Re: save the world



On Fri, 2 Feb 2006, Kamal R. Prasad wrote:


Russell.Martin@xxxxxxx wrote:
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
Russell.Martin@xxxxxxx wrote:
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
Russell.Martin@xxxxxxx wrote:
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
Russell.Martin@xxxxxxx wrote:
Kamal R. Prasad wrote:

snip


Perhaps subsistence agriculture could absorb out-of-work
engineers, but the out-of-work population is much bigger than
that, even assuming that people can learn to farm successfully
overnight.


No -United States has a hell lot of land -most lying unused because the
populace managed to find jobs that are better paying than farming,
first in manufacturing and then in services.

Much of the unused land isn't suitable for agriculture.
Another reason for people to move off the farm has been
the mechanization of farming.


You can do something called "soil treatment" or build greenhouses to
fix problems. Israel is a pionneer in desert agriculture and they even
have something like ostritch farms.

Did you know that Israel gets about a $ 1 bil per year from the US just to stay out of war with Egypt? (And, Egypt gets about $2 bil per year from the US just to stay out of war with Israel?)

The land wasn't suitable -but that
was all they had, so they came up with all kinds of techniques to
overcome problems.

And, the government there probably subsidises a lot more than the US govt, here, subsidizes in the USA.

In Japan, which has a terrific space crunch, they
grow rice in trays stacked one over another.

Japan also imports a lot of food. They can't grow enough, and the govt subsidizes more of their small farmers with price supports that are dissapearing in the USA (and other countries geting on FTA deals).

They are even thinking of
building greenhouses on mars at NASA!!

We had two "biosphere" attempts both failures. Lots of effort went into them.

Think you are placed in a much
favourable situation than all of these folks.

Best farming techniques (ancient south America and Indonesia, read Jared Diamond's book) and somewhere in Tibet where they have farmed (terrace farming) for 800 years and yeilds today are as high as 800 years ago.

Slash-and-burn farming is destroying large tracts of land; you can only grow for a couple of years. There is also soil like concrete in places.

As of now, most farm hands
in the US are illegal aliens who are paid below min. wage. If they pay
$12/hr + benefits -the agricultural goods will not be competitive to
what can be imported from south of the border. The land is fertile and
unused -but the cost of living is too high to the pt of being
unsustainable -for that land to be used.
In the worst case, this is what you may want to do. I mean -if the
whole country took to farming and aimed for a simple life like the
Amish, it might reduce economic disparity and all kinds of social
problems.

That it might.

Yeah -its not so much whether the land is appropriate or not, but what
your expectations are with ref to the land.

Lie. There are lands and climates where if you want to grow anything, you have to bring in soil, greenhouses, light, and heat. Its just not practicable.

If survival is what you are
aiming for -you should be just fine. If you want farming to support the
lifestyle that many with $100K+ salaries enjoy -that may not work out.

Agribusiness has its own high level executives, making $100K+ and up, per year. Underlings make ***.



Bush is one of the pushers that enabled the addiction, so
quoting him undermines the credibility of your argument.
For Bush to bemoan oil addiction is one of the premier
hypocritical statements I've ever heard.

I get the idea that he wants to push the blame to the american public
saying that if it wasn't for the consumption of oil with all those SUVs
on the road -the country wouldn't have been in this mess i.e. he isn't
to blame for the mess in Iraq (and he could be right on that point).

We actually invaded Iraq so W could prove he was more manly
than his father. And since he claims we didn't invade Iraq for the
oil, he can't blame the invasion on the need to fuel SUVs. W

No -he didn't invade Iraq to provew that he is more manly than his
father.

Yes, he invaded Iraq for the oil and to install another "Shah of Iran" only it should "look like" democracy.

The political establishment in any capitalist country is
hostage to capital.

First of all, there are almost no countries that are not "capitalist". If you name China, then how do you explain what they are doing. If you name Russia, they are running towards money as fast as they can. Just name anyone who is not capitalist/imperialist/moneyharvesting.

Second, there will always be people with money who want favors.

Its all in the history books. Why you think this only happens in the USA?

Political parties may change, but as long as the
requirements of those with capital do not change -decisions by the
incumben aren't going to change. Before GWB Jr, Bill Clinton launced
air strikes on Saddam Hussein and perpetuated a no-fly zone. [When
asked about the invasion on CNN, Clinton mentioned that he didn't
venture into Iraq because it is a tough neighbourhood -but now that we
are there, i recommend we stay] As long as Iraq was home to the 2nd
largest oil reserves on the planet, oil companies were going to do
everything they could to get hold of it. It means that they would have
provided inducements to both Clinton and GWB Jr and elected
representatives on both sides of the fence(the bill authorizing
invasion was a bipartisan bill).

The situation gets even worse with India & China coming out of
isolation. Energy consumption in both countries is shooting up and both
of them have got their state-owned enterprises (CNOOC for china and
ONGC Videsh for India) to buy oil wells overseas, sometimes in
joint-bids. When demand increaes without increase in supply, it has a
disruptive effect on businesses and that makes it imperative either to
locate new supplies (as in Iraq) or find alternative fuels. The latter
is unreliable i.e subject to technological dveelopments -so it is
something of an economic necessity to get Iraqi oil to market and many
of those supportive of that may not have had a blood sport in mind,
when they supported it. I mean -the politician whom they bribed may
just have been incompetent and cranky to go off in a different
direction, instead of working towards that requirement.

Soon you will see a different India. More like the USA and China. Then you can blame your own country, too.

and his fellow oil pushers were more than happy to let Americans
buy gas guzzlers dispite calls by some people to require higher
mileage. The problem has been known for 30+ years.

oil supplies are tapering off -so alternative sources of energy may not
have been viable earlier, but now they are. Plus, it will become
something of a financial necessity to get over the addiction.

People will do anything to not give up their cars. Maybe they will be powered someday by springs that we will all wind up by hand.


regards
-kamal


.