Depending on local laws (they are verboten as possible invasives if they escaped in some places) you might look at tilapia. They do well in small-ish container aquaculture systems, breed like rabbits (the invasive if escaped argument is not void - don't let them escape) are omnivorous and grow fast. Or check with your ag extension people to see what they suggest and/or what's legal in your state. Hybrid aquaculture/hydoponic arrangements seem to work as well.
Be sure to eat one before you commit to raising any, but fairly decent flavor (to most people who eat fish) is part of their appeal.
Trout are fine if you have the conditions, but few people do, and providing them with happy circumstances artificially is expensive.
i'll pass, thanks, i'm not that much into aquaculture and even if i were this isn't a site well suited for it.
i'm much happier not having to deal with most of the farm animals. worms are good enough for me. i like that they don't need a huge amount of care. it fits well with my keep it simple approach to gardening.
it's an important hair to split if you're talking about sustainable agriculture over the long term. if it takes materials from other locations to keep a farm's topsoil going then it becomes a larger question about how sustainably those materials are grown. as it is pretty sure the soils in that area are already heavily depleted by tobacco farming it is a critical question and one i'm surprised you're just ready to accept as not really important.
i'm not buying the claim as being true.
...
put in some cooler weather plants. peas/peapods are my favorites here. for arid climates tepary beans are one possibility, but i'm not sure how they do with cool weather.
well yeah, our country doesn't care about sustainable practices enough as of yet. in time it will be forced to.
it happens, companies do go private.
links don't help, i'm not always on-line, it is like a rock sitting in the conversational road.
...
oy!
...
well, i'll say i don't agree with many of his assumptions and so that won't lead me to much harmony with his conclusions.
i did, i don't agree with too many of his assumptions.
...
no sewers in a compost world.
i think a person deserves more respect in his stated need and desires far above any formula that some other person at a distance has come up with.
if i say i can get by on $2/hr who are you to say i can't?
...
oh, so they're not poisons after all? :) no, i'm just making a joke. i much prefer my food to be dioxin free...
...
i've had basic chemistry.
i don't see any perpetual mechanism for larger molecules or particles to hold together in the face of being soaked up and settled out or being degraded by the sun, beaten on the shore, coated by bacteria, fungi, etc.
how can you conclude these compounds persist indefinitely if we were to stop making more of them?
non-prophet, no-return, rapture free range nut, all minions adored, this week's special includes gluten free t-shirts, just clip this coupon and redeem...
Did the bison poop where exactly where they consumed the buffalo grass, or was it a couple of hundred yards away? I didn't say that Salatin was making 1" of top soil in a closed system. Like all other news, I get it second or third hand, through reporters I trust, or from enough reporters to make it plausible.
" Their system is based on native pastures, without cultivation or new, ³improved² pasture species. The only input has been the feed for the poultry. This multi-species rotational grazing system builds one inch of soil a year and returns the family 15 times the income per acre than is received by neighbouring farms using a set stocking of cattle." - Andre Leu President of the Organic Producers Association of Queensland and vice chair of the Organic Federation of Australia
The above statement, and the praise from Michael Pollan gives me confidence that the statement is probably true.
That's your prerogative.
My computer's dictionary lists "Make the most efficient use of non-renewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls", as one of the attributes of sustainable agriculture.
Doesn't help if you want to grow sweet corn, or melons. If all the stars line up, we can grow these things, but we have had cool summers for nearly a decade now, i.e. only 1 - 3 days of temps over 100F, whereas in the bad ol' days we'd get 6 - 12 100F days.
Too bad the government can't make federal land available for for sustainable agriculture.
They go private so that they won't have to show their books to the public.
Wierd, I'm using Firefox, and it goes right to it, as does Safari, and E.I.
Oy, indeed.
Wouldn't want to amplify on that would you? You disagree with what assumptions?
What, that a division between the people who did the actual work, and the planners didn't lead to a stratification of society? The word civilization comes from the Latin civitas, meaning city or city-state.
You saw his argument on hunter/gatherers superior health?
The point was that wages were tied to the desirability of the job. The more desirable it was, the less it paid. The less desirable it was, the more it paid. This isn't the only algorithm to arrive a reasonable wage. The one we have now is individual greed and exploitation of the society where they are.
If I say you can get by on $2/day, who are you to argue?
?? Yeah, sometimes they work. Sometimes they don't.
As was pointed out, they are incorporated into the food chain, or they can settle out like mercury, only to be methylated and introduced into the food chain (or web, if you will).
Not indefinitely, maybe only 100,000 years, but not indefinitely, unless they are incorporated into sedimentary rock.
Two for the price of one?
The revolution will not be right back after a message about a white tornado, white lightning, or white people. You will not have to worry about a dove in your bedroom, a tiger in your tank, or the giant in your toilet bowl. The revolution will not go better with Coke. The revolution will not fight the germs that may cause bad breath. The revolution will put you in the driver's seat.
The revolution will not be televised, will not be televised, will not be televised, will not be televised. The revolution will be no re-run brothers; The revolution will be live.
"The Corporation" is on YouTube in 23 installments.
It is the same as the DVD.
I think you'd be better off with the DVD, all things considered.
The Corporation
2003 NR 145 minutes
Filmmakers Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott explore the genesis of the American corporation, its global economic supremacy and its psychopathic leanings, with social critics like Noam Chomsky and Milton Friedman lending insight in this documentary.
Cast: Mikela J. Mikael, Noam Chomsky, Milton Friedman, Michael Moore
Director: Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott
Genres: Documentary, Social & Cultural Documentaries, Political Documentaries
This movie is: Cerebral, Controversial
Format: DVD
The Corporation is a 2003 Canadian documentary film written by University of British Columbia law professor Joel Bakan, and directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott. The documentary examines the modern-day corporation, considering its legal status as a class of person and evaluating its behaviour towards society and the world at large as a psychiatrist might evaluate an ordinary person. This is explored through specific examples. Bakan wrote the book, The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power, during the filming of the documentary.
Film critics gave the film generally favorable reviews. The review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported that 91% of critics gave the film positive reviews, based on 104 reviews.[3] Metacritic reported the film had an average score of 73 out of 100, based on 28 reviews.
MEMBER REVIEW This is a wonderfully edited documentary about the effects that corporations have on society. It's highly informative without being boring. The first point that should be made is that everyone should see this film because the topics in it effect all of us. It doesn't matter what your political, economic, or religious status is- if you live on this planet, you will be directly effected by corporations for your entire life. Far from being the benevolent providers of goods and services that make our lives worth living, corporations are by definition voracious predators who must continually feed their appetite for more. This movie is not necessarily anti-corporate. It's pretty objective and presents the truth straight from the CEO's mouth. The single most important thing that you walk away from this film with is the understanding of why things are the way they are in America and other capitalist societies. Most people don't think about these topics very often, but when you start to put the puzzle pieces together, you realize that our way of life can't possibly be sustained. This raises important questions about what we are going to do about it. Further, the movie gives you a pretty good understanding of the laws governing corporations. These laws basically force companies to continually grow, whether or not it is sustainable. To most people, the idea that a company has to continually grow larger seems to make sense. But what if that company harvests resources that belong to all people and are in extremely short supply? You know, things like air, water, trees...the stuff that the creator gave to all mankind. You will be watching nature get pillaged to benefit the few until society awakens from it's haze of denial. This film is the start of that awakening.
arg! weather forecast has more rain coming. looks like flood weather for some folks down stream and in town. the water is already up to the levees in several areas.
the wetlands have a few more feet of capacity, but that won't do much good with the ground already being saturated.
the above statement is wrong. "The only input" is incorrect.
i'm still king... :)
i have stated multiple times that i consider Salatin's efforts as _more_ sustainable than most conventional agriculture. other than that i couldn't say how sustainable or how it impacts the surrounding area. mostly i think it is ok. i'd rather live near his farm than many others.
good luck!
have you ever tried the smaller baby corn plants? i'm not a corn guru. around here all corn that isn't well protected is raccoon food.
i'm not sure what land you are talking about but most land i'm aware of that the government owns is either in cities, military, nuclear testing, or sparse rangeland that should not be used for any soil disturbing agriculture.
for a longer term project i'd want ownership. out west in arid places i'd also require water rights. it doesn't make any sense to do long term projects if you can't harvest rain water to hold back and use and if you aren't sure how long you'll be there. that is what makes most property taxes so nasty. it's almost impossible to do a longer term project that doesn't turn into yet another exploitive system.
...
you can think that, but i'm sure in many cases that is wrong.
if you really have such a negative opinion of so many others how do you manage to drive down the road or buy food at the store or do much of anything other than huddle in a cave waiting for the boogeyman?
...
good luck!
that agriculture was the cause of class divisions. that he's making valid comparisons between cultures on the whole. that he's doing much other than picking what suits the conclusions he's already made.
...
i'll repeat myself. all groups stratify. period. full stop. end of statement. function of the species/brain. we group, divide up, regroup, etc. constantly. even the most rigid of the religious societies fragment and divide once the charismatic leader dies or something happens which sets enough people off into another direction. it's just what we do.
any group of people of more than one person has a class system, rankings, etc. they may be unspoken and there are likely many different ones in operation.
and i don't agree, he's sweeping a lot of things under the rug.
read any modern text on microbiology and parasitology. read any collection of actual studies by anthropologists of many different groups. there are no utopian societies in the past. all have their challenges and troubles.
having read 1491, etc. recently how can you accept this comparison as being right? if you took a group from a European area in 1490s and compared that to a group from the Amazon area at that time you'd find the Amazons decimated by diseases.
...rest snipped, gotta get out for a walk before the rains come...
Would you amplify that response? What other inputs?
What is the source of your doubt? Who claims otherwise?
Just let me adjust the "Sword of Damcles" for you.
Not to put too fine a point on it, your arguments sound as if they are based on faith.
One year I had a really good stand of dent corn, but the sweet corn just petered out. Yeah, I've tried the 60 day wonder corn, but still no go. I'll probably try the "Golden Bantum" corn again.
I figure I can let rocky the rascally raccoon have a portion of what I grow, after all, he and his kin were here first.
How about mountain top removal, or strip mining, or just plain ol' mining? Military bases are being closed. They would be one place to develope. Agriculture can take place without plows. Any land that is leased, should have a remediation plan.
Of public lands?
What about downstream users?
Exploitive systems-R-us. The business model is "privatize the profits", and "socalize the costs" be if foul air, diry water, or sick employees.
Since the dot-com bubble of 1999, more public companies go private each year, according to financial sources like "Business Week" and CNN. Reasons for changing the business structure of major corporations vary from company to company. However, a general trend seems to be because private companies are subject to less regulatory oversight.
You mean Koch Industries, Bechtel, Cargill, Publix, Pilot Corp., one of the members of the Big Four accounting firms, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Hearst Corporation, S. C. Johnson, and Mars which are among the largest privately held companies in the United States? Oh, ja, you betcha.
You're a regular Pollyanna, aren't you?
Luck doesn't have much to do with it. It's just tinkering to maximize what I've got. It's a small garden, but it has given me a great education.
There are at least three sets of reasons to explain the findings that agriculture was bad for health. First, hunter-gatherers enjoyed a varied diet, while early farmers obtained most of their food from one or a few starchy crops. The farmers gained cheap calories at the cost of poor nutrition. (Today just three high-carbohydrate plants--wheat, rice, and corn--provide the bulk of the calories consumed by the human species, yet each one is deficient in certain vitamins or amino acids essential to life.) Second, because of dependence on a limited number of crops, farmers ran the risk of starvation if one crop failed. Finally, the mere fact that agriculture encouraged people to clump together in crowded societies, many of which then carried on trade with other crowded societies, led to the spread of parasites and infectious disease. (Some archaeologists think it was crowding, rather than agriculture, that promoted disease, but this is a chicken-and-egg argument, because crowding encourages agriculture and vice versa.) Epidemics couldn't take hold when populations were scattered in small bands that constantly shifted camp. Tuberculosis and diarrheal disease had to await the rise of farming, measles and bubonic plague the appearance of large cities.
Besides malnutrition, starvation, and epidemic diseases, farming helped bring another curse upon humanity: deep class divisions. Hunter- gatherers have little or no stored food, and no concentrated food sources, like an orchard or a herd of cows: they live off the wild plants and animals they obtain each day. Therefore, there can be no kings, no class of social parasites who grow fat on food seized from others. Only in a farming population could a healthy, nonproducing elite set itself above the disease-ridden masses. Skeletons from Greek tombs at Mycenae c.1500 B.C. suggest that royals enjoyed a better diet than commoners, since the royal skeletons were two or three inches taller and had better teeth (on average, one instead of six cavities or missing teeth). Among Chilean mummies from c. A.D. 1000, the elite were distinguished not only by ornaments and gold hair clips but also by a fourfold lower rate of bone lesions caused by disease.
If we consider a twenty-four hour clock on which one hour represents
100,000 years of real past time. It the history of the human race began at midnight, then we would now be almost at the end of our first day. We lived as hunter-gatherers for nearly the whole of that day,from midnight through dawn, noon, and sunset. Finally, at 11:54 p.m., we adopted agriculture. As our second midnight approaches, will the plight of famine-stricken peasants gradually spread to engulf us all? Or will we somehow achieve those seductive blessings that we imagine behind agriculture's glittering facade and that have so far eluded us?
And your example of that in a hunter/gatherer group would be . . . ? It used to be, if you didn't like your neighbors, or the local strong man, you walked away. The food was there for the taking anyway.
Such as?
Studies by George Armelagos and his colleagues then at the University of Massachusetts show these early Indian farmers paid a price for their new-found livelihood. Compared to the huntergatherers who preceded them, the farmers had a nearly fifty percent increase in enamel defects indicative of malnutrition, a fourfold increase in iron-deficiency anemia (evidenced by a bone condition called porotic hyperostosis), a threefold rise in bone lesions reflecting infectious disease in general, and an increase in degenerative conditions of the spine, probably reflecting a lot of hard physical labor. "Life expectancy at birth in the preagricultural community was about twenty-six years," says Armelagos, "but in the postagricultural community it was nineteen years. So these episodes of nutritional stress and infectious disease were seriously affecting their ability to survive."
[T]he mere fact that agriculture encouraged people to clump together in crowded societies, many of which then carried on trade with other crowded societies, led to the spread of parasites and infectious disease.
Similar contrasts in nutrition and health persist on a global scale today. To people in rich countries like the U.S., it sounds ridiculous to extol the virtues of hunting and gathering. But Americans are an elite, dependent on oil and minerals that must often be imported from countries with poorer health and nutrition. If one could choose between being a peasant farmer in Ethiopia or a Bushman gatherer in the Kalahari, which do you think would be the better choice?
Brought from Europe. Neither groupe was hunter/gatherers. The Amazonians tended huge orchards, which is where most of the terra preta was found.
And I have ivy that needs pulling, plants that need water, and lettuce, and flowers to plant. If I have time, maybe I'll start a new tray of seeds for germination.
Just have to have it done by 6:30 PM, which is when I plop in front of the TV, margarita in hand, to watch the news, on Deutsche Welle. Simple tariyaki chicken dinner tonight. Ten minutes to prep, and then cooks for an hour, and serve. Not sure whether I'll make a salad, or steam a couple of artichokes (they're huge). Chives from the garden for the baked potato.
Until about a decade ago, we had one town that flooded nearly every year. Only place I ever knew where flooding was normal. People started putting their houses on 20' stilts. Then the Corp. of Engineers put in flood control, and the river has been very sedate ever since. Not that I wish flood victims harm, but we used to enjoy the floods. It would close the main road, and the silence was golden. Additionally it was an enforced vacation, where for a couple of days you just had to sit, and watch the day slowly go bye. If we got very lucky the power would go off for a day or so. Not enough to ruin what's in the freezer, just enough to give a feeling of sanity to the neighborhood.
That said, a few years back it rained until June. Mud everywhere. No fun, and the garden was late.
Is this normal weather for you?
We just had a 3 day wind storm, which is unusual for Northern California.
Hope everybody that wants to stay dry gets their wish.
we camped quite a bit when i was young so bouts of roughing it don't bother me either. right now i'd welcome a few days of quiet time.
i'd not enjoy mud season in hilly country.
not compared to the past few years, but going back further this would have been a more normal.
the good point of having more rain is that the lakes need the boost. not much snow the past few years and those hot and dry summers...
holding out so far, more rains this morning and tonight. there was a break that has let some sink in. for us locally we're fine. it is still the town down slope from us that will be more of a risk because it has two rivers flowing through it that have to push against all the other water coming from both the north and the south via other rivers and there's only one outlet to Lake Huron for all those sources. add to that how flat the area is and that makes for some interesting times.
the last time it flooded the town was in the mid-90s. i think that is when they put in the levees (i wasn't around then). i'm not sure we're going to top the levees this time with a break in the rains coming over the weekend. we'll see...
from the books of his that i have read he brings in corn, wood chips, sawdust, chickens, pigs, turkeys, and _any_ other organic material he can get for cheap, in one case he got a truckload of sweet potatoes. i think he no longer brings in cows as his herd breeds well enough on it's own [which is great as far as i'm concerned -- in his _Salad Bar Beef_ book he describes how he went through and culled out the disease prone cows and selected for certain characteristics. an interesting topic in it's own right.]
he also has to bring in other materials for the packaging and sales, fencing for the fields, fuel for the tractors, saws, chipper, mower, baler.
his pigs and cows he has butchered off-site so he looses out on the offal from those for composting.
i don't know what he does for the turkeys or rabbits. i'm assuming they butcher their own rabbits.
the chicken butchering process is described in several of the books so that is known to be done on site. the innards from the chickens gets composted.
reading his books where he describes his practices. you seem to be as you keep quoting the same point over and over again even though it has been refuted by his own words in his own books.
it's the dictator who says who sits where.
as i recline (as a proper state fitting to an heir of the Roman empire) i'd be more worried about Procrustean adjustments...
faith in my reading abilities and recall of what i have read.
...your local garden...
the problem around here is that they don't take only a few ears and leave the rest alone, they'll raid the entire garden clean.
...
for any new projects there are things required nowadays (called Environmental Impact Studies). i doubt there are any new mines going in without a remediation plan also being in place. for the older mines i don't know what they have set up for the longer term.
i've not studied western water rights as i don't live out that ways (but it is becoming a topic of interest because a relative has some land out there and they are asking me questions and we're talking about their site).
there's more than one business model. i keep thinking you have no actual experience in small businesses, non-profits or governmental organizations. it seems you are only bent upon larger corporations and even some of those are decent and do what they can to help out.
recently there was a list of companies and organizations published that purchase clean energy credits to offset their energy use. is that something you see a company doing if they had no interest in being socially responsible?
...
statistics would be interesting to back this up. more and more companies could be going private just because there are more and more companies overall. many have been created since so many people lost work and had to start their own things up from scratch. so that base number could be quite relevant to the discussion of how many are going private...
no, but i'm aware of the over-all trends in the society and it is towards cleaner and sustainable ways of doing things. more and more people will keep applying pressure even upon companies that aren't as socially responsible as others because competitively over the long haul a company that doesn't pay attention to the wants of the customers isn't going to do as well as the rest that do.
a prime example of my point. there are many hunter-gatherer societies that do not live off a varied diet.
plenty of hunter-gatherers were/are in the same situation.
reads like begging the question to me.
if you were an idiot farmer then yeah. there were likely idiot hunter-gatherers who starved too.
the mere fact is that it is likely that there were people clumping together for reasons other than agriculture long before agriculture came along.
the whole thing is a chicken-and-egg argument...
this is the point in dispute isn't it? i claim that class divisions existed in groups long before agriculture.
this is a very limited view of hunter-gathering societies, which happens to ignore some groups which do store food (because they live places where it stays cold enough to freeze meat) or the herders who have large stores of food on the hoof. it also ignores the many groups which lived in northern climates which required them to have food stores for the winter or they'd die. so clearly there is a bias in his writings, observations and comments which exclude peoples who clearly survived just fine for thousands of years without agriculture who also had class divisions in their groups.
perhaps to be an elite you had to be healthier to begin with? perhaps there are other reasons for the elite being healthier? like they had personal servants who kept things clean? that could make a difference in disease rates apart from nutrition...
i don't find his arguments well thought out and too much of the conclusion is biased by his preconceptions.
i'd suggest finding a better approach, but shoddy thinking isn't too likely going to help much at all.
strong and smart person is likely at the top of the heap. most likely that person will even be more on top if they are considered good looking or have charisma, if they have many children or many wives or husbands.
children, elders, injured, chronically sick, mothers, fathers, those who know the plants and animals well.
there are many different types of layering going on, one person may be at the bottom of the heap in one aspect but near the top in another.
i think that's not very likely. families stick together even in the face of some rather rotten behaviors and situations. many many stories of police getting called into a domestic dispute to help break it up only to find that both parties start in on the police officer. there's a good reason why police hate domestic trouble calls...
all the stuff i wrote above.
i'd look into that study further because i'd want to know how they actually did the comparison between the two societies.
repetition of the conclusion does not make an argument any stronger. the "mere fact" is in dispute.
sure does. there's not many places left to hunt and gather from. monocrop farming is likely to continue to remove wild spaces and kill off diversity. so... if you really want to make the most difference put your money into nature conservation efforts in various places (to protect diversity), read up on native plants and how to give them a good home, add more food plants for critters to your property and keep the water from getting polluted that runs through your area.
i've already made the choice to be a peasant farmer in the US. why would i want to go to either of those places? :) i'll be green and save the transportation cost.
so that is a comparison between two groups of agriculturalists. one built topsoil and the other destroyed it. what were the differences that brought this about?
wouldn't the existance of both terra preta and agriculture based upon thousands of years be a counter-example to his claims? from what i have read of digs done in that area i'm not hearing anything that tells me that was a society divided by deep stratification or that those people suffered from malnutrition and diseases. so i think this is a more interesting and fruitful thing to look into or think about.
as for the rest of the above agricultural tragedy line of arguments.
too many holes in assumptions and comparisons being made. selective biases in picking groups to compare, etc. i just don't know how you can consider his arguments very strong. looking into the one study mentioned might be on the list of topics for the future, but otherwise i think i'll let you have the last words.
Thanks for the reference "Salad Bar Beef". I just ordered it from the library. Ain't the internet swell?
I sit corrected, but it still seems you are being a tad harsh in your criticism of Salatin. Given that most farmers are losing topsoil, that Salatin is creating topsoil is a paradigm shift of epic proportions.
Then in my dictionary I find that sustainable agriculture is conserving an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources.
Permaculture, however, is the development of agricultural ecosystems intended to be sustainable and self-sufficient.
The later definition seems to be what you are chastising Salatin for not being. We all want our heros to be bigger, and better, but ol'Joel ain't doin' too bad.
I notice that "Salad Bar Beef" was written in 1995, whereas "Omnivore's Dilemma" was written in 2009. Just conjecturing here, but perhaps the differences in descriptions reflect the evolution of Polyface Farms. (Nous allons voir.)
I don't like regressive taxes either, but I'm sure that it is quite possible to have 'crusty adjustments, and an uneasy head, too.
Well, that takes the wind out of my rant!
Onward!
You'll have to admit, go on admit it, that you hadn't shared the source of your information with me previously. This is going to be tricky, because I already have 2 books in progress, plus a loaner from the library. I probably won't finish it (I have a knack for picking big books. I still have a couple of pounds of " A People's History of the United States:
1492 to Present" by Howard Zinn, to read.
I think that there are only a couple of families of raccoons locally. The highway takes a terrible toll on them. I put down chicken wire on the garden beds, which is pretty effective, but has led them dig in the pots in the yard. It's kinda like having kids again. So far, we have gotten along reasonably well.
Lawsuits for toxic run-off mostly.
EIAs are unique in that they do not require adherence to a predetermined environmental outcome, but rather they require decision ?makers to account for environmental values in their decisions and to justify those decisions in light of detailed environmental studies and public comments on the potential environmental impacts of the proposal.
With "fracking", private companies don't even have to tell the government what they are pumping into the water table.
But that deserves a longer rant centered on the quality of quickly disappearing fresh water.
I'm sure it will be the shisters, and big money that make the final call, but you'd think that you'd be entitled to at least the rain that falls on your roof.
I'm always ready to learn. Enlighten me. Of course there are crooks in business from the lemon aid stands to G.E. They aren't all crooks, but it is still a surprise to find an honest one. Some of their sins may be described as "bread crum" in nature. Some wineries say that their wines are 100% natural, but a lot of chemicals based on yeast extracts, and grape extracts, and a good ol' harden hose gives that boast the lie.
And Chevron plants trees.
Yeah, sometimes the P.R. value is worth the price.
A local restraunteur bought a $20,000 bottle of wine at auction. The wine was expensive, but the PR was cheap.
A web search awaits you ;O)
Private companies go public to get money for development, and themselve$. If the company is successful, and doesn't have too many investors, it can be a good idea to buy it back.
I would encourage you to look at the movie "The Corporation", either on DVD or
Also the movie "The Shock Doctrine" on DVD or
Then there is Frontline from PBS and its film, "The Warning"
Netflix has it, so it also exists as a DVD.
Humor me with an example. American Plains Indians would follow the buffalo , or what ever from place to place. They were working an environment that they knew.
Again, humor me. I'm not seeing it.
It's almost inconceivable that Bushmen, who eat seventy-five or so wild plants, could die of starvation the way hundreds of thousands of Irish farmers and their families did during the potato famine of the 1840s.
?he Almighty, indeed, sent the potato blight, but the English created the famine?.
You don't have to be an idiot to starve, but we can talk more about corporations later.
Perhaps, my understanding is that groups of hunter/gatherers were rather clanish, and not looking for recruits. When groups got too large, they would divide ans separate. I'd probably have to do some digging thought to come up with supporting references though. Unless you'd be willing to accept
Hunter-gatherer societies also tend to have relatively non-hierarchical, egalitarian social structures. This might have been more pronounced in the more mobile societies.
According to archaeologists, violence in hunter-gatherer societies was ubiquitous. Approximately 25% to 30% of adult male deaths in these societies were due to homicide, compared to an upper estimate of 3% of all deaths in the 20th century. The cause of this is near constant tribal warfare: "From the !Kung in the Kalahari to the Inuit in the Arctic and the aborigines in Australia, two-thirds of modern hunter- gatherers are in a state of almost constant tribal warfare, and nearly
90% go to war at least once a year." [16]
Full-time leaders, bureaucrats, or artisans are rarely supported by these societies.[17][18][19] In addition to social and economic equality in hunter-gatherer societies there is often, though not always, sexual parity as well.[17][20] Hunter-gatherers are often grouped together based on kinship and band (or tribe) membership.[20]
Sedentary hunter/gatherers? I'll need to think about that for awhile. I've never heard of such a thing.
Being an "elite" was based on a physical??!
In any event, things were kept clean by the hunter/gatherers moving away from all their manure, and garbage, and going over the next hill, or across a valley where there was fresh, clean land.
"One straightforward example of what paleopathologists have learned from skeletons concerns historical changes in height. Skeletons from Greece and Turkey show that the average height of hunter-gatherers toward the end of the ice ages was a generous 5'9" for men, 5'5" for women. With the adoption of agriculture, height crashed, and by 3000 B.C. had reached a low of 5'3" for men ,5' for women. By classical times heights were very slowly on the rise again, but modern Greeks and Turks have still not regained the average height of their distant ancestors.
Another example of paleopathology at work is the study of Indian skeletons from burial mounds in the lllinois and Ohio river valleys. At Dickson Mounds, located near the confluence of the Spoon and lllinois rivers, archaeologists have excavated some 800 skeletons that paint a picture of the health changes that occurred when a hunter-gatherer culture gave way to intensive maize farming around A.D. 1150. Studies by George Armelagos and his colleagues then at the University of Massachusetts show these early farmers paid a price for their new-found livelihood. Compared to the hunter- gatherers who preceded them, the farmers had a nearly fifty percent increase in enamel defects indicative of malnutrition, a fourfold increase in iron-deficiency anemia (evidenced by a bone condition called porotic hyperostosis), a threefold rise in bone lesions reflecting infectious disease in general, and an increase in degenerative conditions of the spine, probably reflecting a lot of hard physical labor. "Life expectancy at birth in the preagricultural community was about twenty-six years," says Armelagos, "but in the postagricultural community it was nineteen years. So these episodes of nutritional stress and infectious disease were seriously affecting their ability to survive."
-----
Would you settle for his post conceptions? If you read the archiological record, I don't know what other conclusion you could come to.
Hunter/gatherer: healthy Farmer: malnourshied, and sick.
I think it's called putting things into perspective.
Deference to an individual, because of their hunting kills isn't stratification isn't social stratification. When one individual benefits all, and I mean ALL, there will be deference, just as there will be for the best stone chipper, healer, singer, or painter, but that isn't social stratification.
So it isn't stratification.
That's a bit dodgy to say, but if you'll just respond to what I've responded, we can get on with it.
Geological strata, I think.
Well I suppose that he could have said, if you have two petrie dishes cultivating diseases, they can also contaminate other petrie dishes around them. Actually, I think he was implying the interconnectedness of it, city to city, country to country. Lord, look what happened to the locals here, when those filthy Europeans showed up.
I guess I was thinking about how to get the population growth into reverse by family planning and such, instead of waiting for a lot of splatter. Maintaining the planets life support system would be nice too.
I don't mind being a peasant, I just don't want to be a sucker.
One had good topsoil to begin with. The Amazonians had laterite soil. The Mother of Invention, and all that sort of thing.
Owned, and operated a small 3,000 case winery for 10 years. Our broker was screwing us, and our landlord was about to do the same, so we went to Europe for a year instead.
And then there is Nestle.
Also see Bolivia Water Wars The above is a segment of "The Corporation" that was noted elsewhere.
but what do you think of a large company that does make green efforts (or any company for that matter)? already they are making headway even more than the government is in some areas.
Twenty acre minimum to have a winery on agricultural land. One acre of vineyard = $100,000. As it was, I spent the first 3 mo. in Europe grinding my teeth, and then I relaxed.
$2M, ouch, around here 20 acres might run about the price of the one out there, but it's not prime grape turf here (not enough hills, foggy and hot and humid, etc.) anyways. east and west of us there are vinyards coming along. i'm not sure what they run per acre.
ok, so you have actually been a corporate overlord. that means your comments are geared towards the big corporations and not the smaller ones?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.