Healthy soil and sustainable growing

["Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>]

Several writers say the population boom is due to the vast expansion in use 
of fossil fuels, beginning with coal in the Victorian era. And with the 
decline in fossil fuels relative to growing demand, population growth will 
stall out and decline. Which would make it a moot point. Others like Francis 
Moore Lappe believe the poorest, least educated populations produce the most 
children as a biological defense mechanism, and that more equitable sharing 
of resources would stop the population boom in many, many areas like 
Bangladesh for example. I subscribe to that view. 
http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC21/Lappe.htm . I don't want government control 
of the right to procreate, and don't believe it should ever be needed with 
more sustainable allocation of the world's resources. But strictly speaking, 
population control is not our subject for this list.

Dr. Bartlett points out that "the world's most serious population problem is 
right here in the U.S.  The reason for this is that the average American has 
something like 30 to 50 times the impact on world resources as does a person 
in an underdeveloped country."
http://www.state.hi.us/dbedt/ert/symposium/bartlett/bartlett.html

Our list stresses sustainable food production and related concerns, which 
deals with that bigger issue of overconsumption. Sustainable food builds 
soil, conserves freshwater resources, avoids fossil fuels almost entirely in 
crop production and distribution and in fertilizers and pesticides. On that, 
we're part of the answer, not part of the problem.

paul tradingpost@lobo.net
listowner

"The future ain't what it used to be!" -- Pogo

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 5/22/2008 at 10:44 AM mdnagel@verizon.net wrote:

>What's wrong with pointing out the obvious?
>
>Why do we pretend that nature's laws on population control (which
>ultimately translate to total overall consumption) don't apply to humans?
>
>It IS about carrying capacity.  This has nothing to do with whether one
>likes or doesn't like people.
>
>The planet's population is currently 6.5 billion.  At the turn of the 19th
>century (just over 100 years ago) it was 2 billion.
>
>I would encourage people to watch Dr. Albert Bartlett's lecture
>"Arithmetic, Population and Energy" for a holistic explanation of how all
>this interacts.  NOTE: he's given this presentation over 1,700 times.
>
>All food systems, with the exception of hunter gatherer societies (which
>are very few), require production of food at one location and the
>consumption at another (even from your backyard to your kitchen).  The
>"modern" system has managed to extend that through the use of cheap fossil
>fuels, which has resulted in, as capitalism is so good at doing,
>exploitation of environments.  As such, _some_ populations which have
>relied upon this far-reaching modern system will, as cheap fossil fuels
>decline, shrink.
>
>We talk a lot about food production and how we can reduce the energy put
>into it, but there's also the energy component that lies within that of
>food collection, processing and distribution.  And that's still a
>significant issue, one that is IMHO severely overlooked (one could say
>that these things are being externalized).
>
>I like Ken, and many here do as well, but I'm not going to let dangerous
>statements like he made slip by.  It's like touting permaculture without
>grasping/practicing the necessary cultural changes.  Responsible people,
>such as Ken, who are looked up to don't/shouldn't make wide open
>statements like this.  Dr. Bartlett would agree with me on this point.
>
>Bottom line: No matter how superior we think "our" methods are (or "we"
>are), WE CANNOT MEET THE NEEDS OF INFINITE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE.  This is the
>thinking that got us into this predicament in the first place; it needs to
>be tempered.
>
>
>-Mark Nagel
>Everett, WA
>
>
>From: Carrie Shepard <carrieshepard@yahoo.com>
>
>Mark, Mark, Mark,  how many children do you have?     In just one
>earthquake, the Chinese population has been reduced by 51,000.     My
>daughter's generation of poorly fed kids are'nt healthy enough to have
>abundant children, most of them don't want children anyway since they've
>been fed the anti-child anti-reproduction propaganda their entire public
>school lives.  Actually many in my generation -- I'm 41 -- have only had
>one, two, or no children.  I have cousins who have no children and will
>not have children, so my aunt and uncle's line is gone.  We're not even
>replacing ourselves anymore with such a low birthrate.</div>  <div> </div>
> <div>You'll have no-one who wants to eat what you grow if you continue to
>hate people so.     Those of us who have lost children, perhaps have a
>much different value system on human life,    Carrie  who grows food to
>feed PEOPLE, as many as I can, I will.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Livingontheland mailing list
>Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland