Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational:  We are all the Body of Christ.

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 210388 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • RickB
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39725

At the risk of watching Borealis' head explode yet again, my answer is...

"Don't know don't care"

Because nature Knows Best. The sheep and goats will select what they want to eat from what is there.

Just like they do here in Missouri.

Your 'don't know, don't care' attitude is the main reason you get so much aggro from the rest of us. You're the poster child for the havoc humans cause in the environment.

What if 'nature's knowing best' is that goats have no business there and should starve or sicken and die?

Lol you don't let your animals select what they want to eat in Missouri! You only let them eat what YOU decide they should eat.
LOL yeah I'm the poster child for environmental havoc. I've killed all the grass and the trees and wildlife at my place ... like that elm tree I pruned, for instance. Oh wait.

I guess if we really want to put the goats in control of their own lives, we should just eliminate fences all together and let them roam free and hope they come back at dinner time to let us milk them! Free choice, baby!


You are certainly a child.

Maybe we should let goats be goats and only give their milk to their offspring!!!   What a concept!!


  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39726
Geez no. Any animal can go feral at any time. But there would be almost zero negative effect if similar animals already existed in that area.

No I'm sure that all trees do not coppice well. But I'm sure there are many rainforest species that do.
From just an hour before.
Jon quit talking out of your ass. If you make an authoritative statement like that give me a citation of somebody who has knowledge based on their own experience. It's fine that you don't have your own experience, but at least have the decency to refer to someone else's work to support your authoritative statements.
Maybe the above should be:
I, Bluffy, should quit talking out of my ass. If I make authoritative statements like above, then I should give the readers a citation of somebody who has knowledge based on their own experience. It's fine that I don't have my own relevant experience, nor education, nor training, but at least I should have the decency to refer to someone else's work to support my authoritative statements, but I don't. And I'm not going to. Ever. Except as a quote-mine.
Good example.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • RickB
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39727
How much of the Wai Wai's food is provided by cassava?  How much acreage do they use to provide that food?

Dave's 'system' provides less than 50% of one person's nutritional requirement on ten acres (~40,000 m2).  Not sure how the Wai Wai will benefit and still preserve that 1 million acres of rain-forest.

Of course Dave will be long gone when the system collapses.


  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39728
Dave, when a single tree falls it doesn't clear a saw the 300ft wide and a mile long.  You're not proposing to clear a little false here and there at the kind of rate you'd expect to be happening in the forest anyway. You wanted to "thin the canopy by 50%". All those animals attracted to light gaps by the abundance of food? Normally they live in the canopy. Remove half of it and you destroy their habitat.
Is opening up some "light gaps" comparable to those described in the article the same as thinning the entire rainforest canopy to 50%?  No I don't think so.  I stopped talking about the 50% thing when I saw too many heads exploding.  We can talk about that again later once you've gotten your heads around "light gaps."


Well there is a bit of difference between 40 acre light gaps and 400 m2 light gaps. 

And when you expand that to 20,000 400 m2 there might be some impact, even on 1 million acres.
Dave has no comprehension of the relative sizes there. Dave, 400 m2 is 0.1 acre.
  • Last Edit: May 20, 2018, 03:52:12 PM by JonF
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • RickB
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39729
Dave, when a single tree falls it doesn't clear a saw the 300ft wide and a mile long.  You're not proposing to clear a little false here and there at the kind of rate you'd expect to be happening in the forest anyway. You wanted to "thin the canopy by 50%". All those animals attracted to light gaps by the abundance of food? Normally they live in the canopy. Remove half of it and you destroy their habitat.
Is opening up some "light gaps" comparable to those described in the article the same as thinning the entire rainforest canopy to 50%?  No I don't think so.  I stopped talking about the 50% thing when I saw too many heads exploding.  We can talk about that again later once you've gotten your heads around "light gaps."


Well there is a bit of difference between 40 acre light gaps and 400 m2 light gaps. 

And when you expand that to 20,000 400 m2 there might be some impact, even on 1 million acres.
Dave has no comprehension of the relative sizes there. Dave, 400 m2[/sup400 m2 is 0.1 acre.


Could you fix this please?

  • JonF
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39730
Whoops.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39731

At the risk of watching Borealis' head explode yet again, my answer is...

"Don't know don't care"

Because nature Knows Best. The sheep and goats will select what they want to eat from what is there.

Just like they do here in Missouri.

Your 'don't know, don't care' attitude is the main reason you get so much aggro from the rest of us. You're the poster child for the havoc humans cause in the environment.

What if 'nature's knowing best' is that goats have no business there and should starve or sicken and die?

Lol you don't let your animals select what they want to eat in Missouri! You only let them eat what YOU decide they should eat.
LOL yeah I'm the poster child for environmental havoc. I've killed all the grass and the trees and wildlife at my place ... like that elm tree I pruned, for instance. Oh wait.

I guess if we really want to put the goats in control of their own lives, we should just eliminate fences all together and let them roam free and hope they come back at dinner time to let us milk them! Free choice, baby!


You are certainly a child.

Maybe we should let goats be goats and only give their milk to their offspring!!!   What a concept!!


You could do that.  Would you also suggest not eating meat?  Is meat "designed" to be human food?

  • Zombies!
  • These violent delights have violent ends.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39732
Are goats designed to be dragged around a field in a tiny box?
I really should call your department head and tell him or her how badly you are behaving while posing as a credentialed professional scientist.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39733
How much of the Wai Wai's food is provided by cassava?  How much acreage do they use to provide that food?

Dave's 'system' provides less than 50% of one person's nutritional requirement on ten acres (~40,000 m2).  Not sure how the Wai Wai will benefit and still preserve that 1 million acres of rain-forest.

Of course Dave will be long gone when the system collapses.


Good question.  I don't know how much acreage cassava takes.  The cassava field I visited in Guyana in 2011 seemed to be a couple acres and I think it was designated for one extended family. 

I may be off but if this is close and if there are 40 families there, then that implies about 80 acres for the village for cassava.  And if each person averages 300,000 food calories from cassava per year, then that's about 750,000 food calories per acre.

  • RickB
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39734

At the risk of watching Borealis' head explode yet again, my answer is...

"Don't know don't care"

Because nature Knows Best. The sheep and goats will select what they want to eat from what is there.

Just like they do here in Missouri.

Your 'don't know, don't care' attitude is the main reason you get so much aggro from the rest of us. You're the poster child for the havoc humans cause in the environment.

What if 'nature's knowing best' is that goats have no business there and should starve or sicken and die?

Lol you don't let your animals select what they want to eat in Missouri! You only let them eat what YOU decide they should eat.
LOL yeah I'm the poster child for environmental havoc. I've killed all the grass and the trees and wildlife at my place ... like that elm tree I pruned, for instance. Oh wait.

I guess if we really want to put the goats in control of their own lives, we should just eliminate fences all together and let them roam free and hope they come back at dinner time to let us milk them! Free choice, baby!


You are certainly a child.

Maybe we should let goats be goats and only give their milk to their offspring!!!   What a concept!!


You could do that.  Would you also suggest not eating meat?  Is meat "designed" to be human food?


Since there is no evidence for 'design', no, 'meat' is not designed to be human food.

Damn, just how stupid do you want to portray yourself to be??


Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39735
So no milk. No meat. Are you a vegan?

  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39736
Quote
Cassava is a highly productive crop in terms of food calories produced per unit land area per unit of time, significantly higher than other staple crops. Cassava can produce food calories at rates exceeding 250,000 cal/hectare/day compared with 176,000 for rice, 110,000 for wheat, and 200,000 for maize (corn).
http://eol.org/pages/1154718/hierarchy_entries/46213115/details

Trying to find a more specific source than this, especially since I'm not sure whether they mean calories or Calories (i.e. kilocalories).
  • Last Edit: May 20, 2018, 06:08:03 PM by uncool

  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39737
So no milk. No meat. Are you a vegan?
You've made an unwarranted assumption based on your worldview here.

  • RickB
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39738
How much of the Wai Wai's food is provided by cassava?  How much acreage do they use to provide that food?

Dave's 'system' provides less than 50% of one person's nutritional requirement on ten acres (~40,000 m2).  Not sure how the Wai Wai will benefit and still preserve that 1 million acres of rain-forest.

Of course Dave will be long gone when the system collapses.


Good question.  I don't know how much acreage cassava takes.  The cassava field I visited in Guyana in 2011 seemed to be a couple acres and I think it was designated for one extended family. 

I may be off but if this is close and if there are 40 families there, then that implies about 80 acres for the village for cassava.  And if each person averages 300,000 food calories from cassava per year, then that's about 750,000 food calories per acre.


You are going to save the Wai Wai from themselves, but you do not know anything about their current culture?
If's, that is your argument?  You want to change the Wai Wai's current culture but you have no idea and apparently no interest in their current culture.

You do not know and do not care to know what their current land use is.  You do not know and do not care to know what their self-sufficiency is. 

This is very telling Dave.  You are going to help the Wai Wai become more self-sufficient, but have absolutely no idea where or even if they are deficient in being self-sufficient.  Since you appear to have no knowledge of their culture at all.




  • RickB
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39739
So no milk. No meat. Are you a vegan?

Meat sure, milk not so much.  Maybe a half gallon per year. 

More spoils in my frig than I consume.


  • RickB
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39740
As to nutrient leaching, Dave's contention is that it does not happen.  And that no nutrients are blown in with Saharan dust.  So, the nutrients in the rain-forest are a constant, that is none are removed and none are added.

Dave is of course free to explain why he disagrees with this assertion.

Studies have shown that nutrients are indeed removed and that nutrients are indeed added.  Evidence has already been posted. 


  • Zombies!
  • These violent delights have violent ends.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39741
As to nutrient leaching, Dave's contention is that it does not happen.  And that no nutrients are blown in with Saharan dust.  So, the nutrients in the rain-forest are a constant, that is none are removed and none are added.

Dave is of course free to explain why he disagrees with this assertion.

Studies have shown that nutrients are indeed removed and that nutrients are indeed added.  Evidence has already been posted.
But if Dave thinks that the system is a constant, and the goat is made of nutrients taken from the environment, how does the environment recover those nutrients in the second year of the goats life?
I really should call your department head and tell him or her how badly you are behaving while posing as a credentialed professional scientist.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39742
Quote
Cassava is a highly productive crop in terms of food calories produced per unit land area per unit of time, significantly higher than other staple crops. Cassava can produce food calories at rates exceeding 250,000 cal/hectare/day compared with 176,000 for rice, 110,000 for wheat, and 200,000 for maize (corn).
http://eol.org/pages/1154718/hierarchy_entries/46213115/details

Trying to find a more specific source than this, especially since I'm not sure whether they mean calories or Calories (i.e. kilocalories).

Well, it does say "food calories".

Food calories are Calories or kilocalories.
"When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." (Jonathan Swift)

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39743
Here is a perfect description of the problem faced by the Wai Wai people ... and all such people groups living in the Amazon rain forest who have traditionally depended on slash and burn cassava cultivation plus hunting / fishing / gathering.

Quote
Following contact, the Matsés reorganized into larger, fixed super-nucleated villages along the rivers at the encouragement of missionaries to facilitate assimilation into modern culture and access to trade goods. This new permanence of settlement, coupled with the old practice of slash-and-burn agriculture, has led to rings of increasing disturbed forest around each community. Once the soil gets exhausted in a few short years after a burn, the Matsés have no alternative but to cut virgin rainforest to create new farms each year, edging their fields farther and farther away from their fixed settlements. This creates a significant burden for the families carrying heavy loads of bananas and sacks of cassava (Manihot esculenta) for as long as two-hours to return back home. It also makes for longer walks for the men on hunting trips.

Why did the missionaries encourage higher density settlements?  Aren't they aware of the Tower of Babel account in the Bible?

That being said, I do applaud the missionaries for achieving peace between this group and the Peruvian government. 
Quote
Recent history
The Matsés made their first permanent contact with the outside world in 1969 when they accepted SIL missionaries into their communities. Before that date, they were in effect at warfare with the Peruvian government which had bombed their villages with napalm and sent the Peruvian army to invade their communities. Dan James Pantone and Bjorn Svensson wrote an article about how the Matsés made peaceful contact with the outside world in the Native Planet Journal called "Matsés First Contact: The End of Isolation" [1]. At present, relations between the Matsés people and the Peruvian government are very peaceful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mats%C3%A9s

I also applaud this permaculture group trying to change things but I myself would use a small animal husbandry model.

https://acateamazon.org/field-updates/regaining-sustainable-agriculture-practices-amazon/

  • Last Edit: May 21, 2018, 05:09:52 AM by Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39744
The Wiki article about this group says that there are about 3200 Matses.  And their land preserve is about 1.1 million acres.  Yet their quality of life is declining!!  Why? 

I think I may know.
Quote
Land rights
The Matsés have title to the Matsés Indigenous Reserve that was established in 1998. The reserve measures 457000 ha. Despite having title to their own reserve, living conditions for the Matsés have deteriorated. According to a recent article in Cultural Survival Quarterly by Dan James Pantone, living conditions have become much worse, to the point that the very survival of the Matsés people is in jeopardy [2]. At present, there is a proposal to expand the Matsés Communal Reserve to give the Matsés people control over their traditional hunting grounds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mats%C3%A9s

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39745
Excellent article by Dan James Pantone, mentioned above, explaining the problems the Matses are facing as a result of outside "help."

https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/forest-their-own

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39746
So it turns out that missionaries/outsiders who come into these indigenous communities, sure that they have the answer to their problems, generally just end up making things worse.

Something to think about.  :hmm:
"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 #39747
So it turns out that missionaries/outsiders who come into these indigenous communities, sure that they have the answer to their problems, generally just end up making things worse.

Something to think about.  :hmm:
There is some truth to that.  And the Wai Wai people have experienced some of these problems.  But ... you can talk to the old timers and they will tell you that the Wai Wai were a dying people without hope.  They often asked my dad who he would preach to when they were all gone.  So ... my dad's work was important.  Just as the SIL missionaries' work was important for the purpose of stopping the napalming of Matses villages.  However ... missionaries like my dad are notoriously ignorant about sustainable agriculture.  And THAT is one of the most urgent problems of the Matses people right now.  Ergo the permie folks trying to help them.  And then there's me ... trying to give actual help instead of fake help / misguided help.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39748
In other words, Vox ... I'm way ahead of ya!  :wave:

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #39749
Self-reflection is an alien concept to you isn't it Dave?
Why do I bother?