The farmers have largely ruined soil fertility using that stuff so I don't know why anyone would defend the practice. The question I have is do these various governments just not want anyone farming?
The farmers have largely ruined soil fertility using that stuff so I don't know why anyone would defend the practice. The question I have is do these various governments just not want anyone farming?
Globalist policy and corporate consolidation have helped a lot to make that the only economically viable path for farmers. I think they deserve a bit of slack. Some larger "stakeholder" will grab that land when they can't produce or sell at a competitive price
Farmers don't have to follow globalist policy. They don't have to own such large tracts of land or use mega machines. That is why they are failing today as these input costs increase. Now that the banks are puckering up I am expecting large numbers of bankruptcies and liquidation, and since the soil is shot, no one will reopen these fields. I have hardly touched the surface of the methods of farmers, to type about how the soil is losing fertility is a HUGE problem - the single most pressing issue facing humanity. Its not my fault they lack basic biological knowledge. I stand by my statement.
But you either spend 80 hrs a week on the farm and scrape by, or use fertilisers, machinery, sprays for 30 hrs and work 40 hrs at another job and do ok.
The inputs are ruining soil fertility. Whether they can scrape by using them or not isn't my issue.
The soil is shot as thus requires ever more inputs to grow crops until the carbon has been reduced to the extent that nothing they are now doing works. Its a Faustian Bargain.
They only exist by government subsidy and bank refinancing and all that is about to end.
Start a garden now or prepare yourself to stand in line for your share of bug soup is about the best advice I can offer about now.
It can, but not with the practices instituted by the Rockefeller Foundation spread since the 40's and 50's, which now have control of the universities and ministries of agriculture, and which are now being sancified through ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) rules on social credit for investment.
Soil can only be regenerated through the practices big ag deplores and works 24/7/365 to eradicate.
Although there are methods that would be lasting, I think treeless agriculture is the problem.
What has worked (that which grows soil fertility) for a very long time is what I call natural succession - agriculture ends this process.
Then on a more serious issue people who aren't directly connected to the food they eat are now dependent on agriculture and the various influences that effect the scheme.
The question is: How did or does nature compensate for a species, or even a colony of species die out for any number of reasons? Adaptation or entirely new species establish in the void - natural succession. Trees are the climax of the process.
Regen ag will last longer, but will still fail at some point because of human societal responses.
We need a new horticultural paradigm as a public health measure to address chronic metabolic diseases (diabetes, obesity)...small-scale farming should incorporate biochemistry and plant genetics to produce super-foods. Utopian perhaps, but we should aim high.
I hear you, although I do think NAFTA and other policy implementations incentivized a lot of changes that happened.
I lived somewhere that had a lot of homesteaders and local sustainable farmers trying to do things better, and there is enough local support for it, but many people are mostly breaking even doing what they do. At the end of the day most residents go to the big stores and buy the phony "natural" food, don't want to pay extra for better meat or veg, and don't want to change their dependence on retailers.
Economically in my view it lies outside of what farmers do, and in what people are willing to pay. This is how corporate factory farms win and create an economic paradigm that will not incentivize better alternatives. Restaurants won't not buy the cheap stuff because they will go broke and retailers and so on, so without a very carefully coordinated transition when you're talking about the economy of the entire nation and also global economy, there's a lot at stake.
Will check out your Substack and this video though thanks! Ultimately you're talking about taking the high road, which I believe in too. I don't believe when people say it's impossible to support the population without GMOs or factory farming or yadda yadda. Just cutting the fertilizer supply off with no contingency plan is going to have different consequences that don't entail fixing this problem. They will make a lot of things worse that will distract from it even further.
I don't worry about the population, its about being healthy myself and a few people who I am supporting.
I only point towards how farms are wrecking their own land to make money, as thus has an end game for certain.
Seldom offer this advice to work within the system and use surplus funds to buy a bit of land and build it up. Once one starts selling food then all sorts of rules and pressures come into play and one changes philosophy on how to use the land.
Not many people on the high road. No entertainment for them there!
Rick then why should anyone worry about you? Or take your advice? Farming is dangerous and tough work. Should it cease because of concerns from dubious sources ? As far as existing on subsidy thatтАЩs pretty much most of the west high, middle, low. The system is rigged that way.
тАЬI don't worry about the population, its about being healthy myself and a few people who I am supporting тАЬ
I have no control over what others think. This civilization has made the Faustian Bargain and its best to slowly become less dependent on it.
I am basically addicted to the internet and so far am allowed to type out my thoughts even though seemingly no one really cares. I highly doubt many if any will take my advice, maybe when its too late? How many am I influencing now? I don't know anyone other than people who simply comment. Even then there are a few others who are more entertaining that will capture people's attention that want to think about it.
This becoming less dependent takes lots of thought and time to build up personal resources, the system is too pervasive and people so habituated I believe this won't change until the system collapses from over use of resources. Happening now actually.
You don't have to worry about the farmers, as they wreck soil fertility they will join the other city people and eat bug soup.
As an aside; I have found over the years politics is only a means to ignore the inevitable collapse of the hierarchy.
The problem is that people want dirt cheap food and tastes/expectations have been developed by industrialised food processing and retailing. Small scale agriculture is best for quality produce. We need to balance the needs of farmers for a decent living and educate consumers about the entire range of food issues. It is insane that people everywhere want foods transported at great expense over vast distances and they want produce that is homogenous in taste and appearance. Local, seasonal, fresh and minimally processed are essential for health.
I don't think small scale agriculture will work either. It'll last longer is about it. Maybe market gardens as a means to fill in what people can't grow themselves though.
The farmers have largely ruined soil fertility using that stuff so I don't know why anyone would defend the practice. The question I have is do these various governments just not want anyone farming?
Globalist policy and corporate consolidation have helped a lot to make that the only economically viable path for farmers. I think they deserve a bit of slack. Some larger "stakeholder" will grab that land when they can't produce or sell at a competitive price
Farmers don't have to follow globalist policy. They don't have to own such large tracts of land or use mega machines. That is why they are failing today as these input costs increase. Now that the banks are puckering up I am expecting large numbers of bankruptcies and liquidation, and since the soil is shot, no one will reopen these fields. I have hardly touched the surface of the methods of farmers, to type about how the soil is losing fertility is a HUGE problem - the single most pressing issue facing humanity. Its not my fault they lack basic biological knowledge. I stand by my statement.
Here is an interesting video i am now listening to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX6eoxxoWKI
They do if they want to earn a living.
I only know about small family farms admittedly.
But you either spend 80 hrs a week on the farm and scrape by, or use fertilisers, machinery, sprays for 30 hrs and work 40 hrs at another job and do ok.
So what would you do?
The inputs are ruining soil fertility. Whether they can scrape by using them or not isn't my issue.
The soil is shot as thus requires ever more inputs to grow crops until the carbon has been reduced to the extent that nothing they are now doing works. Its a Faustian Bargain.
They only exist by government subsidy and bank refinancing and all that is about to end.
Start a garden now or prepare yourself to stand in line for your share of bug soup is about the best advice I can offer about now.
Can't top soil be regenerated though?
It can, but not with the practices instituted by the Rockefeller Foundation spread since the 40's and 50's, which now have control of the universities and ministries of agriculture, and which are now being sancified through ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) rules on social credit for investment.
Soil can only be regenerated through the practices big ag deplores and works 24/7/365 to eradicate.
Can you or Rick Larson send some literature my way on where you inform yourselves on agricultural issues, I'd be very grateful.
I am listening to this interview, not finished with it yet so you can get a head of me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX6eoxxoWKI&t=2854s
The book Permaculture A Designers' Manual is what jolted me out of my lethargy, then I began to accumulate the books it references.
I am now reading the book Power by Heinberg.
Perhaps this one, 'Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation':
https://b-ok.cc/book/689139/8545cb
I was first formed through one book, 'How The Other Half Dies', available here:
https://b-ok.cc/book/2437635/79a854
Hope this helps
Although there are methods that would be lasting, I think treeless agriculture is the problem.
What has worked (that which grows soil fertility) for a very long time is what I call natural succession - agriculture ends this process.
Then on a more serious issue people who aren't directly connected to the food they eat are now dependent on agriculture and the various influences that effect the scheme.
Can you explain what you mean about treeless ag and natural succession? The benefits in particular
The question is: How did or does nature compensate for a species, or even a colony of species die out for any number of reasons? Adaptation or entirely new species establish in the void - natural succession. Trees are the climax of the process.
Regen ag will last longer, but will still fail at some point because of human societal responses.
You should study how humans have responded in the high food production years and the relationship to why these responses guaranteed failure.
We need a new horticultural paradigm as a public health measure to address chronic metabolic diseases (diabetes, obesity)...small-scale farming should incorporate biochemistry and plant genetics to produce super-foods. Utopian perhaps, but we should aim high.
Public health has been corrupted!
I hear you, although I do think NAFTA and other policy implementations incentivized a lot of changes that happened.
I lived somewhere that had a lot of homesteaders and local sustainable farmers trying to do things better, and there is enough local support for it, but many people are mostly breaking even doing what they do. At the end of the day most residents go to the big stores and buy the phony "natural" food, don't want to pay extra for better meat or veg, and don't want to change their dependence on retailers.
Economically in my view it lies outside of what farmers do, and in what people are willing to pay. This is how corporate factory farms win and create an economic paradigm that will not incentivize better alternatives. Restaurants won't not buy the cheap stuff because they will go broke and retailers and so on, so without a very carefully coordinated transition when you're talking about the economy of the entire nation and also global economy, there's a lot at stake.
Will check out your Substack and this video though thanks! Ultimately you're talking about taking the high road, which I believe in too. I don't believe when people say it's impossible to support the population without GMOs or factory farming or yadda yadda. Just cutting the fertilizer supply off with no contingency plan is going to have different consequences that don't entail fixing this problem. They will make a lot of things worse that will distract from it even further.
I don't worry about the population, its about being healthy myself and a few people who I am supporting.
I only point towards how farms are wrecking their own land to make money, as thus has an end game for certain.
Seldom offer this advice to work within the system and use surplus funds to buy a bit of land and build it up. Once one starts selling food then all sorts of rules and pressures come into play and one changes philosophy on how to use the land.
Not many people on the high road. No entertainment for them there!
Good lad.
Rick then why should anyone worry about you? Or take your advice? Farming is dangerous and tough work. Should it cease because of concerns from dubious sources ? As far as existing on subsidy thatтАЩs pretty much most of the west high, middle, low. The system is rigged that way.
тАЬI don't worry about the population, its about being healthy myself and a few people who I am supporting тАЬ
I have no control over what others think. This civilization has made the Faustian Bargain and its best to slowly become less dependent on it.
I am basically addicted to the internet and so far am allowed to type out my thoughts even though seemingly no one really cares. I highly doubt many if any will take my advice, maybe when its too late? How many am I influencing now? I don't know anyone other than people who simply comment. Even then there are a few others who are more entertaining that will capture people's attention that want to think about it.
This becoming less dependent takes lots of thought and time to build up personal resources, the system is too pervasive and people so habituated I believe this won't change until the system collapses from over use of resources. Happening now actually.
You don't have to worry about the farmers, as they wreck soil fertility they will join the other city people and eat bug soup.
As an aside; I have found over the years politics is only a means to ignore the inevitable collapse of the hierarchy.
They do if people want to eat
The problem is that people want dirt cheap food and tastes/expectations have been developed by industrialised food processing and retailing. Small scale agriculture is best for quality produce. We need to balance the needs of farmers for a decent living and educate consumers about the entire range of food issues. It is insane that people everywhere want foods transported at great expense over vast distances and they want produce that is homogenous in taste and appearance. Local, seasonal, fresh and minimally processed are essential for health.
I don't think small scale agriculture will work either. It'll last longer is about it. Maybe market gardens as a means to fill in what people can't grow themselves though.
Yes, hungry people are easier to control, dead people even easier.
Not kidding.
The ancient Greeks had a saying: necros ou daknei...dead men do not bite.
Right now they only bark
Long Warred, just wondered...did you recently post comments (under a different handle) on BAP's latest article? These were on an another platform.