To All Who Try To Sell Others On The Idea Of Sustainable Farming, Forestry.

[Carl Russell]

near horse;12353 wrote:

Here’s one shot at defining sustainability – apply it toward farming, forestry or whatever –

For any single farm to truly be sustainable, it must produce adequate yields of high quality and be resource conserving, environmentally sound, economically profitable, and socially just. In a sense, it’s a goal and a utopian concept.

So, if an organic or conventional farm is not economically profitable, it’s not sustainable. If it’s either polluting the groundwater or eroding the soil, it’s not sustainable …. If you high grade timber, there’s nothing but low quality left to reproduce = short term profit but long term unsustainable…..

I can’t disagree with this, but I will just say that for many people, including me, “sustainable” land-use has to do with sustainable practices. By employing methods in the operation that mimic, or embrace, natural ecological processes, with minimal human inputs and intervention, the operation becomes “sustainable” because it is supported by something other than the owners ability to pay, produce, or participate.

The affordability issue is often thrown in there as a way to dilute the attempt to arrive at ecological sustainability. I understand how important the financial question is in a person’s ability to “keep going”, but the human factor is one of the most unsustainable aspects of our attempts at land-use.

That is not to say that every operation is able to become sustainable, each of us has our own variables, like Geoff wrote, it is a bit utopian, but the emphasis must not be on how sustainable can we be, rather on how to modify our approaches to become more in line with naturally sustainable processes.

This is why I haven’t taken seriously the intent of this thread. It seems the emphasis here is to try to get someone to make an unbreakable argument describing “sustainability”, as a sales pitch, to convince people that they should follow a particular path. If a person’s view is that they can disregard the importance of the ecological processes that support life on Earth, while using land for their own personal gain, then there will be no argument that will be valid enough for them to endorse.

Carl

[Tim Harrigan]

Carl brings up an important distinction here regarding the notion of economic sustainability. Certainly this is important if the goal is to develop an enterprise that will support your family, and it is often thrown in the discussion to balance diverse views, e.g. grazing versus confinement dairies. But while there will not always be unanimous agreement regarding sustainable management of our natural resources at least we have some objective standards by which to determine if we are moving in the right direction, measures of soil erosion has been noted as one. The economic issue is a moving target, different for all of us, and in reality many of us invest in activities that we see as more sustainable (rather than the least cost option) as our conscience and view of the world grows in order to stay directionally correct. The scale of what many of us do makes the economic component difficult to assess. Same with social justice. I can only do so much. So our assessment of an industry is quite a bit different from actions on a personal level.

[near horse]

Just to play “devil’s advocate” – the best thing an individual human could do for the planet is to not exist because by your very existence you are using resources,creating wastes etc and human numbers are way “out of balance” with the rest of the ecosystem. So, if you’re not into becoming voluntary compost for the greater good then all you can do is try to live as sustainably as possible (as I think Carl and Tim are saying – right?). But you do need to do things/use resources to live – sustainably or not.

As beings, we are constrained, although not necessarily limited, by the socioeconomic environment in which we are born and live. You need to be able to make a living – whether it’s cash, barter or subsistence and if the “rules of the game” keep you from making a living, then you end up having to adapt your practices. If nobody will “play ball” (use your product/service), then it’s hard to have a “game” (sustain your livelihood).

Okay – I’ve gotten into a terrible ramble – feel free to disregard:eek:

[lancek]

No I think you hit it on the head Lancek

[Carl Russell]

And I agree. But that is exactly why it ISN”T sustainable. The human factor is real, and we all have to make our own personal appraisal of it, but that is exactly what we need to learn how to balance against the natural reality of the resources we depend on. Sustainability is not just about managing resources, but also about managing ourselves.

Carl

[Scyther]

Excellent, and true points made here. The human/economic factor is the big sticking point. This is one of a couple reasons I’m not trying to farm for a living anymore. To do it “right”, by my way of thinking, I found near impossible to be profitable under the economic system we have in place. So I work “away” to produce money, and farm the way I think it should be done at home. I only produce for self sufficientcy, and in that venue the economics work just fine. I’d like to scale up some at some point to a part-time commercial operation if I can do it “right”, that being my way, but don’t know if that will really happen or not. So I think you can farm in a self contained, or nearly so, way. To do it and make money is a much more challenging undertaking though. It proved to be beyond my abilities anyway. Good luck to all who venture in that area.

[Carl Russell]

Scyther;12439 wrote:

Excellent, and true points made here. The human/economic factor is the big sticking point. This is one of a couple reasons I’m not trying to farm for a living anymore. To do it “right”, by my way of thinking, I found near impossible to be profitable under the economic system we have in place. So I work “away” to produce money, and farm the way I think it should be done at home. I only produce for self sufficientcy, and in that venue the economics work just fine. I’d like to scale up some at some point to a part-time commercial operation if I can do it “right”, that being my way, but don’t know if that will really happen or not. So I think you can farm in a self contained, or nearly so, way. To do it and make money is a much more challenging undertaking though. It proved to be beyond my abilities anyway. Good luck to all who venture in that area.

We have come to the same understanding. In fact I never saw business opportunities as rationale for mining the resources on my family land. Many people will not consider you a “true” farmer, or full-time logger, but our current economic system is created to put pressure on resources to deliver raw product. That is why it is so difficult to actually develop a sustainable process. We see our land-use enterprise as much as an investment as it is a source of livelihood. We make the most dollars from selling services, as well as valuable product, but reserve the bulk of the operation to provide for our own use, both farming and forestry. We are also investing in the land-use pattern, livestock, nutrient availability, structures, access, equipment, and skills that will set this place up without indebtedness, and capable of providing an even greater portion of the necessary livelihood for subsequent residents, possibly several family units.

Carl

[near horse]

This may be an overused parable that has been used to decribe a number of unsustainable practices but it seems applicable to the current discussion so I’ll throw it out there. It’s called “The Tragedy of the Commons” and was published in the journal Science in 1968 – here is an exerpt (if you want the whole article, PM me and I’ll send it).

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, “What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?” This utility has one negative and one positive component.
1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly + 1.
1. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision making herdsman is only a fraction of – 1.
Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another…. But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit — in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

Some would say that this is a platitude. Would that it were! In a sense, it was learned thousands of years ago, but natural selection favors the forces of psychological denial.[8] The individual benefits as an individual from his ability to deny the truth even though society as a whole, of which he is a part, suffers. Education can counteract the natural tendency to do the wrong thing, but the inexorable succession of generations requires that the basis for this knowledge be constantly refreshed.

I think Carl is saying that the problem now (and in this parable) is demonstrated in this line “As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain.” (the assumption being short term or immediate gain rather than long term or future gain). If that is the mindset of any farmer or logger, then there is no argument to made for sustainability.

[Donn Hewes]

Wow, What a crazy thread! I tried to stay out but just couldn’t resist. Dear Mr. Bumpus, I hate to admit it but I take a slight offense to your premise that someone should try harder to explain things. I will tell you why. If I viewed what we do here as an online class room where one “expert” stood up front and talked while the rest of us listened I might begin to agree; but then I wouldn’t be here. To me this is an online version of folks meeting at the local dinner for coffee on a rainy morning. We may have started as strangers, but we are slowly getting to know (and trust) each other. There is a lot about us that is different form one and other, but we also have much we share in common.
At a coffee table it is just rude to suggest that someone is not holding up their end of the conversation.

Sustainability Now the thread really goes walk about! Just a few points to consider. Sustainability, for all it appears to imply simplicity, is anything but. First you need to all agree on who or what you wish to sustain, and for how long. Some folks refer to their family or farm and it implies one generation or two. Some folks are talking about all humanity and a few thousand years. These are really different, and the issues that would need to be addressed are different. Sustainability is fascinating stuff, and I believe while we are stumbling around looking for it, it will come up and whack us in the head. I truly believe that we will be told in no uncertain terms what we can and can not do to survive.

Finally, just because we have failed to share the commons in the past, don’t rule out the “return of the Commons” in the future. One of the winners of this years Nobel prize for economics as been demonstrating examples of the “Commons” being shared for communal interests. We will need to learn these skills going forward. I didn’t vote – I need more coffee, Donn

[john plowden]

The waitress just refilled my cup – can I get a donut ?

[jen judkins]

Oh, and I’d like some pie, please…

[goodcompanion]

@Donn Hewes 12452 wrote:

Sustainability Now the thread really goes walk about! Just a few points to consider. Sustainability, for all it appears to imply simplicity, is anything but. First you need to all agree on who or what you wish to sustain, and for how long. Some folks refer to their family or farm and it implies one generation or two. Some folks are talking about all humanity and a few thousand years. These are really different, and the issues that would need to be addressed are different. Sustainability is fascinating stuff, and I believe while we are stumbling around looking for it, it will come up and whack us in the head. I truly believe that we will be told in no uncertain terms what we can and can not do to survive.

Right on, Donn. It seems, as has been suggested earlier, that the intention is to set up preachers of sustainability as straw men. I don’t see any intent to preach or “sell” on this forum, so I also don’t understand the poll and question the intent.

And how to define “sustainabilty” or sustainable practices is equally problematic. Perhaps we should also add that Monsanto offers itself as the “future of sustainable agriculture.” Without a trace of irony! Others offer hedge fund portfolios with “sustainable” yields. I am beginning to really dislike the word… We won’t agree on what it really means until we are forced to know.

I think that here we on this forum are at least trying to have a discussion about how an understanding of ecology might influence our farming/logging practices, which is a worthy, if difficult proposition. If we really want to participate in this discussion, then this might involve hearing some negative appraisals of practices we now use, or even some vocabulary not currently in our registers. Deal with it constructively or don’t participate.

[Bumpus]

.
Boy Oh Boy:

This thread which started out being something really simple at the first couple of posts,
has drifted into a whatever others want to discuss … type of a subject.

When people don’t understand a topic, or remark made in the beginning statements,
they usually attack what they do not agree with,
( including the poster ) even if it does not make sense to them.

Now by missing the point of this thread it has gone into what
others have turned into, which is all together different.

Which proves my point.

Going around and around in circles of :confused:
and where it will stop … only God knows for sure.

I have had my coffee today,
and my signature at the bottom tells the rest of my story. 🙂

.

[Carl Russell]

Bumpus;12456 wrote:

.Boy Oh Boy: This thread which started out being something really simple at the first couple of posts, has drifted into a whatever others want to discuss … type of a subject.

When people don’t understand a topic, or remark made in the beginning statements, they usually attack what they do not agree with,
( including the poster ) even if it does not make sense to them.

Now by missing the point of this thread it has gone into what
others have turned into, which is all together different.

Which proves my point.

Going around and around in circles of :confused:
and where it will stop … only God knows for sure.

I have had my coffee today,
and my signature at the bottom tells the rest of my story. 🙂

.

Which is exactly the point. Your assumption that this is a subject that can be “simplified” has been proven faulty. The folks who visit this site tend to be serious about the topics they discuss. They have given you a perfect example of how there are no simple answers, nor do most of us demand that from each other. We are willing to go around the table as long as there is interest. When we are done we may not have complete answers, but we always have a lot more to think about.

And by the way Bumpus, you actually have not shared your opinions, other than that you think other opinions are confusing, but nothing substantive about the topic you have raised.

Carl

[near horse]

First – I apologize if throwing the “Tragedy of the Commons” into the discussion put us into a new “orbit” but I think that it promotes some serious reflection on evaluating “what benefits me” vs “what benefits we” (which in the long run may also benefit me) or “short term vs long term gains” or sustainability ….

As many have said here, sustainability is a complex topic and may be a utopian goal but one worth working towards.

I’ll leave it at that and sorry about the confusion.

[Author]

Posts