--First, I want to express my admiration of this group.  I can tell that
members of the group are all over the map in positions on peak oil, global  
warming, and
the whole shebang, and we are able to conduct reasonable discussions on  
the subjects.
How rare that is! Comments follow
	Lynnet

On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:51:13 -0600, Ashley Moran <[log in to unmask]>  
wrote:

> Since the US government invaded Iraq, farmers there have been banned  
> from collecting seed and have to buy it from licensed US providers  
> (although it hardly made the news).  Is that purely financial, or is it  
> also part of a desire to control the population?
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....

>
> They can't do that domestically - the closest they get is grain  
> subsidies, which is more carrot than stick.  Although arguably anything  
> that keeps wages low enough that people can only afford to buy the  
> cheapest food (because they already paid half upfront in tax) is not  
> practically different situation.
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 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.

>
> The question is, is grain actually necessary to control a population  
> now?  The ancient civilisations needed grains to feed their armies  
> because their food production was more primitive.  Could a modern  
> government operate the same way with no/reduced neolithic foods?  Or  
> would a paleo-fed population weaken central control?
Oh, I believe that.  It's the grain-fed populations that are easier to  
control,
especially the sugar-soaked grain-fed ones.

> I'm of the opinion that the neolithic diet may be reversible but  
> civilisation probably isn't, at least without a famine - there are too  
> many vested interests in it.  I'd be interested to know what everyone  
> else thinks though.
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.

>
> On a related note, there's a growing recognition of our dependence on  
> oil.  The Soil Association runs a Soil not Oil campaign, because whether  
> or not the oil is about to peak, prices are going up, the land is being  
> worn out, the the unsustainabilty of current farming is becoming  
> apparent.  Could the plot to extract money from the public through oil  
> backfire, and force us to revert to decentralised system?  Would it  
> matter?  And do they have a backup plan in case that's what happens?
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.

>
> So many questions, and so many possible answers, depending on how many  
> people in control you think are evil*, and exactly how evil you think  
> they are**...
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.

Thanks for a lot of very interesting questions and observations.

	Lynnet