New Studies expose the destructive history of agriculture-causing the
devastation of prairies and forests, driving countless species
extinct, altering the climate, and destroying the topsoil.

In order to save the planet, food must come from within living
communities, eating locally and sustainably and we should encourage
those with the resources to grow their own food.

What is needed is an account which goes beyond health choices [vain
narcisitic health practices] and a challenge to the potential moral
issues from eating-or not eating-animals.

http://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myt.../dp/1604860804

....agriculture has created a net loss for human rights and cultu
slavery, imperialism, militarism, class divisions, chronic hunger, and
disease. “The real problem, then, is not to explain why some people
were slow to adopt agriculture but why anybody took it up at all, when
it is so obviously beastly,” writes Colin Tudge of The London School
of Economics. Agriculture has also been devastating to the other
creatures with whom we share the earth, and ultimately to the life
support systems of the planet itself. What is at stake is everything.
If we want a sustainable world, we have to be willing to examine the
power relations behind the foundational myth of our culture. Anything
less and we will fail.

http://www.lierrekeith.com/vegmyth.htm

Immortalist wrote:

> New Studies expose the destructive history of agriculture-causing
> the devastation of prairies and forests, driving countless species
> extinct, altering the climate, and destroying the topsoil.

None of that is any news, no 'new studys' are needed to work that out.

What matter is what the alternative is. Hunting and
gathering is a vastly less viable approach, stupid.

> In order to save the planet,

The planet is doing fine.

> food must come from within living communities, eating locally and sustainably

Mindlessly silly. The world has moved on WAY past that approach.

> and we should encourage those with the resources to grow their own food.

Completely unviable with major citys, fool.

> What is needed is an account which goes beyond health choices
> [vain narcisitic health practices] and a challenge to the potential
> moral issues from eating-or not eating-animals.

> http://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myt.../dp/1604860804

> ...agriculture has created a net loss for human rights and cultu

Mindlessly silly.

> slavery, imperialism, militarism, class divisions, chronic hunger, and disease.

There was plenty of most of those with hunter gatherers, fool.

> “The real problem, then, is not to explain why some people were slow to
> adopt agriculture but why anybody took it up at all, when it is so obviously
> beastly,” writes Colin Tudge of The London School of Economics.

Wota terminal ****wit.

> Agriculture has also been devastating to the
> other creatures with whom we share the earth,

So was hunting and gathering fool.

> and ultimately to the life support systems of the planet itself.

Mindlessly silly.

> What is at stake is everything.

Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.

> If we want a sustainable world,

We've got one.

> we have to be willing to examine the power relations
> behind the foundational myth of our culture.

You need a brain for that, something fools like you lack completely.

> Anything less and we will fail.

You've already failed.

> http://www.lierrekeith.com/vegmyth.htm

And even bigger steaming turd than the net truffle pig usually unearths.

On Aug 4, 11:03*am, Immortalist > wrote:
> New Studies expose the destructive history of agriculture-causing the
> devastation of prairies and forests, driving countless species
> extinct, altering the climate, and destroying the topsoil.

You mean mechanised farming, I take it. The Soviet communes were
probably the biggest culprits, and they ended up with shortages.

> In order to save the planet, food must come from within living
> communities, eating locally and sustainably and we should encourage
> those with the resources to grow their own food.

Eating much less, is also a good idea. Eating food not preserved with
chemicals, is also a good idea. Buying or growing fresh stuff,
vegetarianism, are all alternative ways to go.

> What is needed is an account which goes beyond health choices [vain
> narcisitic health practices] and a challenge to the potential moral
> issues from eating-or not eating-animals.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myt...ainability/dp/...
>
> ...agriculture has created a net loss for human rights and cultu
> slavery, imperialism, militarism, class divisions, chronic hunger, and
> disease.

Not for the ruling classes, now neatly partioned into First World and
Third World. Of course, there is a Third World in the First World and
vice versa. The First World everywhere has the rights and the gains,
the Third World are the losers hopefuly with some hope left.

> “The real problem, then, is not to explain why some people
> were slow to adopt agriculture but why anybody took it up at all, when
> it is so obviously beastly,” writes Colin Tudge of The London School
> of Economics.

It is not that agriculture is bad, but the way of doing it. Highly
productive small plots can be made with modern technology, but in the
last century the stress was on mechanisation and collectivisation of
resources, with no care for the environment. Agriculture is still the
base and backbone of all economy, for with no food, there will be no
life and certainly no services (the foam of the economy). However
with increasing productivity of cultivation, and less food wasted or
consumed, it should be possible to return ravaged lands to Nature and
let other species also enjoy the planet.

Agriculture has also been devastating to the other
> creatures with whom we share the earth, and ultimately to the life
> support systems of the planet itself. What is at stake is everything.
> If we want a sustainable world, we have to be willing to examine the
> power relations behind the foundational myth of our culture. Anything
> less and we will fail.

Gotta define what you really mean by "agriculture". On the face of
it, what you are writing is howling folly. We cannot become hunter
gatherers any more for the wilderness has long gone.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
>
> http://www.lierrekeith.com/vegmyth.htm

"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
> Immortalist wrote:
>
>> New Studies expose the destructive history of agriculture-causing
>> the devastation of prairies and forests, driving countless species
>> extinct, altering the climate, and destroying the topsoil.
>
> None of that is any news, no 'new studys' are needed to work that out.
>
> What matter is what the alternative is. Hunting and
> gathering is a vastly less viable approach, stupid.
>
>> In order to save the planet,
>
> The planet is doing fine.

The rock flying around in space is all right, but he means the rich
ecosystem of earth, that is NOT doing fine, it is being systematically
destroyed and polluted beyond recognition by man.

Dutch wrote
> Rod Speed > wrote
>> Immortalist wrote

>>> New Studies expose the destructive history of agriculture-causing
>>> the devastation of prairies and forests, driving countless species
>>> extinct, altering the climate, and destroying the topsoil.

>> None of that is any news, no 'new studys' are needed to work that out.

>> What matter is what the alternative is. Hunting and
>> gathering is a vastly less viable approach, stupid.

>>> In order to save the planet,

>> The planet is doing fine.

> The rock flying around in space is all right, but he means the rich ecosystem of earth, that is NOT doing fine,

Corse it is. Its doing a hell of a lot better than it did
during the worst excesses of the industrial revolution.

> it is being systematically destroyed

Just another silly little pig ignorant fantasy.

> and polluted beyond recognition by man.

Just another silly little pig ignorant fantasy.

On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:03:34 -0700, Immortalist wrote:

> New Studies expose the destructive history of agriculture-causing the
> devastation of prairies and forests, driving countless species extinct,
> altering the climate, and destroying the topsoil.
>
> In order to save the planet, food must come from within living
> communities, eating locally and sustainably and we should encourage
> those with the resources to grow their own food.
>
> What is needed is an account which goes beyond health choices [vain
> narcisitic health practices] and a challenge to the potential moral
> issues from eating-or not eating-animals.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myt...ustainability/
dp/1604860804

First and above all else, the planet does not need saving. The planet is,
in fact, a planet. The word here is human beings. Planet is being used
like a god (or goddess) in whose name all swift righteous shall be dealt.
'We' do not need any more of this stupidity. Save us from this first.

No grounded urgency over global food or resource is even possible until
waste, distribution systems, and commodity economics (future trading) are
addressed.

Those with the most resources now are corporations or farmers growing for
them. Go forth and encourage.

>
> ...agriculture has created a net loss for human rights and cultu
> slavery, imperialism, militarism, class divisions, chronic hunger, and
> disease. €œThe real problem, then, is not to explain why some people were
> slow to adopt agriculture but why anybody took it up at all, when it is
> so obviously beastly,€� writes Colin Tudge of The London School of
> Economics. Agriculture has also been devastating to the other creatures
> with whom we share the earth, and ultimately to the life support systems
> of the planet itself. What is at stake is everything. If we want a
> sustainable world, we have to be willing to examine the power relations
> behind the foundational myth of our culture. Anything less and we will
> fail.
>
> http://www.lierrekeith.com/vegmyth.htm

Agriculture does NOT created. If this metaphor is to be used then
agriculture first created humans. The human then created slavery and all
the rest. Agriculture then wept and wondered why... and so forth. This
literary form can be turned all types of ways.

Shockingly, not only does the world not want to be sustained it will not
be sustained. The world was quite happy with methane gas and acidic
water. The world has it's own life support system in which human beings
can not exists. The agenda of the world began long before humans and
agriculture were even possible.

"What is at stake is everything". Wow.

On Aug 3, 9:57 pm, Arindam Banerjee >
wrote:
> On Aug 4, 11:03 am, Immortalist > wrote:
>
> > New Studies expose the destructive history of agriculture-causing the
> > devastation of prairies and forests, driving countless species
> > extinct, altering the climate, and destroying the topsoil.
>
> You mean mechanised farming, I take it. The Soviet communes were
> probably the biggest culprits, and they ended up with shortages.
>
> > In order to save the planet, food must come from within living
> > communities, eating locally and sustainably and we should encourage
> > those with the resources to grow their own food.
>
> Eating much less, is also a good idea. Eating food not preserved with
> chemicals, is also a good idea. Buying or growing fresh stuff,
> vegetarianism, are all alternative ways to go.
>
> > What is needed is an account which goes beyond health choices [vain
> > narcisitic health practices] and a challenge to the potential moral
> > issues from eating-or not eating-animals.
>
> >http://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myt...ainability/dp/...
>
> > ...agriculture has created a net loss for human rights and cultu
> > slavery, imperialism, militarism, class divisions, chronic hunger, and
> > disease.
>
> Not for the ruling classes, now neatly partioned into First World and
> Third World. Of course, there is a Third World in the First World and
> vice versa. The First World everywhere has the rights and the gains,
> the Third World are the losers hopefuly with some hope left.
>
> > “The real problem, then, is not to explain why some people
> > were slow to adopt agriculture but why anybody took it up at all, when
> > it is so obviously beastly,” writes Colin Tudge of The London School
> > of Economics.
>
> It is not that agriculture is bad, but the way of doing it. Highly
> productive small plots can be made with modern technology, but in the
> last century the stress was on mechanisation and collectivisation of
> resources, with no care for the environment. Agriculture is still the
> base and backbone of all economy, for with no food, there will be no
> life and certainly no services (the foam of the economy). However
> with increasing productivity of cultivation, and less food wasted or
> consumed, it should be possible to return ravaged lands to Nature and
> let other species also enjoy the planet.
>
> Agriculture has also been devastating to the other
>
> > creatures with whom we share the earth, and ultimately to the life
> > support systems of the planet itself. What is at stake is everything.
> > If we want a sustainable world, we have to be willing to examine the
> > power relations behind the foundational myth of our culture. Anything
> > less and we will fail.
>
> Gotta define what you really mean by "agriculture". On the face of
> it, what you are writing is howling folly. We cannot become hunter
> gatherers any more for the wilderness has long gone.
>

Of course we could, if there were fewer of us. Even with all the
paving over and pollution, there is plenty of space to support 500
million people with local (small scale) agriculture and fishing and
hunting. And that would be with a high-tech urban living environment,
not isolated nuclear families living in yurts.

It is almost certainly impossible to support 9 billion people
*without* fossil fuel and chemically supported monocultures.

-tg




> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
>
>
>
> >http://www.lierrekeith.com/vegmyth.htm

"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
> Dutch wrote
>> Rod Speed > wrote
>>> Immortalist wrote
>
>>>> New Studies expose the destructive history of agriculture-causing
>>>> the devastation of prairies and forests, driving countless species
>>>> extinct, altering the climate, and destroying the topsoil.
>
>>> None of that is any news, no 'new studys' are needed to work that out.
>
>>> What matter is what the alternative is. Hunting and
>>> gathering is a vastly less viable approach, stupid.
>
>>>> In order to save the planet,
>
>>> The planet is doing fine.
>
>> The rock flying around in space is all right, but he means the rich
>> ecosystem of earth, that is NOT doing fine,
>
> Corse it is. Its doing a hell of a lot better than it did
> during the worst excesses of the industrial revolution.

No, it's not. First, the effects are cumulative, second there many, many
more sources of pollution today than then, like cars, trucks, planes,
tankers. The oils spills of the past couple of decades were not possible
then. The destruction of the environment through the extraction of natural
gas, tar sands, or the mass production of agricultural products were not
possible then.

>> it is being systematically destroyed
>
> Just another silly little pig ignorant fantasy.
>
>> and polluted beyond recognition by man.
>
> Just another silly little pig ignorant fantasy.

I've seen your work before Speed, you epitomize the absolute lowest common
denominator of head-in-the-sand Usenet blockheads. You serve no useful
purpose on this earth.

"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
> Dutch wrote
>> Rod Speed > wrote
>>> Dutch wrote
>>>> Rod Speed > wrote
>>>>> Immortalist wrote
>
>>>>>> New Studies expose the destructive history of agriculture-causing
>>>>>> the devastation of prairies and forests, driving countless species
>>>>>> extinct, altering the climate, and destroying the topsoil.
>
>>>>> None of that is any news, no 'new studys' are needed to work that out.
>
>>>>> What matter is what the alternative is. Hunting and
>>>>> gathering is a vastly less viable approach, stupid.
>
>>>>>> In order to save the planet,
>
>>>>> The planet is doing fine.
>
>>>> The rock flying around in space is all right, but he means the rich
>>>> ecosystem of earth, that is NOT doing fine,
>
>>> Corse it is. Its doing a hell of a lot better than it did
>>> during the worst excesses of the industrial revolution.
>
>> No, it's not.
>
> Corse it is, right thruout the entire modern first world.

Wrong. The population is 10x what it was then. China was medieval, it is now
a modern industrialized country.
>
>> First, the effects are cumulative,
>
> Wrong, there are plenty of areas

That doesn't relate to my point, *cumulative*

> that were once much worse pollution
> wise than they are now, most obviously with the London smog etc etc etc.

There are urban areas that were more severe, but the total effect is much
greater today with the vast industrial parks and all the fossil fuel
burning.

You know about the dangers of oil drilling, oil sands extraction.
>
>> second there many, many more sources of pollution today than then, like
>> cars, trucks, planes, tankers.
>
> The previous approach to transport was MUCH more
> polluting, all that horse shit in the streets etc etc etc.
>
> Many places even make you pick up your pet's shit from the streets now.

Oh ffs, pull your head out of your ass Rod.
>
>> The oils spills of the past couple of decades were not possible then.
>
> Yes, but they had MUCH worse pollution from burning
> coal in their houses for heating alone like in London etc.

A lot of the power generation in the US is coal-fired. Natural gas
extraction is deadly.
>
>> The destruction of the environment through the extraction of natural gas,
>> tar sands, or the mass production of agricultural products were not
>> possible then.
>
> Yes, but they had their own massive pollution, most obviously with
> coal burning in their houses, and all that horse shit etc etc etc.

You're an idiot.

> And you are just plain wrong with agriculture. Western
> europe was once quite heavily forested and that was
> mostly gone even before the industrial revolution.

So what?

>>>> it is being systematically destroyed
>
>>> Just another silly little pig ignorant fantasy.
>
>>>> and polluted beyond recognition by man.
>
>>> Just another silly little pig ignorant fantasy.
>
>> I've seen your work before Speed, you epitomize the absolute lowest
>> common denominator of head-in-the-sand Usenet blockheads. You serve no
>> useful purpose on this earth.
>
> And you never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

Unlike you I am not *trying* to bullshit.

Dutch wrote
> Rod Speed > wrote
>> Dutch wrote
>>> Rod Speed > wrote
>>>> Dutch wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed > wrote
>>>>>> Immortalist wrote

>>>>>>> New Studies expose the destructive history of
>>>>>>> agriculture-causing the devastation of prairies and forests,
>>>>>>> driving countless species extinct, altering the climate, and
>>>>>>> destroying the topsoil.

>>>>>> None of that is any news, no 'new studys' are needed to work that out.

>>>>>> What matter is what the alternative is. Hunting and
>>>>>> gathering is a vastly less viable approach, stupid.

>>>>>>> In order to save the planet,

>>>>>> The planet is doing fine.

>>>>> The rock flying around in space is all right, but he means the rich ecosystem of earth, that is NOT doing fine,

>>>> Corse it is. Its doing a hell of a lot better than it did
>>>> during the worst excesses of the industrial revolution.

>>> No, it's not.

>> Corse it is, right thruout the entire modern first world.

> Wrong.

Right.

> The population is 10x what it was then.

Still MUCH less pollution than we saw in the 19th century in the first world.

> China was medieval, it is now a modern industrialized country.

And they never did just shit in the ground like they STILL do in india.

I actually lived in places where they didnt even have poper sewers in
the 50s, you dont see that anywhere in the modern first world anymore.

>>> First, the effects are cumulative,

>> Wrong, there are plenty of areas

> That doesn't relate to my point, *cumulative*

Your claim about cumulative is just plain wrong. That didnt happen with
say London or any of the worst pollution of the industrial revolution either.

>> that were once much worse pollution wise than they are now, most obviously with the London smog etc etc etc.

> There are urban areas that were more severe,

Like hell there are than London at its worst.

> but the total effect is much greater today with the vast industrial parks and all the fossil fuel burning.

Yes, the CO2 levels are certainly higher than they were, but thats not
pollution, much higher levels than there are now were universal once.

> You know about the dangers of oil drilling, oil sands extraction.

I also know about the worst of the pollution the industrial revolution brought
with it and know that we arent stupid enough to do it like that anymore.

>>> second there many, many more sources of pollution today than then, like cars, trucks, planes, tankers.

>> The previous approach to transport was MUCH more
>> polluting, all that horse shit in the streets etc etc etc.

>> Many places even make you pick up your pet's shit from the streets now.

> Oh ffs, pull your head out of your ass Rod.

Wota stunning line in rational arguement you have there, gutless.

>>> The oils spills of the past couple of decades were not possible then.

>> Yes, but they had MUCH worse pollution from burning
>> coal in their houses for heating alone like in London etc.

> A lot of the power generation in the US is coal-fired.

Yes, but thats burnt MUCH more cleanly than when its used in coal fires in
houses like in London and that produced levels of pollution that killed lots of
people. Nothing like that happens with modern coal fired power stations today.

> Natural gas extraction is deadly.

Another pig ignorant lie.

>>> The destruction of the environment through the extraction of
>>> natural gas, tar sands, or the mass production of agricultural
>>> products were not possible then.

>> Yes, but they had their own massive pollution, most obviously with
>> coal burning in their houses, and all that horse shit etc etc etc.

> You're an idiot.

You're a ****wit.

>> And you are just plain wrong with agriculture. Western
>> europe was once quite heavily forested and that was
>> mostly gone even before the industrial revolution.

> So what?

So your stupid pig ignorant claim about what wasnt possible then is just plain wrong.

>>>>> it is being systematically destroyed

>>>> Just another silly little pig ignorant fantasy.

>>>>> and polluted beyond recognition by man.

>>>> Just another silly little pig ignorant fantasy.

>>> I've seen your work before Speed, you epitomize the absolute lowest
>>> common denominator of head-in-the-sand Usenet blockheads. You serve
>>> no useful purpose on this earth.

>> And you never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.

> Unlike you I am not *trying* to bullshit.

Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always.

On Aug 4, 10:37*pm, tg > wrote:
> On Aug 3, 9:57 pm, Arindam Banerjee >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 4, 11:03 am, Immortalist > wrote:
>
> > > New Studies expose the destructive history of agriculture-causing the
> > > devastation of prairies and forests, driving countless species
> > > extinct, altering the climate, and destroying the topsoil.
>
> > You mean mechanised farming, I take it. *The Soviet communes were
> > probably the biggest culprits, and they ended up with shortages.
>
> > > In order to save the planet, food must come from within living
> > > communities, eating locally and sustainably and we should encourage
> > > those with the resources to grow their own food.
>
> > Eating much less, is also a good idea. Eating food not preserved with
> > chemicals, is also a good idea. *Buying or growing fresh stuff,
> > vegetarianism, are all alternative ways to go.
>
> > > What is needed is an account which goes beyond health choices [vain
> > > narcisitic health practices] and a challenge to the potential moral
> > > issues from eating-or not eating-animals.
>
> > >http://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myt...ainability/dp/....
>
> > > ...agriculture has created a net loss for human rights and cultu
> > > slavery, imperialism, militarism, class divisions, chronic hunger, and
> > > disease.
>
> > Not for the ruling classes, now neatly partioned into First World and
> > Third World. *Of course, there is a Third World in the First World and
> > vice versa. *The First World everywhere has the rights and the gains,
> > the Third World are the losers hopefuly with some hope left.
>
> > > “The real problem, then, is not to explain why some people
> > > were slow to adopt agriculture but why anybody took it up at all, when
> > > it is so obviously beastly,” writes Colin Tudge of The London School
> > > of Economics.
>
> > It is not that agriculture is bad, but the way of doing it. *Highly
> > productive small plots can be made with modern technology, but in the
> > last century the stress was on mechanisation and collectivisation of
> > resources, with no care for the environment. *Agriculture is still the
> > base and backbone of all economy, for with no food, there will be no
> > life and certainly no services (the foam of the economy). *However
> > with increasing productivity of cultivation, and less food wasted or
> > consumed, it should be possible to return ravaged lands to Nature and
> > let other species also enjoy the planet.
>
> > Agriculture has also been devastating to the other
>
> > > creatures with whom we share the earth, and ultimately to the life
> > > support systems of the planet itself. What is at stake is everything.
> > > If we want a sustainable world, we have to be willing to examine the
> > > power relations behind the foundational myth of our culture. Anything
> > > less and we will fail.
>
> > Gotta define what you really mean by "agriculture". *On the face of
> > it, what you are writing is howling folly. *We cannot become hunter
> > gatherers any more for the wilderness has long gone.
>
> Of course we could, if there were fewer of us. *Even with all the
> paving over and pollution, there is plenty of space to support 500
> million people with local (small scale) agriculture and fishing and
> hunting.

So who is going to reduce the population to 500 million? Killing off
say 5 billion people is a task beyond the scope of Mao, Stalin, Pol
Pot, etc. but may be possible with Einstein-Truman technical
techniques. But, a nuclear warfare won't be too good for the other
species, or the environment. Maybe saner alternatives need to be
looked at. Such as limited or non-reproduction, over a few
generations. Could work for atheistic societies but theistic
societies do want more children.

> And that would be with a high-tech urban living environment,
> not isolated nuclear families living in yurts.
>
> It is almost certainly impossible to support 9 billion people
> *without* fossil fuel and chemically supported monocultures.

Nonsense. We have unlimited hydrogen from the oceans, solar and
nuclear power. We can migrate all over space, as and when we deserve
to.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
>
> -tg
>
>
>
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee

"Rod Speed" > wrote
> Dutch wrote

>>> Many places even make you pick up your pet's shit from the streets now.
>
>> Oh ffs, pull your head out of your ass Rod.
>
> Wota stunning line in rational arguement you have there, gutless.

For an example of pollution levels you used dog poop!!

[/..]
Thousands of times more by volume.
>
>> Natural gas extraction is deadly.
>
> Another pig ignorant lie.

Do a little research before you open your yap for once..

Dutch wrote
> Rod Speed > wrote
>> Dutch wrote

>>>> Many places even make you pick up your pet's shit from the streets now.

>>> Oh ffs, pull your head out of your ass Rod.

>> Wota stunning line in rational arguement you have there, gutless.

> For an example of pollution levels you used dog poop!!


Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always, gutless.

> [/..]
> Thousands of times more by volume.

>>> Natural gas extraction is deadly.

>> Another pig ignorant lie.

> Do a little research before you open your yap for once..

Its a lie, gutless.

"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
> Dutch wrote
>> Rod Speed > wrote
>>> Dutch wrote
>
>>>>> Many places even make you pick up your pet's shit from the streets
>>>>> now.
>
>>>> Oh ffs, pull your head out of your ass Rod.
>
>>> Wota stunning line in rational arguement you have there, gutless.
>
>> For an example of pollution levels you used dog poop!!
>
>
> Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always, gutless.

Erm.. it's right there moron.

>
>> [/..]
>> Thousands of times more by volume.
>
>>>> Natural gas extraction is deadly.
>
>>> Another pig ignorant lie.
>
>> Do a little research before you open your yap for once..
>
> Its a lie, gutless.

Close the Haliburton loophole!
http://www.earthworksaction.org/FracingDetails.cfm

On Aug 4, 8:46 pm, Arindam Banerjee >
wrote:
> On Aug 4, 10:37 pm, tg > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 3, 9:57 pm, Arindam Banerjee >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 4, 11:03 am, Immortalist > wrote:
>
> > > > New Studies expose the destructive history of agriculture-causing the
> > > > devastation of prairies and forests, driving countless species
> > > > extinct, altering the climate, and destroying the topsoil.
>
> > > You mean mechanised farming, I take it. The Soviet communes were
> > > probably the biggest culprits, and they ended up with shortages.
>
> > > > In order to save the planet, food must come from within living
> > > > communities, eating locally and sustainably and we should encourage
> > > > those with the resources to grow their own food.
>
> > > Eating much less, is also a good idea. Eating food not preserved with
> > > chemicals, is also a good idea. Buying or growing fresh stuff,
> > > vegetarianism, are all alternative ways to go.
>
> > > > What is needed is an account which goes beyond health choices [vain
> > > > narcisitic health practices] and a challenge to the potential moral
> > > > issues from eating-or not eating-animals.
>
> > > >http://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myt...ainability/dp/...
>
> > > > ...agriculture has created a net loss for human rights and cultu
> > > > slavery, imperialism, militarism, class divisions, chronic hunger, and
> > > > disease.
>
> > > Not for the ruling classes, now neatly partioned into First World and
> > > Third World. Of course, there is a Third World in the First World and
> > > vice versa. The First World everywhere has the rights and the gains,
> > > the Third World are the losers hopefuly with some hope left.
>
> > > > “The real problem, then, is not to explain why some people
> > > > were slow to adopt agriculture but why anybody took it up at all, when
> > > > it is so obviously beastly,” writes Colin Tudge of The London School
> > > > of Economics.
>
> > > It is not that agriculture is bad, but the way of doing it. Highly
> > > productive small plots can be made with modern technology, but in the
> > > last century the stress was on mechanisation and collectivisation of
> > > resources, with no care for the environment. Agriculture is still the
> > > base and backbone of all economy, for with no food, there will be no
> > > life and certainly no services (the foam of the economy). However
> > > with increasing productivity of cultivation, and less food wasted or
> > > consumed, it should be possible to return ravaged lands to Nature and
> > > let other species also enjoy the planet.
>
> > > Agriculture has also been devastating to the other
>
> > > > creatures with whom we share the earth, and ultimately to the life
> > > > support systems of the planet itself. What is at stake is everything.
> > > > If we want a sustainable world, we have to be willing to examine the
> > > > power relations behind the foundational myth of our culture. Anything
> > > > less and we will fail.
>
> > > Gotta define what you really mean by "agriculture". On the face of
> > > it, what you are writing is howling folly. We cannot become hunter
> > > gatherers any more for the wilderness has long gone.
>
> > Of course we could, if there were fewer of us. Even with all the
> > paving over and pollution, there is plenty of space to support 500
> > million people with local (small scale) agriculture and fishing and
> > hunting.
>
> So who is going to reduce the population to 500 million? Killing off
> say 5 billion people is a task beyond the scope of Mao, Stalin, Pol
> Pot, etc. but may be possible with Einstein-Truman technical
> techniques. But, a nuclear warfare won't be too good for the other
> species, or the environment. Maybe saner alternatives need to be
> looked at. Such as limited or non-reproduction, over a few
> generations. Could work for atheistic societies but theistic
> societies do want more children.
>
> > And that would be with a high-tech urban living environment,
> > not isolated nuclear families living in yurts.
>
> > It is almost certainly impossible to support 9 billion people
> > *without* fossil fuel and chemically supported monocultures.
>
> Nonsense. We have unlimited hydrogen from the oceans, solar and
> nuclear power. We can migrate all over space, as and when we deserve
> to.
>

This is the classic answer, of course----reducing reproduction, which
is the choice made by the vast majority of women who have a choice, is
somehow 'very hard', but instead we should count on 'easy' things like
fusion and hydrogen, and convincing people to consume less.

Sure, that makes sense.

(note sarcasm)

-tg




> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
>
>
>
> > -tg
>
> > > Cheers,
> > > Arindam Banerjee

Dutch wrote
> Rod Speed > wrote
>> Dutch wrote
>>> Rod Speed > wrote
>>>> Dutch wrote

>>>>>> Many places even make you pick up your pet's shit from the streets now.

>>>>> Oh ffs, pull your head out of your ass Rod.

>>>> Wota stunning line in rational arguement you have there, gutless.

>>> For an example of pollution levels you used dog poop!!

>> Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always, gutless.

> Erm.. it's right there moron.

Doesnt say a damned thing about population levels, liar.

>>
>>> [/..]
>>> Thousands of times more by volume.

>>>>> Natural gas extraction is deadly.

>>>> Another pig ignorant lie.

>>> Do a little research before you open your yap for once..

>> Its a lie, gutless.

> Close the Haliburton loophole!
> http://www.earthworksaction.org/FracingDetails.cfm

Go and **** yourself, again.

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 18:57:22 -0700 (PDT), Arindam Banerjee
> wrote:

>On Aug 4, 11:03*am, Immortalist > wrote:
>> New Studies expose the destructive history of agriculture-causing the
>> devastation of prairies and forests, driving countless species
>> extinct, altering the climate, and destroying the topsoil.
>
>You mean mechanised farming, I take it. The Soviet communes were
>probably the biggest culprits, and they ended up with shortages.
>
>> In order to save the planet, food must come from within living
>> communities, eating locally and sustainably and we should encourage
>> those with the resources to grow their own food.
>
>Eating much less, is also a good idea. Eating food not preserved with
>chemicals, is also a good idea. Buying or growing fresh stuff,
>vegetarianism, are all alternative ways to go.
>
>> What is needed is an account which goes beyond health choices [vain
>> narcisitic health practices] and a challenge to the potential moral
>> issues from eating-or not eating-animals.
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Myt...ainability/dp/...
>>
>> ...agriculture has created a net loss for human rights and cultu
>> slavery, imperialism, militarism, class divisions, chronic hunger, and
>> disease.
>
>Not for the ruling classes, now neatly partioned into First World and
>Third World. Of course, there is a Third World in the First World and
>vice versa. The First World everywhere has the rights and the gains,
>the Third World are the losers hopefuly with some hope left.

What about the Second World?
.. . .
>Gotta define what you really mean by "agriculture". On the face of
>it, what you are writing is howling folly. We cannot become hunter
>gatherers any more for the wilderness has long gone.
>
>Cheers,
>Arindam Banerjee

It sure wouldn't take long for a few million people to
consume what's left of it if that was their only option.

On Aug 5, 10:06*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rod Speed" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Dutch wrote
> >> Rod Speed > wrote
> >>> Dutch wrote
>
> >>>>> Many places even make you pick up your pet's shit from the streets
> >>>>> now.
>
> >>>> Oh ffs, pull your head out of your ass Rod.
>
> >>> Wota stunning line in rational arguement you have there, gutless.
>
> >> For an example of pollution levels you used dog poop!!
>
> > Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, as always, gutless.
>
> Erm.. it's right there moron.
>
>
>
> >> [/..]
> >> Thousands of times more by volume.
>
> >>>> Natural gas extraction is deadly.
>
> >>> Another pig ignorant lie.
>
> >> Do a little research before you open your yap for once..
>
> > Its a lie, gutless.
>
> Close the Haliburton loophole!

http://www.earthworksaction.org/FracingDetails.cfm

Hey Dutch thanx for that link! Man this guy is as good as we used to
be when there were more than a 100 good bullys to ruff up daily in
various mosh alt.pits, eh? He does remind me of how things used to be
and I like to bug him but there are so few left now, so peace to the
dinosaur in the museum.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/biodiversity/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity
http://www.globalissues.org/issue/169/biodiversity

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/biodiversity/

On 08/03/2010 08:03 PM, Immortalist wrote:
> ...agriculture has created a net loss for human rights and cultu
> slavery, imperialism, militarism, class divisions, chronic hunger, and
> disease. “The real problem, then, is not to explain why some people
> were slow to adopt agriculture but why anybody took it up at all, when
> it is so obviously beastly,” writes Colin Tudge of The London School
> of Economics. Agriculture has also been devastating to the other
> creatures with whom we share the earth, and ultimately to the life
> support systems of the planet itself. What is at stake is everything.
> If we want a sustainable world, we have to be willing to examine the
> power relations behind the foundational myth of our culture. Anything
> less and we will fail.
The Nordic cultures run both decently egalitarian cultures and agriculture.