[p2p-research] debate on open agriculture

[Stan Rhodes]

Replies to Kevin and Ryan, below.

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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."
>>
>
Kevin, expertise is another huge difference, in all industries, and so the
economies of scale created by centralization include the specialization of
experts and the efficiency gains they make.  Specialization seems to be
often ignored or trivialized in economic discussions on this list, which is
a mistake.  The gains of trade from specialization can't be reasonably
denied, so we should freely acknowledge them--from that acknowledgment
follows the highlighting of gains enabled by sharing knowledge.

Given what I've seen and experienced with farms, I'm highly skeptical that
it's cost-effective for the majority of the population to make, rather than
buy, most of their food (some herbs, a couple tomato plants, sure).
Specialized producers with operations that are centralized to some degree
strike me inevitable--that trend doesn't concern me.  What concerns me is
the societal and governmental refusal to revise costs to reflect known and
measurable externalities.  Essentially, subsidized and condoned destruction
of common pool resources.

Rising fuel costs will bring that destruction closer to home for those
people that can do something about it, politically, so I see some hope
there.


Ryan,


> Centralization actually is quite efficient without qualification.
>
>

No, because deeming something "efficient" requires qualification.  Factors
of production cannot be endlessly centralized for increased efficiency.

 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.
>

It's all three.  Just as technology enables wealth-creation, it enables
cheaper and more effective monitoring of environmental conditions not
immediately obvious to the populace.  Technology enables education and more
effective methods of fighting for social justice, too.  Information
permeates the membrane of the great firewalled nations of the world in
seconds, not days, and with little risk to the senders.  The KGB may be able
to kill all anti-gov professional journalists within its borders, but it
cannot kill a globe of citizen journalists with internet connections.  I,
too, have a distaste for the extreme futurist cry of "technology,
technology," that ignores cultural development and processes, but technology
can't be dismissed.  It's an issue.

I detect a bit of rational expectation perspective framing these citizens
reasoning about trade-offs and making rational decisions. Informed citizens
lower their production only when 1) costs are too high, or 2) the situation
meets the necessary criteria for effective common-pool resource management.
As Ostrom documented, it's not so hard to screw up: corrupted government
planning isn't even required (but it helps, of course).


>
> 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.
>
>

Efficient-yet-sustainable use of bioregions is the better answer.  The US
has plenty of grazing land, good for protein production embodied by
ruminants and poultry.  Proper "grass farming," as the infamous Joel Salatin
calls it, even restores soil on over-grazed, poor-soil lands.  I've seen
studies on foodsheds in the NE that confirm using pasturelands for
sustainable meat and dairy production is more efficient use of land than
production for a vegetarian diet alone.  I've also seen increasing rumblings
about the need to re-integrate animals into farms for better overall farm
health.  Also, while I can't say it strikes me as appetizing, we shouldn't
forget about insects and the high quality protein they create quite
efficiently.  No reason they can't be harvested and processed (insect
surimi?).

Aquaculture can be low resource-use and still fairly efficient.  Carp
aquaculture using basic pond-farming is (very roughly, from memory) .1 ton
petroleum to 1 ton fish.  The US's petroleum-heavy industrialized corn /
soybean / chicken / beef production doesn't put it ahead in sustainable
agriculture techniques, so I don't see how China's ahead in protein
production when they have a rapidly-increasing unsustainable model.


I don't think people generally understand even the general economic trends
related to wealth.  If pressed, people seem to guess that farming generates
little wealth, and yet the implications are missed.  It's easier to live a
"simpler life" or "urban homestead" in the US, where the safety net of
trillion-dollar infrastructure has our back.  Even the Amish depend on US
infrastructure to supply their raw materials (metal, cloth, fuel).  Building
advanced transportation, energy, and water infrastructure requires the
population density of cities to be economically efficient and feasible.
Infrastructure requires consolidated wealth, and consolidated wealth
requires cities.

When I started challenging the assumptions rooted in my own personal biases
against large cities, I began to see economic trends that I hadn't noticed
before because I refused to look.

Here in Portland, the the middle-class and above support the farmers--the
poor can't afford to.  Conversely, the farmers can't afford to produce for
the poor, even with all the low-wage immigrant labor they use, which they
have to use to survive at all.  You can only out-compete subsidized corn and
soy when your customer base is large and nearby, and insensitive to high
relative prices.  The wealth that keeps the farmers in business comes from
employees of places like Intel (they have their own farmer's market on their
campus, even), Adidas, Nike, Columbia Sportswear, and so on.

The Grameen family of companies seems to be the most recent and telling
example of reducing poverty through improving and building infrastructure.
I think better equity models underlying socioeconomic systems would improve
this sort of thing, of course.

-- Stan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090717/89df8f18/attachment-0001.html>