Dear Roberto Verzola
Thank you for taking the time to write your issues and concerns about the message in the Website(s)
I maintain. I actually do appreciate incisive commentary and consructive criticism.
On the numbered items you brought up I will respond as best as I am able today, and hopefully
provide a more detailed, every sentence documented by book or website(s) citations in the near
future.
(1) The purpose of bringing the subject up on SANET was to locate persons having land who might be
doing something close to what I am describing. These people can add whatever elements they choose or
make some minor modifications if they choose. The results might then be closer than before and
represent what people are asking in the way of whole-chains, long-chains demonstrations.
Although there has been inexplicable hostility at times in the public arena, privately I have made
contacts of several people/groups who are expressing initial interests. Whether or not these
ultimately follow through or not, others may arise. In the final analysis I can only make killing
chickens, shoveling manures, skinning rabbits, scooping up wiggling worms, and gutting fish seem so
glamourous. When people realize what it takes to keep ecological wheels turning in perpetuity, not
all of them really have the stomach for it. They want to reach for the "Miracle-Gro" or
fish-emulsion in the bottle rather than make their own. I might have to go over the same ground with
a succession of 30 or more people before finding someone who has given it some prior thought before
contacting me.
The whole thing has been described in a set of "Karl Popper's Risky Predictions". That is subject to
scientific proof by rigourous testing, assertions I have made can be tested and proven to be TRUE or
FALSE. This is known as making "Falsible predictions", which could easily be misconstrued by the
enemies of microfarming.
"Systems Analysis" is the converse of reductionist approach. Using SA one can get ever closer
approximations rapidly, but never attain exactitude or preciseness. It is a better predictor of
synergy than reductionism, which in fact can never predict synergy. Using SA one can get
rules-of-thumb which serve well.
I have not yet completed the world-tour of ever internet site and node. There very well may be the
proof people have been longing for out there somewhere.
For now, for me, the fact that Yelm Worm Farm (one of the largest worm farms in the USA is located
in a former mushroom farm using the former mushroom raising bins now to grow worms is enough proof
for me that the two items can be produced in the same equipment. You may need further proof, but I
do not. http://vermico.com/ is another one proving all kinds of things about worms and vermicompost.
ATTRA's list of vermiculture cites Oregon Soil Corporation
[http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/vermicom.html] but does not give a website. It takes hunting around
other places to discover that OSC processes 24 tons of produce waste from Fred-Meyer chain stores
weekly, and bioconverts it into high-quality vermicompost (tested by Ohio State University Soils
Laboratory). There are no more mysteries here to be discovered. This is established mainstream
knowledge, not risky leading edge stuff. People who want me to do what those long-term experiments
have already proved want me to delay going to the next step, which is really scaring some people,
evidently, if they desperately want it delayed.
(2) J.I.Rodale or others did not trademark "Organic" to mean anything exact and specific. Coca-cola
on the other hand trademarked "It's the Real Thing", which goes to show that Rodale could have used
a common term as a trademark. "Demeter" is trademarked, and it helps biodynamics growers and
biodynamics consumers find each other. "Certified Organic by Oregon Tilth" corrects for the error of
Rodale, and it is a trademark. "CCOF" is a trademark. It keeps the ripoff fly-by-night weasels from
cheating people with knockoffs of success, and provides a basis to have the FBI arrest liars who are
pretending to be the real thing.
Unless you have been sleep-reading, I am only interested in "Profitable" agriculture, and am not one
speck interested in "Unprofitable" agriculture. Brand-name increase profitability by reducing
advertising costs to obtain repeat sales. Once a customer finds something they like, they can find
it again by looking for the brand name. They don't have to anguish and agonize over every single
purchase decision. The whole purpose of brand-names, and trademarks is to protect property using the
legal system. Yes, of course it is proprietary to have a brand name. "Dole" has their stickers on
their bananas, and "Chiquita" (owned by Dole) has their labels on their bananas. Well, maybe that
was a bad example. ;^)
Unlike copyrights and patents, trademarks are forever. Copyrights and patents expire and then the
property become public, but trademarks as brandnames never expire. It provides continuity.
On your item #(3), I am not going to quibble with you: I will go with whichever way you tell me will
hit home with you and get you off your a** doing something remedial about it. Just tell me the majic
words you want me to say and I'll say them.
Sincerely, Lion Kuntz
------Original Message------
From: Roberto Verzola <rverzola@phil.gn.apc.org>
To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu
Sent: April 23, 2000 12:31:48 AM GMT
Subject: Lion Kuntz's Ecological Synergy
Hi Lion,
I am just going through your website, and my reactions are very
positive. I do have some points to raise:
1. The "have you tried it?" issue raised by others is very valid. I
know your response is that the individual elements have all been tried
somewhere. But still, it is important that the WHOLE SYSTEM be tried
likewise. You yourself say that synergistic effects cannot be
predicted from the individual components, because the whole is more
than the sum of its parts. I would add (maybe you said it too in one
of your pages) that beyond a certain level of synergism, entirely new
properties based on a new complexity emerge. I find your approach
consistent with the new science of complexity and self-organization.
This precisely underlines the need for some kind of a demonstration
system. I can understand if you can't do it yourself for various
reasons, but somebody else must do it -- set up a 1 hectare or so farm
using the principles of ecological synergy and observe the emergent
ecology and economy. Since the results cannot be predicted in advance,
you yourself may be surprised. In fact, you should consider demo farms
the next important phase in the emergence of ecological synergy as a
concept.
2. I am bothered by the trademark, which injects a commercial
proprietary element in what otherwise appears as an "unselfish"
effort. I can understand it, if your response is that you want to
prevent others from misusing the term ecological synergy once it gains
adherents. I wonder if there's a way of attaining this without a
trademark. Trademarks fall under the concept of intellectual property
rights (IPR) -- including copyrights and patents -- which are highly
monopolistic (and of course very selfish) concepts. If you try to
protect your IPR, you'll find yourself using the same kind of
arguments that Monsanto, Microsoft, etc. are using.
3. Pls change your formulation "the biodiversity today is much greater
than at anytime in the past" (or something like this). This is
obviously wrong and inconsistent with your other factoid that we are
losing 30,000 species a year to extinction. If the latter is true,
then unless more than 30,000 new species appeared elsewhere, the
biodiversity this year is less than a year ago, and the biodiversity
next year will be less than it is today. Clearly, the biodiversity a
few hundred years ago before we started razing our great forests was
higher than it is today.
Warm regards,
Roberto Verzola
Philippines
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 11 2000 - 22:02:11 EDT