I don't see the Green Revolution as a success. It led to overshoot in world population,an epidemic of metabolic disorders in the US, destruction of untold ecosystems, and a host of other ills. Seeing the Green Revolution as a "success" seems to me to be the cognitive dissonance. Being able to recognize that our decision to engage in the Green Revolution may have been one of the worst decisions ever made in human history does not seem like cognitive dissonance to me, it seems like an ability to appropriately evaluate results.
Awareness of germ theory was at least as much to account for the increase in human longevity (actually life expectancy) as the Green Revolution was.
Just want to point out that plant breeding, soil science, and organic methods were known and pretty well developed before the Green Revolution. There was definitely the opportunity to head in the organic direction, if society had chosen to do so.
bruc33ef wrote: It is not a good idea to throw a wrench into the advance of science because of certain unwanted, unplanned, unexpected occurrences
Does permaculture endanger industrial agriculture in any way, or limit its activities? Can you give some examples of the dangers of permaculture to industrial agriculture?
What is throwing a wrench in the advance of science? Not permaculture, I take it.
What exactly do you think the green revolution is??
Emile Spore wrote:
I for one think sabotage of science is positive. Science has created problems for the future that science has no hope of ever being able to solve.
gardening doesn't require as much storage either as buying commercially farmed food. you simply go outside and pick it, take it inside, cook it and eat it. No fridge or freezer involved. as well as no trucks, trains or planes.
Nathan Johns wrote:
I'm always somewhat jokingly telling my friends that the ground is the best place to store your food.
As a guiding ideology, as a utopian vision, primitivism can destroy Marxism or libertarianism because it digs deeper and overthrows their foundations. It defeats the old religions on evidence. And best of all, it presents a utopia that is not in the realm of imagination or metaphysics, but has actually happened.
But this strength is also a weakness, because reality cuts both ways. As soon as you say, "We should live like these actual people," every competing ideologue will jump up with examples of those people living dreadfully: "Here's a tribe with murderous warfare, and one with ritual abuse, and one with chronic disease from malnutrition, and one where people are just mean and unhappy, and here are a bunch of species extinctions right when primitive humans appeared.
travis laduke wrote:
For us living in the city, it's either buy some b12 pills, nutritional yeast, and bottle conditioned beer or buy industrial meats.
Here's an article pertinent to this discussion: http://www.salon.com/life/sustainable_food/index.html?story=/food/feature/2010/08/26/empires_of_food