[p2p-research] debate on open agriculture

[Ryan Lanham]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Kevin Carson <
free.market.anticapitalist at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/16/09, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
>
> >  There's no doubt that industrial-scale food production can crank
> >  the largest amount of food Joules with the least amount of people.
>
> At the point of production, you're probably right.  But if total labor
> includes amortization of the capital outlays for machinery, the
> long-distance shipping cost, the food processors' and grocers'
> markups, etc., from the consumer's perspective it will likely be
> cheaper in labor terms to "make" rather than "buy."
>


Centralization actually is quite efficient without qualification.  What
follows below is a different set of political goals than efficiency which is
typically taking as greatest output at lowest net cost.


>
> >  We're faced with an ageing demographics with people out of work.
> >
> >  A retired couple could occupy themselves quite well with a quarter acre,
> >  or around 0.10 ha (50 x 50 m). In principle they could derive 100% of
> >  their calories from that space, using high-intensity organic gardening
> >  methods with no to very little mineral/synthetic fertilizer input.
>
> And in the Third World, where surplus labor with no earning power is
> even more of a problem, that goes double.  The person who was evicted
> (or whose parents were evicted) from their own subsistence plot, and
> who is currently living in a tent city or squatter's shack or in a
> gutter in Calcutta, can't afford to buy the output of cash-crop,
> export-oriented agribusiness no matter how "efficient" it is, because
> he's a surplus laborer who can't earn any money at all to buy food no
> matter how cheap.  Putting him back on his own land, land that was
> stolen from him or his parents so it could be used to grow cash crops
> for those who can afford them, where he can produce directly for his
> own consumption, is the ideal solution.
>
I agree with all of this again.  But it isn't going to happen if the primary
social driver is efficiency.  You need to establish political systems that
value full employment, low consumption of energy, etc. for some clear gain
in comparative terms to how those gains could otherwise be achieved.

It's far from clear you will end up with these outcomes if you simply set
objectives (like a cap and trade system).  As the original writer wrote (and
I agree) decentralized agrarian systems are not very sensible ways to live
in a modern world.  Technologies for harvesting trees by the dozens an hour
in Minnesota or Norway make far more sense than hiring two guys in Brazil or
Indonesia to swing an axe.

I certainly wouldn't want to be amongst those damned to live on a 1/4
hectare when Europeans and Americans get to eat strawberries in November and
fatty fish in the Caribbean when they crawl off a huge diesel-powered cruise
ship.  I'd want my shot at wealth like those enjoying the best the planet
has to offer.

So, you either compel people to give up the opportunity for improvement or
you create incentives (income redistributions) for the political outcomes
you want (and can convince others to want.)

Decreasing amounts of microcredit are used for agricultural production
globally.  It's not a very safe business--risks are high and production is
quite variable.  Scale it up just a bit, and you get lots of credit from
governments, but still relatively little business credit.  Yet China has
booming shrimp farms (almost all smaller scale) and similar enterprises.
These sell shrimp that are eaten in restaurants in Florida (or Georgia)
where one sees billboards complaining about it.  But such systems give
people cheap shrimp and lots of logistics people good jobs flying airplanes,
working in airports, etc.  You can't just wipe that out without realizing
you are compelling places to a lower standard of living.  If the trade-offs
are worth it to informed citizens, they will lower their outputs in favor of
the environment, etc.  The issue is one of education and politics...not one
of technology.

Protein production is very challenging and fish/sea creatures are the
answer.  Asia is well ahead on this front...especially China.  But pollution
is high and resource use is dramatic.  But why shouldn't they do it if they
can make a good living?  Europe and the US will need to volunteer to be poor
before developing countries will volunteer to not be wealthier.

Ryan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090716/4aabe9a0/attachment.html>