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

Re: John Hagelin: Old vs New Approach in Agriculture



"B. McClinton" <b.mcclinton@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote:


>I've seen stats similar to these as well. But this doesn't change 
>the fact these same third world children are also lucky to make past age 
>five. This will also not do much to save natural areas in these countries 
>from being plowed for food production. This is already happening with the 
>deforestation of rainforests in Central and South America for farmland. 
>Habitat loss is the biggest threat to wildlife. 

>Malthusian predictions about resource depletion have never been realized 
>because an alternative resource were always found. For example, we no 
>longer need copper wires to transmit telephone signals, glass fibres and 
>free air are being used as well. The same will eventually happen with 
>fossil fuel use as well as other energy sources become relatively more 
>economical.

	Malthus did not reject the idea of technological fixes. Rather he for
saw a point where the fixes would no longer correct the problem. His
solution for this was restraint. In other words a moral birth control.
Being a minister hecould not countenance artifical controls, but
morality fit right in.

	The problem with technology is the fact that we can no longer depend
on tech. fixes. The reason England in the 19th century could supply
enough food from a fixed amount of land was through better management.
This was the period where "enclosure" was introduced. By this means,
land was no longer tilled in small plots by peasants but rather in
fields under the guidance of managers. As well the four field system
was put in place where one field would grow grain crops, another feed
cattle, another root crops and another lie fallow.

	The problem with this system was that the rural peasantry was evicted
>from  their small*common* holdings and suffered for it. It was proven
through studies that for a period of time the general health of the
rural poor dropped  in quality.

	I should point out that Malthus was against welfare to the poor as he
felt that it only encouraged them to have children. His feeling was
that only enough should be given to keep the indigents alive.

	As well at this time, it should be noted that the English government
did not subsidise research or commercial endeavours. A feeling of
*everything goes* predominated. So rather then depend on government
handouts, people were required to make their own way. This is harsh
but desirable from a stand point of government fiscal responsibility.

	So, perhaps what we should be doing, rather then hoping for an 11th
hour solution through science, is to take a hard look at how we
produce food now. Perhaps it is time for another form of *enclosure*.
This is not a pleasent pill to swallow, but none the less a possibly
necessary one.

	I should point out that Malthus felt there were two other ways to
control population levels. Disease and vice, meaning war. A sobering
thought.

	Peter

The use of the above address for unsolicited advertising mail
will result in you finding out why I'm called The Evil One




References: