StylesGrant Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 When the last wild foraging human is gone, we will have crossed the rubicon. -Daniel Vitalis Interestingly the concept of 3D printers has been thrown around a lot, and it was actually brought to my attention that they are mainly talking about printing food with genetically modified insects, meal worms, etc, algae. That this trend towards a corporitist model of central agricultural planning would lead down the road 30 years plus to an insurance prescribed 'food cube'. A bit of a hyperbole, though do not assume its all unlikely in any degree. On the other hand, is the continued movement towards heirloom farmer markets, permaculture, and land conservation in the attempts of getting enough species variety, and consequentially genetic resilience, along with much more anti-oxidant and environmentally protective secondary metabolite within plants into the human body, which would start to bring man back to this aboriginal pre-agricultural genetic strength. Which I mean, hey, if you want to put heirloom food into a 3D printer.. you get the idea. But I digress. Point being, if you know anything about transhumanism. People are talking about growing organs, downloading their minds into machines, genetically programming out diseases, genetically designing babies, and various other continuous meddling. That is to say, applying sophisticated band-aids to an imperfect under-developed body. While no doubt, they may design a type of ubermensche, I can foresee the majority of those individuals brought farther down the course of a genetically bastardized food system, with government, and public schooling to lead to anything less than a weaker version of people. I don't know if anyone on this board would know much about aboriginal studies and traditional cultures. The theory is, that because we have limited the human diet so greatly in the pursuit of an alcohol based society (which Joe Rogan has talked about) and grain consumption, we have increasingly lost the natural genetic protection conferred by eating natural habitat diversity. This shows in CAFO's where the sterility has led to anti-biotic resistant super bugs, and countless other examples. The only reason monoculture farming works, are because of industrial inputs. If you stand back and let nature take over, it kills human artifacts until the wildness returns. This idea of challenging agriculture to ask the question, how do we know what we think we know-..is it perhaps a result of an alcohol based civilization. What if we cause a potato blight on ourselves? This all raises the question of how we see ourselves, as a dominant species, or the anthropomorphic perspective vs. an integral species. Can we survive under a paradigm that assumes we were managing for our own habitat objectively, when in reality we were destroying out own habitat by undermining our own genetics? What if Hayek's obersvations were really about symbiosis? If he had understood this genetic phenomena, how would it have been reflected in his market observations?
J. D. Stembal Posted July 24, 2014 Posted July 24, 2014 I am very much interested in the topic of industrialized "monoculture" and the environmental, social, and health implications derived from it. We are out here, and we are getting nervous. The reason why we have an industrial farming economy mostly driven by the Big Three (corn, wheat, and soy) goes back to the Agriculture Adjustment Act passed in 1933, part of Roosevelt's New Deal program, which set the stage for a central authority determining how farmers behaved. They would pay subsidies to get farmers to let fields lie fallow to drive prices up. In the 1970s, there was this pervasive idea in scientific circles - which persists today - that the world's population growth would far outstrip it's ability to feed itself (the Malthusian Catastrophe). This faulty concept was used as a pretext for Secretary of State, Earl Butz (appointed to the position by Nixon) to revamp the AAA, removing the subsidy to non-producing farmers, and urging farmers to grow as much corn as possible to feed the world. The scientific projections were inaccurate, much like the doom and gloom global warming projections of the 1980-90s, so as a result we have corn in everything. It's in your beef and the rest of your food (hello, high fructose corn syrup). It's in your gas tank. It's everywhere, because of farming subsidies and a manipulated market overreaction to the fear of overpopulation. When you say alcohol based society, are you referring to ethanol being used as a fuel additive? It is very frightening how hard it is to find ethanol free fuel if you live anywhere near the Corn Belt. The last time I filled up with ethanol free gas, it cost US$4.30 for a gallon, so there is a secret hidden taxpayer subsidy for gasoline through ethanol use. No one talks about this for some reason. Ethanol production is a net energy negative process, which means, unlike petroleum fuels, more energy goes into making ethanol than you get out of using it. This is after considering how damaging corn production is to the biosphere. Every bushel of corn requires 4000 gallons of irrigated water. From where is all this fresh water coming? How can it be argued that using ethanol is environmentally ethical? I haven't touched on the health implications of all this yet, but I'll let that rest for now. Instead, I would like to ask you for some book recommendations. I love to read. I will list some of the relevant ones I've obtained and read so far. Wheat Belly by William Davis - He includes a brief history of the origins of wheat in the human diet and explores the negative impacts of wheat consumption on the human body. Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan - A good source of information on corn, corn-fed beef, and CAFOs. The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith - You can derive some environmental insights if you can wade through her constant blaming of the patriarchy. I've been meaning to read Weston A. Price's Nutritional and Physical Degeneration, which explores the diets of people around the world, and the health repercussions of a "modern diet". I haven't landed a copy yet, but I know it's a lengthy read. I do not know a thing about Transhumanism, so I can't comment on that, but if you are interested in exploring more sustainable options for agriculture, ceasing to feed cows corn (cows are supposed to eat grass), and putting corn byproducts in every food and fuel at the corner store. One of the alternatives that is frequently discussed is the cassava - http://r4dreview.org/2010/03/cassava-improving-sustainability-of-farming-systems/ Though fertilizer use may be the easiest way to improve cassava productivity and improve system sustainability, high prices limit the adoption of fertilizers, unless strong markets develop. Farmers have, however, other options to improve cassava productivity, increase nutrient availability, and reduce nutrient losses within their farming system. These include: (1) better weed control and drought avoidance strategies; (2) improving cassava’s efficiency as a soil fertility improver; (3) returning cassava stems to the field after harvest to reduce nutrient losses; and (4) planting cassava in rotation/intercrop with (cash) crops that receive manure/fertilizer.
StylesGrant Posted July 24, 2014 Author Posted July 24, 2014 Nitrigin fixers, crop rotations, intercropping, and crop cover are key parts of land management and permaculture. --^ Raj Patel's books are detailed accounts of this subject, in terms of Farm Policy history. Vadanna Shiva talks about it in her books. Gary Null on prn.fm talks about it on almost every show. A very good well rated Environmental Soil Science textbook and Wildlife Ecology and Management text book wouldn't be a bad addition. There is a book by Kenneth Bockman about the four childhood allergies. It is essentially a book about Autism. Which is heavily intertwined with this subject, so there is some history and perspective in that book. 1
StylesGrant Posted July 25, 2014 Author Posted July 25, 2014 Also, there is a lot of emphasize on these subjects in Bill McKibbens books. But especially, Deep Ecology The Wealth of Communities., which is about agriculture.
bitcoin Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 One thing which is incorrect which you must take into consideration. The reason why ethanol IS more efficient is the mpg & output you get from the much cleaner alcohol fuel is incredible. Also, right now, most the the (gmo) corn is given as feed for animals... and what is great is that if the corn was fermented and alcohol was taken from it, it would also be alot more easily digestible and healthy for the animals (which is why currently they feed cow poo to chickens as feed) which would be even more sustainable. Either way, hemp fuel and biomass are the best types of fuel / gas creating far more mpg (which is not taken into consideration), it is much cleaner (for the environment and engine when being burnt) and allows there to be a sustainable local source of energy. Also, monoculture, actually does not work. It is the reason you hear farmers talking about crops failing, I have never heard of crops and plants ever getting unhealthy in organic, permaculture. I am sure it happens, but much more rarely. And when people say, corn is destructive to the biosphere, they are not taking into account it is genetic engineered, genetically modified & monoculture. Heritage and native corn planting is not at all destructing to the environment, in fact, organic agriculture ALWAYS improves the soil (assuming the organic materials are returned to the soil) Consider watching "Alcohol can be a gas". Anyways, biomass is 100% ideal.
J. D. Stembal Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 Jake, cows eat grass, not corn. Ethanol as a biofuel is not sustainable. It takes more energy to produce ethanol than it yields as a fuel additive. I'd link you Chris Martenson's Peak Prosperity seminar that deals with fossil/bio fuels but I can't directly link to the video now (I don't think it's behind a paywall, if you want to Google it to check it out.). Corn is one of the most resource hungry crops known to man (4000 gallons of irrigated water per bushel). Do you understand the amount of ecological damage this thirsty plant wreaks on the biosphere? I'm not opposed to anyone planting it in their backyard, please understand, but when almost 100 million acres of corn were planted in the United States alone last year (http://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2013/06_28_2013.asp), you can't help but take a step back and examine how industrialized agriculture is practiced at the expense of the biosphere, the taxpayer, and our health.
StylesGrant Posted July 27, 2014 Author Posted July 27, 2014 This is because it all first and foremost depends on the water retention factor and the soil composition. The more organic matter in the soil, the less watering your plants need, the less run-off, and so on. Again, a genetically modified and engineered crop has nothing to do with corn itself. Yes, and we have squandered massive amounts of pristine prairie top soil that Europe long ago lost in the 1300-1600's from overpopulation, so the soil is so poorly managed it takes more and more inputs to get less and less... I for one, think hemp is a better source for just about everything. Hemp grows easier than corn without a doubt, it is a weed after all. So I am all for the hemp revolution. Though as far as alternative fuel sources go its only a part of the puzzle. I actually think microbiological growth tanks converted into hydrogen fuel cells with input from solar fuel cells might be the future, plus there is a lot of talk about algae growth.
Recommended Posts