Ok. Let's go back to using stones to make fire and the world will be alright.

lastmessenger:
Ok. Let's go back to using stones to make fire and the world will be alright.

Or let's try to make 10 kobo lithium batteries that can supply power to a home for one week.

Weah96:


Or let's try to make 10 kobo lithium batteries that can supply power to a home for one week.

all things are possible

lastmessenger:

all things are possible

Our current socio-economic system GUARANTEES that we won't see a 10 kobo battery capable of providing power to a home for one week.

A moral system that does not accommodate domination is a stagnant system. And innately destructive. Technology is the epitome of human power and domination and like power, it is double edged. It can both be useful and counterproductive.

Don't look at technology as dead metal piled together, rather it is a realization of human creativity. We should endeavor to push on the borders of what we can do with technology. The human ability to dominate nature, allows us to feed ourselves inspite of our immense population, fight diseases and even go beyond basic survival to ponder about existential issues.

The type of society sinequanon wants is unrealistic and dying one. A society fuelled by small farms, will be exposed by its weaknesses.

Sinequanon's moral logic has hidden within a selfish purpose.

For whose purpose is the environment preserved for, if not for mankind. The moral obligation owed to the environment is in fact owed to mankind, and masked as wisdom.

And isn't this some sort of domination over environment?

Kay17:
The type of society sinequanon wants is unrealistic and dying one. A society fuelled by small farms, will be exposed by its weaknesses.

As the farmer in the video said, "we have to go back to what our predecessors did and find out how they coped."

Anybody who still thinks that large scale, centralized farms and long shelf-life technology is progress, is out of touch with the reality.

I have outlined some of the issues they have encountered in the UK, from loss of habitat of species key to healthy ecosystems, to loss of focus on health.

We are not talking about idealism, here, but raw experience. In fifty years, large scale farming has taken its toll on the environment, quality of food and on health. Now they are realizing that they have to change.

What is preventing the switch back to small sustainable organic farms and local markets is self-interest and half a century of warped economic and social infrastructure, developed during the failed experiment called large scale farming.

The curious thing is that Africans already knew about soil erosion, habitat loss, deforestation, drought etc. before their follow follow mentality took over.

sinequanon:


As the farmer in the video said, "we have to go back to what our predecessors did and find out how they coped."

Anybody who still thinks that large scale, centralized farms and long shelf-life technology is progress, is out of touch with the reality.

I have outlined some of the issues they have encountered in the UK, from loss of habitat of species key to healthy ecosystems, to loss of focus on health.

We are not talking about idealism, here, but raw experience. In fifty years, large scale farming has taken its toll on the environment, quality of food and on health. Now they are realizing that they have to change.

What is preventing the switch back to small sustainable organic farms and local markets is self-interest and half a century of warped economic and social infrastructure, developed during the failed experiment called large scale farming.

The curious thing is that Africans already knew about soil erosion, habitat loss, deforestation, drought etc. before their follow follow mentality took over.

You overlook the difficulties and hardships of the farming practices our predecessors had. They had persistent famines, and their productivity cannot sustain a huge population as we have right now. Nostalgia is a case of bad memory. A call for a return to the past is a fear of the future. Africans are not follow follow idio.ts, it is only a racist that would think that up. People ordinarily accept and adapt to cultural innovation around the world. It is a human behaviour.

I will not dismiss the reality of a denigrated environment but the solution does not worth it.

Kay17:


You overlook the difficulties and hardships of the farming practices our predecessors had. They had persistent famines, and their productivity cannot sustain a huge population as we have right now. Nostalgia is a case of bad memory. A call for a return to the past is a fear of the future. Africans are not follow follow idio.ts, it is only a racist that would think that up. People ordinarily accept and adapt to cultural innovation around the world. It is a human behaviour.

Pragmatism is always better than idealism.
Pragmatism is like walking with your eyes wide open, while idealism is like walking with eyes closed and hoping that there are no bumps on the road.

The difference between your rational pragmatism and the op's irrational idealism is like day and night.

Kay17:


You overlook the difficulties and hardships of the farming practices our predecessors had.

You can keep pretending to yourself that it is me, when you have heard farmers making the statement on video.

Kay17:
They had persistent famines, and their productivity cannot sustain a huge population as we have right now.

This is mainly your imagination, probably due to images of African starvation that charity organizations propagate. Famine is more a result of war and population displacement for economic purposes, than of lack of technology. Persistent famines are almost always caused by war, not the other way round.

The advancement in farming should have been added on top of the wisdom of our predecessors, not instead of it, which is why they now find that they have to go back and rediscover it.

Kay17:
Nostalgia is a case of bad memory.

Irrelevant.

Kay17:
A call for a return to the past is a fear of the future.

In this case, it is admission of error.

Kay17:
Africans are not follow follow idio.ts, it is only a racist that would think that up. People ordinarily accept and adapt to cultural innovation around the world. It is a human behaviour.

It becomes follow follow when you end up forgetting the wisdom of your own culture and calling it nostalgia.

sinequanon:


You can keep pretending to yourself that it is me, when you have heard farmers making the statement on video.

This is mainly your imagination, probably due to images of African starvation that charity organizations propagate. Famine is more a result of war and population displacement for economic purposes, than of lack of technology. Persistent famines are almost always caused by war, not the other way round.

The advancement in farming should have been added on top of the wisdom of our predecessors, not instead of it, which is why they now find that they have to go back and rediscover it.

Irrelevant.

In this case, it is admission of error.

It becomes follow follow when you end up forgetting the wisdom of your own culture and calling it nostalgia.

Here is a bout of illusion, expecting traditional farming methods to feed 7 billion people! Absolutely unrealistic. Even the economics does not support it neither does the history. I doubt if there is any record proving productivity that surpasses our times. Modern farming methods vastly increase productivity compared to the traditional methods, the very purpose of modern methods was to create a dramatic increase.

There are many reasons for famine. To believe war is the only reason for famine is heightened naivety. For the ancient Egyptians, all that was needed for famine was for the Nile to fail to flood its banks. For many ancient civilizations, poor rainfall was enough pressure for devastating famine. Compared to our times, whereby advanced irrigation reduces hardship of droughts. Another reason is diseases. Little understanding about diseases did not help matters, famines would erupt as a result of crop diseases.

Kay17:


Here is a bout of illusion, expecting traditional farming methods to feed 7 billion people! Absolutely unrealistic.

That is a silly appraisal of the situation. Leave those sorts of comments to Plaetton.

Farming methods do not stay static. The fact that you persist on evading the statement about reviewing what our predecessors did, coming from seasoned farmers at the cutting edge of UK Government policy, and sponsored by LLoyds TSB Bank, proves that you are locked in denial.

It is a complete straw man argument to assume that local farming would have remained as it was 50 years ago. A lot of knowledge has accrued since then that would have developed local farming to cater for current demand. And it is foolish to disregard the fact that dangers like soil erosion, deforestation and climate change were not understood by the people proposing large scale farming, which they now know is unstainable.

Kay17:
Even the economics does not support it neither does the history. I doubt if there is any record proving productivity that surpasses our times. Modern farming methods vastly increase productivity compared to the traditional methods, the very purpose of modern methods was to create a dramatic increase.

Stop being lazy and go and watch the videos. They are about sustainability. The whole point is that modern farming methods are not sustainable. In fifty years they have damaged the soil and environment, and you are talking about feeding 7 billion people with that.

We now have UK farmers understanding the importance of, and supporting, crop rotation, planting trees, reducing pesticide use, etc.

Africa needs less of your follow follow attitude, and to enhance the tried and proven methods that other nations are now having to return to.

Kay17:
There are many reasons for famine. To believe war is the only reason for famine is heightened naivety. For the ancient Egyptians, all that was needed for famine was for the Nile to fail to flood its banks. For many ancient civilizations, poor rainfall was enough pressure for devastating famine. Compared to our times, whereby advanced irrigation reduces hardship of droughts. Another reason is diseases. Little understanding about diseases did not help matters, famines would erupt as a result of crop diseases.

ok enough of your stupidity.

Learn to read. The Nile not flooding was not a persistent famine. Those types of famine occurred once in several decades.

sinequanon:


That is a silly appraisal of the situation. Leave those sorts of comments to Plaetton.

Farming methods do not stay static. The fact that you persist on evading the statement about reviewing what our predecessors did, coming from seasoned farmers at the cutting edge of UK Government policy, and sponsored by LLoyds TSB Bank, proves that you are locked in denial.

It is a complete straw man argument to assume that local farming would have remained as it was 50 years ago. A lot of knowledge has accrued since then that would have developed local farming to cater for current demand. And it is foolish to disregard the fact that dangers like soil erosion, deforestation and climate change were not understood by the people proposing large scale farming, which they now know is unstainable.



Stop being lazy and go and watch the videos. They are about sustainability. The whole point is that modern farming methods are not sustainable. In fifty years they have damaged the soil and environment, and you are talking about feeding 7 billion people with that.

We now have UK farmers understanding the importance of, and supporting, crop rotation, planting trees, reducing pesticide use, etc.

Africa needs less of your follow follow attitude, and to enhance the tried and proven methods that other nations are now having to return to.



ok enough of your stupidity.

Learn to read. The Nile not flooding was not a persistent famine. Those types of famine occurred once in several decades.

What is the guarantee that these traditional methods with small scale farming that they can keep up with the mass production levels of our times? None. There is no precedent. Hence why so much faith in it? Lloyds Bank and co might sponsor them, but there will definitely be critics with equal weight. If you want me to trust them by watching videos ok then!

Note I am not saying the present practices are flawless or not dangerous.

Now, you acknowledge the various causes of famine other than war, especially in the distant past?

Kay17:


What is the guarantee that these traditional methods with small scale farming that they can keep up with the mass production levels of our times? None. There is no precedent. Hence why so much faith in it? Lloyds Bank and co might sponsor them, but there will definitely be critics with equal weight. If you want me to trust them by watching videos ok then!

A couple of posts ago, you were talking about fear of the future. Now you suddenly want impossible "guarantees". Guarantees cannot be given for such things. There were no guarantees when they started large scale farming. Obviously, there was no precedent when they started large scale farming.

Why don't you choose your words more carefully? They become empty, not strong, when you talk in extremes.

What we do know is that current large scale farming methods are not sustainable and yield inferior produce. Large scale farming was a commercial decision, not a necessity caused by demand.

Kay17:
Note I am not saying the present practices are flawless or not dangerous.

Try rephrasing without the double negatives.

Kay17:
Now, you acknowledge the various causes of famine other than war, especially in the distant past?

All you have to do is read properly. I have said..

Famine is more a result of war and population displacement for economic purposes, than of lack of technology.

Persistent famines are almost always caused by war, not the other way round.

See how I choose my words, carefully. Kindly do me the same courtesy.

Neither of those lead to...

Kay17:

To believe war is the only reason for famine is heightened naivety.

And don't start whining about me "focusing" on the word "only". You put it there, and it is critical to the point at hand.

When you start slinging around words like "guarantees" and "only" and "totally" etc., when they don't apply, the debate becomes tedious. I am not here to argue about things you make up.

sinequanon:


A couple of posts ago, you were talking about fear of the future. Now you suddenly want impossible "guarantees". Guarantees cannot be given for such things. There were no guarantees when they started large scale farming. Obviously, there was no precedent when they started large scale farming.

Why don't you choose your words more carefully? They become empty, not strong, when you talk in extremes.

What we do know is that current large scale farming methods are not sustainable and yield inferior produce. Large scale farming was a commercial decision, not a necessity caused by demand.

All you have to do is read properly. I have said..

Famine is more a result of war and population displacement for economic purposes, than of lack of technology.

Persistent famines are almost always caused by war, not the other way round.

In other words, there is no guarantee nor precedent that the methods you advocate for will feed a modern population. Excellent!

Persistent droughts and diseases do cause persistent famine.