Subject: Re: indicators of sustainability?

From: [email-masked] (Torsten Brinch)
Date: 2 Feb 1995 20:05:02 GMT

In Article <[email-masked]> Tracy Aquilla wrote:

>In Article <[email-masked]> Bob Breivogel wrote: 

>>In the case of farming, I think that sustainable *means * that the land will
>>maintain its output, given *present* level of inputs, indefinitely. This means
>>that Having to add ever increasing level of fertizers amd pesticides to stay
>>where we are is nonsustainable. Organic farmers have shown that soil quality

>Then agriculture can never be sustainable, particularly with the population
>growing the way it is. The main problem is that the present level of output
>isn't enough to provide for population growth. <SNIP>

Bob Breivogel suggest, that a sustainable agricultural system necessarily
must be able to maintain its output with input remaining constant.
I fully agree.

It may be true, that the main problem (in world?) is population growth, 
anyway I think bringing it  up here is diverting the thread.
Even a stable population needs a sustainable agricultural system. 

Bob Breivogel's (ability to maintain output)-sustainability 
and Tracy Aquilla's (ability to sustain growing population)-sustainability 
differ, but are both accepted ways of using the word sustainability. 
The Internet Lingo is not native to me, I had to check Webster's. :-) 

>>improves when chemical agriculture is replaced with "organic" methods. One
>>does trade off greater labor costs (organic) for chemical/fuel costs (non

>And yields?

>>organic), but labor is inherently "sustainable" (available indefinitely,
>>as long as people exist), while chemicals are not. 

>When the people are all gone (if ever), there will still be 'chemicals'!
>    Tracy

True, everything is chemicals. There have always been chemicals, there 
always will be. True, but very shallow thinking. 

Bob Breivogel suggests, that the replacement of agrochemicals with labor
in organic farming  leads to less non-sustainability. Every mouth 
has two arms. We may run out of agrochemicals or the means to produce or
use them, but we will never run out of hands, seems to be the reasoning.  
 
I tend to agree. But I think that the  use of agrochemicals, as we know 
it, agriculturally is non-sustainable mainly because it interferes with 
the possibility of maintaining a healthy soil.  
Maybe it could be stated: 

The number of pesticide-treatments/acre is a (crude) indicator for 
non-sustainability of agricultural systems.

;''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''';
; Torsten Brinch               If you understand nothing but chemistry, ;
; [email-masked]          you do not really understand chemistry.  ;
; 6640, Ferup, Denmark                   G.C. Lichtenberg  (1742-1799)  ;
:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;