Environment friendly farming is possible with Collective farms

[pranabjyoti]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/gautam-navlakha-days-t132733/index.html
In the link above, readers can know about collectivization programme run by Indian Maoists in the state of Chattishgar. A detailed account of grains cultivated with the area cultivated is given. Just imagine, if such level of production can be achieved in such a critical condition with traditional method and with nearly about no machinery and modern techniques, what can be achieved by high level technical and scientific application of modern methods.

[Jacobinist]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/gautam-navlakha-days-t132733/index.html
In the link above, readers can know about collectivization programme run by Indian Maoists in the state of Chattishgar. A detailed account of grains cultivated with the area cultivated is given. Just imagine, if such level of production can be achieved in such a critical condition with traditional method and with nearly about no machinery and modern techniques, what can be achieved by high level technical and scientific application of modern methods.

Problem is, most technology and modern methods require large amounts of fossil fuels, a resources which is dwindling ever more.

[Q]

Problem is, most technology and modern methods require large amounts of fossil fuels, a resources which is dwindling ever more.

What exactly do you propose then? Going back to manual labour? As a response to that, I would like to point to this TED video (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/louise_fresco_on_feeding_the_whole_world.html) which underlines the social progressive features of the fact that the west has a highly mechanised agriculture.

However, the concerns regarding fossil fuels are of course valid and we need alternatives. Fossil fuels, as far as I'm aware - do correct me if I'm wrong as I do not pretend to be an agricultural expert, are used in three areas: operating machinery (such as tractors), power consumption (important in greenhouses) and artificial fertilizers.

In all these areas can oil usage be dropped or eliminated altogether using modern technologies, fuel cells, efficient self-sustaining greenhouses, hydroponics, etc.

I'm uncertain however regarding fertilizers and would want to have some other opinions on this. Artificial fertilizers have been instrumental in skyrocketing agricultural production in the 20th century and seeing as the world population is still growing hard, is there actually a realistic alternative?

Going back on topic: I don't think collectivisation is necessary in the west. The far left has a tendency of having a fetish about it. Collectivisation should be understood within the context of an underdeveloped semi-feudal nation, where the majority the farmers are either landless or only have a small patch and the majority of the (good arable) land is in the hands of big landlords. In the west capitalism has solved this historic feudal legacy and today only a small percentage of the population in the west is active in the agricultural sector, working on huge plots of land. What is needed in the west is computerisation, automation, robotisation, vertical farms and other such innovations to increase production.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't think vertical farming is compatible with "collective" (a.k.a. communal) farming. It is, however, compatible with public farming monopoly.

[red cat]

Problem is, most technology and modern methods require large amounts of fossil fuels, a resources which is dwindling ever more.

Actually certain renewable energy resources that are environment friendly and much more efficient, can be used. With a socialist economy in practice, I doubt how much, if at all, we will have to depend on fossil fuels and similar sources.

[pranabjyoti]

Actually certain renewable energy resources that are environment friendly and much more efficient, can be used. With a socialist economy in practice, I doubt how much, if at all, we will have to depend on fossil fuels and similar sources.
I also want to add some points to add. Actually there are limitless options to shift from fossil fuel burning to environment friendly electricity generation. If you search the net, you will get a lot of ideas, what they need is just a little funding for prototyping and testing. I AM ASSURING YOU THAT MUCH HIGHER LEVEL OF ENERGY DEMAND CAN BE MET WITHOUT BURNING A SINGLE GRAIN OF COAL OR DROP OF GASOLINE. It may sound spell bounding to you, BUT IT IS A FACT.

[red cat]

For example, desert areas can be used to harness both solar and wind energy.

[ComradeOm]

I also want to add some points to add. Actually there are limitless options to shift from fossil fuel burning to environment friendly electricity generation. If you search the net, you will get a lot of ideas, what they need is just a little funding for prototyping and testing. I AM ASSURING YOU THAT MUCH HIGHER LEVEL OF ENERGY DEMAND CAN BE MET WITHOUT BURNING A SINGLE GRAIN OF COAL OR DROP OF GASOLINE. It may sound spell bounding to you, BUT IT IS A FACT.Are you selling something?

[pranabjyoti]

Are you selling something?
Is any buyer here of this scale? I don't think so. I am just talking about the near future possibilities.

[pranabjyoti]

I don't think vertical farming is compatible with "collective" (a.k.a. communal) farming. It is, however, compatible with public farming monopoly.
May be for present situation. But can you say that too for the future?

[Jacobinist]

What exactly do you propose then? Going back to manual labour? As a response to that, I would like to point to this TED video (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/louise_fresco_on_feeding_the_whole_world.html) which underlines the social progressive features of the fact that the west has a highly mechanised agriculture.

However, the concerns regarding fossil fuels are of course valid and we need alternatives. Fossil fuels, as far as I'm aware - do correct me if I'm wrong as I do not pretend to be an agricultural expert, are used in three areas: operating machinery (such as tractors), power consumption (important in greenhouses) and artificial fertilizers.

In all these areas can oil usage be dropped or eliminated altogether using modern technologies, fuel cells, efficient self-sustaining greenhouses, hydroponics, etc.

I'm uncertain however regarding fertilizers and would want to have some other opinions on this. Artificial fertilizers have been instrumental in skyrocketing agricultural production in the 20th century and seeing as the world population is still growing hard, is there actually a realistic alternative?

Going back on topic: I don't think collectivisation is necessary in the west. The far left has a tendency of having a fetish about it. Collectivisation should be understood within the context of an underdeveloped semi-feudal nation, where the majority the farmers are either landless or only have a small patch and the majority of the (good arable) land is in the hands of big landlords. In the west capitalism has solved this historic feudal legacy and today only a small percentage of the population in the west is active in the agricultural sector, working on huge plots of land. What is needed in the west is computerisation, automation, robotisation, vertical farms and other such innovations to increase production.

First about artificial fertilizers. They have helped, but tonite when you go to sleep, 2 out of 5 people on Earth will go to sleep hungry. So have they solved the problems of hunger, absolutely not. Again sustainable agriculture is vital to a progressive platform.

But the bigger problem, is that currently, all this renewable energy talk is just that, talk. No action is being taken to convert or upgrade to renewable energy in the agricultural business. Agricultural business accounts for about 1/5 of all CO2 emissions and consumption of fossil fuels. It is very important to make a move towards sustainability in the overall economy. Sad part is, only in leftist circles are such ideas even taken seriously. Everywhere else, sustainable economics are on the back burner.

[Jacobinist]

Seven Food and Resources Crises on the Horizon, and What You Can Do About It
http://www.alternet.org/food/146374/seven_food_and_resources_crises_on_the_horizon%2C_ and_what_you_can_do_about_it

[ComradeOm]

First about artificial fertilizers. They have helped, but tonite when you go to sleep, 2 out of 5 people on Earth will go to sleep hungry. So have they solved the problems of hunger, absolutely not. Again sustainable agriculture is vital to a progressive platformWhat a profoundly stupid argument. No one here has credited artificial fertilisers with eradicating world hunger. No one has suggested that these alone are the solution. Yet you seem to be largely writing off the immense benefits of these fertilisers on the basis that they have not done what no one has suggested they have. One might as well fault penicillin for not curing cancer

And, as an aside, what sort of a meaningless statement is "2 out of 5 people on Earth will go to sleep hungry"? How are you defining "hungry"? Are you talking about starvation levels, malnourishment, or simply going to bed peckish? And are you also implying that a lack of global food production is to blame for this scenario? What a completely uselessly vague statistic

[Jacobinist]

What a profoundly stupid argument. No one here has credited artificial fertilisers with eradicating world hunger. No one has suggested that these alone are the solution. Yet you seem to be largely writing off the immense benefits of these fertilisers on the basis that they have not done what no one has suggested they have. One might as well fault penicillin for not curing cancer

And, as an aside, what sort of a meaningless statement is "2 out of 5 people on Earth will go to sleep hungry"? How are you defining "hungry"? Are you talking about starvation levels, malnourishment, or simply going to bed peckish? And are you also implying that a lack of global food production is to blame for this scenario? What a completely uselessly vague statistic

What a profoundly stupid way to dismiss such a stupid weak argument. I never dismissed them as useless; those are your own words there kidd-o. And what do I mean by 2 out of 5? What is to blame? Well first is production, distribution of available food, and changing eco systems straining communities already facing globalization threats even further. Not to mention the 1st world's attempt to push food reserves into the bio-fuel business.

Now what I did say was that fossil fuels are finite. Their addition to soil, while helpful short-term, is in the long run detrimental to the land used in the long run. Salts build up, requiring ever more fertilizer, rasing consumption ever higher, rasing its deman yet again, etc. It's a vicious positive feedback cycle.

Just so you know, your analogy of penicilin to cancer, weak.

From Das Wiki:

1) On the average, 1 person dies every second as a result directly of hunger - 4000 every hour - 100 000 each day - 36 million each year - 58 % of all deaths (2001-2004 estimates).

2) On the average, 1 child dies every 5 seconds as a result, either directly or indriectly of hunger - 700 every hour - 16 000 each day - 6 million each year - 60% of all child deaths (2002-2008 estimates).

Not to mention Malnourishment:

1) On average, 36 million people die each year as a direct or indirect result of poor nutrition, which is more than 1 death each second



And from this map, you can see the majority of the world doesnt have high speed internet, much less food:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Percentage_population_undernourished_world_map.PNG

Aww, the success of industrialization!

[ComradeOm]

What a profoundly stupid way to dismiss such a stupid weak argument. I never dismissed them as useless; those are your own words there kidd-oYou stated that they had "helped" but quickly moved to point out that "have they solved the problems of hunger, absolutely not" [sic]. Why exactly did you feel the need to do this; that is, to link artificial fertilisers with the continued existence of hunger and starvation? Your post, whether intentional or not*, presents the latter as a meter for the success of artificial fertilisers. The implication being, of course, that continued hunger reflects poorly on current fertilisers

*Perhaps of course the post was just put together in an extremely poor way. Hence the request for clarification


Just so you know, your analogy of penicilin to cancer, weak.I strongly feel that its a disgrace that people still think that penicillin is at all useful. Sure it may have saved countless lives in the past, and continues to be widely used today, but millions of people die every year from cancer. Millions! I'll leave it to you to draw your own conclusions


From Das Wiki:

1) On the average, 1 person dies every second as a result directly of hunger - 4000 every hour - 100 000 each day - 36 million each year - 58 % of all deaths (2001-2004 estimates).

2) On the average, 1 child dies every 5 seconds as a result, either directly or indriectly of hunger - 700 every hour - 16 000 each day - 6 million each year - 60% of all child deaths (2002-2008 estimates).

Not to mention Malnourishment:

1) On average, 36 million people die each year as a direct or indirect result of poor nutrition, which is more than 1 death each secondAll of which are much more impressive, and specific, than some vague claim about people going hungry at night. Deaths due to hunger is a controversial yardstick but is at least somewhat measurable. Unlike, I feel obliged to once again point out, the number of people 'going to sleep hungry'


And from this map, you can see the majority of the world doesnt have high speed internet, much less food:I repeat, are you suggesting that global food production is insufficient? Because that's not coming across from that map


Aww, the success of industrialization! Now this does come across very strongly from the map. Unless of course its a complete coincidence that the industrialised nations are the ones with the lowest rates of undernourishment. Hint: Its not

[Jacobinist]

You stated that they had "helped" but quickly moved to point out that "have they solved the problems of hunger, absolutely not" [sic]. Why exactly did you feel the need to do this; that is, to link artificial fertilisers with the continued existence of hunger and starvation? Your post, whether intentional or not*, presents the latter as a meter for the success of artificial fertilisers. The implication being, of course, that continued hunger reflects poorly on current fertilisers

*Perhaps of course the post was just put together in an extremely poor way. Hence the request for clarification

I strongly feel that its a disgrace that people still think that penicillin is at all useful. Sure it may have saved countless lives in the past, and continues to be widely used today, but millions of people die every year from cancer. Millions! I'll leave it to you to draw your own conclusions

All of which are much more impressive, and specific, than some vague claim about people going hungry at night. Deaths due to hunger is a controversial yardstick but is at least somewhat measurable. Unlike, I feel obliged to once again point out, the number of people 'going to sleep hungry'

I repeat, are you suggesting that global food production is insufficient? Because that's not coming across from that map

Now this does come across very strongly from the map. Unless of course its a complete coincidence that the industrialised nations are the ones with the lowest rates of undernourishment. Hint: Its not


Something tells me you've never (or haven't in a while) stepped foot inside of a biological science class, because your posts reek of ignorance in the subject matter.

#1) I never said fertilizers were bad, I simply said they are far from any solution; because they are both unsustainable and pose problems themselves. We are better off trying to build a new sustainable system. Have you heard of bio-char?

#2) Penicilin curing cancer? Are you fucking serious or just plain stupid? How the fuck would penicilin (which fights bacterial infections, mostly) be used to cure cancer which is caused by oncogenes getting fucked up during DNA replication? WTF? This makes me wonder if you even have the slightest clue about what you're talking about.

#3) About the 'going to sleep hungry' comment. Excuse me for believing that the readership is far more advanced than yourself. I thought it would be obvious, that is was meant to be taken figureatively. EG, there would be no need to explain what 'hunger' and malnourishment are, which I had to do anyways, thanks to you.

#4) Food production is a problem as well (Note, there are several factors). Surplus food produced or grown in central Oklahoma is of little use to an Amazonian or Somalian, is it? Thats why your assumption that food produced in a year, can feed the world. It possibly could, but NOT with the current prodcution/distribution scheme. Also food production stats are confusing. There is more farmland today than there was 100 years ago, and conversely, less rain forrest as well. Now, is that a problem or not, ponder on that before you post again.

Food Production:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/2005gdpAgricultural.PNG

There goes your other theory that industrialization means surplus food. Apparently, still industrializaing China is the dog to catch. Not the Western EU or the US.

[Q]

First about artificial fertilizers. They have helped, but tonite when you go to sleep, 2 out of 5 people on Earth will go to sleep hungry. So have they solved the problems of hunger, absolutely not. Again sustainable agriculture is vital to a progressive platform.

As ComradeOm pointed out, I wasn't talking about eradicating world hunger. What I was talking about however is how feasible it really is to eliminate the usage of artificial fertilizers, without making 4 out of 5 people go to sleep hungry. If this isn't possible, then oil usage will remain extremely important in the foreseeable future of agriculture.

[red cat]

As ComradeOm pointed out, I wasn't talking about eradicating world hunger. What I was talking about however is how feasible it really is to eliminate the usage of artificial fertilizers, without making 4 out of 5 people go to sleep hungry. If this isn't possible, then oil usage will remain extremely important in the foreseeable future of agriculture.

How about using compost ?

[Q]

How about using compost ?

1. I know it is used in small scale farming, but how does that scale up?
2. Is it more nutritious than artificial fertilizers?

In other words: why aren't we using compost today instead of artificial fertilizers?

[red cat]

1. I know it is used in small scale farming, but how does that scale up?
2. Is it more nutritious than artificial fertilizers?

In other words: why aren't we using compost today instead of artificial fertilizers?

Why we don't use something today is more related to the profit it generates for capitalists rather than its actual efficiency.

The problem with artificial fertilizers, in my opinion, is that they can actually harm both the soil and the crops on the long run.

Suppose we can somehow collect and ferment all organic wastes in cities and villages. We will then be able to produce gas that can be used as a fuel, and also a very rich manure. In fact such a technology is now being used at certain places and it is successful in producing enough manure for whole villages.

[CartCollector]

OK here's a question Jacobinist: you have shown that there is widespread starvation in the world. Do you believe that there is enough food produced each year to feed everyone?

Also, on the issue of environmentally friendly farming, there's something called carbon sequestration. Carbon sequestration techniques are used to suck carbon out of the atmosphere. Agricultural plots of land already do this, but they can be set up to suck more carbon out of the atmosphere. It's estimated that if these techniques were used on all agricultural land on the earth, it could reduce global carbon dioxide emissions by 20%. Also, carbon sequestration methods can increase crop yield, especially on degraded cropland.
Now, why aren't these techniques being used, you ask?

...because reduction of atmosperic CO2 levels is a long-term concern, it is difficult to motivate farmers to voluntarily adopt more expensive agricultural techniques when there is not a clear crop, soil, or economic benefit."Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration#Enhancing_Carbon_Removal
Surprise surprise, market capitalism is the culprit. Seeing as the Indian Maoists are Maoists, that shouldn't be a problem. Though they do have other problems towards adoption, such as the extra time it will take to adopt some of these techniques.

[Q]

Why we don't use something today is more related to the profit it generates for capitalists rather than its actual efficiency.
Could you actually back that up with sources or is this an assumption on your part?

[Jacobinist]

OK here's a question Jacobinist: you have shown that there is widespread starvation in the world. Do you believe that there is enough food produced each year to feed everyone?

Also, on the issue of environmentally friendly farming, there's something called carbon sequestration. Carbon sequestration techniques are used to suck carbon out of the atmosphere. Agricultural plots of land already do this, but they can be set up to suck more carbon out of the atmosphere. It's estimated that if these techniques were used on all agricultural land on the earth, it could reduce global carbon dioxide emissions by 20%. Also, carbon sequestration methods can increase crop yield, especially on degraded cropland.
Now, why aren't these techniques being used, you ask?
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration#Enhancing_Carbon_Removal
Surprise surprise, market capitalism is the culprit. Seeing as the Indian Maoists are Maoists, that shouldn't be a problem. Though they do have other problems towards adoption, such as the extra time it will take to adopt some of these techniques.

Thats a tough call. I could easily produce links showing that, no, not enough food is produced. And someone arguing the opposite can do the same just as easily. But giving the amount of food wasted, increasing obesity rates in industrialized nations, I'd dare say that there could be enough food produced. Realistically, however, distribution is the bigger problem. The number of acres of arable land is not rising steepily. Because although rain forests are being clear cut to make way for agriculture, these sites are usually of poor soil health; requiring fertilizers that will eventually drip into the ocean killing off coral reefs and other life forms creating oceanic dead zones.

Fertilizers have many problems and externalities that many comrades dont often consider. I cant believe this, but I actually thanked a Red Cat post because, it was legit.

[Jacobinist]

Could you actually back that up with sources or is this an assumption on your part?

Dude that is totally logical, and not an assumption. HMO's in health care are one example. Opening up more oil refineries would drop the price and make for a more efficient system; is another. Hamburgers are $1. Cows take a lot of energy and food to grow, and a burger is a dollar. Yet a salad is about $4. WTF?

[red cat]

Could you actually back that up with sources or is this an assumption on your part?

It is a basic assumption of Marxists that capital allows exactly what maximizes its profit, isn't it ? :)



Fertilizers have many problems and externalities that many comrades dont often consider. I cant believe this, but I actually thanked a Red Cat post because, it was legit.

Congratulations, you have finally started thinking logically. I hope you do this every time rather than posting sectarian bullshit. :thumbup1: :lol::lol:

[Vanguard1917]

The problem with artificial fertilizers, in my opinion, is that they can actually harm both the soil and the crops on the long run.

Yes, they can. But many useful things have adverse effects. The point for humanity is not to do away with those useful things, but to try to find ways to reduce and eventually eliminate their negative features.

Chemotheraphy, for example, can cause organ damage, nausea and a depressed immune system. But it can also be very useful against cancer. Of course, artificial fertilisers don't have anything near as severe adverse effects to human wellbeing as chemo can have (and are responsible for vast increases in agricultural output), but the principle is the same.



The number of acres of arable land is not rising steepily. Because although rain forests are being clear cut to make way for agriculture, these sites are usually of poor soil health; requiring fertilizers that will eventually drip into the ocean killing off coral reefs and other life forms creating oceanic dead zones.



Actually, precisely as a result of modern agricultural methods, we're in a position to be able to release more and more land from agricultural use every year, since the same output that previously would have needed, say, 100 acres of land, can with modern methods be achieved with far less.

[red cat]

Yes, they can. But many useful things have adverse effects. The point for humanity is not to do away with those useful things, but to try to find ways to reduce and eventually eliminate their negative features.

Chemotheraphy, for example, can cause organ damage, nausea and a depressed immune system. But it can also be very useful against cancer. Of course, artificial fertilisers don't have anything near as severe adverse effects to human wellbeing as chemo can have (and are responsible for vast increases in agricultural output), but the principle is the same.


The point is that at least the chemical fertilizers that are used in third world countries, are doing more damage than good. Moreover, natural fertilizers are not working on that soil effectively because of previous usage of chemical fertilizers. So, to ensure the harvest for the present season, farmers are having to use chemical fertilizers again even though they now know that it will ruin the soil further. Therefore the only alternative now is to crush the present system and provide some kind of security for the farmers so that they can go back to traditional and organic methods step by step. Foreign multinationals can develop their own products as much as they like, but not at the cost of ruining our soil.

[Q]

Dude that is totally logical, and not an assumption. HMO's in health care are one example. Opening up more oil refineries would drop the price and make for a more efficient system; is another. Hamburgers are $1. Cows take a lot of energy and food to grow, and a burger is a dollar. Yet a salad is about $4. WTF?
That post makes no sense.


It is a basic assumption of Marxists that capital allows exactly what maximizes its profit, isn't it ? :)
No. It's a basic method of Marxism to seek for scientific evidence and understand reality in the most concrete sense possible. It is un-Marxist to make empty assumptions out of dogma.

[ComradeOm]

#2) Penicilin curing cancer? Are you fucking serious or just plain stupid? How the fuck would penicilin (which fights bacterial infections, mostly) be used to cure cancer which is caused by oncogenes getting fucked up during DNA replication? WTF? This makes me wonder if you even have the slightest clue about what you're talking aboutOkay. Clearly I overestimated your intelligence here. Unfortunately, much like a joke, if you have to explain an analogy then it either wasn't a very good analogy or passed straight over the head of the intended audience. Based on your response (yes, I am aware of just what 'penicilin' [sic] is) I'm going to go with the latter. And no, I'm not going to break the analogy down for you. Read it again and mentally place a few sarcasm tags around it, if you must


#3) About the 'going to sleep hungry' comment. Excuse me for believing that the readership is far more advanced than yourself. I thought it would be obvious, that is was meant to be taken figureatively. EG, there would be no need to explain what 'hunger' and malnourishment are, which I had to do anyways, thanks to you.You believed your "readership" to be advanced and so you used a nonsensical made-up statistic? Your "going to sleep hungry" statement is exactly the sort of figure that makes tabloid headlines but has absolutely no place in any serious discussion. Figures get more precise, not more general or fabricated, at higher levels of discussion

But then I happen to believe that there is no excuse for using meaningless statistics in any circumstance. You either have good figures or you don't


#4) Food production is a problem as well (Note, there are several factors). Surplus food produced or grown in central Oklahoma is of little use to an Amazonian or Somalian, is it?No more use than Canadian wheat is to Algeria; or Argentine beef in Egypt; or even Indian bananas in Denmark. Food is currently produced and consumed on a global scale. The argument that it must be grown or consumed in its locality is entirely baseless from the perspective of food production or eradicating hunger

It is only petit-bourgeois environmentalists that encourage people to grow food in their back garden or 'eat local produce'. But then such people are hardly concerned with the millions currently starving in Africa or Asia


There is more farmland today than there was 100 years ago, and conversely, less rain forrest as well. Now, is that a problem or not, ponder on that before you post again.Pondering done. No


There goes your other theory that industrialization means surplus food. Apparently, still industrializaing China is the dog to catch. Not the Western EU or the US.I'm confident that if you add all those little dots up you'd find that much of the world's food produce is still coming from Western nations. In fact, the same Wiki page that you took that graph from tells me that the EU alone (pop: around 500m) is only slightly behind China (pop: approx 1,3b). Dig deeper and you'll see that with the exception of Brazil, India (both of which, along with China, are BRICs nations), and Mexico almost all Western or industrialised. Ireland, for example, produces more food than Ethiopia and Côte d'Ivoire put together. Tiny Luxembourg produces more than the Rep of Congo

All of which reinforces your previous map - those nations in the 'Third World' (which would never include the likes of Mexico, Brazil, or India) are the ones with the largest percentage of GDP is derived from agriculture but still produce the lowest absolute amount. These are also the countries that are most ravaged by famine and malnutrition. As your map shows. On the other hand, those societies that are much less dependent dependent on agriculture are those that produce the most. Of the top global producers only India derives more than 15% of the GDP from agriculture - others in the top ten include China (12%), Brazil (8%), Mexico (3%), Japan (1.6%), USA (0.9%), France (2.2%), Spain (3.9%), Turkey (11.2%), and Russia (5.3%). There is a clear link between industrialisation and food production

But even that is not what lay behind my remark in the previous post. The reality, which should be self-evident, is that only a negligible percentage of the population in industrialised nations are dying of starvation or are dangerously malnourished. This simply does not happen in Western societies any more. It used to - countless numbers have died from famine throughout European history - but hunger has not been a great killer in Europe since the industrial revolution. Industrial societies, with their diverse streams of food, are simply not as reliant on the weather cycle as peasant societies, and therefore very rarely succumb to mass hunger. Banishing the bony spectre of famine remains one of the great triumphs of capitalism and science


The point is that at least the chemical fertilizers that are used in third world countries, are doing more damage than goodUnlikely. Without synthetic fertilisers, which are used both in the West and the 'Third World', current food production levels would be impossible to sustain. If we were to stop using them today it would lead to mass starvation. Only a misanthrope could weight this against any possible damage to the environment and decide in favour of the latter

Its also worth noting of course that many of these fertilisers have been used for decades in Europe and the US with no serious harm done. If half the scare stories about these fertilisers were true (eg, "artificial fertilizers... actually harm both the soil and the crops on the long run") then most of Europe and the US would be desert today. In reality they are still extremely productive agricultural regions

Even those chemicals that have been proven to be dangerous, of which DDT is probably the prime example*, are now largely banned on the basis of Western experience. So it is not a case of farmers in underdeveloped nations using some poorer or more hazardous category of fertiliser. The problem is exactly the opposite - they do not have access to the full range of equipment, chemicals, and methodologies that Western farmers employ to increase their yields

*DDT also qualifies as an excellent example for V1917's point. This chemical, which has a terrible reputation and some still want to ban outright, is one of the single most useful tools in the fight against malaria. It is almost entirely responsible for almost eradicating the disease from Europe post-WWII

[Jacobinist]

1) Okay. Clearly I overestimated your intelligence here. Unfortunately, much like a joke, if you have to explain an analogy then it either wasn't a very good analogy or passed straight over the head of the intended audience. Based on your response (yes, I am aware of just what 'penicilin' [sic] is) I'm going to go with the latter. And no, I'm not going to break the analogy down for you. Read it again and mentally place a few sarcasm tags around it, if you must

2) You believed your "readership" to be advanced and so you used a nonsensical made-up statistic? Your "going to sleep hungry" statement is exactly the sort of figure that makes tabloid headlines but has absolutely no place in any serious discussion. Figures get more precise, not more general or fabricated, at higher levels of discussion

But then I happen to believe that there is no excuse for using meaningless statistics in any circumstance. You either have good figures or you don't

3) No more use than Canadian wheat is to Algeria; or Argentine beef in Egypt; or even Indian bananas in Denmark. Food is currently produced and consumed on a global scale. The argument that it must be grown or consumed in its locality is entirely baseless from the perspective of food production or eradicating hunger

It is only petit-bourgeois environmentalists that encourage people to grow food in their back garden or 'eat local produce'. But then such people are hardly concerned with the millions currently starving in Africa or Asia

Pondering done. No

4) I'm confident that if you add all those little dots up you'd find that much of the world's food produce is still coming from Western nations. In fact, the same Wiki page that you took that graph from tells me that the EU alone (pop: around 500m) is only slightly behind China (pop: approx 1,3b). Dig deeper and you'll see that with the exception of Brazil, India (both of which, along with China, are BRICs nations), and Mexico almost all Western or industrialised. Ireland, for example, produces more food than Ethiopia and Côte d'Ivoire put together. Tiny Luxembourg produces more than the Rep of Congo

5) All of which reinforces your previous map - those nations in the 'Third World' (which would never include the likes of Mexico, Brazil, or India) are the ones with the largest percentage of GDP is derived from agriculture but still produce the lowest absolute amount. These are also the countries that are most ravaged by famine and malnutrition. As your map shows. On the other hand, those societies that are much less dependent dependent on agriculture are those that produce the most. Of the top global producers only India derives more than 15% of the GDP from agriculture - others in the top ten include China (12%), Brazil (8%), Mexico (3%), Japan (1.6%), USA (0.9%), France (2.2%), Spain (3.9%), Turkey (11.2%), and Russia (5.3%). There is a clear link between industrialisation and food production

6) But even that is not what lay behind my remark in the previous post. The reality, which should be self-evident, is that only a negligible percentage of the population in industrialised nations are dying of starvation or are dangerously malnourished. This simply does not happen in Western societies any more. It used to - countless numbers have died from famine throughout European history - but hunger has not been a great killer in Europe since the industrial revolution. Industrial societies, with their diverse streams of food, are simply not as reliant on the weather cycle as peasant societies, and therefore very rarely succumb to mass hunger. Banishing the bony spectre of famine remains one of the great triumphs of capitalism and science


Oh god, you're Irish, very stubborn.

#1) You were serious about the penicilin comment, because otherwise, the analogy makes no sense.

#2) I never said MY readership, I said the site's readership. Going to sleep hungry is a nonsensical phrase, similar like asking penicilin to cure cancer.:rolleyes:

#3) So you're suggesting Argentinan cattle industry could feed meat to the entire world? Have you noticed that the foods shipped globally are usually out of season or luxury items? Of course, a pettite-bourgeioise like yourself would not know the difference between luxury foods and non luxury.:rolleyes: Growing food on one side of the planet, and shipping it to the other of the planet is simply not logical. It seems like your proposing good ol fassioned bourgeois solutions; which only further increases reliance on food supplies far from ones own location. Localized agriculture is not bourgeois, iits realistic. Africa, Latin America have very fertile soils, very rich in resources and and large swaths of open land; why then are they malnourished? Because bourgeioses like yourself tell Africans to rely on Canadian wheat, when simply, Africans could grow their own; and thus be truly independent and autonomous. You cant be independent if you rely on some borgeois country to feed you. Remember that.

"I could easily produce links showing that, no, not enough food is produced. And someone arguing the opposite can do the same just as easily. But giving the amount of food wasted, increasing obesity rates in industrialized nations, I'd dare say that there could be enough food produced. Realistically, however, distribution is the bigger problem. - ME

4) The manner in which western societies has fed it self is unsustainable. I know you're going to come out with your blind support of fertilziers; so to cut you off before you do, look, fertilizers are mostly NO3 and PO4's. Most of which will eventually reach the ocean. The result; dead zones.

http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/additional/science-focus/ocean-color/dead_zones.shtml

Have you ever heard of eutrophication? Yea, its some bourgeois college term, go ahead and read up on it, because obviously, you have no idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication

5) Industrialization, means very little in food production (the direct process). If you're a fan of fertilizer, why not simply ship it by the tons to Africa and Brazil? Because it wont work, you need industrialized dams, canals, ie infrastructure to get water where it is needed, instead of relying on a yearly flood or seasonal rains. Achieving this point, is the only manner in which industrialization matters. Of course we could support and build machinery that takes over the human part of planting, harvesting the food, but is that a good idea? And even if you do manage to grow food, the bigger obstacle as I've noted before is distribution. Patagonia could never alone produce enough meat for an ever increasing population, hence the need for local growing.


Banishing the bony spectre of famine remains one of the great triumphs of capitalism and science.............."Its also worth noting of course that many of these fertilisers have been used for decades in Europe and the US with no serious harm done. If half the scare stories about these fertilisers were true (eg, "artificial fertilizers... actually harm both the soil and the crops on the long run") then most of Europe and the US would be desert today. In reality they are still extremely productive agricultural regions" -Comrade On

WTF? ^

http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/2008-08-15_bigMap.jpg

[Jacobinist]

And finally, current agricultural methods are unsustainable. Reliance on petroleum based fertilizers furthers our dependence on fossil fuels, which further takes us down the path to self destruction.

"The practice of fertilizing the soil with synthetic nitrogen became widespread in the 70's, when it was recommended to be used so that the risk of nitrogen depletion would minimize. Unfortunately, nitrogen fertilizers where used in great quantities, in the hope of better crop growth. Nitrogen fertilizers are good for agriculture, but in ever increased quantities this produces a decline in organic carbon in the soil, which in terms will determine crop decline as well.

Carbon is a key element in culture growth, helping the soil store more water. On the other side, using excessive quantities of nitrogen fertilizers increases nitrate pollution and contributes to the release of more carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere, carbon dioxide being one of the greenhouse effect gases.


Fertilizers are bad because apart from leaving residues on the crops, it goes into the local watercourses and pollutes the water as well. Fertilizers are a bad for society. Just because fertilizers initially allow a larger number of crops to grow and be harvested, it does not make up for all the damage they cause. Fertilizers strip the land of its nutrients, damaging the soil and the local environment. Run-off is dangerous for people and animals, and it gets into our water supplies. Fertilizers are dangerous, nasty chemicals that stay on food even after you wash it.

People, who say that using fertilizers is no big deal, should look at people who live in China because many farmers there have contracted cancer due to the large quantities of fertilizers. For decades now, the United States has used nitrogen-based fertilizers, believing that it would benefit the soil by building organic carbon into it, but a group of scientists studying the soil has recently found that nitrogen fertilizers actually delete the carbon reserves from it.

[ComradeOm]

Oh god, you're Irish, very stubborn.

#1) You were serious about the penicilin comment, because otherwise, the analogy makes no sense.

#2) I never said MY readership, I said the site's readership. Going to sleep hungry is a nonsensical phrase, similar like asking penicilin to cure cancer.:rolleyes:I bet this is a joke and you are being this obtuse on purpose. I said I wouldn't walk through that analogy, which its safe to say I regret making, but I will. Just to shut you up about bloody penicillin

1) Penicillin is/was a superb drug that has saved countless lives. It counts as one of the great triumphs of modern medicine
2) Penicillin was never intended to prevent people dying of cancer
3) Penicillin, although a medicine, has not saved many people dying of cancer
4) It is therefore absurd to suggest that penicillin can be in any way faulted for the continued existence of cancer

Now substitute "artificial fertilisers" for "penicillin" and "hunger" for "cancer". Geddit, huh?


#3) So you're suggesting Argentinan cattle industry could feed meat to the entire world?No, that would be stupid. What I'm stating is that there is no real geographical restriction on the export/transport of Argentine beef. They can sell that product anywhere in the world. It is perfectly possible to produce surplus food in "central Oklahoma" and ship it to the Amazon or Somalia


Have you noticed that the foods shipped globally are usually out of season or luxury items? Of course, a pettite-bourgeioise like yourself would not know the difference between luxury foods and non luxury.:rolleyes:My mistake, I didn't realise that wheat was a luxury good :glare:


Growing food on one side of the planet, and shipping it to the other of the planet is simply not logical. It seems like your proposing good ol fassioned bourgeois solutions; which only further increases reliance on food supplies far from ones own locationOn the contrary it is perfectly logical for one country to export its surplus foodstuff. So logical in fact that it happens all the time. This is reality. The FAO notes (http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x6730e/X6730E03.HTM) that the "value of world food trade in 1995-97" (ie, over a decade ago) was "about US$315 billion". Food is being traded across the world in vast quantities and there is no reason why this should not continue


Africa, Latin America have very fertile soils, very rich in resources and and large swaths of open land; why then are they malnourished? Because bourgeioses like yourself tell Africans to rely on Canadian wheat, when simply, Africans could grow their own; and thus be truly independent and autonomous. You cant be independent if you rely on some borgeois country to feed you. Remember thatBullshit. If it proves cheaper for African nations (whether feudal, capitalist, or socialist) to import their food, as opposed to producing it domestically, then there is little reason why they should not do so. The capital saved can then be invested in developing a proper industrial base or something else more useful. The idea that every nation must be self-sufficient is very 1930s

I mean, are you going to suggest now that British national sovereignty has been comprised because the UK imports its wine and rice from Europe and Asia respectively?

Of course if an African nation wants to develop its agricultural sector to the point where it can compete internationally then it should be free to do so. Once it is aware that it will only do so by using modern (yes, capitalist) techniques - artificial fertilisers, large plot sizes, intense mechanisation, etc, etc

Although I do love how you try and assign the current state of Africa and all the flaws/mechanisms of global imperialism to "bourgeioses" like me :lol:


Have you ever heard of eutrophication? Yea, its some bourgeois college term, go ahead and read up on it, because obviously, you have no idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EutrophicationThat's a revelation. Clearly I was mistaken to have considered that there was some use in increasing crop yields to feed billions of additional humans. We should never have put Mother Earth in danger purely to feed our species. What fools we are

Now I know you're not particularly good at sarcasm so I do feel obliged to point out that the above is not to be taken seriously. It does however illustrate the fundamental choice that I put to myself every time I am confronted with an environmental problem - will the 'environmentalist option' harm, hinder, or otherwise be detrimental to actual people. If the answer is no then that's fair enough, bull on ahead. Unfortunately, more often than not what is good for the environment is not necessarily good for people. This is of course a perfect example - stop using modern farming techniques and you may improve the environment at the cost of starving a huge percentage of the Earth's population. As far as I'm concerned that is no choice at all


...you need industrialized dams, canals, ie infrastructure to get water where it is needed, instead of relying on a yearly flood or seasonal rains. Achieving this point, is the only manner in which industrialization mattersIn short, you need the tools and resources that are only provided by industrial societies to increase food production. Pre-capitalist societies are unable to achieve anywhere near the same levels yield levels


Of course we could support and build machinery that takes over the human part of planting, harvesting the food, but is that a good idea?If it increases food yields, therefore making it easier and cheaper to feed more people better food... yes. The fact that you think there is even a question about this says enough


And even if you do manage to grow food, the bigger obstacle as I've noted before is distribution. Patagonia could never alone produce enough meat for an ever increasing population, hence the need for local growingOr, and this is just a thought, instead of every country having its own beef ranches you could have only a few specialise in this area and supply a dozen countries. Economies of scale and whatnot. Which is exactly why Argentina exports so much beef


WTF? ^Poetic as ever I see. What part of the above passage did you not understand? That famine is a distant memory for industrial societies? Or that fertilisers have not produced any serious environmental consequences? And no, I do not consider fancy algal blooms (easily removed and preventable with a bit of legislation) to be a serious threat to the environment. Certainly not something worth limiting food supplies over

[Jacobinist]

1) Penicillin is/was a superb drug that has saved countless lives. It counts as one of the great triumphs of modern medicine
2) Penicillin was never intended to prevent people dying of cancer
3) Penicillin, although a medicine, has not saved many people dying of cancer
4) It is therefore absurd to suggest that penicillin can be in any way faulted for the continued existence of cancer

Now substitute "artificial fertilisers" for "penicillin" and "hunger" for "cancer". Geddit, huh? -COmrade Off

OIC. Fertilzer was never intended to eradicate hunger. Its just meant to produce surplus food to convert to biofuel, right? I guess 36 million people dying annually from lack of adequate food is a sign of fertilzers' success, being that it wasnt developed to produce food in surplus. :rolleyes:



"No, that would be stupid. What I'm stating is that there is no real geographical restriction on the export/transport of Argentine beef. They can sell that product anywhere in the world. It is perfectly possible to produce surplus food in "central Oklahoma" and ship it to the Amazon or Somalia" - ComradeOn

Oh, I see. Perfectly sensical and sensible. I mean, we all know that the Amazonian and Somalian peoples' are incapable of growing their own food, in their own region. Good point Comrade Off. And I totally agree, shipping food half way across the world is the solution to food shortages! Only the bourgeois would consider feeding yourself an act of revolutionary independence.:rolleyes:



"The idea that every nation must be self-sufficient is very 1930s"

Yea, Im not en vogue. Sorry :rolleyes:



Now to get serious. I hardly think the current fertilizers' and inefficient methods we currently employ to grow our food are the pinnacle of human ingenuity. Read up on biochar, its a quickly up-and-comng alternative.

I never said 'dont use fertilizer,' I said be aware that these are fertilizers are flawed and pose various environmental problems. Im sure we can do better.

[Vanguard1917]

The point is that at least the chemical fertilizers that are used in third world countries, are doing more damage than good. Moreover, natural fertilizers are not working on that soil effectively because of previous usage of chemical fertilizers. So, to ensure the harvest for the present season, farmers are having to use chemical fertilizers again even though they now know that it will ruin the soil further. Therefore the only alternative now is to crush the present system and provide some kind of security for the farmers so that they can go back to traditional and organic methods step by step.

'Go back to tradinitional and organic methods'? Why? That means going back to day-long backbreaking agricultural toil and subsistence farming -- things which dominate too much of agricultural production in the developing world as it is.

Why would any socialist support going 'back to traditional methods'? People in the developing world certainly don't support that. They want what we have in the West. They desperately want modernisation. It is only middle-class Westerners who romanticise poverty and backwardness in the developing world -- while they themselves, of course, enjoy their materially privileged lifestyles.

Like ComradeOm has patiently eplained, poor countries need access to the most advanced modern agricultural methods presently available to mankind. Only in such a way can they begin freeing themselves from the dominance of agricultural toil and begin developing their societies in other ways.

Capitalism stands in the way of this (and environmentalists, by opposing development and upholding 'traditional methods', are apologists for the poverty that capitalism creates). That's why we need socialism.

And, BTW, the eco-nonsense being supported in this thread was precisely the kind of stuff that Marx and Engels in their day over and again fought against and ridiculed. In response to the nature-worshipping crap of Daumer, for example, Marx made his position very clear:

"modern natural science ... with modern industry, has revolutionised the whole of nature and put an end to man’s childish attitude towards nature ... For the rest, it would be desirable that Bavaria’s sluggish peasant economy ... should at last be ploughed up by modern cultivation and modern machines."

[bricolage]

It is only middle-class Westerners who romanticise poverty and backwardness in the developing world -- while they themselves, of course, enjoy their materially privileged lifestyles.

Except that are arguing in response to a post by someone who lives in the 'developing world' :rolleyes:

[Vanguard1917]

Except that are arguing in response to a post by someone who lives in the 'developing world' :rolleyes:

I wasn't referring to red cat, but to the dominant social forces which tend to celebrate poverty and underdevelopment in (what is commonly referred to as) the developing world.

[Jacobinist]

'Go back to tradinitional and organic methods'? Why? That means going back to day-long backbreaking agricultural toil and subsistence farming -- things which dominate too much of agricultural production in the developing world as it is.

Why would any socialist support going 'back to traditional methods'? People in the developing world certainly don't support that. They want what we have in the West. They desperately want modernisation. It is only middle-class Westerners who romanticise poverty and backwardness in the developing world -- while they themselves, of course, enjoy their materially privileged lifestyles.

Like ComradeOm has patiently eplained, poor countries need access to the most advanced modern agricultural methods presently available to mankind. Only in such a way can they begin freeing themselves from the dominance of agricultural toil and begin developing their societies in other ways.

Capitalism stands in the way of this (and environmentalists, by opposing development and upholding 'traditional methods', are apologists for the poverty that capitalism creates). That's why we need socialism.

And, BTW, the eco-nonsense being supported in this thread was precisely the kind of stuff that Marx and Engels in their day over and again fought against and ridiculed. In response to the nature-worshipping crap of Daumer, for example, Marx made his position very clear:

"modern natural science ... with modern industry, has revolutionised the whole of nature and put an end to man’s childish attitude towards nature ... For the rest, it would be desirable that Bavaria’s sluggish peasant economy ... should at last be ploughed up by modern cultivation and modern machines."

Makes perfect sense; if you forget the fact that mankind's very existance is interwoven with that of the ecosphere. If you think the whole world can be industrialized (under the current model) and sustained for very long, you're only kidding yourself. Marx was incredible at what he did, but he was no scientist. I wont argue that science hasnt been co-opted by capitalism in the industrial age, but just the opposite could be true as well.

"They desperately want modernisation. It is only middle-class Westerners who romanticise poverty and backwardness in the developing world "

Modernization and chemical fertilizers, pesticides, growth hormones, etc are not one in the same; they are different things. You can have modern equipment and technology and not use a single laboratory fertilizer. Never mind the fact that many chemicals which have been banned for use in the US/EU are still being used in Latin America, Africa Asia.


"Capitalism stands in the way of this (and environmentalists, by opposing development and upholding 'traditional methods', are apologists for the poverty that capitalism creates)." -

Traditional methods? I dont think anyone in this thread has called for traditional methods. I do think people have asked for a new sustainable system, which is plausible. I agree with you on this part of your post. Its very easy to romanticize hard labor, until you actually perform it. Though I dont advocate the complete obsolescence of these 'traditional' methods either. There is always something to learn.

[red cat]

Take a look at this.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4405362

EDIT: More links:

http://www.sos-arsenic.net/english/mitigation/1.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.sos-arsenic.net/english/mitigation/1.html)

http://archive.deccanherald.com/Decc...202004/d20.asp (http://www.anonym.to/?http://archive.deccanherald.com/Deccanherald/oct202004/d20.asp)

[pranabjyoti]

'Go back to tradinitional and organic methods'? Why? That means going back to day-long backbreaking agricultural toil and subsistence farming -- things which dominate too much of agricultural production in the developing world as it is
Go back to organic, but not TOTALLY TRADITIONAL METHOD. There are ways, by which we can apply modern technology in a much more environment friendly way.

Why would any socialist support going 'back to traditional methods'? People in the developing world certainly don't support that. They want what we have in the West. They desperately want modernisation. It is only middle-class Westerners who romanticise poverty and backwardness in the developing world -- while they themselves, of course, enjoy their materially privileged lifestyles.
Thinking about the future of mankind isn't "middle class" romanticism. The future of humanity is much more important than the "need" of the third world peasants, even if they constitute the maximum part of the mankind. What we have to formulate is to way of high-technology and environment friendly way of agriculture. Even with traditional method, both productivity and quality has increased in the "collective farm" method. The news, with which this thread is started is an example. I want to assure you that this isn't a day-dream, IT CAN BE POSSIBLE.

Like ComradeOm has patiently eplained, poor countries need access to the most advanced modern agricultural methods presently available to mankind. Only in such a way can they begin freeing themselves from the dominance of agricultural toil and begin developing their societies in other ways.
Actually they need MORE advanced method than MOST advanced method of present days. The world environment can not coup up with MODERN technology all over the world.

Capitalism stands in the way of this (and environmentalists, by opposing development and upholding 'traditional methods', are apologists for the poverty that capitalism creates). That's why we need socialism.
NO SOCIALISM CAN BE ACHIEVED BY DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT. Kindly try to understand that "modern technology", "increase in production" are not in the opposite pole of "environment friendly". There are ways and I want to say that, if someone wants any idea, I myself is ready to help them with suggestions in this regard. THIS IS POSSIBLE.

And, BTW, the eco-nonsense being supported in this thread was precisely the kind of stuff that Marx and Engels in their day over and again fought against and ridiculed. In response to the nature-worshipping crap of Daumer, for example, Marx made his position very clear:

"modern natural science ... with modern industry, has revolutionised the whole of nature and put an end to man’s childish attitude towards nature ... For the rest, it would be desirable that Bavaria’s sluggish peasant economy ... should at last be ploughed up by modern cultivation and modern machines."
Marx, on another of his writings, supported the idea that "what we take from nature have to return back" and clearly said that this is one of the basic reason why we need to abolish the difference between cities and villages". Lenin himself is very fond of "white coal" i.e. hydro power, the most environment friendly electricity generation technology of that time. If he and Stalin are alive still today, I am sure that USSR will be leading producer of non-conventional electricity.
Man, the poor aboriginal people of India and other part of the world live much more closely to nature and their urge to protect nature if FAR MORE THAN "MIDDLE CLASS NATURE ROMANTICS" and they are the lions share of human kind and know well what is good for the human kind than you and me. Before making any judgment, kindly go to them and try to understand what they REALLY want.

[Vanguard1917]

Go back to organic.

Despite the fact that 'organic' food production will not be able to provide even a fraction of the food that modern methods can provide? Despite the fact that 'organic' methods are far less efficient and necessitate far more labour time than modern means, thus requiring those in poor countries to focus even more of their energies on agricultural production?

It was Marx who said that "all economy ultimately reduces itself" to the "economy of time":

"The less time the society requires to produce wheat, cattle etc., the more time it wins for other production, material or mental. Just as in the case of an individual, the multiplicity of its development, its enjoyment and its activity depends on economization of time."

If it was down to you, the bulk of our time would be spent toiling on 'organic' farms just so that we can produce the basic products needed for our survival.



Thinking about the future of mankind isn't "middle class" romanticism.


No, but celebrating backwardness is.



The world environment can not coup up with MODERN technology all over the world.

That's your eco-thesis. It isn't backed up by reality. And, most seriously of all, it serves to justify backwardness and poverty in the developing world -- i.e. the things which bring misery to the lives of millions of the world's poor.



NO SOCIALISM CAN BE ACHIEVED BY DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT


No one said anything about destroying the environment. On the contrary, i pointed out that modern methods actually help relieve pressure on the land by making agricultural production more efficient.



Marx, on another of his writings, supported the idea that "what we take from nature have to return back"


Marx said that backward farms should "at last be ploughed up by modern cultivation and modern machines". That's a million miles away from the 'organic and traditional methods' being promoted here.


Lenin himself is very fond of "white coal" i.e. hydro power, the most environment friendly electricity generation technology of that time. If he and Stalin are alive still today, I am sure that USSR will be leading producer of non-conventional electricity.

Lenin said that socialism means soviet power and the electrification of the entire country. That was one of his key arguments as a leader of the Bolshevik government. As such, he called for the building of networks of power plants throughout Russia -- particularly in its most backward, cut off and rural areas --in order to aid industrialisation and thus socialist development.

Today, Western environmentalist NGO activists go around the 'third world' trying presuade governments not to build power stations. The Marxist tradition and that of modern environmentalism are diametrically opposed to one another.

[bcbm]

No, but celebrating backwardness is.

That's your eco-thesis. It isn't backed up by reality. And, most seriously of all, it serves to justify backwardness and poverty in the developing world -- i.e. the things which bring misery to the lives of millions of the world's poor.

Marx said that backward farms should "at last be ploughed up by modern cultivation and modern machines". That's a million miles away from the 'organic and traditional methods' being promoted here.

looks like you missed it the last time around:


There are ways, by which we can apply modern technology in a much more environment friendly way.

What we have to formulate is to way of high-technology and environment friendly way of agriculture.

Kindly try to understand that "modern technology", "increase in production" are not in the opposite pole of "environment friendly".

[Jacobinist]

"No one said anything about destroying the environment. " Vanguard

Yet, that is what you are actually asking for by calling environmental concerns; 'middle class romanticism.'

Another thing, whats up with all these kids with laptops connected to high speed internet wi-fi service complaining about 'middle class romanticism.' I mean, chances are, if you have enough time to come online to post on Revleft, you're not doing too bad yourself (ie you're not a starving 3rd-world peasant). Stop being delusional, YOU ARE THE BOURGEOIS.

Fuck.:confused:

[CartCollector]

Instead of saying "this will work, and this won't work, just because I say so" why don't we analyze the benefits and problems of actual agricultural techniques? It would be much better than arguing about agriculture as a whole without knowing anything about the techniques used.

I'll go first:

Conservation buffers (planting trees and grasses on the edges of croplands)
Pros: prevent soil erosion and nutrient runoff into waterways, sequester carbon
Cons: effort needed to plant trees and grasses, buffers can cut into cropland and reduce short term yield
Suggestion: balance needs to be struck that prevents soil erosion and nutrient runoff yet doesn't cut into cropland too much, perhaps use a marginal analysis?

Methane capture:
Pros: can create fuel from animal waste, prevents methane from being released into the atmosphere, reduces labor used to remove animal waste
Cons: large (>$10,000) upfront cost, gas captured from waste contains toxic and explosive gases
Suggestion: too expensive and risky

There's some more ideas here:
http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/ag.html
http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/carbonsequestration.html

Thoughts?

[Sendo]

Methane capture:
Pros: can create fuel from animal waste, prevents methane from being released into the atmosphere, reduces labor used to remove animal waste
Cons: large (>$10,000) upfront cost, gas captured from waste contains toxic and explosive gases
Suggestion: too expensive and risky


Seoul has a power plant which uses methane from household garbage.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm sorry VG1917, but I think you are suffering from a serious lack of imagination - heavy tillage farming methods are energetically inefficient, waste incredible amounts of water, deplete natural soil fertility, are usually monocultural with all the negative biodiversity impacts that implies, create pollution through run-off, contribute to desertification, are unsustainably fertilised, and are usually propped up by economic subsidies anyway.

There are alternatives, and they don't require us to return to the rural idiocy of subsistence farming. There are zero-tillage farming methods such as perennial polyculture, subterranean irrigation systems that reduce water wastage dramatically, and vertical farms which can greatly increase the productive capacity of land area without depleting it or requiring intensive use of fertilisers and pesticides.

Even with systems like permaculture, while I do not agree with the philosophies that are all too often behind them, have some valuable lessons which we should be willing to learn from and apply to our agricultural methods.


Seoul has a power plant which uses methane from household garbage.

Can't methane also be derived from sewage as well? Considering the amounts that civilisation produces on a daily basis, it's potentially a huge source of energy, as well as being carbon neutral. Solids can also be extracted and used as fertiliser, if I recall.

I think it's especially important to develop such sustainable methane-capture systems in the light of climate change and limited fossil fuel supplies. Anything you can make with crude oil, you can make with methane. Methane-capture systems will also have far lower transportation costs, since the methane will be processed and collected fairly close to where the waste was originally produced, and can be piped to wherever it's needed.

[pranabjyoti]

I myself have an idea. It is about vertical farming. I want the floors of the vertical structures to be made with opaque plastic and want to introduce carbon-di-oxide into the chambers at relatively high pressure. If possible, covering all side with highly reflective surface and lighting a light-source, which can produce light of that range of wavelength, that will be most suitable for photosynthesis. Those lights can be lit with high efficiency solar cells. Thus we can enhance food production by forcing the plants to suck more carbon and converting them into our food. In this process, there would be much less possibility of any kind of pest attack, because almost no insect in this world can coup up with that level of carbon-di-oxide. Moreover, this high level of carbon will make the life cycle of the plant quicker and we can get the results in much less time.
I KNOW WELL THAT THERE ARE PROBLEMS ATTACHED WITH THIS MODEL AND I ALSO HAVE SOME IDEA ABOUT HOW TO COUP UP WITH THE PROBLEMS. But, that will make this post unnecessarily large.

[red cat]

But lots of carbon dioxide might kill the plants as well.

[pranabjyoti]

But lots of carbon dioxide might kill the plants as well.
Plants like carbon-di-oxide, when there is light. During the dinosaur era, the continents were moving rapidly and for that reason, volcanoes were much more active than today. For that reason, % of CO2 in atmosphere is higher than that of today and thus the world was greener too than. Due to this high level of CO2, % of oxygen in atmosphere was also higher and that together give birth to big giants of that time.

[red cat]

Plants like carbon-di-oxide, when there is light.

But there is a limit to that. They also require oxygen for respiration. Even though oxygen is released due to photosynthesis, maintaining a high carbon dioxide density in the chamber will result in inefficient re-absorption of oxygen and the plants might die due to that.

[Vanguard1917]

There are alternatives, and they don't require us to return to the rural idiocy of subsistence farming.


I'd be very happy for us to try them. I have no special interest in any one type of agricultural production. What concerns me is what is going to bring about the most and the best -- the highest quantity of output at the highest quality possible, with as little labour time as possible.

I'm all for innovation and new and better techniques. What i can have no time for, however, is the outright celebration of backwardness that some posters here are openly promoting.

[CartCollector]

Seoul has a power plant which uses methane from household garbage.

I was thinking from the perspective of the Naxalites. According to this source, (http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/anaerobic.html) anaerobic digesters (the devices that convert waste to methane) cost anywhere from $100,000 to $300,000. I don't think the Naxalites have that kind of money. But yeah, they're great, if you can afford them.

[pranabjyoti]

But there is a limit to that. They also require oxygen for respiration. Even though oxygen is released due to photosynthesis, maintaining a high carbon dioxide density in the chamber will result in inefficient re-absorption of oxygen and the plants might die due to that.
Plants require much less oxygen than us and in presence of light, plants will comparatively quickly turn the carbon-di-oxide density into oxygen density. Ivan Michurin, the famous Soviet horticulturist liked low, covered lands for plant growths because that can trap carbon-di-oxide better than open lands. Certainly this kind of processes need experiments and the level of carbon-di-oxide should be monitored.

[Jacobinist]

Actually, you need oxygen and so do all other heterotrophs for cellular respiration, but autotrophs (plants) thrive on CO2; where they'll use it up in their calvin cycle, and thus release the oxygen we use for celluar respiration. This makes us ever more dependent on natural photosynthesis. It is also believed that most of our oxygen was initially created by the revolutionary process as well.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=where-did-the-earths-atmo

[pranabjyoti]

Actually, you need oxygen and so do all other heterotrophs for cellular respiration, but autotrophs (plants) thrive on CO2; where they'll use it up in their calvin cycle, and thus release the oxygen we use for celluar respiration. This makes us ever more dependent on natural photosynthesis. It is also believed that most of our oxygen was initially created by the revolutionary process as well.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=where-did-the-earths-atmo
Yes, it is true. When there was no life on Earth, there was no oxygen. The atmosphere was full of carbon-di-oxide, Methane, Ammonia and water vapor. It was the initial algae, that first created oxygen by consuming carbon-di-oxide. Plants still holds that capability.