Healthy soil and sustainable growing

["John D'hondt" <dhondt@eircom.net>]

Sorry Paul but if we take this off list now I'm afraid of having given a 
wrong impression of what I believe.


> > Personally I don't see a point of feeding anyone who's only capacity is 
> > consuming, no matter how rich they are. I have a suspicion that the rich 
> > are not necessarily rich because they are more usefull for society. Often 
> > the contrary. Many are just better thieves and crooks.
> > And maybe Joel Salatin is not too far from this wavelenght but does not 
> > want to upset the appletarts (Irish joke).
> >
> > john
> Thanks for addressing the issue, John.
> Thanks for being patient with this off-topic, Paul.
>
> Sometimes the usefulness of a person is to teach others how to be care
> providers. Without criminals, there would be no need for cops. Without
> patients, there would be no need for caregivers.

Now this is one that could get me started.
I have been studying alternative health methods for many years and have 
come to the conclusion that most health problems rife now in our society 
could be wiped out very cheaply and easily for at least 80 %.
That this does not happen is I think because main stream health care is an 
industry that makes trillions of $$ every year and that can only keep going 
if the general population is kept sick.
So would it not make more sense to try and change this system and make 
people healthy instead of "taking care" of the sick, in many cases by hand 
feeding them the chemicals/medicines that keep them sick in the first place?

Without criminals there would be no need for cops? I have heard police men 
here say that half their coleages would be in jail if it were not for the 
fact they were police and I have seen plenty of examples with my own eyes. 
For instance a police night patrol that stole gas bottles, bags of coal and 
garden sheds almost every night until they were caught red handed. But all 
was kept quiet because they were police.
I just signed a petition against tazering pregnant women in the US. And from 
everything I read I think that more inocent civilians are killed by police 
in the US than by criminals?

> There is a whole
> spectrum in between when society creates and devalues unemployed people,
> rather than considering the creation of a baby because one is needed. We
> can evaluate population growth as a corporate wage control tool just as
> the H1B visa is a wage deflation tool.

I never said I was against feeding the unemployed. I have been unemployed 
myself but at the time we were living in a suburb with many poor old age 
pensioners and we had a neighborhood group that would do all kinds of small 
repair jobs for free. We wall papered and fixed leaking roofs and pipes 
(many, many after severe frost), cut lawns, did shopping, moved furniture 
and repaired wheel chairs to name a few things. In a very short time you get 
a reputation for being quite good with the hands and then the bell never 
stops.
What I am absolutely alergic too is "consumers", people who have been told 
and believe they deserve an easy life with food and plasma TV EVEN if they 
pay for it with money they legally made. Just because you have a lot of 
money or no money at all does not mean you should not try to build a better 
wind turbine or a way to purify water or think hard about a unified theory 
of physics or invent a better cheese press or .... Although you would be 
hard pressed to invent a better one than the one I came up with when we 
first started making hard cheese here :)
Know what I mean? Everybody but everybody should have some goal in life to 
improve even the tiniest aspect of life in general. If there is nothing at 
all then you are a "consumer" in my book and it would be a better world if 
you were not on it.
john

> The point to feeding someone who isn't 'productive' must be carefully
> considered. The parameters we use to determine if someone is useful to
> the future are presently couched in terms of The Economy, and that is
> very dangerous. People are dependent upon being part of society (in
> general...there are a few exceptions). Society is dependent upon how we
> treat other people. Problems arise when the overhead of society in
> general exceeds the usefulness of society toward its own future. We
> currently feed everyone with the labors of less than 2% of the
> population, so feeding people who don't currently contribute isn't a
> factor of need, but of social custom. The main problem is that we don't
> even look at whether people are contributing more than they consume, let
> alone consider how to live so that they would have to or be taught to.
> I don't buy the half a billion number, but I don't think we can feed 7
> billion sustainably..though it isn't seriously being considered by the 7
> billion. The population of the Americas was very high before Columbus
> showed up, and modern information from science and social studies could
> mean that humans can become an intentional part of the biomass (though I
> see little hope of it). The current high overhead of energy consumption
> is very misleading because our choices of technology take the easiest
> route, which is rarely the sustainable one (every skidloader we see
> working in construction puts 20 people out of a job, and it only creates
> 1/10th of a job to make one).
>
> I'll try to leave this topic alone now, Paul.
> Anyone who wants to continue the discussion can send me an email directly.
>
> Dan
> Belgium, WI
>
> _______________________________________________
> Livingontheland mailing list
> Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland