Healthy soil and sustainable growing

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

I've followed Ikerd's writings for years and I can't find where he's been 
mistaken (in my view) at any point. He's a retired professor, not paid to say 
all that, and in a perfect position to know his subject over a lifetime of 
study. He doesn't predict wholesale change at all. He only offers or outlines 
a possible future. You might go through some of his many papers to get a more 
exact picture. I could be missing something of course.

I agree with you that if it doesn't happen wholesale it won't happen. So it 
just won't happen. I work for those individuals and communties who want to do 
what they can to survive and live sustainably. Analysts have been showing how 
we've started the slide to Third World standard of living. Officially peak 
oil was 2005. It's not some time in the future. In my view the world doesn't 
want to be saved, and it's not in my job description. I don't think the 
damage is reversible either. I just want to help and be helped, and I want 
desperately to be wrong about what we see going down. That said, we mustn't 
forget to laugh.

paul tradingpost@lobo.net

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

On 2/4/2011 at 10:39 AM Pete Vukovich wrote:

>It sounds like he cares, and its a summary, but there are some pretty
>large gaps that have to be contended with. Experience teaches us if it
>doesn't happen wholesale, it doesn't happen. If half the country decides
>agricultural mining is better than farming, we will end up mining. A
>wholesale transition to this sort of living requires an army of smart
>localized farmers which takes decades to enlist. Ok we may have started
>doing that, and maybe we haven't, judging by my neck of the country we
>haven't.
>
>This sort of thinking presumes the community structure is there to support
>this way of living, and the damage that has been done is reversible which
>strikes me as wishful thinking. If such a culture exists or is beginning
>to, its more like a secret society. It also presumes an across the board
>shift in the way we do most everything, and an across the board shift in
>the way we think about everything. I can't claim I've seen everything, but
>I don't see it where I live or where I've traveled. What I see is things
>shutting down, and perhaps people will respond to a gradual collapse in
>the way he suggests. Its also possible that they will respond to gradual
>collapse with the next quick easy fix and go on accepting the next set of
>problems quick easy fixes create. I am not so good at predicting the
>future, but I'm pretty sure that stress creates change, and I know stress
>creates conflict. What it leads to seems rather incalculable.
>
>I think most of the vehicles of mass culture he talks about, including
>universities have no vested interest in long term survival at this point.
>Their own places in an emergent world are still undefined or unmoved. 
>The fact that a university professor is writing from on high about how
>societies and people must change, instead of how universities much change
>is an example which illustrates my point. The fact that a dollar is still
>a university professors metric when he knows full well a dollar is just
>ink and paper with less inherent value than tree bark where calories are
>concerned, is perhaps a better illustration. The fact that he thinks a
>stabilized population will be ok without knowing the worlds 'carrying
>capacity', is perhaps the best illustration. The fact that he still
>forsees technology as playing a serious role in it, and believes it has
>global character is the same old arrogance with new wrapping paper
>regifted to be later added to the
> rubbish heap with the rest of technologies gifts.
>
>Â If there should no longer be a center by which knowledge and culture are
>dispersed, it seems the center will need to be the first accept that, or
>the first to be cut off and ignored.
>
>Still it seems like he cares, and is probably a smart enough guy that one
>day he'll draw the conclusions he needs to, perhaps a long time after he
>no longer calls himself an economist.
>
>--- On Thu, 2/3/11, Tradingpost <tradingpost@lobo.net> wrote:
>
>From: Tradingpost <tradingpost@lobo.net>
>Subject: [Livingontheland] 2050 in America, Food and Farms of the Future
>To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
>Date: Thursday, February 3, 2011, 8:03 PM
>
>
>Similar to Winona's lecture, Ikerd sums it all up for me. See his
>mountains of papers at the other link there.
>
>paul tradingpost@lobo.net
>------------------------------------------
>
>2050 in America, Food and Farms of the Future
>(excerpts, citations on website)
>By John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics, University of
>Missouri Columbia College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources
>http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Joliet%20JC%20--%202050%20-%20Econ-Food-Farms.htm
>Many more papers and books http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/
>
>A “food revolution” is erupting all across America. Last spring Jamie
>Oliver, an outspoken British chef turned activist, called for a “food
>revolution” in America.[1] The occasion was the premier of a six-episode
>reality show on ABC Television. The premise of the show was that our
>physical health is linked directly to the foods we eat. In the first
>episode, Oliver pointed out that today’s children are the first
>generation whose members are expected to live shorter lives than their
>parents. It’s not the kids’ fault; they eat what their parents and
>other adults choose to feed them, or at least allow them to eat. Too
>often, this means whatever is cheapest, quickest, and most convenient. In
>our pursuit of quick, convenient, cheap food we are destroying the health
>of our children and the future of our nation.
>
>