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

Re: Nature or Farm

Expand Messages
  • animaphile
    ... AND LIVE ... from ... world ... Yes! Of course! and also nobody knows and nobody will ever know and more possibilities are apparent - in the human future:
    Message 1 of 16 , Jun 28, 2003
      --- In fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com, "jamie" <jamie@t...> wrote:
      > Jean-Claude wrote: THE SUREST WAY TO PRESERVE THE WILD IS TO EAT
      AND LIVE
      > FROM IT , and not ,
      > as it seems wise , to leave it alone and buy from supermarkets or
      from
      > desertified environments call farms .
      >
      > To farm or to return land to nature?
      >
      > A question for jean-claude: is there enough to eat for the current
      world
      > population if farming were to cease and we were all to become
      > hunter-gatherers?
      >
      > Jamie
      > Souscayrous

      Yes!
      Of course!
      and also nobody knows and nobody will ever know
      and more possibilities are apparent - in the human future:
      1) On current human population trends no food harvesting ideology or
      no human society will be able to feed all its people.
      2) quoting Gandi "The earth has enough for everyone's needs, but not
      for some people's greed". It is currently just unnecessary
      distribution impediments maintained by greed motivated peoples.
      3) Humans will all harvest the majority of our food locally from
      local native foods with a minority of traded foods in highly diverse
      ecosystems for many uses, both Human and non-Human uses and in the
      broadest sense of uses, such as use for reciprocal love - Thanks Deb
      & Norie for lovely words on this in recent posts.

      3 cont'd) This diversity will extract & cycle the maximum nutrition
      possible from each humans particular local landscape to be
      supplemented by some minority trading and this will include country
      currently pretended to free of human influence such as National
      Parks, so called Wilderness etc.

      If there is any onus of proof which is an awful adversarial,
      legalistic or pharisee-istic concept, then the onus of so called
      proof is on the least sustainable, most destructive people that have
      been on the earth. That is too many people who have come from my type
      of society -some of whom are the intentionally-materialistic Western
      European and Mesopotamian derived peoples.

      And the onus of so called proof for this is also on the people who
      raise the question which is clearly not just you Jamie, but many
      people i've heard who, obviously unlike you, have what Vandina Shiva
      calls "Monocultures of the Mind".

      Have been raised in such a one dimensional way of knowing and even
      being, linear thinking with opposing extremes, everything is forward
      or backward, progress or regress, monolingual, etc., typically to
      position them as dominant in their society or for them to position
      their society as dominant amongst 'others', by preventing them from
      becoming aware of many equally successful ways of knowing, cultures
      and the various advantages that other ways have over theirs and vis
      versa.

      This is what many Oz W.E. people tried position me to be so that i
      would take up my families upper-class socially-dominant position in
      Melbourne Oz society. i can operate in this upper-class game but i
      have many more ways of being and don't enjoy dominance or
      disproportionate power, it is deathly repressive of me, compared to
      that i nowadays have many friends and diverse experiences,
      particularly deep Japanese & Oz Indig' experience.

      It is not a question for Indig' people as they need not answer it
      when they still have their sovereignty, land, happiness,
      civilisation, freedom and so on intact (so called hunter-gatherers
      need not to answer). - Nothing to prove compared to land-destructive,
      invasive coloniser people's.

      It is for those that wish to raise this hypothetical argumentation,
      to so-called-prove that hunter gathering produces less happy, less
      healthy societies in the broadest sense. But not less happy, less
      healthy in some W.E. partial measurement typically quantitative
      sense. The only way to do this honestly is to ask indigenous people
      who still have their so called hunter-gathering resources (land,
      social, ecological) fully intact and completely un-dispossessed.
      Sadly Indigenous Ozzies say that there is no-one in Oz who hasn't
      been dis-affected in some way by W.E. invasion & colonisation and
      very few i guess on earth today.

      Example partial measurments such as just long life (meanwhile maybe
      miserably unhappy) or just calories in diet (meanwhile maybe
      suboptimal health & nutrition - always a bit weak, need to be inside
      houses alot, get colds alot, increasing obesity, suboptimal mental
      health, many so called W.E. lifestyle diseases, etc.) or just a type
      of mental health which is W.E. good-obediant-worker in the 'Babylon
      system' (to introduce a quote of the wonderfully heartful Bob Marley -
      the phrase the 'Babylon System' - possibly, hopefully useful as a
      shorthand phrase in this e-group instead of heirarchical,
      materialistic W.E. and Mesopotamian... that i've been using.) ie.
      someone who is inculcated in and after inculcation in adulthood
      submits somewhat unconciously & unquestioningly to authority that is
      merely socially constructed by the corporate, media, government,
      social and workplace heirarchies in societies such as W.E.
      heirarchically structured societies.

      As you remember Jamie, how in integrated thinking, which has been
      rare in W.E. heirarchical societies, nutrition is not a function of
      weight of food. The weight of food can vary in it's nutritional value
      by as much as 100 times (two orders of magnitude for number-lovers).

      Eg. Oranges are often thought to be nutritious and high in vitamin C.
      This is so relative a 'fact' as to be made useless or perverse in
      Northern Oz because Gubinge, Kakadu Plums have 60 times the vitamin C
      by weight compared to Oranges. Picture a typical scenario in Oz: Some
      White-Fellah so called expert in 'the Kimberleys', northern Western
      Australia, thinking they're helping Indigenous Ozzies by, telling
      them to eat lots of Oranges, actually 60 per month - two per day -
      because their vitamin C level is low. When actually the Indig' Ozzie
      person doesn't speak European-English but speaks Aboriginal-English
      as a second language and say for example hasn't learned the real
      meaning of the English words "vitamin C" but they're are told to
      listen to this expert. Then they go and eat oranges that are trucked
      from some farm down south where alot of oranges are grown, with
      pesticides, because they don't get the real information from their
      expert in language they really understand and don't know that
      this "vitamen C" is what they get from Gubinge all through their
      childhood when the children eat them as 'bush lollies'. This is to
      the extent of needing to eat only a few handfuls through every month
      of Gubinge - these small, marble sized, tart-sweet green plums from
      the bush in the homeland compared to sixty fat juicy truck-imported,
      cash-sapping Oranges per month.

      We Western-Europeans are the same, when we get the real information
      in our own language that we really understand about our local growing
      foods we can have nutrition far greater than solely market foods by
      our diet coming from a combination of largely locally growing foods
      and some few traded foods from other regions (for locally missing
      trace-elements).

      Another example is how humans very healthily can live almost only on
      sprouted beans and seeds, such as mung, lentil, grain..., as in the
      example i mentioned in an earlier post of round the world sailors and
      also in the example of Tenzi Palmo (aka Diane Perry) the woman who
      travelled from England at 19, who's the most highly ordained Buddhist
      Nun in the Tibetan tradition, who lived for 12 years meditating in a
      Cave on a winter snow covered mountain in the Himalaya's, came out
      afterwards mentally brighter and healthier than before and lived on
      lentils, other beans or seeds and some vegies that she grew in the
      summer after snow thaw. See the Books "Cave in the Snow" Vicki
      Mackenzie 1998 and "Reflections on a Mountain Lake" Tenzin Palmo 2002.

      We get this real understanding from a variety of experienced local
      people, including unsustainable agriculturalists in info exchange
      with us. I have learned some natural farming in my home area from
      highly unsustainable Beef Cattle farmer neighbours who do that for
      money because of the way they know the W.E.Oz Ag. economy is
      distorted and at the same time admit to me that natural farming is
      overall better and Indig' people's life is better, but to send their
      children to university... What these W.E. farmers don't get maybe is
      that they be both inside the Babylon system to supply money needs,
      outside for happy health and not of the W.E. society but of
      humaneness and relations with their home land which has been in their
      family for maybe 3-4 generations. We can always have this optimal
      nutrition and nearly everywhere on earth except say antarctica,
      denuded deserts and human-NEARLY completely destroyed soilscapes and
      landscapes.

      For example the vast European-Ozzie generated salinised landscapes of
      Western Oz & western & northern Victoria, my home state. Agriculture
      there has not only been invasion, genocide of healthy sustainable
      people but also in my lifetime is has been the turning from rich
      forests and woodlands, wetlands and river vegetation to completely
      salted-encrusted soils covering whole landscapes and drying up lakes
      into salt pans, destroying towns by 'salt-rot' of buildings etc.

      In Oz this process only started less than 200 years ago with W.E.
      agriculture, typically wheat cropping, and is now finished because
      the landscape is useless to humans except for salt-harvesting and
      saltmarshes and saline tolerant plants. Actually the monoculture
      crops weren't necessary there ever, large no.s of happy people,
      Indig' and non-Indig' could still be living off that land today had
      it not been used temporarily for agricultural-mining to its
      exhaustion.

      There is a book in Oz written by W.E. Oz scientists containing the
      assays of the nutrients, vitamens, minerals and anti-nutritionals
      such as alkaloids of Indigenous Ozzie people's foods. This and
      particularly the work done by W.E. nutritionalists on Oz Indig'
      people's natural diets revealing the main cause of Diabetes in Indig'
      people's to be the move from natural foods to W.E. agricultural foods.

      Animaphile
    • Robert Monie
      Hi Jamie, Jason, and all, Peter Raven (whose Botany and Plant Biology textbooks many of us studied in school) estimates that the entire population of
      Message 2 of 16 , Jun 28, 2003
        Hi Jamie, Jason, and all,

        Peter Raven (whose Botany and Plant Biology textbooks many of us studied in school) estimates that the entire population of hunter-gatherers amounted to no more than a few million people, most probably less than 10 million. Today there are 6.3 Billion people on this earth expecting to be fed regularly. Try to picture, folks, the number of wild animals and the density of forest necessary to sustain such a roving multitude, and what you would get would resemble a crazed crowd throwing over cars, setting fire to towns, and generally rampaging after a soccer match. Such a situation would literally be hell on earth.

        If some dictator took over the world tomorrow and commanded that all farms and gardens be returned immediately to their wild state, you would see mass starvation and tumoil on a scale unprecedented in human history. People would chip the bark off trees to get something to eat, chew on leather shoes, and most likely resort to cannibalism. It would be a return to nature in the most literal, appalling Hobbsian sense.

        The excellent example Jason gave of a Tibetan holy woman living in a cave on lentils, beans, and other sources of concentrated nutrients is not hunter gathering; it is subsistance horticulture, a very different proposition.(It is what the Benedictines and Carthusian monks did). If everyone in the world today tried their informed best to grow subsistance gardens for themselves as the Tibetan woman did, the world would be much less Hobbsian, less nasty and brutish. Nearly all beans and lentils are cultivated; humans have had a hand in their evolution. The same is true of the nappa cabbage. In snow covered fields when other crops failed, the nappa cabbage has kept Chinese peasants alive. In my own state, Louisiana, during the Great Depression, when many were starving, a community in French Fork managed to survive well by eating the "stick up" variety of cow peas. Old folks up there still talk about this experience. The stick up cow pea was not a "wild" food; but it loved to grow in
        the Louisiana soil . Not only full of nutrients, the "stick up" cow pea also stores well as a dried pea, so you could eat them all year long. The point here is that people planted cow peas and nappa, they didn't rush into the wild to get them, and these plants took care of the population during a time of great scarcity, stress, and socail unrest.

        Does anyone really believe the Chinese peasants during their crop failure or the residents of French Fork during the Depression would have done better to run to the marshes and swamps to kill crocodiles or alligators and eat cattails? I don't. I vote for farms and gardens everywhere. Leave the alligators and the cattails in the swamps.

        The industrial food market does not choose the most nutritious food for distribution. Oranges certainly are not the best source for Vitamin C and they are overproduced. Orange orchards are often (not always) examples of "desert-like" farming, usually severely monocropped. It would be possible to make a Vitamin C Farm or garden that grew ground cherries (a nearly wild plant that grows very easily in most locales), acerola, kiwi fruit (especially the yellow type), baobab, black currant, camu camu (myrclariadubia), tropical guava, goji fruit (from Tibet) and many others that have more vitamin c (and other nutrients) than oranges.


        I agree with Jason that simple diets are often better than the type promoted by industry. Dr. Terri Shintani in his book "The Hawaiian Diet" shows experimentially and clinically that obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, and other diseases of "developed" nations are less likey when people go back to pre-industrial diets. The same has been proven true among many peoples of many different cultures. The Mediterranean diet, high in greens, fruits, and vegetables, and low in fatty meat, has been in the news the past few days as a way of preventing heart disease and cancer. Dr. Wilcox in his "Okinawa Program" shows that eating low on the food chain is best for you. But the diets studied by Shintani and Wilcox were not mainly of the wild hunter/gatherer type. Most of the plant foods were relatively cultivated and grown in small farms or gardens.

        In the American diet, wheat is surely overused, and many develop an allergic reaction to it. Millet and buckwheat are hardly used at all, even though buckwheat is a powerful source for rutin and other bioflavoinoids and is associated with an increase in capillary wall strength and a decrease in hypertension. Chinese black rice has been shown to prevent atherosclerosis, yet is extremely hard to find and seldom grown in America. (The Italians are smarter; they adapted it to their own cuisine).These black rices were anything but wild; they were cultivatred in the Emperor's palace garden. Blood oranges are more nutritious than the other kinds (partly from lycopene) but they are seldom grown in the US. The list goes on and on.

        In his seed catalog, J.L. Hudson has an essay on the dangers of going too far with "native-only" planting and, by implication, I would say, of relying too much on "wild" plants. The human race is more mobile than ever and is trying to catalog its global cornucopia. Peter Raven, the Eden Project in Cornwell, Steve Faccione, Kent Wheatly, Alan Kapuler, and hundreds of other conservation plant scientists are assembling a catalog of world resources. The indigs never had this. The hunter gatherers never had it. They couldn't have known what grows in every biome and farm area of the world as we can. In my garden I have over a dozen Asian vegetables that the Native Americans never saw (unless a few Japanese traders got blown into the West coast with their seeds before Colombus). These "exotic" greens and legumes grow well in south Louisiana. They are high in a wide spectrum of vitamins and minerals (including calcium and potassium); they are low in oxalic acid, and they don't seem
        to know or care that they are not in the countryside of Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Japan, or China; and they are obligingly tender.

        As for replacements for oranges, I have some black currants and it would be fun to try the super-Vit C plants camu camu and goji fruit too (maybe even that plant Jason mentioned). Paradoxicaly, it may be possible to stay at home (horticulture/farm style) and try lots of the foods you would have found on the run as a hunter gatherer. The wild foods are out in the woods, swamps, and prairies to serve as a gene pool for us to work on in cultivating plants for our farms and back yards. Let's not eat up the gene pool. Take some of it and try to domesticate it. That is surely how the human race got most of the plant food it survives on today. We are much more "Homo Fabens" (human makers and fabricators) than we are "Homo Sapiens" (creatures of wisdom). When we talk about having 6.3 Billion people live off the wild, we are not beng very wise. Let us farm instead. Sustainable farming is the most noble and realistic choice.
        The alternative would be to send at least 4 or 5 Billion people in space ships to colonize other planets, so the remaining earthlings could have the luxury of playing indigs on this one.

        Bob Monie, hoping they don't send me (and 5 billion others) to Mars





        jamie <jamie@...> wrote:
        Jean-Claude wrote: THE SUREST WAY TO PRESERVE THE WILD IS TO EAT AND LIVE
        FROM IT , and not ,
        as it seems wise , to leave it alone and buy from supermarkets or from
        desertified environments call farms .

        To farm or to return land to nature?

        A question for jean-claude: is there enough to eat for the current world
        population if farming were to cease and we were all to become
        hunter-gatherers?

        Jamie
        Souscayrous




        Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        fukuoka_farming-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



        ---------------------------------
        Do you Yahoo!?
        SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • animaphile
        I would like to acknowledge here that i m writting this on Guringai land. And to ackowledge up front from know on and for all posts that Guringai people live/d
        Message 3 of 16 , Jun 28, 2003
          I would like to acknowledge here that i'm writting this on Guringai
          land. And to ackowledge up front from know on and for all posts that
          Guringai people live/d happily, sustainably caring for this land i'm
          now on since time began or for at least 40 millenia. They participate
          in maintaining (or the word breeding 2Bob) the natural resources of
          this northern region of Sydney coastline, including maintaining
          themselves as richly civilised humans (cultured 2Bob),mentally and
          physically healthy, full of heart, highly intelligent, highly
          compassionate and highly spiritual people. Also including eating
          hundreds of types of natural seafoods (and local plants), just as for
          example Japanese tourists do in Sydney today.

          This is all said with my heart being 'for' you's and in good humour
          of course, please take it that way.
          Bob & Jamie don't eat seafood fresh from natural freshwater or the
          natural ocean ever again, because you would be eating completely
          unbred food - unbred in the human domination of breeding sense. And
          don't eat it ever again because you would be doing Hunter Gathering!
          And 2Bob you wouldn't want to be seen by 'whities' doing hunter
          gathering, would you?

          And why would or should anyone who has read Fukuoka Masanobu, BELIEVE
          uncritically anything of Bob's fabrication of Peter Raven as a
          Western European (false-) authority, big knob, figure. He is the
          W.E.'s biggest name biologist according to USA government and science
          industry, = he sells a lot of biology textbooks. He is/was one of the
          USA governments pet or chief biologists, paid by the Gov't
          administration. Does this make him honest or impartial! - Maybe he
          advised Bill Clinton on which is really the best tobacco plant
          variety for Cigars! Heeeee!

          I heard Peter Raven speak (24 July 1998 - see intro below) in person
          at Melbourne University recently and he himself in his own words is
          in very good faith and quite humble and honest about his knowledge,
          that his knowledge is partial, provisional and relient on many other
          scientists, for their ever changing, provisional results.

          Peter Raven said at the speech & discussion that humans need to
          regenerate all the local natural vegetation areas back across all the
          landscapes and farms, and have small pockets of GMO's for human food
          of a few acres for each family or group. 2Bob if you think that more
          exclusively human controlled or generally human dominated plant
          breeding is better, then grow exclusively GMO's.

          "
          Science lecture 'Biodiversity in the new millennium: what should we
          do?' by Dr Peter Raven (Missouri Botanical Garden). Prince Philip
          Theatre, Architecture Building.

          Dr Raven will discuss ways of tackling the challenge of preserving
          the millions of kinds of plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms on
          Earth. These are threatened, he says, by a record human population,
          unprecedented levels of consumption, and the use of inappropriate
          technologies which are driving more than 1000 species to extinction
          for each new species that evolves.

          Dr Raven warns that more than one quarter of all species on Earth is
          estimated to be extinct or on the way to extinction by the first
          quarter of the next century - and perhaps three-quarters by its end.

          Dr Raven is also Englemann Professor of Botany at Washington
          University, Home Secretary of the US National Academy of Sciences,
          and a member of the US President's Committee of Advisers on Science
          and Technology.
          "

          Human domination and control is ridiculous and i don't agree with
          your overbearing selective mis-interpretation of my words in my
          previous post reply to Jamie.

          So what if Tenzin Palmo got her food from something that you choose
          words of "subsistance horticulture" for. This doesn't alter my words
          that some Indig' people who some W.E. people negatively
          (perjoratively) have called hunter gatherers eat the same sort of
          beans, seeds and vegies from whole nature because they are integrated
          into whole nature. Obviously, except to deliberate mis-interpretors,
          the point i was making is that they can like Tenzin Palmo eat small
          volumes of highly nutritious foods and avoid any need for human-
          controlled farming.

          Oz Indig' people don't define themselves as hunter gatherers except
          to play back to W.E. ears. Indigenous people's are humans, of course,
          and this is the self-definition they have.

          In my home base region the Maap people live/lived. Maap is the
          nationality and language and this word translates into english as
          human. ie. in that region Maap is the word for human. i'll share more
          of the Maap (people's) story, including Tongei, in a later post.

          The researched, document-based or plausible figures for the
          population of Indigenous people in Sydney area of Oz alone vary from
          hundreds of thousands to three million people. The uncertainty is soo
          massive that any estimates are dihonest, let alone estimates of the
          earths indig' population. Anyway more is not better or happier! This
          Sydney region is a small part, maybe 5%, of the rich coastal regions
          of Australia, so extrapolating that, there could be any number
          between 2 million and 60 million historically indigenous to Australia
          at any one time. But nobody documentarily knows or will ever because
          about two thirds 66% were killed by W.E. contact as described by W.E.
          people themselves in heartless W.E. records of the time.

          In fact if technology is your fetish then get some of the W.E.
          genetics obsessed scientists to give you gene therapy and put
          chlorophyll into your skin aswell as the human bodies natural tanning
          melanin! You could then be a real life HULK, you wouldn't want to
          have W.E. prudery about your 'natural' body by wearing clothes, you
          wouldn't have to get worried about fire, you wouldn't need to learn
          masses of technologies, you wouldn't need to live in a fourth rate
          cave, you'd just sit out in the human-increased greenhouse effect
          atmosphere and soak up some rays, you could spend your life surfing,
          i like to! Meanwhile your chlorophyllous skin would be producing all
          the calories you need from the sun by photosynthesis. You could drink
          sea water occasionally for all your mineral needs, and eat a few sea-
          side vegetable plants, sea gull eggs for vitamins, and take a few
          Berroca's to make sure you don't go vitamin-B-deficiency-mad, and
          maintain a link with the Corporate greed multinational drug companies.

          Love to all,
          Animaphile
          Jason Stewart
        • Ingrid Bauer/Jean-Claude Catry
          ... it will be abandonment . Once you pruned you got to prune, once you tilled you got to till ,once you have been desertifying your inherited god given
          Message 4 of 16 , Jun 29, 2003
            > A question for jean-claude: is there enough to eat for the current world
            > population if farming were to cease and we were all to become
            > hunter-gatherers?

            it will be abandonment . Once you pruned you got to prune, once you tilled
            you got to till ,once you have been desertifying your inherited god given
            nourishing environment , you are stuck having to create an artificial one to
            mimic its efficiency .( i live on the west coast of BC, where in the past
            before the europeans , there was way more foods available to peoples than
            it is produce now as most of the food is imported from california .

            but somewhere you have to find the way to get out of this spinning out
            toward more and more desertification .
            it means creating really sustainable ecosystem that honor the diversity of
            species . May be masanobu envisionned a earth where you have only humans and
            foods for humans ,to say that earth could sustain more peoples .
            i don't believe one minute that can be holding water very long .

            the actual population on earth is artificially maintained by having
            created unsustainable way of managing the earth . switching , from a natural
            regulation of food choices to an artificial one ( as grass seed have been
            naturally designed for birds mostly ) have been devastating in many regard
            ( i know personally , pretty well the health impact of that switch). the
            most devastating part have been for allowing overpopulation .

            the fact is that genetic engineering and other modern ways of creating more
            foods is speeding up the coming back of the elastic .the fact is that
            unatural diets are going to bring back in some reasons populations.( and i
            have as many others good reasons to believe that a grain based diet is so
            new that we didn't have the time to adapt genetically to it )
            i saw a number recently that i don't remember exactelly . it was about the
            ecological foot print of canadians , to produce that amount of energy spent
            in canada we need a surface of earth x time ( 3,4 or 5 ) the actual surface
            of canada . and there is not that many of us , That is what is not creating
            a balanced diet for everyone on earth .

            i talk about hunter gatherers not as a way to emulate now ( first it is
            impossible right now for anyone on earth , that life style is quasi extinct
            ,), but because their relationship to their food sources was not a consumer
            style of relationship ( contrary to what have been projected to them by
            consumer minds ), as they were activelly , directly , involved in
            maintaining nourishing environments without excluding any other species or
            depriving them of their right to be part of dance as they choose!
            farming have been a way to slave other peoples to produce foods for the
            lords and sustain army of invaders
            to make it possible many species had to be excluded or enslaved . we just
            transformed a diverse world into a monoculture of humans and may be cows (
            for north americans)
            even more so now in this informatic age that is going to produce a
            monoculture of minds .
            i see Natural way of farming as a way to reestablish what was given to us
            and all other species ( an hunter gatherers life style . MAsanobu went a
            long way in that direction but there is more realisation to come like the
            uselessness and counter performance of domestication .( unless you believe
            that heavy , sweet and unflavorfull foods are an improvement )
            jean-claude
          • jamie
            Hello jean-claude, thanks for the response. I d like to highlight some of the points you make to express the foundations of what we understand Natural Farming
            Message 5 of 16 , Jun 29, 2003
              Hello jean-claude, thanks for the response. I'd like to highlight some of
              the points you make to express the foundations of what we understand Natural
              Farming to be and therefore what should be done with it.

              You write: "but somewhere you have to find the way to get out of this
              spinning out toward more and more desertification ."
              Yes. And therefore NF would be *the* way to ameliorate our present
              unsustainability.

              You write: "May be masanobu envisionned a earth where you have only humans
              and foods for humans ,to say that earth could sustain more peoples . i don't
              believe one minute that can be holding water very long ."
              Again, yes, I think he did, this is what has been occupying me recently.
              Natural and farming are mutually exclusive terms: there are no farms in
              nature! Fukuoka is not afraid to express this point;"Of course, in a sense,
              natural farming will never be perfected. It will not see general application
              in its true form , and will serve only as a brake to slow the mad onslaught
              of scientific agriculture." (the fourth paragraph from the Preface of
              Natural Way)
              I take Fukuoka to understand NF's 'true form' as being "... based on a
              nature free of human meddling and intervention" (The first sentence of the
              Preface to Natural Way).

              Given the above, NF is not an ultimate, it is not a 'good' in itself but a
              pathway toward a 'good', ie sustainability.

              I find this important for two reasons: I have been questioning NF because I
              recognised the fundamental incompatability of Nature and Farming (the
              hunter-gatherer discussions have helped situate this incompatability) and
              realised it would be folly to dedicate myself to NF if it itself were not an
              answer and secondly (and concomitantly) if we are to accommodate the current
              world population and the projected increase to 2050, it is not possible to
              do so by allowing our farms to simply revert back to nature and all adopt a
              hunter-gatherer lifestyle (which is still the implicitly sanctioned
              lifestyle not just of Fukuoka's NF but of a world that can sustain not just
              man and his vegetable plants, but a fully diverse biosphere with room enough
              to accommodate all).

              Therefore NF will, certainly within my lifetime (projecting a further 40
              years for an average WE lifespan of 80 years) be the best (only?)
              agriculture able to sustain human, animal and plant life until an
              equilibrium is reached and we can then choose (ie actually have a choice) as
              to what lifestyle best suits the earth and human existence.

              NF as amelioration, as pathway and not goal.

              I think we have an obligation to keep our eyes on what is important
              considering the potential suffering (human, animal, plant and
              non-organic...in a codependent creation all that 'is' partakes of existence
              and should be valued equally) and work toward practical expressions of
              Fukuoka's principles to establish sustainability 50 years hence...the future
              is being expressed in what we all do now.

              I am currently involved in bringing the soil of old vineyards back to life,
              intending a natural orchard as described by Fukuoka (and a veg garden that
              has been dried to a crisp already this summer), and I am also involved in
              communicating the agricultural research of Emilia Hazelip and other people
              through her association 'Las Encantadas' by means of newsletters, magazines
              and books - we shall be scattering Emilia's ashes on her land here in the
              foothills of the French Pyrenees on July 19th where we shall be joined by
              many of her friends, including Fortunato and Antonio who have set up a
              Synergistic Agriculture school (and EmiliaHazelip email list on yahoogroups)
              in their native Italy, each of us bringing a plant or seeds. We had a
              meeting of the association yesterday with discussion of how to take its aims
              forward: a website was proposed with much information freely available and
              further works available for a small fee with which to continue the work of
              the association. Now that we've lost www.fukuokafarmingol.net it would also
              be the place to present online the work of Fukuoka. If there are any on this
              list who would like to be part of this ongoing association (Las Encantadas
              has been going for almost 20 years now) we would be pleased to hear from you
              (lasencantadas@...).

              Jamie
              Souscayrous
            • Gloria C. Baikauskas
              Jason.......could it be that Fukuoka, or not to Fukuoka, is not as important as including in the garden plants that are edible, but not popularly used? I
              Message 6 of 16 , Jun 29, 2003
                Jason.......could it be that Fukuoka, or not to Fukuoka, is not as
                important as including in the 'garden' plants that are edible, but
                not popularly used? I know Seeds of Change in the US (before it was
                bought by large corporation Mars, at least), was doing its best to go
                into places like Mexico and salvage the plants/seeds that the
                government in Mexico had decided it needed to eradicate. Many of us
                spend time at websites for seed companies that stock the old native
                indig people's foods.....like the oldest corns, both for flour and
                for eating, for instance. Seeds of Change also includes a packet of
                seeds in each order that they wish one to plant in order to try to
                save a plant species, be it flowers, or veggies, etc. I have noticed
                even some plants offered of plants once eaten regularly by S.
                American indigs offered now by a few companies which are gaining in
                popularity.

                I have read how in this country history was slanted so that we would
                believe we WEs were the civilized peoples here in N.America, when it
                was actually the opposite at the time. Our diseases killed off not
                only the indig peoples, but also their plants, and their animals
                raised for food. There is a point in the excavations when burial
                sites (cemetaries) begin to replace all other building as the
                diseases spread from not only we WEs, but also from the plants, and
                the dom. animals we brought with us from Europe.

                For this reason I fear that many of the plants those N. American
                indigs used in their daily lives were lost to us. Interesting
                conundrum.
                Gloria
              • Sergio Montinola
                Dear Gloria, All plants may not be all edible for now. But they have uses, or some benefit to nature and us. It is up to us to discover and learn how to
                Message 7 of 16 , Jun 29, 2003
                  Dear Gloria,

                  All plants may not be all edible for now. But they have uses, or some benefit to nature and us. It is up to us to discover and learn how to benefit from it. Nature is perfect just like its Creator. Man is here to learn and discover it uses and benefits to mankind for all time. .

                  Fukuoka believed this and practiced what the role of man is in relation to nature.That is what makes Fukuoka different. We should continue his work for it is not finished and final.

                  We as followers of Fukuoka has to play our role. This is why I decided to join the group.

                  Regards,
                  Sergio J. Montinola

                  "Gloria C. Baikauskas" <gcb49@...> wrote:
                  Jason.......could it be that Fukuoka, or not to Fukuoka, is not as
                  important as including in the 'garden' plants that are edible, but
                  not popularly used? I know Seeds of Change in the US (before it was
                  bought by large corporation Mars, at least), was doing its best to go
                  into places like Mexico and salvage the plants/seeds that the
                  government in Mexico had decided it needed to eradicate. Many of us
                  spend time at websites for seed companies that stock the old native
                  indig people's foods.....like the oldest corns, both for flour and
                  for eating, for instance. Seeds of Change also includes a packet of
                  seeds in each order that they wish one to plant in order to try to
                  save a plant species, be it flowers, or veggies, etc. I have noticed
                  even some plants offered of plants once eaten regularly by S.
                  American indigs offered now by a few companies which are gaining in
                  popularity.

                  I have read how in this country history was slanted so that we would
                  believe we WEs were the civilized peoples here in N.America, when it
                  was actually the opposite at the time. Our diseases killed off not
                  only the indig peoples, but also their plants, and their animals
                  raised for food. There is a point in the excavations when burial
                  sites (cemetaries) begin to replace all other building as the
                  diseases spread from not only we WEs, but also from the plants, and
                  the dom. animals we brought with us from Europe.

                  For this reason I fear that many of the plants those N. American
                  indigs used in their daily lives were lost to us. Interesting
                  conundrum.
                  Gloria


                  Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  fukuoka_farming-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                  ---------------------------------
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Ingrid Bauer/Jean-Claude Catry
                  I have been questioning NF because I ... that is my challenge at this point of evolution in my diet and my situation on that land , i have to do that: make a
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jun 30, 2003
                    I have been questioning NF because I
                    > recognised the fundamental incompatability of Nature and Farming (the
                    > hunter-gatherer discussions have helped situate this incompatability) .

                    that is my challenge at this point of evolution in my diet and my situation
                    on that land , i have to do that: make a farm integrated in the
                    wilderness.there is no fondamental antagonism between the two once you got
                    clear in few things .
                    1 that no improvement of foods can beat the perfection of wild plants (
                    and yes WITH the toxines )
                    i know that not many are going to agree with that unless they made the
                    experience of eating only wild undenatured foods following their sense of
                    smell and taste ( instinctive nutrition ).th use of improved varieties are
                    just temporary means while really naturally nourishing ecosystems have been
                    created

                    2 that nothing better than god designed ecosystem can reach this level
                    of sustainability .( what brought me there especially is the attempts to
                    raise domestic animals the most naturally possible with thier natural diet ,
                    you just can't beat totally free range animals to provide for them the
                    ultimum nutrition --- THE POWER OF FREEDOM OF CHOICE . let each plants and
                    animals establish their relationship to the rest of creations .

                    3 that switching to an increase in consumption of easelly swallowed (
                    bypassing instinctive barrier because of breeding and cooking )
                    carbohydrates have been desatrous for humanity ( leading to overpopulation
                    because of unbalanced hormonal make up rather that just more foods, and to
                    perversion of needs evaluation, and emotions . this part have been
                    obviouslly not seen by masanobu .
                    and i could go on but it will be way too much at once .
                    so we might have to establish first natural farms to be able to realise the
                    limitations of the idea of natural farming based on false premices , that
                    grain based diets( or fruits based for peoples who choose raw ) is
                    appropriate to humans


                    and
                    > realised it would be folly to dedicate myself to NF if it itself were not
                    an
                    > answer and secondly (and concomitantly) if we are to accommodate the
                    current
                    > world population and the projected increase to 2050, it is not possible to
                    > do so by allowing our farms to simply revert back to nature and all adopt
                    a
                    > hunter-gatherer lifestyle (which is still the implicitly sanctioned
                    > lifestyle not just of Fukuoka's NF but of a world that can sustain not
                    just
                    > man and his vegetable plants, but a fully diverse biosphere with room
                    enough
                    > to accommodate all).

                    that is a big mistake to think that we have to feed more peoples in the
                    future , because a lot of us are going to die from diseases , rise in
                    violence ,and will stop being fertile .
                    more we will want produce quantity of foods and more will be born to eat it
                    .

                    we have to work in establishing the most healthy diet and the kind of
                    environment that produce it , and the number of peoples that nature can
                    afford that way , will be reach the same way hunter gatherers populations
                    or any wild animal or plants populations are or have been regulated .( and
                    no need for diseases and suffering to do that chimps are reproducing every 5
                    years only and they live 40 years not because there is no more food but
                    because their hormones are not going crazy from an unatural diet .
                    the actual number of peoples is an anomaly not something to reproduce .

                    .<Now that we've lost www.fukuokafarmingol.net it would also

                    what do you mean by that , it is not available anymore ?

                    jean-claude
                  • jamie
                    Hello jean-claude, thanks for the reply and the deeper look into what motivates your life. There is much that I would in turn respond to. You write: 1 that
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jul 1 1:10 AM
                      Hello jean-claude, thanks for the reply and the deeper look into what
                      motivates your life. There is much that I would in turn respond to.

                      You write: "1 that no improvement of foods can beat the perfection of
                      wild plants".
                      Agreed, and it has been mentioned here before (perhaps by you) that the food
                      plants we have developed for our modern western diets are not necessarily
                      the foods we would have once eaten and often we do not have the genetic
                      make-up to properly utilise these foods and evolution (at least as we
                      currently understand it) has not had the time to change this
                      incompatibility.

                      But does this incompatability necessarily lead to the psychological
                      dysfunction you suggest? Interesting indeed, but not as a totalising
                      explanation of human behaviour.

                      You write: ".th use of improved varieties are just temporary means while
                      really naturally nourishing ecosystems have been created." and "2 that
                      nothing better than god designed ecosystem can reach this level of
                      sustainability ."
                      Agreed again, sustainability is the perfection of nature - any human
                      designed system will always already fail this perfection due to our
                      inability to comprehend the totality of nature (though the difference
                      between the systems designed by Fukuoka and permaculture are revealing of
                      the different approaches of what, initially, would seem to be one and the
                      same).

                      However, where we part company is when you say you are trying to "...raise
                      domestic animals the most naturally possible with thier natural diet , you
                      just can't beat totally free range animals to provide for them the ultimum
                      nutrition --- THE POWER OF FREEDOM OF CHOICE . let each plants and animals
                      establish their relationship to the rest of creations ." I'm not sure how
                      this notion overcomes our inability to construct truly sustainable systems.
                      If your farm is stable in place and time how can you truly establish these
                      relationships bounded by property lines?

                      This sedentary/itinerant distinction would seem to illustrate my inability
                      to understand and situate this groups discussion of hunter-gatherers on an
                      email list about Fukuoka Natural Farming. It also, irrespective of the
                      ultimate merits of nature as perfection, opens the discussion to not just
                      our relationship to nature, but our relationship to each other.

                      You write in response to my mention of the continued likelihood of
                      population growth: " that is a big mistake to think that we have to feed
                      more peoples in the future , because a lot of us are going to die from
                      diseases , rise in violence ,and will stop being fertile . more we will want
                      produce quantity of foods and more will be born to eat it".
                      I'd agree that the belief in population increase actually helps to bring
                      this increase about and this will, given the current, premier status of
                      scientific explanations, mean nations turning more and more to scientific
                      agriculture now in the misguided notion that more food can be grown this
                      way. But I would also make the case that ridding ourselves of this belief in
                      itself will not rid us of the increase that is already inherent in many
                      other cultural practices of those nations already undergoing the largest
                      increase in numbers.

                      However, I think it is fundamental to my doubts about the approach you take
                      that it is a necessary precondition that you believe in dramatic population
                      decline (whatever the reasons) - and, just as with my belief in the
                      continued increase in population, your belief in large scale disease,
                      violence or sterilisation makes you act in the way that if not directly, but
                      if accepted as a valid alternative to current farming practices everywhere
                      your desire to 'make a farm integrated in the wilderness', would very likely
                      lead to the violence at least, that you predict for the future.

                      What I attempted to express yesterday, and would again emphasise today, is
                      the rejection of notions of a perfect return to nature, just as Fukuoka did
                      in realising that a pure NF was impossible, and we should therefore use what
                      he has given us in NF to ameliorate and then reverse the loss of fertility
                      scientific agriculture has wrought.

                      Fukuoka took a typical Japanese farm (of only a an acre or two after the
                      land reforms in Japan that followed the 2WW) and spent his working life on
                      learning what humanity could not do to continue to produce food. He has
                      since turned to attempting to regreen deserts, the desertified Mediterranean
                      basin, organise shipments of seed for 'wartorn' countries and spoken and
                      written about this work in order for others to follow this lead. In other
                      words, Fukuoka has exemplified in his actions (and continues to do so at 90)
                      his commitment to the amelioration of the destruction of scientific practice
                      and not the overthrow of the current political/cultural practices and the
                      even greater instability such an attempt would create.

                      With Fukuoka (and everyone on this list) I recognise the unsustainability of
                      scientific agriculture and again with Fukuoka (but not with some on this
                      list) I choose to work within a sedentary society that constitutes
                      boundaries to property (irrespective of my ultimate identification -or not-
                      of the value/validity of these boundaries) because I recognise that right
                      now, it is impossible to immediately create a perfection on earth of
                      humanity in perfect step with nature. With Fukuoka I recognise NF to be the
                      best path toward the sustainability we all wish.

                      Re. www.fukuokafarmingol.net, I take it that it is lost (ie is not likely to
                      reappear any time soon) because it now only points to Larry's freelance
                      journalism site and has done for several weeks and that attempts to email
                      Larry have met with no response...

                      Jamie
                      Souscayrous
                    • Ingrid Bauer/Jean-Claude Catry
                      ... what came first the chicken or the eggs .is it a spiritual break down that led humans to choose the wrongs foods or is it the opposite ? for me ,it doesn t
                      Message 10 of 16 , Jul 1 2:30 AM
                        >
                        > But does this incompatability necessarily lead to the psychological
                        > dysfunction you suggest? Interesting indeed, but not as a totalising
                        > explanation of human behaviour.

                        what came first the chicken or the eggs .is it a spiritual break down that
                        led humans to choose the wrongs foods or is it the opposite ? for me ,it
                        doesn't matter much . all what is needed to know si that they go together
                        and reinforced each over in a spinning off way and one can adress the other
                        by changing one .
                        we should not get caught into the cause to effect paradigme .
                        one move , thousands of effects and one effect is the result of thousands
                        moves.


                        > Agreed again, sustainability is the perfection of nature - any human
                        > designed system will always already fail this perfection due to our
                        > inability to comprehend the totality of nature (though the difference
                        > between the systems designed by Fukuoka and permaculture are revealing of
                        > the different approaches of what, initially, would seem to be one and the
                        > same).
                        i know of so many permaculture farmers who love bulldozers , one here is
                        even preparing the ground with it by scraping off the grass sod .Imagine
                        masanobu using one to push down all the logs he carried on his back to his
                        orchard , would it not have been more efficient than burrying them by hand
                        ?
                        >
                        > However, where we part company is when you say you are trying to "...raise
                        > domestic animals the most naturally possible with thier natural diet , you
                        > just can't beat totally free range animals to provide for them the ultimum
                        > nutrition --- THE POWER OF FREEDOM OF CHOICE . let each plants and animals
                        > establish their relationship to the rest of creations ." I'm not sure how
                        > this notion overcomes our inability to construct truly sustainable
                        systems.
                        > If your farm is stable in place and time how can you truly establish these
                        > relationships bounded by property lines?

                        eh eh we will have to question that big one ! where does this idea of
                        boundaries come from , what fears generated their births and heavy
                        maintenance. but we are far from being there in the mean time i have only my
                        eyes to cry .
                        what made us believe that individualism was freedom ...what a joke !
                        >
                        > This sedentary/itinerant distinction would seem to illustrate my inability
                        > to understand and situate this groups discussion of hunter-gatherers on an
                        > email list about Fukuoka Natural Farming.

                        if you push the logic of the basis for natural farming you end up
                        considering the hunter gatherer life style ( that doesn't have to be nomad
                        either , many animals are territorial , deers have their established trails
                        but it is not written in stones ..)

                        hunter gatherers had it more together in their relationship to their world
                        than even the most reformed neolithic mind ( like masanobu ) can achieve in
                        his life time .

                        It also, irrespective of the
                        > ultimate merits of nature as perfection, opens the discussion to not just
                        > our relationship to nature, but our relationship to each other.

                        yes! all my relations !

                        >
                        > You write in response to my mention of the continued likelihood of
                        > population growth: " that is a big mistake to think that we have to feed
                        > more peoples in the future , because a lot of us are going to die from
                        > diseases , rise in violence ,and will stop being fertile . more we will
                        want
                        > produce quantity of foods and more will be born to eat it".
                        > I'd agree that the belief in population increase actually helps to bring
                        > this increase about and this will, given the current, premier status of
                        > scientific explanations, mean nations turning more and more to scientific
                        > agriculture now in the misguided notion that more food can be grown this
                        > way. But I would also make the case that ridding ourselves of this belief
                        in
                        > itself will not rid us of the increase that is already inherent in many
                        > other cultural practices of those nations already undergoing the largest
                        > increase in numbers.

                        Nature is in charge , trying to fix with the mind that created the problem
                        in the first place is the last trap we want to avoid . it is not because we
                        have packed the soil that we have to till , nature will do it on its own .
                        we wanted to produce more easy foods , we got the results , lets focus on
                        better nutrition and being less obssessed with yields and everything we
                        fall in its place . what is the point of growing all those fancy monsters
                        from the cabbage familly when kale as a more primitive form is fullfulling
                        all the jobs with better nutrition ( you can eat the stems, the flowers
                        ,the buds, the leaves etc.... they don't need to be obese to be abondant .
                        >
                        > However, I think it is fundamental to my doubts about the approach you
                        take
                        > that it is a necessary precondition that you believe in dramatic
                        population
                        > decline (whatever the reasons) - and, just as with my belief in the
                        > continued increase in population, your belief in large scale disease,
                        > violence or sterilisation makes you act in the way that if not directly,
                        but
                        > if accepted as a valid alternative to current farming practices everywhere
                        > your desire to 'make a farm integrated in the wilderness', would very
                        likely
                        > lead to the violence at least, that you predict for the future.

                        i am not sure you understood me or i inderstand you
                        i meant farms that don't exclude the wilderness that don't contribuate to
                        the dichotomy between crops and weeds, between wild and farmed etc...
                        i don't understand how he will lead to violence
                        >
                        > What I attempted to express yesterday, and would again emphasise today, is
                        > the rejection of notions of a perfect return to nature, just as Fukuoka
                        did
                        > in realising that a pure NF was impossible, and we should therefore use
                        what
                        > he has given us in NF to ameliorate and then reverse the loss of fertility
                        > scientific agriculture has wrought.

                        that is as far as masanobu went , i just see farther because of my
                        experience in questionning some other fondamentals roots of our misery ,
                        he was not in position to touch ., like the carbohydrate based diet , like
                        the cooking , the nuclear familly or private property idea etc....
                        >
                        > Fukuoka took a typical Japanese farm (of only a an acre or two after the
                        > land reforms in Japan that followed the 2WW) and spent his working life on
                        > learning what humanity could not do to continue to produce food. He has
                        > since turned to attempting to regreen deserts, the desertified
                        Mediterranean
                        > basin, organise shipments of seed for 'wartorn' countries and spoken and
                        > written about this work in order for others to follow this lead. In other
                        > words, Fukuoka has exemplified in his actions (and continues to do so at
                        90)
                        > his commitment to the amelioration of the destruction of scientific
                        practice
                        > and not the overthrow of the current political/cultural practices and the
                        > even greater instability such an attempt would create.
                        >
                        > With Fukuoka (and everyone on this list) I recognise the unsustainability
                        of
                        > scientific agriculture and again with Fukuoka (but not with some on this
                        > list) I choose to work within a sedentary society that constitutes
                        > boundaries to property (irrespective of my ultimate identification -or
                        not-
                        > of the value/validity of these boundaries) because I recognise that right
                        > now, it is impossible to immediately create a perfection on earth of
                        > humanity in perfect step with nature. With Fukuoka I recognise NF to be
                        the
                        > best path toward the sustainability we all wish.

                        that is wise and it is also my pain to have seen too far in the direction of
                        what could be possible .
                        so lets continue to farm each one of us in our corners whithout
                        understanding what and why are we farming about.
                        in my position i am stuck because i can't embrace the grain based diet
                        anymore but recognised our mainly carnivorous origins and genetic adaptation
                        to it and i realised that domestic animals even raised as close as possible
                        to their natural diet as i tried to do , are barelly suitable for humans
                        nutritional needs .

                        what do i need a farm for ? to grow the few greens and fruits and nuts i
                        used to complete my mainly animals meats based diet ? How a farm within
                        boudaries can raise wild animals .?
                        when i switched to a raw food diet and made the mistake of not questionning
                        the high carbonhydrate intake ( replacing grains with fruits ) my farming
                        was overwhelming . how could i managed to establish a nourishing environment
                        based on trees quickly , i worked like crazy anxious about not having enough
                        to eat ...
                        then when i went freely in the attraction to meats and healed from my
                        vegetarian self brain washing , i realised the anwers were all there all
                        the time , the foods was there and din't see it.

                        private property makes sense for a plant based diet but doesn't for hunter
                        gatherers .

                        >
                        > Re. www.fukuokafarmingol.net, I take it that it is lost (ie is not likely
                        to
                        > reappear any time soon) because it now only points to Larry's freelance
                        > journalism site and has done for several weeks and that attempts to email
                        > Larry have met with no response...

                        what happenned to Larry ?

                        jean-claude
                      • animaphile
                        ... what ... after the land reforms in Japan that followed the 2WW) and spent his working life on learning what humanity could not do to continue to produce
                        Message 11 of 16 , Jul 1 2:35 AM
                          --- In fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com, "jamie" <jamie@t...> wrote:
                          > Hello jean-claude, thanks for the reply and the deeper look into
                          what
                          > motivates your life. There is much that I would in turn respond to.

                          > Fukuoka took a typical Japanese farm (of only a an acre or two
                          after the land reforms in Japan that followed the 2WW) and spent his
                          working life on learning what humanity could not do to continue to
                          produce food. He has since turned to attempting to regreen deserts,
                          the desertified Mediterranean basin, organise shipments of seed
                          for 'wartorn' countries and spoken and written about this work in
                          order for others to follow this lead. In other words, Fukuoka has
                          exemplified in his actions (and continues to do so at 90) his
                          commitment to the amelioration of the destruction of scientific
                          practice and not the overthrow of the current political/cultural
                          practices and the even greater instability such an attempt would
                          create.

                          > With Fukuoka (and everyone on this list) I recognise the
                          unsustainability of scientific agriculture and again with Fukuoka
                          (but not with some on this list) I choose to work within a sedentary
                          society that constitutes boundaries to property (irrespective of my
                          ultimate identification -or not- of the value/validity of these
                          boundaries) because I recognise that right now, it is impossible to
                          immediately create a perfection on earth of humanity in perfect step
                          with nature. With Fukuoka I recognise NF to be the best path toward
                          the sustainability we all wish.

                          > Jamie
                          > Souscayrous

                          As a small, brief interceding, 3rd person message in this, i would
                          like to say that i agree with both of you Jamie & Jean-Claude by
                          introducing the concept of context - now Jamie that i know your
                          natural context from another recent msg, thanks.
                          Context as a very NECESSARY concept and practice of understanding in
                          this e-group context, rather than what are many unnecessary concepts
                          which we've learned & know from Fukuoka, while we discuss between us
                          across the world on internet which is itself a 'spin-out' from
                          nature.
                          ie. we use our introductions of our natural context, of our own
                          subject position and standpoint to return our discussions to natural
                          discussions rather than 'spin-out' discussions, over this here 'spin-
                          out'-from-nature-internet communication mode across the world.

                          Thanks both of you Jean-Claude and Jamie. Genuinely Enlightening (in
                          your so called positive points)!
                          (i don't necessarily agree with either of your so called negative
                          points because i think i can see through all of both your negative
                          points so far)

                          Love to you's all,
                          Jason
                          Animaphile
                        • jamie
                          Hello jean-claude and Jason and thanks for the responses. There are very determined world-views being expressed by us all and I admire both the energy of Jason
                          Message 12 of 16 , Jul 1 1:40 PM
                            Hello jean-claude and Jason and thanks for the responses. There are very
                            determined world-views being expressed by us all and I admire both the
                            energy of Jason and the quieter force of jean-claude.

                            There's much to think about in your words and I shall continue to do that as
                            I work to build soil at Souscayrous: as I have said before I believe in the
                            story that there is no truth, including the story that there is no truth,
                            therefore I do not believe my opinions carry any greater weight than yours.
                            They are my opinions now and will no doubt be different next year/month or
                            even tomorrow - it is the contact with other ideas (however expressed) that
                            keeps me involved in this group - what is said here informs not only my
                            ideas but also my NF practice, just as the practice itself informs my
                            practice by observation and thus my ideas and therefore what I say here...

                            ...'we never step twice into the same river'...we are never the same person
                            from one moment to the next, just as nature is constantly in a state of
                            flux - scientific agriculture would have it that the same techniques applied
                            anywhere and at any time will have the same effect, the extremity to which
                            such techniques force nature is only too obvious (although to allow a
                            competing story here I should mention Bjorn Lomborg, for details see
                            http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,537465,00.html).

                            In my situating of NF as amelioration and not goal I hoped to express just
                            this transience, this inability of totalising explanations: it is what
                            concerns me about Jason's ruthless exposure of western domination and
                            jean-claude's dietry regimen (although it is not that I don't respond to
                            what they say). There are other stories of the West (Emilia favoured the
                            work of Marija Gimbutas and the mother-goddess of an originary European
                            peace-loving tradition that was swept away by Indo-European invaders circa
                            3500BC, the ancestors of Celts and Greeks) while I favour that of Heidegger
                            who suggests a forgetting of Being (that the West imposing on the material
                            of the world a predetermined essence that understands everything as resource
                            and does not 'let-beings-be') since Plato. Heracleitos, who I quote above,
                            is a source for this other understanding for being and just as with the
                            'Indo-European'(ie not WE at all) warmongering invaders of Gimbutas,
                            Heracleitos is thought to have incorporated many eastern influences into his
                            radically interpretation resistant aphorisms. The story of a western/eastern
                            or occidental/oriental split is equally resistant to proof. Similarly,
                            'diet' has become so radicalised in modern western nations that it is quite
                            possible to invent the story that vegetarianism/veganism/fruitarianism(hello
                            JBMC!)/paleolithic diets are simply expressions of our obsession with diet.

                            The lens with which each of us view the world makes the world take on the
                            distortions of the lens, the greater the imperfection in the lens the
                            greater the distortion.

                            Of course, there is also the story of the man 'who believed the story that
                            there was no truth, including the story that there is no truth' who because
                            he could not believe ended up doubting everything! Sometimes I recognise
                            myself as that man and when I do I like to recall a line of Nietzsche:
                            'Sometimes to act it is also necessary to forget'.

                            Jamie
                            Souscayrous
                          • animaphile
                            You mentioned a competing view i had a look and thought hello i heard all this before from this ideological standpoint. Actually cooperating with Bjorn
                            Message 13 of 16 , Jul 2 3:40 AM
                              You mentioned a "competing view" i had a look and thought 'hello' i
                              heard all this before from this ideological standpoint. Actually
                              cooperating with Bjorn Lomborg by appreciating his ideological
                              standpoint of human centred capitalism... skepticism of
                              environmentalism, i say that there are other people on earth with the
                              same ideology and standpoint but much better, more massive pile
                              of 'facts' and mathematical models, etc., so that eventually from
                              whatever ideological standpoint we can come to general conclusions
                              like also the same general conclusions as Fukuoka does, and Oz Indig'
                              people did many thousands of years ago and many more peoples. That
                              the general point that humans are part of the wider whole nature,
                              life-force, universe, universal consciousness, breath of god, etc.
                              and that we better well remember it and respect this experience. Are
                              you refering obtusely also to Nihilism eg. Nietzsche, if so BTW this
                              is very different to Japanese MU, badly translated as nothing!

                              Beauty,
                              Animaphile
                              Jason

                              ( http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s231834.htm )
                              BACKGROUND BRIEFING program on Australian Broadcasting Corporation

                              Natural Capitalism - A lecture by Amory Lovins
                              Produced by Kirsten Garrett
                              Sunday 28 January 2001

                              Kirsten Garrett: In Background Briefing today you'll hear how
                              business can be more efficient and productive, and increase profits,
                              by learning from and working with nature. It's called Natural
                              Capitalism, and the man who promotes it has been called one of the
                              most influential business thinkers of the decade: Dr Amory Lovins of
                              the Rocky Mountains Institute in the United States.
                              Hallo, you're with Background Briefing, and I'm Kirsten Garrett.
                              Dr Lovins' work on applying the logic of market forces and capitalism
                              to the environment has been praised by business leaders and
                              politicians around the world. He's written dozens of books and held
                              many academic posts and changed the way things are done in big
                              corporations.


                              ...


                              I think it is now clear we will not be running out of mined or
                              abiotic resources, like copper and oil, because very powerful
                              extractive technologies are continuing to keep ahead of depletion,
                              and of course those technologies look cheap as long as we continue to
                              ignore a lot of their environmental and social cost. Commodity prices
                              are near all-time lows and will probably head still lower. I actually
                              think oil will probably become uncompetitive even at low prices
                              before it becomes unavailable even at high prices. Or as Don Huberts,
                              the head of Shell Hydrogen nicely put it, 'The Stone Age did not end
                              because the world ran out of stones, the oil age will not end because
                              the world runs out of oil.'

                              However, what we are starting to run out of, where nature is falling
                              behind on her deliveries, is in biotic resources which should be
                              perennially renewable, but are being mined, and thereby made non-
                              renewable. I'm talking about things like fertile topsoil, and
                              biodiversity. And as ecosystems everywhere in the world come under
                              increasing stress, it is this that is starting to limit the human
                              prospect. That is, we are being constrained increasingly by a
                              shortage not of boats and nets, but of fish; not of ploughs, but of
                              fertile land; not of chainsaws, but of forests. The last time that
                              human progress was threatened with constraint by a shortage of
                              something, it was a quarter of a millennium ago in the first
                              Industrial Revolution. At that time, the notion of increasing labour
                              productivity was unknown. If you wanted more cloth you had to hire
                              more weavers, just as if you want a two-horse power you had to get
                              two horses. So if somebody had come into parliament around 1750 and
                              said, 'You know we really can't get enough good weavers to make
                              enough cloth to make it domestically affordable for many people who
                              would like to buy cloth, and they haven't much money to buy it with
                              anyway, and I think the answer to this is we're going to make people
                              100 times more productive', nobody would have understood it. If they
                              had of course, they'd have dismissed it as absurd. But it is what
                              happened rather quickly, because profit maximising capitalists hooked
                              up with technical innovators and soon a Lancashire spinner became
                              able to produce the cloth that had previously required 200 weavers,
                              and as this spread through one sector of the economy after another,
                              creating affordable mass goods and purchasing power in the middle
                              class, we started to call it the Industrial Revolution.

                              Its logic was very simple and clear: at a time when the relative
                              scarcity of people was limiting progress and exploiting seemingly
                              boundless nature, it made sense to use people about 100 times more
                              productively. That logic remains correct. What has changed however,
                              what has reversed, is the pattern of scarcity. In the next Industrial
                              Revolution already under way, we have abundant people and scarce
                              nature, not the other way around. So it now makes sense to use nature
                              far more productively, to bring four or ten or 100 times more benefit
                              from each unit of energy, water, fibre, minerals, topsoil, whatever
                              it is we're borrowing from the planet.

                              ...
                            • jamie
                              Hello Jason, as to my use Nietzsche: it is a long and mostly undistinguished passtime to make Nietzsche say just about anything you want him to say, especially
                              Message 14 of 16 , Jul 2 3:14 PM
                                Hello Jason, as to my use Nietzsche: it is a long and mostly undistinguished
                                passtime to make Nietzsche say just about anything you want him to say,
                                especially if you paraphrase him as I did (I couldn't find the quote but I
                                stand by my attribution). But, no, its use is not some obtuse reference to
                                Mu through his idea of Nihilism. Heidegger again would be my vote for a
                                western conception that incorporates not only the negativity but the
                                positive aspects of Mu also.

                                There is rich ground here to be explored for those interested in
                                understanding Buddhist conceptions of Mu and the similarities in some of the
                                most profound western intellectual history - it might also be revelatory to
                                discover just how central many of Fukuoka's Buddhistic tenets are in what is
                                generally called (especially to the opposed Anglo-American school)
                                Continental philosophy. Try www.heidegger.info and specifically
                                http://www.unites.uqam.ca/religiologiques/19/19texte/19sabatino.html to
                                discover that the West has always had a counter-tradition to Descartes et
                                al.

                                Go on, try it. Can we really be hurt by discovering that our own cultural
                                tradition (yes, i do mean the WE kind) predispose us to not only understand
                                but accept Fukuoka's NF!

                                Jamie
                                Souscayrous
                              • animaphile
                                ... undistinguished passtime to make Nietzsche say just about anything you want him to say, especially if you paraphrase him as I did (I couldn t find the
                                Message 15 of 16 , Jul 2 8:52 PM
                                  --- In fukuoka_farming@yahoogroups.com, "jamie" <jamie@t...> wrote:
                                  > Hello Jason, as to my use Nietzsche: it is a long and mostly
                                  undistinguished passtime to make Nietzsche say just about anything
                                  you want him to say, especially if you paraphrase him as I did (I
                                  couldn't find the quote but I stand by my attribution). But, no, its
                                  use is not some obtuse reference to Mu through his idea of Nihilism.
                                  Heidegger again would be my vote for a western conception that
                                  incorporates not only the negativity but the positive aspects of Mu
                                  also.

                                  > There is rich ground here to be explored for those interested in
                                  understanding Buddhist conceptions of Mu and the similarities in some
                                  of the most profound western intellectual history - it might also be
                                  revelatory to discover just how central many of Fukuoka's Buddhistic
                                  tenets are in what is generally called (especially to the opposed
                                  Anglo-American school) Continental philosophy. Try www.heidegger.info
                                  and specifically

                                  >http://www.unites.uqam.ca/religiologiques/19/19texte/19sabatino.html
                                  to discover that the West has always had a counter-tradition to
                                  Descartes et al.

                                  > Go on, try it. Can we really be hurt by discovering that our own
                                  cultural tradition (yes, i do mean the WE kind) predispose us to not
                                  only understand but accept Fukuoka's NF!

                                  > Jamie
                                  > Souscayrous

                                  Thanks Jamie,
                                  please tell this to the rest of the W.E. 'world' especially our Oz
                                  Prime Miniature and the USA Press-He's-Dentals and all their cronies,
                                  institutions, science heirarchies, ... and to all the promoters of
                                  corporate greed in W.E. societies and generally other heirarchical
                                  societies that may be sucked in by percieving the 'West' as dominant -
                                  'true' ideology. Of course i already know that W.E. have
                                  inclusive, 'positive', non-reductionistic, non-materialistic, non-
                                  heirarchical, ... ideologies and more importantly contmporary ones
                                  today, not just history of them - and i have am showing by my own
                                  words in this group the fruits of this by my criticisms of my own
                                  societies history. Also that many more societies such as Oz Indig'
                                  societies are inclusive, non-divisive, non-heirarchical, etc. but
                                  that W.E. societies contemporarily have marginalised
                                  these 'other' 'positive' ways or ideologies or social structurings.

                                  Beauty mate,
                                  Animaphile
                                  Jason
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.