Tags
Capitalism, Climate Change, Collapse of Industrial Civilization, Consumerism, Corporate State, Ecological Overshoot, Environmental Collapse, Extinction of Man, Factory Farming, Financial Elite, Global Famine, Herbicide-Resistant Weeds, Loss of Biodiversity, Mass Die Off, Monoculture Farming, Nature Deficit Disorder, Pesticide-Resistant Pests, S. Roy Kaufman, Super Weeds
Perhaps the most critical area in which industrial civilization has disconnected itself from nature is food production. Ask a city dweller where his food comes from and he’ll give you the name of a grocery store chain. Of course they know the food is produced somewhere outside the concrete jungle, but exactly where, by whom, and how are questions no one asks. And for the masses who are busy eking out a living on the treadmill of capitalism, the convenience of “fast food” often trumps all other considerations. The giant food manufacturers have spent considerable time tinkering with the three ingredients of sugar, salt, and fat in their processed food so as to reach a “bliss-point” for hooking the “consumer”. Thus in the process of commodifying, commercializing, and mass marketing our meals, we have lost the connection to nature fostered by food grown on a small-scale, sustainable manner. Nature Deficit Disorder appears to be rampant. As S. Roy Kaufman explains, industrialized food production has destroyed the human bond to the land:
Is “economy of scale and efficiency” really the best thing to pursue on the only planet humans have to live on? It turns out that in our quest to feed the most people at the lowest price, we have externalized a lot of costs which are now coming back to bite us in the ass. For example, bee pollination is priceless, but we are killing these insects off with our chemical pesticides and herbicides. The same goes for other plants, animals, and microbes which support the natural processes required to keep the land productive. As these creatures disappear from the landscape, we lose known and unknown ‘environmental services’ beneficial to man and the ecosystem. Industrial farming is a heavy user of CO2-emitting fossil fuels and contributes to a large percentage of the global warming we are experiencing. Biodiversity loss and destruction of crop yields are an inevitable consequence of a warming planet, even right down to the soil microbes. Pesticide and fertilizer run-off is polluting streams and rivers as well as creating massive dead zones in the ocean.
In the past century alone, over 50 per cent of the world’s wetlands have been lost because of the demands of agriculture. And of the more than 3500 species currently under threat worldwide, 25 per cent are fish and amphibians. – link
Industrial agriculture destroys biodiversity not only because it wipes out entire ecosystems and habitats, but because it favors genetically engineered monocultures. The following pictograph is a shocking illustration of how industrial agriculture has reduced the variety of foods we eat over the last century:
…Over the past hundred years, the variety of seeds planted has dwindled from hundreds to just a handful. Animal diversity is suffering a similar fate. Large commercial farms that focus on specific animals or plants to maximize yields and profits have caused the variety in our food supply to plummet.
Today, only 30 crops provide 95 percent of our food, and only four crops (maize, wheat, rice and potato) account for 60 percent of what we eat. We’ve lost three-quarters of the genetic diversity of crops in only 100 years. Now 1,500 of the 7,600 animal breeds are at risk of extinction.
Why should we care? Well, we need biodiversity to grow food, or in other words, to survive….
The Achilles’ heel of our monoculture crops is that they are vulnerable to small environmental changes. Dependency on such genetically uniform crops leaves modern society in danger of famine due to crop failure:
The lessons of the 1972 epidemic of ‘corn leaf blight’ have still not been learnt. The Committee on Genetic Vulnerability of Major Crops at the US National Research Council at the time posed the question: “How uniform genetically are other crops upon which the nation depends, and how vulnerable, therefore, are they to epidemics? The answer is that most major crops are ‘impressively genetically uniform and thus vulnerable and results from government legislative and economic policy’. – link
Another problem of the industrial agriculture complex has been the overuse of herbicides and pesticides to control weeds, insects, and viruses in order to maximize crop yield. It worked for a while but over the last couple decades the pests and pathogens have evolved to become immune to our chemicals:
Pingback: Industrializing and Capitalizing Our Way Into Extinction | OccuWorld
Hmmm.
Well, look what gets forced upon us, whether we want it or not.
http://sustainablepulse.com/2013/07/13/the-sinister-monsanto-group-agent-orange-to-genetically-modified-corn
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeld-helped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_3329.cfm
http://earthfirstnews.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/yes-monsanto-actually-did-buy-the-blackwater-mercenary-group/
LikeLike
The rot runs deep, right down to the food we eat.
LikeLike
These bizarre goings-on and catastrophically negative consequences happening at the macro level, I think, are happening because of the way we are living at the micro level as individuals.
I think of myself as a farmer, regardless of how successful I have or haven’t been at it. I think we identify ourselves with these things mostly because of how much time we spend doing them, the intensity of our interest and whether or not we’ve tried to make a living at it. My opinions about the farming life are, for sure my own, but certainly I’ve heard and seen to some degree what I would say. And that is, the (commercial) farming life is no life, no matter how natural and organic. Does that mean I don’t think there’s a place for “commercial” organic agriculture for us farmers? No, I think there is a place for it; but I think the “commercial” or monetary need has got to be a lot smaller, and I would say the same thing about every other vocation. And I think a lot of other people trying to practice their vocations ethically and meaningfully might well say the same thing about their lives.
But back to farming, I think the farmers should concentrate on Field crops such as fiber or oilseed (maybe the grain as well) for example and leave the fruits, vegetables and animal products to be produced communally and consumed communally.
I think we are supposed to be human beings first and what we happen to be interested in most, second or third. I think most people need to participate in agriculture (a little) themselves, but, also think we all need to participate (at least a little) in the art and culture of our communities, the music, the building of the buildings and the education of the children. Those who are most interested in a particular subject need to help pull in the rest, to help guide, to help show how others can at least participate a little in any given category or need. This will not only make us whole, but will also reduce to a great degree the necessity for commerce.
I’m not saying it has to be forced, I know well how resistive we can be to doing what’s unfamiliar. But those who really love what they’re doing, often know how to gently and creatively introduce others, how to offer up an enjoyable way to participate in something.
To me this has everything to do with ending exploitative capitalism, war, crime and everything else that we don’t want and in moving towards the world that we do want to see.
LikeLike
Erm, don’t mean to be unkind, but nature, the laws of physics and biology, really don’t care whether people want the things you list, they’ll just wipe us all off the map because we broke the rules.
Doesn’t matter whether the farmers are capitalists or organic or peasant families, the climate is wrecked and can’t be fixed, and that means many hundreds of millions of people starve and die.
Nobody knows how to grow crops when you don’t know whether you’ll get snow or a drought, a flood or a freeze, and when the infrastructure and markets collapse.
LikeLike
After taking the red pill, time has to be filled philosophizing, pondering, conjecturing, and lamenting. The other alternative is to get a lobotomy to erase what you know.
Do you have any blue pills?
LikeLike
I’m not sure about the pill thing, but I do think given all our ancestors went through to get us to this point and then to just blow it seems disrespectful both to them and to future generations. I know there are others that feel this way, but then again we don’t own the human species, the decision to terminate ultimately will be some sort of collective decision even if it is by accident I suppose. Some say there is some sort of collective fear of death, personally, I think it’s just the opposite. This way of life is, to quite an extent, driving people to want it to just be over.
The line between between giving up and not caring is pretty thin I’ve always thought. It’s not for me to judge whether another cares or doesn’t, that’s up to the individual to figure out. I’m just saying. And I find it rather fascinating that with all the critique of capitalism and its evils so few are willing to actually LIVE in another way. Or, even try to articulate (specifically, not generally, generally is easy) what that way would be.
I won’t keep bugging this blog/forum with my rather specific point of view. I appreciate what you’re doing and find the information oftentimes quite useful. So, I’ve made a contribution, my thoughts, for what they’re worth. There is perhaps, not much more I can say.
LikeLike
You said:
“I won’t keep bugging this blog/forum with my rather specific point of view…”
It’s not bothering us. Where did you get that idea?
LikeLike
communal solution sez:
Fascinated but not judgmental? Just sayin’? I understand your points, absolutely. Personally, I don’t take too hard a line about it for one main reason: there’s really not a reasonable exit at this stage (of collapse), at least not one that scales to our oversized population. (Telling quote from The Godfather Part III: “Just when I thought I was out … they pull me back in!”)
Most of us are hopelessly trapped, and even if we could exit, there’s almost nowhere to go. A few intentional communities are formed up, but most of us are ruined people and couldn’t live communally even if we tried. And those folks may not be too active online, so appearances are than almost no one is home- or doomsteading when in truth it’s probably gaining adherents.
LikeLike
🙂 The future is impossible
It’s more impossible in some places than others…
The last time UK was vaguely sustainable for food, was around 1800, with 15 million people, still with a lot of imports from sailing ships to colonies.
Now there’s 60 million plus, fed with oil, and using other people’s land overseas.
And with a wrecked climate.
If the future is as I expect, destabilised climate, no oil, or very expensive oil, then what to do ? You’d want plant a wide range of crops in small quantities in the hope something survives, so that YOU survive, not worrying much about selling surplus for money.
If/when civilisation and infrastructure fails, where’s the fuel and parts for mechanised agri to come from ? Tractors, etc, made in Japan and China and USA and Italy.
Everything has to be done by hand or else back to horses and oxen and donkeys, and nobody knows how to do that anymore.
They still know in some countries but not here. Some small fraction of the population could feed themselves from permaculture, gardens, fishing, etc, but if you think of the thousands of tonnes of food in lorries going into city supermarkets every single day to feed tens of millions of people… that chain of supply is about a week long, and when it breaks, three weeks later, most of UK population is dead.
In USA, with much more mechanised agriculture, much longer supply and transport routes, much more extrem weather patterns… well, you think it through yourselves.
This video is old, before anyone realised how catastrophic the climate chaos was going to get. The BBC were very resistant to showing it.
LikeLike
Industrial farming is horrible in so many ways.
Keep in mind, though, that farming has always been destructive, gobbling up one ecosystem after another. With increasing population it was destined to destroy the biosphere even if we had never become industrialized. It just would have taken more time.
LikeLike
I see the problem. We’re eating oil…
LikeLike
Farming isn’t the problem, though over population certainly is. Farmers are just like everyone else (including progressive teachers, entrepreneurs, artists, government workers etc.) everyone who feels the need or the desire to make substantial amounts of money or have substantial property/material possessions. Farming is just the way they do it. Show, or better yet, live as an example how a farmer can have a better life living on say $2000 a year instead of $20,000 a year or $40,000 a year or whatever and he just might do it. But he certainly is not going to do it when nobody else is. The only way to live with very little money is to do it cooperatively and that is not an answer anybody wants to hear. So, don’t blame farmers or farming on what everybody else is doing as well. I mean I’m just saying. I know it’s very common to find fault with farming in general and I’m just saying I don’t think it’s farming, it’s how the whole society is set up, its values and its goals.
LikeLike
The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) says…
“Introduction of one breeding pair of an exotic species is all it takes to disrupt an ecosystem and cause extinctions of native species. We have evolved into a virtual exotic invader of Earth’s biosphere as a whole, incompatible with undomesticated life forms.”
LikeLike
And this, I can well imagine why farming went the way it did, industrial, petrol fueled, technological, chemical and so on. It’s a terribly oppressive life, even if you love it. Way back they made it work with slaves, then people had a lot of children and made slaves out of them and now we have what we have. I say forget any idealistic notion about farming including organic and natural and go to the heart of the problem which is the whole culture, its values and goals.
LikeLike
Well, Dave Cohen at Decline of Empire pulled my comment regarding religion and matters related. Sure, it was a little clichéd and went beyond the borders of the topic du jour but I must have offended his sensibilities in some way. It seems the red pill is not a palatable option for the human race. Here is the comment:
Religion and magic promise rewards; the ability to slay your enemy by mind power alone, a heavenly destination post-mortem (with greatest status for best behavior), enough virgins to wear down even the stoutest male member. Technology also promises miracles of life extension and eternal growth and wealth, everything a cancer loves. I think that in most cases, the average human has no choice but to believe something that delivers a significant dose of natural anesthetic. When the cancer runs its course and there is no longer the possibility of technological dopamine, the human will resume where he left off. Killing and competition will no longer be confined to a sanctioned coliseum. Resource constraints and technological impotence will raise the death rate substantially until cohesive, cooperative behavior (characteristics of societies where everyone’s bread is getting buttered with growth) to tribalism and disintegration. The Nazi party formed within a country under economic stress and is a prime example of this tribalism. The ghost of Goebbels already stalks the land while in the background Himmler prepares to enforce strict obedience. The blue pill will make you feel good while the red pill will scare the hell out of you and leave you with a life-long hangover, which one will you choose?
There, now that didn’t hurt too much, did it? I always thought these things could be discussed on sites like this, but from birth it seems that most of us are force fed the blue pill and deviance beyond the last vestige of hopium is restricted. I could write a paper on the emergence of molecular systems, homologs at human scale, and the nature of cancer at both scales, but the real debate seems to center upon the potency of Harry Potter’s magic wand.
LikeLike
I agree with what you wrote, except for : ‘Is economy of scale and efficiency really the best thing to pursue on the only planet humans have to live on?’
The claimed efficiency of industrialised agriculture is a myth.
When steam engines were developed as replacements of horses their efficiency was less than 10%, i.e. 90% of the energy available in the coal was lost. I don’t have a specific number to quote, but even a modern tractor has a low efficiency in conversion of the chemical energy in diesel into useful work. As you say, there are enormous hidden costs and enormous hidden inefficiencies. One often-quoted figure for North America is that it takes ten calories of oil energy to put one calorie of food energy onto a kitchen table. Even if that figure were an exaggeration, the industrial food production and distribution system is appallingly inefficient. What we have witnessed, particularly over the past 50 years, is the evolution from appallingly inefficient to terribly inefficient. Of course, what the system HAS done is convert billions of tonnes of CHEAP fossil fuel into CO2.
Other aspects worth noting:
1. Britain began importing food energy in the 1600s, and by 1800 vast quantities of food energy were being imported in the form of sugars and alcohols made from cane. A sustainable population that provides a good quality of life was arguably around 5 million..
2. As U has pointed out, the population of Britain, and especially England, rose as a consequence of plantation farming overseas, and later industrial farming .
3. The French Revolution was partly induced by lack of food. A volcanic eruption lead to cool conditions and poor harvests in Europe. This occurred towards the end of the mini ice age.
4. The connection between soil fertility and nutrients had been worked out thousands of years before, but in the 1800s it became possible for industrialised nations to import large quantities of fertilisers from overseas. The development of large scale industrial chemistry led to synthetic fertilisers -phosphate rock rendered more soluble through the application of sulphuric acid, and production of nitrogenous fertilisers from hydrogen/methane and nitrogen in the air; the production of ammonia/urea is incredibly energy-dependent.
5. Most of the easily accessible sources of phosphate rock are very much depleted (or gone completely, as in the case of Nauru island, which once boasted the highest per capita income in the world, but is now little more than a moonscape). Whatever source that are left will become increasingly expensive to extract, particularly as oil prices rise. Yet the system cannot function without application of phosphate.
6. There is an apparent glut of natural gas at the moment, but that is just short term, and largely a consequence of fracking; depletion rates for fracked wells are staggering. That suggests nitrogenous fertilisers will soon become even more expensive or unavailable.
7. The mechanisation of fishing led to the oceans and seas being stripped of large fish; What were thriving fishing communities in the 1950s and 60s are now largely museums. There has been some movement towards factory farming of fish, but this cannot in any way replace what has been lost. And accumulation of mercury make ingesting of many species of fish a health hazard.
8. 50 years ago the district I live in had thriving dairy factories every few kilometres. Literally every few kilometres. Diary farmers milked small herds and brought the milk by dray to the nearest dairy. All the small dairy factories gradually closed, and now milk is hauled hundreds of kilometres from overstocked farms, by road, to a few gigantic, centralised processing plants. The entire system is critically dependent on liquid fuels and natural gas. And we know what the future holds for oil and gas.
Crude Oil (Brent) USD/bbl. 109.40
9. The concentration of humans into cities led to the adoption of inappropriate systems for dealing with human waste. Valuable nutrients are lost via elaborate, energy-intensive systems that have no long term future. Despite that, engineers and ‘planners’ (most of whom know nothing) insist on expansion of those dysfunctional systems. The energy my local council uses to pump water and process sludge in one year is equivalent to one person working continuously for about 25,000 years. They think that is ‘normal’.
I could go on, but, as discussed many times and noted here by others, the vast majority of people are completely clueless about all of this stuff and do not want to know.
Therefore, this MUST all end tragically.
; . .
. ,
LikeLike
I should have put “economy of scale and efficiency” in quotes. As a matter of fact, I think I will. That’s what the defenders of said system call it; but as you have explained, it really does not live up to that label. I described its shortcomings as well with the loss of nature’s “environmental services” and externalization of egregious costs in the form of ecological damage.
LikeLike
Monocropping is a huge problem and loss of agricultural diversity is definitely a weakening force.
LikeLike
The
invisibledestructive, profit-seeking hand of capitalism at work.LikeLike
Permaculture dude Toby Hemenway wrote a provocative blog post, Is Sustainable Agriculture an Oxymoron?. He distinguishes between “agriculture” and “horticulture.”
LikeLike
Pingback: A Monocultura e a Morte | Quem Produzirá Nossa Comida
Pingback: A Monocultura e a Morte | Quem Produzirá Nossa Comida ?