This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - JonF
LolMuch more apropos than any of your lame analogies.
EDIT: Actually that's a pretty weird comparison. I've never even heard of anyone "raping" a baby. Aborting, yes. But never raping.
You sure love to make up numbers and pretend combining them means something.
Ok look ...No doubt multiply ninja'd, but...
I thought your argument was "great cities sprang up because tillage agriculture is less work than hunting / gathering."
Was that not your argument?
Remember, whenever you set out to summarize someone's argument you get it wrong.
Wow.Yes I know what you are saying. And you are full of shit which is why I made that joke. Development of "agriculture" - especially tillage based on annual crops - had nothing to do with the building of "great" cities like Nineveh and Babylon. Developing a system which requires 5X (or 20X) the amount of work to produce the same amount of food (thank you Father Cain) is a step backwards, not forwards.Well if you think that going from an EROI of 50 down to an EROI of 10 is a "great development" then perhaps you would also think that me granting you the job of "Manager of Dave's Dirty Laundry" would be "great development" in your career.
I didn't say that going from an EROI of 50 down to an EROI of 10 is a "great development". I said none of that, including the words you falsely ascribe to me using quotation marks.
I said that the domestication of species, including animals for food and labour, and plants (both annual and perennial) for food was what enabled early civilisations to have time for arts, crafts, science, and leisure and all the other stuff we both agree it's good to have time for.
If you think that annuals didn't play a major role, do you dispute that BREAD played a major role in the development of Middle East culture? Do you even read the NT?
Davinating "annual" and "perennial".
Her posting of the references yesterday is some indication that she may have read it before that. So you should no have assumed she didn't with no reason to believe that she didn't and some reason to believe she did.I called her a fraud because she just kept spouting "methane, methane" and there was (until this morning) no evidence whatsoever that she even bothered to read Savory's article.AND you completely ignore Alland Savory about methane.
God what a fraud you are!!
People ignore Savory's methane claims because he does not back them up with any substantial evidence. People who have investigated those claims do not find any reason to accept them as Savory presents them. Here, for example:
Calling people 'frauds' because they don't agree with the questionable assertions of your guru doesn't help your case. At all. It just makes you look like a fanatical follower with an agenda.
FIFY.I love fresh garden tomatoes as much as anybody on the planet. And I eat lots of tomato sauce and spaghetti sauce and ketchup.
But no one who reads Stefansson or Price will walk away thinking that tomatoes are essential.
They aren't. But VEGETABLES are.
Unless they are idiots.
So on second thought, I take that back. There will be plenty of people that walk away from reading Stefansson and Price who still think that tomatoes are essential.
Nobody thinks that tomatoes are essential, Dave. They weren't even introduced to Europe until 16th century, and we got on fine without them
But try depriving a population of vegetables and you will find that they don't live very long, and they die of all kinds of nasty conditions.
Bullshit. This is notsupported by the evidence you have presented so many times.
Are you even fooling yourself? You sure ain't fooling any of us.
Dave, you said there was a "theoretical" limit to renewables. WHAT IS IT?It's a Davinition.
I typed "Dav" and my predictive keyboard offered Davination.
Thinking solidly inside the box, I see.
If you think renewable energy is the answer for eliminating fossil fuel use from mega farms, then you have not had any experience with renewable energy.I have experience with renewable energy. You haven't a clue.
Price is often wrong. What does he say about this? What evidence did he present?That's not what Price says.In the process of searching Walter Haugen's blog for his discussion of human slavery, I ran across this nugget ... plant proteins are "incomplete" ...Well it's not terribly surprising that the complement of nutrients that ANIMALS requires is most closely matched by the chemical composition of ANIMALS, is it?
Does this really come as news to you? You didn't know this till you ran across Walter Haugen's blog post?
It is also widely known, however, that while INDIVIDUAL plant sources do not match well the nutrient requirements of an animals, it is not hard to find COMBINATIONS of plant sources that do. Just fine.
(The alternative strategy, like if you're a cow and eat nothing but grass, is to eat so much of it that you get enough of the relatively under-represented nutrients.)
I am very tired of lazy bastards who don't READ.I'm really tired of one lazy bastard who doesn't read and cannot conceive that his idols could be and sometimes are wrong on some subjects.
Geez. You have to IMAGINE that the squares are red and blackThat's not what you explicitly said.
Dave's commune would be able to get vitamin C from the potatoes, and animal byproducts, like beef spleen. I don't see what the Stefansson account has to do with anything whatsoever, though.It's just one of his standard attempts to derail the current subtopic. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.
"Which one requires more travel?"Show us your best-case details.
It depends on the details of the scenario.
Those things you don't like.
Just saw this posted by a Facebook friend. Love to know more about the person who said it.That's in the second edition of his book in 1814, so it predates that.
"One of America's greatest agrarians and founders had this to say in response to those who wanted the nation to turn away from agriculture and toward manufacturing as an economic engine. What a different country we would have if his ideas had won the day
"Still more hopeless is the promise of the manufacturing mania, "that it will make us independent of foreign nations," when combined with its other promise of providing a market for agriculture. The promise of a market, as we see in the experience of England, can only be made good, by reducing the agricultural class to a tenth part of the nation, and increasing manufacturers by great manufactural exportations. This reduction can only be accomplished by driving or seducing above nine-tenths of the agricultural class, into other classes, and the increase by a brave and patriotic navy. Discontent and misery will be the fruits of the first operation, and these would constitute the most forlorn hope for success in the second. By exchanging hardy, honest and free husbandmen for the classes necessary to reduce the number of agriculturalists, low enough to raise the prices of their products shall we become more independent of foreign nations? What! Secure our independence by bankers and capitalists? Secure our independence by impoverishing discouraging and annihilating nine-tenths of our sound yeomanry? By turning them into swindlers, and dependents on a master capitalist for daily bread?
The manufacturing mania accuses the agricultural spirit of avarice and want of patriotism, whilst it offers to bribe it by a prospect of better prices, whittles down independence into cargoes of fancy goods, and proposes to metamorphose nine-tenths of the hardy sons of the forest into everything but heroes, for the grand end of gratifying the avarice of a capitalist, monied or paper interest"
Of course nothing has changed in agriculture or manufacturing or any other relevant fields in the last 200-odd years.
Hey, you the guy who thinks converting plants to meat is 100% efficient. The second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to that process!
(It's horrendously inefficient.)
No, the problem is you don't read carefully. Notice I said "10 dairy guys" and although I didn't say it explicitly, I expected you to be smart enough to figure out that there might be 10 Sally Maes... Or 50... Or 100. I would expect that in a community of 500, pretty much every household makes their own bread, or if they're really good at it and like to make bread, maybe they make enough for two or three households.Or one.
Your expectations are anally extracted. 14th century Davie-doodles again!
No I didn't miss that. It's bullshit. Along with "the earth is old" and "your uncle is a monkey."You definitely mischaracterized Pingu's argument by ignoring those points. Lying by omission.
Calling them bullshit doesn't make it so. Reasoned argument and evidence could if they were bullshit. Bit they ain't bullshit, and you don't do reasoned argument and evidence.
Of course the evidence has been presented many times, but you don't dare stand up and acknowledge it. What a craven coward you are.
OK let's revisit this ....Whenever you write anything like that, it's a tell that you have no clue about the argument you are supposedly summarizing.QuoteI'm not saying nobody should keep a goat if they like fresh goat's milk. I'm saying that your idea that "hyperlocal food production" is some desirable end goal is full of flaws. This is because:
Food production takes a lot of space, and animal food production more so that veggies. Whereas other kind of production (whether of goods and services) typically takes a lot less.
It is relatively easy, with veggie production especially, for farmers to produce more than they need for themselves
Therefore it makes sense for farmers to spread out on agricultural land and non-farmers (good and services providers) to cluster in market towns and cities. Sure it's great if those town/city dwellers also produce some of their own food - and many do. And it's also great if they mainly get their food from local (not hyperlocal necessarily) sources, e.g. the farmers in the surrounding land.
So I'm saying that there is something wrong with "hyperlocal" food prediction as a general principle - too much "hyperlocal" food production would be very counter-productive in terms of sustainability.
Pingu's argument seems to be ...
So the rest is just twaddle.
Seems you missed the part about the inherent inefficiency of the many losses in converting plants to meat. And the benefits of a varied diet, including fiber. And so on.
Cases, yeah. Circuit boards, maybe. Semiconductors, no. And the materials that go into them come from all over the world.I was thinking of 3d printing but even that requires cities somewhere.Or in the future. At least until Dave breeds chickens that shit iPhones and cows that shit Volvos.Actually, there are reasons why this is impossible currently.Dave, the only iron tools the Inuit had were from meteorites they chipped in the same way as they did stone tools. They also didn't have goats.I'm all for technology, but I want to do it in a more sensible way. There is no reason that the Volvos and the iPhones ... AND THE FOOD ... to feed all those workers cannot be produced "hyperlocally." Sorry not buying your view.
If you want iphones and volvos you need steel. There's a reason the industrial revolution didn't happen in Nunavut.
Or in the future. At least until Dave breeds chickens that shit iPhones and cows that shit Volvos.Actually, there are reasons why this is impossible currently.Dave, the only iron tools the Inuit had were from meteorites they chipped in the same way as they did stone tools. They also didn't have goats.I'm all for technology, but I want to do it in a more sensible way. There is no reason that the Volvos and the iPhones ... AND THE FOOD ... to feed all those workers cannot be produced "hyperlocally." Sorry not buying your view.
If you want iphones and volvos you need steel. There's a reason the industrial revolution didn't happen in Nunavut.
Yup. And no iPhones, Volvos, or snowmobiles.Has it ever occurred to you that many people groups such as the Inuit have lived in places like this for thousands of years and have been quite happy and healthy.Borealis ...
If 90% of all people cooked their own food ...
Or if only 10% did ...
Would the questions you just asked be relevant in either scenario?
They wouldn't. Technology would proceed under either scenario.
So why do you think they are relevant questions for PRODUCING (rather than cooking) food?
Why do you think they aren't?
Mines, for example. Know where lots of them are? Of course not. They are all over the planet. Many elements can't be found except in rare places. But just ordinary mines! Well, in the far north, in Labrador, in Newfoundland, in northern Alberta... places like that! It's dark half the year in some of them, so solar power is kind of pointless. Winters are 9 months long. You get snow on the roads looks like this:
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Run your goat tractor over this:
Both of those are just in Newfoundland, not even the North.
So these miners work their shifts (and the company's gonna be pissed if they only work 30 hours a week, shit needs to get done, hiring three shifts costs more than having longer shifts and fewer workers.) and then go home to not milk their starving goats and eat - what? peat moss out of the bog hollows? Accidents in the mine? Die buddy, hospital's way too far for a horse to get there in time.
With no mining companies?