Ryan and all, I understand and appreciate your 'bang for the buck' interpretation of the leverage points concept. Another concept of leverage, maybe somewhat at odds with that one, but still worth considering, is leverage that is more likely to achieve sustainable change the deeper its effect in the system iceberg: events ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^patterns of behavior^^^^^^^^^^ system structure cultural paradigm
where what most people tend to see and try to change is the 'above water' tip of the iceberg: events. Maybe strategies should try to combine the insights of both leverage points concepts. That is, at any point in time it is worth finding the tactic that gets the most change for the least effort, but ideally also is designed to move people toward changing patterns of behavior, then system structure, then cultural paradigm, with more lasting change gained at deeper levels. Maybe I am talking about the difference between tactics and strategy. what approach(es) you would > recommend we take to rapidly develop small scale agriculture in the > area. This seems like a subject big enough to work better in a face to face conversation, at least to start it. Feel free to schedule a visit to the farm, and we can talk. However, some general comments: 1. I think good strategy requires a focus on both political and agroecological questions and their interdependency. 2. I think the decentralist vs centralist debate is somewhat of a false dichotomy: experienced political activists with egalitarian goals have repeatedly pointed out that efforts at local autonomy tend to fail against concentrated centralized power unless they strive at the same time to build expanding political alliances with other such projects. See Lenin's (and Fidel's) critique of the attempts at achieving 'socialism in one country' in a world of powerful capitalists intent on crushing them. 3. On the other hand, as some of us have (gleefully?) noted, the end of cheap oil will gradually collapse not only the distance economy but also the distance polity, and with it weaken the ability of metropoles to control peripheries, as in the late Roman Empire. 4. There is a surprising degree of consensus among students of sustainability on the principles to be obeyed. Here is a short list of principles that many think must guide farm design: a. Low external inputs - input self-sufficiency b. Low emissions - closed nutrient cycles c. Knowledge intensive - biodiversity that captures synergies d. Management intensive - labor intensive but efficient in productivity/acre e. Local food self-sufficiency and national food sovereignty 5. There exist both historical and actual models of agroecosystems in a variety of environments that both obey these principles and go much farther toward achieving maximum potential human carrying capacity of a given resource base than most organic farmers in the United States can accomplish. The bottleneck at this point is our political economy of food, not the agroecological knowledge base that is currently available. Karl On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:03:16 -0400 "Ryan Hottle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Karl et al: > > Thanks for your thoughts--when it comes to agricultural policy it's > seems to > be a pretty good policy to listen to the farmers. > > I would love to visit your farm. I worked on a sheep farm a couple > years > ago (though I primarily oversaw vegetable production), and am also > very very > very interested in learning more about draft horses. > > I certainly agree with you that what we have is a systemic problem > that will > not be solved by single solutions. And I also agree with the paper > on your > website that we are going to need WHOLE SYSTEMS THINKING in order > to > formulate responses to these problems. There is however, as you > know, > LEVERAGE POINTS within any given system which offer the ability to > spur the > greatest amount of change with the least amount of effort. I think > that the > non-local food tax/tariff (at least in concept) offers a leverage > point: > > It would encourage local food consumption and thus production while > simultaneously discouraging non-local food from entering local > markets, as > well as generating funds on all non-local foods in order to grow > more local > foods.... thus it provides a constant feedback mechanism that > encourages > local food production. > > Whether it is politically feasible to accomplish such a task appears > to be > dubious, yet the point remains. > > Now, as you rightly point out, local food production and even > organic food > production does not mean sustainable food production. I certainly > realized > this during my short stint working on a farm... We are going to > have to > figure out truly sustainable means of producing food locally. I'm > guessing > that folks like you--with your experience working sustainably with > the soil > and with animals and with plants--are going to become invaluable > teachers in > the near future. > > I want to know from you, as someone who has a lot of experience and > who has > done a lot of thinking on these topics, what approach(es) you would > recommend we take to rapidly develop small scale agriculture in the > area. > > Thanks for the discussion, > Ryan D. Hottle > > P.S. Did you see the biochar discussion. I think we will need to > explore > the concepts of "Carbon Negative Farms." > > > > > _______________________________________________ For more information about sustainability in the Tompkins County area, please visit: http://www.sustainabletompkins.org/ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
