the agricultural revolution...

fucked everything up.

if i ever make a statement that seems utterly ridiculous and you wonder (although you probably dont actually care) how i came to that particular statement just remember that i am a primitivist

i believe that humans were supposed to be hunter gatherers

im willing to accept that SOME of the human population could be self-sufficient farmers but trade is to be kept to a minimum and profits near non-existant

i know its not a common nor popular stance... but its no worse than believing in a great being in the sky that controls the entire universe... ya know?

Maybe

But a fairly important part of human development never the less, it changed everything.

It allowed us to specialize and all sorts!

We just have to roll with it now, attempting to scale our economies back will cause more problems.

If you are for profits being kept to a minimum then I would look into Keynes theory of the socialization of investment leading to the "euthanasia of the rentier"

Cool idea, don't think it can work though.

Anarchists would condemn humanity to eternity in the prison of the earth.

The stars are our birthright.

Interesting... how would you decide which 3/4 of the population to kill?

The only thing that is going to keep earth going at the moment is a huge increase in food technology. It would be interesting to have plant based meat substitutes. Not of the sort we have now but meat tissue that is 'grown' in vats/reactors or something. All that waste of keeping an animal alive (and consuming resources) waiting for it to grow.

Doesnt sound very appertising i know but we need to make some pretty stellar leaps forward in the next few decades to support the population without destroying the environment or killing off a large amount of people from starvation.

many experts disagree with you Bob suggesting very strongly that the future lies in small local farms producing for the area in which they are located

the food technology thang has failed - due to corporate greed/profit motivations and the result is our current so called 'food crisis' which isn't a crisis of lack of food but lack of reasons to share that food with those that have not enough

Bollix - how has it failed? There may be a distribution problem (which is a seperate issue) and there may be bad uses of some of the technology but food technology is what is keeping this world alive at the moment.

When you say small what do you mean? And should an area be restricted to only having available what it is capable of producing? No clearly to make the best use of available land and conditions plants that grow well in certain areas should be grown there as long as the cost(s) of transport make it more efficient.

....KiwiFarm anyone?

Monsanto, IMF, World Bank et al have created a world of inequality where people that need food starve

food technology for the right reasons is all good, but when coupled with the political and economic world in which we live has too often not benefited those in need

Yeah i agree there are issues but to call it the fault of food technology is retarded.

The basic inescapable fact of the matter is that unless we use land as efficiently as possible we will run into all sorts of problems. 'Small' farms are not as efficient as larger ones but there should be competition and common sense applied especially in regards to GM/GE for reasons other than efficiency.

Still waiting for a definition of small. I suspect it simply means not owned by groups that want to make some money.

It would be good if some governments or aid organisations stumped up some money to research hardy/high yeild crops for use in developing countries.

been looking for an article that articulates my thoughts way better than me but can't find it - think it was in the socialist voice, which should be enough for you to write my opinion off

but small and sustainable farming models (solely for profit or not) were given as the best way to produce food - not in a mass production manner, so called efficiencies seem to come at the cost of the environment and those who traditionally inhabited an area

it would be good if the developing nations had not been bullied into creating food types for export at the expense of local production for their domestic markets

this is simply another case of the 'market' not working

market not working?

Again you are confusing issues. 5 huge farms occupying the same land as 1000 small farms is likely to be more efficient OR use less land for the same amount of food output. Less hungry people or less displaced people - you choose.

I do agree that the people in the country where farms are located should benefit from its existence rather than a sole remote owner BUT in saying that efficient farming requires a large investment, something which 'small' farmers by themselves couldnt hope to achieve (in the context of developing countries). There are a number of joint ventures (some of which fonterra are involved in in asia) which seek to combine proper land usage with efficient practices.

you know the market - that thing them fat cats always go on about (refer business roundtable et al) - read some of the great articles of late regarding the world of banana cultivation, there was one published here from the independent I think that was good

efficient in the short term maybe, but a variety of crops, rotating field use and small locally focused famrs are better for the area they serve than the huge fertilizer hungry leeching behemoths of the modern day

sustainability not growth for shareholders sakes

damn I wish I could find the article that was going on about this,as I'm not quite getting it right and can't remember the details

I am not totally in the dark regarding the behaviours of some production companies but as i have said repeatedly - do not lump food technology in with dubious commercial and environmental practices. Proper farming is not the modern equivelent of slash and burn which is what *some* of these companies you refer to are doing. That particular issue is more of a balance of power and lax laws in developing states. In that context, in the short term it is probably better for the local communities.

Globally speaking the earth can not sustain inefficient farming practices. Growing bananas in the tropics, rice in asia and dairy in NZ and swapping is more efficient than each area trying to produce each of those in areas that arent condusive to particular crops.

I have a feeling youll move on to the live with what you can grow argument but we are not on a subsistence level here and unless you want people to change their purchasing habits dont expect people to change their selling habits.

no I won't be throwing that argument in, and for some food types I totally agree with you

it is alll but impossible to not lump some food technologies in with those whom developed them and the practices utilised to employ such tech - the slash and burn and other harmful practices are not just found in developing statres - refer to canturbury plains and proposed irrigation schemes for a style of farming the area is not suited for, just because you can and it'll work for a while doen't mean its the best solution long term

Neutron bomb Africa and 3/4 of Asia and the population crisis disappears.

but how can you be *sure* that is the best outcome? :>

It's been suggested by some anthropologists (i dont know with what level of widespread acceptance in the profession, becasue initially at least the claim was treated with incredulity), that hunter gathering societies were not too badly off at all. Basically, they needed to work one or two hours a day max, and could spend the rest of the time doing what ever the hell they pleased.

Amen brother! Imagine if the trillions of dollars humans spent on weapons was transferred to space exploration. Mass Effect?

judging by the nuke them all comment I believe Vads is suggest the Stars are the WHITE mans birthright

in which case some advanced civilisation will wipe us out for the plague on the universe we represent

BD - Do you judge all races by the few that you disagree with or just 'whites'?

You gave a serious reply to vadz's post... why?

bob you might like to rad this article - and again you'll possibly shoot it down cause its Monibot





www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/17951

Interesting article but the quoted research is almost exclusively in 3rd world countries. When the cost of labour is low you can have massive amounts of labour per unit of land. Especially with the farmers living of their land first and selling excess 2nd there is little reason to turn a profit. The article also makes a good point if the farmers are forced off the land how will they support themselves.

Again look at NZ, most farms are not what you call small (in the context of this article i believe) but are still family owned (though increasinly the owners are in their 60's with no children taking over). Good growing conditions aside i suspect that NZ would not follow the articles findings.

In respect to how NZ farms are worked I'd agree it would be interesting to see a comparison

however the rising cost of oil will hinder our farmers ability to be so efficient and cost effective - something smaller farms can negate through diversified crops I would suggest (bot not argue as it is not an area I know much of)

I find this subject interesting asmuch that if correct small being better it defies and contradicts all we've been lead to believe in this realm and well as ever my thoughts tend to go against the established order

They can TRY. Humans don't give in easily.

dustbowls!

To a degree it will, but to put it in perspective even when our products go to the UK the products have a lower carbon footprint that the comparible UK products (currently).

Again you need to compare apples with apples. Simple question - In NZ what scale would be the most efficient? I dont think it would be small labour intensive plots.

While I agree superfarms have a lot to answer for and the world bank has screwed up many a project or reports; there is a limit to the application of the information as i have seen it.

size here is determined by land use I'd suggest - for example high country farming is always going to be large scale yet dairy and market gardens can be small scale and intensive

I agree on the limit to how we can use the info on hand and the world bank and all them pro big business/large scale productions models have shown in the developing world very sorry results but great PR

somewhere between the two lies the future of our food chain, technology with sustainable famring practices that aren't reliant on oil

I read this morning of fertiliser being rsationed and the rationing being enforced by police in parts of india

climate change, water and farming practices grouped together make for currently in my world very interesting subject matter