On 30 May 2008, at 17:46, Lynnet Bannion wrote:
> This would make Iraq a U.S./corporate possession, wouldn't it? With
> enough
> soldiers and firepower over there to make it stick. 100 years after
> the age
> of colonialism....
Hi Lynett
Hmm, apparently colonialism is back.
> Sidelight: There have been cases of farmers being sued for theft of
> patented material when GMO pollen migrated from neighboring fields
> and contaminated their non-GMO
> crops. It's too bad the corporations have the deep pockets; the
> farmers could
> have sued for destruction of the organic certification of their
> farms (due to
> GMO contamination).
I hadn't heard about this but it doesn't surprise me it happened.
> I think you're right, it's all about control. And what is happening
> now with
> organic food, CSAs, small producers of grass-fed meats, farmers
> markets, food not
> lawns, victory gardens, food buying coops, is the grassroots
> individuals squeezing
> their way out from under the corporate thumb. The corporations get
> fewer and more
> powerful: so few control so much of our food supply. But the more
> they squeeze, the
> more people find small, local alternatives. Without an army of
> occupation on every
> corner, the corporations probably can't make it stick. But just
> THINK of the profits
> to be made if they controlled every aspect of the food we eat.
> Stunning! The stakes
> are high. They won't give up easily.
I sometimes wonder just how many people ultimately control 80% of the
food supply in west. There's definitely a move to better, more
sustainable farming but I expect a a recession would put and end to
that, and force people back onto subsidised grains.
Incidentally, the economy is probably part of the problem:
Money as Debt
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279
About 2/3 the way through it explains how depending our economy is on
perpetual unsustainable growth, and I don't see why agriculture is any
different from any other sector.
> Oh, I believe that. It's the grain-fed populations that are easier
> to control,
> especially the sugar-soaked grain-fed ones.
If this is the case though, why?
It certainly used to be true, because by growing grains you can feed
an army. But there was a failed attempt by either the US or UK army
once to feed troops on pemmican (it failed because they didn't
understand there was a 2-week period of withdrawl when cutting out
grains etc). A pemmican fed army would be healthier, fitter and more
effective than a grain-fed army.
What about the rest of the people though? Is it about control? I
suspect it's more about greed. Sugar-coated cornflakes cost nothing
to produce, return huge profits, and are highly addictive. They can
also be branded and marketed, which is a lot harder with whole foods.
> We live in "interesting times". It's all going to unfold in the
> lifetimes of
> most of us. At the end of this transition there will be many fewer
> people.
> The graph of increasing population since the beginning of the 20th
> century can
> be laid almost exactly over the graph of increasing use of petroleum
> energy.
It's clear something will change but I was expecting it to happen much
later. Why you think it will happen that soon?
I checked the idea of the graphs overlaying, but there was a peak in
oil useage around 1977 but there wasn't a corresponding drop in
population after that time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EIA_petroleum_consumption_of_selected_nations_1960-2005.png
Otherwise, they two do appear to go up together (which is what you'd
expect, I guess).
> Same thing: The quest for bigger corporations and bigger profits and
> more control
> is also subject to backfire; eventually we'll squeeze out from under
> them and
> find more humane ways to live. This is true whether we are actually
> at Peak
> Oil, or are just suffering from corporate/governmental greed run amok.
Well there is no doubt at the latter :) The former will just make it
worse. I'm not so hopeful that we'll get away from the corporation-
based society we've got now though.
> Some are evil, some are oblivious, some are selfish, and some are
> just plain
> scared. It's probably the scared ones that are the most dangerous.
Why do you think this? (And by scared, do you mean scared of losing
their money/lifestyle etc, or something else?)
Thanks for the ideas
Ashley
|