OT but a welcome bit of brightness

Page 4 of 6  


Famines every 10 years don't auger well for agriculturalists. It's way past time to start humanities return to sustainable environmental practices. It's probably an impossible dream with greed intrenched in government.
Civil disobedience, thats not our problem. Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running the country. Thats our problem. -Howard Zinn
Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone. -John Maynard Keynes

When the "free market" reigns, corporations will own the seeds for our food, the rights to the our water, and charge us rent for the clothes on our backs. Of course the problem may be moot if Global Warming gets away from us, or we meet another Chicxulub asteroid.

Ah, to be young again.

We had unexpected, but much needed company yesterday. Back to planting today.
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Billy wrote:

wait until you get to the part where he talks about China and famines (p. 71).

well yes. we have a lot of people in jail on very minor things (non-violent offenders).

the alternatives are demonstratably worse as already seen. socialistic adaptations to capitalism are fine to protect the elderly and the poor, but subsidies are destructive in the long haul because they distort the market signals. of course, i've already stated before what i think of taxation for pollution and making sure there is recycling and many other things. i sure know that communism isn't functional. works ok at a small scale, breaks down quickly once the group gets larger.

they don't own my seeds and i'll gladly share.

today is a day of r-n-r. very humid and in the 80s.
if i didn't need to get areas above flood stage i wouldn't be digging quite as much and having free fill to put underneath is a big help too. i could not justify spending money i don't have for 20 yards of topsoil, but i do have time and can use the exercise. my back hasn't felt this good for many years. thanks to chiropractor and being careful the past year and listening to what my body is telling me. we're trying to walk each day before gardening. so when the day is done i'm done too.

:) good luck to you and your sprouts.
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

??????? It's the same deal, famines every 10 years.

What we have is more people in jail (percentage wise) than any other country in the world, 1%. Most of these people are people of color, because the law is applied disproportionately. This is the new Jim Crow, just in time for the Prison Industrial Complex. The term prisonindustrial complex (PIC) is used to attribute the rapid expansion of the US inmate population to the political influence of private prison companies and businesses that supply goods and services to government prison agencies. The term is borrowed from the militaryindustrial complex President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of in his famous 1961 farewell address. Such groups include corporations that contract prison labor, construction companies, surveillance technology vendors, lawyers, and lobby groups that represent them. Activists have argued that the Prison-Industrial Complex as perpetuating a belief that imprisonment is a quick yet ultimately flawed solution to social problems such as homelessness, unemployment, drug addiction, mental illness, and illiteracy. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison%E2%80%93industrial_complex>
More specifically see "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness" by Michelle Alexander and Cornel West. <(Amazon.com product link shortened) 86431/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid69114986&sr=1-1&keywords=The+New+J im+Crow>

as is the capitalistic U.S. of A. The Delaration of Independance says "We the People". It doesn't say I, me, mine. We are all in this together to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
Nothing in the Constitution says anything about banks making money at the tax payer expense.

open pollinated seeds, I know that hybridized squash has less of a problem with mildew. Hybridized means that it is owned by somebody. Usually that somebody is Monsanto.

Mid 70s to mid 80s here for te last few weeks and the seedlings are jumpin'

I hope you make it to 60 without any chronic illnesses, otherwise it can be a real pile of shit. Good luck.

lettuce. Then it will be beets, onions, and the misc. The seeds for the green beans must have been too old. I'll have to try again.

--
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Billy wrote:

two more books for the reading list:
Sepp Holzer, _The Rebel Farmer_ and _Sepp Holzer's Permaculture_ i'm reading them in reverse order, almost done with the second. he's got many years of actual experience with many things, so i appreciate his writings. some things he's almost mystical about so that isn't as much a science as a ritualized practice but it seems to be working for him.
i haven't gotten into mushroom farming, but i did enjoy the part of the book that gives that overview. if i do get into it sometime i'll be sure to read up on it.
also how he talks about fruit trees and his methods. very low input, but you need a varied environment to pull it off. in a modern suburban landscape with grasses, etc and few understory plants that support beneficials it's a challenge. then you may also have to deal with neighborhood politics or town ordinances for weeds/lawn care.
his main property is upland enough that he can work with microclimates and extending seasons of harvest by using the warmer downhill areas and cooler areas uphill along with using rocks, sun catchers and ponds.
also the film mentioned: _The Agricultural Rebel_.

no, he writes they have evidence of 1800+ famines in about 3,000 years. that's a famine almost every year to every other year.

he was a smart guy.

gah! no, i'm not going there. it's all around me already, i don't need to read more about it.
any federal or state program is always set up and will self-perpetuate once funding gets allocated and spent. that is why i think that we should make as much government as volunteer or minimum wage as possible to discourage "entrenchment" and also to make representatives selected at random instead elected by campaigns.

the first few years of Christianity were supposedly communist in organisation and sharing of resources, but that devolves like any other system as soon as you put money in any large amounts into the hands of a few "leaders" or "organizers".
however, i don't see any solution because any system set up still has to interface with others and that means some form of currency or government to make sure the groups don't trample each other or use false means of gain or counterfeit currencies.

sure thing. with some regulation here or there but the regulators can be bought off with campaign money and lobbyists contributions. so we get the best government that money can buy. which is also exploitive of resources to the detriment of any sort of sustainable future. without the environmental groups doing their counter efforts we'd be in even worse shape (the USSR was much worse than us in terms of how they treated their people and resources). so even if i don't much like what we've got and it surely can be improved, it seems to be at least a bit more open and changeable than most of what i see anyplace else.
the other aspect is that we have a hugely varied culture that some other countries don't have to cope with. how to integrate so many different forces and not have it all blow up all the time...

which isn't the constitution, but i love the language and intent.

probably covered under "promote the general welfare" intent above along with the clause which lets them regulate interstate commerce as many banks now cross state lines. as for the fed itself, that's a whole different story and the history of that is well worth reading up on sometime.
it didn't say anything about income taxes or property taxes either, but once you get a governing class feeding off the rest of the people it is very hard to break that cycle of depredation.
as to how to regulate banking, i don't see any good coming from the government being directly involved. i already am having severe dislikes to the feds current practices of transferring wealth from the responsible to the irresponsible, but put the fed in the government's direct control and it would be even worse as then they'd have no check on their abuse of the money supply. not that there seems to be one right now anyways. if i had a better place to put my money i'd be doing it, but the rest of the world is not looking much better either.
my own answer is a different form of government, but that's not likely to ever happen.
but getting back to the constitution, it's pretty amazing how many people don't even read it once in a while.

i don't think you are right. perhaps you can find an organic source for a similar hybrid and not have to buy from Monsanto. as there are so many squash varieties you might even find something better.
i keep finding seed sources way beyond what i can ever possibly use here. i don't think seed-savers are going out of business any time soon, and the expansion of farmer markets and people putting in their own gardens is also a good trend in the opposite direction.

i'm glad they are coming along.
today looks pretty good for getting something done outside.

heh, allergies have always been fun, motorcycle accident broke and twisted things so i have to be careful about some angles and bends and then i've had chronic back problems since i was 15. for me to say that it is doing better is a huge improvement in how things are going.
every day on the right side of the daisy roots is a day i never expected. for some reason as a kid i never expected to live past 30. having relatives with chronic lung or back troubles or diabetes i can see the way it can be. i've been through my own piles so it's just a matter of keeping on, finding what is important and working on that and not getting hung up on what i can't do. being a systems analyst means being able to break down a problem and work the parts until it comes back together again. keep the big picture in mind.

:) luckily they can be planted in series. i keep planting peas and beans as much as i can, i like the flowers and foliage as much as the edibles.
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Billy wrote:

perhaps a fault of an ex-librarian is to keep recommending books as i come across them. :)
i'm adding them to my notes too so they can be found later or used by others to add to their own reading lists.
things are working ok here, most libraries are interconnected in Michigan now (even without much funding from the state these days) using several catalog systems (and a mass delivery system so they don't have to pay postage per item) and then there is the national OCLC system we can also use if we're not too crazy with the number of requests.

for most of what he's doing he's using either logs (he says fresh cut are best because they are already moist) or straw bales, left outside, the logs partially sunk in the ground (providing more even moisture and trace nutrients). takes a while (1-2 years before fruiting bodies appear) to get going but productive for years depending upon the type of wood used.

i should have written that "also a film was mentioned".

as someone noted, "it's hard to get a good night's sleep." in that type of company.
...

Ike was a politician, i think Butler rubbed too many the wrong way.

unfortunate and worth fighting against.
...

capitalism does not require infinite resources, i dunno where you get that idea from.
socialism is fine in some parts. i still believe that freedom should be primary in that many systems should be allowed under a broader form of government and those that wish to form socialist organizations and societies within should be allowed as long as their members are allowed freedom to leave if they wish. an age of consent. some written bylaws and a coming of age ceremony would be good. i still haven't had much of a chance to see how the Amish have managed to become the society they have in the USoA and how they are treated in terms of taxes and such, but an interesting side topic for the future...

which means enforcement and that means enforcers, taxes, jails, or something meaningful as a deterrent... which pretty much doesn't seem to exist now.
...huge snip, too many tangents...

i have a fair amount of my savings in a few credit unions. unfortunately, they can bloat just like any other organization.
...

no shortage there.

we're having another rainy day here, which is good as we've been a little too dry, but i'm not getting more gardens planted. we went looking for raincoats yesterday and the stores have already moved their stocks into summer and fall items.

finished planting the areas i got raised up last week. peas, beets, a few onions, snap peas, soup peas. no beans in yet. i think i can get some of those planted tomorrow if the ground isn't too soggy.
...

:) dirt-biking was fun as a kid, but my downfall is that i like to go too fast. also why i refused to take up downhill skiing. i just knew that would be a bad idea. snowshoes are about the right speed for me.
my brother hit a deer at 60mph on his motorcycle. he came out of it with some bad spots of road rash, but the gal on the back had quite a bit more damage. i should have learned from that but many years later i wanted to try one of my own. learned the hard way that they weren't for me.

grab each day by the balls... gently...

hang in there and try to ignore the BS. sometimes happiness comes in small victories and unexpected places. like seeing a sundog or a pea plant sprouting and flowering.
...

you too! happy dibbling... :)
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You sell one, and buy materials to make 2. You sell 2, and buy materials to make 4. You sell 4, and buy materials to make 8, ect. Pretty soon you are looking at very big numbers. Capitalism is founded on growth. Even with planned obsolescence, an infinite amount of widgets requires an infinite amount of resources.
I'll be back.
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Billy wrote:

you're confusing capitalism with some imaginary construct.
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In that case, it is a mass hallucination ;O)
<http://endofcapitalism.com/about/1-is-this-the-end-of-capitalism/ Capitalism requires growth. A system that requires growth cannot last forever on a planet that is defined by ecological and social limits. Capitalism is therefore fundamentally unsustainable sooner or later it will run up against those limits and the system will stop functioning.
The current economic crisis which began in 2007 is unlike any previous crisis faced by global capitalism. In earlier downturns there remained a way to grow out of it by expanding production there were new resources and energy supplies, new markets, and new pools of labor to exploit. The system just needed to expand its reach, because there was plenty of money to make outside its existing grasp.
<http://www.greens.org/s-r/47/47-03.html From an ecological point of view there is something crazy about capitalism. An ecological worldview emphasizes harmony, sustainability, moderation - rather like that of the ancient Greeks, for whom a constant striving for more was regarded as a mark of an unbalanced, deranged soul. Yet every capitalist enterprise is motivated to grow, and to grow without limit.
The root problem with capitalism is not that individual firms are incentivized to grow, but that the economy as a whole must grow, not to survive, but to remain healthy. Why should it be the case that a capitalist economy must grow to be healthy? The answer to this question is rather peculiar - and very important. A capitalist economy must grow to be healthy because capitalism relies on private investors for its investment funds. These investors are free to invest or not as they see fit. (It is, after all, their money.)
But this makes economic health dependent on "investor confidence," on, as John Maynard Keynes put it, "the animal spirits" of the investors. If investors do not foresee a healthy return on their investments, commensurate with the risks they are taking, then they won't invest - at least not domestically. But if they don't invest, their pessimism becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. The lack of investment translates into layoffs - first in the construction industry and those industries dependent on orders for capital goods, and then, since layoffs lead to a decline in consumer-goods consumption, in other sectors as well. Aggregate demand drops further; the economy slides toward recession.
As we all know, a slumping economy is not just bad for capitalist investors. It is bad for almost everyone. Unemployment rises. Government revenues fall. Indeed, public funds for environmental programs are jeopardized - as mainstream economists are quick to point out, impatient as they are with "anti-growth" ecologists.
So we see: a healthy capitalism requires a steady expansion of consumption. If sales decline, investors lose confidence - as well they should. So, sales must be kept up. Which means that a healthy capitalism requires what would doubtless strike a visitor from another planet (or from a pre-capitalist society) as exceedingly strange - a massive, privately-financed effort to persuade people to consume what they might otherwise find unnecessary.
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/igorgreenwald/2013/01/07/is-capitalism-dying /2/> Capitalism assumes an infinite supply of resources, which is absolutely absurd. Infinite growth within a finite system is impossible. Real scientists understand this. However, many economists would have us believe that its alright if we run out of something because there will always be a substitute. And when we run out of that, another substitute. Unfortunately, the planet we live on doesnt work like that.
There are natural constraints at play that are completely missing from our economic models. We are all living with our heads in the sand. It will be impossible for future generations to experience the growth and material wealth that we have now because we are using up our natural capital as quickly as we can with no regard for what will be left in the future.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/feb/02/energy.comment It's capitalism or a habitable planet - you can't have both
Our economic system is unsustainable by its very nature. The only response to climate chaos and peak oil is major social change
Capitalism is not sustainable by its very nature. It is predicated on infinitely expanding markets, faster consumption and bigger production in a finite planet. And yet this ideological model remains the central organising principle of our lives, and as long as it continues to be so it will automatically undo (with its invisible hand) every single green initiative anybody cares to come up with. ====== In any event, it's not idiopathic behavior.
The only way to stay healthy is to eat what you don't like, drink what you loathed, and to do what you would rather not do. - Mark Twain (1835-1910)
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Billy wrote:

it sure is, because proving some point in an argument using really shoddy research sources is not going to convince anyone who's paying attention...

wrong. the production of goods/services requires nothing other than having the means of production, which in the modern case means materials and labor. there is nothing in the system which required profitability (but it is included in the definition i have in the dictionary, but i think that is a minor quibble compared to the greater flaw in assuming there must be growth).

capitalism won't cease functioning. that's like saying people will stop breathing of their own free will. not many can do it for long...

gah! utter crap. the crud just works as it does. if we want it to work differently then we need to convince a large enough number of participants to change their values. because values are what wealth measures and what people consider wealth will change. by definition in an enclosed system the rare resources will cost more as they become harder to attain. in a closed system where food becomes scarce then the costs of food increases enough to where more people will find it well worth their time to turn lawns into gardens (this is already happening) and to put some previously damaged lands back into production via cleaning them up and restoring the soil. this too is happening. rooftops in cities are well worth redoing if the structure is sound enough to carry the load. this too is happening.

ROFL! holy crap, that is so blazingly funny and not at all close to what history shows. the Greeks destroyed their topsoil and killed/plundered about as much as any civilization before them.

how can you quote a source that uses a word like "incentivized" without grimacing?

right. as values change (and they will and must in the face of more limited resources) they will find investments in sustainable and recycling materials to be more and more valuable. the shift will happen.

there are many companies which get along just fine on a steady product line. growth in some areas is offset by declines in other areas. in a closed system that is how it goes. we cannot escape physics or limited resources no matter how much money we print, but we can let the market function which will reflect a shift from consumption and destruction without proper compensation to one that does. that shift is going on and will continue to go on for many years.

quite false. what we are throwing away now in landfills will in the future become a source of valueable materials. as the concentrated metals/ores are depleted then it becomes high enough priced to make concentrating it from recycling and reclaiming it from existing marginal structures more valuable. when the price point gets right the market then works to shift the focus and it does happen. it isn't a question of anything other than energy and the will to do it.

our economic system is influenced by each of us making choices about where to spend our time and money. when the prices for food get high enough, when land and water destruction start feeding back into much higher prices for clear air and decent food then people will make choices to find different ways of treating the water and land. when it gets hard to breath and people start kicking off from poor air quality in large numbers then the system will self-regulate that ways too.
in a closed system there isn't a free lunch any more than in an active ecology there isn't much room for an unused energy source. dead bodies are decomposed, and from that life goes on. in our system, the abuse of the soil, water and air will eventually be corrected. all the other materials can be concentrated with the use of energy (paying the dues through entropy according to some physicists).
i'm not quite sure what i believe about that, because there is stuff going on in physics we don't understand yet. black-holes, plasma physics, dark matter, etc. still a lot to be learned... maybe we'll find a genie in a bottle...

capitalism as defined in the dictionary has the element of profit built in. an on-going business can get by without profit above enough to cover the overhead (call it the entropy tax because that is really what it is). most companies in business for very long of a big enough size have understand that they can increase their chances of going forwards are based upon making operations more efficient. i.e. reducing their overhead (or how much energy they use or how much materials or water or air or ...).
nowadays companies also reflect the values of their patrons and the people who run them. some make changes to use clean energy sources and reduce waste or improve the water quality. those are the ones any person would want to invest in because they understand that it is important to value these things. already, capitalism apart from governmental regulations will shift faster than the government itself will, because the government is weighed down by PACS and political contributions and embedded infrastructure costs. a new company can do a complete endrun around all that embedded overhead. existing companies can make that same rapid shift (how else could you explain a company buying hundreds of millions of watts of clean energy within a few years time?). there's no law requiring them to do it. there's no one investor of a large enough chunk to force it or even any large block combined. they just decided it was the right thing to do and they are doing it.
if more people elected to purchase clean energy through their utility it would force the utility to put more production into clean energy sources. already this has shifted things somewhat, but more people making the change would send a clearer signal and the companies will respond.
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
really shoddy research sources is not going to convince anyone who's paying attention...
capitalism won't cease functioning. that's like saying people will stop breathing of their own free will. not many can do it for long...
gah! utter crap.

ROFL! holy crap, that is so blazingly funny and not at all close to what history shows. the Greeks destroyed their topsoil and killed/plundered about as much as any civilization before them.
how can you quote a source that uses a word like "incentivized" without grimacing?
====== All that and not a single citation, hmmmm. ===== I'm reminded of the choir leader who happened to glimpse the pastors sermon notes for the day. What caught his eye was, "argument weak here, pound pulpit".
McArthur , and I will be back shortly.
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Billy wrote: ...

since when in a conversation do you need citations?
arguments can be made quite soundly from reason and experience aside from quoting some dusty economics books or digging around on-line. if i'm not on-line i'm not citing anything. this is OT in a gardening edibles group and only tangentially related to sustainable agriculture so ... i guess i can't quite approach it as a scholarly research paper...
if my reasoning is unsound then pick it apart. David seems to be hacking at that angle tho, so perhaps you can be safe on the other approaches. :)

argument, we don't need no stinkin argument.

"You're fired!" Donald Trump.
is that quote enough?
ok, just kidding, you are not fired. have a good night.
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We don't need to show supporting authority? Great! I claim vindication, and suggest that we move on to more important things, like why is the Earth flat, and resting on the back of a turtle?
Did a little landscaping today, as well as planting some sunflowers and cucumbers. I also had to replace a Stupice tomato that got ran over by something. Three of 26 peppers also need to be replaced. It's supposed to rain tomorrow, but be back in the 80s by the weekend. ==== Capitalism
The socio-economic system where social relations are based on commodities for exchange, in particular private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation of wage labour.
Capital is in the first place an accumulation of money and cannot make its appearance in history until the circulation of commodities has given rise to the money relation. As we like to say, "it takes money to make money".
Secondly, the distinction between money which is capital, and money which is money only, arises from the difference in their form of circulation. Money which is acquired in order to buy something is just money, facilitating the exchange of commodities. [Commodity - Money - Commodity.] On the other hand, capital is money which is used to buy something only in order to sell it again. [M - C - M.] This means that capital exists only within the process of buying and selling, as money advanced only in order to get it back again.
Thirdly, money is only capital if it buys a good whose consumption brings about an increase in the value of the commodity, realised in selling it for a Profit [or M - C - M']. ======= If Capitalism follows the above pattern, it will soon be dead, if it isn't already.

And we have done better? The game is lost when the plow hits the soil. However, the Greeks did realize that letting a field go fallow for a year was a good practice. So, yes, the Greeks lost their topsoil, but it was in a more enlightened system than used by others. ===== Prominent interpretation, as well as criticism, of Smith's views on the societal merits of unregulated labor management by the ruling class is expressed by Noam Chomsky as follows: "He's pre-capitalist, a figure of the Enlightenment. What we would call capitalism he despised. People read snippets of Adam Smith, the few phrases they teach in school. Everybody reads the first paragraph of The Wealth of Nations where he talks about how wonderful the division of labor is. But not many people get to the point hundreds of pages later, where he says that division of labor will destroy human beings and turn people into creatures as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be. And therefore in any civilized society the government is going to have to take some measures to prevent division of labor from proceeding to its limits." ==== Time is up for me. I'll return as soon as possible. Don't be a stranger ;O)
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Billy wrote: ...

ummm..., okey... :)

we also are due for rain tomorrow. good, it's much better than well water.

i guess i must be using some archaic meaning of capitalism because it doesn't say anything about these kinds of distinctions. capital can be all sorts of things. it varies as much as the meaning of wealth or money can vary (social conventions, whims, fads) apart from the actual supply and demand curve.
i don't see commodities or wealth disappearing any more than i see a lack of new fads. the recent one to gain steam is gluten free. on top of the Greek yogurt. whey silly.

not in the whole, but in parts yes. at least we know things are made of more complex bits than air, water earth and fire.

just depends upon how it's done. like many things, it varies. forms of no till use of an area can deplete it just as much as tilling. overgraze a pasture and it will fail in time. return to more appropriate grazing and it will recover (faster using some methods than others).

the Hebrews also had their fallow seasons. it didn't prevent the wide scale destruction of their topsoils either.
in other parts of Europe there have been farms and gardens for hundreds or thousands of years. those are what we should be paying attention to... likely they are organic as much as possible and also likely to be manured in some manner. crop rotations, etc. all likely.

heehee, ain't that the truth. thank goodness very few people actually work those kinds of jobs. some people actually do quite well with a limited task. they pretty much go on auto-pilot for hours at a time and they can think about other things or just play songs in their heads. sometimes when i'm weeding i can go on quite a while without noticing what i'm doing in specific because i'm listening to the birds or thinking about some philosophical point or what i've recently read or been arguing about on usenet. :)

dude! i got a few more peas and onions planted. increasing the variety of plants in the auxiliary strawberry patch. we'll see what happens. got plenty more to do. needed to take a break before round 2. that is going to be weeding and sitting and listening to the birdies and windchimes out in the green manure patch. i've not spent much time there this season and some grasses could use a bit of trimming back or digging up. probably pick a few bugs off the rhubarb. those are some wild looking critters. plugs with a sharp snout and not much else.
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Rain yesterday, kept me out of the garden. The peas seem to be enjoying the 70F weather, as do the tomatoes (surprise, surprise). The peppers not so much. I've lost some plants to varmints, snail or cats, I don't know which. I had a back up plant for the tomato, but I'm down 4/26 on my peppers, and 3/16 on my corn. I'll probably have to buy starters for the peppers, as it seems too late to germinate fresh replacements. The corn was replaced by sunflowers. When the corn goes to tassel, I'll just have to get involved to make sure that the cobs will be full. Every thing is pretty much in except for the squash, and melons. That should be finished by today. To my taste making pesto from fresh store bought basil is a futile endevor. It just doesn't have enough flavor. Bought a couple of live basil plants from Trader Joe's a month or so ago. We had our second pesto from them last night. There were only 5 flowering tops in it, and it still lacks taste. I suppose it could be me. I've read that as you get older, your taste buds become less sensitive, and you need stronger flavors to get their attention. In any event, I'll be happier when the pesto is mostly flowering tops.
I'll be starting a new germination tray today with green beans, as well as mid-season replacement squash, and more lettuce. Can't ever have enough lettuce. So I;m down to trying to squeeze in whatever is left over. Whew.
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Billy wrote:

we're up two more inches of rain. we aren't going to get any planting done today. so instead we're heading out in a few minutes to run errands/shop.

you're in a dry enough area that sprinkling corn starch around might give you a few clues as to the varmint.

the bees will like it better too!
yes, rumor has it tastebuds and smell fade along with sight, but i think a lot of it also involves how much you abuse it earlier. my sense of smell and taste are pretty good. i get a lot of off-tastes in almost any commercially packaged food if it is in anything other than glass. metallic off-tastes in almost anything canned in tin cans, even those with liner plastic coatings, then i taste those too at times. plastic wraps and left-over food containers (styrofoam is a big yick).

that's what i'm like with peas and beans. any empty spot is fair game.

:)
read about California Supercapacitor, 18yr old student comes up with a potential game changer for every rechargable device.
unfortunately, i don't have time to dig into the descriptions to see what it entails, but hey, i like when some unexpected discovery comes along and makes everyone go, "Hmmm...."
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yup. Twenty second recharge on cell phones, near-instantaneously recharging a car battery, and rapid recycling of military lasers. Wait, what the . . ?
Can Skynet be far behind? Hmmmmmmmmmm
--
Remember Rachel Corrie
<http://www.rachelcorrie.org/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
songbird wrote:

No he isn't. The way capitalism works in Western economies requires constant growth in the economy, not only that but it has to be at the correct rate. Our (Oz) federal bank manipulates money with the stated intent of maintaining growth within a narrow range - about 3% PA IIRC. I think yours does too. Politicians of most colours cannot keep from crowing when growth is 'good' and trying to blame somebody else when it is 'bad'. They have accepted that the people want higher standards of living (or at least as high as they have now) and that living standards are inextricably linked to growth. There are plenty of examples to support this where very fast growth or economic shrinking has produced horrid outcomes for the wider population. Very few publicly question the system that requires this but question it we must.
Capitalism is the product of the era of unrestricted human expansion across the globe. To maintain economic growth one simply increased population and found new resources and markets in foreign lands. Of course technology fuelled this expansion by enabling faster extraction, transport and utilisation of resources.
Economic growth requires goods, production of goods require materials. Thus as it currently works the system must continue to extract fuel, metals, fibre, timber etc from the earth at an ever increasing rate. Many of these resources are limited and will be consumed sooner or later. Thus, the present system embodies the seeds of its own destruction. The issue even has a name "decoupling". The aim is to find a system where maintaining a standard of living does not require constant growth, ie the two are decoupled. So far nobody has done it. What is worse very few seem to be concerned. We are generally restricted to peripheral arguments that climate change isn't real or that science and technology will save us. The fact that the core system was developed and succeeded in an environment that no longer exists, and can only continue to succeed when those conditions exist is widely ignored.
David
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Hare-Scott wrote:

oh, i know, it's an attempt to moderate the so called business cycle because there isn't a sufficient amount of a safety net for people. the larger problem is that the safety net is really people wishing that they didn't have any responsibility for taking care of themselves. which to me is a wider sign of how rotten the current system is, but that's a whole different topic.
as you have seen over a lifetime that even such attempts at moderating the business cycle are largely driven by entrenched interests in keeping the status- quo. when there are large events that gets thrown out the window (wars, natural catastrophes). so it is largely an artificial mechanism that breaks given the right lever.

surely, however, there's also a fair bit of evidence that efforts to limit the destruction only makes it last longer. so instead of taking the hit up front and getting on with things after shaking out the weak businesses we drag all these weak business along. eventually they do go under.

it will change as values change. values will change as resources become more limited. that's the nature of the beast. prices rise as supply becomes limited. people either produce their own (food, water, etc.) or conserve or find other sources. what drives the whole system is the many individual choices made, how they add up. when we start bumping up against hard limits like fresh water and food supply then people will start valuing water conservation and not wasting so much food. this type of gradual shift is already happening and will continue to happen.

the system also has seeds of its own transformation. we are the determiners of value, not the system, the system works because of the choices that people make. when prices rise then choices get made differently.

the profit requirement is only limited to being able to cover overhead of running any business. the more efficient a business is the more likely it keeps going. the smarter any extractive business is, means it knows it has to shift into renewables and recycling or becoming a service provider. many companies have research arms geared towards finding better ways of doing things and finding other uses for waste materials.

it comes down to energy and not much else. all resources consumed can be recycled given enough energy. the only tax is entropy.
the limitation on the overall system is if the sun gives us enough energy to do everything we want to do given the materials at hand. when cheap oil and other fossil fuels run out then the shift gets made to recycling and renewables. there is a good chance by then we'll have viable space colonies.
widely ignoring how things change won't make any company likely to last long. companies, like the people that run them, have an interest in keeping going, in continuing, so they'll pay attention to changes. many can even drive the pace of change faster than a government or an individual can. like, in my lifetime i'll never buy several hundred million watts of clean energy or be a force to recycle huge amounts of materials that used to be aimed at landfills or incineration, but a large company can do that and many are.
the system can correct itself. it is gradually doing so. if embedded subsidies for destructive practices were removed and shifted towards supporting cleaner alternatives then the change would be even faster.
songbird
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
songbird wrote:

But get back to the main point. Governments and financial institutions acknowledge the system produces crap outcomes if growth is not in the 'good' range and they do all in their power to keep it there. Do you acknowledge that capitalism produces unacceptible outcomes if growth is not maintained?

If by entrenched interests you mean governments that don't want to see rioting in the streets as either goods are not available due to depression or money has no value due to hyperinflation then I agree. I also agree that these economic and fiscal levers are of limited value.

Let's not get too sidetracked here.
so instead of taking the hit up front

There is much more to it than weak businesses going under in bad times. But let's stick to the point.

There are three things wrong with this:
1) The assumption that market forces will eventually result in a satisfactory new equilibrium
This is a blue-sky imagination product. Either you have to show that capitalism with zero growth will continue without ultrahigh unemployment or that a new system that doesn't produce unemployment with zero growth will evolve. You have done neither.
2) The assumption that the transition will be gradual and orderly
The booms and busts of the last 200 years give the lie to this. If anything the global economy is less stable than individual economies. Shocks propagate through the system at light speed now. Once real limits to resources become apparent prices will rise very quickly, whole sectors that work on thin margins will go belly-up very quickly. The adjustment is not going to be pretty.
3) The assumption that it will happen soon enough to allow orderly transition away from dependence on diminishing resources.
We see as plain as day with the climate change issue people will stick to the old ways until the bitter end. They will not prepare in time for a new future. They will waste time, deny, continue to exploit limited resources until the last. The concept of finite resources that limit growth and require a whole new way of thinking is not one that people want to believe - therefore they don't - therefore they will not prepare for it.

Hopeless optimism based on nothing but faith in economics which have repeatedly been shown to be no better than voodoo. It isn't a matter of deciding what brand of conflakes to buy, it's take everything you know and rely on and turn it upside down. We are talking about changes that are way outside the scope of anything in the past happening much more quickly all over the world.

Profit shmoffit. We are not talking about keeping the investors happy at the AGM. Back to the main point. How do you maintain constant economic growth without matching growth in resources? You are just hand-waving the issue away.

In the long term possibly so. But saying that there is no scientific or technical constraint on growth but energy does not tell us how to organise humanity and its commerce to achieve this condition.

You have done nothing to show me that system will repair itself and that it will happen in good time. The system is facing the biggest changes in history and you just assume that the way it works in economics 101 text book will be just dandy. This is no better than those who say there is no problem because God put the world here for mankind to exploit and He wouldn't lie so all is right.
How do you decouple economic growth from resource growth? So far you haven't given any indication that you know how or that you can show that it isn't necessary.
David
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.