Is self sufficiency sustainability?

[Bubblingbrooks]

So industrial agriculture, fertilized with petroleum products and shipped for miles with all attendant ecological consequences, is more sustainable than growing and preserving your own food from your own back yard? I am surprised at that position, coming from you, bib.

Cmjus01 on the other hand... well, I''ve learned to never to be surprised about anything.

And I mean that affectionately to both of you.

You're missing the point... If all the industrial ag and petroleum and shipping went into producing food just for you, then yeah, your way is much more efficient.. That's not how it works, though; all that stuff produces food for MILLIONS.

What I'm saying is that if all those MILLIONS for whom industrial ag is currently producing food started producing it for themselves, the process would be far less efficient than it is today.. With inefficiency comes a whole lot of waste. With waste comes unsustainability.

The defense of Big Food. Well, there's an argument I truly enjoy having.

All of that is built on oil, cmj. All of it. The fertilizers, the pesticides, the transportation, the packaging. Everything.

Sooner or later, it will collapse. Demand for oil is going to outpace supply, price of oil will go up, and at some point it will no longer be economically feasible to use it for producing food. It will be too scarce for that sort of thing. Even if it we decide food is a worthy use of this precious fluid (we won't), the cost of the food it will be used to grow will soon outpace the cost of producing food by more natural methods.

In the meantime, CAFOs and industrialized monocrops are poisoning our environment wholesale. Destroying our rivers, lakes, and oceans, killing most (if not every) desirable life form in them.

And they are depleting and/or poisoning our aquifers and topsoils, not to mention the air we breath, while at the same time creating super pathogens that will one day kill a lot of us.

Not only is it unsustainable over the long term, it is unsustainable now.

Compare sustainability of that to the average homesteader (urban, suburban, or rural, take your pick) who is producing at least some of their own food in their own place using ecologically friendly methods?

I think it is fairly obvious who wins that comparison.

Buster! Please stick around in this forum!
You are a true asset!

I agree 100% with your asessment.
Look at the massive amount of good grazeable land that is being used to grow gmo corn and soy, that should be used to graze animals and grow nourishing food!!!

We say we are feeding the world! Hogwash!
THere is nothing nourishing in rice corn and soy based foods that are being shipped to needy nations.
They need chickens and goats, and seeds to grow real food instead!

 

[Bubblingbrooks]

Did you build your own stove? I didn't.. Mine came from a factory which had to be built, equipped, maintained, etc...

Uh, would you not own a stove if you weren't canning tomatoes???

I think the vast majority of people (heck, even people these days who nearly always eat out) are going to own a stove ANYhow.

So I am skeptical that that should be included in the 'equation'.

Pat

That goes to a whole 'nuther part of what is -- and I'm sorry, but it is -- the illusion of self sufficiency..

I mean, many of us who strive for self-sufficiency do so out of some kind of nervousness about a SHTF type scenario, yet something so few people ever bring up is -- if and when TS really does HTF -- where would you get......

Oh, heck.. I won't go there in this topic.





Ok, I will.. Nails. Just for instance. Or screws.

Uh oh!

(What you guys have to understand about me is that I'm usually pretty ok with cognitive dissonance. Indeed, I find it stimulating and rather enjoy it. )

What did people use before nails and screws?
Rhetorical question by the way

 

[cmjust0]

The defense of Big Food. Well, there's an argument I truly enjoy having.

See, that's where you're wrong. I'm not defending big food -- I'm just saying that self-sufficiency doesn't necessarily mean sustainability. Since the obvious comparison to producing our own food is buying it from big food, well...that's the comparison I'm making.

All of that is built on oil, cmj. All of it. The fertilizers, the pesticides, the transportation, the packaging. Everything.

Sooner or later, it will collapse. Demand for oil is going to outpace supply, price of oil will go up, and at some point it will no longer be economically feasible to use it for producing food. It will be too scarce for that sort of thing. Even if it we decide food is a worthy use of this precious fluid (we won't), the cost of the food it will be used to grow will soon outpace the cost of producing food by more natural methods.

What I take from all that is that you agree -- at this point, at least -- that food producers' reliance on oil and the associated cost of that reliance has not yet outpaced the cost of producing food naturally.

I agree.

In the meantime, CAFOs and industrialized monocrops are poisoning our environment wholesale. Destroying our rivers, lakes, and oceans, killing most (if not every) desirable life form in them.

And they are depleting and/or poisoning our aquifers and topsoils, not to mention the air we breath, while at the same time creating super pathogens that will one day kill a lot of us.

Not only is it unsustainable over the long term, it is unsustainable now.

I don't disagree... The question I'm raising is one of which is more sustainable -- DIY food, or big food.

To that end.......

Compare sustainability of that to the average homesteader

...yes, let's.

(urban, suburban, or rural, take your pick) who is producing at least some of their own food in their own place using ecologically friendly methods?

I think it is fairly obvious who wins that comparison.

Actually, let's take EVERYONE and and say they're producing ALL their food in their own place. Is that more sustainable than big food?

Again...probably not.

See, the trap most of you seem to be falling into is comparing the ENTIRE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY to...some guy.

If that one guy could produce as much food as THE ENTIRE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY, yeah...he wins.

But he can't.

It would take most of us to do that, if we're talking small-scale production.

And if you consider most of us requiring jars and lids and rings and coal to power our stoves and gasoline to deliver us seeds and run our tillers and water to provide for our growing plants and blah blah blah...no...I don't think that's more sustainable, because I know it's super wasteful. Waste = unsustainable.

If we want to have a discussion on whether or not big food is sustainable, let's have one. I'm game for that, but you won't see much disagreement out of me...it is unsustainable.

But I do think it's ultimately more sustainable than each of us doing it ourselves, simply because it's more efficient.

 

[cmjust0]

What did people use before nails and screws?
Rhetorical question by the way

Duct tape.

 

[bibliophile birds]

We say we are feeding the world! Hogwash!
THere is nothing nourishing in rice corn and soy based foods that are being shipped to needy nations.
They need chickens and goats, and seeds to grow real food instead!

i think you've hit on the important issue here. because, let's be honest, can we say we are doing a good thing by "saving the environment" if those practices don't also make life livable for the millions of people who are living without? i, personally, don't think so.

that's where projects that send GMO seeds to third world farmers really, really, seriously piss me off. the public image is that they are supporting the efforts of the underprivileged to be more self-sufficient. what they are actually doing is destroying local farming communities and peddling water-consumptive, pesticide/fertilizer needing, Western marketing strategies. so, while these seeds might actually help SOME people to not rely on aid in the SHORT-TERM, in the long-term it actually destroys their ability to maintain traditional farming communities that are LOCALLY ADAPTED to suit their social and environmental needs.

it's BAD BAD news.

 

[cmjust0]

THere is nothing nourishing in rice corn and soy based foods that are being shipped to needy nations.
They need chickens and goats, and seeds to grow real food instead!

Ya reckon that's what happened? Reckon they just ran slapdab out of goats, chickens, and seeds and that's why they're in the shape they're in?

Really?

:/

 

[Bubblingbrooks]

THere is nothing nourishing in rice corn and soy based foods that are being shipped to needy nations.
They need chickens and goats, and seeds to grow real food instead!

Ya reckon that's what happened? Reckon they just ran slapdab out of goats, chickens, and seeds and that's why they're in the shape they're in?

Really?

:/

They did not run out per say. "we" decided they needed our help.
In time of disastor, all we can give any country is baby formula and dehydrated food.

Take the formula as an example of what happens when we offer short term fake help.
A mother has a baby that she has been breastfeeding. An aid worker shows up, tells her that her baby needs this stuff to survive.
She follows the directions, and fills her baby up on this free formula.
Meanwhile, her milk dries up.
Then the formula runs out. She does not have money to purchase more.
What happens to the baby?
It starves.

All this aid ends up destituting the country even further.
Traditional culture has been stolen, and thus there are no more (or not enough) resources to live off the land.

 

[meriruka]

Ok, I'm confused. In reading the debate big food vs. home canning, I can see where big food is more efficient but I'm not sure about sustainable. I think of sustainable as something that you can do over & over without decline in quality.

Farming, for instance, you can grow your produce by not using harmful chemicals/insecticides, save your seeds, add manure/compost/cover crops to keep the soil rich in nutrients. So it is something you can continue doing forever with no decline in food quality and no damage to the soil.

Reusing glass jars means less energy wasted making more glass jars, but making a new can for every x ounces of beans means more resources needed to make them.

Is this correct or am I missing something?


note to big Brown Horse: Quit bragging about your rocket stove. I can't find any fire bricks around here, so I can't have one. No fair.

 

[Bubblingbrooks]

Ok, I'm confused. In reading the debate big food vs. home canning, I can see where big food is more efficient but I'm not sure about sustainable. I think of sustainable as something that you can do over & over without decline in quality.

Farming, for instance, you can grow your produce by not using harmful chemicals/insecticides, save your seeds, add manure/compost/cover crops to keep the soil rich in nutrients. So it is something you can continue doing forever with no decline in food quality and no damage to the soil.

Reusing glass jars means less energy wasted making more glass jars, but making a new can for every x ounces of beans means more resources needed to make them.

Is this correct or am I missing something?


note to big Brown Horse: Quit bragging about your rocket stove. I can't find any fire bricks around here, so I can't have one. No fair.

You are correct.
When you and hopefully your neighbor with you, are producing your own natural fertilizer, and you re saving seeds, or if need be, buying them from another neighbor who saves them, and using what others throw away, then you are well balanced, and not costing yourself or others.

 

[cmjust0]

THere is nothing nourishing in rice corn and soy based foods that are being shipped to needy nations.
They need chickens and goats, and seeds to grow real food instead!

Ya reckon that's what happened? Reckon they just ran slapdab out of goats, chickens, and seeds and that's why they're in the shape they're in?

Really?

:/

They did not run out per say. "we" decided they needed our help.
In time of disastor, all we can give any country is baby formula and dehydrated food.

Take the formula as an example of what happens when we offer short term fake help.
A mother has a baby that she has been breastfeeding. An aid worker shows up, tells her that her baby needs this stuff to survive.
She follows the directions, and fills her baby up on this free formula.
Meanwhile, her milk dries up.
Then the formula runs out. She does not have money to purchase more.
What happens to the baby?
It starves.

All this aid ends up destituting the country even further.
Traditional culture has been stolen, and thus there are no more (or not enough) resources to live off the land.

Ok, the only thing I've ever read about infant formula and third world countries was the whole Nestle thing, which had little to do with foreign aid.

The Nestle deal was an example of a big company using effective marketing to sell a useless product to uneducated people in a bid to make as much money as possible. It's a really, really dispicable example of such a scenario...but that's the basic scenario nonetheless.

Can you reference anything about "aid workers" doing what you claim they're doing here?