Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational: just accept there are limits to what can be discussed rationally on TR.

Show Posts

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 - Faid

In the famous words of Robert E. Lee, "Let them eat cotton".

FFS dave. You're just flailing at this point.
"Lots of ancient people ate grains.  Therefore grain production was easy."

"Lots of Mexicans work on vegetable farms picking vegetables. Therefore picking vegetables is easy work."


Hide your sleight-of-hands better next time.
I mean, high enough to make grain the CHEAPEST food source and thus the staple food.

So the EROI (human) must have been higher than OTHER food sources, mustn't it?


There are other - more likely - reasons.


People in animal husbandry (and gardeners) are hard to control because of the nature of the food.

Hard to store. Hard to transport. Thus the king can't lock it up inside the priests' storage vaults and make people buy it from him.  And the king can't load it into wagons to send with the army.
...What the fuck are you talking about?

Kings have been storing and transporting meat for ages. Hell, meat moves on its own. The mongols lived off horse milk that they milked on the spot. Also they took ground meat with them, and fed off the land by hunting and fishing. How much did that impede them in their conquests?

You're just making shit up.
Why can't tyrants control meat? What's so socialistic about it?
Hunting / gathering wasn't even the FIRST food system of mankind as is commonly supposed. Animal husbandry and tillage predated it. 

Well, this is not a FACT, Dave.  What is "commonly supposed" is not contradicted by any evidence that I am aware of, and supported by a great deal.

Hunting / gathering seems to be what displaced people resort to after they have been conquered / dispersed. For example, the Wai Wai people ... believed to be descendants of the Inca Empire.

You forget that YEC is not "settled science" and that the standard model is.

And that YEC is singlehandedly refuted by the radiocarbon calibration datasets, which you refuse to confront.

Even if we forget dave's (Brown's) idiocy, his problem remains. We STILL have clear evidence that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle preceded animal husbandry and agriculture in the archaeological record. He can yap all he wants about how C14 dates are bogus, and about how all the cro-Mgnons and Neandertals and Omo and Herto and all other human populations were post-flood descendants of Noah- They STILL were hunter-gatherers, and they STILL came before the first signs of agriculture and animal husbandry.
Hunting / gathering wasn't even the FIRST food system of mankind as is commonly supposed. Animal husbandry and tillage predated it.  Hunting / gathering seems to be what displaced people resort to after they have been conquered / dispersed. For example, the Wai Wai people ... believed to be descendants of the Inca Empire.
Perhaps Dave is saying that the PERENNIAL crops contributed to the growth of Mesopotamian cities, but not the ANNUAL crops.

In which case, again, I have to ask: why was BREAD (made with annual grains, mainly barley and wheat) a STAPLE food?
No I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that ...

The argument "cities sprang up because of tillage agriculture which is less work than hunting / gathering" is wrong ... because tillage agriculture is NOT less work than hunting / gathering. It's MORE work.

My hypothesis for the rise of cities is ... The Desire for ...


Of the masses.
Dave, CONTROL of the masses comes with CONTROL of production. MORE production, MORE power, MORE control. Right?

So, it would make sense that those seeking power would make use of the most effective means to gain surplus production, right?

So, why did they use agriculture?
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?
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.
Ignorance and arrogance. As expected.
"My point is that EROI numbers are no use unless sorted by energy source. "

 why didn't you just say it that way in the first place?

Don't worry. There's no sound on the surface of Chiron Beta Prime.
Then kill them all.
"Awwww, look, that plane is skydrawing a heart! No wait, I think it's- the symbol for infinity? Hold on, it's- Oh."
"Firstly, it's not "sudden" - I've had Mark Shepard's book for a while now, and have frequently said that I think his agroforestry ideas have a lot of merit.

Secondly: what is not "complete" about the food that Mark Shepard produces?"

Introduced by me I suppose.

Try living on fruit and nuts alone.
Try living on milk alone.
Also the food that I am producing requires no processing or cooking at all. And it is very nearly a complete food from the perspective that people could live on my food alone for a very long time  before suffering from some deficiency.
Have you tried that yet?
After all, energy is energy whether it comes from fossil fuels or human bodies.

Now, suppose that, tomorrow, you decide to go to work on a Segway. And the day after that, you decide to do it on a unicycle.

How much energy (of any kind) was spent during each trip? Were they vastly different amounts, or relatively close?
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.  If she actually reading before continuing to spout "methane, methane" then ok.
You gotta be fucking kidding me.

AND you completely ignore Alland Savory about methane.

God what a fraud you are!!
WE "ignore Savory about methane"?

Did you not read a single post in response to your link, or are you simply lying?

Which is an EROI of about 4 ...

Which is better than Walter Haugen's best year raising PLANT FOODS ( 3.8 ) ...

And his output was about 1 million calories per acre ....

And all you have is BALD ASSERTION that this is more efficient (land area) than animal food production ...

Which I doubt based on A WRITTEN REPORY from Joel Salatin about his "400 cow day" pasture grass.

So "Dave Who Sucks at Science" is actually being more scientific about this than "Pingu the Real Scientist With a PhD and Years of Real Science Experience."

Fancy that.

Aesop's milkmaid, my ass.

What a fraud you are!!
Speaking of "fraud"...

What was Walter's EROI for 2017, again?
It appears that your opinion of your own brilliance is so hard-set that anyone who disagrees with you MUST think they are EVEN MORE BRILLIANT.
Pingu's got your number, dave.
The "brilliant" and "run circles" comment was in response to the constant unwarranted bashing I have received here for years and the intent was to show that I am at least as bright as you people (many of you no doubt ran circles around your peers in school to get where you are today).  So yes, you people use this comment wrongly and out of context.  "We've done science for years."  Yes, you have, but only the very narrow definition of science.  True science has a much broader definition than you people allow for.  This is human nature.  Human nature tries to monopolize things and you want a monopoly on "science" just like Bill Gates wants a monopoly on computers and software.  Well ... you're not going to get your monopoly.  At least not from me.  And it's not arrogant to say that "my sheep will require no maintenance" any more than it would be to say that I am going to purchase a "maintenance free" battery for my car.  "Maintenance free" sheep are a type of sheep.  Nothing more.
That is bullshit dave. Even you must see it's bullshit.

there's no maintenance with hair sheep. None whatsoever. 
My late aunt kept hair sheep (on the farm where I currently live).
It was a lot of work.
If I were you, I would not study Regenerative Farming under your aunt.

If my aunt were you, she'd have opened the cage and let the goats out.
The "brilliant" and "run circles" comment was in a specific context and you are misusing my words.  Saying "Hahahahahaha" when I say that my sheep will require no maintenance is an example of what I'm talking about when I talk about an arrogant know it all attitude.  I may have been the only one honest enough at this forum to actually type the words "I have a brilliant mind and I can run circles around __________ (don't remember who I was comparing myself to but I think it was the "Average American Joe Blow")" ... but you guys say it every day without actually articulating the words by your actions.  Such as this one that I just pointed out.  And while you have never said exactly what I said above, you imply the same thing by constantly saying "Dave sucks at science" etc.  Which of course is not true.  If anything, it's you guys that suck at science because your definition of "science" is so damn narrow.
So, saying ""I have a brilliant mind and I can run circles around __________" makes you "honest".

And if anyone says that you (YOU, the Brilliant Dave Hawkins) sucks, it follows that said person "implies" the same arrogance that you openly display. Because, I suppose, one must be TRULY arrogant and boastful to claim that they know more about "obscure" fields than dave (DAVE!) does.

Jesus Fucking Christ.

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 not supported by the evidence.
Remember Sardinia?