tvashtarkatena

I'd be skeptical too, but this description didn't characterize the people I met in MN. Many had grown up on farms, and wanted to continue the lifestyle, so they knew what they were getting into. Others had degrees in agriculture; farming was a long term goal they carefully worked towards. Just my anecdotal experience. Farming tends to slam folks who aren't willing to put in what it takes pretty quickly, so the 'moon eye' factor probably isn't much a problem.

This from memory, but I remember reading that the average welfare payment is less than $500 a month. This does not include subsidized housing or food stamps. Last year, during the picker shortage, pickers in E. Wa could make $150 a day...more in a week than you could make in a month on welfare. Plus, their dinero is worth even more south of the border. Part of the labor shortage stems from a lack of population 'willing' to work those jobs in rural areas. This creates a demand for a migratory labor force that the area could not support year round.

Mexbots. There'd by quite the cosmic econo ying/yang thing happening if this hypothetical class of harvesters were produced on Mexican assembly lines... I wonder if their yellow ostrich cowboy boots would actually be made of kevlar? In any case, that would spell end of taco trucks, and that would make me muy bummed out.

He's standing on a pedestal and dictating to us how to lead our lives, while living exorbitantly. He deserves what he gets here. One politician who stands in stark contrast is Jerry Brown - at least back in the '70's. When he took over as governer he declined to live in the governer's mansion, rented a modest apartment, didn't us a limo, etc. I disagreed with the guy's politics, but at least he practiced some of what he preached. Plus he was doing Linda Ronstadt.

Mexbots.

I have more problems with the "growing suburbs" part of that than the water subsidy for farms. If sububanites are willing to pay more to water their lawns, let them. It doesn't get the farmer (or, more accurately, the large agriculture conglomerates who are actually doing this) off the hook, but don't make the farmer shoulder all the blame for this. One way to reign in the conversion of prime farm land to McMansions (a development which environmentally sucks ass) is urban growth boundaries. It's farm land...so don't even try to speculate on it, fuckers. This drives up the price of real estate within the growth boundary, which leads to densification, which is a more energy efficient and environmentally sound way to go into the future. Want your dream home in the country? Buy an existing one or learn how to drive a tractor.

I'd say more people die of boredom in their cubes than anywhere else.

Finally, regarding cheap food. Yes, as more sustainable agricultural practices are employed, food prices (and quality) will go up. The reasons food prices have been so low are artificial. One is subsidies. We've largely borrowed the money to keep those going. The other is long term soil health. We've denuded our soil health through conventional practices in the long term to produce cheap food in the short term. The fast food industry has provided the demand for this. With America being so damn tubby, can anyone argue that food could stand to be a little more expensive and higher quality? As an example, the number one use of corn (the most environmentally destructive crop) is for feed; a food cows can't actually eat without getting really sick. Antibiotics keep those cows from keeling over. The alternative is grass, which cows can eat, but that requires more time to get the cow up to selling weight. Beef gets a little more expensive and less plentiful, but it's a lot better for you and the land is sustainably healthy. This seems to be a good trade off, in my book. The second largest use of corn is for high fructose corn syrup, which primarily goes into soft drinks, which, as well know, are essential for human life. All of this corn production is heavily subsidized. What's wrong with this picture?

A word about subsidies... Subsidies were originally introduced to reduce risk due to weather or infestation. Fair enough. They were originally pegged to production on just a few scheduled crops, mostly grains. The result, of course, was a gross overabundance of those crops using the most environmentally damaging methods possible. Quantity verses quality. So subsidies changed to pay farmers NOT to grow glutted crops, based on acreage. The land had to have been planted in that crop at one time. The result, of course, was land speculation by holding companies who had little to do with farming, particularly large insurance companies. The end result was two decades of the worst soil loss and water pollution in our agricultural history, and an inabilty for family farms, which tend to produce a variety of crops to reduce risk, to compete with factory farms, which produce (or not) only crops on the subsidy schedule as cheaply as possible, without regard to long term soil/water health. Subsidies are helping to destroy the land we depend on for food. Family farmers are completely against them. Agribusiness and land holding companies lobby hard to keep them, so they survive year after year. The current push for 'ethanol, the green fuel', is just another bullshit campaign to keep this scam alive and well.

I grew up on a 'Green Acres' style farm run by an ex New Yorker. In any case, this is an excellent point, BUT...there is hope. When I was back in MN by brother in law, who heads the Land Stewardship Project headquartered there, started a program through that organization that a) provides education and peer assistance for new farmers and b) connects farmers with 'eaters' in the city to stabilize demand and reduce risk. The key is that family farms, which most Americans think is a thing of the past, are making a comeback. It's a great lifestyle for folks who want to raise a family in a healthy environment and not work in some bullshit cube somewhere making some other asshole rich. With this new infusion of young, highly educated farmers, there has been an infusion of culture in rural MN that is pretty cool. I went to their annual meeting and the mix of folks was unique; everything from uber hippies (who actually worked hard, that is) to Norwegian bachelor farmers that had made the switch to sustainability. The benefits of family farms verses factory farms is: a) more local control b) healthier communities (by far), c) healthier food, and d) fewer middle men. When you own it, you tend to take care of it a little better.

I don't know much about cows. Never seen one. Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, but there's a catch. Methane bleeds out of the atmosphere within 10 years. It takes 100 years for CO2. Let's all eat only burgers for a year, then become vegan. That should take care of the problem right quick. Oh, and all you Smart Wool wearers should think about the damn planet for a change and put on some polypro.

Are you refering to global warming as being soley caused by us?? If so I'd like to remind you that the ice has been slowly vanishing and the earth warming since the end of the last ice age, and last I checked, there were no green house gas emmisions back then. I have no doubt that we may be contributing to it but I also don't have such illusions of grandeur that we are the sole cause of it. I don't know if you remember David Suzuki's last rant about the ozone layer depleting caused soley by us and methane produced from cow shit. Well the reason he's not ranting about it anymore is because the ozone somehow replenished itself and that big hole is vanishing. According to the EPA report, the ozone layer has not grown thinner over most of the world since 1998, and the Antarctic ozone level is projected to return to pre-1980 levels between 2060 and 2075. Of course they are crediting this soley to programs that reduced emissions over the last 20 years, or did they??? Do your part to cut back on pollution but try to keep your head out of the politicians and very vocal scientist's asses. The only way for them to benefit from natural change, is to make the population believe that it can be controlled by them. Would Gore's movie be such a hit if he claimed the change was natural and beyond our control? Just take a look at how many billions of dollars are focused at climate change over the next few years... kinda like the last wave of save the ozone funding. We control a very small portion of the levers. The rest is controlled by that little thing called the universe and it is ever changing well beyond our control. Don't be complacent about the environment but be critical of media hype and try and think for yourself. Your 'scientific backround' is a little lacking. Actually, according to the three cyclical anomalies in the earth's motion that are the primary cause of ice ages, we should be heading into, not away from a cooling period. There is only one reason we are not, and that is us. So yes, WE are the sole cause of global warming. As for ozone depletion, that was reversed by a ban on chloroflourocarbons. Again, primarily human controlled.

"My name is Trashtarketena...and I am an alcoholic." Not bad, FW. Not bad. No kudos for EricB, however. Completely borrowed from the CC recycle bin.

I'm sad because Craig was frequently an ally of the ACLU in the fight to protect basic civil liberties. He had a blind spot on equal rights for gays, however.

RE: your first paragraph, you of all people should know better. Price is set by what the market will bear, not by the cost of goods sold. People pay more for food produced sustainably and naturally (whether certified organic or not) because it is more nutritious, contains less unhealthy ingredients, and because many consumers want to patronize farmers that are good environmental stewards. RE: your second paragraph...depends on the region and what's being farmed. The cost of land, weather patterns, the cost of locally available inputs all must be considered in determining whether or not overall inputs for organic farming are greater than for conventional. One thing has become clear, however: organic farmers make higher profits per unit of output than conventional ones. Farmers are slow to adopt new methods for several reasons you have not touched upon. One big reason is huge amounts of money invested in equipment required for conventional agriculture. Using my dairy farm example: a conventional dairy farm requires equipment to fertilize, herbicize (?), harvest, and store silage for the herd. An organic grazing dairy requires none of these fixed costs. A second reason is that farmers are, by nature, conservative and slow to change. Third, the information isn't out there. Factory farm suppliers spend enormous amounts of money marketing their methods and inputs. And fourth, many farms are owned either by holding companies or large agribusiness companies; they are 'managed' without much concern for long term issues and the overall health of their communities. The bottom line for any food production is maintaining soil and water quality over the long term. As global warming progresses, more extreme weather (drought followed by violent storms) have become more commonplace. This, coupled with destructive conventional agriculture, has caused an enormous amount of soil loss across the country. It has also produced a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico (all those fertilizers and pesticides have to go somewhere). Sustainable practices are the antidote (the dairy farm I mentioned suffers 1/100 the soil loss of it's immediate conventional neighbors per annum), but the farming community is just now waking up to the problem and potential solutions.

There are other factors to consider. Long term soil, water, and air quality, for example. Public health issues (e coli, etc). Farmers are going more towards sustainable practices, but the process can be accelerated by eliminating the current regimen of farm subsidies, which favor large operations growing a limited number of 'scheduled' crops, rather than more smaller, more diverse operations. Education and incentives to switch to sustainable practices are other ways government can help move things in the right direction. And finally, a move towards local (township level) control of farming practices is another way to promote healthier, more sustainable farms.

Avitripp – I think it could be argued that all human endeavors are essentially selfish – be it art, business or even procreation. Environmentalism is no different in that an environmentalist is, as you put it, a “static preservationalist" that wishes to preserve the world as he or she sees it today. In a geologic sense we’ll be gone in a blink of the eye - but on a human scale we’ll see our wild places slowly give way to development, famine and disease rise to alarming levels and general misery rise to levels beyond what we can comprehend today. The dodo and ammonite can be easily dismissed as archaic breeds that were destined to fail. Polar bear populations are in decline; but should it not matter because warming is a trend we can’t do anything about? When famine spreads across Africa do you not support relief efforts because (geologically speaking) key areas of the earth turn to desert on a regular basis? Where do you draw the line? I'm not sure what 'the earth will be fine' means. There have been at least 5 mass extinctions in the past, and by all accounts we're in the middle of number 6, and this one is caused soley by us. The most devastating mass extinction killed 90% of all species. It took many, many millions of years for life to reestablish itself - a conclusion which is far from foregone in the future. Is a state of global devastation 'OK'? Not from a biological standpoint. Yes, the rock will still be here, but it's biology that determines the 'health' of the planet. We control the levers now. Why not ease them away from devastation? It's completely a human choice, but, unfortunately given our basic nature, it's a collective one. Regardless of time scales, whether our own lives or geologically, small changes over time lead to big ones. Small changes in the right direction is something all of us can handle.

coffee? oranges? limes? avocadoes? bananas? anyone can grow a zucchini, dude. phone back when you're self-sufficient. If anyone can figure out Dru's point in all this, please let me know. You are trucking in exotic plants from far away to feed yourself. They don't often truck the whole plant. Plus, sometimes there's a ship involved. No one is self sufficient. Give me a break. Besides, I'm not used to a narrow Canadian diet of foraged blueberries, moose you've shot yourself, and Export A's rolled from local hothouse tobacco. As far as my avocados are concerned, I consider California, or the moon, for that matter, pretty fucking local.

coffee? oranges? limes? avocadoes? bananas? anyone can grow a zucchini, dude. phone back when you're self-sufficient. If anyone can figure out Dru's point in all this, please let me know.

So, you believe that man is a part of nature, but you're a fan of nature, not man. And the rest of us are supposed to think harder on this one? There's a difference between trying to preserve a dynamic system in a static state, and trying to mitigate damage to all species, not just our own, that you know, via the intelligence that nature may or may not have granted you, is both happening and avoidable. Perhaps you should think harder on this one.... Actually, the game as you define it is: Earth-0 The earth has as finite a life as any species, including our own. This is a fatalistic attitude, as you say, and therefore wholly unnatural. Fatalism is the luxury of idle intellect coddled by overabundance. Nature is, by definition, not fatalistic at all. Nature keeps giving everything it's got to keep going. Working actively and, more importantly, collectively, to mitigate damage to the climate that produced every living species today is the most natural thing any of us could strive to do. Your's is the attitude of the wounded herd animal; it is artificially disconnected from nature, not in love with it. Well formulated...And truth told, I am a fan of man, particularly you right now. But please oh please don't throw out the baby with the water... tvashy To your first point: exactly, I'm glad you got it, gold star . To your second: Mitigation is good To your third: What I said was "some may confuse this for a fatalistic attitude" "Working actively and, more importantly, collectively, to mitigate damage to the climate that produced every living species today is the most natural thing any of us could strive to do."......This is a beautiful sentence, may I borrow it? I guess I have failed to impart my message if you really think that what I said is somehow disconnected from nature...that's sure not my intention, are you having a hard time getting past being called a kook? I am satisified to let my actions do my talking (in terms of my relationship with the planet anyway)...are you? OK, my bad for misquoting. Everybody I know seems to get the picture that the global shit is hitting the fan, so I don't get called a kook too often, with the exception of certain celebrities on this forum. I agree completely that Nature is not always very nice, nor does 'she' or 'it' or whatever give a rats ass whether we survive or not. The only entity that cares about that is us...plus cows, house cats, and head lice. OK, I wouldn't know about the cows; as has been pointed out, I've never seen one. Ditto for the lice. As for being satisfied with my actions? Never.

So, by your logic, city people shouldn't buy food. The health of the 'local', sustainable agricultural movement depends on linking consumers (mostly in cities) with producers. People actually involved with the movement take 'local' to mean as close as possible...not down the street. I would have thought an expert such as yourself would have known that. BTW, here's your answer:

Yes, it does. I grow my own vegetables. Not next door, either. Again, nice try. Oh, and BTW, I grew up in 'the country' 'next door to' dairy farms, orchards, and vineyards, where I worked summers. Too funny.

You also live near a septic tank. I live next to a fire station, yet I don't know shit about driving a hook and ladder. Expertise 'by proximity' is hardly an impressive credential. By the same logic, the shitbag in Goldbar who collects engine blocks on his lawn 'in the country' is also an expert on organic agriculture. Who do you think researches and buys all that organic produce? It ain't country folk. Nice try, plastic boot boy.

So, you believe that man is a part of nature, but you're a fan of nature, not man. And the rest of us are supposed to think harder on this one? There's a difference between trying to preserve a dynamic system in a static state, and trying to mitigate damage to all species, not just our own, that you know, via the intelligence that nature may or may not have granted you, is both happening and avoidable. Perhaps you should think harder on this one.... Actually, the game as you define it is: Earth-0 The earth has as finite a life as any species, including our own. This is a fatalistic attitude, as you say, and therefore wholly unnatural. Fatalism is the luxury of idle intellect coddled by overabundance. Nature is, by definition, not fatalistic at all. Nature keeps giving everything it's got to keep going. Working actively and, more importantly, collectively, to mitigate damage to the climate that produced every living species today is the most natural thing any of us could strive to do. Your's is the attitude of the wounded herd animal; it is artificially disconnected from nature, not in love with it.

I think most Americans could find the U.S. on a map....