputs/low costs.  Not taking into account that the current system isn't sustainable and prices have been increasing despite all the money being thrown at it. 
 
In my plants and soils science class we watched a video about what happened in cuba as a result of their political isolation from the rest of the world.  Because they could not get the benefits of modern agriculture technology they had to perfect organic gardening techniques... which were quite effective.... it was pretty interesting... and was a pretty sustainable system from what I remember..... However, it required effort form EVERYONE in each community...
 
Also, on a related note, I am sure you all have seen the concept gardens that are multi-layered towers, which let light in through the sides (verticle gardens)....... those are a fairly interesting prospect for urban environments.
 
Here's a doc about how they transitioned from petro-chem to sustainable agriculture.
 
http://www.cultureunplugged.com/documentary/watch-online/play/11890/The-Greening-of-Cuba
 
I also thought I should clarify, it's not my dream for North America to  transition to a different model as it'd be presumptuous to think I know how others should live.  It's logical to me to transition to a sustainable model, but if society at large doesn't it's their choice.  I have made that choice for myself and am pursuing it through; expanding my garden (last year was 33 sq ft, this year it's 75 sq ft, I'm currently looking for 1/2 acre for next year), setting up an indoor garden to grow salad greens/spices/strawberries/ground cherries/tomatoes through the winter, supporting SILK which is a intentional community that's being developed in town, discussing setting up an eco-village in the New Liskeard area with a guy that owns 300+ acres up there as a stepping stone to developing Rachel's family property (which is 50-60 acres close to Wiarton).  That's my dream, self-reliance for me and my family while creating intentional communities of people who choose to live in a sustainable manner.  Through living this life I experience little fear and have greater stability from a sense of independence regardless of what happens with society, peak oil, climate change, etc.  Ironically climate change means that most of Canada with have a longer, more productive season which will mitigate the effects of increasingly violent/erratic weather patterns.  Apparently there's a land boom in New Liskeard at the moment because agri-corps are buying and clear cutting the land preparing it for agriculture, currently it's a zone 3-4 so fal from ideal...
 
As a lifelong social activist I have always been vocal about expressing my views and sharing the data their based on, I fully respect peoples right to disagree and have full respect for them regardless of how opposed our positions are.  One of my best friendships is based on years of arguing constructively, forcing us both to evolve our understanding of the world.  Debate is always good in my mind and I appreciate everyone who's contributed to this discussion.
 
Back
Top