Re: save the world

Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
[snip]

I don't disagree that there might be more to it than what meets the
eye. I just haven't found out that magic recipe that entitles americans
to a higher std of living. They say it is agriculture and when I
suggested that they go back to farming -they say the land is not
suitable in most parts of the country for that.

That is such a gross mischaracterization of what I wrote as to
constitute virtually an outright LIE!. The U.S. has historically
gained significanty wealth from its agriculture, and continues
to do so. That does not mean that your average urban American

think again

I have thought and based my thinking on facts, unlike you
have in your comments about subsistence agriculture.

.. if you say that americans are wealthy because they have
inherited by historical accident a huge piece of arable land (your
words)

That was only a portion of my words. As I have pointed out
repeatedly there are many factors. Certainly good agricultural
resourses has been one, but not the only one.

-then shouldn't it be possible for all americans to go back to
farming and continue living that way -unaffected by globalization and a
shift of industries?

That comment is so completely out of touch with facts I'm
left almost speechless. The U.S. now has 300 million people.
The U.S. was feeding a population of more like 50 million or
less during the times when agricultural technology was at
the levels to which you propose returning! Your idea is as
wrong as suggesting that since at one point in time humans
in India lived without the wheel, tomorrow you all could
certainly go back to living without wheels just fine.


can go off and earn a living on a subsistence farm, because
they don't know how to any more than you do, as you've shown
in great depth with your ridiculous posts on the subject. And

if someone doesn't know a trade -he can be educated about it.

Not before he'd starve to death if you just put him out in
a field with some seeds and rudimentary tools.

But to
produce incredible amounts of wealth through farming -you do need a lot
of arable land. The land is a necessary condition and the skill is the
sufficient condition.

there isn't enough good land for the poor productivity of
subsistence farming too feed everyone, which is not due to the
lack of good farm land on the whole, but due to the primitive
agricultural techniques of subsistence farming. If every one of
the 6 billion people on Earth followed your suggestion, billions
of them would starve. And yes, a significant portion of the U.S.,

they would have to follow my suggestion if they wanted a higher std of
living for themselves without being a lot more productive and without
sitting on a ton of natural resources.

Which suggestion is that?

I keep hearing from the Keatings
and what not about how globalization is affecting their std of living
and is a race to the bottom. But I havem't a clue of what entitled them
to a higher std of living than anybody else in the first place. Is it a
divine decree by any chance?

I don't speculate about divinity. However it is tautologically
history.
Have you not read Diamond yet, despite many positive comments
about his books by Art and myself? Or _The Birth of Plenty_
which I have also recommended as a source of historical
perspective on the basis of Western economic development?
Your paradigm is out of date.


such as mountains, isn't suitable for farming, but that's the case
in most countries.

In the himalayas, they do terrace farming and at more than 5000 ft
above sea level, they grow apples. The land is unsuitable for many
types of agricultural produce, but there is always some type of crop
that can be transplanted without a historical precedent to yield a good
harvest.

Yes, but that farming system, including the infrastructure, evolved
over many generations, just like similar farming in the Andes, and
you can not just plop a bunch of modern, urban people in the
mountains with a hoe and some seeds and say, "Here, grow your
own food". Some of them can't keep a house plant alive in their
apartments. And some parts of mountains are just bare rock
and totally unsuitable for growing anything. If they could grow
anything they would not be bare rock!



If you have any honor you'll apologize for shameful rhetorical
abuse.


Im not trying to indulge in rhetoric -and Im sorry if I sounded that
way.

Maybe it's just your style. You'll pardon me if I withhold
judgement.

But will you ever get to answering the bigger question about what
entitles you to a better std of living

I already have, on more than one occasion IIRC. My position
is it is not a question of being "entitled". Your paradigm is
wrong. You are asking the wrong question. It happened. It
is history. It was due to the combination of natural resources
and conditions, and human innovation in technology, and
evolution of societal structures, and probably other things I've
forgotten.

or what finances the american
consumer's import binge?

Overused credit. Have I ever suggested otherwise? No.
Have I ever said that I thought it is a good idea? No.


[snip]

Nonsense. Most of the basic inventions known to mankind originated in
Asia.

That's an irrelevant historical accident.


If we could invent stuff in the past, there is good reason to believe
we can do it again.

Various primates also have invented tools. The latest
research shows that gorillas do it. These species or their
(and our) ancestors were probably doing it in Africa millions
of years ago. Certainly our ancestors were doing it in Africa
a million years ago. So I'd say we can all do it. Have I ever
suggested otherwise? No. I think the question you should
be asking is since you can do it, why haven't you been
doing it?

The label of being parasitic on the west's inventions

Did I ever say that? No.

may not hold true for long -on account of that.

It may not hold because things change. If your argument is
that things change, I doubt if you'll get much disagreement
from anyone familiar with history.

Cheers,
Russell

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "inheriting" land?....Re: save the world
    ... They say it is agriculture and when I ... suggested that they go back to farming -they say the land is not ... inherited by historical accident a huge piece of arable land (your ... history of Western ...
    (sci.research.careers)
  • Re: save the world
    ... They say it is agriculture and when I ... suggested that they go back to farming -they say the land is not ... inherited by historical accident a huge piece of arable land (your ... history of Western ...
    (sci.research.careers)
  • Re: save the world
    ... to a higher std of living. ... suggested that they go back to farming -they say the land is not ... inherited by historical accident a huge piece of arable land (your ... is history. ...
    (sci.research.careers)
  • Re: An interesting area where the Bible may provide accurate historical insight
    ... I am a Christian who does not think that the Bible was ... My background in history, however, ... been able to regain the levels of health ... >> agriculture, but the bottom line is that it was a step down, not a step ...
    (talk.origins)
  • "inheriting" land?....Re: save the world
    ... to a higher std of living. ... They say it is agriculture and when I ... inherited by historical accident a huge piece of arable land (your ... history of Western ...
    (sci.research.careers)
Loading