Cob RE: Beyond Cob...

[Michael Saunby]

I've been keeping quiet in the hope that this thread will fizzle out.  I still
think it will but perhaps for the wrong reason (a lot of folks will leave the 
room).

Here are a few of my general thoughts on this new thread.
1. It doesn't have anything much to do with cob.
2. There are better places to discuss such things. Newsgroups, etc. where
people with strong views (and in some cases expertise) in these areas can be
found.  Such people are unlikely to stumble upon this cob list so cannot
contribute.
3. A group of people with a shared interest will be divided by differences
in things that have nothing to do with cob.
4. The increase in non cob messages will drive away some of those with a
genuine interest in cob but who lack the time or will to filter out
unwanted messages.
5. The new thread is already starting to split in two, a population thread,
and a sustainable agriculture thread. What's next, the politics of aid,
rich vs poor, north vs south, sex, race, religion?

Having said this I'll add a little fuel to the fire...

> > >People are not starving because there are more people than food. <
> 
> Not _yet_, Julie, but that day is going to come, and in the next 20 years if
> the population explosion continues.

People are already starving, flooding in Somalia is causing this today, war has
made it worse.  It has nothing to do with population control.  All this has
happened in other places before, and will happen again in the future.

A good way to keep upto date is to bookmark http://www.oneworld.org/

> 
> >  >  If all the world but the US stopped producing food, the US
> > could feed the entire world. <
> 
> There is less land being farmed now than at any other time in the history of
> this country.  There are also less "family" farmers than ever before.  Massive
> corporations are gobbling up more and more acres of farmland every year.  And
> these companies make all their production decisions based on the bottom line of
> a profit and loss statement - not what is best for the environment or the human
> species.  They use massive amounts of energy, water and chemicals on the crops,
> all in the name of profit.  This is _not_ sustainable farming.
> 
> I get the impression from your post that you feel this country should set new
> goals for feeding the rest of the world.  I don't feel that way at all.  Other
> countries have their own natural resources and they should learn to use them
> for feeding, housing and caring for their own peoples.  This country is not
> responsible for the entire rest of the world!

Good thing too.  Other peoples have very different ways of looking at their 
environment, population, food production, distribution, etc.  Some still value
local small scale production with all its "inefficiency".

> 
> No other country in the world has done more for other countries than has the
> US.  And Americans are almost universally hated in the rest of the world.  If
> the US was struck with tragic disasters, natural or otherwise, I don't for one
> minute believe that the rest of the world would rally to our aid.  We do have
> the technology and wealth needed to come up with better ways to feed and house
> ourselves.  We should be doing that.  If the other countries are willing to
> learn and do the job for themselves, fine.  If not, then it's their problem to
> solve any way they want to do it.
>

I think at present the Scandinavian countries contribute the largest
proportion of their GNP to helping the rest of the worlds poor; but if
you factor in "military aid" perhaps the figures change in your favour.
OK, I'm teasing you a little, but if the general feeling in the US is that
you already do more than your fair share for the rest of the world and the
rest of the world would do nothing for you, then you all need to get out
more!  I feel very sorry for my friends in USAID in their constant struggle
to get the funding they need.


> > > People are starving because of evil coercive governments who control the
> > distribution of food, and who deny people their natural rights: life,
> > liberty, and property. <
> 
> I'm not at all a fan of our government - neither Democratic or Republican
> leadership.  Not at all!  But I don't buy the image of "evil coercive
> governments" with the goal of inflicting as much suffering as possible on the
> largest number of people possible.
> 
> On the other hand, if you want to have a party to throw rocks at our government
> for being egotistical and ill informed, then I'll come - and bring my own
> rocks.
> 
>

> > Carol M.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 


Overall though the world's poor do the best they can in a very difficult situation.

They might scrape away a bit more top-soil than is wise, but without expensive
machinery it probably stays within acceptable limits.

They probably don't plant enough trees to replace those they use, but do we?

They don't pollute, at least not with the really toxic stuff.

They don't contribute to gridlock, global warming, or many of the other 
"environmental problems" the rich of the world worry about.

And they certainly deserve a better deal from all of us, no matter where they live,
and what kind of government they suffer.

It wouldn't be fair for me to claim the last words on this topic, but perhaps we
could either keep the number of posts down or move elsewhere. It would be
real shame to loose any cobbers.


While I'm here; I nearly forgot; does anyone have any pictures of cob ovens?

-- 
Michael Saunby
Teachmore Farm, Jacobstowe, Okehampton, Devon, United Kingdom. EX20 3AJ

We live in a world of reduced quotations with the quotation marks removed