Re: Goodbye Ruby - Hello Earth

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 08:05:10PM +0900, Jeff Schwab wrote:
> Christophe Mckeon wrote:
> >
> >Agriculture is entirely dependent on petrochemicals.
>=20
> For some definition of "entirely" that means something completely=20
> different from "entirely."  See The Omnivore's Dilemma, by Michael=20
> Pollan, for a quick tour of the American food supply system.

Indeed.

People talk about how without petrochemicals we'd have significant food
shortages -- but the truth is that the real danger we face in terms of
agricultural production is government.  The only reason the loss of
petrochemicals in agriculture would lead to worldwide famines, using the
numbers on which people base this argument, is because they're only
measuring the food we don't waste the moment we harvest it.  The
government:

  1. creates least-efficient alternative fuel programs that actually use
  up food crops when more efficient alternatives using inedible crops
  that grow on land not as useful for food crops

  2. actually *pays* corporate farms to burn, or otherwise destroy,
  mind-boggling amounts of harvested food crops every year

  3. uses regulatory powers to prevent more efficient, safer food
  production by smaller agricultural concerns because such food
  production might actually compete with huge, subsidized corporate farms
  that have their own lobbyists

  4. and so on

The problem wouldn't be the loss of petrochemicals as part of
agricultural "state of the art", really, but the way government sticks
its nose into the business of making food.  Even if all the
petrochemicals *did* suddenly dry up, and we were reduced to using manure
for fertilizer, and oxen to pull plows, we could absorb the drop in
productivity easily if government would just stop investing so much time,
effort, and money in making food production less efficient.


>=20
> >Population overshoot. There are currently 6 billion people on the planet=
=20
> >and growing exponentially. You guys should all be able to guess what=20
> >happens when you have a finite resource base but an exponential growth=
=20
> >rate of both economies and populations. The carrying capacity of the=20
> >earth w/o constant petrolium input is estimated at between 1 and 3=20
> >billion depending on who you ask.
>=20
> It doesn't work that way.  We have extraordinarily abundant sources of=20
> energy available; the economic incentives just haven't been sufficient=20
> to tap them yet.  As demand for energy goes up, and the oil supply goes=
=20
> down, we'll turn to alternative sources.  (Actually, I suspect this has=
=20
> already started.)

One might make the argument that agitation by environmentalists has
caused government to step in and *make* it happen.  After all, government
interfering with the efficiency and affordability of petroleum
production, distribution, and purchase at the consumer end has helped to
spur research, as has funding from government programs.  So people might
argue.

Of course, government basically put us in this position in the first
place, by regulating industries so that they are able (even encouraged)
to become dominated by huge, unimaginably powerful corporate entities
that toy with the market and resist change from below.  At best, we get
the equivalent of what we'd have if individual economic sovereignty were
repsected in the first place, but at great cost, and that's ignoring the
fact that a lot of government supported programs are political choices
rather than efficient and effective choices, leaving us with less
advancement in the energy production state of the art than we really
should be experiencing by now.


>=20
> >But... I found permaculture which was designed by scientists
>=20
> So were the A-bomb, GMO foods, and most of those petrochemicals you've=20
> already condemned.  Not to mention digital watches (shiver).

you +=3D 1     # for the Adams reference


>=20
> >When I saw that there was hope, I had a sort of spiritual awakening,
>=20
> Oh jeez, here we go...
>=20
> >a crumbling of the walls of denial, and a grieving for the planet we are=
=20
> >about to destroy, that's why I'm leaving,
>=20
> Leaving what?  "The planet we are about to destroy?"  If we're=20
> destroying the planet, there's nowhere safe to go but space.  (That's=20
> not really safe either, lacking oxygen, warmth, and broadband internet=20
> access.)

No . . . I think that's why he's "leaving" Ruby.  I don't really see how
that helps, though.


>=20
> >It's life or death now, but the problem is that humans, even the=20
> >smartest humans do not react to threats unless they are directly in=20
> >front of them in plain view. We have our own evolutionary psychology to=
=20
> >blame for this.
> >
> >We need all the brains of the earth on this one.
>=20
> So you're "leaving."  Thanks.

I guess he thinks his brain is put to better use behind a plow in an
agrarian commune.

--=20
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
My first programming koan: If a lambda has the ability to access its
context, but there isn't any context to access -- is it still a closure?