I have lately been in the habit of saying that almost any size acreage,
using almost any kind of practices, could increase its production by
doubling the number of engaged farmers. People seems to be the only
resource growing on this planet, while everything else is rapidly being
mined. Hopefully some of that can be recycled. But why is it that all the
new technologies seem to require fewer actual eyes to the acre, but a lot
more purchased inputs? My beef with Mr. Avery, and the "we've got to feed
the world" crowd is that what they propose always decreases the number of
livelihoods in actual farming. I would suggest that if they could come up
with technologies that increased food production, and drew more and more of
the billions of new people into good livelihoods doing it, there would be
some common ground for discussion.
However, I've only been hearing that "we've got to feed the world" recently
since the argument that new technologies and marketing systems can no longer
claim to be helping people stay on the farm.
Aside from that, everyone seems to act like a livelihood actually producing
food for people, in a way that pleases them, is somehow a dreary,
non-satisfying way to spend a live. I submit that it could be the most
productive way to spend your years on earth.
To Unsubscribe: Email email@example.com with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: