Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: How is this place even a forum?

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 207041 times) previous topic - next topic

Resi, Pingu, rosedarling, VoxRat, DaveGodfrey, Dave Hawkins (+ 1 Hidden) and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41950
The reason this is important as I understand it is...

DEAD VEGETATION NEEDS TO BE RECYCLED QUICKLY

If it's not recycled fairly quickly either by creepy-crawlies or by grazing herds, then the ecosystem will slowly die.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41951
"VEGETATION DIES OFF IN THE WARM SEASON" in most of the Greek islands.

Somehow, I don't feel like unleashing herds of cattle to graze their rocky slopes will turn them lush and green.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41952
Dave?
Did you lie about reporting a post?
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41953
And the ecosystem in the Greek islands is doing just fine for thousands of years, btw. Or at least it did until we started building hotels and condos.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41954
Dave?
Did you lie about reporting a post?

Maybe the report got lost in the mail. Does he have a pic of the receipt?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41955
Look I'm a bit new to the "brittleness" thing myself .
Maybe you should reserve judgment, then, on whether 2/3 of the earth's land surface falls in this category, and requires billions more cattle to "restore" it to health.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41956
Look I'm a bit new to the "brittleness" thing myself...
Refresh our collective memory...
How long have you been evangelizing for St. Savory?
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41957
Look I'm a bit new to the "brittleness" thing myself because I myself live in a non brittle area.

The key as I understand it is ...

DOES VEGETATION DIE OFF IN THE WARM SEASON?

So for example a location can get 36" per year like my area ... but it happens all in a short time ... and the rest of the warm time, not much ... so vegetation dies.

In my area the 36" happens regularly over 8 months.




Yeh, that's called 'climate'. It is normal, and varies across the surface of the planet. The plant and animal life NATIVE to all these climate zones are very well ADAPTED to their particular climate and landforms et al. Calling all these varied habitats 'brittle' is misleading and stupid.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41958
I can see some definition of "brittle" applying to land whose ecology is relatively non-resilient to perturbations, like various anthropogenic impositions.  Land at the edges of deserts, for instance.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41959
We have a great deal of phryganic ecosystems here. I wonder if Savory would consider those "cancer", like desert crust...
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Fenrir
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41960
With those distractions out of the way, let's get on with actual science ...

BRITTLENESS

What is it exactly?  It's extremely important to Allan Savory and he says 2/3 of the world's land area is brittle ... so what are we talking about here?

<snipped images, we really don't need to see them again>



Somehow I thought this wall of images supposedly contained the all important definition of this terrible cancerous "brittleness".

They do.  Learn to read.

Go on then. Given a random piece of real estate how would you go about determining it's "brittleness".

Use only the information gleaned from that extract.

Remember your result must be robust and directly comparable to other sites described using the same methodology.

Ready...set...go

Tugging this forward.

A metric is useless if it is not measurable or comparable across sites.

It's what plants crave.

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41961
We have a great deal of phryganic ecosystems here. I wonder if Savory would consider those "cancer", like desert crust...

Probably.

I've sometimes thought Dave was misrepresenting Savory to some extent, but it appears Savory really is pretty clueless on a lot of fronts. Either that or has a really unfortunately clumsy way with words.


Of course, his main thrust is always cattle and grass. Dave trying to paint him as wildlife-friendly is not gonna fly, though.


But given Dave thinks desert/arid lands wildlife is on the same plane as 'a rusty old car', I suppose luring (not endangered! That would be illegal!) wildlife to be shot is 'wildlife friendly' in his mind.

  • Fenrir
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41962
I can see some definition of "brittle" applying to land whose ecology is relatively non-resilient to perturbations, like various anthropogenic impositions.  Land at the edges of deserts, for instance.

That is typically refered to as "fragile".

Savory uses "brittle" so he can blame all land degradation everywhere on not enough cows.
It's what plants crave.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41963
The reason this is important as I understand it is...

DEAD VEGETATION NEEDS TO BE RECYCLED QUICKLY

If it's not recycled fairly quickly either by creepy-crawlies or by grazing herds, then the ecosystem will slowly die.
Again, information very recently pointed out just does not get processed, because they conflict with the idea that the world is ultra-simple.
I guess bogs and wetlands are either not ecosystems, or they are dead.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41964
It seems that there is no such thing as different biomes. There is just one single eco-system, which is basically rural Missouri. It is just that folks have let it go a bit, to different extents in different areas, and they need Dave to show them how to fix it with cows.
 
Africa is basically rural Missouri that is a bit warmer and dryer, with lions in, what people have messed up. With lots of cows, you could just turn it into it's natural state of being rural Missouri, only with zebras instead of deer.

The Sahara desert is what happens if you take a rural Missouri and really mess it up, through agriculture. Again, the answer is lots of cows: if we just did that it would be rural Missouri again in no time because rural Missouri gets plenty of rain.

If you take rural Missouri and make it a bit colder and put moose in, then you basically get Canada.

Then there is the rural Missouri that got really wet and warm and that just has too many damn trees, and those are the rainforests. Here, you just cut some of the trees down before you add the cows and hey presto! Rural Missouri again in no time, though possibly a bit warmer and wetter.

Almost everywhere just needs to be more rural Missouri, so you get more ecosystem for all the animals that live in rural Missouri. This is called "healing the land". Pretty soon, everyone will realize this because of Dave's tireless and highly effective research and activism, and then the whole world will basically be rural Missouri, with the possible exception of the poles.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41965
I can see some definition of "brittle" applying to land whose ecology is relatively non-resilient to perturbations, like various anthropogenic impositions.  Land at the edges of deserts, for instance.

That is typically refered to as "fragile".

Savory uses "brittle" so he can blame all land degradation everywhere on not enough cows.
Exactly.  Why not just use the word 'fragile'?  I suspect Savory is trying to conflate the metaphorical sense of 'brittle' (i.e. synonymous with 'fragile') with the physical property of a (desert) crust.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41966
The reason this is important as I understand it is...

DEAD VEGETATION NEEDS TO BE RECYCLED QUICKLY

If it's not recycled fairly quickly either by creepy-crawlies or by grazing herds, then the ecosystem will slowly die.

As vivisectus points out, wrt bogs and wetlands, and I will add salt marshes, boreal forests, and even temperate deciduous forests, this is a complete crock, Dave. In all of these named habitats, dead vegetation may take years to decompose - centuries in the case of deep bogs. Yet such ecosystems don't die. People in Ireland and Denmark and so on, while harvesting peat, are digging up bodies that are hundreds to thousands of years old, wearing clothing and other artifacts made of... DEAD VEGETATION..., sometimes with identifiable food in their stomachs, like cereals and nuts. Those bogs and their plants and animals have lasted centuries with little change, thriving in their own way.


So your all caps pronouncement of doom? All hogwash, and demonstrating the lamentable lack of knowledge you have about ecosystems, habitats, biomes.


Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41967
I can see some definition of "brittle" applying to land whose ecology is relatively non-resilient to perturbations, like various anthropogenic impositions.  Land at the edges of deserts, for instance.

That is typically refered to as "fragile".

Savory uses "brittle" so he can blame all land degradation everywhere on not enough cows.
Exactly.  Why not just use the word 'fragile'?  I suspect Savory is trying to conflate the metaphorical sense of 'brittle' (i.e. synonymous with 'fragile') with the physical property of a (desert) crust.

No, the site says it is because plant materials get all dry and snappy offy.

Not making this up. Just paraphrasing.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41968
The reason this is important as I understand it is...

DEAD VEGETATION NEEDS TO BE RECYCLED QUICKLY

If it's not recycled fairly quickly either by creepy-crawlies or by grazing herds, then the ecosystem will slowly die.
People in Ireland and Denmark and so on, while harvesting peat, are digging up bodies that are hundreds to thousands of years old, wearing clothing and other artifacts, sometimes with identifiable food in their stomachs, like cereals and nuts.

But not nipples.

Maybe the nipples decompose and sustain the boglands?

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41969
I can see some definition of "brittle" applying to land whose ecology is relatively non-resilient to perturbations, like various anthropogenic impositions.  Land at the edges of deserts, for instance.

That is typically refered to as "fragile".

Savory uses "brittle" so he can blame all land degradation everywhere on not enough cows.
Exactly.  Why not just use the word 'fragile'?  I suspect Savory is trying to conflate the metaphorical sense of 'brittle' (i.e. synonymous with 'fragile') with the physical property of a (desert) crust.

No, the site says it is because plant materials get all dry and snappy offy.

Not making this up. Just paraphrasing.
Snappy-offiness sounds just like the type of non-RSPL that Dave loves. It's science-ish enough for non-ivory tower non-octohatters everybody!

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41970
Look I'm a bit new to the "brittleness" thing myself .
Maybe you should reserve judgment, then, on whether 2/3 of the earth's land surface falls in this category, and requires billions more cattle to "restore" it to health.
It's hard to believe that you actually managed to earn a PhD. Maybe you didn't and you've been bagging us all this time.

That statement was a legitimate Appeal to Authority. Allan Savory is the world's leading Authority On Land Management.

You do know what a legitimate Appeal to Authority is don't you?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41971
It seems that there is no such thing as different biomes. There is just one single eco-system, which is basically rural Missouri. It is just that folks have let it go a bit, to different extents in different areas, and they need Dave to show them how to fix it with cows.
 
Africa is basically rural Missouri that is a bit warmer and dryer, with lions in, what people have messed up. With lots of cows, you could just turn it into it's natural state of being rural Missouri, only with zebras instead of deer.

The Sahara desert is what happens if you take a rural Missouri and really mess it up, through agriculture. Again, the answer is lots of cows: if we just did that it would be rural Missouri again in no time because rural Missouri gets plenty of rain.

If you take rural Missouri and make it a bit colder and put moose in, then you basically get Canada.

Then there is the rural Missouri that got really wet and warm and that just has too many damn trees, and those are the rainforests. Here, you just cut some of the trees down before you add the cows and hey presto! Rural Missouri again in no time, though possibly a bit warmer and wetter.

Almost everywhere just needs to be more rural Missouri, so you get more ecosystem for all the animals that live in rural Missouri. This is called "healing the land". Pretty soon, everyone will realize this because of Dave's tireless and highly effective research and activism, and then the whole world will basically be rural Missouri, with the possible exception of the poles.

This is exactly Dave's view. He might protest weakly a bit if he bothers responding at all, but this really is it.

I've wondered more than once why he recognizes that the poles are exceptions but fails to recognize that it's possible for other areas to also be exceptions.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41972
Look I'm a bit new to the "brittleness" thing myself because I myself live in a non brittle area.

The key as I understand it is ...

DOES VEGETATION DIE OFF IN THE WARM SEASON?

So for example a location can get 36" per year like my area ... but it happens all in a short time ... and the rest of the warm time, not much ... so vegetation dies.

In my area the 36" happens regularly over 8 months.




Yeh, that's called 'climate'. It is normal, and varies across the surface of the planet. The plant and animal life NATIVE to all these climate zones are very well ADAPTED to their particular climate and landforms et al. Calling all these varied habitats 'brittle' is misleading and stupid.
No it is not normal. At all.  It's fucked up by man. Not just Modern Man either. Mankind has been fucking up Earth systems such as the terrestrial hydrologic system for a very long time indeed.

If you want a glimpse of normal go back before what you call the "late pleistocene" prior to the time when humans had such an enormous impact on the Earth.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41973
Part of the problem with some of you is that you don't even believe your own effing history produced by your own effing darwinist researchers and if you did believe that history that would only be a start because you're too effing lazy and arrogant to figure out how the Earth Systems would have worked back in that time period.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #41974
Look I'm a bit new to the "brittleness" thing myself .
Maybe you should reserve judgment, then, on whether 2/3 of the earth's land surface falls in this category, and requires billions more cattle to "restore" it to health.
It's hard to believe that you actually managed to earn a PhD. Maybe you didn't and you've been bagging us all this time.
Oh lord. Here we go again. If you look closely, that giant chip has a little Dave Hawkins stuck to its butt.
Quote

That statement was a legitimate Appeal to Authority. Allan Savory is the world's leading Authority On Land Management.
Says who?
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins