Fear of Farming

[boatman]

Book I have just ordered covers some of the topics we have discussed in terms of re-wilding and whether agriculture was a mistake.

"The environmental crisis is one of the most pressing concerns to face the population of the world today. The debate centres on the way in which our current problems are of recent making and how we might fix them. But in reality the issue is far more fundamental and stretches back further in time than many of us might think. This book traces the origins of our present situation to the changes that came about with the introduction of farming to Britain 6000 years ago and the inexorable course of human development since then."

[h=2]Table of Contents[/h]1. Where Are We Now?
2. The First Hunters
3. Gathering Nuts, Watching the Moon
4. We Are Not Alone
5. The Arrival of the Bread-Makers
6. New Ways
7. New World, New Thoughts
8. Brave New World - what went wrong?
9. New Lives, New Ways, New Problems
10. Just How Civilised Are We?
11. Adam and Eve are Alive and Kicking

 

[Jaeger]

Aye Up boatman,

Interesting subject you raise.

So in a nutshell - if man had continued to be a hunter gatherer - the human population would have been naturally limited by the availability of naturally occurring, foraged and hunted foodstuff - to a degree exactly what occurs in the insect/animal worlds (where the impact of man has been limited - or not) and the human race would have been indefinately sustainable, natural disasters not withstanding? When does the cull begin?

 

[Toddy]

…..says the man communicating on 21st century electronics

 

[boatman]

Just the messenger, my view is that modern life is good and all the better because a growing number of people can choose their style of life. I also enjoy "what if" speculation whether it be post-apocalyptic or alternative history and like Calder's "The Environment Game" this sort of book is grist to the mill or perhaps tuber to the pounding stone.

 

[greencloud]

Without the 'It all went wrong - we're doomed' phooey, It raises an interesting point.

Can mankind find an environmental balance, where intensive modern farming can meet the demand of population, while leaving enough space for nature to thrive?

 

[Toddy]

I wasn't getting at you Edwin

Having studied the lifestyles of our past, I can honestly say that it's a nice place to visit, but I don't want to live there.

In my lifetime alone the differences in living standards are immense. Most of that is simply down to the availability of resources and of widespread and accessible knowledge.
Neither of those was as easily obtained in the past.

I am sitting here, in the middle of a sodden wet and wild day, and I am warm, dry and comfortable. There's ample food in the house, there's running water (hot and cold ) easily available power, inside loos and decent sewerage.
My Son is off to Ghana next week, he'll phone me from the other hemisphere and it'll sound like Jamie's at home in Glasgow.

We live like Gods compared to much of the world's population even yet; compared to the past we live long, and we live very well indeed.

Apocalypse ?….any study of history shows that people pick themselves up and sooner or later peace ensues and society re-establishes order ….then the politicians are back in business

M

 

[British Red]

Can mankind find an environmental balance, where intensive modern farming can meet the demand of population, while leaving enough space for nature to thrive?

Nope,not with an ever growing population - its logically impossible.

 

[santaman2000]

......Can mankind find an environmental balance, where intensive modern farming can meet the demand of population, while leaving enough space for nature to thrive?

Nope,not with an ever growing population - its logically impossible.

Exactly. We can probably find a way intensive enough to meet current demands but that'll only cause the population to outgrow supply again----and again----and again.

 

[Goatboy]

Exactly. We can probably find a way intensive enough to meet current demands but that'll only cause the population to outgrow supply again----and again----and again.

Unless we all eat our Soylent greens.

Sent via smoke-signal from a woodland in Scotland.

 

[crosslandkelly]

Unless we all eat our Soylent greens.

Sent via smoke-signal from a woodland in Scotland.

Forget Nostradamus, read Harry Harrison.

 

[NoName]

sounds like a cool book
and good that people are asking questions

 

[RonW]

With today's modern agriculture we will never be able to meet the demands. Quite on the contrary.
Why? Simple. Modern agriculture wreaks havoc on the very thing it is based on; the soil. Monocultures, petrochemical based fertilisers and herbicides/pesticides are ruining that very foundation on a massive scale.
On the other hand it has been calculated that if agriculture were to be downscaled to, say, local/community level we would be able to meet the demands worldwide quite easily. But that form of agriculture would have to be done in the old fashioned, sustainable way, meaning putting back into the soil what we take out of it and preferably a bit more + growing crops on a smaller, much more varied scale.

 

[crosslandkelly]

With today's modern agriculture we will never be able to meet the demands. Quite on the contrary.
Why? Simple. Modern agriculture wreaks havoc on the very thing it is based on; the soil. Monocultures, petrochemical based fertilisers and herbicides/pesticides are ruining that very foundation on a massive scale.
On the other hand it has been calculated that if agriculture were to be downscaled to, say, local/community level we would be able to meet the demands worldwide quite easily. But that form of agriculture would have to be done in the old fashioned, sustainable way, meaning putting back into the soil what we take out of it and preferably a bit more + growing crops on a smaller, much more varied scale.

Can the answer really be that simple? I don't think the political will is there. (sorry mods, P word)

 

[Goatboy]

It' been tried a couple of times. During WWII we had to try and feed ourselves as a country while being blockaded. In a lot of ways it was succesful but rationing had to come into effect. Of course there was a war being fought so maybe would've been better without such a drain on things. Communism tried it with all their peasant farms. Political things were the downfall that time as there was a lot of hunger and shortages.
Maybe a more integrated approach where big farms and more small holdings as well as more home plots would be the answer. Maybe sounds a bit "Goodlife" but not everyone could or should grow crops. There has to be folk who specialise in other things.

Sent via smoke-signal from a woodland in Scotland.

 

[NarzaCyst]

Specialising is a must. Unfortunately I work in the IT industry and I'm good at it, and a lot of people I work with are good at it, however, they are not good at much else when it comes to self survival.

When I say "Self Survival" I'm on about cooking, identification, COMMON SENSE, and general health and well being.

It's sad to say, that any form of "apocalypse" or common sense to survive to cook food would fare well in a situation where the electricity is cut off for a long period of time is sustainable foer them.

I'm 33 and see people come into the business where their main concern is to sit infront of the computer or TV for the duration of the evening and order food to be delivered to consume just like they do during work.

Were a very lazy society these days, and the will and skill to learn the old skills will most likely (fingers crossed) 😓 sort the men from the boys!

 

[Tengu]

I just picked up a book, `Surviving Extreemes, of ice, jungle, sand and swamp` By Ian Middleton (2003)

It is all about remote and often traditional communities.

Who are often dependent on modern technology.

 

[Goatboy]

I think that's the crux of it Tengu. We in the first & second world are comfortable enough to hanker back to a simpler life whereas those in the third are stuggling and will take any advantages they can.
There are some cultures that do hold onto what they have but most have had their environment & culture messed up by our meddling.

Sent via smoke-signal from a woodland in Scotland.

 

[Tengu]

Whose meddling?

Most people, if they see something new and they believe it will improve their lives will adopt it.

We may smile at mobile phones but what if you lived in an area with no landline infrastructure?

 

[Goatboy]

Governments, big business, missionaries. All infringing on other cultures that's who meddles. But at the same time I said it's understandable that cultures grab onto what makes their life easier. We view it as sad but they view it differently. Some cultures like the Evenk, Eskimos, Indians and Aborigines are trying to hold onto their ways but it seems an uphill struggle.
Sent via smoke-signal from a woodland in Scotland.

 

[RonW]

OT @Tengu; does a word like colonisation ring a bell??

Our ways were forced upon many a culture that thrived, before Europeans even set foot on their soil. If those cultures did not submit themselves peacefully, and I do think there was none, they got our way shoved down their throat by any and all means necessary up to and including extermination.
We as humans are not dependent on modern technology. We are addicted. Major difference.

On Topic; we can not all be farmers and there is no need to be. But we can all become less dependent on others for our sustenance. A henhouse, a few berrybushes, a henhouse maybe. Even knowledge about how to use those "weeds" would do that.
Specialisation will always happen and always be necessary. That's why self sufficiency is not possible. No independence, but interdependence. Not solo, but community.