On 30 May 2008, at 14:46, william wrote:

> Yes. (And some know the reason why.)

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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**...

Any thoughts?

Ashley


* My guess is not many, relatively speaking
** My guess is extremely