Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Say that to my face

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 122527 times) previous topic - next topic

superhoop, Dave Hawkins, Testy Calibrate, Alfonso Bivouac, JonF (+ 1 Hidden) and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #50
Speaking for myself, and possibly myself alone, I don't want, and never will want, to live in an isolated shack in the woods; to drink loads of goats milk; to have the incredibly monotonous and boring diet that Dave seems to be advocating.

Furthermore  (heresy alert!) I have seen with my own eyes that tillage, IF PROPERLY DONE, need not result in loss of topsoil - at least in the UK agricultural environment round me. Correct maintenance of field drainage,  wide headlands, care of and reinstatement of hedges, care with ploughing (no fine tilth until planting/sowing), use of cover crops and so on.

It works. It seems to me that we have enough varied landscape and land use to maintain (in the UK)  a decent variety of viable and interlocking ecosystems
Yep, friend of mine married into a farming family. The main plot they owned and farmed was really quite flat, but not actually flat. Fertilizers and water were significant expenses in running the farm and they were losing soil to drainage. Lou did some research, talked to some friends from college and got a high resolution survey. Based on that he instituted a laser guided grading and plowing program. The result was to rotate the furrows about 30 degrees with a slight curve and to install a series of small dams on the headers and the water and fertilizer expenses were cut by about 60% and the soil loss was cut to nil. Even got a slight increase in production.
Are we there yet?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #51
 OK well if you cannot see that rich vs. poor is a real issue  when it comes to food choices, then there's no use discussing this any further.  I'll just put you back in the "idiot box" and go on with my life.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #52
OK well if you cannot see that rich vs. poor is a real issue  when it comes to food choices, then there's no use discussing this any further.  I'll just put you back in the "idiot box" and go on with my life.
sure I can see that. I can even have a reasonably sophisticated conversation about the economics of local vs non-local agriculture. But you can't start from your starting place.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • MikeS
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #53
Now - in 2016 - I am armed with two valuable things...

1)  simple housing, and
2)  simple food production

And I'm getting pretty good with energy production as well.

 So have fun shooting fireworks or whatever and I'll catch up with you later!
This is a new one.  I'll engage Dave.

Please explain this "energy production" that you are "getting pretty good with".

Thanks.

He's talking about the wiring for his solar.
He's applauding his new skill at "reading instructions"?
Just like Dave; although it is probably a fairly recent revelation to actually utilize the manual once in a while.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #54
OK... Well my starting place is "figuring out how to enable the poor to feed themselves with real food which enhances ecosystems instead of destroying them."

What's wrong with that starting place?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #55
 And no I don't subscribe to Rex's view of the poor.

I subscribe to Borealis' view.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #56
Do you agree that some combination of "Walter style" gardening plus rotationally grazed animal food products would (a) provide balanced diets and (b) restore - or at least not degrade - ecosystems ....?
Yep. But there is another question you forgot to ask.
I didn't forget anything.  So now the question is ...

HOW to motivate billions of people to change their eating habits so that they ONLY eat food produced in this way ...

That is, food produced by some combination of "Walter style" gardening plus rotationally grazed animals.

??

lol. You're right. < snip stupid comment >

OK so we are agreed so far. Good.
An excellent example of Bluffy's Hawkinzing.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #57
Do you agree that some combination of "Walter style" gardening plus rotationally grazed animal food products would (a) provide balanced diets and (b) restore - or at least not degrade - ecosystems ....?
Yep. But there is another question you forgot to ask.
I didn't forget anything.  So now the question is ...

HOW to motivate billions of people to change their eating habits so that they ONLY eat food produced in this way ...

That is, food produced by some combination of "Walter style" gardening plus rotationally grazed animals.

??

lol. You're right. < snip stupid comment >

OK so we are agreed so far. Good.
Well, no. We are not agreed so far. Your forgone conclusion is only supported by your unwarranted assumption.
Well FFS  give me the courtesy of at least identifying which part of my statements you disagree with. And why.
Why? You rarely do.
Are we there yet?

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #58
And no I don't subscribe to Rex's view of the poor.

I subscribe to Borealis' view.

No.  You subscribe to your Hawkinsized version of Borealis' view. 
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #59
OK... Well my starting place is "figuring out how to enable the poor to feed themselves with real food which enhances ecosystems instead of destroying them."

What's wrong with that starting place?

Who is the subject of the verb "figure" in that sentence?
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #60
OK... Well my starting place is "figuring out how to enable the poor to feed themselves with real food which enhances ecosystems instead of destroying them."

What's wrong with that starting place?
Nothing. It doesn't have anything to do with any methodology though. Your starting with an idiotic claim embedded which I have already rejected.

Neither you nor anyone else knows how to do what you are proposing on any large scale. Your claim to the contrary just illustrates why people call you a narcissistic dk poster boy idiot.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #61
And no I don't subscribe to Rex's view of the poor.

I subscribe to Borealis' view.
I do not subscribe. However, there are more points of agreement between my view and borealis' than mine and RexT's.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #62
What is my "idiotic embedded claim"?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #63
Do you agree that some combination of "Walter style" gardening plus rotationally grazed animal food products would (a) provide balanced diets and (b) restore - or at least not degrade - ecosystems ....?
Yep. But there is another question you forgot to ask.
I didn't forget anything.  So now the question is ...

HOW to motivate billions of people to change their eating habits so that they ONLY eat food produced in this way ...

That is, food produced by some combination of "Walter style" gardening plus rotationally grazed animals.

??
No you dumbass. Whether those are the only ways of practicing sustainable agriculture. Hello Pol Pot.
here Dave. This is my disagreement.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #64
What is my "idiotic embedded claim"?

The fact that your starting point is the subject of your verb "to figure".
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #65
Yes and majorities are always right. 

No, they aren't always right. But more often than not, they are.
And an informed majority, particularly when it's over 80%, is almost always right.
That's not to say there are not some exceptions, even some notable exceptions. But they are exceptions.

Another fine example of your difficulties with all, most, many, some, few and none. Why must it be all or none? Black or white?

Are we there yet?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #66
Speaking for myself, and possibly myself alone, I don't want, and never will want, to live in an isolated shack in the woods; to drink loads of goats milk; to have the incredibly monotonous and boring diet that Dave seems to be advocating.

Furthermore  (heresy alert!) I have seen with my own eyes that tillage, IF PROPERLY DONE, need not result in loss of topsoil - at least in the UK agricultural environment round me. Correct maintenance of field drainage,  wide headlands, care of and reinstatement of hedges, care with ploughing (no fine tilth until planting/sowing), use of cover crops and so on.

It works. It seems to me that we have enough varied landscape and land use to maintain (in the UK)  a decent variety of viable and interlocking ecosystems
Yep, friend of mine married into a farming family. The main plot they owned and farmed was really quite flat, but not actually flat. Fertilizers and water were significant expenses in running the farm and they were losing soil to drainage. Lou did some research, talked to some friends from college and got a high resolution survey. Based on that he instituted a laser guided grading and plowing program. The result was to rotate the furrows about 30 degrees with a slight curve and to install a series of small dams on the headers and the water and fertilizer expenses were cut by about 60% and the soil loss was cut to nil. Even got a slight increase in production.

Yup. Add to that the use of slow-release fertilisers (increasingly extracted from sewage, since phosphate sources are becoming limited) and you not only save even more on fertiliser, but hugely reduce run-off and hence eutrophication of water-courses.  And of course, sensible farmers don't guess any more, but apply fertiliser following soil analysis
in the 30 years I've been in this town, the improvement in local river and stream water quality has been fantastic. Clear, clean water, lots of variety of plants, fish, insects. And the otters are back!
And this is because of economic imperatives - not just farming, but water resource management, recreation,tourism and co-operation between multiple interest groups to give us safe water, plenty of water-sport, reasonably priced food and a really rather pleasant local environment.
Dave can fuck off with his narrow, grossly over-simplified, Dunning-Kruger "solutions", I'll work with the people who have shown they can maintain and even improve our environment despite the pressures on it.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #67
Yes and majorities are always right.

Obviously they are not.

You are confusing: "the consensus of expert opinion" with "majorities".

Not even "the consensus of expert opinion" is ALWAYS right, but it's a good place to start.  Unfortunately, the place you start is "what I, Dave Hawkins, think is good for other people".
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #68
I don't know why I enjoy trying to get people to understand things they don't want to understand. 

 But I do. So here goes again.

 Does everyone here agree that we need to figure out how to feed ourselves  with food systems that restore  ecosystems instead of degrading them?

 Is there anyone here does that does not agree with this basic idea?
Which aspect of the above statement? That we need to figure out how to feed ourselves with whatever or that we need to utilize food systems that restore ecosystems instead of degrading them? If the former, I am pretty sure most people would agree but would note we seem to be able to feed ourselves, even with wasting perhaps 40% of what we grow and using good land to grow a lot of stuff we really don't need. If the latter, I'm of the opinion that we pretty well already know what to do. It's just doing it. As to the urgency of the situation, meh. Agriculture is but one of many other massive ecosystem degradations. The runoff is probably the worst of it's ills and that can be mitigated fairly easily, using techniques I posted earlier, with significant reductions is expenses and possibly some increase in yield. That alone could well be the economic incentive to for farmers. Many of the techniques used in organic farming can be applied on larger scales. Not all, not most, but many. These can usually not only cut expenses but improve yields, either in volume or quality or both.

However, I don't believe it's necessary to have everyone doing their own little farms. Some folks like that work. Some don't. Some are good at it, some are not. Some folks do other things, often necessary things, better than they could ever do farming. I'd hate to lose a gifted surgeon, a marvelous teacher, a brilliant inventor, a fabulous musician, a great politician (yes, they do theoretically exist), an inspiring artist, an ingenious engineer, etc, to their having to spend their time growing their own food.

Are we there yet?

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #69
One of the many things Dave "forgot" is that if a few people are doing "Walter-style" farming in order to feed the many, it won't be sustainable indefinitely, even if Walter poops on site, because the other consumers of his produce won't.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #70
Yes and majorities are always right.

Obviously they are not.

You are confusing: "the consensus of expert opinion" with "majorities".

Not even "the consensus of expert opinion" is ALWAYS right, but it's a good place to start.  Unfortunately, the place you start is "what I, Dave Hawkins, think is good for other people".
And remember his stated "default position" - on any subject, even when he admits he knows nothing about it - is to assume the expert consensus is wrong. Because, you know... Galileo.

I'm looking forward to when the TR archives are up and searchable, so the exact stupidity can be quoted verbatim.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #71
The entire concept of a system is something that Dave doesn't seem to get.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #72
Yes and majorities are always right.

Obviously they are not.

You are confusing: "the consensus of expert opinion" with "majorities".

Not even "the consensus of expert opinion" is ALWAYS right, but it's a good place to start.  Unfortunately, the place you start is "what I, Dave Hawkins, think is good for other people".
And remember his stated "default position" - on any subject, even when he admits he knows nothing about it - is to assume the expert consensus is wrong. Because, you know... Galileo.

I'm looking forward to when the TR archives are up and searchable, so the exact stupidity can be quoted verbatim.
They are now. Raven, osmanthus, and os' data ninjas have succeeded in restoring the database. There's a way to import formatted posts from there, see the yellow sticky thread on this site.

All hail raven and friends!

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #73
Yes and majorities are always right.

Obviously they are not.

You are confusing: "the consensus of expert opinion" with "majorities".

Not even "the consensus of expert opinion" is ALWAYS right, but it's a good place to start.  Unfortunately, the place you start is "what I, Dave Hawkins, think is good for other people".
And remember his stated "default position" - on any subject, even when he admits he knows nothing about it - is to assume the expert consensus is wrong. Because, you know... Galileo.

I'm looking forward to when the TR archives are up and searchable, so the exact stupidity can be quoted verbatim.
They are now. Raven, osmanthus, and os' data ninjas have succeeded in restoring the database. There's a way to import formatted posts from there, see the yellow sticky thread on this site.

All hail raven and friends!

Hallelujah.
Their names shall go down in history ... ... or something.
Are we there yet?

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #74
I'm looking forward to when the TR archives are up and searchable, so the exact stupidity can be quoted verbatim.
TalkRational.org is up and searchable, but I think you can't post to it.

Rats, ninja'd.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins