Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational: We're not supposed to agree with each other and like each others victories.

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 178354 times) previous topic - next topic

vivisectus and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.
  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #37075
Honestly, Dave, the most burning questions are the ones I don't even know how to ask - or more likely, don't even know to ask. I doubt you could answer them. How do you ask a fish about the sea? On the flipside, how does a fish ask you about the land?

The only route I can take is to point out where I find your mindset not just wrong - that's normal - but incoherent. To take the little grips I can find, wherever I can, not hoping for one big breakthrough. Because the places where I find your mindset incoherent are the places that signal an unresolvable values clash.

So I'll ask you one of those "grips": do you know what happened when the British introduced rabbits to Australia?
  • Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 07:51:36 PM by uncool

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #37076
If you don't like my ideas, fine.  But for God's sakes, give me an intelligent objection.  Not this goddamn head up the ass stuff.

First you would require an intelligent and reasoned idea. There's the rub.

Tell me, what is the difference in outcome to overstocking within "traditional" grazing practices and overstocking within "holistically managed grazing"?

If deforestation for "traditional" grazing practices can be shown to have exacerbated desertification in the past, how does deforestation for "holistically managed grazing" avoid this?

No, "opening up the canopy to 50%" is not substantively different to deforestation.

Quotes because definitions are quite plastic, especially davinated ones.
Do you really want to know the answers to these questions? Or are you just heckling? Because there are very good answers to these and I've answered them in the past already. But if you are honestly and sincerely asking because you want to learn something, I would go to the trouble to answer them again.

I have never seen you attempt honest answers to those questions. Plenty of bullshit justifications and distractions though.

Attempt to honestly answer or keep bullshitting. Either outcome only reflects on you. Only one is conducive to actual learning.
I've answered these honestly before.  Probably why you missed it is because you read Pingu's spin jobs in response instead of reading my answers. 

Now ... why do you want these answers?  How will the answers benefit you?
Dave, Pingu had nothing to do with our assessments. She offered that to educate you. You may not realize that you are talking to people with vastly more knowledge of the broader subject than you, but you are. Nonlinearity is something pretty much everyone here but you gets. It is the basic signpost you keep walking into every time you get going on your messiah complex and is the reason any observer can categorically dismiss your delusional rants about what should be. It's not that we don't agree with your basic problem definition, we pretty much all do. It's that your "solutions" are filtered through a blender. They are laughably ignorant. Actually, they were ignorant at first. Now they are just stupid. Kudos to you for messing around with ideas for sustainable agriculture and for earnestly trying to test your ideas, but dude,  Aesop's fables are a manual for how to avoid being Dave.
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 #37077
Honestly, Dave, the most burning questions are the ones I don't even know how to ask - or more likely, don't even know to ask. I doubt you could answer them. How do you ask a fish about the sea? On the flipside, how does a fish ask you about the land?

The only route I can take is to point out where I find your mindset not just wrong - that's normal - but incoherent. To take the little grips I can find, wherever I can, not hoping for one big breakthrough. Because the places where I find your mindset incoherent are the places that signal an unresolvable values clash.

So I'll ask you one of those "grips": do you know what happened when the British introduced rabbits to Australia?
Yes but why is that relevant to my goat and Sheep Project in Guyana?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #37078
If you don't like my ideas, fine.  But for God's sakes, give me an intelligent objection.  Not this goddamn head up the ass stuff.

First you would require an intelligent and reasoned idea. There's the rub.

Tell me, what is the difference in outcome to overstocking within "traditional" grazing practices and overstocking within "holistically managed grazing"?

If deforestation for "traditional" grazing practices can be shown to have exacerbated desertification in the past, how does deforestation for "holistically managed grazing" avoid this?

No, "opening up the canopy to 50%" is not substantively different to deforestation.

Quotes because definitions are quite plastic, especially davinated ones.
Do you really want to know the answers to these questions? Or are you just heckling? Because there are very good answers to these and I've answered them in the past already. But if you are honestly and sincerely asking because you want to learn something, I would go to the trouble to answer them again.

I have never seen you attempt honest answers to those questions. Plenty of bullshit justifications and distractions though.

Attempt to honestly answer or keep bullshitting. Either outcome only reflects on you. Only one is conducive to actual learning.
I've answered these honestly before.  Probably why you missed it is because you read Pingu's spin jobs in response instead of reading my answers. 

Now ... why do you want these answers?  How will the answers benefit you?
Dave, Pingu had nothing to do with our assessments. She offered that to educate you. You may not realize that you are talking to people with vastly more knowledge of the broader subject than you, but you are. Nonlinearity is something pretty much everyone here but you gets. It is the basic signpost you keep walking into every time you get going on your messiah complex and is the reason any observer can categorically dismiss your delusional rants about what should be. It's not that we don't agree with your basic problem definition, we pretty much all do. It's that your "solutions" are filtered through a blender. They are laughably ignorant. Actually, they were ignorant at first. Now they are just stupid. Kudos to you for messing around with ideas for sustainable agriculture and for earnestly trying to test your ideas, but dude,  Aesop's fables are a manual for how to avoid being Dave.
One of the many reasons you are an idiot is because you can't even coherently voice an objection. This is incoherent blather.

Why don't you focus on your rainforest question that you asked me. I gave you a really good answer and you didn't respond. Why didn't you?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #37079
If you don't like my ideas, fine.  But for God's sakes, give me an intelligent objection.  Not this goddamn head up the ass stuff.

First you would require an intelligent and reasoned idea. There's the rub.

Tell me, what is the difference in outcome to overstocking within "traditional" grazing practices and overstocking within "holistically managed grazing"?

If deforestation for "traditional" grazing practices can be shown to have exacerbated desertification in the past, how does deforestation for "holistically managed grazing" avoid this?

No, "opening up the canopy to 50%" is not substantively different to deforestation.

Quotes because definitions are quite plastic, especially davinated ones.
Do you really want to know the answers to these questions? Or are you just heckling? Because there are very good answers to these and I've answered them in the past already. But if you are honestly and sincerely asking because you want to learn something, I would go to the trouble to answer them again.
you answering those questions and those answers being information that merits the title 'learning' are not synonymous. The idea that you know something which should constitute 'teaching' is unlikely based on your historical failure to do so. But there's always a first time I guess, Ecclesiastes aside, so go ahead.
You're an idiot
ok. Please do explain why the amount of rainfall is irrelevant to your claim in the context of rainforest.
Come on, dude.  Think.  This is why I think you are an idiot.

Do goats and sheep care if it's raining?  No.  Well maybe a little.  But it has no impact on their success.  The will eat, sleep, dance, marry, give in marriage, have kids, get old and die whether it's raining or not.

You really are an idiot.

Darwin has eaten your brain.
This is just so incredibly weird.
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

  • Fenrir
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #37080
These questions are an attempt to link the revealed wisdom of Davinity with base reality. To find out how you get from the mundane to your grand pronouncements.

These are the steps which seperate the genuine search for solutions from the salesmanship and slick patter of the fraud.

So far all I see are skyhooks. Skyhooks don't actually exist, everything needs a base.

It's what plants crave.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #37081
Honestly, Dave, the most burning questions are the ones I don't even know how to ask - or more likely, don't even know to ask. I doubt you could answer them. How do you ask a fish about the sea? On the flipside, how does a fish ask you about the land?

The only route I can take is to point out where I find your mindset not just wrong - that's normal - but incoherent. To take the little grips I can find, wherever I can, not hoping for one big breakthrough. Because the places where I find your mindset incoherent are the places that signal an unresolvable values clash.

So I'll ask you one of those "grips": do you know what happened when the British introduced rabbits to Australia?
Yes but why is that relevant to my goat and Sheep Project in Guyana?
you mean in the rainforest in Guyana?
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 #37082
Honestly, Dave, the most burning questions are the ones I don't even know how to ask - or more likely, don't even know to ask. I doubt you could answer them. How do you ask a fish about the sea? On the flipside, how does a fish ask you about the land?

The only route I can take is to point out where I find your mindset not just wrong - that's normal - but incoherent. To take the little grips I can find, wherever I can, not hoping for one big breakthrough. Because the places where I find your mindset incoherent are the places that signal an unresolvable values clash.

So I'll ask you one of those "grips": do you know what happened when the British introduced rabbits to Australia?
Yes but why is that relevant to my goat and Sheep Project in Guyana?

Replace goats and sheep with rabbits and Guyana with Australia and maybe you'll see why it's relevant to think about.

  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #37083
Honestly, Dave, the most burning questions are the ones I don't even know how to ask - or more likely, don't even know to ask. I doubt you could answer them. How do you ask a fish about the sea? On the flipside, how does a fish ask you about the land?

The only route I can take is to point out where I find your mindset not just wrong - that's normal - but incoherent. To take the little grips I can find, wherever I can, not hoping for one big breakthrough. Because the places where I find your mindset incoherent are the places that signal an unresolvable values clash.

So I'll ask you one of those "grips": do you know what happened when the British introduced rabbits to Australia?
Yes but why is that relevant to my goat and Sheep Project in Guyana?
It's relevant to your mindset about your project.

Here's the list of questions you found relevant:
Quote
Can I get Dairy and meat goats and hair sheep that are adapted to local conditions? Are there plenty of tree species in the vicinity of the YY Village that the leaves of which sheep and goats will enjoy eating? What happens to a field which is slashed and burned? What kind of underbrush grows up afterwards? Are there grasses? Or shrubs? Vines? Or what? My sliding pen system is great for pasture but I think it would be pretty bad for freshly slashed Forest. What system would be better? Electric fence? Movable modular fence panels? What about Predator protection? Put them in a safe corral at night?

The British could have asked a similar list of questions, and all of them would have had positive results - as shown by the thriving of the rabbits. All of your questions are about how the environment would affect the goats. None of them are about how goats - or their management - would affect the environment. How goats would become part of a new whole. Which is why the British failed - they added rabbits, knowing the environment was good for them, and they never asked whether they would be good for the environment.

And whether they would be good for the environment is heavily environment-dependent. It easily could depend, for example, on whether the environment is rainforest or deciduous forest.

So my question boils down to: what differentiates what you are doing from what the British did?

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #37084
Ah, but you forget: We have scientifically proven that goats do not run away when you keep them in a robo-pen, even if you leave the door open. In the same way we have scientifically proven that straw floors pose no fire-hazard. So there is no reason at all to consider the impact of feral goats on the rainforest of Guyana.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #37085
If you don't like my ideas, fine.  But for God's sakes, give me an intelligent objection.  Not this goddamn head up the ass stuff.

First you would require an intelligent and reasoned idea. There's the rub.

Tell me, what is the difference in outcome to overstocking within "traditional" grazing practices and overstocking within "holistically managed grazing"?

If deforestation for "traditional" grazing practices can be shown to have exacerbated desertification in the past, how does deforestation for "holistically managed grazing" avoid this?

No, "opening up the canopy to 50%" is not substantively different to deforestation.

Quotes because definitions are quite plastic, especially davinated ones.
Do you really want to know the answers to these questions? Or are you just heckling? Because there are very good answers to these and I've answered them in the past already. But if you are honestly and sincerely asking because you want to learn something, I would go to the trouble to answer them again.
you answering those questions and those answers being information that merits the title 'learning' are not synonymous. The idea that you know something which should constitute 'teaching' is unlikely based on your historical failure to do so. But there's always a first time I guess, Ecclesiastes aside, so go ahead.
You're an idiot
ok. Please do explain why the amount of rainfall is irrelevant to your claim in the context of rainforest.
Come on, dude.  Think.  This is why I think you are an idiot.

Do goats and sheep care if it's raining?  No.  Well maybe a little.  But it has no impact on their success.  The will eat, sleep, dance, marry, give in marriage, have kids, get old and die whether it's raining or not.

You really are an idiot.

Darwin has eaten your brain.
This is just so incredibly weird.
Yeah, it's crazy leaving this forum for a couple of months and seeing how far Dave has slid cognitively after returning.  He's getting worse more  quickly.  He simply cannot engage in any meaningful way any longer, and gets weirder and more sexist by the month.
Quote from: Dave Hawkins on Sun Jan 14 2018 19:59:03 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)
you suck at truth detection. (And spelling)

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #37086
Yes but why is that relevant to my goat and Sheep Project in Guyana?
You don't have a goat and Sheep Project in Guyana.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Fenrir
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #37087
Yes but why is that relevant to my goat and Sheep Project in Guyana?
You don't have a goat and Sheep Project in Guyana.

The Guyana Livestock Development Authority does though.

They are probably lurking this thread to get tips.
It's what plants crave.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #37088
Could it be said that Walter Mitty had "projects"?        :hmm:
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #37089
My question at the moment is:
How can you write stupid things like this:
Someone in my condition without Darwin brain disease would interpret this as a refutation of the idea that half the people would have problems drinking milk. Don't you think the chief would have mentioned something about that if it were a problem?
... casting the central (to your fantasies) issue of lactose intolerance as an issue of "Darwin brain disease" - reducing an issue of scientific research to competitive cheerjeerleading, then completely ignore this:
Yeah. Someone in my condition without Darwin brain disease would interpret this as a refutation of the idea that half the people would have problems drinking milk. Don't you think the chief would have mentioned something about that if it were a problem?

L.  M.  A.  O.

From Creation.com
Quote
Can't drink milk? You're "normal"!
How mutations cause lactose tolerance in adults


For many, the mere mention of milk will be enough to invoke memories of nausea, bloating, cramps, diarrhea, and perhaps in some cases, jibes and taunts about 'wind' and bad breath. Some will have undergone medical tests that diagnosed the cause as 'Lactose intolerance'.

Lacking the enzyme lactase, which breaks down the milk sugar lactose (see box), they are unable to digest milk, whereas lactose-tolerant people can. Others, though, might still be unaware that they are 'deficient' in lactase, not realizing that drinking milk causes their feelings of nausea, etc.1 ...
However, 'lactose deficiency' in adults is not in fact abnormal, but the norm! Research has shown that the gene for lactase normally switches off as children are weaned. And a genetic mutation that results in lactase production not being switched off accounts for the ability of certain people to drink milk into adulthood.
(Really - go read the whole thing!)


You KNOW what this calls for!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

"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 #37090
Honestly, Dave, the most burning questions are the ones I don't even know how to ask - or more likely, don't even know to ask. I doubt you could answer them. How do you ask a fish about the sea? On the flipside, how does a fish ask you about the land?

The only route I can take is to point out where I find your mindset not just wrong - that's normal - but incoherent. To take the little grips I can find, wherever I can, not hoping for one big breakthrough. Because the places where I find your mindset incoherent are the places that signal an unresolvable values clash.

So I'll ask you one of those "grips": do you know what happened when the British introduced rabbits to Australia?
Yes but why is that relevant to my goat and Sheep Project in Guyana?
It's relevant to your mindset about your project.

Here's the list of questions you found relevant:
Quote
Can I get Dairy and meat goats and hair sheep that are adapted to local conditions? Are there plenty of tree species in the vicinity of the YY Village that the leaves of which sheep and goats will enjoy eating? What happens to a field which is slashed and burned? What kind of underbrush grows up afterwards? Are there grasses? Or shrubs? Vines? Or what? My sliding pen system is great for pasture but I think it would be pretty bad for freshly slashed Forest. What system would be better? Electric fence? Movable modular fence panels? What about Predator protection? Put them in a safe corral at night?

The British could have asked a similar list of questions, and all of them would have had positive results - as shown by the thriving of the rabbits. All of your questions are about how the environment would affect the goats. None of them are about how goats - or their management - would affect the environment. How goats would become part of a new whole. Which is why the British failed - they added rabbits, knowing the environment was good for them, and they never asked whether they would be good for the environment.

And whether they would be good for the environment is heavily environment-dependent. It easily could depend, for example, on whether the environment is rainforest or deciduous forest.

So my question boils down to: what differentiates what you are doing from what the British did?
These are the types of questions which really cause me to wonder what is wrong with your thinking patterns. Why can you not answer this simple question yourself? Do you not realize that Guyana already has sheep and goats? Do you not realize that even if they did not, that sheep and goats are far different from rabbits in some extremely important ways? Like how quickly they reproduce and how impossible they are to contain once they get out of their cages? Do you not also realize that there are plenty of other small herbivores similar in size to goats and sheep in Guyana both in the rainforest and on the savannas?

I'm being serious here, not snarky, what is wrong with your thinking that you cannot figure this stuff out for yourself?

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #37091
... Someone in my condition without Darwin brain disease...
You mean people like Allan Savory, or Weston Price ?

Oh.
Wait.
There's a difference between nominal Darwinists and Darwin fanatics. 
Is it the same difference as between true, loyal American Trumpists, and weak, feeble RINOs?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #37092
If you don't like my ideas, fine.  But for God's sakes, give me an intelligent objection.  Not this goddamn head up the ass stuff.

First you would require an intelligent and reasoned idea. There's the rub.

Tell me, what is the difference in outcome to overstocking within "traditional" grazing practices and overstocking within "holistically managed grazing"?

If deforestation for "traditional" grazing practices can be shown to have exacerbated desertification in the past, how does deforestation for "holistically managed grazing" avoid this?

No, "opening up the canopy to 50%" is not substantively different to deforestation.

Quotes because definitions are quite plastic, especially davinated ones.
Do you really want to know the answers to these questions? Or are you just heckling? Because there are very good answers to these and I've answered them in the past already. But if you are honestly and sincerely asking because you want to learn something, I would go to the trouble to answer them again.
you answering those questions and those answers being information that merits the title 'learning' are not synonymous. The idea that you know something which should constitute 'teaching' is unlikely based on your historical failure to do so. But there's always a first time I guess, Ecclesiastes aside, so go ahead.
You're an idiot
ok. Please do explain why the amount of rainfall is irrelevant to your claim in the context of rainforest.
Come on, dude.  Think.  This is why I think you are an idiot.

Do goats and sheep care if it's raining?  No.  Well maybe a little.  But it has no impact on their success.  The will eat, sleep, dance, marry, give in marriage, have kids, get old and die whether it's raining or not.

You really are an idiot.

Darwin has eaten your brain.
Wow.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #37093
Yo!
Hawkins!
:wave:

Has Darwin eaten this guy's brain?


From Creation.com
Quote
Can't drink milk? You're "normal"!
How mutations cause lactose tolerance in adults


For many, the mere mention of milk will be enough to invoke memories of nausea, bloating, cramps, diarrhea, and perhaps in some cases, jibes and taunts about 'wind' and bad breath. Some will have undergone medical tests that diagnosed the cause as 'Lactose intolerance'.

Lacking the enzyme lactase, which breaks down the milk sugar lactose (see box), they are unable to digest milk, whereas lactose-tolerant people can. Others, though, might still be unaware that they are 'deficient' in lactase, not realizing that drinking milk causes their feelings of nausea, etc.1 ...
However, 'lactose deficiency' in adults is not in fact abnormal, but the norm! Research has shown that the gene for lactase normally switches off as children are weaned. And a genetic mutation that results in lactase production not being switched off accounts for the ability of certain people to drink milk into adulthood.
(Really - go read the whole thing!)
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #37094
If you don't like my ideas, fine.  But for God's sakes, give me an intelligent objection.  Not this goddamn head up the ass stuff.

Should be familiar territory for you.  You head has been up your ass for fifty plus years!!
No. The reason you think so is because you read posts by people like Borealis who DO have their heads up their asses.  If you would read what I say as opposed to what others say about me, you wouldn't think that.
Actually, Bluffy, it's because people do read your posts they thing you have your head up your ass.
You'd be better off with others just going with whatever random characterization of you that first comes to their minds. 90% of the time it'd be better than a reality based assessment.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #37095
Honestly, Dave, the most burning questions are the ones I don't even know how to ask - or more likely, don't even know to ask. I doubt you could answer them. How do you ask a fish about the sea? On the flipside, how does a fish ask you about the land?

The only route I can take is to point out where I find your mindset not just wrong - that's normal - but incoherent. To take the little grips I can find, wherever I can, not hoping for one big breakthrough. Because the places where I find your mindset incoherent are the places that signal an unresolvable values clash.

So I'll ask you one of those "grips": do you know what happened when the British introduced rabbits to Australia?
Yes but why is that relevant to my goat and Sheep Project in Guyana?
It's relevant to your mindset about your project.

Here's the list of questions you found relevant:
Quote
Can I get Dairy and meat goats and hair sheep that are adapted to local conditions? Are there plenty of tree species in the vicinity of the YY Village that the leaves of which sheep and goats will enjoy eating? What happens to a field which is slashed and burned? What kind of underbrush grows up afterwards? Are there grasses? Or shrubs? Vines? Or what? My sliding pen system is great for pasture but I think it would be pretty bad for freshly slashed Forest. What system would be better? Electric fence? Movable modular fence panels? What about Predator protection? Put them in a safe corral at night?

The British could have asked a similar list of questions, and all of them would have had positive results - as shown by the thriving of the rabbits. All of your questions are about how the environment would affect the goats. None of them are about how goats - or their management - would affect the environment. How goats would become part of a new whole. Which is why the British failed - they added rabbits, knowing the environment was good for them, and they never asked whether they would be good for the environment.

And whether they would be good for the environment is heavily environment-dependent. It easily could depend, for example, on whether the environment is rainforest or deciduous forest.

So my question boils down to: what differentiates what you are doing from what the British did?
The British have a much better accent, particularly the Aussie variety.
Are we there yet?

  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #37096
Honestly, Dave, the most burning questions are the ones I don't even know how to ask - or more likely, don't even know to ask. I doubt you could answer them. How do you ask a fish about the sea? On the flipside, how does a fish ask you about the land?

The only route I can take is to point out where I find your mindset not just wrong - that's normal - but incoherent. To take the little grips I can find, wherever I can, not hoping for one big breakthrough. Because the places where I find your mindset incoherent are the places that signal an unresolvable values clash.

So I'll ask you one of those "grips": do you know what happened when the British introduced rabbits to Australia?
Yes but why is that relevant to my goat and Sheep Project in Guyana?
It's relevant to your mindset about your project.

Here's the list of questions you found relevant:
Quote
Can I get Dairy and meat goats and hair sheep that are adapted to local conditions? Are there plenty of tree species in the vicinity of the YY Village that the leaves of which sheep and goats will enjoy eating? What happens to a field which is slashed and burned? What kind of underbrush grows up afterwards? Are there grasses? Or shrubs? Vines? Or what? My sliding pen system is great for pasture but I think it would be pretty bad for freshly slashed Forest. What system would be better? Electric fence? Movable modular fence panels? What about Predator protection? Put them in a safe corral at night?

The British could have asked a similar list of questions, and all of them would have had positive results - as shown by the thriving of the rabbits. All of your questions are about how the environment would affect the goats. None of them are about how goats - or their management - would affect the environment. How goats would become part of a new whole. Which is why the British failed - they added rabbits, knowing the environment was good for them, and they never asked whether they would be good for the environment.

And whether they would be good for the environment is heavily environment-dependent. It easily could depend, for example, on whether the environment is rainforest or deciduous forest.

So my question boils down to: what differentiates what you are doing from what the British did?
These are the types of questions which really cause me to wonder what is wrong with your thinking patterns. Why can you not answer this simple question yourself? Do you not realize that Guyana already has sheep and goats?
I didn't. I assumed it didn't, because of how you were acting about bringing sheep and goats there.

In that case, why are you necessary? Why can't the tribe just get its own sheep and goats? What are you doing for the tribe that warrants all these posts you've made about it?

I'll get to the rest, but this probably is the major question right now.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #37097
Honestly, Dave, the most burning questions are the ones I don't even know how to ask - or more likely, don't even know to ask. I doubt you could answer them. How do you ask a fish about the sea? On the flipside, how does a fish ask you about the land?

The only route I can take is to point out where I find your mindset not just wrong - that's normal - but incoherent. To take the little grips I can find, wherever I can, not hoping for one big breakthrough. Because the places where I find your mindset incoherent are the places that signal an unresolvable values clash.

So I'll ask you one of those "grips": do you know what happened when the British introduced rabbits to Australia?
Yes but why is that relevant to my goat and Sheep Project in Guyana?
It's relevant to your mindset about your project.

Here's the list of questions you found relevant:
Quote
Can I get Dairy and meat goats and hair sheep that are adapted to local conditions? Are there plenty of tree species in the vicinity of the YY Village that the leaves of which sheep and goats will enjoy eating? What happens to a field which is slashed and burned? What kind of underbrush grows up afterwards? Are there grasses? Or shrubs? Vines? Or what? My sliding pen system is great for pasture but I think it would be pretty bad for freshly slashed Forest. What system would be better? Electric fence? Movable modular fence panels? What about Predator protection? Put them in a safe corral at night?

The British could have asked a similar list of questions, and all of them would have had positive results - as shown by the thriving of the rabbits. All of your questions are about how the environment would affect the goats. None of them are about how goats - or their management - would affect the environment. How goats would become part of a new whole. Which is why the British failed - they added rabbits, knowing the environment was good for them, and they never asked whether they would be good for the environment.

And whether they would be good for the environment is heavily environment-dependent. It easily could depend, for example, on whether the environment is rainforest or deciduous forest.

So my question boils down to: what differentiates what you are doing from what the British did?
These are the types of questions which really cause me to wonder what is wrong with your thinking patterns. Why can you not answer this simple question yourself? Do you not realize that Guyana already has sheep and goats?
I didn't. I assumed it didn't, because of how you were acting about bringing sheep and goats there.

In that case, why are you necessary? Why can't the tribe just get its own sheep and goats? What are you doing for the tribe that warrants all these posts you've made about it?

I'll get to the rest, but this probably is the major question right now.
Great question. The answer is that sheep and goats managed the way that most people in the world have managed them down through history have inflicted great damage on their ecosystems. We don't want that to happen with the Wai Wai people.

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #37098
It's not even that it would necessarily be bad for the Waiwai to have small goat herds; it's that Dave has no interest in knowing anything about what could go wrong.

I knew a man (now passed away) who almost single-handedly caused the near-extinction of a North American oyster species in the early fifties through the importation and cultivation of a foreign oyster in the same waters.

Dave says there are already similar sized ruminants: you think there weren't any rabbit-sized herbivores in Australia, Dave?

The whole point of international effort in Guyana and helping the Waiwai have healthy, prosperous communities is to preserve a large area of pristine rainforest which has so far escaped being over run with logging and agriculture. Besides the small human population, this is partly due to none of the tree species there being seen as lucrative prospects for timber, and the soil and climate being unsuitable for conventional agriculture (the soil is poor, and it is too wet).

All over South America invasive species have taken a toll - North American beavers in Tierra del Fuego caused devastation, feral pigs and imported wild boar are problems in several countries, imported Ash trees out-shade rainforest trees, mongoose, imported to control black rats (another invasive) not only failed with the rats but kill many trees with their nest habits while forcing out native animals.

There are probably many others, but in spite of Dave's faith in the all-knowingness of the internet, environmental information is scarce from many smaller countries, probably because they haven't the resources to devote to such studies.

A few goats might be fine. Or they might succumb to a local disease or parasite. Or eat poisonous plants. Or bring parasites or diseases with them that the goats are immune to but local herbivores might be decimated by. Gee, Dave, would it hurt so much to find these things out beforehand?

  • uncool
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #37099
Honestly, Dave, the most burning questions are the ones I don't even know how to ask - or more likely, don't even know to ask. I doubt you could answer them. How do you ask a fish about the sea? On the flipside, how does a fish ask you about the land?

The only route I can take is to point out where I find your mindset not just wrong - that's normal - but incoherent. To take the little grips I can find, wherever I can, not hoping for one big breakthrough. Because the places where I find your mindset incoherent are the places that signal an unresolvable values clash.

So I'll ask you one of those "grips": do you know what happened when the British introduced rabbits to Australia?
Yes but why is that relevant to my goat and Sheep Project in Guyana?
It's relevant to your mindset about your project.

Here's the list of questions you found relevant:
Quote
Can I get Dairy and meat goats and hair sheep that are adapted to local conditions? Are there plenty of tree species in the vicinity of the YY Village that the leaves of which sheep and goats will enjoy eating? What happens to a field which is slashed and burned? What kind of underbrush grows up afterwards? Are there grasses? Or shrubs? Vines? Or what? My sliding pen system is great for pasture but I think it would be pretty bad for freshly slashed Forest. What system would be better? Electric fence? Movable modular fence panels? What about Predator protection? Put them in a safe corral at night?

The British could have asked a similar list of questions, and all of them would have had positive results - as shown by the thriving of the rabbits. All of your questions are about how the environment would affect the goats. None of them are about how goats - or their management - would affect the environment. How goats would become part of a new whole. Which is why the British failed - they added rabbits, knowing the environment was good for them, and they never asked whether they would be good for the environment.

And whether they would be good for the environment is heavily environment-dependent. It easily could depend, for example, on whether the environment is rainforest or deciduous forest.

So my question boils down to: what differentiates what you are doing from what the British did?
These are the types of questions which really cause me to wonder what is wrong with your thinking patterns. Why can you not answer this simple question yourself? Do you not realize that Guyana already has sheep and goats?
I didn't. I assumed it didn't, because of how you were acting about bringing sheep and goats there.

In that case, why are you necessary? Why can't the tribe just get its own sheep and goats? What are you doing for the tribe that warrants all these posts you've made about it?

I'll get to the rest, but this probably is the major question right now.
Great question. The answer is that sheep and goats managed the way that most people in the world have managed them down through history have inflicted great damage on their ecosystems. We don't want that to happen with the Wai Wai people.
And why do you think you won't?