Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

8139Re: [fukuoka_farming] Re:Copyleft and Fukuoka's books

Expand Messages
  • Steven McCollough
    Nov 10, 2008
      Dieter,

      I must begin by saying I have enjoyed and profited by your posts in the
      past and continue to encourage your participation. I have posted
      infrequently because my contributions have been solely on my experiences
      with natural farming which unfortunately are limited in extent and
      successes. I must say though your attitude seems more on the order of
      list proctor than participant. Also, please take advantage of quoting
      certain sections of the previous posts you are referring to. It took me
      nearly an hour to piece together who and what you were referring to even
      given the subject line similarity.

      Please see specific comments below.

      Dieter Brand wrote:
      > Vincente,
      >
      > Did you know that you can download two of Fukuoka’s books from Steve Solomon’s Soil and Health library at: soilandhealth.org?
      >
      This is the best single answer to all the previous posts as it addresses
      the property rights issue while still leaving those unable to purchase
      books an avenue to get knowledge.

      > To have a meaningful discussion we need to have the courage to tell the truth as we know it even if it is not trendy or popular. E.g., if a person, who never made any contribution to this group, suddenly turns up to sell Fukuoka’s books, then we need to be able to ask a question about copyright, which has often been discussed but never been answered. Somebody also needs to point out that to use another person’s labor to make a commercial profit by selling his work is neither legal nor moral.
      >
      I agree with this totally.
      >
      > To have a meaningful discussion we also need to reply to what the other person is trying to say and not use part of an argument as an opportunity to propagate our own ideology.
      >
      It seems to me over the years you have "used part of an argument as an
      opportunity to propagate our own ideology," more than just about anyone
      one the list. This is just so slippery a concept I don't know how you
      can differentiate your views and posts from propagating an ideology.
      Your views on dry land no till for example.

      > I think it is preferable to do so in our own words and not argue with the arguments of others by the PC’s copy and paste commands or by Internet links.
      >
      I strongly disagree with this sentiment. Only by using the whole body of
      discussion on an issue is the truth to be found. I find the arguments of
      higher authority just as valuable as the personal experience of the
      novice. Also, some on this list have more experience than others and
      feel this is authority enough for their arguments even when in contrast
      with a more prevalent view. I have a tremendous respect for your view,
      for example, while always looking for a counterpoint.

      > Regarding a World without private property (if that is what you are after), “real socialism”, the sole experiment of doing away with private property known to mankind, has collapsed under its own contradictions after tens of millions of death and hundreds of millions were reduced to extreme poverty and humiliation. They even managed the incredible feat of creating a high degree of penury for the people while at the same time squandering natural resources and destroying the environment in a big way.
      >
      The fact that you felt it necessary to defend intellectual property
      rights is a diversion of the list precepts in my view, as was your
      defense of anti socialism that followed. I, for example, attribute a
      different cause to squandering natural resources and destroying the
      environment.
      >
      > If you have any experience with farming and in particular with Natural Farming you know that a farmer needs to “own” his land;
      >
      I disagree with this also. While this is the paradigm we suffer with
      now, it may be a root problem. You, for example, have let the financial
      aspects of making a profitable farm operation affect all your views on
      natural farming. Some, if not most, on this list are interested in
      blending farming into life - not blend life into a farming.
      > Bible mentioned something about “giving” being nobler than “taking”. Alas, human avarice being what it is, that idea never made it very far. Yet by making an ideology out of freely taking what was made by others to serve our personal gain seems to propel human perversion to unknown levels. And you say that is Natural Farming!?
      >
      I must have missed where someone said freely taking what was made by
      others was natural farming. Giving is making more headway than you seem
      to give credit for. If we were to ask Fukuoka if his words should be
      available to all, I think he would say yes. Should we condone copyright
      infringement? No, that would be going too far. Should we encourage
      reasonable laws concerning copyright as was the main argument of some
      here? Yes.

      This reply is offered in respect and to further the discussions on the
      list. If, Dieter, you wish to win this as an argument, I'm sure you can
      with elegance as demonstrated by past eloquence. I would hope instead
      you see it as constructive review. Your "ideology" may not be visible to
      you, but it is to me. I would like to see more discussion of natural
      farming just as you suggested. Unfortunately this is not it whether as
      initiator or responder.

      Steven McCollough
    • Show all 25 messages in this topic