Discussion in 'The big picture' started by Pakanohida, Sep 5, 2013.
I am speechless. =(
That is evil at work.
This is why we don't monocrop.
yes as rick says,
bet it's happening in all developed countries.
we choose what we buy carefully, currently shops have awful looking USA peaches for sale, in a carbon world surely this is ludicrous, is there not enough consumers in the US?
none of the parties want to help family farmers only broadacre factory farms, greens trying to make points bemoaning about one of the majors wanting to cut foreign aid, should we not look after our own first. i'm sure our donations o/seas get squandered.
me i reckon stop importing all food that can be grown here.
1. Can't we walk and chew gum? I suggest reading Peter Singer's, "The Life You Can Save". He makes a compelling argument as to why we have an obligation to help the worlds poor. Alternatively, read his essay, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", on which the book is based.
2. You're sure, are you Len? Please provide substantial evidence supporting this rather substantial claim.
i did not suggest we don't look after the poor, but should it be at the suffering of our own?
pavel, i think it would inane to think our money does not reach in total what we offer. to many hands to pass through food stolen to feed oppressors.
just look to those displaced poor, their lot not improving with world donations, even close to home new guinea look at the aid we give them yet their people live in squaller and here is only their gov' in charge, no ethnicity involved only their own people.
you prove it doesn't, you asked! suppose all the author's profits went to the poor? i don't chew gum, it costs money. i just like very very many others just wait in lines for medical and dental procedures. there is nil morality in our nations.
Late in the year of 2000, I along with about 20,000 other individuals held Melbourne (the capital city of Victoria, Australia) to ransom for three days in protest at the sitting of the World Economic Forum, and their devising of the then latest round of Global 'Free' Trade Agreements. For our troubles, we were spat on by the corporate elite, and bashed by the minions of the state - a paramilitary-dressed and armed 2,000-strong riot-police squad. I still have the scars to prove it! Sure, we fought back, but to no avail. Globalisation rolled on. Mainstream media decried our actions as 'mindless anarchy', and demonised us in front of the largely ignorant masses. From memory, there were a few farmers who locked arms with us and fought the good fight, no doubt some of them came from the Goulburn Valley District. But for the most part, the majority of Australia's farmers did not see it coming. What you are reading now in the above article, is a direct result of what we were literally fighting against all those years ago - globalisation. We reap what we sow.
You might be interested to learn, Len, that the Greens have a very well developed local food policy:
On a more serious note, The Guardian recently published an excellent article on this very subject (with fully referenced data sets available):
Australia is an advanced, affluent country. There is no excuse for allowing our own people to fall below the line. Does that factor at all on our ability to provide aid? Definitely not. Len, you present a false dichotomy.
I am sure you are right, to an extent, that not all funding hits its target. But to the contrary, I think it would be insane to think – and the evidence simply doesn’t support it – that ‘our’ money does not reach the target entirely – that it all ends up in the hands of these oppressors. Even so, what should that mean? Rip all the funding out and tell them to fend for themselves? Or try to improve the system? Unfortunately, people are more apathetic than critical, as you suggest.
Morality is suffering in this nation. This decline is perpetuated by a lack of critical thought amongst our people, I argue as a Chomskyan. They readily lap up bogus dogmas, for they are too distracted by other thing – e.g. Masterchef, AFL, consumerism – to give a toss. Australian philosopher, Patrick Stokes, wrote a great piece for The Conversation, criticising Jamie Briggs’ uncouth damning of the humanities. As Stokes rightly argues, philosophy is just as important today as it has ever been.
I'll drink to that, least we forget the fate of Socrates:
View attachment 1774
Interesting use of the term biosecurity in that article. Apparently they mean the native and naturalised insects in the area, who will supposedly increase in numbers if the orchards aren't sprayed regularly. I thought biosecurity was predominantly around new organisms. If we are going to extend meanings, perhaps it should include pesticide use that kills beneficial predators :grin:
In NZ orchards are being removed to make way for dairy farms :-(
I thought so too, Markos. Burden of evidence and all of that...
Hah. Corrupting the youth with permaculture. That might be a worthy goal after retirement. Maybe drink glyphosate when the time comes.
Well, there is something the growers should remember when removing the trees for taxes purposes...
I wonder how well this will work when I value trees on my property for tax purposes :rofl:
this pulling up of orchards business.
The Bickley and Chittering Valleys in the Darling Range just out of Perth had the most splendid mature orange orchards. Valencias in the main, the summer orange for Perth.
3 maybe 4 generations of establishment, from clearing till mature magnificent trees....a local industry, and a monopoly supplier, Perth Valencias for Perth summers.
gone all of it.
and in its place where once oranges grew, nothing but bare grass hillsides.
the only reason economics.
a farce of a system that does not serve our best interests, the same system that serves the consumer, who by extension does not serve our best interest.
it was the dumb A of a consumer that thought the "orange all over look of the imported californian navel orange" and the competitive price most attractive, that did this.
i am of a line of those orchardists , you our own screwed us over righteously.
Perth and its consumers are less because of the herds blind subscription to free market economics.
meanwhile, down south,,,,mature blue gum plantations are worth less than a simple agricultural paddock!!!!!!!!
this is madness, mass madness and as de rigor as the economic fundamentalism that causes it.
i do despair,,,but am consoled by the knowledge that we for the trees will have our vindication as blind consumption eats its own heart out.
Maybe we need a permaculture legal division, whereby the people that chopped down the trees are the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
Sorry, a bit dark this evening.
Imports have created the problem.
It's not evil Rick. It sounds like it is a nessesity. The article says that if they don't it could lead to big problems.
Yes, this is evil on many fronts.
What would be easiest for you to understand is being dependant on foriegn sources of food will one day soon lead to much higher pricing, and there may even be availability issues. With the continuing higher prices paid for shipping transportation, your source of food may never make it to your location, be gobbled up by people closer to the source.
I would diversify that orchard with more plantings then make it a park encouraging picking fruit with the wildlife watching. Of course, the corporation will be against this idea because this is land that can be mined, and if they allowed people to pick free fruit, that would lead to a lessor market for their fruit.
If you kill those trees, it will take a long time before that kind of production is avaiable again. Good luck man, you are going to need it.
Separate names with a comma.