DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
Nice strawman!
Would you mind just pointing to the post that proposes we revert to 'subsistance' farming?
Is it wrong to eat animals that are clever?
- Thread starter Orang Utan
- Start date
Nice strawman!
Would you mind just pointing to the post that proposes we revert to 'subsistance' farming?
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
Do we really need to start flicking through Enid Blyton stories to find a reference to farming?
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
That looks a pretty idyllic representation of a farm. Barely relatable to todays industrial agri-business that feeds the supermarkets.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
one book. one obscure book. out of more than 100 she wrote. grand.
That looks a pretty idyllic representation of a farm. Barely relatable to todays industrial agri-business that feeds the supermarkets.
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
You are woefully ignorant of the realpolitik of feeding 7.125 billion people.
The food industry needs to be diverse but it also needs to be industrialised.
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
She, as has been stated, based most her work in the countryside. Which, you'll find has a fair bit of farm land.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
or not feeding them, as the case may be.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yeh. so did thomas hardy.
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
I'm not saying you have. Just cautioning against it generally.
..and, yes, I agree with you about the River Cottage type shit infesting the ideas and practise of small scale sustainable food production. Doesn't mean it's useless though.
fredfelt
Mostly unknown member
In that case why do you have an interest?
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
I can't even remember why we're arguing over this.
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
Feeding 7.125 billion people primarily through mass industrialised food production will be significantly harmful to the environment.
Now, if the alternative is famine, then yeah you have to harm the environment.
However I don't believe for a second that all of the food for all of the 7.125 billion people needs to come from industrial methods or even that that is the most efficient way of doing it.
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
the beauty of the internet is you no longer need to recall the reason for a beef, you just scroll up to remind yourself
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
Why is that?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
and if the ug99 or some other plant rust gets to india and china and mutates...
seventh bullet
sovietwave
It's useless to a lot of people's lives. Largely because of the practicalities involved, and access (time, where you live, knowledge etc) not necessarily because of a lack of agreement on how capitalist society operates. And skills. But you aren't going to learn unless you have the opportunity...
The funny thing is that people who live this way do so within an industrialised capitalist society, and their relatively okay position in it allows them to indulge. The moralising stuff is a part of this. Mind you, for such people I do have 'Stalinist' solutions. If the hippies really want to work the land, then that can be arranged after the revolution.
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
As I said diversification is needed. Particularly for populations, including urban settings to be self sufficient. For instance in the case of Havana. But it would be naive in the extreme to think we could have a redundant and ultimately resilient food source without major industrialisation of food production.
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
Why do we have over 7 billion mouths to feed?
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
Don't hugely disagree, except to point out - again - that mass industrialisation of food production can, and has, led to the loss/destruction of sustainable, local food production. It's not a panacea. It should be used sparingly to plug the gaps that more small scale, self-sufficient production can't fill.
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
No.
Why are they hungry?
..and why do we have to feed them? (as opposed to being able to feed themselves).
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
Which is why we need redundant and resilient global food production.
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
I'm using 'we' as in, us, as a species.
We need this redundant food source to ensure food for global shortages that will occur for innumerable reasons. Changes in climate, conflict, disease etc.
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
The ability to produce sufficient food if one part (or more) of your production fails. For instance if as Pickman's model mentioned earlier about a spreading disease. We should have the mechanisms to effective and efficiently feed the world if a major catastrophe occurred.
What could this look like? I would suggest we become self sufficient as is feasible within communities, exploit urban spaces for food production. But it would be necessary to have industrial arable farming maintained, to a degree, to play a responsible role in global needs.
I would also say if we stopped eating meat we could easily feed the world without extreme environmental impact.
Last edited:
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
Thanks.
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
We are in a interesting time as a global civilisation regarding meat eating. Global food distribution now means most people could prosper without eating meat. Deep rooted cultural norms of animal consumption needs to be challenged. Greater numbers of people are being more exposed to different cultures and ideas via the Internet, that could play a role. Although I am aware of the hopes some people had in 19th century after the creation of the telegraph system. Believing it could prevent wars and other societal ills. When in reality it was used to conduct wars and for rudimentary sexting between operators.
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
Global food distribution now means some rich people getting richer. It means you can get a Coke (for a price) in famine prone Sudan, but not clean drinking water. Most people globally don't eat that much meat anyway I wouldn't have thought. Meat is irrelevant to whether they prosper or not I reckon.
China (The racist twats) are catching up with the USA in overconsumption of meat
China Continues to Eat More and More Meat—and That Matters for Everyone
China Continues to Eat More and More Meat—and That Matters for Everyone
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
Indeed, I am imagining a different global economic system. As for meat consumption, the developed world eats the most. If economic constraints were removed I predict most of the world would catch up with meat consumption. Culturally we are obstructed with meat being associated with eating well, being prosperous etc.
Similar threads
