User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 3:25:48 PM EDT
[#1]
I think the UN reps should give up the benefits they receive. We should take the $$$ and help starving people
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 3:27:13 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ...without industrialized farming we would be dead in the water. Mass starvation, cannibalism, TEOTWAWKI. let's not hyperventilate quite so badly. china's land area is roughly the size of the US, and they were supporting more than 300M in the early 1800s. while there would no doubt be upheaval during the transitional period due to lack of agricultural competencies among most of the population, it would be quite doable without industrialized farming.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 3:30:07 PM EDT
[#3]
For most of the countries in the UN they don't have to "go back" to subsistence farming, they're already third world dirt shitholes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 3:31:19 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the funny part is that none of them want to be the ones to do the farming. i'm reminded of the hippie "back to the land" trend from the 60s, which prompted a "back from the land" movement several years later, as urbanized hippies figured out that they didn't like the kind of manual labor that farming requires. Yep, farming Is hard work. It's stressful and nerve wracking. God bless the farmers who keep us fed and who have made the U.S. the superpower it is. When I was getting my ag degree US food budgets were running around 12%, while the rest of the industrialized world was running around 30-40%. If you don't think that matters to an economy then you are daft. I got my agronomy degree and went straight to the golf industry and I'm glad for it. I don't think that many here can grasp the horror and devastation that this idea's implementation would reap. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
i listen to this stuff all the time in my department. Yep, farming Is hard work. It's stressful and nerve wracking. God bless the farmers who keep us fed and who have made the U.S. the superpower it is. When I was getting my ag degree US food budgets were running around 12%, while the rest of the industrialized world was running around 30-40%. If you don't think that matters to an economy then you are daft. I got my agronomy degree and went straight to the golf industry and I'm glad for it. I don't think that many here can grasp the horror and devastation that this idea's implementation would reap. Just my tiny backyard garden is stressful and nerve wracking. 
I grew some cabbages and I thought something was coming in to eat them. 
It turns out that if a full-grown cabbage plant gets a heavy rain, it can absorb enough water to burst the top.  This is a picture from the internet:
The volume of knowledge that you need to garden/farm is amazing, especially if you are growing many different plants/crops. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 3:32:00 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
let's not hyperventilate quite so badly. china's land area is roughly the size of the US, and they were supporting more than 300M in the early 1800s. while there would no doubt be upheaval during the transitional period due to lack of agricultural competencies among most of the population, it would be quite doable without industrialized farming. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
...without industrialized farming we would be dead in the water. Mass starvation, cannibalism, TEOTWAWKI. let's not hyperventilate quite so badly. china's land area is roughly the size of the US, and they were supporting more than 300M in the early 1800s. while there would no doubt be upheaval during the transitional period due to lack of agricultural competencies among most of the population, it would be quite doable without industrialized farming. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 3:33:05 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
let's not hyperventilate quite so badly. china's land area is roughly the size of the US, and they were supporting more than 300M in the early 1800s. while there would no doubt be upheaval during the transitional period due to lack of agricultural competencies among most of the population, it would be quite doable without industrialized farming. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
...without industrialized farming we would be dead in the water. Mass starvation, cannibalism, TEOTWAWKI. let's not hyperventilate quite so badly. china's land area is roughly the size of the US, and they were supporting more than 300M in the early 1800s. while there would no doubt be upheaval during the transitional period due to lack of agricultural competencies among most of the population, it would be quite doable without industrialized farming. what percentage of their population were sustenance farmers? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 3:37:14 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: what percentage of their population were sustenance farmers? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: ...without industrialized farming we would be dead in the water. Mass starvation, cannibalism, TEOTWAWKI. let's not hyperventilate quite so badly. china's land area is roughly the size of the US, and they were supporting more than 300M in the early 1800s. while there would no doubt be upheaval during the transitional period due to lack of agricultural competencies among most of the population, it would be quite doable without industrialized farming. what percentage of their population were sustenance farmers? certainly much higher than the current US proportion. but the point remains that industrialized farming is not required for a nation the size of the US to support a population of 300M. it's a cultural problem, not a physical one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 3:39:12 PM EDT
[#8]
The right hand says people need to concentrate in urban centers to reduce the impact on the environment. The left hand says we need to stop industrial farming to protect the environment, which would require moving people out of concentrated urban centers.
What's a good socialist to do?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 3:40:08 PM EDT
[#9]
I decided the solution to many of today's problems are that those proposing such things should prove in a small sample that such concepts work.
And they came up with the idea, they need to prove it works. All these people saying guns cause crime and elected folks passing laws to limit what citizens can own need to go through life unarmed and without body guards. EPA says x produces y, go prove it and prove your concept will undo it. UN wants people going organic, get out from behind that desk and pick up a hand tool and get to work. Pushing for higher fuel mileage out of vehicles, you better be driving some tiny little fuel miser and not be getting chauffeured around in some suv or limo or whatever. I rather like reading about the hippies who all went to the country, and then came back. As a youngster I never knew such a thing happened. And I readily admit I prefer going to work at my job so I have cash to go spend on a gallon of milk in a jug instead of me having to milk a cow twice a day. I like being able to buy a gallon of gas for my vehicle. I like being able to buy tires for that vehicle and repair it as needed to keep it running. No way would I want to have to produce my own repair parts or tires or even a whole vehicle. And since the un likes their revolver with a know in the barrel, I don't think the un needs firearms either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 3:40:17 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
let's not hyperventilate quite so badly. china's land area is roughly the size of the US, and they were supporting more than 300M in the early 1800s. while there would no doubt be upheaval during the transitional period due to lack of agricultural competencies among most of the population, it would be quite doable without industrialized farming. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
...without industrialized farming we would be dead in the water. Mass starvation, cannibalism, TEOTWAWKI. let's not hyperventilate quite so badly. china's land area is roughly the size of the US, and they were supporting more than 300M in the early 1800s. while there would no doubt be upheaval during the transitional period due to lack of agricultural competencies among most of the population, it would be quite doable without industrialized farming. It would depend wholly on how quickly it was implemented. Humans are almost infinitely adaptable, but even so we would have to re-learn raising crops and animal husbandry all over again as a population if we were to go back to the early 1800's. Over a couple of generations would be do-able. But we wouldn't be talking about it over the internet. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 3:54:01 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
let's not hyperventilate quite so badly. china's land area is roughly the size of the US, and they were supporting more than 300M in the early 1800s. while there would no doubt be upheaval during the transitional period due to lack of agricultural competencies among most of the population, it would be quite doable without industrialized farming. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
...without industrialized farming we would be dead in the water. Mass starvation, cannibalism, TEOTWAWKI. let's not hyperventilate quite so badly. china's land area is roughly the size of the US, and they were supporting more than 300M in the early 1800s. while there would no doubt be upheaval during the transitional period due to lack of agricultural competencies among most of the population, it would be quite doable without industrialized farming. That's not a good comparison. Alaska is 800,000 square miles and very little of it is arable. If we take Alaska out of the issue, China is over 500,000 square miles larger than the Continental United States. Then there's the latitude. Central China is about the same latitude as northern Florida. The growing seasons are different. Also, China has never been known for its rural surpluses and wealth. Most of what I recall of the farming class of China is that they've been poor for thousands of years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 3:54:21 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hey UN, FUCK YOU. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 4:07:48 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your right, I simply farm 6000 acres. I have no idea what it takes to do that. Idiot. Go away. Grown ups are talking. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sure you could go back to "organic" farming, but then 40% of the population would have to work on farms. Would be better than them doing nothing and living on government handouts. All you people advocating going organic don't have the slightest clue how labor intensive that would be on a large scale, and how much food prices would necessarily rise. We would also need a massive increase in farmed acres to equal current output. I think you're the one without a clue or you work for Monsanto. Do your reasearch. Your right, I simply farm 6000 acres. I have no idea what it takes to do that. Idiot. Go away. Grown ups are talking. And who seed are you using and what fertilizer? What pesticides and herbicides? Do you receive government subsidies? Do you get paid to leave acres unplanted buy the gov? So without it you and everyone else is out of business? Have you even been looking at all the latest research? Evan monsanto has admitted that there GMO seed is not a long term solution. And while I only have 400 acres I also own a medical clinics that specialize in stomach disorders and diabetes and its amazing how many patients are cured by cutting out the modern grains! F the UN. F the organic hype! But give me locally grown food with out that crap! Give me locally raised grass feed beef butter eggs! We are just talking about rolling back the clock to the 50s and 60s we did pretty damn good before the big chemical companies tried to figure out how to make a buck off the food supply. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 4:12:44 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's not a good comparison. Alaska is 800,000 square miles and very little of it is arable. If we take Alaska out of the issue, China is over 500,000 square miles larger than the Continental United States. Then there's the latitude. Central China is about the same latitude as northern Florida. The growing seasons are different. Also, China has never been known for its rural surpluses and wealth. Most of what I recall of the farming class of China is that they've been poor for thousands of years. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: ...without industrialized farming we would be dead in the water. Mass starvation, cannibalism, TEOTWAWKI. let's not hyperventilate quite so badly. china's land area is roughly the size of the US, and they were supporting more than 300M in the early 1800s. while there would no doubt be upheaval during the transitional period due to lack of agricultural competencies among most of the population, it would be quite doable without industrialized farming. That's not a good comparison. Alaska is 800,000 square miles and very little of it is arable. If we take Alaska out of the issue, China is over 500,000 square miles larger than the Continental United States. Then there's the latitude. Central China is about the same latitude as northern Florida. The growing seasons are different. Also, China has never been known for its rural surpluses and wealth. Most of what I recall of the farming class of China is that they've been poor for thousands of years. long story short, it's doable. not optimal, but doable.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 4:15:37 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
we're talking about 200 year advantage in technology and agronomic knowledge. i get the impression that some of you are thinking that going away from industrial ag means going back to exclusively horse-pulled plows and such. long story short, it's doable. not optimal, but doable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
...without industrialized farming we would be dead in the water. Mass starvation, cannibalism, TEOTWAWKI. let's not hyperventilate quite so badly. china's land area is roughly the size of the US, and they were supporting more than 300M in the early 1800s. while there would no doubt be upheaval during the transitional period due to lack of agricultural competencies among most of the population, it would be quite doable without industrialized farming. That's not a good comparison. Alaska is 800,000 square miles and very little of it is arable. If we take Alaska out of the issue, China is over 500,000 square miles larger than the Continental United States. Then there's the latitude. Central China is about the same latitude as northern Florida. The growing seasons are different. Also, China has never been known for its rural surpluses and wealth. Most of what I recall of the farming class of China is that they've been poor for thousands of years. we're talking about 200 year advantage in technology and agronomic knowledge. i get the impression that some of you are thinking that going away from industrial ag means going back to exclusively horse-pulled plows and such. long story short, it's doable. not optimal, but doable. No shit how did we survive without BIG Gov Monsanto Dupont Wall Street!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 4:29:21 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
let's not hyperventilate quite so badly. china's land area is roughly the size of the US, and they were supporting more than 300M in the early 1800s. while there would no doubt be upheaval during the transitional period due to lack of agricultural competencies among most of the population, it would be quite doable without industrialized farming. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
...without industrialized farming we would be dead in the water. Mass starvation, cannibalism, TEOTWAWKI. let's not hyperventilate quite so badly. china's land area is roughly the size of the US, and they were supporting more than 300M in the early 1800s. while there would no doubt be upheaval during the transitional period due to lack of agricultural competencies among most of the population, it would be quite doable without industrialized farming. Yea, and the average man was something like 5' 2" and they lived on a diet of mostly rice. Do you want to live like that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 4:30:22 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yea, and the average man was something like 5' 2" and they lived on a diet of mostly rice. Do you want to live like that? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: ...without industrialized farming we would be dead in the water. Mass starvation, cannibalism, TEOTWAWKI. let's not hyperventilate quite so badly. china's land area is roughly the size of the US, and they were supporting more than 300M in the early 1800s. while there would no doubt be upheaval during the transitional period due to lack of agricultural competencies among most of the population, it would be quite doable without industrialized farming. Yea, and the average man was something like 5' 2" and they lived on a diet of mostly rice. Do you want to live like that? try to follow the conversation. edit: that was unnecessary on my part. point is, there's a difference between low standard of living and cannibalism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 4:30:28 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
certainly much higher than the current US proportion. but the point remains that industrialized farming is not required for a nation the size of the US to support a population of 300M. And many millions of acres of forest land would have to be cut down because of the decreased yield? it's a cultural problem, not a physical one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
...without industrialized farming we would be dead in the water. Mass starvation, cannibalism, TEOTWAWKI. let's not hyperventilate quite so badly. china's land area is roughly the size of the US, and they were supporting more than 300M in the early 1800s. while there would no doubt be upheaval during the transitional period due to lack of agricultural competencies among most of the population, it would be quite doable without industrialized farming. what percentage of their population were sustenance farmers? certainly much higher than the current US proportion. but the point remains that industrialized farming is not required for a nation the size of the US to support a population of 300M. And many millions of acres of forest land would have to be cut down because of the decreased yield? it's a cultural problem, not a physical one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 4:33:10 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure you could go back to "organic" farming, but then 40% of the population would have to work on farms. Then fat farms would die off, more people could fly comfortably in a plane....etc
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 4:34:21 PM EDT
[#20]
From the article...
Food security, poverty, gender inequality and climate change can all be addressed if we adopt a significant paradigm shift, according to the UN's Trade and Environment Review (TER), a 320-page report written by 63 authors from organizations around the world. They provide evidence with numerous coherent case studies and surveys.  out of
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 4:34:41 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So people would have jobs and be productive? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sure you could go back to "organic" farming, but then 40% of the population would have to work on farms. So people would have jobs and be productive? I have no problem with this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 4:36:52 PM EDT
[#22]
UN = Useless Nitwits.
We should pull down the UN building in NYC and build them a new one -- in Somalia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 4:38:59 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
try to follow the conversation. edit: that was unnecessary on my part. point is, there's a difference between low standard of living and cannibalism. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
...without industrialized farming we would be dead in the water. Mass starvation, cannibalism, TEOTWAWKI. let's not hyperventilate quite so badly. china's land area is roughly the size of the US, and they were supporting more than 300M in the early 1800s. while there would no doubt be upheaval during the transitional period due to lack of agricultural competencies among most of the population, it would be quite doable without industrialized farming. Yea, and the average man was something like 5' 2" and they lived on a diet of mostly rice. Do you want to live like that? try to follow the conversation. edit: that was unnecessary on my part. point is, there's a difference between low standard of living and cannibalism. Doesn't change what I said, do you want to live on a diet of mostly non-nutritional grain? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 4:42:09 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wouldn't prices go up and output go down? How many would starve? Sounds like they are lockstep with OBunghole's plans for America's infrastructure but on a global scale. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 4:44:44 PM EDT
[#25]
The world would starve if we went all organic. Plus, GM food grows bigger and taste better.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 4:45:50 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Doesn't change what I said, do you want to live on a diet of mostly non-nutritional grain? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
...without industrialized farming we would be dead in the water. Mass starvation, cannibalism, TEOTWAWKI. let's not hyperventilate quite so badly. china's land area is roughly the size of the US, and they were supporting more than 300M in the early 1800s. while there would no doubt be upheaval during the transitional period due to lack of agricultural competencies among most of the population, it would be quite doable without industrialized farming. Yea, and the average man was something like 5' 2" and they lived on a diet of mostly rice. Do you want to live like that? try to follow the conversation. edit: that was unnecessary on my part. point is, there's a difference between low standard of living and cannibalism. Doesn't change what I said, do you want to live on a diet of mostly non-nutritional grain? Thats what we're doing now. We need a lot less grains and more grass fed meat and vegetables. Einkorn was the original wheat still raised and used in europe. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 4:47:23 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure you could go back to "organic" farming, but then 40% of the population would have to work on farms. Maybe this wouldn't be such a bad thing? We have lots of folks that could use a regular job that gives some fulfillment for getting something done. And as far as the UN goes, even a broken clock gets the time right 2x a day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 4:50:29 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
certainly much higher than the current US proportion. but the point remains that industrialized farming is not required for a nation the size of the US to support a population of 300M. it's a cultural problem, not a physical one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
...without industrialized farming we would be dead in the water. Mass starvation, cannibalism, TEOTWAWKI. let's not hyperventilate quite so badly. china's land area is roughly the size of the US, and they were supporting more than 300M in the early 1800s. while there would no doubt be upheaval during the transitional period due to lack of agricultural competencies among most of the population, it would be quite doable without industrialized farming. what percentage of their population were sustenance farmers? certainly much higher than the current US proportion. but the point remains that industrialized farming is not required for a nation the size of the US to support a population of 300M. it's a cultural problem, not a physical one. Moving to small farms again would have to draw down the labor pool in other areas and WOULD increase food prices. We are talking about economy of scale here. A larger farm is more able to afford the cost of modern equipment and reduce their labor requirements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 4:51:13 PM EDT
[#29]
We used to do that in this country. I just witnessed a family farm close up recently. They couldn't get the help to buy all the brand new goodies the huge farms get. Fucking sad.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 4:54:49 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Moving to small farms again would have to draw down the labor pool in other areas and WOULD increase food prices. We are talking about economy of scale here. A larger farm is more able to afford the cost of modern equipment and reduce their labor requirements. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
...without industrialized farming we would be dead in the water. Mass starvation, cannibalism, TEOTWAWKI. let's not hyperventilate quite so badly. china's land area is roughly the size of the US, and they were supporting more than 300M in the early 1800s. while there would no doubt be upheaval during the transitional period due to lack of agricultural competencies among most of the population, it would be quite doable without industrialized farming. what percentage of their population were sustenance farmers? certainly much higher than the current US proportion. but the point remains that industrialized farming is not required for a nation the size of the US to support a population of 300M. it's a cultural problem, not a physical one. Moving to small farms again would have to draw down the labor pool in other areas and WOULD increase food prices. We are talking about economy of scale here. A larger farm is more able to afford the cost of modern equipment and reduce their labor requirements. But would the increase in food cost be offset by the decrease in FSA and taxes to support them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 5:08:00 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Moving to small farms again would have to draw down the labor pool in other areas and WOULD increase food prices. We are talking about economy of scale here. A larger farm is more able to afford the cost of modern equipment and reduce their labor requirements. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ... certainly much higher than the current US proportion. but the point remains that industrialized farming is not required for a nation the size of the US to support a population of 300M. it's a cultural problem, not a physical one. Moving to small farms again would have to draw down the labor pool in other areas and WOULD increase food prices. We are talking about economy of scale here. A larger farm is more able to afford the cost of modern equipment and reduce their labor requirements. you seem to be conflating nutritional demand and market demand--the two are not the same. the former would remain constant, while the latter would decrease substantially, since self-production is incentivized. IOW, if 40% of the population is self-producing food, there is a substantial reduction in market demand. this necessarily moves the curve intersection leftward. again, i deal with the agro-romantics every day in my department, and i think they're terribly naive. my point is that industrialized agriculture is not absolutely required to hold back the apocalypse. it is fundamental to the way we currently construct society, but then again so is an interventionist government. IOW, our current mode of society is not the only possible one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 5:12:11 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Doesn't change what I said, do you want to live on a diet of mostly non-nutritional grain? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ... Doesn't change what I said, do you want to live on a diet of mostly non-nutritional grain? i've already stated that is would not be optimal. however, your question is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is possible.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 5:19:01 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
+1000 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hey UN, FUCK YOU. +1000 This. I have decided that if the UN wants something, Im against it |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 5:21:31 PM EDT
[#34]
So we have people starving all over the world with big "industrial" farms pumping out produce, but local organics will make sure everyone is well-fed?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 5:22:24 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
i've already stated that is would not be optimal. however, your question is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is possible. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... Doesn't change what I said, do you want to live on a diet of mostly non-nutritional grain? i've already stated that is would not be optimal. however, your question is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is possible. Which is my point, it's doable to live in caves, but who wants to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 5:25:49 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So we have people starving all over the world with big "industrial" farms pumping out produce, but local organics will make sure everyone is well-fed? distribution and production are two different things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 5:27:07 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which is my point, it's doable to live in caves, but who wants to. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: ... Doesn't change what I said, do you want to live on a diet of mostly non-nutritional grain? i've already stated that is would not be optimal. however, your question is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is possible. Which is my point, it's doable to live in caves, but who wants to. working hard and living within one's means is hard, but who wants to? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 5:40:33 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
working hard and living within one's means is hard, but who wants to? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
...
Doesn't change what I said, do you want to live on a diet of mostly non-nutritional grain? i've already stated that is would not be optimal. however, your question is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is possible. Which is my point, it's doable to live in caves, but who wants to. working hard and living within one's means is hard, but who wants to? Not sure what your point is or what you are trying to prove. I'm done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 6:04:36 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm calling for the end of the UN. Anyone hear me? END THE U FUCKING N!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 6:43:41 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure you could go back to "organic" farming, but then 40% of the population would have to work on farms. Works for me. Everyone on welfare into the fields! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 6:44:28 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure you could go back to "organic" farming, but then 40% of the population would have to work on farms. Or starve to death... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 8:28:43 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or starve to death... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sure you could go back to "organic" farming, but then 40% of the population would have to work on farms. Or starve to death... So problems solved 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 9:32:59 PM EDT
[#43]
Guess they really do want to reduce the worlds population by 3 or 4 billion.
How are these fuckheads even credible?
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 9:46:44 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
John Ringo is a prophet. And to be honest, this is absofuckinglutely horrifying. As soon as I read the OP, "The Last Centurion" popped into my head.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 9:59:21 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But would the increase in food cost be offset by the decrease in FSA and taxes to support them? 
That's a good one. It would probably result in more people living off the government teat since a small farm would not be profitable. If it were more profitable to run a small farm than these huge ones we have now, the huge farm would not exist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2014 10:03:56 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
you seem to be conflating nutritional demand and market demand--the two are not the same. the former would remain constant, while the latter would decrease substantially, since self-production is incentivized. IOW, if 40% of the population is self-producing food, there is a substantial reduction in market demand. this necessarily moves the curve intersection leftward. again, i deal with the agro-romantics every day in my department, and i think they're terribly naive. my point is that industrialized agriculture is not absolutely required to hold back the apocalypse. it is fundamental to the way we currently construct society, but then again so is an interventionist government. IOW, our current mode of society is not the only possible one. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
... certainly much higher than the current US proportion. but the point remains that industrialized farming is not required for a nation the size of the US to support a population of 300M. it's a cultural problem, not a physical one. Moving to small farms again would have to draw down the labor pool in other areas and WOULD increase food prices. We are talking about economy of scale here. A larger farm is more able to afford the cost of modern equipment and reduce their labor requirements. you seem to be conflating nutritional demand and market demand--the two are not the same. the former would remain constant, while the latter would decrease substantially, since self-production is incentivized. IOW, if 40% of the population is self-producing food, there is a substantial reduction in market demand. this necessarily moves the curve intersection leftward. again, i deal with the agro-romantics every day in my department, and i think they're terribly naive. my point is that industrialized agriculture is not absolutely required to hold back the apocalypse. it is fundamental to the way we currently construct society, but then again so is an interventionist government. IOW, our current mode of society is not the only possible one. Ok you have 40% of the population producing their own food. You will necessarily have to take these people out of the labor pool. You would be working from sun up to sunset at least to produce all your own food. People doing this will not be available for other work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 12:53:56 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok you have 40% of the population producing their own food. You will necessarily have to take these people out of the labor pool. You would be working from sun up to sunset at least to produce all your own food. People doing this will not be available for other work. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Moving to small farms again would have to draw down the labor pool in other areas and WOULD increase food prices. We are talking about economy of scale here. A larger farm is more able to afford the cost of modern equipment and reduce their labor requirements. you seem to be conflating nutritional demand and market demand--the two are not the same. the former would remain constant, while the latter would decrease substantially, since self-production is incentivized. IOW, if 40% of the population is self-producing food, there is a substantial reduction in market demand. this necessarily moves the curve intersection leftward. again, i deal with the agro-romantics every day in my department, and i think they're terribly naive. my point is that industrialized agriculture is not absolutely required to hold back the apocalypse. it is fundamental to the way we currently construct society, but then again so is an interventionist government. IOW, our current mode of society is not the only possible one. Ok you have 40% of the population producing their own food. You will necessarily have to take these people out of the labor pool. You would be working from sun up to sunset at least to produce all your own food. People doing this will not be available for other work. exactly. consequently, the price of labor increases, which means that laborers who are not in the ag sector have even more money with which to buy reduced-price ag products.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 1:16:33 AM EDT
[#48]
Sure, why not.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 6:44:24 PM EDT
[#49]
Farming with Horses is something that I find very interesting and have been looking into..
The Amish have been florishing with their farms while small American Farms went tits up competing against large conglomerate farms. However the optimum Farm Size is 80 acres of tillable field, once it gets more than 150 acres, a tractor is more cost effective, because 150 acres is about the most that a single teamster can plow by himself, so you would need a minimum of 2 teamsters plowing anything over 150 acres. However 150 acres is much too small to do mechanized farming and be profitable Most efficient horse to use for pulling a plow is a Halflinger Horse..they are a smaller draft horse but they consume about half of the needed food required for a larger horse like a Shire Horse and they are almost as strong. In Southern States where it gets very hot and humid you are best off using a Mule since Mules withstand heat better than draft horses. Nice thing about using Horses is if you have enough pasture and land you grow their food, and Horses can replicate themselves, whereas tractors don't. This is a very impressive video of a 12 Horse Team!!! Plowing. They are pulling a Four Plow...I think the horses are Percherons . Of course with a team this big, you would need a lot of people to help. Notice the black soil... Illinois has the richest Soil in the US followed very very closely by Iowa. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2014 7:03:15 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure you could go back to "organic" farming, but then 40% of the population would have to work on farms. That would be 40% of the remaining population after 60% of the original population starved to death. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
