[pedalling_faster]

This is setting people up for a hard crash. What happens when they can't afford the seeds and fertilizers any more?

i don't deny the technology will save us / cornucopian inaccuracies.

but - seeds are easy to make. plants make them by the googol (big number).

i have a small crop of wheat plants right now. in order to have an acres worth of wheat seeds next year, i just have to not eat them at harvest time in a few months.

as far as fertilizer - each of us makes a few pounds of high-grade every day, if we have a good diet.

last time i made a compost pile, it was in a class & was supervised by a soil scientist. he brought us, among other things, duck manure.

if is was in Africa & assigned to help improve the soil, following the supervision of the same guy, i would propose to chase down some elephant manure & from working with him, he'd say "go do it."

so it would be a pile of local dead plants & wood chips & guano's, including humanure from the workers. baked at 160 F for about 2 1/2 months (the fast way), or in a more scattered procedure, for about 3 years (the slow way.)

to me this doesn't sound like a cornucopian fantasy, it sounds more like that old-fashioned overlap between common sense, "deep ecology", and plant science.

[blukatzen]

Hi. My wife worked at Rodale until 1992. I loved the Research Farm, a wonderful place. I remember the greenhouses and the chicken/aquaculture project. Very cool!

We lived in Saegersville at the north end of Rt. 100 at 309. Do yo still live around there. We are long gone.

Hi PStarr! Please send my regards and thanks to your wife! I myself did not grow up around there, as my father and his family was from Maxatawny. I am a Fishers (Fisher Lane) and a Siegfried (Siegfried's dale, Siegfrieddale Rd., etc.)

If you look at the Avatar, I guess you'll figure out that I had Plain ancestors way back when that became "fancy" Deitsch.

I am now and had been raised in Chicago, IL.

Blu

[americandream]

I can see Lorenzo's point.

The wise use of science for the collective good rather than individual pockets can indeed be a force for good. It's disorienting, I agree, Lorenzo, hearing those who live and prosper in the bosoms of the very of systems using and abusing science for personal profit, extolling the virtues of systems that they will not remotely apply to their own lives at the systemic level.

The odd application here and there doesn't detract from the fact the the West is overwhelmingly using science in an abusive manner for personal gain. And it is exporting that model to other cultural systems in the process of integrating the technological model fully within their societies. In the process, misapplied technology becomes synonymous with science and what can in fact be a gift, is then a burden.

That, people is, I venture, the problem. Not the benefits of a science based approach to alleviating the inevitable vagaries of nature.

[cube]

.....Also helping people understand the need to remain within the carrying capacity of the land, and helping with family planning.

"family planning"
does not generate $$$ Billions in profits unlike agri-business so:
1) mainstream media
2) government
3) business leaders
will never tout it as being a solution. ohh no, I'm starting to sound like an internet conspiracy theorist.

[lorenzo]

more food = more people.

Sorry, you're wrong. More food = less people.

Why do you think our population skyrocketed to over 6 billion in a hundred years? Because we produced enough food for 6 billion.

The population of the world's most advanced societies - Europe and Japan - is declining. Access to dirt-cheap, abundant, high quality food has been one of the factors leading to the demographic decline.

Not enough food = more people.

You can check the statistics.

Which is the country with the highest number of undernourished and hungry people? Right, the Democratic Republic of Congo, with 70% of the population undernourished.

And which is the country with the highest fertility rate? That's right, the Democratic Republic of Congo, with 7 children per woman.


These are ultra-basic development stats. I'm surprised to see that so few people actually have a clue.


The developing countries will follow the same demographic trajectory as ours. First an era of food insecurity, meaning a high fertility rate; then an era of abundant, cheap, healthy food, meaning lower, stable fertility rates; at last, an era of plenty and high socio-economic wealth, with declining populations.

[Plantagenet]

I can see Lorenzo's point.

.... the West is overwhelmingly using science in an abusive manner for personal gain....

Lorenzo seems unaware that China is now perhaps the most polluted country on earth, and is definitely the leading producer of CO2 Greenhouse gases in the world. The fact that China has a communist dicatatorship does not make them wise enough to stop massively degrading their own environment.

....the Chinese communists are overwhelmingly using science in an abusive manner for nationalistic and party benefit....

[lorenzo]

A quick note about the term "bourgeois", as apparently it has upset some people.

I used the term in a highly appreciative manner, and in its technical meaning. Sub-Saharan African countries don't yet have a middle class. They have to create one, and this is done by turning their economies into thriving economies that succeed in bringing social, health, and economic benefits to all people.

Creating a working economy in Africa, means investing in agriculture, massively. Thank God most donors have now understood this, including dumb institutions like the World Bank, who can be blamed for Africa's catastrophic lack of agricultural progress.

So, once these countries have efficient agricultural sectors, capable of feeding everyone and of exporting, one of the preconditions for the emergence of a middle class have been met.


Then these countries will shift from an agricultural, to an (post)industry and service based economy. This implies massive rural urban migrations and the emergence of middle classes.

Once a middle class appears, "bourgeois" processes will come to the fore as well - the creation of an environmental consciousness being one of those processes.

It is on this basis that, eventually, middle class - that is "bourgeois" - consumers in these new economies will want to enjoy more sustainably farmed products. And "bourgeois" farmers will farm these products.


But first, these economies will go through the very long road of filthy, dirty, nasty "modernisation" - with deforestation, fertilizers and pesticides. There's no way to skip this phase.

They can, perhaps, speed up the modernisation phase, and learn from our mistakes, but they can never skip it and revert back to "traditional" farming techniques rightaway, because current demographics simply don't allow this.

First the creation of a bourgeois society, which implies the transition to lower fertility rates, and then, when the demographic decline sets it, more room is available for "bourgeois" agriculture.


I'm all in favor of bourgeois farming. But not when it comes at the cost of millions of human lives. If you were to promote traditional farming in SSAfrica today, you would be destroying entire populations, because these traditional farming techniques can never feed these populations with their sky-high fertility rates. It would be criminal to do so.

[KingM]

The dry months of April, May, and June were once equated with hunger for Agre Ranyondo and his neighbors in this community of 55,000 people.

Mr. Ranyondo, a farmer, waited for the rains to come before he could plant corn on his six-acre plot. Often the 10 bags of corn he harvested through two planting seasons weren't enough to feed his family of eight.
...
By 2007, Ranyondo had quintupled his annual output to 50 bags of corn, 20 of which he sold for cash and the other 30 he used to feed his family.

He's quintupled his output while he and his wife have only quadrupled their population. Nicely done.

Of course, in forty years that family is on track to quadruple its numbers again. I suppose it's possible that they could quintuple corn output again...

[lorenzo]

I can see Lorenzo's point.

.... the West is overwhelmingly using science in an abusive manner for personal gain....

Lorenzo seems unaware that China is now perhaps the most polluted country on earth, and is definitely the leading producer of CO2 Greenhouse gases in the world. The fact that China has a communist dicatatorship does not make them wise enough to stop massively degrading their own environment.

Well, I am aware of the fact that China has slashed its energy intensity faster than any other nation in the history of organised statistics.

I am also aware of the fact that China has become the world's leading manufacturer and implementor of renewable energy technologies.

And I'm also aware of the fact that China will see its environment improve much faster than ours has improved.


But one thing is certain: had China stuck to traditional farming, there would have been hecatombes and mass exterminations of people.

China is not skipping modernity. On the contrary, it is taking that route straight on - that dirty, fitlhy nasty route. But because it is doing this at such a high pace (industrialising much faster than Europe or the US did), it will also reap the benefits much faster.

To give just one example: for the first time in 200 years, Europe's forests have grown, instead of declined - a truly amazing trend reversal. This has only been possible because Europe's economy is now so wealthy and advanced that environmental pressures are dropping. But this wealth - which allows the resurgence of forests - is only possible *after* the long, nasty, dirty road called Modernity.


China first has to move several hundred million people out of the country-side and into the cities, and has to turn them into bourgeois instead of into mere labor. And then, once China has become a totally modernized, post-industrial, seriously bourgeoisified nation, will its environment be restored.

Here and there, China will be leapfrogging us. It will do so in important sectors, like the energy sector. Which will speed up its transition towards a sustainable post-industrial economy even faster.

[MadScientist]

more food = less people???! rofl

So why is the world's population doubling over and over and over? Because there's not enough food??

You need to rethink your theory. seriously. Your assumption that the "developing countries" will follow the same "trajectory" as us to an era of "plenty and high socio-economic wealth" is silly. And that's not even considering the energy crisis.

They will never "develop".

Feeding them more is not gonna make their populations decrease ffs.

[Plantagenet]

I can see Lorenzo's point.

.... the West is overwhelmingly using science in an abusive manner for personal gain....

Lorenzo seems unaware that China is now perhaps the most polluted country on earth, and is definitely the leading producer of CO2 Greenhouse gases in the world. The fact that China has a communist dicatatorship does not make them wise enough to stop massively degrading their own environment.

China first has to move several hundred million people out of the country-side and into the cities, and has to turn them into bourgeois instead of into mere labor. And then, once China has become a totally modernized, post-industrial, seriously bourgeoisified nation, will its environment be restored.

China would be a lot less polluted now if the Chinese government would pay a bit more attention to protecting their environment now.

[lorenzo]

Also, let's not forget that Africa is still too often an "imaginary" place which people of the West use to project their idyllic desires onto:

Africans have to use traditional farming techniques, Africans should protect biodiversity. Africans should keep their traditions intact. Africans have to live in nice photogenic villages. Africans should remain "natives" and "indigenous" peoples. Africans should paint their faces and make primitive noises. Africans should produce organic coffee for Europeans.

But Africans should especially not modernize, become wealthy, use efficient, large-scale modern farming techniques with fertilizers and tractors. No, Africans should be idyllic in their poverty, simply because we like it.


You know the drill. That's the discourse many NGOs, bourgeois philantropists and policy makers from the West subconsciously use to define their desires for Africa.

It's basically a racist discourse. Well-meant, but still racist and paternalist.


I'm not saying anyone of you is a racist, but some of you are certainly stuck in that fantasy screen which is Africa.

[blukatzen]

Also, let's not forget that Africa is still too often an "imaginary" place which people of the West use to project their idyllic desires onto:

Africans have to use traditional farming techniques, Africans should protect biodiversity. Africans should keep their traditions intact. Africans have to live in nice photogenic villages. Africans should remain "natives" and "indigenous" peoples. Africans should paint their faces and make primitive noises. Africans should produce organic coffee for Europeans.

But Africans should especially not modernize, become wealthy, use efficient, large-scale modern farming techniques with fertilizers and tractors. No, Africans should be idyllic in their poverty, simply because we like it.


You know the drill. That's the discourse many NGOs, bourgeois philantropists and policy makers from the West subconsciously use to define their desires for Africa.

It's basically a racist discourse. Well-meant, but still racist and paternalist.


I'm not saying anyone of you is a racist, but some of you are certainly stuck in that fantasy screen which is Africa.

Absolutely NOT! I am not stuck in any fantasy screen about either Africa or South America.
However, my rant still exists...you strip mine the soils now, and you will be gambling with their future generations. You want starvation NOW or later?

It's very difficult to continue on if this is not addressed. You haven't addressed soil health. No soil health, no plants, no plants, no food.

It may continue on for a little while,but not for long. The soils there are not like the soils of the Midwest or Ukraine, black gold 10 feet deep. They are more marginal. Traditional methods work best in situations like this. It is more hands on, and that is what is needed.

I would love to see Africans and South Americans make a go of feeding their own peoples, but more food makes more babies.

This is something that needs to be addressed, but these are issues that will be resolved by addressing cultural values, as well as physical situations.

Lorenzo, you are not entirely correct, but not entirely wrong. However you have to address "culture". It can be a people's own worst enemy.


Blu

[TheDude]

Africans were actually quite well-adapted to their environment. The problem is that their traditional way of life has been destroyed.

Interesting piece. Contrary to the author's assertion I always found the argument that a pan-African civilization was held back by geographic constraints to make sense, though. Lack of suitable ports, impassible terrain, etc., whereas Europe made a much more suitable canvas for a gaggle of nations to develop trade and industry, practice organized warfare on each other, explore and exploit, etc. The Kos writer mentions how helpless the Zulus were against well-armed Europeans.

No Matter What Happens, We Have Got
The Maxim Gun, And They Have Not.

Farmers in Morocco, for one, have been practicing something akin to permaculture for ca. 2000 years, if I remember correctly from Holmgren. Far longer than the term "bourgeois" has been around. Lorenzo is casting it in the light of its popularity with the middle class of the OECD, but what's it doing being practiced in post-Soviet Cuba...you need a good bout of reeducation!

[Leanan]

but - seeds are easy to make. plants make them by the googol (big number).

But if we get people dependent on buying high-yield hybrid seeds each year, they forget how to breed and save their own.

[shortonoil]

Leanan said:

But if we get people dependent on buying high-yield hybrid seeds each year, they forget how to breed and save their own.

Wait until the folks at Monsanto learn about THIS - you could be CEO in two years with thinking like that! You can sell them seeds that they can’t reproduce and when they can’t get along without them, you’ll raise the price!

Better yet, you’ll sell them a genetically engineered seed and every time one of your genes shows up in some other plant, you can sue them for copy right infringement. When they lose, because they don’t have the money to hire an attorney, you'll get lorenzo to collect their last pig!

[lorenzo]

Where do you get the idea that hybrid seed is per definition supplied only by a handful of evil megalomaniacal multinationals?

There are thousands upon thousands of hybrid seed suppliers out there.

So your argument is a bit shallow.

[Cerberus]

You guys are missing the point! If a poor subsistent farm quadruples his crop what are the first things long term that will happen? His family size will grow to match his new “wealth”; he will buy new products he could not have afforded ECT… you see the cycle here? Sharing technology with persons who don’t understand it should not happen. By the way corn has been “genetically” modified since it was first found a very small seed grass 5000 thousand years ago by selective breeding.

[Dont_Panic]

more food = more people.

The population of the world's most advanced societies - Europe and Japan - is declining. Access to dirt-cheap, abundant, high quality food has been one of the factors leading to the demographic decline.

Not enough food = more people.

You can check the statistics.

Which is the country with the highest number of undernourished and hungry people? Right, the Democratic Republic of Congo, with 70% of the population undernourished.

And which is the country with the highest fertility rate? That's right, the Democratic Republic of Congo, with 7 children per woman.

Sure, there's correlation, but where's the causality? The pop decline in Europe and Japan is connected to the development of the society structures, it's not declining because they have too much food. That's a ridiculous thought