[p2p-research] interview on cuba's agricultural transformation (new localism)

[Paul D. Fernhout]

Michel Bauwens wrote:
> This is an interesting interview, worth listening to, by an American woman
> who travelled to Cuba to see how American communities could learn from its
> successes ...
> 
> Sam, it would be nice if you had time to embed the code and add some
> comments, relating it to your own experiences, if you have time,
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7i6roVB5MI

It's great to see a talk show about something important. :-)

The web site of the person interviewed:
  http://www.communitysolution.org/

If there is one thing this shows from Cuba's experience (even as they warn 
it is a misintepretation :-), it is that even if "Peak Oil" was true, a 
nation can deal with it very straighforwardly (with a rough transition of a 
couple years, and some suffering, admittedly, but overall, coming out from 
that transition in a happier place). So, even in this "worst case", Peak Oil 
was not a problem of the magnitude that many say it is. To be clear, even in 
the worst case of changing from an economy based on oil to an economy  based 
on something else in a matter of a couple years is an issue, and a big issue 
with widespread implications, but it is not an "end of civilization" issue. 
Of course, they do raise the issue that Cuba had stronger local communities. 
Still, one might hope the USA would respond to that with its own strengths 
and weaknesses.

By the way, related to their theme:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobless_recovery#Towards_a_new_localism_emphasizing_community
But, you can see there on that page a lot more options as well.

I think the resource depletion issue leading to "consume less" is 
misleading, even if there is truth to it -- because it misses the big 
picture of the abundance we can have even if it may be good in general for a 
variety of reasons. Again, see Julian Simon's "The Ultimate Resource" (being 
the human imagination).

The host (Janaia Donaldson) spins through a list of worries in a few seconds 
(at around 11:31): "That's part of the point. If it were only oil, then we 
could go to some of these other solutions. But it is also freshwater, 
topsoil, our fisheries, ... the oceans, ... we're looking at resource 
depletion all over in lots of levels, so the only single answer that comes 
back to that is, use less, consume less [and live more locally which 
consumes in its own way and nourishes more on different levels.]"

And then by implication, presumably we should have population control?

One needs to be careful to distinguish between the idea of consume *less* 
versus produce and consume *differently*.

One by one:
* freshwater -- we have techniques for desalination, water recycling, 
biological water treatment, atmospheric condensation, and alternatives to 
using water in various processes or even locating factories and homes in 
various areas;
* topsoil -- grinding up rocks, produces all the organic fertilizer you 
want, in conjunction with organic matter preserving methods, and perhaps 
including perhaps composting human wastes;
   http://www.remineralize.org/
* fisheries -- OK, we are overfishing in many areas as a global society, but 
we can also make the oceans more productive with nutrients (one benefit of 
OTEC energy plants), and we can produce lots of vegetarian food in a variety 
of ways if we focus less on eating meat; and
* oceans -- sure, we need regulation on ocean dumping, ocean pollution, and 
so on, but the oceans are still vast and could be homes to literally tens of 
billions of people on the surface or undersea using seasteads and so on. And 
then there is outer space for more living area.

The person being interviewed (Megan Quinn) then says "And really there is no 
combination of alternatives that's going to allow us to continue consuming 
as we have been. And even if there were alternatives, does this justify our 
use of them? Is this making us happy? So what is the purpose of consuming 
these fuels? And is it giving us what it promised? I don't think so. I think 
there is a better way."

There is obviously a lot of truth to that, because people in industrialized 
countries like the USA that have traded community for lots of stuff are 
generally less happy than in either materially poor countries that still 
have intact families and health communities or in industrialized countries 
(like the Netherlands) that have focused more on a balance of individual 
material and social community things. But, it is a mistake to then 
generalize from that to thinking there is only one way to have an advanced 
technology (as seems to be done later). The fact is more that the 
technological infrastructure around us has been built to reflect elitist and 
  exploitive values in many areas, and that we could build a different (and 
maybe even more advanced) technology that reflected different values. But, 
they may not be conscious of that, just assuming that technology is all of 
one thing. The 1970s Appropriate Technology movement by EF Schumacher at 
least admitted to the possibility we could have better technology more 
compatible with different economic values, but, I'd suggest, that plan was 
not far reaching enough. We are seeing, with open manufacturing and other 
ideas, a whole new resurgence of taking moder possibilities and recasting 
them in all sorts of new ways (like RepRap or the Maker scene or 
agricultural robotics to do organic agriculture).

The host goes on (before Megan Quinn outlines something): "What's that 
vision? What's that better life on the other side? Where we are more 
connected? Where we're more local? Where things are more slowed down? Where 
we have time again?"

I'm all for local solutions. I'm all for connectivity. I'm all for better 
solutions. I'm all for conserving things for future generations. I'm all for 
focusing on a life that is beyond acquiring material possessions (like 
valuing community and experience more). I'm all for talking about 
transformation and social equity. *But*, one needs to be careful to not have 
an anti-life message slip into all that. As well as an anti-technology one, 
too, where one talks about *less* instead of *different*. (Even if different 
may mean less of some things while it might mean more of something else.)

I've talked to one young "environmentalist" (with a degree now in it) who is 
anti-life in that sense (and wanting to see human populations drop a lot). 
I'd suggest such people are anti-life for humans, obviously (although they 
might argue that there is no alternative if we are to survive sustainably, 
and so they are pro-life in that sense in their own eyes, even if I disagree 
with their assessment of technology's possibilities). But, they are also 
anti-life for the biosphere, because trillions of people living in space 
habitats someday would mean that the biosphere would be brought with them, 
and so would expand enormously. I think there is a central denial of 
possibility there, which is justified in part by how technology is often 
linked with capitalism and its ravages. We made need different technology 
that better reflects social values and demands of a growing population, but 
that is not the same as saying we need less technology and less people 
(which is what a focus on consume less often leads to).

Here is one example of the difference. Megan Quinn says she estimates 
between 25% and 50% of people will have to become involved with agriculture 
in some way (maybe not all on the farm?) if you take away tractors and 
replace it with human labor. But, what about agricultural robots powered by 
solar panels? We *have* agricultural robots now. And we can run tractors off 
of wood gas or electricity (as I posted on earlier). So, that statement is 
completely at odds with on the ground technological possibilities right now.

Again, I am all for gardening. I'm all for everyone who wants to be a farmer 
getting  that chance -- it is a wonderful soulful thing to produce food in 
an organic manner that conserves natural resources, protects the environment 
from pollution, and feeds neighbors -- it can be, overall, a wonderful, 
joyful thing. But, to put 50% of the population back to work doing 
repetitive manual labor when we have robots and we have electric tractors 
and most people would rather do other things it seems, that just seems to be 
the dark side of liberalism -- the fascist side that conservatives rightly 
recoil in horror from (including how it was used during China's Cultural 
Revolution and Russia's Stalinist revolution, where intellectuals were 
"reeducated" in the fields and farms). Maybe most intellectuals do need to 
be reeducated (school has done so much damage), and being in nature might 
help, but farms themselves are essentially factories, not nature.

Again for reference, a vegetarian diet would mean about 75% of US 
agriculture was unneeded, to begin with:
"The Truth About Land Use in the United States"
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm

And I'm not saying all that because Megan Quinn said something 
uncomplimentary about people like me: :-) "[Host: We've moved from a blue 
collar to an information technology world.] Where most people really aren't 
producing anything of real value. It's all this "in your head" and on the 
computer but what do you eat? What sustains you? People are going to be more 
engaged in directly sustaining themselves, which is how humans have been 
doing it for millions of years."

I'm actually all for local production -- like with 3D printers and open 
manufacturing. But, there is the idea of dismissing all our future 
possibilities, as well as our present ones (like agricultural robots), many 
of which may come about through information technology.
   http://www.unibots.com/Agricultural_Robotics_Portal.htm

Information technology can have a dark side -- issues related to the 
"Singularity" for example, but to address them, one has to engage them in 
some way (including, admittedly, perhaps by saying there is some better way 
of focusing on human face-to-face community than too much technology of the 
wrong sorts driven by capitalism and a concentration of wealth). Otherwise 
all the nice local communities are going to get overwhelmed by military 
robots or something even worse in a couple of decades.

So, there is a huge problem with people talking about the future of 
economics and society without a good understanding of what is possible in 
terms of science and technology. Or even what is out there right now.

More people may help us invent and implement new and better solutions. One 
of my posts on that:
"[p2p-research] Peak Population crisis (was Re: Japan's Demographic Crisis)" 
 
http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-August/004174.html

What we really need is a convergence between the well meant social side of 
what Megan Quinn says and our technical possibilities. It is an issue that 
our society is still wrestling with, and may be for a long time. And it 
drifts into all sorts of broader issues; for example, "Technoprogressivism":
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technoprogressivism

Anyway, so, this video is a little snapshot about both what is right and 
what is wrong with the environmental movement, the Green party, and so on.

And nothing said there specifically directly addresses the host's point 
about of all the local farmers at a recent gathering (in the USA), only one 
was making it economically. That's what you might expect from capitalism in 
a mature industry with profit squeezed out. Why talk about everyone becoming 
a farmer, as opposed to just making farming work economically for the people 
who really want to do it? Megan Quinn does mention farmers get more pay than 
an engineer or scientist in Cuba. But, what about moving beyond wages 
entirely to a gift economy (or other aspects of peer production of a shared 
commons) or a basic income? So, actually, there is a very conservative 
notion of work and control of capital control there they may not recognize 
yet.  Again, as Bob Black said, consider Megan Quinn cheerfully saying 50% 
of the population will go back to farming in old-fashioned ways, and compare 
it to what he said in 1985:
   http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html
"They will carry on endlessly about wages, hours, working conditions, 
exploitation, productivity, profitability. They'll gladly talk about 
anything but work itself."

It is the scientist, the engineer, the tinkerer, and even the user (most of 
all) who all help comes up with new ways to do things that require less 
work. That invention and innovation have been the basis of much of what has 
been good about industrialization (not saying much has not also been bad).

Megan Quinn's vision seems to included most people going back to doing a lot 
of (often boring and dangerous) manual farm labor, driven by oil getting 
more expensive. Well, robots can do a lot of stuff in the fields, and we 
have a  lot of ways to generate energy (rapidly becoming cheaper than coal 
and oil in the market, and for decades cheaper than coal and oil if 
subsidies like the US defense budget and health care costs were included). 
It even takes more electricity just to produce a gallon of gasoline than an 
electric care would take to go the same distance, just to show you the 
absurdity of much of the modern economy designed to benefit mostly a wealthy 
elite. Why not just talk about electric tractors and field robotics? But, 
then we won't see the social shift to stronger communities she obviously 
cares about (and rightly so).

Megan Quinn rightly celebrates community and local interactions. But, she 
sees the path to get there is because we "have" to do it from Peak Oil. It 
reminds me when all the people who loved space habitats got behind the idea 
of beaming solar power from space to fund creating space habitats, rather 
than just saying space habitats were a good thing in their own right and we 
could do then just because that is what we wanted to do. Instead, things in 
our capitalist society often get bogged down in the religion of the free 
market.
   "The Market as God: Living in the new dispensation"
   http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99mar/marketgod.htm

If community and gardening are good things, one can just support them as 
individuals and through organizations and governments for that reason -- to 
do good things. Isles in Trenton, NJ is a non-profit that has been doing 
that for decades (although, also driven in part with the idea of shaping a 
new and better local economy -- the name came from an original vision of 
making sustainable communities on islands). The progression of Isles, Inc. 
and Marty Johnson's (the founders's) thinking might be something to study.
   http://isles.org/main/

I love organic agriculture as a concept. And I love localism as an idea, 
too. I put many person years (as did my wife) into developing a garden 
simulator to help people learn to grow their own food organically, and I 
learned some more on farming helping with the organic agriculture movement 
in the 1980s. But, as important as connecting with green growing things is, 
there is more to societal and technological change going on right now than 
that, and even that garden simulator was a step towards a space habitat 
simulator. It seems to me that I am seeing some of my thinking from the 
1980s and others from the 1970s (the back to the land movement) reprised 
here. :-) But, over the decades, I've moved beyond it. I'm can hope these 
people will too. There are many important values they celebrate -- ones even 
beyond what I appreciated as much then. The challenge is to integrate their 
good ideas and living values in with the possibilities (and challenges) of 
modern technology, including renewable energy, robotics, advanced computers, 
3D printing, global communications, ecocities, seasteading, and a space 
program. Still, different people may never agree on some core values, and we 
need a healthy way to deal with those disagreements too.

So, where they go wrong IMHO is moving from "localism and stronger 
communities are a good thing" to "we (almost) all have to go back to the 
land because of technological issues and resource limits". The first I agree 
with, the second I do not. The reality is more that we may need to consume 
differently and produce differently for a variety of reasons (including 
increasing community and decreasing pollution), but the particular solution 
they outline of doing less with technology and more with human manual labor 
is leaving out a lot of possibilities (even as some may enjoy exactly what 
they outline, which is a more Amish-like world). So, I think it will be 
rejected by many, which is sad, because many values implicit in what they 
outline are indeed wonderful.

Still, they are taking important steps along that path. But it is perhaps a 
much broader and longer path than they are talking about right now.

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/