I may have understood your underlying premise. If you are just making suggestions and contemplating different ways of behaving on an individual basis, then power to you. What I personally would not advocate is the application of force to dismantle private ownership of capital goods, making people not specialize, etc. If writing out your ideas is something you enjoy doing, do it. Props for trying to be healthy too. To answer your last question: Unhappiness or discontent is uneasiness with one's current state of affairs or conditions. Anyone who is perfectly happy and content would not have to act, as action is an attempt to employ means to exchange a current state for an alternative one. And yes, it is very much experience. Happiness (or value) is subjective and relative. For example, if you desire a new lamp, and act successfully in working (or doing whatever else) to attain said lamp, then you prefer your current environment to your previous one. You are now "happier". It doesn't have to be material things either. If you prefer having a girlfriend, and you take the actions necessary to find one, then you prefer your current conditions to your previous (girlfriend-less) condition. We always have some uneasiness because we are not almighty, omniscient creatures.
Those tools in big farms are only necessary because they are just monocropping corn all day long, so when flocks of locusts come in they need industrial tech to fix the problems they've created. Specialization on the industrial level means pesticides, GMOs, huge expenditures of oil and water, and antibodies, all while employing only like six people to do the work because it's cost efficient. That isn't socially efficient for our health or for the laborers, who typically don't like their jobs. A hundred people growing better food in unison would do more social good for the community, and specializing those people with education is the main variable that increases yields. </blockquote>This statement is 100% wrong. I'm not talking about just pesticides and harvesting tractors. I'm talking about machines that dig. Machines that spray water. There are machines for pretty much everything farmers do. Getting rid of these machines in exchange for shovels And buckets is silly. What we want is to make these tools more availible not less. These machines are also a part of specialization. A backyard farmer can't afford a tractor. And even if he could it would he practical cost wise. On a giant farm however where the farmer can not only afford the equipment but also use it on many plants; this technology creates a specialization allowing the farmer to produce his crops at a cheaper total price Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
How can you say that? You don't think the concentration of industry into a handful of companies hasn't allowed them to specialize in ways that are harmful to their products and the environment? The article does not suggest taking machines away from everybody, it says to put the capital for agriculture into the hands of more local sources, educating people to use material in a more efficient and sustainable manner. Besides this whole argument about specialization has nothing to do with how plants grow, which has been going on for BILLIONS of years without tractors or shovels. It's best to not even till the soil when you plant things, and treating the Earth like a scientific variable is being a parasite.
That's a good answer. But do you think it's possible to eliminate all or most uneasiness in our person? There are some people who are extremely at peace with themselves, and others who spend their life trying to attain more lamps or girlfriends but never seem to be truly happy. How do people at peace get to be at peace?
[quote data-cid='18157542' name='AntiCircle' timestamp='1370281033' post='18157542'][quote data-cid='18151415' name='yurigadaisukida' timestamp='1370160788'] This statement is 100% wrong. I'm not talking about just pesticides and harvesting tractors. I'm talking about machines that dig. Machines that spray water. There are machines for pretty much everything farmers do. Getting rid of these machines in exchange for shovels And buckets is silly. What we want is to make these tools more availible not less. These machines are also a part of specialization. A backyard farmer can't afford a tractor. And even if he could it would he practical cost wise. On a giant farm however where the farmer can not only afford the equipment but also use it on many plants; this technology creates a specialization allowing the farmer to produce his crops at a cheaper total price Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app [/quote] I think government subsidies and regulations have a huge hand in what your talking about. Technology doesn't. That would happen if you abolished government. Huge.Mega corps are inneficient. All.empires fall if they are too big. It would be.impossible for huge megacorps to be what they are today without government authority protecting their interests This is not true. Plants need nutrients to survive. Not all land is nutrient rich. Not all land can grow crops. Not all land is soft. Some plants need soft land. Plants like potatoes and carrots. Tilling the soil is good for the plants Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
I would recommend reading the article then, because this is exactly what I talk about in it. for the record, nobody's really read it yet, I only have two views on the article and I think they belong to Lay Low and his little brother James
<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' >I would recommend reading the article then, because this is exactly what I talk about in it. for the record, nobody's really read it yet, I only have two views on the article and I think they belong to Lay Low and his little brother James </blockquote> Truth. I didn't read it. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
well there ya go. is nobody open to talking about economics in a new language? no new theories are allowed in 2013? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QMbPWh6Ohk ^ columnists n people arguing against the current economic models
I'm always open to new theories, but you haven't put forth anything new. You are arguing for a return to very old practices, not new ones. You just think it's new because we have better technology than people hundreds of years ago, but it's really not at all. You think free trade and the division of labor is a bad thing, that's basically your argument, regardless if you disagree, that's all it is. If you had genuinely new thoughts on economics you wouldn't be presenting them in this forum, you would be an economic genius and presenting it to some academic audience somewhere. There really hasn't been much fundamental change in economic theory since it started with Cantillon in the 18th century. Everything since then has been refinements, not totally new paradigms. You should look into the Venus project, the resource based economy, etc., it's all wrong, but you will probably agree with it and like it.