>humaneness. But even small farms use modern transportation and
>machines.
>
>Doug
I'm sorry I have to spell all of this out. It is not exactly a function of
small versus big, although in haste I might have given that impression. The
problem is that modern transportation systems have facilitated the physical
separation of livestock from the fields, where crops are being grown. This
leads to all sorts of problems, including pigshit pollution in North
Carolina, etc., and reliance on chemical fertilizers. Such crops tend to be
cultivated in separation not only from the farm animals, but from other
plants that in the past furnished complementary enrichment of the soil. So
in order to compensate for this lack and to make them less vulnerable to
attacks by weeds and insects, the agrarian bourgeoisie relies on
insecticides and herbicides. The problem--in a nutshell--is that modern
farming is not sustainable in an ecological sense. Smaller farms tend to
have more of a mix of livestock and various flora, which makes them
generally more organic. But in the final analysis, they are reliant on the
same technologies because of competition and hence end up adopting
practices that are not ecologically sustainable. As I told you yesterday,
all this is discussed in the MR journal on agriculture. If you would read
this and any recent Worldwatch State of the World, you'd understand the
issues much better. In fact as a public intellectual speaking on behalf of
the left and having embraced the Seattle protests, it is almost
unbelievable how innocent you are of the issues. You might also take a look
at the foodfirst and globalexchange web pages. Frances Ford Lappe's books
are indispensable. And so on.
Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
