[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Mechanized agriculture (was Re: Cities/rural--resources (was Yuri receives hypocrite of the week award)



dietz@interaccess.com (Paul F. Dietz) wrote:

>Les Cargill <lcargill@ods.com> wrote:
>
>>It is/was not possible to have the kind of per-acre yeilds that now
>>support us without the use of fertilizer chemistry and mechanized
>>farming.
>
>I agree with the fertilizer part, but is mechanization really
>necessary for high yields?  It certainly reduces the *cost* of
>food in countries with reasonably high labor cost.

I have seen no studies which address this question specifically, but
would be inclined to agree that you are correct.  I believe we can
have high yields without mechanization, but, as you note, with labor
costs what it is in a mechanized society, I suspect the two will be
intertwined.

I wonder if it may not be the case that, with a nonmechanistic culture
people are valued less, since many do what a machine could do faster
and better, if there was only the capital required to obtain the
machine?

Regards, Harold
----
"Trade is the natural enemy of all violent passions.  Trade loves 
moderation, delights in compromise, and is most careful to avoid anger.  
....  Trade makes men independent of one another and gives them a high 
idea of their personal importance: it leads them to want to manage their 
own affairs and teaches them to succeed therein.  Hence it makes them 
inclined to liberty but disinclined to revolution."
	---Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. 2, pt. 3, 
	ch. 21 (1840).


References: