^lawl

I will be refrencing how these would apply to the US farming industry. Other countries may vary.

"I have proposed tax reform and deregulation of the agricultural industry so as to attract investment in smallholder non-intensive agriculture rather than intensive agriculture"

Most farms in the States are family owned entities. Very large and very efficient. They already practice things like using Organic practices and planting to cut costs and increase efficiency. However changing their entire system just won't fly. Smallholder farming would be very inefficient to meet our demands and would require large family farming businesses to completely change their infrastructure for little to no gain. Now some smaller farms could prob try this as a novelty venture here and there, and it would probably be good for marketing purposes in the Organic Foods market. But for all intentional purposes it won't fly here because our systems in place are rock solid.

"severely taxing agri-business profit earnings over 1 million dollars / year, whilst charging small-holder local farmers no tax on profit earnings up to even $100,000 / year."

Will not fly. Farmers will lobby against it and it simply will not pass due to the votes needed, it will prob die in committee and definitely die in the Senate. Furthermore the technology and theories behind what your proposing are no more efficient or productive than what is already in place. So here at least it will never see the light of day.

"We could also amend land allocation / zoning so as to make fertile farm-lands available to small-holder farmers for a fraction of current prices"

Most farms are family run enterprises. -.- Furthermore zoning laws are set by the states, not the federal government. in Texas the Feds have pretty much no say at law over land rights as Texas never gave up their State land rights to the Feds, unlike the other 49 states.

Regulation where you live must be stiff indeed.

"Another helpful measure might be to allow residential property owners licenses to produce and sell surplus produce from their home-gardens for tax-exempt income."

http://www.communitygarden.org/

Selling food will not happen because then the food will have to pass FDA regulations. If people get sick from Salmonella or some other bacteria poisoning who is liable then? Someone will be liable because your are selling for profit. In community gardens this isn't an issue, as the food is free for everyone to consume at their own risk. Community gardens have been part of the US for decades.

"The effect of a tax-free / tax-incentive environment for small-scale producers of food, coupled with a high-tax environment for multi-national agri-business would be to allow smaller-holder farmers to compete in the agriculture industry.  Such a competitive environment would attract the investment dollars necessary to solve the food-crisis, and if implemented in the developing world, many socioeconomic-crises as well."

In term of the US and many western nations this would destroy the farming industry, lower production, and spread famine on a scale not seen since the Dust Bowl of the 1920's. Not a great incentive

In terms of other countries this is difficult to ascertain. As each country is different. Mostly it boils down to one simple thing. Land Rights. Who owns the land?. In nations where land rights are controlled by wealthy land owners, foreign companies, or the government, these incentives would be ideal to making them more productive. However under what circumstance if any would these factions allow such laws and tax incentives to be passed? None if any IMO.

In countries where land ownership is held in private hands, families, and small businesses. Like here in the States, Australia, Japan, even Europe, this won't work. Because it would destroy their industry and do more harm than good.

In Feudal/Tribal areas this is dependent on the strength of the central governments. If the government in these areas is strong enough to enforce these tax credits and incentives, then yes it can and will work to increase productivity. If the central government is weak though, it won't do a single thing at all to help.

--

Speaking of tax incentives. You do realize that we pay our farmers to NOT farm on all their land. ^.^ Can't remember the exact numbers but I thought it was something like a third of our arable land isn't used at any given time. And yet we still have enough food to donate millions of tons of food around the world each year to poor countries. hell even N. Korea imports our food. Japan imports a ton of our beef products.

"Furthermore the technology and theories behind what your proposing are no more efficient or productive than what is already in place."

Read the second sentence. ^.^ This issue was addressed specifically in the magical robot thread.

For those who can't bother looking for it:

http://www.imperialconflict.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=43565&p=24

Xeno:

"It's called polyculture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyculture

Also see permaculture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture

"If it was more efficient, why isn't there any example of it in practice outcompeting current agricultural practices?"

There are plenty of examples.  Read the links above.  It hasn't caught on yet, though, because it is relatively new.

"We in developed countries have more than enough food to provide for our people.  The issue isn't one of supply, but distribution."

Irrelevant to the discussion.  This is about the world, not developed countries."

Lizon (Rebuttal):

"Vertical gardens are NOT common in most undeveloped countries due to the technological hurdles that they present. Now layered or Staggered gardens are common in areas of China, India, Japan and South America, but these are mostly due to necessity with the lack of viable land. If they are common then by all means provide proof. I seriously doubt it. I've seen the system that your talking about, NASA's been working on the stuff for years for future space missions. I've seen the facility here in Houston.

Truth be told there is enough food in the world to feed everyone. The issue is getting that food from the farms to people's mouths. These are logistical issues mostly having to due with simple transportation and government restrictions to get that food into the mouths of the people. A good example is N. Korea, one of the most impoverished countries in the world whose people starve due to their regime who funnels food stores to their military first and everyone else second. I would care to say that more poeple suffer from hunder due to political reasons than a chronic inability to grow enough food.

Also to clarify some things you obviously don't understand.

Polyculture is something that has been practiced for centuries. Welcome to old news. Permaculture's efficiency declines over time as the eco-system matures. Furthermore it has not proven any more efficient in tropic regions in terms of fruits and nut production than current methods. I think it is best to stick with our current system which is far more stable and efficient."

Note: The conclusions I got for my rebuttal are from Xeno's own reference links.

lrn2Read

"However under what circumstance if any would these factions allow such laws and tax incentives to be passed? None if any IMO."

Out of the 4 examples I gave that was the only one that really had a positive spin on it. And the chances of anything being done about it are nil to none. Better luck next time. Furthermore many of the countries who are in this situation are trying hard to westernize and adopt our principles. If they are successful then they would fall into example 3 which was:

"In countries where land ownership is held in private hands, families, and small businesses. Like here in the States, Australia, Japan, even Europe, this won't work. Because it would destroy their industry and do more harm than good."

Which basically kills the concept right there for all intentional purposes.

I also found it interesting that you didn't address the inferiority of the concepts that you proposed in terms of the vertical farming techniques and the poly-culture techniques of which you are an advocate. The data from those reference sites admit themselves that they are no more productive than current systems in place overall. They work well in only certain situations and with certian foods, while they fail miserably with others. Specifically when it comes to staple foods, corn, rice, beans, potatoes, they are less efficient.

Western civilization is superior, and it is the duty of all western nations to civilize the barbarians.

"In otherwords, they are trying to find ways NOT to adopt western principles they find morally repugnant and yet still remain open to adopting western principles they think might be successful in their countries.   Their most pressing challenge is to attempt doing so within the current climate of a virtual monopoly of global financial markets by the 'west'."

that is westernization. there was no country that whole heartedly copied the west. they take whats best for their country from the west.

"So your assumption that developing countries are avoiding adoption western principles is an obvious folly"

I never said they were avoiding the adoption of ALL western principles.  I made this clear in the same sentence:

"In otherwords, they are trying to find ways NOT to adopt western principles they find morally repugnant and yet still remain open to adopting western principles they think might be successful in their countries."

Let me rephrase:

That is, developing countries are avoiding those 'western' principles they find morally repugnant and consider those western principles they think might be successful in their countries.

Hmm..  My rephrasing is pretty much the same as the one prior.  I don't suppose you'll be able to understand that sentence either.  Hmm.  What to do?  What to do?  Hope and pray that YOU lrn2Read?

By the way, you do now realize that your showing how a 'developing' country was adopting 'some' so called 'western' principles was thoroughly irrelevant and a waste of your time, right? 

I mean, lol.  Showing me some examples of how ONE developing country (China) has adopted some so called 'western' principles is an irrelevant rebuttal to my position, which is - and let me try and rephrase it just one more time for you, mor- err- I mean, Lizon:  'In otherwords, they are trying to find ways NOT to adopt western principles they find morally repugnant and yet still remain open to adopting western principles they think might be successful in their countries.'

I really hope it's clear to you now.

And, you actually expect me to respond to something else you've misconstrued?

Ok here's your rebuttal:

"Vertical gardens are NOT common in most undeveloped countries"

I never said they were.

PWNED

Lol

*sighs* you really like embarrassing yourself don't you?

"What this displays is a slow adoption of Western Economic principles over the course of the last 3 decades. The same can be said about India, and the Middle-East. These are the current hot-spots in global economic development."

I didn't say they were the only examples. I gave 3 primary examples. There are others out there I just didn't have the time to look them all up. Mexico is a good one too that I forgot to mention.

Furthermore simply saying that they are not following western principles and that they find them "morally repugnant" does not constitute proof that they are in fact doing that. You have to provide evidence that they are in fact doing that else it's your word against stated facts. At which point you loose the argument. My response was "no they are adopting those principles here are some examples". Your proper response needs to be "no they are here are some examples proving that". Thus something amazing happens....a conversation results! ^.^

"I never said they were."

Read your own post Xeno, specifically the last 3 lines:

" xeno syndicated wrote:

No, it does not.  The way in which people have chosen to do agriculture is part of the problem.  There are more efficient ways of doing agriculture, namely in vertical gardens, whereby let's say crops with deep roots like carrots, yams, potatoes, and beats could be grown under the surface, the each taking nutrients the others do not need, and the bio degradation of a portion of which would provide nutrients for crops grown above them: small shrubs (low-light-growth), like lettuce and cabbage, squash, pumpkins, mushrooms, rice, again, the bio degradation of a portion of which would provide the nutrients for not only the below surface, deep rooted vegetables, but your taller, (high-light) crops as well, such as your banana, and corn, and wheat.  These 3 layer gardens are common in your so called 'under-developed' countries, from which you in the west think you have little or nothing to learn.  LOL.  You have no idea how screwed you people are, do you?  You don't know how to grow enough food for even your small, what 500 million pop.  Embarrassing."

Source: http://www.imperialconflict.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=43565&p=24

"How can I have a discussion with you, Lizon?  HOW?"

When you can bring yourself up to addressing specific points and rebuttal correctly without resorting to bold statements without facts to back them up then maybe you can have a discussion. I will not go down to your level of arguing. ^.^

Seems Xeno is in his Nerd Rage mode. ^.^

I am a bit surprised though that he FINALLY gave us reference material, though it's kinda lame material.

I'll address all of your reference links at one time. They all seem to follow the same principles. Mainly highlighting farming techniques in forested areas. While these techniques do work in the regions in which they were developed they are hardly the best means to address world hunger. The benefit they bring is mainly region specific. You wouldn't want to utilize such techniques on the Great Plains for example, it would be grossly inefficient (as stated by your Wikipedia link). The issue of hunger though can be addressed in a different way, and from form an angle you've never considered before.

Look at these 2 maps. The first is a map of world hunger, the second is a map showing urban populations by %.

http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/food-security-statistics/fao-hunger-map/en/
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Urbanized_population_2006.png

The data here suggests a direct correlation between the 2. The only glaring exception is Brazil and Mongolia, which I believe can be attributed to lack of manufacturing capacity and jobs. Overall though the similarities are striking. Look at Gabon off the west coast of Africa. Notice it's the only country in that region with a high urban population and it also has little to no hunger problems as well. While Yemen is the opposite, low urban population and high hunger issues. Notice that India has a slightly lower urban density than China ans also has a slightly higher hunger ration as well.

What this data suggests is that the higher a countries urban population is the lower that same countries hunger issue becomes. China is another good example. Over the past few decades entire villages have been wiped off the map in China as it's urbanized, while at the same time it's hunger issues get smaller and smaller. Urbanization can lower world hunger by solving many of it's issues.

Urban areas increase population concentration freeing up lands for more farming, food is easier to distribute in an urban setting as well. By freeing up lands you can also increase the production of high staple foods which require more resources to produce. Their yield if extremely high however and in turn can feed more people.

The argument is this, Permaculture is worth while in regions of high forestation or low soil quality such as the rain forests. But the forested regions in question only encompass 5% of the surface area of the planet. And is widely known to not be the best land to be farming on. The better solution would be to consolidate farm lands and to introduce modern methods to increase yields. The continued migration of people to Urban centers will increase efficiency of distribution channels, and free up more land and resources for food production.

You will eventually end up with something akin to what you see in the American Mid-west and Great Plains regions. Large swaths of land utilized for farming purposes, low rural populations, and most people living in cities allowing for maximum production and efficient distribution of resources. Furthermore several of your assumptions about modern techniques is flawed. Specifically:

"no fallow or rotation"

Crop rotation is something that's been done since the 1930's. Planting different crops onto the same lands or even letting the land rest for several seasons before planting again. This is common practice in modern farms.

"export-oriented "

This isn't a bad thing. The reason it's export orientated is because it's so efficient at what it does! How is it wrong to be able to grow millions upon millions of tons of food to be shipped off elsewhere and know that you don't need to worry about hunger in your own backyard cause you got so much of the stuff lying around.

"high risk of catastrophic loss     "

This was experienced in the 1930's. Much of this was also fixed in the 1930's.

http://drought.unl.edu/whatis/dustbowl.htm#lessons

"emphasizes commodity value"

This is a personal opinion implying that this is negative, it has no merit in practical issues of yields, productivity, and efficiency.

"hierarchical organization  "

The fact that most farms in the US at least are family owned enterprises that kinda flies in the face of this assumption.

"high capital input"

This is true, which is why you only see it in most developed countries, but incidentally these nations also have the fewest social problems and no hunger problems. Coincidence?

"one main crop"

Actually most farms these days plant several varieties or crops, some in specific ratios to increase efficiency. While there may be one primary crop other do exist.

"genetic uniformity"

Nothing wrong with this. It's a practice we humans have been doing for centuries. Always working to get the hardiest and most productive strains of crops. Now we can do it faster and more efficiently than ever before. We've been cloning milk cows for decades, no problems at all. We're close to getting FDA approval for clones beef livestock soon as well. Which will again increase livestock yields.

"Now, Lizon, consider yourself ignored, TWIT.  Stop bothering me."

Seems somebody doesn't like it when people argue their points. You want people to just accept your beliefs and go with it, sorry, no can do. If you don't like it simply go elsewhere.

The data there is an analysis of rapid urbanization in less developed nations. None of it is unexpected, the urbanization process was the same in developed nations abit not as extreme. NYC around the turn of the 20th century experienced similar slums with the coming of European immigrants. Over time though, over the course of decades these areas were gradually developed and fully integrated with the city proper. As I expect will happen in developing countries over the next hundred years. If I were to nickpick the data I would look at these areas:

"Natural increase (more births than deaths), 60%"

It's ironic that they give all this evidence of poor health care, limited food resources, and poor living conditions and yet the populations in these centers continue to grow. If things were as bad that they said they are those populations would be decreasing not increasing.

Out of the 3 picture examples given 2 are still mostly rural nations. The exception being Rio and most of that is due to lack of large manufacturing jobs. The discovery of oil resources off the Brazillian coast has a chance to change that though.

The argument that urbanization increases hunger isn't true cause the evidence is contrary to the argument. As shown in the 2 maps previously posted it shows a direct link between high urbanization and low hunger.

The transition from urban slums to a fully integrated urban system takes time and patience. It will take at least 100 years for most developing nations to catch up with the rest of the world. Furthermore it is stated directly that urban areas have better health care and a lower mortality rate than rural areas.

^.^

"The rapid growth of cities places enormous strains on urban infrastructure and can overwhelm the  capacity to provide services such as energy, education, health care, transportation, sanitation and physical security. One of the major results of rapid urbanization is the development of squatter settlements and urban slums, which house most of the world