People involved in the sustainable food movement have been debating the best ways to promote what Wendell Berry recently called "local adaptation" with regard to food and agriculture.
The point is to shift away from a paradigm of relying on a fossil fuel-powered agriculture system to feed people living far away from the actual farms where the food is grown.
On the other side of this conversation are powerful interests who, under the guise of the imperative to provide food and nutrition to the world's poor, want to consolidate the grip of industrial agriculture over the global food system. Echoing Margaret Thatcher's old chestnut about corporate-led globalization as the only possible economic system, they declare that "there is no alternative" to handing control of food production over to Cargill, Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, and a few other companies.
In a recent article in Time, Bryan Walsh concluded that "Organic farming yields less per acre than standard farming, which means a worldwide Slow Food initiative might lead to turning more forests into farmland." Right.
And now former British chief scientist Sir David King has been using his bully pulpit to thunder against organics and in favor of GMOs, going so far as to accuse sustainable-ag advocates of helping "keep Africa poor."
These are knotty issues, and I've dealt with them before. Time's Walsh is essentially refrying an old Economist attack on sustainable ag, which I rebutted.
Walsh actually interviewed me for his recent piece; my perspective landed on the cutting-room floor. I essentially told Walsh that a) industrial agriculture has never proven it can feed the world; you've got millions of hungry people even in places where it's most established, like the U.S. and Brazil; b) industrial ag has never proven it can actually nourish folks; everywhere it is embraced, diet-related maladies surge; c) industrial ag will be hard-pressed to sustain itself much longer -- it's too dependent on finite resources like petroleum, natural gas, and mined fertilizers, as well as chemical pesticides, antibiotics, and concentrations of waste; plus it generates more than a sixth of global greenhouse gas; and d) decades of government policies propping up industrial ag will make it extremely difficult to switch over to new, region-based, locally adapted, low-input systems -- systems that could indeed feed the world.
As for Sir David King's tired calumnies, I've written about the so-called Green Revolution in Africa that he's championing as well. Sir David behaves as though "Western environmentalists" have somehow blocked petrochemicals, hybrid seeds, and irrigation projects -- the so-called "Green Revolution" package -- from establishing in Africa. That's wrong; these things established themselves Africa in the '60s and '70s, just as they were taking root in Asia. But in Africa, they largely failed -- they simply weren't adapted to local growing conditions.
Unabashed, Sir David insists that a second Green Revolution -- this one involving genetically modified seeds -- is the answer to Africa's food woes. Can he name a single genetically modified seed strain relevant to Africa that has actually raised yields?
Second, before he blusters about agro-tech as the only answer for Africa, he should look over the ocean to the example of India -- the first Green Revolution's greatest success. India has also embraced genetically modified seeds.
In the span of just two generations, industrial-scale farming has drawn down the water table to perilous levels across large swaths of India. Meanwhile, farmers on the GMO/agrichemical treadmill have been gripped by a sustained wave of suicides, attributed in large part to the severe financial strain from debt incurred from buying pricey inputs.
No doubt, Africa faces a tragic food crisis. But Sir David disgraces himself by presenting high-tech, input-heavy ag as a panacea. In truth, the "traditional" ag techniques that he treats so contemptuously have been systematically under attack for more than a generation, as the IMF and World Bank have pushed national governments to dismantle farmer-support programs.
Will Africa’s farmland become a ‘resource curse’?
Grist Exclusive: Will Whole Foods’ new mobile slaughterhouses squeeze small farmers?
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 12:13 pm
08 Sep 2008
I mean, would you rather write a blog on a computer and then go home and watch a dvd, or eat at a restaurant where other people cook for you...or, labor for 15 hours a day on farm?
I don't think going back to some Rousseau-ian nirvana that never was is the answer. I also think that the current agribusiness model produces a lot of really bad food.
But the answer is to make the agri-factory produce good food. There's no going backwards...
Permalink
Jonas Posted 6:24 pm
08 Sep 2008
Everything Sir David says is correct. There is not really anything to debate, is there?
Reason will absolutely triumph in this discussion that should never have arisen in the first place.
One simple point: there are matters so important (the survival of 3 billion poor farmers, the construction of nuclear power plants, climate change, sending humans to the Moon, etc...), that they should be the exclusive domain of qualified and trustworthy people - that is scientists and engineers.
It's not because you have an internet connection but are disconnected from basic knowledge, truth and understanding of the real world, that you should be allowed to participate in thinking about matters as important as these.
Really, let's leave science to scientists. I have nothing against local trends (be it buying trendy eco-correct fish-leather bikinis or going slow food), but the big problems of our time are too important for them to be spoiled by follies and fashion.
I think I did my part of expressing my view on the slow food issue, earlier here at Grist. I'm glad that most of what I said is now echoed by Sir David and other scientists.
Permalink
jterhune Posted 7:16 pm
08 Sep 2008
My experience dictates that we can improve food security by training farmers in sustainble, affordable solutions that build soil instead of destroying it, and by developing strong local food economies that utilize local inputs.
And a little sweat equity doesn't bother me either...
Currently, I am harvesting more than enough fruit and vegetables from a very small area in my backyard to feed my family. I work 52 hours a week; I spend less than an hour in my garden every morning and love every minute of it!
We need to bring Victory Gardens back!
Jeremy Terhune
San Joaquin Valley Rep.
Permalink
Jonas Posted 7:35 pm
08 Sep 2008
Permalink
Russ Posted 8:16 pm
08 Sep 2008
I too was going to refer people to our debate on this, on I forget which thread (but one of the Slow Food ones - probably the first, with the manifesto), since King's talking points are identical to yours.
One simple point: there are matters so important (the survival of 3 billion poor farmers, the construction of nuclear power plants, climate change, sending humans to the Moon, etc...), that they should be the exclusive domain of qualified and trustworthy people - that is scientists and engineers.
Wrong. These are first and foremost political, social, and economic issues, things about which scientists generally know nothing.
Let's look at your list. Only on climate change are the scientists on the right side of history.
Nukes have always been and will always be a toxic boondoggle, while sending men to the moon was the biggest waste of money and most frivolous exercise in useless narcissism in man's history.
As for industrial agriculture, fossil-fuel dependency and GMOs, although I don't know for sure I'd bet most scientists are on the wrong side of sustainability, equity, and freedom here as well.
Really, let's leave science to scientists.
I'm afraid science is too important to leave to the scientists.
The fact is, most scientists are literal sociopaths. As a matter of professional culture, practice, and usually pride, they hold aloof from political and moral concerns and disclaim all responsibility for the social and environmental consequences of their actions. They believe only in instrumental reason, where no ends-means consideration even exists since ends are irrelevant, only the practical integrity of the means.
Indeed, they have alot in common with the old German professional military structure. Sociopathic, hermetic professionalism.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 9:55 pm
08 Sep 2008
Everyone is welcome to follow scientific debate. But this has to be done in the proper manner. This is called the scientific spirit.
The utmost importance should be given to data driven analysis.
Constant validation of hypotheses by experimentation.
Rigorous study supported by mathematics.
Immediate dissemination of your results by publications.
Withstanding to very rigorous criticism through blind referee process.
There is a reason why it takes several years to obtain a Masters degree in science and further several more years to obtain a doctorate. Then it takes several decades for you to establish a reputation. This takes a lot of hard work and practice. Tested over time by such process, all the great scientists are really humble and patient.
The problem with political activism is that they appeal to the baser emotions of people, and reason gets excluded. This is not the right way to do science.
The fact is, most scientists are literal sociopaths. As a matter of professional culture, practice, and usually pride, they hold aloof from political and moral concerns and disclaim all responsibility for the social and environmental consequences of their actions.
This is utterly, utterly false. And personally, I take it as a slander because I aim to be a scientist one day. Did you even know that the biggest opposition to the use of the nuclear bomb came from the scientists who were part of the Los Alamos laboratory ? It is the politicians who forced its use.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 11:52 pm
08 Sep 2008
This population is a given, and we cannot wish it away. This problem is a by-product of the success in the health sector, and we have to live with this problem for several centuries.
Fertilizer driven, water intensive, improved seed variety based green revolution is a must for nourishing all the people. This is what has been proven in India. And what needs to be implemented in Africa. The scientific update that we have over the last two decades in genetics - which result in less water use, less fertilizer use and more resistant to diseasese - has to be used for this green revolution.
In the span of just two generations, industrial-scale farming has drawn down the water table to perilous levels across large swaths of India. Meanwhile, farmers on the GMO/agrichemical treadmill have been gripped by a sustained wave of suicides, attributed in large part to the severe financial strain from debt incurred from buying pricey inputs.
I am an Indian, and I have ready answers for these two points.
1. Water table : India's population is exceedingly high. The depletion of water table is a natural outcome of this, green revolution or not. Water scarcity is one of the most serious problems facing India as a nation, and we have to live with it for a few centuries. This problem will be solved by better water management, linking of rivers to avoid drought and flooding, and finally water desalination projects.
2. Farmer suicides : The reason for farmer suicides is the lack of access to credit. Limited land holdings and extreme economic pressure due to price inflation is forcing several farmers to commit suicides, whether they use GMO seeds or not. The solution lies in reducing the number of people dependent on agriculture and improving the access of microcredit to farmers. Better planning of water and fertilizer distribution will also help.
GMO seeds have problems. But these problems need to be discussed in an objective manner, as being done in certain other threads on grist. The above two issues are non-issues when discussing problems related to GMOs.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Russ Posted 12:07 am
09 Sep 2008
The utmost importance should be given to data driven analysis.
Constant validation of hypotheses by experimentation.
Rigorous study supported by mathematics.
Immediate dissemination of your results by publications.
Withstanding to very rigorous criticism through blind referee process.
I have nothing but respect for the scientific method, which is one of the most excellent tools ever devised, even if it remains utterly beyond the comprehension of most people including elected officials.
Nevertheless, it is nothing more than a tool, which can have good or evil applications (I compare it to a loaded gun) depending upon the ends for which it is enlisted. Where it is left to itself, as I said, it has no values other than the nihilism of instrumental reason and success-worship. The fundamental credo of most scientists and technicians is, "If it can be done, it should be done. Technology justifies itself, and no other value exists which could ever be appealed to for the cause of restraining it."
I was rejecting Jonas' contention that science should dictate policy, thereby enslaving all socioeconomic and socioenvironmental policy under this technology-itself[and concomitant profits]-justifies-any-outcome, which is also evidently David King's position.
There's a good reason why it's wise to be leery of scientists making policy prescriptions, even if in recent years it's mostly been the Right saying this vis climate change (an unusual exception).
I stress that I mean "most scientists". I regard James Hansen as one of the few true heroes of our time.
This is utterly, utterly false. And personally, I take it as a slander because I aim to be a scientist one day. Did you even know that the biggest opposition to the use of the nuclear bomb came from the scientists who were part of the Los Alamos laboratory ? It is the politicians who forced its use.
First of all, I said "most scientists". I know nothing about you personally, and there's no reason for you to take it personally. (The same goes for anybody else who thinks this doesn't describe him.)
Second, I said "most scientists". Yes I know about the deep ambivalence at Los Alamos, and of course you don't need to tell me about politicians.
I never said there weren't exceptions.
But I stand by my description of the rule. If I would've tallied every example I've come across of a scientist suggesting caution, or even that a line of research or technological development not be followed up, in the name of some higher value, vs. the number of times I've seen variations on "It's not my responsibility" and purely instrumental justifications, regardless of any hazard, the ratio would be extremely lopsided.
It's coincident that we discuss this as they're opening that collider in Europe, where many are worried that it may create black holes which can destroy the planet.
Now, I don't think that will happen. But, reading somewhat on the subject, I was struck by two things.
First, the scientists don't seem to have any real justification for this project at all. Even leaving Peak Oil out of it, I couldn't see how this was ever going to benefit the non-rich.
It really looks like a super-expensive toy that lets them play with the same thoughts I can play with reading a book of Hegel or Kant I got for a few bucks at the used book store.
Second, every expert, including the boosters for the project, does concede a probability, however infinitesimal, that this thing really will destroy the earth.
So I said, even if the odds are one in a googolplex, if the only upside is to let these scientists have a glorified late-night dorm-room bull session, then those odds are still too high for me, and lots of people agree with me.
But what difference does it make? Most scientists wouldn't understand a word of this, because it enlists values other than if-it-can-be-done-it-should-be-done.
Permalink
DukeJ Posted 1:25 am
09 Sep 2008
"Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food on individual farms in developing countries, as low-intensive methods on the same land--according to new findings which refute the long-standing claim that organic farming methods cannot produce enough food to feed the global population."
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:33 am
09 Sep 2008
In the corporate system only a few jobs even exist, most people are left to become victims. Of ethnic cleansing or prostitution or worse, child army soldiers that do the ethnic cleansing.
Organic farming can feed the people, and employ them. Smart organic farming that maximizes productivity and vegetarian diets that maximize nutrition could change the world. The developed world and the undeveloped.
It can even produce energy. And GHG offset.
It behooves the wealthy parts of this planet to poineer this effort and rapidly spread low tech, high productivity solutions to those who are starving and suffering. We are our brothers and sisters keepers, wether we realize it or not.
Ignore that fact and reap the whirlwind, once the four horsemen start their march technologically advanced civilization is even more vulnerable (at least some humans in devestated regions might have immunity). Try to stop disease with security checks, for instance. It's not going to work.
The much more quickly evolving viruses and bacteria, given starving human victims aplenty in the corporate expoited regions, will not be stoppable once they reach a certain level of evolutionary advantage.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:37 am
09 Sep 2008
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 1:52 am
09 Sep 2008
a. Those populations are moved to locations better able to sustain them.
b. We continue growing food for them and shipping it to them.
c. They die.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:01 am
09 Sep 2008
The soils all over Africa have been depleted by colonial and now multinational corporate agricultural practices, basically mining the soil to produce cocoa and other, mostly nonessential goods for the rich countries. I don't know how hard it would be to reclaim those areas, but there has been extensive erosion. Some of that is the fault of previous civilizations -- for instance, the Ethiopians farming too intensively in the hills and mountains, destroying the productive power of those lands. Mad Mac, I don't know what you saw in terms of erosion in Somalia, but my bet is that that was a huge factor in that country's poverty as well.
So we really don't know how many people Africa could feed sustainably. Again, the best source for this seems to be the Food First people.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:03 am
09 Sep 2008
And the ones who do grow local food successfully are victimized by the local warlord's army. How do you stabilize a region like this MAC? You have been there and seen it first hand.
We anti-corporate types blame the expolitation of resources by multinationals. But even when corporations are not involved, does chaos ensue anyway, as those with guns exploit those without guns?
It's a dark area few organic ag fans are likely to consider. It's just too sickening to face.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
vakibs Posted 2:16 am
09 Sep 2008
The economic well-being of a society can be measured by observing the number of people employed in these 3 sectors (1) agriculture (2) manufacturing (3) services.
As the society progresses economically, the majority of the population shift towards manufacturing and finally towards working in the services. Why is this so ? Automation largely replaces the need of humans to engage in physical labor. This is the crucial reason why life is comfortable in an industrialized country. It is an inalienable right of every country in the world to develop economically and move towards a service oriented economy. Employing more and more people in agriculture is not the answer.
The questions right now are (a) Does this process of automation be obtained without inevitably damaging the environment : GHG emissions, soil depletion, water table depletion, biodiversity loss etc ? (b) If yes, can the whole global population lead a comfortable life in an automated world ? (c) If yes, how long is this sustainable ?
According to me, the answers are (a) yes (b) yes (c) for several centuries or even millenia, with just the technology that we currently have.
Organic farming can yield up to three times as much food on individual farms in developing countries
What is needed to increase yield in developing countries is investment in farmland . This can target individual farmers through institutions such as microcredit. But once there is sufficient access to credit, farmers will automatically adopt good practices. We can encourage them to use organic practices as much as possible, such as crop rotation, green manures, less pesticide use etc.. But, they will also need to use advanced scientific methods of disease-resistant seeds, high-yield varieties, fertilizers and so on..
We should not rule out any technology, what we need are proper safeguards against overuse, misuse and abuse.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:24 am
09 Sep 2008
But we are talking about cultures devestated by deprivation and barbaric mass murder. Natural evolution from family farming, to small business, to orderly fair representative local governance is the right path.
You can't just install corporate ag from outside and expect a civilized culture to return. Force over people and markets just doesn't work. It doesn't produce the desired results.
Besides which, organic ag can be mechanized and acheive even higher productivity than chemical ag.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:32 am
09 Sep 2008
Similarly, we've probably depopulated manufacturing more than it should be, even with automation. Automation doesn't just occur on its own, it needs engineers and skilled production workers to make it work. Europe still has a much larger manufacturing sector than the US, and the US will have to regain much of its manufacturing in order prosper.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 4:15 am
09 Sep 2008
Fewer people in agriculture would require that migrant workers travel to crops in surges. This requires excess housing be built and maintained by specialist builders that travel to job sites. The food and housing is purchased by some other kind of specialist in retail or the mysterious "services" that has to drive around to meet needs that could be met on a 1/3 acre plot. All of this driving requires more roads, and more traffic management specialists.
So rather than have having a person working 600 hours away from the home and otherwise supporting themselves we would have people work 2000 hours outside the home and require the support of a few hundred specialists all driving independently to their 2000 hour jobs.
How is the second scenario less energy intensive again?
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:17 am
09 Sep 2008
Egypt grows just as much food now as it did 2,000 yeas ago. The problem is there are MANY more Romans and, most importantly, Egyptians. The population of Egypt is bursting at the seams.
"The soils all over Africa have been depleted by colonial and now multinational corporate agricultural practices, basically mining the soil to produce cocoa and other, mostly nonessential goods for the rich countries."
And for themselves. Khat is a huge export product in Ethiopia - it's existence has nothing to do with corporations (at least not western ones) or Colonialism.
"Mad Mac, I don't know what you saw in terms of erosion in Somalia, but my bet is that that was a huge factor in that country's poverty as well."
Water, not erosion, is the number one factor in East Africa and the Middle East. There's not enough water, because there's not enough rainfall. The populations grew out of proportion for the land to feed these areas because:
a. Food was imported.
b. Modern pharmaceuticals allowed people to live who used to die.
Somalis always had large families, but most of the kids died before they reached adulthood. Now they live and breed like their parents did.
"So we really don't know how many people Africa could feed sustainably. Again, the best source for this seems to be the Food First people."
East Africa can probably sustain about half of what it feeds now. The Middle East, about ten percent. There is no getting around it - they can't go local. They don't have the water to do so.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:27 am
09 Sep 2008
"And the ones who do grow local food successfully are victimized by the local warlord's army. How do you stabilize a region like this MAC? You have been there and seen it first hand."
We can't. They have to get there on their own. The resources it would take to stabilize Somalia are more than we are willing to invest there. If I thought that intervention could do any good, I'd have taken the job I was offered with the African Union in Mogadischu. But it's a Sisyphean task that has no end.
"We anti-corporate types blame the expolitation of resources by multinationals. But even when corporations are not involved, does chaos ensue anyway, as those with guns exploit those without guns?"
Yep, this is the natural order of things. This is why civil government is so important. As much as I hate doing my taxes, and I hate chicken shit bureaucracy, and cops get on my nerves...... all I have to do is remember what it was like in Somalia to know these things are necessary evils. I just don't want to give them too much rope.. lest they hang me with it.
"It's a dark area few organic ag fans are likely to consider. It's just too sickening to face."
Actually, I am not opposed to organic food or the local movement per se. Hell I eat organic and I eat mostly local too - for practical reasons of course. All I am saying is that some people who have declared the corporate world the enemy and industrial agriculture a fiend haven't completely walked the dog. They see the negatives - and those are fair criticisms. But they want to pretend there's no upside, when there is. Tell some young mother in Somalia "sorry, your kid has to die, because industrial agriculture is bad". I think in a sense Russ is right, and some of this is going to happen anyway. It's nobodies fault, life just ain't fair sometimes. But I saw a lot of suffering when I was there, so it doesn't make it any easier to confront just because it's probably unavoidable. I think of my little girl and how tragic it would be for me, unbearably painful, if I could not afford to feed her.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Jonas Posted 4:40 am
09 Sep 2008
The right-wing, reactionary, conservative anti-science movement in Africa (the NGOs King is so hard against and our proverbial slow food fan), is pushing recipes that resemble a romantic retreat back towards traditional medecine.
Surely, as a wealthy post-modern person, it is nice to experiment a bit with traditional and exotic medecine - but at least you have a back-up by modern science-based medecine. If you have a serious illness, you go to a real doctor, not to a quack.
And yes, there are some interesting micro-aspects about traditional medicine, for sure, worth investigating.
But to ask that the poor rely on these traditions for their own survival is outright obscene. They need modern medecine, they need to dump their traditional practises as soon as possible, and treat them as a romantic thing from the past, something to reuse only when they have developed a serious backbone on which they can rely in earnest.
The analogy is entirely valid, because when it comes to food farming, we are talking about survival too.
The right-wing slow food movement should not be allowed to project its anti-science ideas on the rest of the world and demand they follow.
One more point: I think many of the reactionary, anti-science, anti-modern NGOs from the West, are blatantly racist. Their call for the African to remain in some blissful state of idyllic poverty and misery, is outright racist. It is the continuation of 19th century exoticism by other means.
But racism is to be expected from right-wingers.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:13 am
09 Sep 2008
Instead of throwing darts at extremes, let's talk about what makes sense. And it makes sense, now, while maybe we have time, to move as far toward food self-sufficiency as possible -- once you get to the point were people would go hungry or be more self-sufficient, you obviously back off and look for other options. Nobody is advocating cutting off all grain trade, or even much of it, until better systems are in place.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 5:36 am
09 Sep 2008
I wonder what Wolverine would say - he wants the planets population down to around 500,000,000 humans. There's only one way to get there.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:51 am
09 Sep 2008
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:35 pm
09 Sep 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:52 pm
09 Sep 2008
A fine job, everyone. The whole works and those who set it up and keep it going have truly produced a strange and wonderful internet streetcorner. Appreciation is due, even if it is embarrassing to them, hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 5:00 pm
09 Sep 2008
If that's a few days then an extra sack of rice rotated through the pantry will do you good but if it is ever months and your potatoes aren't already planted in well prepared soil then you should be prepared to fast.
Somebody, somewhere is dying as you read this waiting patiently for the grain truck to show up at the relief station. It won't show up in time.
Every year I crack acorns from the fresh crop and make acorn mash and eat it. Just to stay in practice. Whatever your local analogue is make sure you know the technique.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 8:30 pm
09 Sep 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
vakibs Posted 12:00 am
10 Sep 2008
You know what, amazing ? I have been thinking the environmentalist movement is looking a little like the epic battle of Tolkien's Lord of the rings. If you read the book (or seen the movie), you will remember a lot of different creatures fighting together against the evil forces of Sauron.
Dwarves, men and elves come together and fight against the army of orcs and goblins.
Left to themselves, dwarves hate elves and elves despise dwarves. And men fight each other. But in the epic battle against evil, they fight shoulder to shoulder.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:09 am
10 Sep 2008
So modern chemical ag can take over the land.
This is what I mean by diverse experience, listen to it carefully everyone. Most of us only see this happening on video.
And isn't a farm foreclosed even in these US of A, really done at the point of a gun? The reality is that the SWAT team will eventually show up if people try to stay on the land after foreclosure, it has happened many times here in "civilized" country.
The relative liesure life of the financially solvent is dissapearing for a lot of beleagured, formerly middle class families.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:23 am
10 Sep 2008
On the Elf and Hobbit front. I visit local waterfalls going into Lake Superior on my trail running trips. I was at Manganese Falls in Copper Harbor, climbinmg around in a water cut, moss covered chasm, and thought, right around the next corner one could expect to see an Elf or Hobbit.
And the old manganese mine there reminds one of over zealous Dwarfs pushing their mining too far. It's all water filled in the lower levels now.
There's even a Hobbit type legend set in the Lake Superior forests.
'No place had as great an attraction for her as the forest of pines stretching westward along the shore line to the Point. This was called "Manitowak," or the Sacred Grove. In the Sacred Grove there lived the Little Men of the Woods, the Fairies "Puk Wudjiinees," who came from the evening star'
http://mattsonworks.com/Little_Girls_Point.html
As far as Mordor, look at any big factory town, like Gary.
The more people that see the mytery behind everyday life, the better the chance we have at overcoming a "Sauron", like Murdoch, and his sick underling Rove. Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:26 am
10 Sep 2008
That's Tolkien country.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:28 am
10 Sep 2008
They missed Manganese Falls.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Russ Posted 1:28 am
10 Sep 2008
If I recall correctly, one of the reasons elves despise dwarves is because of their zealous mining.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:19 am
10 Sep 2008
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Russ Posted 9:08 am
10 Sep 2008
I also remember how, when Gimli was telling Legolas about the gem caverns at Helm's Deep, legolas' first impulse was to say something like, "Yeah, it's so beautiful, and you guys are going to destroy it."
Unfortunately, all too real....
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 3:51 pm
10 Sep 2008
You people are all myopically and anthropocentrically focusing only on humans. Your chemical agriculture has killed and is killing millions of others, destroying ecosystems, and severely polluting the planet. This is more immoral than allowing members of an overpopulated species to starve, which is what would happen in nature anyway. Which humans would starve would of course not be fair -- it would be the poorest and least powerful -- but it would still be far better than further dousing the Earth with more chemical poisons.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 7:25 pm
10 Sep 2008
You are criticizing a lot of people here as "anti-environment" anthropocentric and so on. You label yourself as pro-environment but as far as I can see, you are just "anti-human". You remind me of the ancient Aztecs who sacrificed humans at the altars of the weather gods. Did these sacrifices result in an improved weather is an open question. I would say no.
Considering that you are interested in Buddhist philosophy, let me try to explain you a little of what I know from there.
Anthropocentrism in ancient Indian thought
The Brhdaranyaka Upanishad mentions that there are different levels of existence.
Ones which just exist : inanimate matter
Ones which have life : plants
Ones which have mind : animals
Ones which have understanding : men
Ones which have supreme happiness : enlightened men
Each of these levels of existence subsumes the earlier ones. For example, in addition to having a mind, animals have life (like plants) and they exist (like matter). The thing that they have in addition is in a completely different dimension, which is inconceivable in the earlier 2 dimensions.
What sets humanity apart from animals, plants and matter is our ability of understanding and reasoning. This is the defining dimension of our human existence. This manifests in 3 spheres : art, science and compassion, all of which are uniquely human.
I contend that all the ills we see in the planet are not because of human-ness, but a direct result of the lack of human-ness, the lack of this principle dimension of our humanity. There are too many human beings on this planet whose existence spreads only into the 3 early spheres : they don't appreciate art and science and they are not compassionate. Several human beings don't even function with a simple mind (they are lesser than animals). And further several human beings, even lack a life to speak of (they are lesser than even plants).
We should first work towards fulfilling our human existence. Then most problems in our world will disappear. This is not being anthropocentric. This is the clear reality.
Buddhists say that there is a further higher dimension than human existence. That is of enlightenment, where you can experience supreme bliss or ananda. This domain is only within the reach of a few select persons - the Bodhisattvas whose compassion subsumes every single human, every single animal, every single plant and every single particle in the universe. This state is called the nirvana where you become one with the universe.
This is improbable (or even impossible) to achieve for most of us ordinary humans. But at least, we can try to justify our basic humanity : which is the capacity of understanding.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 8:28 pm
10 Sep 2008
It's very common actually. When two or more historically hostile groups band together to defeat a common enemy, usually they will turn upon each other again once the common threat has been defeated.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 8:38 pm
10 Sep 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
vakibs Posted 9:03 pm
10 Sep 2008
Compassion is uniquely human. What we find in the animal kingdom is evolved behavior to ensure the perpetuity of one's genes. All such behavior (even seemingly altruistic behavior) can be understood from the perspective of the selfish gene.. I don't know if you have read Richard Dawkin's book, but you can find several examples in there.
The love of a mother to her offspring is one of the most beautiful things in nature, but it doesn't qualify as compassion. It is purely selfish behavior for one's genes.
What sets us humans apart is our ability to empathize with several other creatures which have nothing to do with our genes. Not everybody possesses/exhibits this trait, but this compassion is one of the things which make us humans unique. It is the direct result of our ability to understand and reason (called vijñāna in Sanskrit).
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:34 am
11 Sep 2008
To compare my advocacy for everything non-human with Aztec sacrifices is not only idiotic, it's a completely false analogy. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other, period. I don't support the Aztecs in any way. They were overpopulated, violent agriculturalists who unfortunately got their comeuppance from people who were far worse in those regards. Too bad both groups didn't just starve out like agricultural societies eventually do.
As to your "Buddhist" ideas: The beginning of what you wrote is from Hinduism, not Buddhism. What the hell does a Upanishad have to do with Buddhism, other than that Buddhism is to Hinduism what Christianity is to Judaism?
The basic ideas of Buddhism are 1) living in the present and being aware of yourself and your actions at all times, 2) shedding your desires, beginning with your material ones, and 3) realizing we are all one with everything in the universe and that any feelings of separation are just illusions.
The ideas of enlightenment and enlightened people are Utopian goals that are to be striven for, but cannot be reached. Thinking that there are certain people who are capable of reaching some godlike state while everyone else is doomed to a lower level of existence is a gross misunderstanding of Buddhist teachings. Anyone can raise his or her level of consciousness; the issue is whether one is willing to make the effort and give it priority, which is what separates more enlightened people from everyone else. Like everything else in life, some people can attain higher levels than others, but everyone can reach a higher level than the common person who is stuck in the wheel of desires and the illusion of separation, and whose mind is constantly wandering instead of focusing on the here and now.
On the subject of anthropocentrism v. biocentrism, traditional indigenous people -- who understand that humans are no better or more important than any other form of life and that everything in the natural world is alive -- are far more spiritually evolved than whoever wrote or believes what you summarized from Hinduism. There is absolutely no evidence, scientific or otherwise, that people are better or more important than any other form of life. Each species has capabilities that others lack, but choosing one set of capabilities, anointing it the most important one, then claiming that because humans are the only species that can perform it they are superior, is just totally subjective human worshiping garbage. By my personal standards, my first horse was far more intelligent than the vast majority of people I've met!
Ecologically speaking, humans are almost certainly the least important species on the planet. I can't think of one ecological function that humans fulfill. Because of that, if you want to prioritize species, humans should be given the least priority, not the most.
Finally, your assertion that if humans acted, well, more human, all would be fine is not subject to analysis, because the standards are far too subjective and amorphous. For example, of course if everyone acted with compassion instead of greed things would be much better, but would humans also act with compassion toward the natural world? If not, things would not be any better for it, just for humans. And lack of appreciation of art and sciences is not at all an environmental problem. Lack of appreciation of biology, especially wildlife biology and marine biology, and ecology are serious environmental problems, but appreciation of traditional indigenous teachings would serve as well or better.
Permalink
HWilkes Posted 4:53 am
11 Sep 2008
Wolverine:
I often wonder reading your comments as to whether you would be so callous as to the suffering of members of this overpopulated species if you really envisioned yourself as one of those people that are the most likely to suffer?
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 5:08 am
11 Sep 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 5:12 am
11 Sep 2008
"As to your "Buddhist" ideas: The beginning of what you wrote is from Hinduism, not Buddhism. What the hell does a Upanishad have to do with Buddhism, other than that Buddhism is to Hinduism what Christianity is to Judaism?"
Easily one of the dumbest things I have ever read anywhere. Since Christianities roots are obviously in Judaism - Jesus was a Jew you moron.
"The basic ideas of Buddhism are 1) living in the present and being aware of yourself and your actions at all times, 2) shedding your desires, beginning with your material ones, and 3) realizing we are all one with everything in the universe and that any feelings of separation are just illusions."
Written by an idiot who has NEVER lived in a Bhudist country and it's OBVIOUS.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
vakibs Posted 2:03 am
12 Sep 2008
Do you find my attempt at having a conversation with you to be very unusual ? It is surely a difference from your regular day.. you expressing your contempt for other human beings, and they expressing their contempt for you in return.
I don't know if it helps at all, but it is my responsibility to answer some stuff you threw at me.
What the hell does a Upanishad have to do with Buddhism, other than that Buddhism is to Hinduism what Christianity is to Judaism?
Hinduism is not a religion. Each Upanishad offers a different strand of philosophy, and they are all quite different. Indian culture is very syncretic, and ideas get borrowed and thrown around different religions.
Buddhism is an offshoot of the Sramána way of life : which has its roots in the Samkhya and Yoga philosophies. The terminology used in Buddhism ( ánanda, nirvána etc.. ) is borrowed from the language of these philosophic schools. I just traced you the roots of this language in the Brhdáranyaká Upanishad.
I haven't given you any of the teachings of the Upanishad in question (And I am not the right guy for this job), but merely explained the language to you.
Thinking that there are certain people who are capable of reaching some godlike state while everyone else is doomed to a lower level of existence is a gross misunderstanding of Buddhist teachings.
No, this is not correct. You have definitely misinterpreted me. Achieving supreme bliss (ánanda) is a long path, and you cannot get it in a minute. Buddhists believe that this path sometimes requires you to suffer several birth-death-cycles, improving yourself on each step. This idea of karmá is another misunderstood concept of Indian thought.
But the point is, striving towards this eternal bliss is what we should all do. (it is not the privilege of some supermen).
The 3 Buddhist principles (awareness, shedding desire, monism) that you mentioned are present in several other ancient texts as well.
) realizing we are all one with everything in the universe and that any feelings of separation are just illusions.
My earlier message says exactly the same thing. I wonder how you missed that. the Bodhisattvas whose compassion subsumes every single human, every single animal, every single plant and every single particle in the universe. This state is called the nirvana where you become one with the universe.
On the subject of anthropocentrism v. biocentrism, traditional indigenous people who understand that humans are no better or more important than any other form of life and that everything in the natural world is alive
Humans are matter. Humans are life. And, Humans are animals. But, humans are something more. What is this something more ?
jñāna comes from the same root as the words know, gnosis etc. It means awareness, perceptory knowledge. All forms of life possess this.
How to react to such perceptory impulses is usually hard-coded in the genes : this is true for plants.
Animals possess something bigger : control mechanisms to react to unexpected inputs. This mechanism is provided by the brain, a necessary organ for animals to handle the demands of mobility and finding food.
What humans possess is bigger than a brain : we possess a way of abstract reasoning over jñāna, this is called vijñāna. The closest English word for this is cognition (co+gnosis) / understanding / science .
We are a unique species that can represent abstract concepts as symbols. For example, we can create a story of Pinnochio and appreciate that story.
If you want to understand how marvellous humanity is, you should study cognitive science.
All this is not to say that human beings are important. Each single particle in this universe is equally important. This is just to understand the basics of our human existence.
And lack of appreciation of art and sciences is not at all an environmental problem. Lack of appreciation of biology, especially wildlife biology and marine biology, and ecology are serious environmental problems, but appreciation of traditional indigenous teachings would serve as well or better.
Just possessing the ability for understanding is not sufficient. We should actively use it. This is what we as humans are supposed to do. Then we will do things such as art, science and compassion. Science includes wildlife biology and ecology. And compassion includes caring for the environment and ecosystems.
What I say is that this is the basic requirement of fulfilling our human existence. Being human necessarily means being pro-environment. And it also means something more than that.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 2:15 am
12 Sep 2008
I once heard an amazing story of what happened with a pet parrot, in a first hand narrative. The family apparently left the parrot at home and went on vacation for a couple of days. When they returned, the parrot was bleeding. It apparently tried to commit suicide, as it was unable to bear the pangs of separation.
This blew my mind away. And on and off, we hear stories about tigers caring for dog cubs in the zoo.
Should we call all this compassion ? I don't know. My feeling is that when the co-existence with other species is mutually beneficial, different animals make special bond between them. These benefits might be as simple as food, but can also be social companionship. All animals are social. When you find kind things in the animal world, it is possibly due to this.
We humans, on the other hand, empathize with distant unrelated things. That is why we cry and laugh, when we watch movies. I don't know if any other animal does the same.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:45 am
12 Sep 2008
So the question is, how to get back to the positive aspects of BA, while using our technology and knowledge that we have since gained. I think permaculture is a good example of that.
Separating humans from all other biological existence doesn't make much practical sense at this point, because unless we get humanity onto a "techno-indigenous" path, humanity will probably take down much of the biosphere with it.
The biosphere will eventually recover after an apocalypse, but nobody here wants that, including you. It seems to me that some sort of learning from Hindu/Buddhist plus indigenous philosophies would probably be helpful in that regard (and I'll follow Vakibs on the technical aspects of Indian philosophy).
So the planet is stuck with humans, and we have to figure out a way to get humans moving in the right direction.
Permalink
Paleocon Posted 4:23 am
12 Sep 2008
Leftists are willing to let Africans starve and die from malaria so leftists can feel good about themselves.
The idea that small farms are the most efficient way of producing food and raising living standards is insanity at this point in history.
Where is the most productive soil in the world? Is it the community plot in Berkeley, or the 10,00 acre farm in Iowa that is planted, maintained and harvested based upon a GPS integrated map of the farm?
Who feeds more people per square foot and frees the human spirit to soar to new heights as the body us unshackled from oppressive manual labor?
"Sustainable" = "enslaved"
Africans are not your pets, leftists.
Sustainability is measured by the left in static terms. It ignores man's ability to innovate. It is a juvenile concept.
"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:39 am
12 Sep 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Russ Posted 5:47 am
12 Sep 2008
I haven't posted on this thread in days, you jackass!
(Boy, this clown is obsessed with me. It's like having a stalker.)
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:58 pm
13 Sep 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 1:58 am
14 Sep 2008
Some horse. You must have been happy then. Shame about the despicable oafs you have apparently had to hang out with since. By the way, does this include your native american buddies or do they qualify as honorary non-humans?
And tell me, did this smart critter understand that he/she was YOUR horse? Isn't the idea of ownership (read: enslavement) of another living creature kinda inconsistent with the ideal of biocentrism you claim here so forcefully as your environmental philosophy?
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink