whelmer @ whelmer @beehaw.org

Posts

1

Comments

78

Joined

2 yr. ago

This is why Athenians considered representative electoral systems to be of the oligarchical political type rather than the democratic. It was apparently the understanding then that such a system is one in which the rich and powerful rule by way of money and influence, as opposed to a democracy in which rulership was determined by lottery.

No voting at 70? Wow. That seems so tragically disrespectful towards the people in our community we should be regarding as our elders. I think you are exaggerating the extent of mental decline with age pretty significantly and not appreciating the benefits. One of the most politically active and motivated people I know is in her 70s.

16 year olds may have the most skin in the game, if one can handle such generalized statements, but clearly the thing that teenagers lack is perspective and experience.

Not all elderly people are Mitch McConnell, just like not all young people are George Santos.

The entire genre of Drum N Bass is a cover of the Amen break.

Greetings fellow 35 year old.

Many of the songs Nirvana recorded for MTV Unplugged were covers. Love their rendition of In the Pines.

And since you brought up Nine Inch Nails, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Johnny Cash's Hurt being a cover. That's the paradigm example for me.

No reason to think there aren't other dimensions, and if there are any there might as well be an infinite number, and surely in an infinite number of dimensions someone in at least one of them discovered how to travel between them.

It is by way of nationally recognized organic standards. Otherwise governments tend to be in bed with agrochemical and agribusiness companies.

Relevant section of Canadian organic standards:

5.4.2 Where appropriate, the soil fertility and biological activity shall be maintained or increased, through: a) crop rotations that are as varied as possible and include plough-down crops, legumes, catch crops and deep-rooting plants; b) incorporation of plant and animal matter in compliance with this standard and with Table 4.2 (Column 1) of CAN/CGSB-32.311, including the following:

1. composted animal and plant matter;
2. non-composted plant matter, specifically legumes, plough-down crops or deep-rooting plants within the framework of an appropriate multiyear rotation plan; and
3. unprocessed animal manure, including liquid manure and slurry, subject to the requirements of 5.5.1

Organic is very much the same as about sustainability. The degree to which a particular enterprise succeeds in living up to organic principles and to internationally recognized organic standards is a different question.

Organic standards are available to be read. Here is the Canadian standards. You'll notice that sustainability is very much the organizing principle.

Organic standards are not the be-all and end-all of sustainability, that is true.

Were those folks in agriculture organic farmers?

Do we use chemical pesticides and stuff. We can, yes. But what do you mean by chemical? Everything is a chemical. Water is a chemical. What we don't use is synthetic pesticides or fertilizers. Which is actually a big difference from "conventional" agriculture for a variety of reasons.

Firstly, synthetic nitrogen is a major source of CO2 emissions. . Runoff from the over-application of fertilizers is also causing tremendous damage to aquatic environments. . Instead of relying on continuous application of synthetic nutrients, the organic practice is to build organic matter in soil (hence the term "organic"), which improves water holding capacity, reduces leaching, and reduces compaction. Instead we use compost and minerals like rock phosphate. When a more significant dose of nitrogen is needed we use stuff like feather meal or bone meal. These materials have a much reduced risk of leaching because the nutrients only become available in the soil as they are processed by the soil microbiome and are therefore released more slowly over a prolonged period of time.

Next, we don't use herbicides. That means we don't have bare exposed soil, which causes erosion, compaction, and top-soil loss (ie those things what caused the dust bowl). Instead we use cover crops, mulching, and mowing. Which builds up the organic matter in soil, promotes biodiversity, prevents erosion and compaction, and builds top-soil. Conversely, take a look at the rates of glyphosate application in contemporary "conventional" production and look at the articles that come up when you search for glyphosate.

Pesticides. Yes, we use pesticides. A pesticide is anything that is applied to remove pests. The difference is in the type and the effect. We do not use systemic pesticides (pesticides which are absorbed by a plant and render it toxic to pests over a prolonged period). We do not use pesticides that persist in the environment. We use things like sulfur and copper. We use things like bacteria and viruses. We use things like oils. We use things that target specific problem species at specific periods in their lifecycle. For instance, in my industry, we need to control for a creature called a coddling moth. When coddling moth levels get out of control, we spray a coddling moth virus. This virus kills coddling moth when applied at the proper time in their life cycle. It does not affect other species, and it does not persist in the environment. The conventional approach would be to spray a broad-spectrum insecticide that kills everything in the orchard. It's very easy to see the difference for yourself. Simply visit a conventional farm in the summer, then go visit an organic farm. You'll see the difference.

Finally, at least in my country, organic standards are the only legitimate regulated standards that protect animal welfare. Free range, cage free, whatever, that stuff doesn't mean anything if there aren't national or internationally recognized certifiable standards. We have that in organic. Organic livestock are not fed antibiotics and growth hormones, and there is enforcement of humane standards of care. For example, from the Canadian Organic standards:

6.1.3 Livestock production is a land-related activity. a) Herbivores shall have access to pasture during the grazing season and access to the open air at other times whenever weather conditions permit:

1. calculated on the basis of dry matter intake, the consumption of grazed forage by ruminants that have reached sexual maturity shall represent a minimum of 30% of the total forage intake;
2. consumption of grazed forage shall rise above 30% during high forage growth periods;
3. a minimum of 0.13 ha (0.33 ac.) per animal unit shall be devoted to grazing. [One animal unit = one cow or one bull, or two calves each 102 to 227 kg (225 to 500 lb), or five calves, each less than 102 kg (225 lb), or four ewes and their lambs, or six does and their kids];

But we live in a capitalist, industrial society. So yes, not all organic farms are equal. Not everyone is actually committed to the principles of the organic movement. Corporate agribusiness obviously is interested in exploiting the organic sector. That doesn't mean that "organic" is meaningless or that it's all a scam. Just like Fair Trade, it's an important signifier but that doesn't mean it's immune from abuse or exploitation.

It's very important that the national standards oversight bodies are protected from interference from agrochemical companies and industrial farming interests who want to see standards relaxed so they can exploit the organic label for commercial gain. You can look at the beginning of this document to see who sits on the organic standards committee in Canada.

And it's important that as consumers you consider the type of farms you are supporting when buying food. Support local, small scale, organic producers as much as you can. If you can't get organic, then at least try to get local, small-scale producers. If you can't do that, then get local organic. If you can't do that, get supermarket organic. The most important thing is to have, as much as you can, an understanding of where your food is coming from and the methods by which it is being produced.

Consider this: the sun already provides all the energy required to grow plants, and healthy soils provide the required nutrients. Plants can already harvest solar energy, that's kinda their whole thing.

Your model requires synthetic nutrients and synthetic sunlight. Producing and maintaining solar panels and the associated infrastructure is not environmentally benign, particularly if as you suggest in your other comment you would want to install solar arrays on former farmland.

How about instead we grow plants properly, in ecosystemically responsible ways that promote soil health, which is directly connected to our health via our gut microbiome. Growing sterile plants in a controlled environment is not an ecological solution at all, it's a sterile solution.

Our agricultural system isn't in need of high-tech solutions. High-tech solutions is exactly what has been fucking agriculture up for the past seventy years.

There isn't "meat industry" farming or "vegan industry" farming. The primary dichotomies in farming are industrial vs small scale, organic vs conventional, and local vs global. If you don't like monocultural industrial farming, then support the other types of farmers.

He was a cool guy. His influence will continue to be felt.

We don't have moles but we get lots of gophers with them.

There is significant middle ground between loving something and finding it miserable. And yeah, believe it or not, but plenty of tradespeople take pride in their work.

Poison is really a shitty way to handle this problem. It's not just bad for our dogs, it's bad for wild predators as well, and (speculating) probably not good for the soil microbiome either. Also it's a pretty nasty way to go for the rodents.

The proper way to deal with moles is using blackhole traps. They take advantage of the fact that moles will try to block any light entering their tunnel. The trap has a hole at the end, so when inserted into their tunnel, the moles will want to plug it to turn out the light, when they enter the open end of the tube it springs the trap.

It takes a bit of luck and a bit of skill, sometimes you have to reset the traps multiple times before getting the mole.

I also wouldn't recommend ultrasonic repellers because we don't know what effect that type of shit has on other creatures, either.

Voles are trickier, though also less problematic. I would say get a cat.

Good recommendation! I really liked Walden, especially his description of the war between ants. I also enjoyed his Civil Disobedience. Cool person.

Nah man. There's nothing inherently shitty about work. Work is energy put to use. My garden is work. Painting the house is work. And my job, which is growing food, is work. And I really like my job. I like being outside, I like solving problems, interacting with plants and animals. The hours can be intense at times, and I've currently got blisters on the palms of my fucking hands, and I make very little money, but it is work and it is not shitty.

The problem is not that work sucks, the problem is that the types of work and the environments in which work is done in our industrialized, financialized, capitalist society are often alienating, dehumanzing, useless, destructive, boring, and pointless.

People finding work "miserable" is not an inherent property of work (which is doing something useful) or even of jobs (which is doing something supposedly useful for money). It's an indication that something has gone wrong with our society.

ove of the craft,

Bit different from what I read when I was a philosophy student, but am currently reading Wendell Berry and he is a pretty interesting thinker. Talks a lot about the nature and purpose of agriculture and work and life and shit, very insightfult and prescient. He's a big fan of Albert Howard, who's considered a father of the organic movement.

Nietzsche is fun but kind of crazy. Kant is very cool but extremely obtuse. Being and Time by Heidegger is similarly obtuse but I found it paradigm-shifting personally. Phenomonology in general is really profound, was introduced to the concept by an anthropologist named Timothy Ingold.

I don't know how easy it is to find but one of my favourite philosophy books is The Authority of Reason by Jean E. Hampton. It's really complex and it's been a long time since I've read it, but she makes really compelling and sophisticated arguments in favour of Kantian style moral realism.

In terms of political stuff, John Stuart Mill had a big impact on me when I was younger. David Graeber is technically an anthropologist but I find his political theory to be extremely compelling. As mentioned in another comment, Camus' The Rebel is one of my favourite books.

I actually quite enjoy Plato, though I appreciate the controversies. Pretty accessible stuff as well. I'm not well versed in the Greek stuff but I understand folks like Epicurus are super cool (very much unlike Plato he welcomed women and slaves into his school).

I also recently read the Tao Te Ching, which I think would be fair to describe as philosophy. I'm certainly no expert but I found it really interesting, the translation I read included a bunch of commentary from ancient and modern taoist thinkers for each chapter which made a big difference.

Camus' Myth of Sysuphus? Big fan. Would also recommend The Rebel by the same.

Hi, I'm Whelmer, never maintained a reddit account but I was a chronic lurker and was pleased to discover this whole Lemmy thing recently. Always had a love/hate thing with reddit and this place reduces significantly the latter part of that equation.

I'm an organic orchardist by trade, novice gardener and beekeeper as well. Been into Linux and FOSS for the past decade or so. I also like to play and build synthesizers. Though these days I'm not finding a lot of time for my non-economic hobbies.

Thanks for creating and maintaining this community.