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

Re: [pfaf] Why pesticides?

Expand Messages
  • Sean Maley
    ... Agriculture leads to land ownership. Land ownership creates poverty. Poverty drives surpluses. Surpluses drive population. Over time, it becomes clear
    Message 1 of 8 , May 26, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- chosen1446 <chosen1446@...> wrote:
      > Stevia, Fluoride, MSG
      >
      > Could anyone give me a believable & sensible reason WHY our food
      > supply (across the whole spectrum) is being poisoned?
      >
      > For example, our grandmothers matured at much latter ages (before the
      > use of growth hormones in our meat supply).
      >
      > Special interest groups don't explain it because they'd ALL have to
      > be involved (i.e., not just the sugar lobby, in regards to Stevia,
      > but also, everything else (i.e., water, pesticides, etc.)
      >
      > Thanks, Tony

      Agriculture leads to land ownership. Land ownership creates poverty. Poverty drives surpluses.
      Surpluses drive population. Over time, it becomes clear that the military/aristocracy would
      become corrupted and power would shift to whomever created the best logic, or story, that kept
      people working like the Judeo-Christian and Buddhist religions (you suffer today for salvation
      tomorrow and take pity on your soul for not working hard). It's no mistake that "savages" were
      prime targets for the slave trade, or the state that looses the war gets to work the fields for
      both.

      How do we get away from this economic system, which only a few can benefit while the rest of us
      slog stones up the pyramid? This is a fundamentally cultural issue based, initially, upon the
      concept of agriculture. What you see at the store isn't what you should settle eating. Going it
      alone isn't going to be helpful either. By banding together in a tribal fashion we can establish
      our own rhizomes for living outside of the hierarchy. This isn't even about living communally,
      but rather about "making a living" together in small groups like in a circus; one for all and all
      for one.

      For some, it would be easier to support the tribe if the tribe could secure homes for it's
      members, as land ownership economics prevails around us while we establish this new/old culture.
      This could be in one community (ecovillage/IC model) or split between various city and country
      locations (a tribal network), depending upon the families involved. A charitable network to
      coordinate tribes would also be helpful to getting the rhizome collective started in your area.
      For further information, you can check out what other people are doing:

      http://www.newtribalventures.com
      http://www.jeffvail.net
      http://www.anthropik.com

      For how the land ownership pyramid works:

      http://henrygeorge.org/rent1.htm

      >
      > My 2 cents - I think Deer Park water is the best bottled water.
      >
      > PS Could anyone tell me what other foods that I should be wary of?
      > PS 2 I need prayer. Thanks.

      I prefer Poland Springs

      Beware of any, even "organic", food bought at a store (selected for appearance and shelf life, not
      nutritional value)

      Beware of prayer, unless you can resolve it into a rhizome context. The dominion meme creeps in
      on this concept, so this whole concept can nuke a person's religious beliefs. It is for this
      reason that the word "antichrist" slips into the discussion, as in "The Story of B" by Daniel
      Quinn.


      -Sean.

      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    • pattyfastforward
      ... Decades ago insects were known to wipe out entire crops. The amount of plants per acerage was much less back then compared to today. By using pesticides
      Message 2 of 8 , May 26, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In pfaf@yahoogroups.com, "chosen1446" <chosen1446@...> wrote:
        >
        > Stevia, Fluoride, MSG
        >
        > Could anyone give me a believable & sensible reason WHY our food
        > supply (across the whole spectrum) is being poisoned?
        >
        > For example, our grandmothers matured at much latter ages (before the
        > use of growth hormones in our meat supply).
        >
        > Special interest groups don't explain it because they'd ALL have to
        > be involved (i.e., not just the sugar lobby, in regards to Stevia,
        > but also, everything else (i.e., water, pesticides, etc.)
        >
        > Thanks, Tony
        >
        > My 2 cents - I think Deer Park water is the best bottled water.
        >
        > PS Could anyone tell me what other foods that I should be wary of?
        > PS 2 I need prayer. Thanks.
        >

        Decades ago insects were known to wipe out entire crops. The amount of
        plants per acerage was much less back then compared to today. By using
        pesticides and fertilizers, the farmer could raise a lot more crops on
        that one acre. And when was the last time you heard of locusts eating
        entire fields?

        As for hormones - again, way back when there were no refrigerators. To
        eat beef, you had to cook it for hours or age it. Aging requires
        somewhere around 36 degrees for 2 weeks. The alternative is feeding
        the beef corn and marbling the fat. It's cheaper to give the cow corn.
        And the hormones will take a calf to market in quit a lot less time
        then just feeding it for years. Also, they get paid by the pound, and
        the hormones make the cattle fatter faster. Faster return on their
        investment.

        As for food: chickens have a lot of germs on them because of
        processing. Some don't. Hard to know when you're in the grocery store.
        Veggies that have been fertilized with cow manure may have ecoli on
        them. Face it - unless you grow it yourself or know the farmer that
        grows all this - you have no idea what you're eating.
      • Gloria C. Baikauskas
        ... Insects only invade plants that are in some way stressed. In the years that hordes of insects, i.e.,locusts, grasshoppers, destroyed entire crops it was
        Message 3 of 8 , May 27, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In pfaf@yahoogroups.com, "pattyfastforward"
          <pattyfastforward@...> wrote:
          >
          Insects only invade plants that are in some way stressed. In the
          years that hordes of insects, i.e.,locusts, grasshoppers, destroyed
          entire crops it was usually a drought year, or years. These crops
          would most likely have been a loss anyway.

          If instead the crops had been mulched in some way, instead of soil
          laid bare by the plow/tilling, it might not have been so
          devastating. Not just because there would have been less moisture
          loss, but also because predator insects, the natural enemies of the
          invading ones, would have had a place to hide so they could better
          attack.

          If companion plants had been in the fields that would have attracted
          the right kind of birds, the insect hordes would also have been
          nulled to a large factor.

          We create deserts by the way we plant....or in many cases now did
          plant. The soil blows off in the wind now in drought years just as
          it did in the 1930s in the US.

          In the devastated corn crop in California a few years back it was
          finally noticed that when the wheat straw had been left on the field
          instead of removed, or plowed into the soil, the whiteflies that
          spread the disease were stopped by their natural predators who did
          hide in that same wheat straw. Only those farms with the wheat straw
          on the soil were unaffected by the devastation. The rest lost
          everything. Even their chemical sprays did them no use.

          It is not whether we should use these things on our food. It is that
          we need to be better stewards of the land...learn to farm/garden in a
          better way that means we will not need such sprays....organic, or
          not.

          Gloria, Texas
          USA

          > Decades ago insects were known to wipe out entire crops. The amount
          of
          > plants per acerage was much less back then compared to today. By
          using
          > pesticides and fertilizers, the farmer could raise a lot more crops
          on
          > that one acre. And when was the last time you heard of locusts
          eating
          > entire fields?
          >
          > As for hormones - again, way back when there were no refrigerators.
          To
          > eat beef, you had to cook it for hours or age it. Aging requires
          > somewhere around 36 degrees for 2 weeks. The alternative is feeding
          > the beef corn and marbling the fat. It's cheaper to give the cow
          corn.
          > And the hormones will take a calf to market in quit a lot less time
          > then just feeding it for years. Also, they get paid by the pound,
          and
          > the hormones make the cattle fatter faster. Faster return on their
          > investment.
          >
          > As for food: chickens have a lot of germs on them because of
          > processing. Some don't. Hard to know when you're in the grocery
          store.
          > Veggies that have been fertilized with cow manure may have ecoli on
          > them. Face it - unless you grow it yourself or know the farmer that
          > grows all this - you have no idea what you're eating.
          >
        • Pat Meadows
          ... I don t know all that much about Christianity or Judaism, but that is a *total, complete misconception* of Buddhism. To the exact contrary, the Buddha
          Message 4 of 8 , May 28, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            On Fri, 26 May 2006 11:26:40 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

            >Agriculture leads to land ownership. Land ownership creates poverty. Poverty drives surpluses.
            >Surpluses drive population. Over time, it becomes clear that the military/aristocracy would
            >become corrupted and power would shift to whomever created the best logic, or story, that kept
            >people working like the Judeo-Christian and Buddhist religions (you suffer today for salvation
            >tomorrow and take pity on your soul for not working hard).

            I don't know all that much about Christianity or Judaism,
            but that is a *total, complete misconception* of Buddhism.

            To the exact contrary, the Buddha taught that suffering can
            be overcome in this life, in this world, and he taught his
            students the way to overcome suffering.

            Pat
            --
            Gardening in northern Pennsylvania.

            Eat local food, change the world for the better!
          • Sean Maley
            ... But there is suffering that must be overcome for some reason. Why should there have to be suffering? To an Australian Aboriginal, why should they care to
            Message 5 of 8 , May 29, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- Pat Meadows <pat@...> wrote:
              > On Fri, 26 May 2006 11:26:40 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
              >
              > >Agriculture leads to land ownership. Land ownership creates poverty. Poverty drives
              > surpluses.
              > >Surpluses drive population. Over time, it becomes clear that the military/aristocracy would
              > >become corrupted and power would shift to whomever created the best logic, or story, that kept
              > >people working like the Judeo-Christian and Buddhist religions (you suffer today for salvation
              > >tomorrow and take pity on your soul for not working hard).
              >
              > I don't know all that much about Christianity or Judaism,
              > but that is a *total, complete misconception* of Buddhism.
              >
              > To the exact contrary, the Buddha taught that suffering can
              > be overcome in this life, in this world, and he taught his
              > students the way to overcome suffering.


              But there is suffering that must be overcome for some reason. Why should there have to be
              suffering? To an Australian Aboriginal, why should they care to distinguish further? They don't
              see suffering as a part of everyday life, to be overcome for any reason. It is this conception of
              necessary toil that distinguishes agriculture from hunter-gatherer/cultivator culture. It is an
              important distinction, because agri-culture takes so much effort and must justify such effort,
              while insisting the hunter-gatherer/cultivator culture is worst (which it isn't).

              Nobody needs to be saved. We are fine the way we are.

              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              http://mail.yahoo.com
            • Pat Meadows
              ... Buddhism doesn t teach that there should be suffering. It merely recognizes that it exists, and teaches the way to overcome it. If you don t recognize
              Message 6 of 8 , May 30, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                On Mon, 29 May 2006 11:13:28 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:


                >
                >
                >But there is suffering that must be overcome for some reason. Why should there have to be
                >suffering?

                Buddhism doesn't teach that there 'should be' suffering. It
                merely recognizes that it exists, and teaches the way to
                overcome it.

                If you don't recognize that suffering exists even among
                non-agricultural peoples, we will have to agree to differ on
                this point.

                Non-agricultural peoples are not exempt from the laws of
                physics or of biology: when one of them falls off a cliff
                he breaks his legs, just as you and I would. He suffers
                just as you and I would. Non-agricultural people die and
                their children sometimes die too, and they experience grief
                for their loved ones, just as you and I do.

                Not all suffering is agriculture-related. I don't
                personally accept agriculture as the cause of most human
                suffering, but you may do so of course, if you wish.

                It's a useless discussion, really, because the sad fact is
                that there are billions of humans on the earth and there is
                no other way to feed this many humans.

                If you advocate a return to a hunter-gatherer way of life,
                you must also advocate the die-off of billions of humans. I,
                for one, am not willing to encourage that in any way.

                Not only is this off-topic, it's silly and useless (in my
                opinion) so you may have the last word; I have nothing else
                to say on the subject.

                Cheers,
                Pat
                --
                Gardening in northern Pennsylvania.

                Eat local food, change the world for the better!
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.