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