| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| James |
The relationship betweeen environmentalism and romanticismI was talking to Rob & Nick about this over a beer. I think they may have left wandering what on earth I was going on about. I’ve since discussed it with a few people at work, and have had equally blank looks, so I’d like the opportunity to discuss this, and explain why I think its important.To do this, I’d like to explain 1) What my understanding of the term ‘classical romanticism’ is and whether it is still relevant today. 2) How romanticism effects the environmental movement. 3) Why this is an issue. 4) What we can do individually to help resolve this. So firstly, the term “Classical Romanticism”. It’s a posh term for something we all understand implicitly. It’s the beautification of the countryside. It deals in clichés and pastiches: this green and pleasant land, the babbling brook, the old oak tree, rolling hills and secret valleys. The list of romantic representations of the countryside are huge. Wordsworth (“wandering lonely as a cloud”), the Bronte’s (“Wuthering Heights”), and Constable (“The Hay Wane”) are well known and easily recognised. Romanticism is clearly still as important today in triggering certain ‘feel good’ responses. Take Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” and the saccharine sweet imagery of the shire, or less obviously Tom Clancy’s “Clear and Present Danger”,(where Ryan lives in a beautiful rural homestead, but the ‘baddies’ live in a run down urban environment). And it starts at an early age: the Telly Tubbies don’t live in a tower block, they live surrounded by green rolling hills. The importance of re-affirming our romantic identity of the countryside is also seen in the profusion of generic, formulaic water-colour landscapes on sale in holiday-resort art galleries. “So what?” you may say.. Well, here’s my point. Romanticism has effected our view of nature, ecology and biodiversity. We no longer have an objective attitude to this. Its no surprise that the Lake District National Park was set up in an area romanticised by Wordsworth and based largely on land supplied by Beatrix Potter, also a romantic. It was not set up as a refuge for nature and ecology, it was set up to allow members of the urban industrialised north-west to view a beautiful countryside. This isn’t putting nature first, or putting the environment first, its putting US first. Again. And if the landscape doesn’t fit with our ideal of what it should be, then it doesn’t get a look in (such as the Cambridgeshire Fens- why aren’t these a National Park?), or things get changed until they do suit our requirements of a rural environment (anyone been to Foutains Abbey and wondered at the beauty of the environment? It’s a landscaped garden) Why is this an issue? There are two issues here: people and science. Firstly, I’ll deal with the people side. Classical Romanticism is a movement which was prevalent in the UK and to a lesser degree in Europe and north America in the 18th and 19th Century. This means that educated white Europeans have been exposed to this philosophy for over 200 years. I may be wrong, but I think the proportion of ethnic minorities reading this post is lower than the national population proportions would statistically suggest. I hope Tahir is reading this, and I hope he has a view on it. I work for the Environment Agency. We’re doing a lot of navel gazing at present because we’re almost entirely white as an organisation. I think the reason the EA is mostly white, and that most people reading this post are white is the same. Why? is the environmental movement dominated by white people?. I would suggest it comes back to the romantic identity which we, as a white Anglo-Saxon nation have had re-enforced on us from Telly-Tubbies via our Sunday night classic serials to the latest cinema block buster or the gift we buy on holiday. Secondly, it’s an issue because of Science. I’m an environmentalist: I’m paid to manage the environment (in broad brush terms) Lets look at what’s meant by managing the environment. To what end? What drives our requirements? I know of a number of circumstances where work in rural environments has been effected by the requirements to satiate the romantic ideals of the community. Sometimes, this is obvious and easy to understand- constructing a telly-tubby mound between me and the open cast pit does nothing for the environment, but it makes us feel happier about things aesthetically. However, other times, I struggle to see the reason behind our environmental decisions based solely on the needs of the environment. The old quarries and mines in mid Wales for example- the romanticist in me says they’re beautiful and part of the environment, so lets keep them, while the scientist in me tells me they’re leaching heavy metals into the water and are responsible for why Wales has lower concentrations of salmon than Scotland. Finally, what can individuals do? 1) Try to disassociate romanticism from environmentalism. Only then can we really start managing the environment for all the bio-diversity requirements, not just our own narrow needs 2) Appreciate that the western understanding of environmentalism has evolved from centuries of romanticism and that this may not be universal in other non-western cultures. 3) So next time we make an environmental decision, we should ask ourselves ‘is this just an outcome of my cultural identity and is this what’s best for the ecology /biodiversity?' |
||||||||||
| Cathryn |
 I didn't realise that was why we were keeping the old quarries in mid Wales. I thought it was because no-one would take reponsiblity financial or otherwise to deal with them properly. Romanticising what must have been a grim hard life has been damn useful for some people.
And my quick less specific answer is yes. But how on earth do you distance yourself from cultural identity? I am not quite sure that those are the words I would use. Our judgements are so much based on our upbringing. I must not post anymore on this until I have left work. 
|
||||||||||
| James |
That’s the tricky part. And are we right to do so at all? Or is it fare to say that cultural identity and the native environment are inextricably linked so shouldn’t be disassociated? It boils down to this: when working on environmental projects, do we work entirely for the benefit of the native ecology or do we allow ourselves some aesthetic pleasure while doing it? As a matter of fact, there is money available for the clean up of old contaminated land, the mines of mid wales havent been cleaned up for two reasons. Firstly, there is an arguement that they are now aesthically part of the landscape, so should not be removed, and secondly, if they were removed they'd probably cause such a splurge of heavy metal leachate to enter the rivers it would be quite dangerous. |
||||||||||
| vegplot |
A very interesting topic. I'll give it a proper read later when less busy. Food for thought though! | ||||||||||
| Cathryn |
Yes but what is the native ecology? It has all been shaped in some way by individuals all with some element of the group cultural identity. You said that didnt you.
Yes I can imagine the posons that would be released. The filter pools or whatever they are called are vividly coloured by whatever leaches through them. Rather attractive in fact, an interesting part of the landscape... |
||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
I don't think it is a 'white' issue. I think it is a 'rich with a full belly' issue. If we were a bit hungrier there would be no Classical Romanticism in the countryside and of course no Environment Agency. Think of the old 70's sit com The Good Life. You had the Good's Garden and The Ledbetter's Garden. One was romanticised, and the other was intensively productive. Which couple were the environmentalists? | ||||||||||
| vegplot |
I was under the impression the Goods garden was both the highly intensive and romanticsed garden. Maybe my definition of romanticised isn't the same as everyone else's |
||||||||||
| cab |
I don't know about the race aspect, but other than that I wholeheartedly agree with the concepts you're putting forward James. | ||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
Although the idea in itself of a couple living off a suburban plot is a romantic notion, I think the Ledbetter's Rose Gazebo and concrete ladies are what most would consider a romanticised garden. The Goods garden was more intensively cropped per esq. than any industrial cropping farm. This is where I think the E.A and the government have gone way wrong. Knocking down flood defences ruining hard fought for cropping land is bad for the global environment not good. We need to look at the global impact of our policies in the countryside, not the local. | ||||||||||
| Jamanda |
Is there something wrong in allowing ourselves aesthetic pleasure as well as working for the benefit of the native ecology? |
||||||||||
| Behemoth |
Hallelujah! I've often argued against your notions of nation state based action and protectionism based on the unit the £British. |
||||||||||
| vegplot |
I don't think it was any more intensive than most allotments I've seen. |
||||||||||
| Mrs Fiddlesticks |
here's another thought to throw in to that mix of romanticism and environmentalism. In the social science course I'm doing with the OU I've been studying the difference between something being 'natural' and 'social' and what we forget is that our 'romantic' landscape isn't entirely natural at all. We've fenced it in or let certain livestock roam it ( which shapes the type of vegetation that grows on it) cut down trees etc etc. What you see has mans' large handprint (plus tractors etc etc) all over it.
Its beauty has been shaped and controlled by centuries of mans' husbandry. Its evolution and how we see it could well be forged by romantic views from literature or similar and certainly the view of a buccolic countryside is a world away from the harsh reality of daily life. How that fits in with environmentalism is hard to square however preserving the status quo because there are percieved benefits to all - including wildlife habitat don't forget - may well mean that romanticism is a good thing? What do you percieve as the negative benefits to the environment if we took off the rose tinted glasses to view our countryside as something different or with a different purpose. |
||||||||||
| vegplot |
Let's not forget that the landscape also changed dramatically during the enclosure acts where vast swathes of common land were fenced off. The change from Anglo Saxon technique of strip farmings compared to modern style large fields also changed the landscape and its biodiveristy. Which do we actively preserve, if we preserve at all? | ||||||||||
| Rob R |
Depends. Each action has a reaction somewhere down the line. Flood protection in one area makes it worse in another. Equally, the draining of the fens has largely destroyed what made them fertile in the first place- do we just rape them until they become desert like the American Mid-West & then let nature have them back when they're impoverished & unable to sustain us or restore themselves? |
||||||||||
| hamster |
I just wrote loads in response to this, then my browser ate it. Grr.
Anyway, the edited highlights were basically that I'd wager fairly confidently that nature and the environment are important in the literature and cultural mythology of any society. Many of the people I talked to while I was in Africa and many immigrants I've spoken to in Britain hold, on some level, a belief that a rural lifestyle was somehow purer and more fulfilling than an urban, industrialised one. There are many non-Western environmental activists (Warangi Maathai, for instance) and many movements in other parts of the world to stop things like deforestation etc (they just tend to get stamped on by Western logging companies). However, most conservation/environmentalism has got very little to do with 'saving the planet' and more to do with keeping the planet in a usable condition for future generations. At the moment, the environmentalist movement is (or appears to be) a largely Western concern, but I think that is because, while it is fairly unequivocally accepted that people in the third world will suffer (are suffering) far more than we in the West will, we are the ones who have, broadly speaking, caused it and we are the ones whose lifestyles will have to change most dramatically in order to avert disaster. We've also done most to change our natural environment, so preserving areas that we have left, however shaped by human intervention, is something that requires far more active involvement in the form of ecology management or campaigning than is required in less industrialised and more agrarian parts of the world. It is no coincidence that the Western environmentalist movement verges on idealising our agrarian past: it's industrialisation that has caused all these problems, building all these factories, moving into towns, driving all these cars; if we'd stayed in little villages and grown our own vegetables and walked everywhere we'd all be much better off. I think it's broadly right, but still accept it's a fairly simplistic view of human history and progress, and ignores the fact that many people wanted to move into towns and have more material possessions and more disposable income. So, yes, we do think sentimentally about nature and environmentalism is a largely Western movement, but I think it's got less to do with Romanticism and more to do with the fact that all human cultures think more or less the same way. (I'd even, after a couple of glasses of wine, go so far as to suggest that all our most basic human myths and beliefs stem from our inherent, primeval wonder at and connection with nature and the seasons.) We've just invented words like 'Romanticism' and 'environmentalism' because we, as a society, are so alienated from the natural world in our day-to-day lives and because we need to do most in terms of conservation and environmentalism, things that to other peoplees might come more under the heading of 'survival' or 'common sense'. |
||||||||||
| Gervase |
Oddly enough, before Romanticism (as a movement), our attitude to nature was very much what we are seeking today - a practical relationship based on stewardship and husbandry to bring the maximum benefit to humanity.
Romanticism as it evolved and decayed gave us manicured estates, ridiculous follies, 'rus in urbe' and other soppy apprehensions of the sublime, and began the drift away from Enlightenment common sense (in my opinion!). At the risk of poking the embers of another thread, Romanticism is what gives us Reiki, Chi and other unprovable concepts, whereas Empiricism and the Englightenment gave us crop rotation, modern medicine and scientific objectivity. On the cultural/race aspect, I would guess that there is a harking back by the Romantics to the animism of more 'primitive' societies, for whom there are greater, less predictable and less intelligble forces at work behind 'nature' than mere scientists can guess at. Implicit in Romanticism is a sense of awe and wonder at the power of nature, coupled with an appreciation of its purity and simplicity. As such - to come back to James's original question, paraphrased as "do we work for the native ecology or the aesthetics?", the Englightenment in me says the former. And the Romantic in me (when it's not suppressed) would probably agree, insofaras the 'native' is wild and therefore to be encouraged. Because, for the Romantic, experiencing the natural world in an unmanaged sense was seen as a way of testing the limits and powers of one's own comprehension. After all, the imposition of an 'aesthetic' to the landscape should be anathema to any true Romantic, however much the practice became bastardised and associated with Romanticism as the 19th Century progressed. |
||||||||||
| Mrs Fiddlesticks |
In my own thinking I'm coming round to the view that we are too fixed on the planet surviving purely for our own needs. I have no doubt that the planet will survive but whether we will is another matter. The wildness will return and nature will reclaim her own. That is romantic enough for me, be I here or beneath the gentle sod and yes I've had a glass or two 
|
||||||||||
| Gervase |
Good point - most 'isms' have tended to be anthropocentric. Actually, isn't about time that broccoli came up with a philosophical viewpoint? 
|
||||||||||
| MarkS |
I think I agrre with most of what you say James.
Mrs F is offering pretty much the Gaia theory - which is of course the result of viewing the world as a control system.
On the race/enviromentalist thing, if you look at the rural population, it is still predominantly white and increasingly middle class (or it is round here anyway). Immigrants start in cities (I know we're all imigrants, but those who arrived since the ind.revolution have arrived in cities and have tended to stay in areas of higher population density) and often find moving into rural areas very difficult because of isolation. I'd also put the environmental thing as a whole a fair way up the needs hierarchy, it in the self actualisation rather than essential isnt it? Thats why we have all the debates about living on little money and whats wrong with commercial food if its all you can afford etc. |
||||||||||
| James |
thanks for the very interesting replies
MarkS- I appreciate that most rural people are white, and that most of the ethnic minorities live in urban areas, but I don't agree that this is the reason why they're under-represented in environmentalism. I don't think that living in an urban area precludes you from environmentalism. Considering that environmental issues are the reserve of the countryside isn't correct. |
||||||||||
| Nick |
Re: The relationship betweeen environmentalism and romantici
Um. Would you care to remind me of my views. See, I hadn't eaten, and that. And my taxi was late, so I had a couple of pints before arriving and. Um. I want to make sure you understood what I was saying, and remember it.
|
||||||||||
| Rob R |
Beer? Thought it was gratuitous tea drinking by that time 
|
||||||||||
| Nick |
And a drop of whisky... | ||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
Exactly. Most allotments are highly intensive. I’m not saying that is bad, my garden is well cropped too, but I laugh when I hear keen gardeners criticize farmers for growing intensively when compared to them they are not. |
||||||||||
| James |
Re: The relationship betweeen environmentalism and romantici
not sure really...all I remember is "packet of crisps anyone? ....more wheat beer?..." That was about it really. Oh yeh, and lots of talk of pork. |
||||||||||
| thos |
I think that's always been true. The Flemish weavers and even the Vikings were predominantly city-livers. It's very hard for an immigrant to come to a rural community and find work and accomodation, both are much easier to find in cities. In America, most immigrants stayed in New York and the next generations moved East. |
||||||||||
| Nick |
I guess the perceived difference is that an allotment (or your garden), which is carefully tended, and stocked as densely as possible, to get the maximum yeild on your confined space is A Good Thing, and when it's done in 50 acre fields, with machinery, and routine, widespread chemicals, for maximum profit it's Bad. Even though plenty of allotmenters and gardeners use chemicals, too. Is it the commercial aspect, or the scale which bothers people, do you think? Or something else? |
||||||||||
| Rob R |
That is an issue of intensity & scale. Intensive farming is not inherently bad, managed correctly you can have an intensive organic farm that yields well & benefits the animals, the environment, the people; intensive has become a by-word for high input, unsustainable production, which is an issue for a different thread.
The link at the bottom of my sig is one of the most intensive farmers I know of, the difference with him is that he's producing in tune with nature, not fighting against it like the modern culture is doing. Food is plentiful and cheap, which makes farmers struggle to make a living from it- what we think of as intensive farming is a victim of its own sucess. |
||||||||||
| cab |
There is 'labour intensive' and just plain 'intensive'. Allotments tend to be labour intensive but are very often low in chemical inputs. The former is harmless and simply maximises output and interest, whereas the latter can be quite damaging. |
||||||||||
| James |
thats very true. I've heard we spend less on our food in real terms than we did at any point in the twentieth century, yet we eat more. |
||||||||||
| hamster |
And waste 1/3 of it. | ||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
Intensive allotment/gardens only get away without using pesticides because they are small scale and have roads/ buildings/ and lawned gardens around to act as 'pest breaks'. Farming on a commercial scale does not have that luxury. Farming has evolved to today’s methods by rewarding farmers with the larger yields that they need to compete in a global market. It is not "bad", but essential to grow efficiently produced food crops. |
||||||||||
| Nick |
Don;'t know if that's true. Farmers will (generally) stick within the law, but are much more anonymous than allotmenteers, who have to deal with wiping out their neighbours crop. They perhaps have more of an immediate social responsibility then farmers, because Old Ned from the plot next door won't have them drummed out at next month's committee meeting. | ||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
You must be joking have you seen the amount of regulations and red tape and record keeping a farmer has to comply with before he can use a chemical or fertilizer nowadays. Mr. Gardener can still go the garden centre and slosh around anything he can get his unprotected hands on without any training or certification. Besides most farms have bordering them, pretty houses with doctors and professionals sh!t hot with the legalities if their hideous suburban cloned Cupressocyparis x leylandii "Castlewellan Gold" gets scorched by spray. |
||||||||||
| cab |
Rubbish. Allotments get away with it by being labour intensive, the amount of work per unit area is greater than in a farm, and because so many crops are grown so close together most sets of allotments have every kind of pest known to man. |
||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
Personally, from what I can see, most so called 'organic gardeners' aren’t too adverse to pouring on the old Roundup if it saves months of hand weeding. | ||||||||||
| cab |
Said criticism being relevant to what? |
||||||||||
| Jonnyboy |
at least, grading can account for up to a 70% rejection rate. |
||||||||||
| Jonnyboy |
Certified organic? I very much doubt it. However, I'm not averse to using it a month or so before replanting a bed. I wouldn't use anything through a growing cycle though. |
||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
In agreement to your point about allotments being hard work. Funny how hard work makes some gardners, who love the yummy taste of home grown foods, probably apply more chemicals per plant than a commercial farmer. | ||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
You are aware Roundup has a 100 day half life and is an O.P.? 
|
||||||||||
| cab |
You're aware that the toxicity of glyphosate when used as directed is tiny and that on contact with the soil it becomes more or less completely inert? |
||||||||||
| Jonnyboy |
See above answer. You see, a lot of people just don't buy it and throw it on willy nilly. They find out about it and use it when appropriate. My growing beds are near a stand of trees, i don't have anywhere else to put them. So it's either deal with the thousands of annual seedlings etc. or cut the trees down. IMHO I'm doing the least harm. |
||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
I was told it has a half life of 100 days while still in the soil? Its also "at the correct rate" bit that worries me. 1 in 5 people have trouble with reading or counting. The crop research station near me had a cluster of M.E. in its staff and they did tests to see if it was O.P. related. (I know you are going to get all scientific and say it is a different O.P. from insecticides), but who really knows yet? | ||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
I have the same and use a hoe, and my garden isn't organic. |
||||||||||
| Jonnyboy |
Who told you that?
You're a nice guy I'm sure, but did you know that 83% of people believe what they are told without question? |
||||||||||
| Jonnyboy |
neither is mine, and I personally can live with the odd dose of glyso. |
||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
..and nearly half the people are in Britain are below average intelligence.
I don't remember who told me or whether I believe it, but for those claiming to be organic it seems the one chemical that seems to be O.K. I know you never claimed to be organic so I'm not directing that at you. Roundup is on most G.M. commercial crops and I hate that fact. We don't know the long term cumulative effects. |
||||||||||
| cab |
It degrades, during which time it essentially unavailable to plants, animals, and the bulk of microbes. Its harmless when it hits the soil, if used correctly.
Who really knows yet? Clearly, not you  If you're lacking knowledge the thing to do is go out and look for it, not fling mud at things because you haven't grasped whats going on.
I'd choose not to use glyphosate most of the time, but on those rare occasions when I reach for a chemical herbicide thats the one I would choose because when used properly its the safest thing available. |
||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
Just found This I know it will be biased, but it should make you question.
The reason I became interested in Glysophate was when a farmer told me that since using it as a pre plow application he has noticed the drop in earthworm population. |
||||||||||
| Jonnyboy |
It's an article about glyso when used in conjunction with GM crops. | ||||||||||
| cab |
Not only biased, but pretty ropey and nothing to do with the use to which we're discussing putting the chemical to.
I could well believe that if you over-apply it you'll kill a heck of a lot of earthworms. Why that is in any way important in context of rarely applying it the leaves of weeds is entirely beyond me. |
||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
The box at the beginning explains its effects on nature in the environment. | ||||||||||
| cab |
Incorporating out of context claims that are neither interesting nor applicable. |
||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
I can assure you that the farmer in question is so thrifty he would not over apply something that is quite expensive over a large area. |
||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
Yup..... your draining it again. |
||||||||||
| Jonnyboy |
|
||||||||||
| cab |
And you're displaying a disturbing capacity to beleive nearly anything, and failing to even try to defend a contentious claim you've made. As ever. |
||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
I don't think I've made a claim, only related my concerns about what I've heard and read and passed them on to Jonnyboy for him to think about for himself if he wants. |
||||||||||
| Behemoth |
In the real world of unavoidable compromises I don't think small sacle Grow Your Owns with full time jobs an families should beat themselves up about using a weed killer, correctly, that has a measurable yet minor impact, every now an then. Swings and roundabouts.
When applied on an industrial scale as a matter of course as part of a regime then we'll worry. Oh we are. Good. |
||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
The point I'm trying to make is due to allotment intensity perhaps we are using chemicals more per sq ft than the big boys ever do on field scale agriculture. How many chemical insectacide applications in a season do you think a field of first year wheat gets in a growing season? 1, 2, 10, 0r 20, once every week. What do you all think? |
||||||||||
| James |
I dont know how many insecticide applications an arable field gets...I'd guess two (one in the early days, one in the middle of seed ripening), maybe one. The fact is, farmers have neither the money, time or inclination to over apply anything.
My major concern about agriculture is not how often chemicals are applied (though this is unsustainable, imo). The problem as I see it is the lack of biodiversity caused by mono-culture and soil degradation. Try to find a worm in the middle of a wheat field, or a sky-lark flying above it. Most of the time, you probably wont. OP's are not, by definition, 'bad'. In fact, they bind iron in the aerobic zone of healthy organic soils. They're essential for neural transmission in the brain. They control hormonal reactions within plants to encourage healthy fruit and flower set. OP's are essential for photosynthesis to occur. Infact, without OP's, we'd be in trouble. Because of OP's central roll in so many metabolic processes, Some OP's may cause problems. The significant risk from OP is not from glyphosate, but from fertiliser application. Over application of P will cause a build of organo-phosphate in the soil horizon which can (in some circomstances) pass into groundwater. Research done in Canada suggests it takes 50-75 years to flush a small plume of OP from a porous aquifer. If this OP discharges to surface, it will control the growth of algae and cause eutrication. So forget looking at indevidual numbers of applications, that tells you almost nothing. Nor does a generic term like organo-phosphate. The real difference between my vegetable beds and intensive arable farms is that I have worms which bring organic matter back into the soil, birds which eat the worms and grubs & flowers which encourage. I have ecological niches, rather than just providing an inert root zone rather similar to a hydroponic medium[/i] |
||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
I agree James but how would you scale up your labour intensive method of production to feed the nation? Who would put in the long hard hours in the fields for the minimum wage, and who would pay the much higher prices for extensive, 'hand made foods'? Set-A-Side has almost disappeared overnight due to the European public not being prepared to pay 30p more for a loaf of bread, and this demonstrates that your methods of production in today’s world is unfeasible IMHO, unless you can demonstrate how it can be scaled up efficiently? | ||||||||||
| cab |
If its '1' then thats more than most of my plot got last year, more than the guy next door, more than the lady next to him or the old lass with the next two plots... |
||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
................it is one more than my vegetable plot too. We all know how to grow foods in a way kind to the soil and nature, but nobody can tell me how to scale up the operation to levels that can feed the population. We simply do not have the labour force, and even if we did the public would not stump up enough money to pay their due wages, protective clothing, holidays, National Insurance etc that modern workers are entitled too. If we won't pay for 'hand made' foods we will have to put up foods grown by industrial methods. Everybody says they want organic, free range, local foods but the choices we make at the supermarket do not reflect this. We have a romanticised idea of the foods we want, but are not prepared to pay for the dream. | ||||||||||
| Rob R |
The very nature of an average... |
||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
I know.
|
||||||||||
| Rob R |
We can demonstrate how the present system is not efficienct, which in itself removes any advantage that it is claimed to have over other methods. It can be scaled up if we stop our ridiculous one track mind about what we must eat and how we must produce it. The difference you have talked about, earthworms & fertility building is what we had to do before we had the nutrient raping chemicals that we have today. I have been watching a Time Team programme today- on one side they had a ploughed field, continuously cropped & cultivated, and on the other a parkland, grazed for centuries. The ploughed field had twice as much topsoil than the parkland in the same area- not because they had improved the fertility & humus layer but because the soil had washed down the hill. For a long time technical thinking was that you put more fertiliser on the poorer areas of fields- years & years of nutrient wastage based on false understanding which only made the problems worse in those areas & no better in others. |
||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
How come they are still getting bigger crops today then they ever got in the past ?
"The UK produces 15 million tonnes of wheat each year. Wheat grows best in dry climates. It needs good, rich soil to produce the largest amount of grain. The best crops are grown in the deep, rich soils of the east of England. Wheat is sown on two fifths of Britain’s arable land, resulting in a total harvest of 12–17 million tonnes per year. British farmers are among the most productive and efficient in the world. In the UK, the average yield is about 8 tonnes per hectare. Cereal yields have tripled in the last 50 years, with Britain holding the world record wheat yield. Crop scientists and advisers are helping farmers to develop even more efficient growing methods. " |
||||||||||
| Rob R |
Because they are replacing some of the most well known elements to promote growth in predominately cereal crops. But we must be very stupid if we only take what we can see & easily measure as an indication of sucess. | ||||||||||
| Cho-ku-ri |
Is a hungry population a success?
I think that a family sized mixed farm is best, but they are not viable at the moment. farmers are ageing, and their ofspring would rather do better paying office jobs instead. |
||||||||||
| Rob R |
Well why should we bother worrying about our finite oil reserves when we have hungry people in the world? Let's just enjoy the fruits of our labours now & we can all die from a lack of food or oxygen at some point in the future. It doesn't matter. I'll be dead by then anyway. | ||||||||||
| Rob R |
I know.
|
||||||||||
| James |
|
||||||||||
| Jamanda |
It's remarkable how many people don't get that. |
||||||||||
| sean |
Half of them presumably. |
||||||||||
| Cathryn |
|
||||||||||
| cab |
You've fallen for the same old fiction that so many people fall for. Bottom line; supermarkets are not giving you a good deal on fresh foods. I can go to the farmers market in town every week if I need to, and I can buy locally grown fruit and veg from the guys who've grown it themselves, for a lower price than I'd pay in the supermarket. I can buy fish caught off East Anglia cheaper than in the supermarket. The meat is cheaper there than 'equivalent' supermarket (i.e. not the crap stuff but nowhere near as good) meat. And all of that food has been produced 'organically'. Lets be absolutely clear, most of the money you're spending at a supermarket isn't going to the producer, so deal with the producer and you'll get cheaper, better food. And as more of us do that, as that becomes closer to the norm, it'll be easier for you to find those producers and ignore the supermarkets for the bulk of what you want, and the better for the environment your food production will be. |
||||||||||
| snozzer |
The other good thing about going directly to the producers, is you are ensuring the survival of their business and their model. Keeping a fram shop running costs money and time and if poor old Farmer Palmer doesn't get the feet through the door it will close and he will be once again tied to their liege lords (AKA The Supermarkets). The more we can spend directly with the producers, the greater ability and incentive they will have to produce the foods we want at the prices we want to pay. |
||||||||||
| hamster |
Also, industrial foods are only 'efficient' (and hence cheaper) while we have plenty of cheap oil left. Once it starts to get much more expensive or runs out, the price of running agricultural machinery, petrochemicals, processing machinery, plastic packaging, distribution, lighting and heating the supermarket will go up and in turn push up the cost of the food. At some point, it's going to be more economic to pay for the more labour-intensive food or grow your own.
I, for one, wouldn't count on industrial agriculture feeding us in the future. |
||||||||||
| Mrs Fiddlesticks |
excellent point! |
||||||||||
| cab |
Unless of course there is a core of really, really stupid people who are miles below average (and we're talking mean intelligence rather than median). How many people watch Big Brother, by the way? |
||||||||||
| snozzer |
It is, have you read "Retrieved from the future" by John Seymour. It is a fictional novel, but the central story is that modern calorific intake is derived from oil, either as fuel for machinery or in the format of chemical soil nutrition. |
||||||||||
| Rob R |
Thank you
|
||||||||||
| vegplot |
Is that a filter question ?
Or, are you mocking the contestants?
|