<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><div><p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Arial">I thought it was ironic that one of the points of the article was that there is not as much appreciation for farm programs. </p>
<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Arial; min-height: 15.0px"><br></p>
<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Arial">He also says conventional ag is necessary to feed 99% of the people. </p>
<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Arial; min-height: 15.0px"><br></p>
<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Arial">Conventional ag has helped the exodus from the farm to the city, causing the lack of appreciation for farming. </p>
<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Arial; min-height: 15.0px"><br></p>
<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Arial">It seems like a catch 22 because the more convetional ag is promoted, the more likely people aren't going to appreciate farming.</p>
<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Arial; min-height: 15.0px"><br></p>
<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Arial">Yes, I agree that urban folks need to get their hands dirty in the soil which would probably increase appreciation for farming, and may also reduce the impact of conventional ag.</p>
<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Arial; min-height: 15.0px"><br></p>
<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Arial">Also, I suppose I do advocate for population control. I think there are way too many people and it's only going to get worse. It seems smart for humans to control our population.</p>
<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Arial; min-height: 15.0px"><br></p>
<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Arial">I also agree that things aren't going to change.</p>
<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Arial; min-height: 15.0px"><br></p>
<p style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Arial">Garrett Clevenger</p><br>--- On <b>Wed, 3/24/10, lfalen <i><lfalen@turbonet.com></i></b> wrote:<br><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"><br>From: lfalen <lfalen@turbonet.com><br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The edge of common sense<br>To: "Garrett Clevenger" <garrettmc@verizon.net>, vision2020@moscow.com<br>Date: Wednesday, March 24, 2010, 12:30 PM<br><br><div class="plainMail">Garrett.<br>What is your point here? Are you advocating some sort of population control? I support your efforts as an organic farmer, even though I do not buy into the hype on "Organic". It is a nich market. People like you are willing to produce it and there are customers willing to buy it at higher prices. It is a good example of free market economics. Therefore I support it. For me I am not willing to buy a can of organic corn
for $3.00 when I can buy what I think is the same thing for $0,89. Back yard farming is great and I highly recommend it, but it can not feed the world. People in cities can grow a few items in pots but not enough to supply all their food needs. Short of population control or allowing mass starvation, this in not going to change. One thing I do recommend is taking 4-H(basically a rural activity) to the cities.<br>Roger<br>-----Original message-----<br>From: Garrett Clevenger <a ymailto="mailto:garrettmc@verizon.net" href="/mc/compose?to=garrettmc@verizon.net">garrettmc@verizon.net</a><br>Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:11:06 -0700<br>To: <a ymailto="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" href="/mc/compose?to=vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The edge of common sense<br><br>> "But who is going to feed the other 99 percent of our burgeoning population, much less a hungry third world?"<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>>
<br>> As a farmer, I want to respond to this.<br>> <br>> <br>> A common misconception is that conventional ag is crucial to feeding the world.<br>> <br>> <br>> Why is there a "burgeoning population" or a "hungry third world?"<br>> <br>> <br>> Conventional ag produces a lot of food to allow this, but at a huge expense.<br>> <br>> <br>> That food can't be produced without a lot of synthetic ingredients and expensive machinery.<br>> <br>> <br>> In the process of growing lots of food, we are burning fossil fuels at an unsustainable pace and poisoning the planet with pesticides.<br>> <br>> <br>> That may make sense for short-term profits, but in the long run, there will be a huge price to pay.<br>> <br>> <br>> So we produce lots of food to feed lots of people under a system that is subsidized not only by government, but by future generations who are going to have to deal with the impacts
conventional ag creates.<br>> <br>> <br>> By growing lots of food, we inflate human populations, which in turn demands more resources.<br>> <br>> <br>> Ironically, by feeding the world with conventional ag we reduce the possibility of growing food sustainably in order to feed over-inflated populations, making conventional ag more necessary.<br>> <br>> <br>> This takes away the responsibility and connection people have with growing food, making it less likely they'll be able to grow food themselves and making them more dependent on a subsidized conventional ag system.<br>> <br>> <br>> Case in point is Africa. Nobody wants to see starving children, but by inputing food into that country, more people survive which means more food, water and other resources are needed which leads to over-population and the conflicts that arise fighting over those resources.<br>> <br>> <br>> So we saved the starving
children, but increased the chance that too many people will now be fighting for other scarce resources (most importantly water).<br>> <br>> <br>> On the other hand, if populations are kept at a more sustainable level due to people having to grow their own food or using more sustainable practices, there will be less problems due to over-population in the future.<br>> <br>> <br>> My whole point to this is that as a non-conventional farmer, I see that you can grow a lot of food in a small amount land without pesticides.<br>> <br>> <br>> Yes, it may be more work. Yes, there may not be as much calories produced per square foot. Yes, 6 billion people probably can't be fed in this manner without more people working the land.<br>> <br>> <br>> The payback is higher quality more sustainable food without the impacts conventional ag creates.<br>> <br>> <br>> At some point, conventional ag won't be able to
feed all the people that it now is allowing to survive. When 9 billion people don't have enough food or water to surive, that will probably be as close a definition to "Hell on Earth" as we've seen. And that will be all thanks to convential ag allowing burgeoning populations.<br>> <br>> <br>> If we were smart, we'd try to reduce that possibility.<br>> <br>> <br>> But that's assuming too much as seeing starving children only makes you want to feed them<br>> <br>> <br>> We are a welfare world, afterall...<br>> <br>> Garrett Clevenger<br>> <br></div></blockquote></div></td></tr></table>