Eco-farming verson limits to growth.

[8 March 2011] GENEVA- Today, the Special Rapporteur presented his new report “Agro-ecology and the right to food” before the UN Human Rights Council. Based on an extensive review of recent scientific literature, the report demonstrates that agroecology, if sufficiently supported, can double food production in entire regions within 10 years while mitigating climate change and alleviating rural poverty.

The report therefore calls States for a fundamental shift towards agro-ecology as a way for countries to feed themselves while addressing climate- and poverty challenges.

“Agroecolgy and the Right to Food”, Report presented at the 16th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council [A/HRC/16/49], 8 March 2011 (also available in French, Spanish, Chinese and Russian).
Press release, "Eco-Farming Can Double Food Production in 10 Years, says UN Report", 8 March 2011.


Curious headline- "... double food production in 10 years..." What would be the effect of that? Undoubtedly more people. Some of whom may be less hungry than they would have been otherwise.

Ultimately, there are limits, finite amounts of raw materials that will be gone when they are used up. Modest populations living well below those limits can avoid the pain of natural selection.

Sustainability means using systems that minimize or reverse the rate of resource loss. More people doesn't help. Then again, I'm here and the unborn aren't. But a headline on this subject that would be very appealing to me might be something like "Eco-farming can feed you sustainably so you don't have to sell yourself to others."

The question each of us grapples with minute-by-minute is what do I do next? That answer will vary for each of us as our circumstances change. Our ability to adapt, prosper and survive in changing environments is the critical trait selected for by natural selection. Selection occurs at the level of the individual, survival occurs at the level of the species. As a permie, I first want to take care of my little corner of the world. I want to use the resources at my "disposal" wisely to optimize my community's happiness. Sometimes I make choices that are not "pure" but feel the benefits outweigh the costs. More green spaces funded by Scotts/Monsanto? The outcome is to be desired. Cute little systems for making school gardens? The outcome is to be desired. But both (and most) are tainted by a profit motive. I try to evaluate the tradeoffs. I want to be happy without money. In part because I have less money than at other times in my life. But also because I see a lot of harm that is done when money becomes the motive as it is for many businesses.

I look forward to getting to know you all better.



Fred