From sustag@BETA.TRICITY.WSU.EDUTue Jan 31 23:05:32 1995 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 11:51:03 -0800 From: "Tom Hodges (moderated newsgroup)" To: Multiple recipients of list SUSTAG-L Subject: reply to replies (fwd) [Consider this with points raised in Jonathon's second post. TH] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 09:55:12 CST From: Frank Kutka To: sustag@beta.tricity.wsu.edu Subject: reply to replies A few days back I sent out a little note with what I hoped would be a few challenging questions to spark debate and "thinking". Instead, I have been showered with derision by the mighty defenders of consumerism and the status quo. While there are many things that are good about the status quo, that was not the issue. The issue was to think a little, which was evidently not the case. Please, when replying to challenge notes, offer up some facts or thoughts, not just knee-jerk defenses. I will offer the same. As far as my views go, as an ecologist I can tell you that there is a problem with sending all of our solar energy and mineral resources (food, etc.) to the cities where they are then sent into the sky and the waters. Our current system is a mining procedure rather than a loop. Since it is probably not feasible or sustainable to truck all of the waste products back out to all of the farms, I thought I would seek out what others thought of this large scale problem and how it might be solved. Also, city dwellers currently hold down prices that farmers are paid through a variety of political and economic means; what other group of farmers has their prices dictated? So again, is the current system feasible within a SA system? As far as living simply goes, the comments received are not looking at the economic issues involved here (consumer ethic referred to not seeing oneself as a voracious consumer, not the idea of caring for one's customers, though there is plenty to debate there). Much of SA works by lowering costs of production. If the costs of living were also reduced then the profit margin would be even larger (you could send your kids to college if you never had cable tv and saved the money). I wondered if anyone could refute this or point out an even better way to describe it. Instead the answer thus far is that current and unsustainable livestyles are not negotiable. Why not? We cannot all live like the Kennedys. If the status quo is to be so defended then how can we ask anyone to quit spraying weeds (a one shot deal) and to rotate or cultivate or to employ some other more sustainable procedure? SA is a multiple level and multiple discipline challenge, and the sociology and home economics aspects cannot be ignored. And what is so bad about how the Amish live? Do you really know how they live? I shall eagerly await the upcoming series of thoughtful and challenging replies. Peace, Frank J. Kutka, part-time Junior Scientist and farmer (218) 720-4262 fkutka@sage.nrri.umn.edu University of Minnesota Natural Resources Research Institue 5013 Miller Trunk Highway Duluth MN 55811 USA