[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: British Beef Situation
In article <4l8uh2$k4a@mars.efn.org>,
aer@efn.org (YAA (Yet Another Al)) wrote:
>Jiva Goswami dasa <JivaGo@ACSWORLD.NET> wrote:
>
>>Bob Yates wrote:
>
>
>>The USA alone can
>>feed the world (Yes, even if you skip the roads). The problem is greed and
>>lack of cooperation.
>
>There is also the question of WHY the US *should* be forced to
>take on the responsibility of feeding the world.
>
Not only that, but this also assumes that the current method of producing food
in the United States is SUSTAINABLE for the long term (and I mean long term -
50 to 100 years more) which it is NOT. We are using up ground water faster
than replacing it, and turning rich farmland into dust that is, essentially, a
holder for the 'hydroponic solutions' of fertilizer and water.
We cannot continue to farm and produce food like this. It will kill us all.
But how do we change? Tell a farmer "Well, you can only grow half as much as
your neighbors because you've got to preserve the land."? He/she will laugh
at you - a farm has mortgages, taxes, etc. too.
I know that yields using organic growth techniques are as high as those using
chemicals HOWEVER during the transition period they are NOT - the land must be
able to recover from the damage done to it, and the farmer must learn organic
techniques.
Further, what do we do about the groundwater exhaustion?
>Each part of the world should be responsible for feeding and
>caring for its own population. Creating huge elaborate food
>creation and distribution organizations is not the answer.
>
I agree completely with that as well.
Nathan R
----------------------------
(Since Sue Ford could trademark her name with a TM, I decided to register mine.
Then I realized that I was already registered with selective service. Then I
realized that "R" following a name usually designated royalty - a la Rex from
Latin - George R, Elizabeth R. Naturally I decided I would then adopt that. So
now I can just say:)
"We are NOT amused."
Follow-Ups:
References: