Perhaps clarifying my terms better would help those who like to pick
apart statements based on their own interpretation of words, rather than
seeing the big picture. (Symptomatic of Reductionist thinking.)
Corporate farming- perhaps the words "industrial food production" works
better for those who insist that "corporate" has to mean anything
incorporated. I define this as an attempt to impose industrial
production line thinking on biological systems.
Sustainable- This is a concept, not a technique. To be sustainable, a
system has to be flexible and have the ability to try new things while
retaining some sense of history, tradition... Myself, I prefer the term
"Complimentary Agriculture"- observing the processes in nature and
attempting to work with them, not trying to force our will on them.
A review of the criticism in this thread centers around "economics."
These all seem to be based on the premise that economics has Been given
the status of a science or religion. Economics is all theory and subject
to change under changing circumstances. (I refer you to "trickle down"
and all other theories that have fallen by the wayside.)
Applying economics as the directing force in agriculture has been one of
our big mistakes. We have wrongly thought that, since manufacturing of
goods has been so successful at capturing dollars, we should apply the
same management to growing food.
And there was the statement that farmers want a free ride, or something
of that nature. Far from it. If I were interested in making the most
money, that is cornering the niche market I have developed locally, I
would be arguing for the elimination of small, locally marketing farms.
This would get rid of the "competition" and I would be the only local
source of high nutrient foods that are untainted with pesticides. I
could get rich!
But, I really wouldn't be rich. I would be only amassing money and
living in a socially, culturally and economically impoverished area-
rich in the bank, poor in spirit.
said, "We need to create the beauty and the quality first. The
quantity will follow." I would like to paraphrase that to, "We need to
create high quality of life and high quality food first. The money
(economics) will follow." What I mean by this is that if we chase
dollars, we ignore all else. If we pursue quality based on
ethics/morals/spirituality, then dollars become only a tool for
exchange, not the end all and "god" it has become today.
I guess this means that "the ends are determined by the means," not,
"the end justifies the means."
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at: