<snip>
I also draw a distiction between agriculture and gardening (into which I
class much subsistance "farming"), because these activities are obviously
categorically different in their approach to food production, in much the
same way that hunter-gatherer approaches are. I am not particularly
interested in a discussion of these views because it doesn't matter whether
or not people on the list agree on them. It would be fine with me if they
persist in the hypothesis that it is possible to develop a sustainable
agriculture, and then work toward it. This will buy a little time and
maybe
there will be more resource left for nature to use to regenerate when the
human population abruptly crashes. If we are very crafty in the pretense
that there can be a sustainable agriculture, we might even situate an
adequate breeding population of our own species so that it will survive and
be able to sustain itself, presumably regenerating the cycle of destruction
in another 10,000 years or more, depending on how much "civilization" we
preserve. The less civilization, the longer the interval. >>
Hi Dan -
I'm not sure that I'm understanding you correctly. Are you really saying
that it is unrealistic to think one can develop sustainable ag and then
work toward it? I thought that was the vision of this list...? If not
that, then what? Or is it all just hopeless clinging on with our
fingernails til the end comes? Also, it seems that you brush off
small-scale farming rather brusquely, when it might indeed be the solution
that meets your conditions.... How can you be so sure there is no path that
will work, no path other than total collapse? So sure as to put down
anyone who works on any other possible path, including those practical,
psychological, political, or spiritual? This seems like quite a dark view
to be so adamant about... and different from other views I thought I
remember you espousing. Perhaps it was just a dark and stormy day the day
you wrote that email....
Best regards -
P. Dines