tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7777812014427865061.post101367276921259568..comments2023-04-29T09:30:22.568-04:00Comments on Wit & Whim: Globalism vs Community: Food.Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07289646906856881454noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7777812014427865061.post-82815069608484048242013-09-16T22:23:33.047-04:002013-09-16T22:23:33.047-04:00Unfortunately, I think that all that they can be f...Unfortunately, I think that all that they can be for now is a statement of fact. I write mostly as an exercise to get my head around whatever is bothering me, and while I see there being necessity in the development of a more robust local commerce and community, I have no idea how to encourage such a thing on a grand scale. I encourage people at school and work to participate in community events, and especially farmers markets, but I have no agenda maxima which I can put forward. In the end, I am just one more malcontent singing the tired song of "wouldn't it be nice if...."<br /><br />Whenever I write like this, I do it with the knowledge that it will probably never be realized on any great level. Human nature isn't changing, and we tend toward norms and the least expenditure of effort. I was waxing idealistic before crashing back to reality. ;-p<br /><br />And as for the point-3/poison conundrum. I think that many people make the economically efficient choice and refuse to recognize the ecological damage being done by the "cheap and effective" pesticides that are most commonly used. The present economic model means that farmers live from crop to crop; it has always been so to a certain extent, but the effect has been exacerbated with time. Most poor farmers, as is demonstrated by usage, find the best poison to be the one that kills the most things for the lowest price tag.Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07289646906856881454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7777812014427865061.post-13277029833674823942013-09-05T14:12:30.437-04:002013-09-05T14:12:30.437-04:003. Point three I'm not about to give up on.
I...3. <i>Point three I'm not about to give up on.</i><br /><br />I haven't asked you to give up the point.<br />But, in any case, you haven't contradicted what I said, so I have nothing further to add at this time.<br /><br />5. Let us be clear about these concepts, so that we can see whether we agree or disagree. You made two statements (among others):<br /><br /><b>A.</b> <i>Communities do not come about by fiat.</i><br /><b>B.</b> <i>[Communities] are necessarily organic.</i><br /><br />I accept <b>B</b> — at least for the purposes of the present debate — but make a distinction on <b>A</b>, which I feel could be understood two different ways:<br /><br /><b>A1.</b> Governments cannot create communities (strictly speaking).<br /><b>A2.</b> Fiat (government action) can never lead to the existence of a community. More precisely stated: There is no community which will exist if and only if some set of government actions exist first.<br /><br />I agree with <b>A1</b>. I do not agree with <b>A2</b>. How about you?<br /><br />As for my main point, I must backtrack a bit. On my first reading of your post, I thought that you defined one or more of the problems you discussed as a "global problem"; I see now that you did not. Looking over the last paragraphs of your original post, as well as your second reply, I don't think I disagree with you, but neither do I feel I quite get your "gist", as it were.<br /><br />Here are two statements you make about what "must" happen:<br /><br /><b>C.</b> <i>People need to turn their eyes to their own communities and buy local goods and local produce.</i><br /><b>D.</b> <i>Healthier communities and healthier food ... [will only come] from the concerted effort of individuals...</i><br /><br />My question is: do you make these statements merely as an observation of facts, or is it your intention to propose a specific course of action that you and your readers ought to take? If the latter, is the specific course of action contained entirely in statement <b>C</b>, or does it include something else?Nathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05425529127597760502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7777812014427865061.post-48276676138397898802013-08-29T14:29:03.655-04:002013-08-29T14:29:03.655-04:00And lastly, the first problem comes with the conce...And lastly, the first problem comes with the concept of a global problem. To get it, you lump a bunch of individual, familial, or community problems into one big mass. Unfortunately, although the symptoms may be similar, the problems may stem from different things entirely. So when one looks to create a mass, or global, solution to a given set of problems, it is questionable whether people across different communities, traditions, backgrounds, etc, find their problems in the same roots. The best solutions are tailored to the case, and the larger the scale one works on, the less specific the cure can be. In addition, what fixes one man's problem may create new difficulties for someone else.<br /><br />Is it impossible for a grand scale program to do good? Of course not! But I think the effects are near impossible to gauge beforehand, and I think that the potential for wide reaching unintended consequences is infinitely higher.<br /><br />It is hard to pose a really good solution without understanding the problem, and the problem cannot really be understood without knowing the people who are caught up in it.<br /><br />When we think of global problems, I think we are often mis-categorizing and lumping together many problems that have very different solutions.<br /><br />I hope that this reads as something near lucid. :-pPatrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07289646906856881454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7777812014427865061.post-72818225016552308172013-08-29T14:28:50.154-04:002013-08-29T14:28:50.154-04:00Sorry it took me so long to see this, and thank yo...Sorry it took me so long to see this, and thank you for taking the time to give a well reasoned answer, as you always do.<br /><br />On reflection, you might find 1. to be pretty nitpicky, but I appreciate the distinction. I was unclear on my own part, in that I was referring particularly to political or ideological enthusiasts, and the peculiar belief that serious multi generational problems might be cured with a single program, and that said program will not effect any other than the intended.<br /><br />On the second point, one obviously has to put our bodies, the gifts of the church, and the like well above. However, the health of our bodies is bound up with the land around us, and the first gift that God made to man--after he gave life--was the Earth, along with the command to rule over it. And while we don't know the hidden will of God on this one, our best evidence would lead us to believe that He would prefer we rule benevolently.<br /><br />Point four was kind of trite and folksy, often true, but not always.<br /><br />So back to the contentious points.<br /><br />Point three I'm not about to give up on. Pesticides and herbicides are seldom so rigorously tested as they should be, and serious questions remain about what trace elements of the toxin remain in the food after harvest. We know that chemical pesticides play a role in increased lung-cancer risks for cigarette smokers--granted, already engaged in a risky and filthy habit--but the mass use of known--or even suspected--endocrine disruptors seems unwise. And the effect on humans is only a part. Mickael Henry et al showed that even trace exposure to some common pesticides lead to dramatically higher mortality in hives, by upwards of one third. In addition, a recent USDA/EPA report confirmed that hives exposed to pesticides, particularly neonicotinoids, were more susceptible to mites, which were another long suspected culprit behind CCD. The effect it on bees is just the best documented, probably because we need them, but I would imagine there are probably other adverse effects from allowing such things into the water table. I think that the 'best' pesticides <br />that we have right now, or at least those most widely used, are still rather destructive.<br /><br />I would say that 5 is still necessarily true. Take the development of the Balkans. No matter how many times you draw lines and tell people they are together, and that they are part of one nation, or consolidate them under a new government, they will never necessarily cohere into one unit. There are people of Albanian decent scattered across the Balkans, and no matter how hard the various regims try to integrate them, the Albanians stubbornly maintain their identity. Or look at the people of now defunct Dagestan. The Russians relocated them brutally on more than one occasion, but they filtered back to their homeland, and maintained much of their regional identity. It did not matter that they were moved into other communities all over Russia; they had a strong cultural heritage and it persisted. A true community and culture is not easily created or destroyed.<br />Patrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07289646906856881454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7777812014427865061.post-8229412657736735342013-08-26T16:34:02.212-04:002013-08-26T16:34:02.212-04:00In retrospect, points 1, 2, and 4 are pretty nitpi...In retrospect, points 1, 2, and 4 are pretty nitpicky, and possibly not worth fussing over. But I consider the others to be various shades of relevant.Nathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05425529127597760502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7777812014427865061.post-60862459255281648642013-08-24T12:49:55.041-04:002013-08-24T12:49:55.041-04:00I have five nitpicks and one response.
1. "I...I have five nitpicks and one response.<br /><br />1. "It is, after all, the mistake of an enthusiast to confuse the intent of an action with its consequence."<br />I propose a modification to your axiom. Confusing the intent of an action with its consequence is a form of non sequitur, and one of the great missteps of logic made by human beings, of whom the enthusiasts are merely one caste. The specific mistake most perilous to the enthusiast is the assumption that all things scale linearly: the idea that 700º for 20 minutes is the same as 350º for 40 minutes; the idea that a speed of 80 mph is merely four-thirds as dangerous as a speed of 60 mph; the idea that you can work fully half as many sixteen-hour days as you can eight-hour days; and so on.<br /><br />2. "Of all of the things which we have received, not one of them is greater than the earth."<br />This requires qualification. "Greater" by what measure? Mass? The sun is larger. Affinity to God? Surely our bodies, made in His image, are more like God than the planet is (their current fallen state notwithstanding).<br /><br />3. "The commercials on the radio advertise that best poisons, for both pests and weeds, so that farmers will get the maximum yields."<br />I know the point you're driving at, but I think stating it in this way is disingenuous. I imagine that even fairly unreasonable people consider the "best" poisons (insecticides and herbicides) to be <i>not only</i> those which most effectively discourage the activity of the offending insects and weeds, <i>but also</i> do the least amount of mischief to every other part of the ecosystem, particularly the air, human beings, and the crop itself.<br /><br />4. "I will remind you now: you get what you pay for."<br />Although this is in general a good rule, it is in this case actually opposed by the paragraph you've put it in. That particular paragraph aims to show that the reason the food is cheap is because the farmer is economically required to sell it at a low price, regardless of its relative quality.<br /><br />5. "Communities do not come about by fiat. They are necessarily organic..."<br />True, in the sense that a seed does not grow into a tree by fiat. But by fiat the seed can be planted, and watered. Likewise the government has the capability of affecting and relocating people in ways which are essentially guaranteed to generate communities.<br /><br />R. I either don't quite follow your reasoning, or I don't quite follow your usage of the words "individual"/"local" and "global". You say several times that the global is incapable of understanding, consideration, etc. You say that the solution can only come about at the individual or local level. But my understanding of these words is that they all refer to the same thing (humans), merely at different scales. By extension, if a problem is global, then by definition it can only be solved by a global solution. That solution may have a local or even an individual genesis, but it must end up global.<br /><br />Suppose you meant to solve this whole problem with your blog post. Just for the sake of argument. How would that work? Well, it could work by causing those individuals who read it to stop contributing to major food chains, Monsanto, etc., and buy locally instead; it would simply require an enormous number of people to read/spread the post. Or, it might theoretically be read by someone in a position of power (a politician, a billionaire, a CEO), convince them, and cause them to use their influence to set in motion a sequence of events that end up solving the problem. In either case, the snowball starts small (your blog post), but ends up global.Nathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05425529127597760502noreply@blogger.com