>Sorry, but ecology and economics carries the same weight on my farm. If I
>can't earn a profit (feed/support my family) from my farm, to heck with the
>environment. If my farm becomes polluted, to heck with feeding my family
>(earning a profit). This isn't an either/or issue. It's called
>balance--something mother nature understands very well, but which we humans
>waste time arguing.
Yes, I can see your point about balance. In a social system that is so
clearly biased in favor of fossil-based megafarms (the context of most
organic farms today), a huge imbalance already exists that distorts
We need to spend some (not all by any means) time to call attention to
this context so that we can create enough political constituency to
I notice you equate feeding your family with earning a profit.
What prevents you from setting aside part of your land for your
family's food requirements? This means healthier, more wholesome food
for your family, rather than the junk you buy from most supermarkets.
It also means you can feed your family even if your cash crops don't
make a profit due to, say, low prices. A nice bonus is that you can
often negotiate a better price if tomorrow's meal doesn't depend on
I think raising (most of) your basic food needs is one key to better
economic viability for organic farms. Another key is to avoid debt.
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:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 12:00:36 EDT