Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational: in the name of the father and the fuzzi ghost

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 123881 times) previous topic - next topic

Martin.au, Alfonso Bivouac and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26775
Ok here's my settlement diagram ... approx 500 acres ... 0.8 mile X 1 mile ... approx 40 dwellings ... half of them is elder housing at center ... other half out further ... 120 persons total ...  purposely did not draw roads or paths yet ... upper version is lots of small farmers ... lower version is 4 larger ones.



Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26776
did you ever see the diagram I drew?
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 #26777
Ok here's my settlement diagram ... approx 500 acres ... 0.8 mile X 1 mile ... approx 40 dwellings ... half of them is elder housing at center ... other half out further ... 120 persons total ...  purposely did not draw roads or paths yet ... upper version is lots of small farmers ... lower version is 4 larger ones.




Have you forgotten everything that was discussed regarding the advantages of not using squares for everything? It's convenient on graph paper, way less convenient on real terrain and in designing communities. Even if the terrain is an imaginary flat plain, there is value in considering how to lay out a community to be more conducive to using less land for roads, to consider the inclusion of a water source such as a stream, river, lake or pond, to encourage more interaction within a community by keeping it together rather than isolating each home in the middle of a square lot.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26778
KISS

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26779
No triangles. Isn't that an automatic fail when it comes to Dave-aesthetics? Come on, Dave.

  • nesb
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26780
Using squares just makes it easier to put Dave's diagrams to practical use, like as maps for a D&D game.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26781
OK let's revisit this ....
Quote
I'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 ...

1) All food production takes lots of space ... but veggie less than animal ...

Yes, generally.  If you want lots of calories per acre, you are best growing veg.  Not all veg will produce more calories per acre then dairy, but the best veg (i.e. plant food) outperforms the best animal food production by a lot.  And some of the less calorie-dense vegetable foods include foods with really important nutrients including folic acid.

2) Veggie (including grains?) food production is relatively easy

I don't know if it's overall easier or harder than animal food production, Dave.  It is very seasonal work.  Harvesting is probably harder than milking or slaughtering.  On the other hand storage is generally easier. 

Therefore only a few should do it and make surpluses for the rest who don't do it.

That follows from the first premise, not the second.  Unless you include hydroponic LED outfits, which actually stack many units of area on top of each other, producing food is land consumptive.  That's obvious when you look at a population density map.  Agricultural land takes up most of the space in a country like the UK - by a long way.  Cities take up much less - yet house most of the population.  This is BECAUSE to produce people you need lots of land and not very many people (because people can grow more food than they eat).  Whereas to produce most other things (goods and services) you need a lot less land, but often lots of people (although for highly mechanised plants, you need increasingly fewer people as well).

So it makes sense to plan your settlements around those FACTs - space out the farmers so they can grow extra food with the extra land, and have the rest of us living close together so that we save energy (and time) on getting from home to work, leisure, services and MARKETS.  Which include places where the farmers sell their surplus food.

First, if we are talking about "non-industrial veggie food production" I don't think it's that easy to produce surpluses.  Walter Haugen produced 3.8 million food calories (enough for 4 people) in 2009 on 3000 hours of labor (1266 food calories per hour).  That's a hell of a lot of labor.  I myself have NO desire whatsoever to spend that much time each year on food production for myself or for anyone else.  My current system produces 400,000 cal on about 1 hour per day (365 per year) (1095 food calories per hour and it's not even close to being optimized.  When I add the cow, I should be around 2 million food calories per year on the same labor (5479 food cal per hr).  Joe Hopping produces at least 30 million food calories per year on 500 hours of labor. (Say 1500 if you add slaughtering and packaging each animal so it's ready to cook and eat ... say 2500 if you add in the cooking and food prep labor so we compare apples to apples with milk food calories) ... so that's 12,000 food calories per hour.

Well, your figures don't seem to be correct.  Plenty of people over millennia have produced surplus food, which is why we have cities.  And while some involved slave labour, by your own definition of slavery, most didn't.  And in any case, mechanisation solves a lot of the problem, and if you are worried about GHGs, farmers are also well-placed to generate renewables.  Most farms I see these days have a wind-turbine or three.  And if you are REALLY worried about GHGs, then you need to consider your ruminant farts.  And no, HMG does NOT solve the problem of ruminant farts.  Check it out.

Secondly, you seem to be saying that my model of 80% of everyone producing 80% of their own food would create logistics nightmares.  I don't see that.

I know,  It's weird.  It's like you cannot see that five farmers carrying food to dense little village of with 500 people will result in less total travel than less than 500 people all spread out, having to travel to lots of different places to get what they need (food they want to trade, artefacts, leisure etc).

If I live in a "Sustainable Subdivision" with say 500 residents where all subdivision services are within walking distance (or biking) and I'm one of 10 "dairy guys" (or gals) in the subdivision and there are 10 meat producers and 10 honey producers and so on ... why would it create logistical problems for me to walk over to Joe's to buy (or trade for) meat?  Or to Fred's to buy honey?  Or to Sally Mae's to buy her award winning breads?

Why not draw a diagram and see if you can work it out?

I've attached one@



Bit what is 5he most efficient way to transport all the surplus if town has 7 bridges?


Not a problem. There's no rivers in Davetopia, because they screw up his areal maths.
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26782
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26783
Nope. KISS.

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26784
Using squares just makes it easier to put Dave's diagrams to practical use, like as maps for a D&D game.
Unfortunately, Dave's straw had resistance to flame, so repeated casting of Fireball upon his dwelling will do no good. The troll within, however, does have a shit bucket grapple attack, so don't let him touch you.  The Feeblemind spell does little good either, for obvious reasons.
  • Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 12:48:55 PM by Photon

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26785

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26786
Nope. KISS.

You know 'simple' has more than one meaning.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26787
Nope. KISS.

Well, no, Dave.  What you have there is a classic invader/occupier layout. Or occasionally a dictator, like Napoleon or Franco. The kind of thing a jobsworth surveyor in an office lays out without bothering to find out anything about the site or the people.  Controllers, not inhabitants.   The Romans did it, and so did the European settlers in the Americas.  Indigenous populations don't do it like that, as you will see if you look on google earth at any rural settlement pattern where planning has been bottom up rather than a distant top-down.

I know Americans love grids, and they are remarkably successful in cities.  They don't make much sense for rural settlements.  Not any sense, really.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26788
Ok here's my settlement diagram ... approx 500 acres ... 0.8 mile X 1 mile ... approx 40 dwellings ... half of them is elder housing at center ... other half out further ... 120 persons total ...  purposely did not draw roads or paths yet ... upper version is lots of small farmers ... lower version is 4 larger ones.


Now let's look at food production ... first we will consider a simple diet ... milk, meat, eggs, wheat, oats and potatoes  and later we can look at a more varied diet.  Also for simplicity we will assume that 50% of each person's food calories comes from milk, meat, and eggs, 25% comes from grains, and 25% comes from potatoes.  Let's assume that half of the farmers in each scenario are like me and like raising milk, eggs, and meat in a single integrated rotationally grazed system. And the other half are like Pingu and they raise the potatoes and the grains.  Now potatoes and grains are well suited for a single harvest every year and they store well.  Milk, meat, and eggs do not store well.  So now that I have stated some working assumptions, let's do some analysis and see if we can find out which system works best and why.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26789
Nope. KISS.

Well, no, Dave.  What you have there is a classic invader/occupier layout. Or occasionally a dictator, like Napoleon or Franco. The kind of thing a jobsworth surveyor in an office lays out without bothering to find out anything about the site or the people.  Controllers, not inhabitants.   The Romans did it, and so did the European settlers in the Americas.  Indigenous populations don't do it like that, as you will see if you look on google earth at any rural settlement pattern where planning has been bottom up rather than a distant top-down.

I know Americans love grids, and they are remarkably successful in cities.  They don't make much sense for rural settlements.  Not any sense, really.
You are an idiot of astounding proportions.   It's hard to understand how you tie your shoes every morning. Of course if I made an actual settlement I would take into account the landscape. Jesus Christ.   We are making simplifying assumptions so as to determine whether your assertions  about lots of small farmers versus just a few big ones are true or not.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26790
Ok here's my settlement diagram ... approx 500 acres ... 0.8 mile X 1 mile ... approx 40 dwellings ... half of them is elder housing at center ... other half out further ... 120 persons total ...  purposely did not draw roads or paths yet ... upper version is lots of small farmers ... lower version is 4 larger ones.


Now let's look at food production ... first we will consider a simple diet ... milk, meat, eggs, wheat, oats and potatoes  and later we can look at a more varied diet.  Also for simplicity we will assume that 50% of each person's food calories comes from milk, meat, and eggs, 25% comes from grains, and 25% comes from potatoes.  Let's assume that half of the farmers in each scenario are like me and like raising milk, eggs, and meat in a single integrated rotationally grazed system. And the other half are like Pingu and they raise the potatoes and the grains.  Now potatoes and grains are well suited for a single harvest every year and they store well.  Milk, meat, and eggs do not store well.  So now that I have stated some working assumptions, let's do some analysis and see if we can find out which system works best and why.

You like raising meat?  You haven't raised any meat yet as far as I can tell (apart from the dead piglet, but you're very coy in telling us what happened to that meat).

What's your weekly output of rabbit meat?

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26791
We are making simplifying assumptions so as to determine whether your assertions  [...]  are true or not.
::)  No, Hawkins. "We" are not doing that.
YOU are.
And we all know how YOU "determine" what's true and what's not.
Somehow these "determinations" always end up supporting your preferred narrative.
"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 #26792
Nope. KISS.

Well, no, Dave.  What you have there is a classic invader/occupier layout. Or occasionally a dictator, like Napoleon or Franco. The kind of thing a jobsworth surveyor in an office lays out without bothering to find out anything about the site or the people.  Controllers, not inhabitants.   The Romans did it, and so did the European settlers in the Americas.  Indigenous populations don't do it like that, as you will see if you look on google earth at any rural settlement pattern where planning has been bottom up rather than a distant top-down.

I know Americans love grids, and they are remarkably successful in cities.  They don't make much sense for rural settlements.  Not any sense, really.
You are an idiot of astounding proportions.   It's hard to understand how you tie your shoes every morning. Of course if I made an actual settlement I would take into account the landscape. Jesus Christ.   We are making simplifying assumptions so as to determine whether your assertions  about lots of small farmers versus just a few big ones are true or not.

You can't make any such determinations without some understanding of factors such as roads, butchers, mills, energy requirements for such infrastructure, etc.

As I said before, you never think deeply enough about the logistics of your scenarios, therefore little information of use can be derived from them.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26793
 Brains on Darwinism.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26794
Nope. KISS.

Well, no, Dave.  What you have there is a classic invader/occupier layout. Or occasionally a dictator, like Napoleon or Franco. The kind of thing a jobsworth surveyor in an office lays out without bothering to find out anything about the site or the people.  Controllers, not inhabitants.  The Romans did it, and so did the European settlers in the Americas.  Indigenous populations don't do it like that, as you will see if you look on google earth at any rural settlement pattern where planning has been bottom up rather than a distant top-down.

I know Americans love grids, and they are remarkably successful in cities.  They don't make much sense for rural settlements.  Not any sense, really.
You are an idiot of astounding proportions.  It's hard to understand how you tie your shoes every morning. Of course if I made an actual settlement I would take into account the landscape. Jesus Christ.  We are making simplifying assumptions so as to determine whether your assertions  about lots of small farmers versus just a few big ones are true or not.

Well, those simplifying assumptions won't help you, Dave, because you are simplifying the wrong thing.

Here's a simplification for you - a dispersed settlement pattern vs a nucleated one.  Which one requires more travel?


I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26795
Brains on Darwinism.

Well, it is certainly decent training.  Your brain is certainly showing the lack.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26796
Brains on Darwinism.
  • Savory
  • Shepard
  • ~ 100% of working scientists

Can you cite a single reliable (even according to you) source on the topics relevant to this thread (ecology, agronomy, nutrition...) who is not a "Darwinist"?

:icare:
  • Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 01:55:03 PM by VoxRat
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26797
But have another look at these two:



Same amount of land, same number of dwellings.  In the top one, how much transport infrastructure?  How much travel?

And in the lower one?

And the lower one allows for additional skills - butchering, pot-making etc, with added savings in scale (one oven can produce bread for entire settlement).
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26798
"Which one requires more travel?"

It depends on the details of the scenario.

Details.

Those things you don't like.



Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #26799
"Which one requires more travel?"

It depends on the details of the scenario.

Details.

Those things you don't like.




Unless you're talking about your 'big buttons'.