ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , global warming , green energy issues

Reply
Old Yesterday, 05:50 PM   #801
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 20,394
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
I am well aware of the propaganda Shrike. Pretty surprised you bought into it, but aware never the less.

Sure when your goal is to drive all those farmers off their land, then sure you can claim labor efficiency. As if the small farmer doesn't have the ability to buy a new tractor appropriately sized too. But I would contend that particular stat showing fewer farmers feeding more city folks really doesn't address efficiency at all.

How much food per acre? How many calories of fossil fuels required per calorie of food produced? How many tons of lost soil due to erosion, compared to tons of food grown? These and many more tests of efficiency all show that sure, more food is grown per farmer, but at a massive loss of efficiency. I mean come on, 10 calories of fossil fuels to grow 1 calories of food and solar is free? Are you kidding me? And 100 tons of soil lost per ton of food produced over all crops and even the best ratio is still less than 1:1? Don't you think it might be a bit more efficient to actually put a skilled laborer in the field to improve the efficiency back to at least break even, if not regenerative? In the US system of agriculture the average soil loss rate is 5.8 tons per acre per year. Average yields of corn, the highest crop we commonly grow over the same period was 3.9 tons per acre per yr!

You call this efficient? Not anyone who uses sane metrics.
It’s Time to Rethink America’s Corn System

Oh an by the way, where on that chart is the land that was degraded by agriculture so bad it is now abandoned fallow or desertified? Don't you think any true test of efficiency of land use in agriculture should include those stats too?
I got to say RBF, I'm disappointed in your reply. Your argument seems steeped in conspiracy theory and a luddite POV.

But the article in Scientific American was great. I'm 100 percent in favor of ending the subsidies on Ethanol. And there are troubling concerns with monoculture which seems to pose a problem with corn, potatoes and bananas among others.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:42 PM   #802
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,800
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
I am well aware of the propaganda Shrike.
Data aren't propaganda one buys into. Data are data. Inputs & outputs, price points, declining hunger amidst exponential population growth – it's all there. If you can examine that data and contort your mind that into believing it represents inefficiency then I can't help you.

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Sure when your goal is to drive all those farmers off their land,
No one's goal was to destroy the family farm. The goal was to feed a growing nation and it's more efficient to do that through modern mechanized agriculture.

Another goal – on the heels of the worst environmental disaster this country has experienced (itself the result of practices employed by family farmers encouraged by ag policies and market incentives that predated the New Deal) – was to stem the drastic loss of topsoil by taking the most erodable lands out of production. How? Give farmers tax breaks to plant cover crops. That's a socialist solution to a specific problem, i.e., paying farmers not to farm with the payments helping them keep their land. If someone eschews the tax break and decides to grow crops on 40 acres of sand but can't compete with someone farming 400 acres of loam, then that's "the market" picking winners and losers, not the liberals.

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
In the US system of agriculture the average soil loss rate is 5.8 tons per acre per year. Average yields of corn, the highest crop we commonly grow over the same period was 3.9 tons per acre per yr!
Yep that's bad. But it's a lot better than it used to be. Why? Socialist programs to concentrate tillage on the least erodable soils, no-till farming, etc.

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Oh an by the way, where on that chart is the land that was degraded by agriculture so bad it is now abandoned fallow or desertified? Don't you think any true test of efficiency of land use in agriculture should include those stats too?
I do. Our history shows that small family farms are rather ***** in comparison.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg nrcs143_011104.jpg (30.3 KB, 3 views)
File Type: jpg nrcs143_010971.jpg (32.3 KB, 2 views)
File Type: png nrcs143_011717.png (34.2 KB, 2 views)
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:00 PM   #803
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 20,394
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post

No one's goal was to destroy the family farm. The goal was to feed a growing nation and it's more efficient to do that through modern mechanized agriculture.

Another goal – on the heels of the worst environmental disaster this country has experienced (itself the result of practices employed by family farmers encouraged by ag policies and market incentives that predated the New Deal) – was to stem the drastic loss of topsoil by taking the most erodable lands out of production. How? Give farmers tax breaks to plant cover crops. That's a socialist solution to a specific problem, i.e., paying farmers not to farm with the payments helping them keep their land. If someone eschews the tax break and decides to grow crops on 40 acres of sand but can't compete with someone farming 400 acres of loam, then that's "the market" picking winners and losers, not the liberals.
Seems that RBF is forgetting the Dust Bowl ever happened. It's hard to see his argument that small farms are more efficient than large farms. That seems totally counter-intuitive.

Quote:
Consider that “in 1970 an operator could plant 40 acres of row crops per day, planting four rows at a time at 2 miles per hour, and could harvest 4,000 bushels per day running a 4-row harvester for 12 hours per day. By 2005, a producer could plant 420 acres per day, planting 16 rows at 6 mph, and harvest 30,000 bushels per day, running a 12-row harvester.”[18] Today, it is estimated that producers can plant 945 acres a day and harvest 50,000 bushels a day. https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/...novation-story
One of things I do know is that these harvesters and planters are expensive which can make them prohibitive to a small farm. Simple economies of scale don't seem to support his argument.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:05 PM   #804
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,423
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I got to say RBF, I'm disappointed in your reply. Your argument seems steeped in conspiracy theory and a luddite POV.

But the article in Scientific American was great. I'm 100 percent in favor of ending the subsidies on Ethanol. And there are troubling concerns with monoculture which seems to pose a problem with corn, potatoes and bananas among others.
How can it be a conspiracy theory if it was done on purpose and even bragged about as a good thing? You just saw Shrike repeat the bragging as if it was somehow good and oppose the claim this is extremely inefficient.

You lost sight of the purpose of the subsidies though. The subsidies are designed to create a huge glut of commodity, and then the reason for the ethanol is to get rid of that subsidized glut. Ethanol from corn was never about being more efficient at producing energy any more than feedlots are about producing efficient meat. Both are designed to efficiently be wasteful....I guess maybe we can call it that. So you are 1/2 way there. Next take animal husbandry.

We have known a long time grasses are far more efficient at feeding cows. How could any sane person even dream that it might be more efficient to plow and plant a field, with all those inputs of fertilizer and pesticide, harvest and dry the corn, store it, ship it, formulate it into feed for animals, store it and ship it again and finally feed it to a cow, compared to the cow just walking over to the next paddock and taking a bite of grass?

Now it is true that cows fatten up faster on corn supplements. But when is faster a metric of efficiency? Is driving 100 MPH more efficient than driving 65 MPH? Of course not. We all understand that the slower speed is far more fuel efficient.

How could any sane person even begin to think this insanely destructive and inefficient food system is more efficient?

It's like people are hypnotized and mind boggled.

Anyway, at least the dynamic shows precisely what we need to do to mitigate AGW. Pay farmers for increasing long term carbon in the soil. That will be the new goal, rather than driving farmers off their land.

At least this way the dynamic actually provides a service society needs. We need the excess carbon from the atmosphere removed. We don't need to drive even more farmers off their land at all. We do not have a huge lack of labor in the cities the factories or the military. There are plenty there to meet society's needs and then some.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; Yesterday at 07:07 PM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:07 AM   #805
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 20,394
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
How can it be a conspiracy theory if it was done on purpose and even bragged about as a good thing? You just saw Shrike repeat the bragging as if it was somehow good and oppose the claim this is extremely inefficient.
Because you're attributing and promoting the idea of a nefarious motivation to what clearly demonstrates good intentions or at least benign ones. It's one thing to say that there were some adverse consequences, it's another to say those consequences were deliberately the primary and intended goal.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:14 AM   #806
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,423
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Because you're attributing and promoting the idea of a nefarious motivation to what clearly demonstrates good intentions or at least benign ones. It's one thing to say that there were some adverse consequences, it's another to say those consequences were deliberately the primary and intended goal.
ok lets start with the first one in the article I used as a source:

Quote:
people chose to leave, but more of them were driven out due to
policy—agricultural policy, in particular. Republicans and
Democrats, alike, have supported laws that favor corporate
agriculture, which continue to drive small farmers out of
business and depopulate the countryside
This is a fact, not a conspiracy. But was that the intended goal and was that goal as you say nefarious?

I would claim YES that was the intended goal, and nefarious means
Quote:
ne·far·i·ous
/nəˈferēəs/
adjective
(typically of an action or activity) wicked or criminal.
"the nefarious activities of the organized-crime syndicates"
synonyms: wicked, evil, sinful, iniquitous, villainous, criminal, heinous, atrocious, appalling, abhorrent, vile, foul, base, abominable, odious, depraved, corrupt, shameful, scandalous, monstrous, fiendish, diabolical, devilish, unholy, ungodly, infernal, satanic, dark, unspeakable, despicable, outrageous, shocking, disgraceful; archaic knavish, dastardly; rare egregious, flagitious
Yes that too!
FDRs New Deal
Quote:
Myth: The New Deal Was for Small Farmers
"Historians and economists have reached an overwhelming consensus that the New Deal farm bills were designed to aid large farmers and succeeded in doing so"
Think about that. This is no conspiracy theory. This is what the farm bill was designed to do.

It gets worse:
Quote:
"The Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA)
“accelerated the increasing concentration of land,” writes Pete
Daniel. “Obviously, large landowners reaped most of the federal
money.”9
An aide to Henry Wallace, then the secretary of
agriculture, later said the AAA was “militantly for the larger
farmers.”
So you tell me, does this meet the level of "nefarious" yet? I don't know what your career is, but lets just say for whatever reason the government decided to close down your place of business, and drive you out of your house too, force you to relocate and get a new career, and hand your job to someone else for whatever reason. Would that be nefarious?

Oh it gets even worse, believe me.

Quote:
"With the backing of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), large farmers cut costs and drove small farmers out of business, while local USDA agents discriminated against black farmers on a systematic basis: by
1920, there were 925,000 black farmers, and by 1970, 90
percent of them were gone.20 Some of these farmers left for
better opportunities, but more were forced out in one of the
largest government-impelled population movements in all our
history.
”2"
Oh it gets worse, believe me:
Quote:
"Black farmers who held onto
their land used their independence to support civil rights
workers, which often made them targets for lynch mobs and local elites.2"
Are we to nefarious yet? Maybe Libtard sounds almost kind now? In my opinion we already left nefarious and entered into pure evil already and we haven't even gotten to one of the most despicable elitists/racists the USDA ever put in control of public policy. The evil Earl Butz. See I can call him an evil racist because he actually was forced to resign he was so racist and he served in prison he was so evil. Even if it was the Libtard racist New Deal farm bills that caused 90% of black farmers to be militantly forced off their land. (yes cooperation with lynchings and forced labor is fairly described as militant) But lets get back to Butz's policy changes.

oops another myth

Quote:
Butz’s farm bill was “the logical extension of the acts of
1965 and 1970,” according to former USDA chief economist
and Kennedy adviser Willard Cochrane.4
Damn, another Libtard causing something being blamed on a Republican. I should have known.

Does this let Butz and the neoliberals off the hook? Weeeeeeell not exactly

Quote:
There was a difference, however: a wealthier class of farmers
was affected. A group of sociologists who interviewed a
representative sample of Iowa farm operators during the crisis
found that “persons most at risk of forced displacement from
farming are found to be younger, better educated, and largescale operators.”5
OMG a policy designed by libtards to drive small scale black farmers off their land now modified and used by neoliberals and their new partners in crime, the newly created big conglomerate food industry, to force well educated hard working white folks off their land too! Just to make room for even BIGGER monstrosities and the destruction of entire rural communities both of their minorities and their well educated whites. How evil a bureaucracy can you get!?

Oh but this is just the natural progress as y'all stated earlier. Weeeellll that's not exactly true either.

Quote:
Experts agree that neither economies of scale nor
technology give large-scale farms an edge over smaller ones.63
In 2013, USDA researchers surveyed the literature and
concluded that “most economists are skeptical that scale
economies usefully explain increased farm sizes.”64 Similarly,
technology itself does not inherently—or as the USDA
researchers put it, “explicitly”—benefit owners of large-scale
farms.65
Now go back up and look at the stats I gave. You know the ones where the average age of farmers was 58.3 with over 20 times more farmers over age 75 as under 25 and only 46.1% of farmers even make a net positive income from farming?

finally:
Quote:
combined with policies that provide
commercial farms with easy access to capital, while withholding
it from smaller ones, as happened in the United States
aha, destabilized financially even when they were more efficient and higher quality than the big boys That's almost the last straw, but it gets even worse, believe it or not. I know it seems impossible to get worse, but this is deeply rooted evil we are dealing with. Farmers are notoriously stubborn and many are much smarter than anyone wants to give credit. I mean like elite smart. Like smarter than your typical doctor or lawyer. Even smarter than a 5th grader.

Some few still survived against all odds. They have developed new models of agriculture completely separate and isolated from the industrialized system and 100s of times more efficient by any rational metric. You could basically call it survival of the fittest, where the survival rate was far less than 10%. The survivors are tough. The business models they designed robust. The crop and animal husbandry systems they designed resilient against all sorts of catastrophes like floods and droughts and whims of the markets. And it just so happens they are so good they can actually save the world from AGW.

And so many of these best and brightest farmers literally have been attacked by making their operations unreasonably illegal. You can read up on that here:

Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal: War Stories from the Local Food Front


You get it yet? We can fix it. Not only can country boy survive, he can save you too. All that is needed is the above "access to capital" and stop trying to drive us off the land and just let us do our important work of rebuilding the degraded foundations of this great country.

But we don't even want capital from the backstabbing banks. We want paid for providing a needed service that benefits all society. Just like trash collectors get paid to do their job, we want paid to remove the CO2 "trash" from the atmosphere. Not offsets, not charity, Not tax deductions, not socialist dividends split evenly. We don't even want you to drive the corporate boys out of business, because they are our neighbors too. We want paid to do a job y'all need done. Whoever does the job with a verified carbon market and sequestration protocol for sequestered soil carbon, gets paid a price per ton carbon sequestered. That's not charity, socialism, nepotism, communism or any other sort of degenerate corruption. You want something done, pay us to do it, and we will.

You pay for it and be sure it will get done. And if it doesn't then you have nothing to pay, so your risk is zero! We take 100% of the risk and expect to be paid well for that as any entrepreneur would.

Dictionary result for entrepreneur

en·tre·pre·neur
/ˌäntrəprəˈnər,ˌäntrəprəˈno͝o(ə)r/
noun
a person who organizes and operates a business or businesses, taking on greater than normal financial risks in order to do so.


Its a win win for everyone. There is no down side. That's how the conservative can roll up our sleeves and pull your sorry arses out of the fire. The American way.

Oh and just in case you didn't read it the first time here it is, please read it this time: The Butz Stops Here: Why the Food Movement
Needs to Rethink Agricultural History


And the original essay for conservatives:
Is there a technically viable and economically advantageous solution to Climate Change and what is preventing its implementation?


and my white paper on the plan for policy makers: Can we reverse global warming?
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; Today at 09:40 AM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:30 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.