Do you eat organic?

Log in

SmokingPipes.com Updates

3 Fresh Bill Shalosky Pipes
3 Fresh Lasse Skovgaard Pipes
1 Fresh Missouri Meerschaum Pipe
New Cigars
10 Fresh Mastro Geppetto Pipes

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Drucquers Banner

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jan 4, 2015
1,858
11
Massachusetts
I agree with warren, adapt or be the next dinosaur. It may seem cold but with economics what it is subsidized existence isn't much of a guarantee you'll be there next season. Look at what happened to the tobacco farmers. Didn't matter that some of them had been growing that product for generations, with public support the subsidies went away leaving the farmers holding the bag. Government prop ups come at a cost. You are at the mercy of public opinion and much of that is often near idiotic.

 

johnnyreb

Lifer
Aug 21, 2014
1,961
614
You really are "aggravated" aren't you?
He is aggravated because beef prices to the farmer are about the same as they were 15 yrs ago that I know of, with a few good yrs sprinkled in every now & then. I bought a farm looking ahead for retirement 19 yrs ago & have had cattle that long. I will be the first to admit that I was working with a good income elsewhere & so I wanted the farm to "lose money" on paper for the first 15 yrs or so while I grew assets. For the past 5 yrs I'm in it for profit & because I enjoy the lifestyle. The price I get for my beef has not changed much even though my costs have went up substantially. My costs for grain & hay for winter during the draught yrs got to the point where I had to cut corners & start buying bottle calves in the spring, put them on grass thru the summer, & sell them off in the fall & only keep a few thru the winter. My profit margin is much greater on free range chickens, chicken eggs, quail eggs, & duck eggs than it is on beef! And I have a good beef contract. But you can't sell enough eggs to stay afloat! And when I do end up making money for the yr I can't keep any of it; my tax accountant will tell me when I need to spend some money out of the farm account or give it to Uncle Sam. So in my situation I do get some perks & a lot of enjoyment out of it but all I am really doing is building assets that will go to my grandchildren's children, maybe.

 

buroak

Lifer
Jul 29, 2014
2,141
1,051
NW Missouri
We all eat organic food: carbohydrates, proteins, and etc. Lots of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms all playing together. I also make sure my vehicles consume organic "food". Mmmmm...hydrocarbons are lovely organic compounds, too.

 

aggravatedfarmer

Part of the Furniture Now
Sep 9, 2015
865
3
@jpmcwjr man made in my opinion. Yes you cannot control the weather. However if the conservationist are keeping farmers from irrigating their crops because they are trying to protect a baitfish, then this has evolved into a man made problem. Are we a wasteful society? Yes I agree %100. My question is why do people live in arid places and have green lawns, especially the super wealthy and even (dare I say Al Gore) the middle class? It's because they can. George Carlan said it best. Why have golf courses when we have homeless people. It makes no sense.
During the dust bowl the farmers were to blame, although the weather couldn't be controlled. They didn't do proper crop rotation, took over to much land. They were to blame. Today, in California the conservationist, super wealthy, and mindless use of land (green golf courses in the desert don't make sense) are the insufficient use of land and the practices are detrimental to the environment.

 

deathmetal

Lifer
Jul 21, 2015
7,714
35
15 hours ago I posted "Organic and GMO are not the issue. 10 billion by 2050 is the issue". And I meant it. I feel like an outsider looking in: I am part of a species that is bound and determined to extinguish itself through overpopulation. There is absolutely nothing I can do about it, no one to reason with. I am Slim Pickens, holding on and riding 'er dowm.
I am in the same position here.
Conservationists try to preserve endangered species with fancy rules, not realizing (or not caring) that what these species really need is many hundreds of thousands of acres of forest or other ecosystems.
Others rail against the high cost of environmentalism and I agree with them. It is ineffective. The real cost is setting aside the land, which would force us to limit our population. That's taboo.
There are billions of arable acres laying fallow, it's a matter of water availability.
Ah, a variant of the old "we could fit everyone into a state the size of New Jersey" argument.
Water availability will be solved more quickly than you think. The problem of overpopulation does not, as you argue, reduce to arable farmland only. It includes additional space for roads/hospitals/apartments/parking/etc, pollution consequences of high population density, and interruption of ecosystems required to replenish shared resources.
Then there's the question of whether we want to hate ourselves forever for having exterminated species.
Regardless, this debate goes nowhere without reference to this article:
The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.
As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.
1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.
2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of -1.
Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another.... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit--in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.
http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_tragedy_of_the_commons.html

 

warren

Lifer
Sep 13, 2013
12,374
18,666
Foothills of the Chugach Range, AK
But, the basis of the "old argument" is correct. The earth is in fact not crowded or stressed. Certain of the more hospitable parts of it are indeed crowded. A large percentage of it is not. Man has the ability to change things, has and does, so more of the inhospitable area will reclaimed for the use of humans. Will we grow ourselves into extinction? Maybe. In the foreseeable future? I doubt it. Man can adapt, certain flora and fauna can also. So for the optimist life is grand. The pessimist is always unhappy and they are happier in that mindset.
It's a simple fact that a generation in the future will be the last. It's what happens. Or, possibly man will have figured out and engineered a way to people other worlds. None of us will ever know will we.

 

aldecaker

Lifer
Feb 13, 2015
4,407
46
@Warren- I wouldn't say pessimists are necessarily unhappy, just more strained with concern when we shouldn't be. And taking your point for granted that the Earth is not crowded or stressed, is it a good idea to press the issue until it is?

 

warren

Lifer
Sep 13, 2013
12,374
18,666
Foothills of the Chugach Range, AK
The issue of over population will be pressed whether or not it is a good idea. So accepting that population will grow means solutions to the attendant problems need to be discovered and implemented.
I stated my position ineptly, pessimists are happiest when they have something to be pessimistic about.

 

deathmetal

Lifer
Jul 21, 2015
7,714
35
So accepting that population will grow means solutions to the attendant problems need to be discovered and implemented.
You may have mistyped that, since it's a begging the question fallacy. Lots of things happen "naturally" and "inevitably" that are nonetheless bad policy. For example, it's natural for a pedophile to molest young boys, and natural for nature to produce a certain percentage of pedophiles every generation.

 

aldecaker

Lifer
Feb 13, 2015
4,407
46
I have readily admitted that I accept population will grow. And I am one happy man, having found no shortage of things to be pessimistic about. :wink:

 

warren

Lifer
Sep 13, 2013
12,374
18,666
Foothills of the Chugach Range, AK
aldecaker: That's the spirit!
No, I didn't misstate nor mistype. Unless you are ready to accept a world wide effort (read one government) to restrain one of man's driving forces, the need to procreate, and dictate to all that only so many may have children and limit the number of children that can be born, you must accept that, world wide, the population of humans will increase. So it follows that they must be fed, housed, etc. In other words, accommodated. I think man is capable of handling the increase for at least another few thousand years. Possibly not, I won't be around to see the result. Animals as a group do learn from their mistakes. Only man seems able to repair his mistakes. I do have faith in mankind, oops sorry, humankind.
Not sure how the pedophile entered the argument. In most cultures such behavior is treated as aberrant. (They do also molest young females.) It may be that such behavior is ingrained, perhaps genetic, in some. Still it is usually thought of as unacceptable behavior in most societies and therefore, punished in some manner and behavior modification attempted. Are you suggesting jail for too many children? I doubt it. Behavior modification? It appears as such. It ain't gonna happen world wide. Population growth might be slowed but a negative growth rate? No way. People want families and men really like making them. Further, there is a need to see one's line continue into the future. Selfish? Definitely!

Fact of life? Of course.

 

aggravatedfarmer

Part of the Furniture Now
Sep 9, 2015
865
3
I'm replying on my phone, so bear with me.
I'm a pretty agreeable person, or at least I think I am. I do think we as a civilization are supposed to look out for all animals and if we have the ability to support less fortunate folk, then we should help them out. I think everyone here is on the same playing field and would like to see more sustainable food sources. However, I think relying on mega farms and foreign agriculture is a horrid idea. I would personally like to see folks do more to support local Ag and even grow their own to minimize impact. Would I like to see my products exported? You bet. However I would like to see my products put into good use here in the states. I for one feel that government programs that allow people to receive "to much" for " to little" disuades a person from going to the public gardens and putting in tomatoes, peppers, etcetera. I think free range, or open barn chickens are a better operation than caged. Tie stall cattle barns are going out of style for commercial guys like myself, but are still in practice for your pasture guys.
It's a funny thing that our nation has to fight with each other on how our food is produced rather than to fight for food in general.

 

aggravatedfarmer

Part of the Furniture Now
Sep 9, 2015
865
3
Here is an interesting thought from yours truly.
The moment when currency is introduced to society. Humans rely on it rather themselves or their trades. The man with the most coin is in fact better off and can afford to pay someone for their skills, such as raising a cow for meat and crops to eat. We no longer use the bartering system where a sheep farmer would barter with the cattle farmer, who would need wool for clothes and the sheep farmer needs milk to drink. The doctor doesn't make house calls for an ailment in return he will not be compensated with vegetables. Currency corrupts an individual to the point where they no longer pursue multiple endeavors to sustain themselves and gives the fallacy of a comfortable life. Are you comfortable with more money or are you just compliant with the way of life that is intended for a controlled society? If an individual has no skill set to survive than that individual lives at the suspense of others, which is controlled by a collection of currency and resources obtained through it. I find it ironic that life seems much more enjoyable in books where the bartering system is used rather than real life where we buy useless items such as football jerseys of a cultural icon.

 

jpmcwjr

Lifer
May 12, 2015
26,264
30,360
Carmel Valley, CA
Aren't useless items luxuries that many choose to have, regardless of wealth? Some "must have" items here in the States are luxuries elsewhere.
And don't forget economies of scale, which monetary systems allow, and most bartering systems do not. Sure, we can trade tobacco for eggs, etc, but a thousand hand mades pipe for a new Mercedes your neighbor just made? There are a jillion examples where bartering falls short of the mark, unless we revert to a survivalist mode.

 
If you want to tear a community apart, start a community garden. About ten years ago, I was asked to help set up a community garden. Everyone shows up the first day, then there are a handful who show up to take care of the entire thing. Then, one of the ones who didn't put in as much work, comes in and harvests the entire thing (or something) and feasts, while everyone who worked is pissed. It doesn't even matter if they really did or did not work as much. It's the perception. Luckily, I had my own garden, and I stayed out of that mess. But, I hear about more communities falling apart because of this whenever community gardens comes up as a topic. The only ones who like the idea are dreamers and the lazy.
Even back when I lived in the city while going to college, I grew my own tomatoes and peppers on the balcony of my apartment. You cannot buy a tomato with any flavor. It is illegal. They have to place them in coolers, which immediately kills all taste the thing may have. Never put a tomato in the fridge. If you haven't eaten a tomato off of your own plant, you've never even tasted a tomato.
I'm in it for the pleasure, the taste. If I were really all of that concerned about health, I probably would have never come to this forum, ha ha.

 

aggravatedfarmer

Part of the Furniture Now
Sep 9, 2015
865
3
Bartering was still popular when the industrial revolution was starting up. When products were blue printed and made in mass scale, that's when currency became a basic need. If a thousand pipes were what's needed to trade for a Mercedes, I still wouldn't be able to own one.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.