>Under a market-oriented (rather than subsistence-oriented) approach,
>only the marketable (ie, encashable) outputs of a total ecological
>system are valued. An organic farm is so much more diverse and
>therefore productive, ecologically speaking, than a single-crop
>chemicalized farm. However, the latter might produce more of that
>single crop than the former and thus appear more "economically
>Furthermore, under conditions of competition (instead of cooperation),
>a farm ran "more like a business" would be tend to externalize more
>and more of its costs to remain competitive. The costs would still be
>there, they would just not be paid for by those who created them. They
>would instead be passed on to other social sectors with little voice
>in decision-making, to the environment, or to future generations.
>Because they are so economically and politically powerful, the big
>corporations can externalize their costs more easily and thus appear
>"more economically viable."
>By their very mindsets, organic farmers consciously avoid
>externalizing costs; also precisely by their very mindsets,
>businessmen and CEOs would externalize their costs whenever possible
>to improve their competitiveness.
>Under a context of a competitive market system therefore, the stacks
>are heavily loaded against the organic/ecological farmer, who will
>tend to appear more economically inefficient and unsustainable than
>the chemical/industrial farmer.
>To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
>To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
>All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: