# the great divorce



## Chaska Ñawi

Returning from a visit to Montreal, I was struck by how complete the cocooning from the environment can be, particularly if one's dwelling is attached to the underground city.  Urban dwellers have never had the opportunity to be so divorced from the real world.  Their numbers are growing: in Canada, 80% of the population is now urban.

There are many people who are almost totally severed from the real world around them.  Phases of the moon pass unremarked. The night sky is completely unfamiliar, as are sunrise and sunset.   Milk comes in plastic bags, water from the tap, meat in anonymous plastic-wrapped cuts, and vegetables come canned, frozen, or thoroughly processed.  (Most potatoes in Canada are consumed as french fries.  Many have never seen the source of their food, even when it's produced locally.  Nothing marks the change of the seasons except temperature and the type of precipitation.

How does this affect our understanding of the world?  Where do you think this path leads us?


----------



## Joca

Chaska Ñawi said:


> Returning from a visit to Montreal, I was struck by how complete the cocooning from the environment can be, particularly if one's dwelling is attached to the underground city. Urban dwellers have never had the opportunity to be so divorced from the real world. Their numbers are growing: in Canada, 80% of the population is now urban.
> 
> There are many people who are almost totally severed from the real world around them. Phases of the moon pass unremarked. The night sky is completely unfamiliar, as are sunrise and sunset. Milk comes in plastic bags, water from the tap, meat in anonymous plastic-wrapped cuts, and vegetables come canned, frozen, or thoroughly processed. (Most potatoes in Canada are consumed as french fries. Many have never seen the source of their food, even when it's produced locally. Nothing marks the change of the seasons except temperature and the type of precipitation.
> 
> How does this affect our understanding of the world? Where do you think this path leads us?


 
This reality also makes me very sad. What role can schools have in here? 

Briefly answering your question: all of this reinforces the wrong side of anthropocentrism (can we manage to be the only species surviving on this planet and all the rest made of plastic or virtual?) and makes for a very low immunity: soon we are going to need massive doses of antibiotics to cure a simple cold, or we will be killed. 

JC


----------



## .   1

You appear to be right chaska.
This divorce is leading to vast ignorance. We are forgetting so much traditional knowledge looking for a magic bullet and think that every problem can be solved in 48 minutes with big muscles and guns.

Just look at the term 'magic bullet'. This perpetuates the bullets and bombs mentality.


Joca said:


> and makes for a very low immunity: soon we are going to need massive doses of antibiotics to cure a simple cold, or we will be killed.
> 
> JC


There is no logical link indicating that increasing virulence is lowering immunity. If anything evolution tells us that an organism encountering an increasingly virulent pathogen will raise it's auto immune system not lower it.

The common cold is caused by a virus which is not really alive and so is utterly immune to antibiotics. Antibiotics are just specific poisions but they kill bacteria, which are alive, but not virus, which are not alive. Taking antibiotics in an attempt to cure the common cold will actually make the cold worse because it will cause your body to divert resources to combat the antibiotics that is killing something that needs to be not killed. If the antibiotic is actually killing bad organisms this side effect is a small price to pay but can cause death in extreme cases of a combination of an already compromised auto immune system the common cold and inappropriate antibiotics.

Dr Karl Krushelniski wrote of this problem in a recent New Scientist Magazine.

Australians are suffering from a looming health crisis in that we are so cut off from our environment that we now have one of the lowest level of iodine in our bodies than anywhere in the world. My generation was cool because we used the old fashioned way to sterilise milk vats and containers with a trace of iodine but this was outlawed and replaced with the highly toxic and more expensive chlorine and our grandkids will probably be thick and bald and have goitres.

Meanwhile chemical companies are making greazy profits and telling us that we can't prove that we don't want frankenstein foods of mass consumption.

Bacteria are going to get us anyway.

.,,


----------



## TRG

So what? This is modern life. Would you like to back up a hundred, or five hundred, or a thousand years? Life was not so pleasant then for much of human kind. Nostalgia is nice, but now is better.


----------



## .   1

TRG said:


> So what?


So what, what? What are you contributing?

.,,


----------



## Joca

TRG said:


> So what? This is modern life. Would you like to back up a hundred, or five hundred, or a thousand years? Life was not so pleasant then for much of human kind. Nostalgia is nice, but now is better.


 
TRG

I agree: it is modern life, and we are not being asked to throw it away, but it is also a very disruptive way of life, isn't it? For your own sanity, I think it is vital for you to have a link with real nature, and not rely only on computers, TV and paved roads, to mention a few. I think we also need a connection to the ground. Walking barefoot on the ground is a good start, I think. 

JC


----------



## TRG

I have dug potatoes and milked cows, but my children are both urbanites and have done neither. I think they fully appreciate the world and how things are and came to be so. Now is good. The future is bright. I'm an optimist. That's what!


----------



## .   1

TRG said:


> I have dug potatoes and milked cows, but my children are both urbanites and have done neither. I think they fully appreciate the world and how things are and came to be so. Now is good. The future is bright. I'm an optimist. That's what!


So now is perfect and we shouldn't strive to change anything or even to question the perfect perfection of the present now.  Is that correct?

No one is saying that we should go back to slop buckets in the street and gzunders under the bed but it is possible to enhance the plight of the urbanite with a few bright stars at night.

.,,


----------



## TRG

Joca said:


> TRG
> 
> I agree: it is modern life, and we are not being asked to throw it away, but it is also a very disruptive way of life, isn't it? For your own sanity, I think it is vital for you to have a link with real nature, and not rely only on computers, TV and paved roads, to mention a few. I think we also need a connection to the ground. Walking barefoot on the ground is a good start, I think.
> 
> JC


You are expressing the romatic notion that human existence is incomplete without some connectedness to nature. It's nice, but not necessary.




. said:


> So now is perfect and we shouldn't strive to change anything or even to question the perfect perfection of the present now. Is that correct?
> 
> No one is saying that we should go back to slop buckets in the street and gzunders under the bed but it is possible to enhance the plight of the urbanite with a few bright stars at night.
> 
> .,,


 
Anyone that chooses to can live a bucolic life. Many people have left the rat race to do just that. I highly recommend it. I have always thought I would be happiest there myself, but I could not quite manage it. There is no perfection, and as someone once said, "things are going to have to change if things are going to remain the same." Things will change. Things will get better.


----------



## Joca

TRG said:


> You are expressing the romatic notion that human existence is incomplete without some connectedness to nature. It's nice, but not necessary.


 
I won't dispute that it is possible to live totally disconnected from nature. I think many people do so nowadays, but I am afraid that in the long run it is a high price they have to pay. Anyway, I don't seem to have any factual proof that it is unhealthy to live your own entirely on asphalt, concrete and electricity, but I have a suspicion (and it is strong) that it is.

Now, if you give me your permission  , I will go outdoors to have a rain shower. It finally started to rain after a 30-day drought and it feels great to have such a "bath". Try it yourself when the weather permits, if you have never done it before. You may notice a difference.

Cheers,

JC


----------



## aleCcowaN

Chaska Ñawi said:


> There are many people who are almost totally severed from the real world around them.  Phases of the moon pass unremarked. The night sky is completely unfamiliar, as are sunrise and sunset.   Milk comes in plastic bags, water from the tap, meat in anonymous plastic-wrapped cuts, and vegetables come canned, frozen, or thoroughly processed.  (Most potatoes in Canada are consumed as french fries.  Many have never seen the source of their food, even when it's produced locally.  Nothing marks the change of the seasons except temperature and the type of precipitation.
> 
> How does this affect our understanding of the world?  Where do you think this path leads us?


This made me remember many years ago one of my second cousins in kinder garden, they were asked to draw a little chicken and he and every and each of his classmates drew a supermarket frozen chicken -thank goodness they omitted the plastic packaging-. Simply, the average "Urbanian" lives life turning his/her back on the country, nature, environment and even cosmos. They think the city as a closed system that is provided by huge amounts of water, food, energy, air and light by miraculous means.

As a resident of a 12 million people city, I seldom see the skies at night because I see only about forty paling stars, and I only can recognize "Las Tres Marías" (The Orion's Belt). Butter is white here, not yelowish as real butter is. Milk tastes each day less like milk and more like chlorine. Following the trend of the citizens in adding plastic bubbies, removing wrinkles and under-eyes bags, adding and painting hairs, etcetera, the vegetables and fruits are becoming each day more appealing and tasteless. There's a sort of junk life, not only junk food.

The understanding of the World is strongly affected for people living their life in the concrete jungle. I'm not opposed to humans locked in our artificial hives. I love my cage. It's very practical to have humans agglomerated in a myriad spots around the World with all the damage focused. Life quality in cities is very unnatural and I could write dozens of pages describing some consequences. But the misunderstanding of what the real environment is becomes very dangerous. There's nothing more perilous to real environment than a city amateur environmentalist, sort of urban minds that have the power of destroying the environment.

The most outstanding is the Ecological Reservation of Buenos Aires. My fellow citizens, so environmental prone, love this 800 acres natural reserve next to downtown Buenos Aires. This "unique" reservation is an artificial lot created on the River Plate bed by throwing dozens million tons of city debris, then abandoned it until it was consolidated, and in the meantime some trees grew, twenty birds made their nests and a couple of turtles and otters made a home in its tiny lagoons. It became later an "Ecological Reservation" for all the public to watch "nature" and learn it is very important. As a result we have every pyromaniac trying to burn it every dry season. Nobody wants the land to be sold and become part of downtown -the intended purpose when the area was conceived-. But this land which value is about 3 billion dollars and that have the same species that other natural reservations in the city -Quilmes' about 10 km. downtown- is sacred and cannot be sold as urban environmentalist claim loudly. If this land were sold we can built many windmills in Patagonia and get in twenty year a 100% of the electric power the central city needs (200 square kilometers, 3 million inhabitants, almost no industry) from renewable sources, avoiding million tons of CO2 that contributes to global warming, millions of tons that today two huge electric power plants next to this reservation throw to provide electricity to the city center.

Living in a city modifies our perception about everything, as an otter becomes more important than the whole globe.



. said:


> Australians are suffering from a looming health crisis in that we are so cut off from our environment that we now have one of the lowest level of iodine in our bodies than anywhere in the world. My generation was cool because we used the old fashioned way to sterilise milk vats and containers with a trace of iodine but this was outlawed and replaced with the highly toxic and more expensive chlorine and our grandkids will probably be thick and bald and have goitres.


I thought that iodine supplements in salt were mandatory all around the World since the 30's, as well as folic acid in wheat floor more recently. Australia is a first class society. Could it having neglected this important health issue? In my country, fluorine supplements are still not mandatory for children growing their teeth.


----------



## .   1

aleCcowaN said:


> I thought that iodine supplements in salt were mandatory all around the World since the 30's, as well as folic acid in wheat floor more recently. Australia is a first class society. Could it having neglected this important health issue? In my country, fluorine supplements are still not mandatory for children growing their teeth.


The only salt that I can buy with added iodine also has aluminium as a free flowing agent.
A huge amount of Australians drink bottled water which has no flouride and there is now a push to add this to bottled water.
Parents are so afraid of dirt that they are keeping their kids in a sterile cocoon and this is causing a failing immune system.  The tin lids grow up with no need to develop any defences against pathogens and when they hit school they are swamped with greeblies that their bodies have no idea about.

.,,


----------



## aleCcowaN

. said:


> The only salt that I can buy with added iodine also has aluminium as a free flowing agent.
> A huge amount of Australians drink bottled water which has no flouride and there is now a push to add this to bottled water.
> Parents are so afraid of dirt that they are keeping their kids in a sterile cocoon and this is causing a failing immune system.  The tin lids grow up with no need to develop any defences against pathogens and when they hit school they are swamped with greeblies that their bodies have no idea about.
> 
> .,,


Yes, I can imagine it. One of the consequences of living in modern cities is the "controlled" environment. In "ancient" times one had to bear one extra piece of warm clothes to avoid "catching a cold" and eat one's spinaches. Today, parents  keep their children in a sort of poultry farming, within their twisted personal version of Huxley's Brave New World. As a consequence this newly bred humans can suffer Montezuma's revenge by drinking Tokyo's tap water. [The symbols in Gillian's "Brazil" come to my mind, as it is some sort of depiction of what we're discussing in this thread]


----------



## maxiogee

Chaska Ñawi said:


> Returning from a visit to Montreal, I was struck by how complete the cocooning from the environment can be, particularly if one's dwelling is attached to the underground city.  Urban dwellers have never had the opportunity to be so divorced from the real world.  Their numbers are growing: in Canada, 80% of the population is now urban.
> 
> There are many people who are almost totally severed from the real world around them.  Phases of the moon pass unremarked. The night sky is completely unfamiliar, as are sunrise and sunset.   Milk comes in plastic bags, water from the tap, meat in anonymous plastic-wrapped cuts, and vegetables come canned, frozen, or thoroughly processed.  (Most potatoes in Canada are consumed as french fries.  Many have never seen the source of their food, even when it's produced locally.  Nothing marks the change of the seasons except temperature and the type of precipitation.
> 
> How does this affect our understanding of the world?  Where do you think this path leads us?



I think that the population as a whole doesn't individually need to have the knowledge which our ancestors had individually. In the days when the vast majority of the world's people lived off the land they needed to know it, and the seasons, intimately.
I don't think that this knowledge is a requirement for modern society - which, if figures are to be believed, has - or soon will - turn from 51% being rural to 51% being urban. Our food is 'grown' for us by people in offices controlling what is planted and when it is harvested.

By losing touch with the knowledge which our ancestors had we have not become ignorant, we have just turned our attentions to other things.

I do fear that the lack of basic knowledge of 'earthly' processes may lead to serious problems in the future, but I think that the drift away from that knowledge is turning somewhat. Whether it is in time to prevent the problems only time will tell. 

The majority of human activities are involved in cyclical 'progress' - things come and go, and come back again.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

I'm not saying that we have become ignorant, but rather disconnected.  The point is not that we are focussing on other things, but that our entire focus has now shifted to exclude the sources of our very survival.

Are we fostering the delusion that we can somehow cut ourselves out of the web?  And at what cost?


----------



## Etcetera

I am an urban dweller. I like big cities, and although I enjoy going to the country, I wouldn't like to live there all the time. Partly because in Russia the country isn't a nice place to live. Small towns, let alone villages, are seldom able to give their inhabitants all they may need. That's why most people prefer to live in cities, not in the country. 
As for our connection with nature, I have the impression that for most people it just isn't of great importance. There is food, there is water, there is milk. Thank you. It doesn't matter in the least where it all come from.


----------



## maxiogee

Chaska Ñawi said:


> I'm not saying that we have become ignorant, but rather disconnected.  The point is not that we are focussing on other things, but that our entire focus has now shifted to exclude the sources of our very survival.
> 
> Are we fostering the delusion that we can somehow cut ourselves out of the web?  And at what cost?



I didn't intend to imply that you thought we were becoming ignorant - my point was that humankind's knowledge needs continually change - the people 300 years ago probably didn't have knowledge/skills which their predecessors had.
One great thing about this 'information age' is that we haven't lost knowledge, we have it available to us should we need it. I know it's not the same as knowing, but it's better than lost knowledge. So the kids today can't figure out how much change to give for an item costing 3.21 if 10.00 is given them? The cash register does it for them - they don't need to know in the way their grandparents did.

I'm not sure that 'we can cut ourselves out of the web' _is_ a delusion. "We" in the developed world have - so we obviously 'can'. The question is is it a sustainable choice? That, I believe is dubious. 

The people who do 'my' farming - those folks in offices I mentioned, will disappear very quickly if capitalism falters or fails. They are only kept in those offices by the fact that I buy the goods they have commodified (sorry about that, bad word, can't think of what I need) and in which they trade. Give me enough reason to stop shopping in their outlets and they're out of work and their system collapses.

In many, many countries today farmers are complaining that they are being over-squeezed on price and presentation by the really big chain outlets. They may well be pushed too far some time soon and just stop selling to these giants. I really don't care about the look of much of the produce I buy. I believe that these conglomerates who demand that the apples they sell be flawless and meet a certain range of colour are wrong in thinking that we consumers 'need' these standards. Sure, if we're asked in a survey we say it's nice if an apple has no blemishes and we'd prefer to buy that one if the choice is there, but that doesn't mean they need to cater to that 'demand' - it's not a demand, it's an aspiration.

The same goes for the clothes we buy. If we continually shop in the low-cost outlets and buy "wear it this season and throw it away" goods then we are damaging the producers who are, again, squeezed on price by the manufacturers/retailers. Quality goods may last longer but the push to monoculture agriculture which 'cheap and plentiful' trading causes is probably more damaging to the environment than many people even dream of.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> So the kids today can't figure out how much change to give for an item costing 3.21 if 10.00 is given them? The cash register does it for them - they don't need to know in the way their grandparents did.


Thanks Maxiogee.  I think this illustrates the point that Chaska is trying to make perfectly.

Those who possess knowledge possess power.  It is not for nothing that the story of the Garden of Eden story makes reference to the fear of the spread of knowledge.  The constant attempts by totalitarian entities to limit knowledge shows that even the most godless are quite happy to emulate Him on this fundamentally fundamental point.  Protoplasmic and quasi-existential rulers both agree that a congregation of mushrooms is a compliant congregation.

My suspicion is that secular and non secular interests are being served by this acceptance of the dumbing down of the populace.

Are you really sure that you want your decendants to devolve to a state where they are at the mercy of a machine to count for them.  Those familiar with 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Heinlein will get my drift immediately.

A one eyed man in the kingdom of the blind is said to possess great power but this must be a pretty useless power because blind people can't produce very much of anything.

A knowledgable person in the kingdom of the ignorant.  That is a whole new ball game.

Your example is perfect.  Just imagine two of the kids you describe.  Neither can count.  Both rely on the calculator to tell them how to conduct their transaction.  This would be a fascinating exchange.
How would either party know how many items were being purchased?

The purchaser could proffer a handfull of beans.  The buyer doesn't know how many beans there because he can't count beans.  The seller can't count beans either.  How long do you reckon it would take for any bean counters in town to become the fat cats of town?  That would be hard to answer if you couldn't count because the concept of 3 nanoseconds or 99 years is the same or at best could be differentiated by a non counter as 'short time' or 'long time' as a finer discretion of numbers not be available to the innumerate.
The innumerate would have difficulty just walking the streets.  How would an innumerate navigate New York from West Fifty Third Street to East Ninety Fourth Street?  Taking the kids out for the day would be a nightmare for innumerate parents.  The only way that they could be sure that they had all the kids back home would be to make sure that there was one in each bed but then they would not have any way of knowing that they had checked all of the multiple bedrooms.

How would an innumerate cook be able to use a recipe?  Would it be 6 eggs and five cups of flour or the reverse?  The devil is in the detail.

Knowledge is power and people who allow themselves to be conned into losing basic knowledge will very shortly get their fingers burnt.

We are the environment and the environment doesn't care if we try to delude ourselves.  The environment is not malicious it is just inexorable and we must find a way to accomodate ourselves to fit into the utterly immutable laws of physics and thermodynamics.

"In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!!"

.,,


----------



## gaer

Chaska Ñawi said:


> Are we fostering the delusion that we can somehow cut ourselves out of the web? And at what cost?


Am I the only person who sees irony in the words "cut ourselves out of the web" when we are connected to the "Web" in order to have this conversation? 

I started reading this thread thinking that it was a discussion of "The Great Divorce" by CS Lewis.

My wife and I had a "wonderful opportunity to reconnect" when Hurricane Wilma hit our area. No coomputer, no electricity. The people in our building spent time with each other, and I got a chance to hear my neighbors talk endlessly about things that could not have bored me more.

When the lights came back on, I was incredibly relieved to be able to re-establish contact with people I've met all over the world.

I could go on and on about what is wrong with the world today, but I would not trade it for the world I grew up in.

Gaer


----------



## Joca

gaer said:


> Am I the only person who sees irony in the words "cut ourselves out of the web" when we are connected to the "Web" in order to have this conversation?
> 
> I started reading this thread thinking that it was a discussion of "The Great Divorce" by CS Lewis.
> 
> My wife and I had a "wonderful opportunity to reconnect" when Hurricane Wilma hit our area. No coomputer, no electricity. The people in our building spent time with each other, and I got a chance to hear my neighbors talk endlessly about things that could not have bored me more.
> 
> When the lights came back on, I was incredibly relieved to be able to re-establish contact with people I've met all over the world.
> 
> I could go on and on about what is wrong with the world today, but I would not trade it for the world I grew up in.
> 
> Gaer


 
Hi Gaer

I think I know what you mean...

Probably you are aware that if you were to meet in flesh and blood those very people you interact with on the web they would probably prove to be as boring as your neighbours. Or maybe you would come to this conclusion after a couple of days living together. Maybe boredom is in ourselves, if you see what I mean.

Anyway, I think your experience serves to show that the virtuality of the present-day world is indeed protective, but at the same time elusive, deceptive and frail. Now and then I really get bored in front of this computer and have to get up, look out of the window, at the moon, go for a walk outdoors or exchange words with someone touchable.  

If I compare present and past, I would be able to draw a long list of things that I miss and that were better in the past, at least in this corner of the world: we had less pollution, less noise, less traffic, less violence, fewer churches and Churches, more tastier fruits, etc... But ok, I know that we can't get back and the past also had a few traps of its own. We have to move on, haven't we? But now and then I find myself wondering. And I find that I can't live without those memories. Can you?

JC


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Let me try this again, because I think some people are missing the point.

This isn't about "then versus now".  This isn't about whether we should all return to some bucolic past.  This is about whether we are fostering a delusion that we can cut ourselves off from the supporting infrastructure, and, if so, at what cost.


----------



## maxiogee

Chaska Ñawi said:


> This isn't about "then versus now".  This isn't about whether we should all return to some bucolic past.  This is about whether we are fostering a delusion that we can cut ourselves off from the supporting infrastructure, and, if so, at what cost.



I think the fact that we have done so shows that we can do so and survive - unless or until some cataclysmic change to our way of life alters things and make it impossible to get back to how we once were.

At what cost?
Who can say? Human history is the story of roads chosen and others not. We can never know the cost of chosing A over B becase we can never go back and take B and analyse the differences.

What would have happened if the Roman Empire had not fallen? Or if Hitler/Genghis Khan/Jesus Christ/Nelson Mandela had never done the things they did? Who can even begin to guess at the long term effects that those changes to our history might have been?


----------



## Joca

Chaska Ñawi said:


> Let me try this again, because I think some people are missing the point.
> 
> This isn't about "then versus now". This isn't about whether we should all return to some bucolic past. This is about whether we are fostering a delusion that we can cut ourselves off from the supporting infrastructure, and, if so, at what cost.


 
Hi

It's good of you to set us back on to the right track again. But, you know, to a certain extent, digressions are unavoidable and maybe even relevant. 

And if you allow me to say so, your original question might also include the debate "then versus now", because it seems clear that "yesterday" we were not only more aware of the surrounding infrastructure (that is, nature), but also we took part in it more intensely. We were less of mere observers or takers. 

JC


----------



## geve

Chaska Ñawi said:


> There are many people who are almost totally severed from the real world around them.


I am grateful that I have the opportunity to go to the countryside once in a while. I am grateful that I am wealthy enough to travel and see different landscapes, meet different life conditions, feel different environments. I am grateful that I live in a big city and have an easy access to virtually anything and any destination. I am grateful that I live in a nice neighbourhood where I can find supermarkets as well as local shops, and parks as well as theaters and museums.

I wish I could recognize more constellations when I have the chance to see stars. I wish I knew how to milk a cow. I wish I could identify trees and plants. There are so many things I'd like to know, and my brain is so small, and I know so little. There are so many things worth experiencing, and my life is so confined and hollow. It's not a divorce, it's an infinite and incurable frustration. 

How new is it? Weren't there people who knew nothing about nature in the old times, too? People who didn't need to know, people who couldn't afford to spend time learning?

(And cities are "the real world", too. )


----------



## Bonjules

Chaska Ñawi said:


> Let me try this again, because I think some people are missing the point.
> 
> This isn't about "then versus now". This isn't about whether we should all return to some bucolic past. This is about whether we are fostering a delusion that we can cut ourselves off from the supporting infrastructure, and, if so, at what cost.


 
I think Chaska is talking a bout a frame of mind. Unfortunately, Mega-cities are the trend and more and more 'the real world'. 
Lets take an example: Waste. 
In the city, it's pretty much 'out of sight, out of mind'. Even more so with remote, anonymous Mega -industries.
In the country, you are keenly aware that everything you put down in the toilet (or on your fields, for that matter) will come back to you fairly soon, in your own water table, your own water faucet. Now, that's an education.


----------



## gaer

Joca said:


> Hi Gaer
> 
> I think I know what you mean...
> 
> Probably you are aware that if you were to meet in flesh and blood those very people you interact with on the web they would probably prove to be as boring as your neighbours.


My experience has been just the opposite. I've met people in person after writing to them, and for the most part it has been wonderful. In fact, one of these people became a close friend, and his death was a horrible blow.

Although I met my wife "in person", I got to know her when we both participated in a language forum not too different from this one.

The people I've met around the world seem to have more in common with each other than they have with people in their own counties, and this is certainly true of me.


> Or maybe you would come to this conclusion after a couple of days living together. Maybe boredom is in ourselves, if you see what I mean.


I don't live together with my friends either. However, without common interests and some agreement about what is important in life, I have little or no interest in communicating.


> Anyway, I think your experience serves to show that the virtuality of the present-day world is indeed protective, but at the same time elusive, deceptive and frail.


I think "real life" relationships can be just as superficial as any others. "Mixing with the neighbors" is highly over-rated in my opinion. 


> If I compare present and past, I would be able to draw a long list of things that I miss and that were better in the past, at least in this corner of the world: we had less pollution, less noise, less traffic, less violence, fewer churches and Churches, more tastier fruits, etc... But ok, I know that we can't get back and the past also had a few traps of its own. We have to move on, haven't we? But now and then I find myself wondering. And I find that I can't live without those memories. Can you?


I was born in 1948. There are VERY few things I miss from earlier in my life except family and friends who are no longer alive. There are many things about this "Brave New World" that frighten me, but there is no idea more frightening to me than being cut off from people I know in other places. I'm even connected through technology to friends who have moved elsewhere. Without the Internet and cell phones, I have no idea how I would stay in touch. I don't have enough money to visit people. 

I'm a technological junkie, perhaps!

Gaer


----------



## luis masci

TRG said:


> So what? This is modern life. Would you like to back up a hundred, or five hundred, or a thousand years? Life was not so pleasant then for much of human kind. Nostalgia is nice, but now is better.


In the past people eaten more natural and healthy but might die by appendicitis or any other nowadays easily curable disease. 
Instead today we have modern medicine to save us… but the vegetable fumigation, transgenic food and stuff like that do people die by cancer.
Conclusion: neither it’s better now nor in the past. We just changed one harm for another one. 

----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrections of my attempts to write in English are welcome anytime


----------



## Athaulf

luis masci said:


> In the past people eaten more natural and healthy but might die by appendicitis or any other nowadays easily curable disease.



Maybe their diet was more "natural," but it certainly wasn't more healthy. Until relatively recently, even the basic caloric intake that is necessary for healthy development in childhood and adolescence and for a healthy later life was lacking for most of the population during years of bad harvest. Even in the most developed countries, famines were still taking their occasional death tolls all until the modern age. Before the modern storage and preservation methods, most fruits and vegetables that are now considered as an essential part of a balanced diet were unavailable for a large part of the year. There was no way to test meat for infectious diseases and parasites. And so on. 

One could certainly make valid objections about the dietary habits of many modern people, but even the worst junk food addicts nowadays are eating better than their ancestors several centuries ago.



> Instead today we have modern medicine to save us… but the vegetable fumigation, transgenic food and stuff like that do people die by cancer.
> Conclusion: neither it’s better now nor in the past. We just changed one harm for another one.


That's not what I would say when I compare the concrete data about life expectancy, child mortality, etc. nowadays and back then.


----------



## Etcetera

luis masci said:


> Instead today we have modern medicine to save us… but the vegetable fumigation, transgenic food and stuff like that do people die by cancer.


Well, I wasn't aware that such an impact of transgenic food etc on human health has been proved scientifically.


----------



## Joca

gaer said:


> My experience has been just the opposite. I've met people in person after writing to them, and for the most part it has been wonderful. In fact, one of these people became a close friend, and his death was a horrible blow. No, there are no general rules. I have had both disappointing and exciting experiences with friends and pen-friends.
> 
> Although I met my wife "in person", I got to know her when we both participated in a language forum not too different from this one. And I have met mine through a Russian immigrant whom I was giving shelter to in my house. A very long story.
> 
> The people I've met around the world seem to have more in common with each other than they have with people in their own counties, and this is certainly true of me. This reminds me of an old saying: Familiarity brings contempt. Actually we say it otherwise: "You can't be a prophet in your own country." This is true for many people. They feel like foreigners in their own lands.
> 
> I don't live together with my friends either. However, without common interests and some agreement about what is important in life, I have little or no interest in communicating. Actually, living together with friends or anyone else for that matter is like putting them and yourself to the hardest test out there.
> 
> I think "real life" relationships can be just as superficial as any others. "Mixing with the neighbors" is highly over-rated in my opinion.  Maybe. I have both friendly and unfriendly neighbours indeed, but I know that in the past there was a lot more interaction.
> 
> I was born in 1948. There are VERY few things I miss from earlier in my life except family and friends who are no longer alive. There are many things about this "Brave New World" that frighten me, but there is no idea more frightening to me than being cut off from people I know in other places. I'm even connected through technology to friends who have moved elsewhere. Without the Internet and cell phones, I have no idea how I would stay in touch. I don't have enough money to visit people.
> 
> I'm a technological junkie, perhaps! And I was born in 1952. I tend to be a realist. There are many things that I miss from my past, but I am also aware that the future is not necessarily doomed. You can have hopes. Like you, I don't have much money to visit people, either, but unlike you, I am very bad with computers.
> 
> Cheers, JC.
> 
> Gaer


----------



## TRG

Chaska Ñawi said:


> Returning from a visit to Montreal, I was struck by how complete the cocooning from the environment can be, particularly if one's dwelling is attached to the underground city. Urban dwellers have never had the opportunity to be so divorced from the real world. Their numbers are growing: in Canada, 80% of the population is now urban.
> 
> There are many people who are almost totally severed from the real world around them. Phases of the moon pass unremarked. The night sky is completely unfamiliar, as are sunrise and sunset. Milk comes in plastic bags, water from the tap, meat in anonymous plastic-wrapped cuts, and vegetables come canned, frozen, or thoroughly processed. (Most potatoes in Canada are consumed as french fries. Many have never seen the source of their food, even when it's produced locally. Nothing marks the change of the seasons except temperature and the type of precipitation.
> 
> How does this affect our understanding of the world? Where do you think this path leads us?


 
I'm not sure what you mean, but the message I get is that you feel the urban world is somehow less valid and inferior to the so called "real world". The fact that cities and urban life are a creation of people as opposed to the natural world that one might imagine without any people in it does not make them any less real, valid, or important. In fact, they are now the "real world" to more people than any environment you care to imagine. It's somewhat sad to think of a person who has never seen stars or a sunrise, but even if they haven't it doesn't mean the can't have happy and meaningful lives.


----------



## Poetic Device

Chaska Ñawi said:


> Let me try this again, because I think some people are missing the point.
> 
> This isn't about "then versus now". This isn't about whether we should all return to some bucolic past. This is about whether we are fostering a delusion that we can cut ourselves off from the supporting infrastructure, and, if so, at what cost.


 
I think it is ridiculous to live your life through a can of peas.  There is also another issure that you made me remember.  I do not know about other countries, but from what I have seen in the United States there are starting to be less and less farms.  First of all, I find it depressing when New Jersey is an oxymoron (it's nickname is "The Garden State", and there is nothing gardenish about it).Without farms there is no fresh food, and without the fresh food I think that it is only a matter of time until we starve ourselves.  Yes, we have canned goods, however there is so much that can go wrong with that.  Look at the dog and cat food recall right now.  What makes you think that can't happen to our food?  

One last thing about the underground habitat.  We are not moles.  We don't belong there.  It is a proven fact that humans, when they do not recieve enough sunlight, become very depressed and suffer from psychosematic disorders.


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> but from what I have seen in the United States there are starting to be less and less farms.
> 
> .



Do you mean there are fewer acres under cultivation, or might it be that what had been X total acreage divided into Y farms, is now X acres divided into less-than-Y farms? 

Might the farms of New Jersey be closing but newer ones being started in other states?

Surely America is not eating less food - but is possibly importing more to compansate.


----------



## TRG

Poetic Device said:


> I think it is ridiculous to live your life through a can of peas. There is also another issure that you made me remember. I do not know about other countries, but from what I have seen in the United States there are starting to be less and less farms. First of all, I find it depressing when New Jersey is an oxymoron (it's nickname is "The Garden State", and there is nothing gardenish about it).Without farms there is no fresh food, and without the fresh food I think that it is only a matter of time until we starve ourselves. Yes, we have canned goods, however there is so much that can go wrong with that. Look at the dog and cat food recall right now. What makes you think that can't happen to our food?
> 
> One last thing about the underground habitat. We are not moles. We don't belong there. It is a proven fact that humans, when they do not recieve enough sunlight, become very depressed and suffer from psychosematic disorders.


 
Agricultural output in the U.S. goes up every year almost without fail. It's possible that the acutal number of acres under cultivation may be lower than in the past, but I fail to see how that is a problem. We are producing more food than we need to the point that some people insist on using it for motor fuel. Is that good?


----------



## vachecow

maxiogee said:


> Might the farms of New Jersey be closing but newer ones being started in other states?
> 
> Surely America is not eating less food - but is possibly importing more to compansate.



I think what is going on is that smaller farms that are located in areas that are regarded as prime real estate are being sold and the country is becoming more and more dependant of megafarms in the midwest.


----------



## maxiogee

vachecow said:


> I think what is going on is that smaller farms that are located in areas that are regarded as prime real estate are being sold and the country is becoming more and more dependant of megafarms in the midwest.



But my query was about whether those megafarms are opebning up new acreage - replacing the closed farms?

I see no problem for consumers in the _concept_ megafarm - with the possible exception of a loss of 'range' in the produce coming to market - and a lot of benefits. Fewer and bigger farmers have more muscle with the buyers and can resist pressure to lower the quality in an effort to keep down supermarkets' costs. They can also better resist pressure to grow standardised varieties.

My problem with the megafarm is when they are in the pocket of either the supermarkets, seed companies or chemical companies. Also, megafarms increase the foodmiles that arise between farm and consumer.


----------



## cuchuflete

New Jersey...there is the northern industrial area, "where what you see is what you breathe", and the western and southern portions, which have quite a few acres of farmland:

 Total farmland (million acres) 0.85 _______0.86_______ 0.81
 Percent of total land area ___18.0 _______ 18.2 _______17.0
------------------------------------1992-----------1997----------2002---


----------



## TRG

maxiogee said:


> But my query was about whether those megafarms are opebning up new acreage - replacing the closed farms?
> 
> I see no problem for consumers in the _concept_ megafarm - with the possible exception of a loss of 'range' in the produce coming to market - and a lot of benefits. Fewer and bigger farmers have more muscle with the buyers and can resist pressure to lower the quality in an effort to keep down supermarkets' costs. They can also better resist pressure to grow standardised varieties.
> 
> My problem with the megafarm is when they are in the pocket of either the supermarkets, seed companies or chemical companies. Also, megafarms increase the foodmiles that arise between farm and consumer.


Can you tell us how any of this happens? I don't think any of this would apply in the United States. Farms keep getting bigger because of technology. A hundred years ago about 40% of all workers were agricultural workers; that number is now less than 2% yet the agricultural output has increased many fold. I've never heard anyone say that farmers are under the thumb of anyone except their banker.


----------



## lizzeymac

TRG said:


> Can you tell us how any of this happens? I don't think any of this would apply in the United States. Farms keep getting bigger because of technology. A hundred years ago about 40% of all workers were agricultural workers; that number is now less than 2% yet the agricultural output has increased many fold. I've never heard anyone say that farmers are under the thumb of anyone except their banker.



Corporately-owned mega-farms are, of course, the predominant food producers in America - Tyson Poultry in Arkansas; Archer Daniels Midland: grains, soy beans; the gigantic hog farms in the Mid-Atlantic states, corn is traded as aggressively as oil on the Exchange.  Privately-owned farms are losing acreage or disappearing at an alarming rate.  In the Northeast, the concept of food-miles is only just becoming a consideration among consumers.  We are starting to consider food-miles & family-farm vs. mega-farm in addition to chemical pesticides vs. organic produce.  Eating locally & seasonally is a familiar concept in most of the world but it is not common in most of suburban & urban America.


----------



## maxiogee

TRG said:


> Can you tell us how any of this happens?



Who controls the farms? Are megafarms owned by the people who work them - or by pension fund managers in New York? Who makes the real decisions? How many megafarms are owned by one person?

Farmers are not allowed, by some seed companies, to retain seed from year to year, but must buy it every time from the seed company. The company decides what varieties are sold, and because they are often huge conglomerates there is no other supplier for the farmer to buy from. 
As there are fewer seed companies than there used to be, what there are are much more powerful when it comes to dealing with the farmers.

As to the food miles- most megafarms are monoculture enterprises. This means that smaller farms around the country used to be nearer their markets, but there being fewer small farms and their being the same number of markets, the food must travel more.


----------



## TRG

lizzeymac said:


> Corporately-owned mega-farms are, of course, the predominant food producers in America - Tyson Poultry in Arkansas; Archer Daniels Midland: grains, soy beans; the gigantic hog farms in the Mid-Atlantic states, corn is traded as aggressively as oil on the Exchange. Privately-owned farms are losing acreage or disappearing at an alarming rate. In the Northeast, the concept of food-miles is only just becoming a consideration among consumers. We are starting to consider food-miles & family-farm vs. mega-farm in addition to chemical pesticides vs. organic produce. Eating locally & seasonally is a familiar concept in most of the world but it is not common in most of suburban & urban America.


 
Tyson, Con-Agra, and ADM are not farmers, they are food processors and are a necessary part of agriculture. They may have some farms, but it is not an essential part of their business. What they do is take farm products (raw materials) and convert them into consumer goods, animal feed, chemicals and so on. Here are the top 5 agricultural commodities in the U.S. in 2005 and their percent of total receipts:
1. Cattle - 20.6%
2. Dairy Products - 11.2%
3. Broilers - 8.7%
4. Corn - 8.0%
5. Soybeans - 7.0%
The total receipts for the year were $238.9 billion. You can find further statistics on farm size and organization here. It's true that hogs and chickens (broilers) have switched over to intensive large scale operations. However, this does not work for cattle or dairy, which as you can see are the top two commodities and are still produced by small time operators like myself. We considered getting into the high volume hog business about 15 years ago, but decided against it because of the risk. It was a good decision.

It may also interest you to know that corn and other agricultural products were traded in futures markets long before anyone ever thought about doing it for energy or anything else. These markets provide an important function to the producers and consumer of commodities, agricultural and otherwise. I don't know what you mean by agressively, but I suspect your knowledge of futures markets is somewhat limited.

I don't know any consumers who worry about food miles. I live in an area where there is very little farming so all my food comes from a long way away. I grew up on a farm in a farm rich state. The access to and quality of the food I eat now is better than it ever has been.




maxiogee said:


> Who controls the farms? Are megafarms owned by the people who work them - or by pension fund managers in New York? Who makes the real decisions? How many megafarms are owned by one person?
> 
> Farmers are not allowed, by some seed companies, to retain seed from year to year, but must buy it every time from the seed company. The company decides what varieties are sold, and because they are often huge conglomerates there is no other supplier for the farmer to buy from.
> As there are fewer seed companies than there used to be, what there are are much more powerful when it comes to dealing with the farmers.
> 
> As to the food miles- most megafarms are monoculture enterprises. This means that smaller farms around the country used to be nearer their markets, but there being fewer small farms and their being the same number of markets, the food must travel more.


 
Farms are controlled by the people that own them. About 90% of farms in the U.S. are owned by individuals, familes, and family held corporations. It's true that farms are getting bigger all the time, but this is driven by technology and economies of scale that make it very difficult to compete with the same size farm one could have had 50 years ago. Is there something inherently wrong with big farms? Even in this country the small farmer is thought of as some kind of endangered species that needs protection least he become extinct. It's just an irrational sentimentality for this idyllic life in the past. Having lived it, I can tell you I'm in no hurry to go back. 

Most of my experience is with corn, and farmers have not grown their own seed corn for a very long time. It's always purchased every year from someone who is in the business of raising seed corn. You could replant your own corn, but it would be a disaster because the yields would be very poor. In the age of GMO and GMF some plants and seeds are now proprietary so you have to use them on the terms of the people that sell them to you, but you don't have to use their seed. You can always buy the same generic seeds you always have and be on your merry way. You do not have to do business with Monsanto, DuPont or any other large company. You do however have to compete with all the other farmers and probably you have to make of living so if the proprietary seed works best, people are going to use it. It's that simple.

You also bring up the "food-miles" issue. I've never heard of this before and I don't see why it's important. If I want to eat avocadoes they must come from a long way away. Same for apples. For strawberries I can go around the corner. People are only going to ship food as far as they can and still make a profit and since I get food from all over the world here in Louisiana, I assume people are not sending here just for my benefit. They are shipping it here because there is a market and they can make money by supplying it. Why should it be any other way?

Finally, I would say to both of you, you are entitled to you feelings about farms and the ag business in general, but your assertions are not well founded and are certainly not backed up by anything that could be regarded as persuasive.


----------



## cuchuflete

I'm in between the two factions on this one.  First, TRG gave a good, high-level overview of some aspects of the agriculture business.  Big is not by definition bad.  Monsanto has done some ugly things, but that is a subjective opinion from a consumer who likes his milk from cows without artificial hormones.  If you want to form your own, look up Oakhurst Dairy and Monsanto with a search engine.  
Here are some links to get an overview:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbgh/timemag121903.cfm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...754C0A9659C8B63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=1

On to the food-miles matter.  I am surrounded by small farms.  I like the taste of fresh food.  That's fine in the very short growing season in this cold climate.  For much of the year, I have little choice.  Fruits and vegetables are imported from distant places, and I'm glad to have them.  But during the growing season I buy local agricultural products whenever possible for these reasons:

—Fresher
—better flavor
—not harvested 'green', gassed and shipped long distances
—buying local farm products supports the local economy, which needs all the help it can get
—buying local farm products reduces transportation costs as a percentage of food costs
—buying local farm products reduces burning of hydrocarbons for long distance transport

I am not an environmentalist fanatic, and most of my food purchase decisions are based, I freely confess, on
a desire to eat fresh food that tastes good, while supporting my neighbors.  I am guessing that there are health benefits to consuming food harvested today, rather than four or five or ten days ago, but I couldn't begin to prove that or quantify the benefits.   I had an omelet this morning made with eggs from hens that lay
about fifty feet from where I'm writing, and with milk and butter from a farm just down the road.  It was better tasting than one made with 'imported' ingredients.  

I see stars at night.  I don't have a very large selection of live orchestral music or live jazz within easy reach.
The air here is clean, as is the water.  I have to travel quite a distance for some shopping.  It's quiet here.
The population of this village is far less than that of the average subway train I rode to work when I lived in
N.Y. City.  These are trade-offs I find acceptable.  Others may have different preferences.  I have no need to
demonize cities or city life.  

Those who would paint cities as deficient or bad in some way or other are probably among those who value "diversity".  Rural villages are not known for their multi-culturalism.  They tend to be fairly inbred, and around here the age frequency distribution favors (!) older people, as the younger folks tend to leave in search of good paying jobs and—no surprises—the attractions of large cities.


----------



## Poetic Device

Maxi, I am so sorry I am just getting beck to you...


> Do you mean there are fewer acres under cultivation, or might it be that what had been X total acreage divided into Y farms, is now X acres divided into less-than-Y farms?
> 
> Might the farms of New Jersey be closing but newer ones being started in other states?
> 
> Surely America is not eating less food - but is possibly importing more to compansate.


 
Basically, what I wanted to say was already stated by Vachecow.  Thank you Vache.  New Jersey has a large population and there are so many developments that are being built it is sickening.  I live on a retired farm and I cannot begin to tell you how many offers I alone recieved for my land.  I turned them down because if there is anyone that I would sell to it would be a farmer.  



TRG said:


> Agricultural output in the U.S. goes up every year almost without fail. It's possible that the acutal number of acres under cultivation may be lower than in the past, but I fail to see how that is a problem. We are producing more food than we need to the point that some people insist on using it for motor fuel. Is that good?


 

Is that why the price of groceries and dairy products have gone up si much?  Can I see documentation of what you are saying?  Also, what kind of an idiot would want to turn that "extra" food into fuel when we can give it to a starving village?


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> Basically, what I wanted to say was already stated by Vachecow.  Thank you Vache.  New Jersey has a large population and there are so many developments that are being built it is sickening.  I live on a retired farm and I cannot begin to tell you how many offers I alone recieved for my land.  I turned them down because if there is anyone that I would sell to it would be a farmer
> 
> .



Developments of ???? — Houses, shopping malls, offices?

I presume that like Dublin, you are talking about the ever-expanding spread of urbanisation. I am living just two miles from where I grew up fifty years ago. This was all farmland then. The population of Dublin desires to live somewhere. It is growing constantly. This country is rarely more than 120 miles wide - and the east coast, where Dublin lies, is not 200 miles from north to south. People who work daily in Dublin are commuting 70 miles one-way every day to their work. They cannot all afford the prices new homes are commanding in the capital. Cousins of mine who live to the north of Dublin in a town which is about 30 miles away are almost living in a suburb of Dublin.

Where do you propose those who are now living on the land around you _ought to be living_? Are there jobs and infrastructure there for them? When they get there will they be building on what was, in some local person's childhood, the neighbourhood farms?


----------



## geve

cuchuflete said:


> I am not an environmentalist fanatic, and most of my food purchase decisions are based, I freely confess, on
> a desire to eat fresh food that tastes good, while supporting my neighbors. I am guessing that there are health benefits to consuming food harvested today, rather than four or five or ten days ago, but I couldn't begin to prove that or quantify the benefits. I had an omelet this morning made with eggs from hens that lay
> about fifty feet from where I'm writing, and with milk and butter from a farm just down the road. It was better tasting than one made with 'imported' ingredients.


For most people, the surest way of eating food harvested the same day, is to buy frozen food or canned goods. 
Even in the countryside, not everyone lives close enough to a fruit garden and a dairy farming and an abattoir and... And not everyone can afford visiting several places every day to fill their plates.


Poetic Device said:


> Also, what kind of an idiot would want to turn that "extra" food into fuel when we can give it to a starving village?


I think we've had that discussion before... There IS enough food on Earth to feed everyone. It's just not in the right place, and of course there's the money issue. 
Why would someone turn extra food into fuel? Well, what about trying to overcome oil shortage? (it's not just an hypothetical scenario, it's going to happen, and it's going to happen soon) Or, what about wanting to cut down pollution a bit?


But is this still related to Chaska's question, which - if I understood correctly - was about the knowledge of and contact with the "supporting infrastructure" (nature), or the lack thereof?


----------



## Joca

cuchuflete said:


> ...
> 
> Those who would paint cities as deficient or bad in some way or other are probably among those who value "diversity".  Rural villages are not known for their multi-culturalism.  They tend to be fairly inbred, and around here the age frequency distribution favors (!) older people, as the younger folks tend to leave in search of good paying jobs and—no surprises—the attractions of large cities.



Apparently, one of the disadvantages of living in the country or a village is that you won't be able to afford to remain "incognito". In most cases, people around you will know what you are doing and they will even keep a watch on you so that you are bound to keep their patterns. In a big city, mostly you are free to be whatever you want to be. You are much less controlled. 

Another aspect: if diversity of activities and interests is a factor of longevity, then cities probably rank higher than the country or villages. A city can easily provide stuff for your body, mind and soul, whereas elsewhere chances are that, having a degree, you'll become rather contemplative, which is not bad at all, but...

Once a study was made among monks. There were three categories of them: one category only did menial (manual) jobs; the second only did intellectual jobs, and the third did both. It was found that the long-lived were basically in the third group. 

JC


----------



## Mate

Chaska Ñawi said:


> There are many people who are almost totally severed from the real world around them. Phases of the moon pass unremarked. The night sky is completely unfamiliar, as are sunrise and sunset. Milk comes in plastic bags, water from the tap, meat in anonymous plastic-wrapped cuts, and vegetables come canned, frozen, or thoroughly processed. (Most potatoes in Canada are consumed as french fries. Many have never seen the source of their food, even when it's produced locally. Nothing marks the change of the seasons except temperature and the type of precipitation.
> 
> How does this affect our understanding of the world? Where do you think this path leads us?


Being a farmer myself for the last 30 years I can clearly see the divorce between man and nature. This phenomenon is also noticeable among nowadays farmers, TRG among them. 

By the time I began producing organic food for my family we were called "urban farmers"; there was kind of a movement going on here in the late seventies. So I belong in that generation of urban farmers. Those who were born and raised in big cities and decided to go rural.

After teaching organic gardening and farming to hundreds of city dwellers (also on how to make bread, cheese, how and when to prune the orchards, to dig a seed-bed, to cultivate whatever their environment allows, etc.) I decided to write a book. It was the first Argentine manual to deal, from an organic perspective, with soils, fertility, compost, earthworms, vegetable gardening and many more related issues.
That book is now part of a number of Latin American primary school programs and can also be found at many libraries throughout the world. 

I feel proud. 

I feel proud to have contributed my two cents for the re-connection between urban people and the very source of our subsistence as a species.

Mate


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

I should have followed Tony's sage advice and listed my isms up front!

We have varying perceptions of when something becomes artificial.  For me, a lifestyle becomes artificial when the number of steps involved in bringing the elements of life to my doorstep become too numerous to sustain in an emergency.

In January 1998 we were hammered by a severe ice storm that knocked out power over a huge area, including all of Montreal.  We on the western edge of the affected area were without power for only a week, but some areas south of Montreal had no power for five weeks.

People who were most affected: apartment dwellers, especially those on the higher floors; large scale or factory farmers, who could not water their animals, milk their cows decently, or ventilate their barns (poultry losses were phenomonal); anybody who relied on electricity alone for cooking, heating and light; and the elderly, who couldn't navigate the icy streets and downed branches and powerlines to get to shelter.  Many of the streets were impassible to traffic, so people couldn't get out of the city.  Emergency shelters went up everywhere, and the armed forces were mobilized to clean up.

As Cuchu says, urban life has many advantages, including cultural variety and many entertainment options.  I spent twelve years enjoying it thoroughly.  However, once a city gets so large that it can't sustain itself locally, anything from a garbage strike to a prolonged power failure to an epidemic remind its citizens that much of the infrastructure is indeed artificial.


----------



## maxiogee

Chaska Ñawi said:


> However, once a city gets so large....
> 
> .


 
A seemingly off-topic post prompted by Chaska's words......

I remember reading of an interesting experiment with laboratory rats.
The study looked at what happens when the number of rats in a given area is slowly increased.
The scientists observed in all rat populations a certain level of what might be termed 'anti-social' behaviour and that was pretty much a constant across many rat communities at low- to medium-density levels.
But when the population reached a certain critical mass density the 'community' broke down and there was squabbling and fighting among the rats - not always for resources or breeding rights.... just a seemingly causeless 'forgetting' of their earlier cooperation and 'civility'.

I think that as our human communities reach some certain density we too lose sight of our communion with our fellows.

Now, linking that back to the topic....



> People who were most affected: apartment dwellers, especially those on the higher floors; large scale or factory farmers, who could not water their animals, milk their cows decently, or ventilate their barns (poultry losses were phenomonal); anybody who relied on electricity alone for cooking, heating and light; and the elderly, who couldn't navigate the icy streets and downed branches and powerlines to get to shelter. Many of the streets were impassible to traffic, so people couldn't get out of the city. Emergency shelters went up everywhere, and the armed forces were mobilized to clean up
> 
> .


 
How many of those who weren't badly affected by this event went out of their way to check on people they knew? Why was it necessary to draught in the armed forces to do what people really, really, should have been doing for their fellows?


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

maxiogee said:


> How many of those who weren't badly affected by this event went out of their way to check on people they knew? Why was it necessary to draught in the armed forces to do what people really, really, should have been doing for their fellows?



Many, many people mobilized themselves on behalf of their neighbours.

And yes, the forces were necessary - they came in with chainsaws, heavy equipment, extra linesmen, helicopters for evacuation, extra generators, the knowledge of emergency shelter logistics ....


----------



## geve

_I _wouldn't be able to sustain to myself living in the countryside: I don't drive.


----------



## cuchuflete

geve said:


> _I _wouldn't be able to sustain to myself living in the countryside: I don't drive.



That's ok, geve, the horses know the way home.


----------



## Mate

geve said:


> _I _wouldn't be able to sustain to myself living in the countryside: I don't drive.


So we must assume that you don't ride either. 
Horses are among the most beautiful creatures in the world.

Edit: sorry, I didn't notice cuchuflete's post before posting mine.


----------



## geve

Would you be so kind as to let me select what I ride? In which case I'll go for a camel, they have just the condescending look to match my urban dweller's outfit. Thank you very much.

And thanks for the picture Mateamargo - were you worried I wouldn't know what you meant by "horse"?


----------



## maxiogee

geve said:


> _I _wouldn't be able to sustain to myself living in the countryside: I don't drive.


 
Neither did your great-great grandparents! How on _earth_ did they manage?


----------



## geve

maxiogee said:


> Neither did your great-great grandparents! How on _earth_ did they manage?


They certainly managed, but one third of their children didn't live long enough to try. 
I don't understand - are you all advocating a return to the good old times? 

You won't have me believe that there are urban dwellers on one side, totally ignorant of what a blade of grass looks like, and on the other side people refusing anything technological (at least there can't be any of this breed on this forum ) and sustaining to themselves in total autarky. 
I've never met a country dweller who never used a car, and this is a form of dependency too. How far is the closest hospital, could you walk there with an appendicitis? Maybe people could live relying solely on their kitchen garden's production, but how many actually do?


----------



## maxiogee

geve said:


> They certainly managed, but one third of their children didn't live long enough to try.
> I don't understand - are you all advocating a return to the good old times?
> 
> .


 
No, I'm just pointing out that not all progress is for the better. So more children survive childhood diseases and there are fewer wars killing off young men - but at what other cost? There is a growing pension problem as the population ages and the workforce diminishes. Who's going to provide the pension my 21 year old will be looking for in 50 years time? He and millions of others who by then will outnumber the workforce as 'old folk' live longer and longer lives.




> I've never met a country dweller who never used a car, and this is a form of dependency too. How far is the closest hospital, could you walk there with an appendicitis? Maybe people could live relying solely on their kitchen garden's production, but how many actually do?
> 
> .


 
The hospital is probably as far as it ever was. And one's neighbours helped to bring one there when an emergency arose. Do people need a personal car or does a community need a shared-ownership vehicle which people can be rostered for?


----------



## JazzByChas

Well, I, for one, think that I appreciate both views of the world: the urban and the "non-urban" (as opposed to the suburban, which is just a bedroom community outside the city, with all the ammenities of the city.) In fact, I suppose, I rather like living in the suburbs, with easy access to the city, yet within easy access to parts of the country where there is much less "civilization." 

I think that if one watches enough televsion, for example, like the "Discovery Channel" or of that ilk, one would have one's interest piqued in something non-urban...and, "wonder of wonders!" may even find themselves compelled to visit such a place. The earth is a fascinating place, and even us "city-slickers" find the non-urban areas worth knowing about and visiting. Technology doesn't necessarily "divorce" us from the world, but in most cases, brings us closer to the rest of the (lesser-populated/uncivilized) world.  In fact, we can even more appreciate those humans who don't live in urban areas, and live a more (technologically) simple life.  Notice I did not assume a lesser quality of life.  As Cuchu said, there are trade-offs.



			
				Chaska Ñawi said:
			
		

> How does this affect our understanding of the world? Where do you think this path leads us?


----------



## Mate

maxiogee said:


> No, I'm just pointing out that not all progress is for the better. So more children survive childhood diseases and there are fewer wars killing off young men - but at what other cost?
> 
> 
> 
> Very true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a growing pension problem as the population ages and the workforce diminishes. Who's going to provide the pension my 21 year old will be looking for in 50 years time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Send your 21 year old down here. I'll teach him how to farm, so he will not have to worry about his pension: he will grow everything he needs. Then in due time, when his own boys are ready, he will pass the knowledge on to them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The hospital is probably as far as it ever was. And one's neighbours helped to bring one there when an emergency arose. Do people need a personal car or does a community need a shared-ownership vehicle which people can be rostered for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree on that also.
Click to expand...

 
Saludos - Mate


----------

