2015-05-26
2015-05-24
2015-05-22
模倣子 His Body, Somebody Else's Choice
Men have to do what they're told, even if it involves sacrificing their bodies and even their lives. They don't have a choice, and nobody is fighting for them. Worse yet, there may be no way to fix it, there may be no way to improve men's situation.
If women, on the other hand, feel like they are being forced into important choices, by society, by "The Patriarchy", and as often as not by other women, and while this is all probably true and as bad or worse than we all think, it can still be changed, made better. There is no fundamental reason why women should not be free to do (or not do) whatever they want. Any time this is not true, it can be fixed.
Men, however, are expendable, so any time there is a war to go and die horribly in, an awful job like coal or uranium mining to be done, or other miserable conditions to be endured for "the good of society", men are going to have to do it. Women may have the option to join in, but they also always have the option not to. Men don't. They only choice is for society to decide that they don't need uranium or coal, or don't need roofs on houses and buildings, don't need to fight and win wars, and we may never be able to decide those things. Women are half of that decision, and so far they haven't been much help, it seems. In some cases they are 100% of the decision (like circumcision, etc.).
We should liberate women because it's possible. If we are to ever liberate men, if it's even possible, which it may not be, we have to liberate women first for that very reason. We may never be able to liberate men, however. It may just not be possible. It would be nice if this fact were recognized and men's suffering recognized as inevitable and given the respect it deserves (which it in some ways used to receive).
2015-05-21
TOOL: Look to the Land
In Look to the Land, Lord Northbourne decries the twin ills of poor farming practice:
Northbourne places the blame on the finance industry which:
Desertification is directly caused by:
I see the dichotomy between the yeoman farmer versus the organized industrial and financial collective as a basis for democracy and social organization to be central. Historically, the power of the independent farmer, armed with cheap weaponry, e.g., the Welsh longbow of Henry V and the Kentucky long rifle of the American Revolution, have been engaged to overthrow empires, but then are again subjugated by central authority and oligarchy. The yeoman farmer is free, has much to fight for and great motivation, is able to personally marshal the resources to fight effectively as a member of an army of free men, and given the right motivation, leadership, and circumstances, is probably nearly undefeatable. However, the imperial industrial collective is able to marshal overwhelmingly powerful weapons and often huge, very impressive armies, e.g., suits of knightly armor are very costly, as are military tanks, airplanes and rockets. The head of an army of free men is often not impressive in appearance, nor is such a country, despite being a "sleeping giant" as Admiral Yamamoto termed it. The king or Supreme Leader of a huge well-dressed army and navy with impressive guns and bombs and other weapons, however, has that power to impress, and to garner a much more concrete sense of patriotism.
The downfall of the ideal of the yeoman farmer may be linked to the downfall of farming, the subjugation of same by the financial domination of the banking industry, and what Northbourne laments as the decline of nutrition and quality of life.
He does not write much about the ills of large animal feed lots, although he does cover proper animal husbandry and how the well-being of animals on the farm is crucial. Animals feel the ill-effects of poor farming practice and nutrition more quickly than humans do, so if animals are sick and dying, then humans are already in a state of poor health, whether we know it or not. A proper mix of animals is needed for good soil health, e.g., sheep and chickens together may be all right, but not just one, no monoculturalism, with the possible exception of cattle.
By the way, the proper management of sludges and manures is lacking. He mentions the "Rule of Return" in which nutrition extracted from the soil must be put back in the form of manures which are produced therefrom, hence, use of manures, and use of city sludges. He would certainly decry feed lots (probably generally) in which the manures there produced were not returned to the soil properly. In America, the return of sewage treatment sludges to the soil is very much the exception rather than the rule (Denver may be a stand-out in its recent efforts to make treated sludges available for farming). Issues include heavy metals coming in due to shared use by domestic sewers and industry, general lack of control of dumping into the sewers, and poor planning generally. In Switzerland a debate is going on between collective sewage treatment of waste waters and more localized treatment, i.e., smaller treatment stations (STEPs or Stations de épuration) for this reason.
Northbourne recommends two salutory approaches to rectifying the situation:
Northbourne comes out in favor of an ideal of small farms, more persons engaged in physical labor on farms, local consumption of produce, and promulgation of good farming practices to halt and eventually reverse erosion and depletion of fertility. Nutritional security is an ideal which some countries have embraced, e.g., Japan (although they have begun to import more and more food from China, ironically enough, though it's unclear if this represents a sea change in food independence policy, although it obviously would be a serious risk to Japanese national security if it were so). It seems that the finance industry would not favor nutritional independence generally, since it cuts trade, hence profits, and stabilizes prices, which is bad for speculation, in addition to taking control of this important vector of consumption out of the hands of banks and placing it in the hands of local people. Northbourne expresses a distrust of trade, saying that it creates nothing, distorts farm prices, and has the effect of eroding fertility and degrading the land. He writes that the only trade in foodstuff should be in "luxury goods", i.e., non-staples, which may only be obtained from abroad.
I don't recall if he includes such goods as coffee and spices -- huge industries have sprung up in tropical regions to supply such goods to the North. I believe he did come out against tropical fruits from far away in favor of local vegetables and fruits.
How do we get there?
What PR would be needed to get the finance industry and Big Business out of agriculture is unclear. Recent egregiousnesses may serve to get the ball rolling, however. How to free up the land which is currently controlled for other purposes and convert it into small farms, in addition to freeing up the people from their city jobs and obligations to work them also seems to present a quandary, even if the people could be convinced that this would be a Good Idea. Northbourne does make a good case, however. Farmers' Markets are springing up everywhere and are seen as a Good Thing. America's horrendous misallocation of resources in the form of suburbia with its attendant roads and cars everywhere, and it's postage-stamping the land down to useless, tiny plots might actually be able to be turned to service in this conversion.
Can Americans start small-scale farming in Suburbia?
In the days leading up to the Rwandan genocide, it was said that the average farm plot size was about 1-2 acres, give or take. Of course, people were on the brink of starvation, but the other side of that is that entire families were feeding themselves, albeit barely, on tiny plots of land. The average plot size of a suburban property may be about half an acre, probably not enough to feed a family year-round, but perhaps enough to feed for one or two days a week on average. If homes were built with greenhouses, or converted to same, more food might be grown and year-round. Homes could also be converted to grey water systems or composting toilets and such to provide fertilizer and decrease sewage dependence. The plot size problem could perhaps be addressed if underemployed persons, especially, perhaps, children and teenagers, took to farming not only their own families' yards, but also those of neighbors who were otherwise disinclined to do the farming themselves but willing to share their land in exchange for payment and/or a share in the fresh food produced. At this point we might begin to see a return to the kind of feeling of community to which Northbourne appeals. I have at least one friend whose children grow organic vegetables for sale to neighbors, so this is not an outlandish notion.
The question is what sort of legal and town council obstacles and economic disincentives stand in the way of this kind of a transition? Keeping animals in town might be one, since animals would be very desirable and a variety of them, even large animals such as cows to provide milk, manure, etc. If it is difficult to sell the food grown, or it is prohibited, or if there is no economic, e.g., tax, advantage to converting one's lawn or to using less sewage, then this might hinder adoption of "suburban farming" whereas removal of these obstructions might actually encourage it to no small extent.
It seems that:
- Desertification
- Depletion of Fertility
Northbourne places the blame on the finance industry which:
- Distorts farm prices
- Causes destructive trade in fertility
Desertification is directly caused by:
- Erosion
- Poor husbandry of forests
I see the dichotomy between the yeoman farmer versus the organized industrial and financial collective as a basis for democracy and social organization to be central. Historically, the power of the independent farmer, armed with cheap weaponry, e.g., the Welsh longbow of Henry V and the Kentucky long rifle of the American Revolution, have been engaged to overthrow empires, but then are again subjugated by central authority and oligarchy. The yeoman farmer is free, has much to fight for and great motivation, is able to personally marshal the resources to fight effectively as a member of an army of free men, and given the right motivation, leadership, and circumstances, is probably nearly undefeatable. However, the imperial industrial collective is able to marshal overwhelmingly powerful weapons and often huge, very impressive armies, e.g., suits of knightly armor are very costly, as are military tanks, airplanes and rockets. The head of an army of free men is often not impressive in appearance, nor is such a country, despite being a "sleeping giant" as Admiral Yamamoto termed it. The king or Supreme Leader of a huge well-dressed army and navy with impressive guns and bombs and other weapons, however, has that power to impress, and to garner a much more concrete sense of patriotism.
The downfall of the ideal of the yeoman farmer may be linked to the downfall of farming, the subjugation of same by the financial domination of the banking industry, and what Northbourne laments as the decline of nutrition and quality of life.
He does not write much about the ills of large animal feed lots, although he does cover proper animal husbandry and how the well-being of animals on the farm is crucial. Animals feel the ill-effects of poor farming practice and nutrition more quickly than humans do, so if animals are sick and dying, then humans are already in a state of poor health, whether we know it or not. A proper mix of animals is needed for good soil health, e.g., sheep and chickens together may be all right, but not just one, no monoculturalism, with the possible exception of cattle.
By the way, the proper management of sludges and manures is lacking. He mentions the "Rule of Return" in which nutrition extracted from the soil must be put back in the form of manures which are produced therefrom, hence, use of manures, and use of city sludges. He would certainly decry feed lots (probably generally) in which the manures there produced were not returned to the soil properly. In America, the return of sewage treatment sludges to the soil is very much the exception rather than the rule (Denver may be a stand-out in its recent efforts to make treated sludges available for farming). Issues include heavy metals coming in due to shared use by domestic sewers and industry, general lack of control of dumping into the sewers, and poor planning generally. In Switzerland a debate is going on between collective sewage treatment of waste waters and more localized treatment, i.e., smaller treatment stations (STEPs or Stations de épuration) for this reason.
Northbourne recommends two salutory approaches to rectifying the situation:
- Royal Land Trust
- Royal control of currency and probably return to the Gold Standard
Northbourne comes out in favor of an ideal of small farms, more persons engaged in physical labor on farms, local consumption of produce, and promulgation of good farming practices to halt and eventually reverse erosion and depletion of fertility. Nutritional security is an ideal which some countries have embraced, e.g., Japan (although they have begun to import more and more food from China, ironically enough, though it's unclear if this represents a sea change in food independence policy, although it obviously would be a serious risk to Japanese national security if it were so). It seems that the finance industry would not favor nutritional independence generally, since it cuts trade, hence profits, and stabilizes prices, which is bad for speculation, in addition to taking control of this important vector of consumption out of the hands of banks and placing it in the hands of local people. Northbourne expresses a distrust of trade, saying that it creates nothing, distorts farm prices, and has the effect of eroding fertility and degrading the land. He writes that the only trade in foodstuff should be in "luxury goods", i.e., non-staples, which may only be obtained from abroad.
I don't recall if he includes such goods as coffee and spices -- huge industries have sprung up in tropical regions to supply such goods to the North. I believe he did come out against tropical fruits from far away in favor of local vegetables and fruits.
How do we get there?
What PR would be needed to get the finance industry and Big Business out of agriculture is unclear. Recent egregiousnesses may serve to get the ball rolling, however. How to free up the land which is currently controlled for other purposes and convert it into small farms, in addition to freeing up the people from their city jobs and obligations to work them also seems to present a quandary, even if the people could be convinced that this would be a Good Idea. Northbourne does make a good case, however. Farmers' Markets are springing up everywhere and are seen as a Good Thing. America's horrendous misallocation of resources in the form of suburbia with its attendant roads and cars everywhere, and it's postage-stamping the land down to useless, tiny plots might actually be able to be turned to service in this conversion.
Can Americans start small-scale farming in Suburbia?
In the days leading up to the Rwandan genocide, it was said that the average farm plot size was about 1-2 acres, give or take. Of course, people were on the brink of starvation, but the other side of that is that entire families were feeding themselves, albeit barely, on tiny plots of land. The average plot size of a suburban property may be about half an acre, probably not enough to feed a family year-round, but perhaps enough to feed for one or two days a week on average. If homes were built with greenhouses, or converted to same, more food might be grown and year-round. Homes could also be converted to grey water systems or composting toilets and such to provide fertilizer and decrease sewage dependence. The plot size problem could perhaps be addressed if underemployed persons, especially, perhaps, children and teenagers, took to farming not only their own families' yards, but also those of neighbors who were otherwise disinclined to do the farming themselves but willing to share their land in exchange for payment and/or a share in the fresh food produced. At this point we might begin to see a return to the kind of feeling of community to which Northbourne appeals. I have at least one friend whose children grow organic vegetables for sale to neighbors, so this is not an outlandish notion.
The question is what sort of legal and town council obstacles and economic disincentives stand in the way of this kind of a transition? Keeping animals in town might be one, since animals would be very desirable and a variety of them, even large animals such as cows to provide milk, manure, etc. If it is difficult to sell the food grown, or it is prohibited, or if there is no economic, e.g., tax, advantage to converting one's lawn or to using less sewage, then this might hinder adoption of "suburban farming" whereas removal of these obstructions might actually encourage it to no small extent.
It seems that:
- Formulating and elaborating an ideal for small (suburban) farming
- Promulgating said ideal in the popular culture, e.g., the media, a TV show, etc.
- Identifying the laws and regulations needing to be changed
- Identifying products which would be needed and promoting them
- Creating publicized "model prototypes"
模倣子 The Quiet Rooster
Raising chickens in suburban settings seems to be becoming a popular thing. However, raising roosters within city limits is often prohibited. Is this some kind of a manifestation of the growing hatred and mistrust of masculinity in American society?
Roosters are a part of "chicken society", although a part that is disliked. It's as if we feel that we can "cherry pick" the parts we like, the parts that we don't find offensive, and leave out the rest. It's a familiar theme.
It's of course that roosters crow in the morning and annoy everyone and wake everyone up. Do we ask whether the hens like this? Do we bother thinking about whether the hens enjoy having roosters around, doing their rooster thing, whether it's somehow good for the hens' health and well-being to be in the "society" of roosters, or do we assume that hens find roosters to be just as annoying and offensive as we ourselves do? Do we project our feelings that roosters somehow turn the chicken coop into a kind of oppressive patriarchy that enslaves the hens, making the coop somehow less "democratic", or rather, "pullocratic"? Are the hens robbed of their agency and freedom of self-actualization by the roosters' bright-feathered, loud-crowing ostentation and their constant wearying insistence and demands on the poor hens for sex, sex, and more sex? In spite of the fact that roosters are mostly useless, don't lay eggs, they "rule the roost" as "cock of the walk", and steal the spotlight from the more numerous, hard-working, and long-suffering hens. Hens lay eggs day after day only to have them taken away, and they have to sit on them and take care of them while the roosters are lazy, don't help, and only strut around.
Roosters have their pointlessly violent masculine fights over their silly pecking orders for control over the females. But we forget that hens also have their own cruel and violent pecking orders. Every coop has hens who have had most of their feathers pecked off by the more dominant ones. But still we cling to the idea that roosters are the bad ones, and since they are expendable, we are free to think that.
Obviously chicken society needs roosters, but we imagine that we need far fewer of them than we have, and then only temporarily. It occurs to me that there may be a third way and that Darwin and artificial selection may come to the rescue of our morning tranquility. Rather than kill off all roosters or send them away out of sight and earshot to some kind of "rooster prison" until and unless they are needed, why not systematically kill and eat only those roosters that annoy us? Theoretically we'll eventually end up with only those roosters who don't crow in the morning, or who crow more quietly or less long. Those roosters who are quiet and timid will be left alive to breed with the hens and those who are not shall be taken out of the gene pool and their unsavory ilk from future generations. Or we could find some kind of drug that makes all roosters like this.
Sound familiar?
It seems clear that this scheme would work, and might take full effect within only a few generations. The roosters would be the kind of roosters that we want, that would no longer offend us. The only question is whether chicken society could continue to function like this, and whether it would really be good for the hens.
Roosters are a part of "chicken society", although a part that is disliked. It's as if we feel that we can "cherry pick" the parts we like, the parts that we don't find offensive, and leave out the rest. It's a familiar theme.
It's of course that roosters crow in the morning and annoy everyone and wake everyone up. Do we ask whether the hens like this? Do we bother thinking about whether the hens enjoy having roosters around, doing their rooster thing, whether it's somehow good for the hens' health and well-being to be in the "society" of roosters, or do we assume that hens find roosters to be just as annoying and offensive as we ourselves do? Do we project our feelings that roosters somehow turn the chicken coop into a kind of oppressive patriarchy that enslaves the hens, making the coop somehow less "democratic", or rather, "pullocratic"? Are the hens robbed of their agency and freedom of self-actualization by the roosters' bright-feathered, loud-crowing ostentation and their constant wearying insistence and demands on the poor hens for sex, sex, and more sex? In spite of the fact that roosters are mostly useless, don't lay eggs, they "rule the roost" as "cock of the walk", and steal the spotlight from the more numerous, hard-working, and long-suffering hens. Hens lay eggs day after day only to have them taken away, and they have to sit on them and take care of them while the roosters are lazy, don't help, and only strut around.
Roosters have their pointlessly violent masculine fights over their silly pecking orders for control over the females. But we forget that hens also have their own cruel and violent pecking orders. Every coop has hens who have had most of their feathers pecked off by the more dominant ones. But still we cling to the idea that roosters are the bad ones, and since they are expendable, we are free to think that.
Obviously chicken society needs roosters, but we imagine that we need far fewer of them than we have, and then only temporarily. It occurs to me that there may be a third way and that Darwin and artificial selection may come to the rescue of our morning tranquility. Rather than kill off all roosters or send them away out of sight and earshot to some kind of "rooster prison" until and unless they are needed, why not systematically kill and eat only those roosters that annoy us? Theoretically we'll eventually end up with only those roosters who don't crow in the morning, or who crow more quietly or less long. Those roosters who are quiet and timid will be left alive to breed with the hens and those who are not shall be taken out of the gene pool and their unsavory ilk from future generations. Or we could find some kind of drug that makes all roosters like this.
Sound familiar?
It seems clear that this scheme would work, and might take full effect within only a few generations. The roosters would be the kind of roosters that we want, that would no longer offend us. The only question is whether chicken society could continue to function like this, and whether it would really be good for the hens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)