The Good Farmer

[Bozo Erectus]

I still don't think the analogy works that well, and here's why: wheat, corn, crops, etc are unifunctional. They serve one purpose, and that is to feed people. In that way, there is oly one measure of sucess: yield. You can argue that quality of grain comes into it too, but that's just yield broken down into units: carbs, protein, fat...

Humanity, on the other hand, is either multifunctional (at best...!) or without true function (at worst), more like weeds. Weeds only exist by the grace of there being space for them, ust like us lucky primates who came along at the right time to be able to get the world under our thumb. Now that we have the world, we have much space but no single function, and as a result, no way to accurately measure our own sucess as a species, or as a society.

I think its time to accept our role as weeds and see the world not how it was, or should be, but how it is. That's not to say we can't improve ourselves, but we should first acknowledge the inherent instability of human society and that a single path to progress is more damaging that anything else. If humanity is the meadow, then we all should trim it only as necessary to ensure that we don't overgrow ourselves. Otherwise, let it grow wild, so instead of just wheat, we get some specacular blooms.

Che, I only disagree with you in that IMO, the carefree, happy go lucky 'weed days' (good thing I changed my name) of humanitys youth, are over. We dont have the luxury of being weeds anymore. The human race is collectively entering a more mature phase. Why dont we live under the same economic and political models that existed in the ancient world? Or the classical age, or the middle ages? Because as we've evolved those old ways had to be discarded, and new ways of managing resources and people had to be developed. That sort of change is unstoppable, but how the change comes about depends on our choices. The human race is now approaching maturity, where it can be held responsible for its actions, and its actions now have very far reaching and in some ways, permanent consequences. We had alot of fun as weeds, but now its time to get in line and start behaving like wheat.

 

[Che Guava]

Che, I only disagree with you in that IMO, the carefree, happy go lucky 'weed days' (good thing I changed my name) of humanitys youth, are over. We dont have the luxury of being weeds anymore. The human race is collectively entering a more mature phase. Why dont we live under the same economic and political models that existed in the ancient world? Or the classical age, or the middle ages? Because as we've evolved those old ways had to be discarded, and new ways of managing resources and people had to be developed. That sort of change is unstoppable, but how the change comes about depends on our choices. The human race is now approaching maturity, where it can be held responsible for its actions, and its actions now have very far reaching and in some ways, permanent consequences. We had alot of fun as weeds, but now its time to get in line and start behaving like wheat.

A weed is always a weed, even when you try to treat it like wheat. Just look at oats: years of cultivation and use, and it can still grow wildly out of control if you leave it alone in the right conditions.

I'm certainly not saying that we don't need any 'management' at all, but lets take a look at the different systems under an ecosystem perspective:

Wheatfield: Uniform, heavily managed and 'subsidized' (you need expensive inputs just to keep it in good form. You can be assured of a good yield for a couple years, but the element of unpredictability completely shakes this system. A new disease can wipe out the field in a matter of days. A competitve weed can get in and take vaulable nutrients away from plants that need it. A prolonged drought can seriously damage your wheats ability to compete. Worse yet, a damaged field is often unusable for at least a few seasons, as pathogens, salination, nutrient depletion and erosion run rampantif there is a 'hole' left in your field not filled by some stable plant type.

Meadow: A meadow will never get the yields of a wheatfield, but it will continue to give stability to the soil and the plants for much much longer. A meadow allows for good years and bad, a succession of plants and most importantly, enough stability to wait out the bad times and enough variability to ensure that when new conditions come along, someone will be there to capitalize and make sure that there is no bare soil left. A years of progress go by, the soil is better, pathogens are kept at a manageable level, and invasive/destructive weeds cannot penetrate the sward.

To take a modern context, I see the wheat field as the former USSR. Strong willed, single-minded, and uniform across the, they are able to 'out-power' thier opponents militarily and economically using sheer determination...but only for awhile. Soon enough, conditions change and the soviet beast is unable to adapt, held back by the unfirmity that made it so strong. The soviet model had no place for things like personal computers, so when they came along, the ruskies were left in the dust. When people wanted oats, they could only give them wheat. This is what happens when humanity is extensively 'managed'.

Now, the US/European model allowed for more organic growth. Sure, they clipped the edges, made sure everyone inthe meadow had enough water most of the time and rooted out some of the worst pathogens, but mostly they left thier citizens grow in a multitude of directions at once, and surely enough, when something new came along, someone out there knew al about it and could exploit it. It's just like that small desert plant that makes it into the meadow. When there's a drought, that desert-dweller can grow quickly and reserve the stability of the meadow. Even if the composition changes, the soil will still be good and those dangerous weeds are still kept out.

Are we too large and evolved to not have a manager or farmer at this point? I disagree. As interlinked as our world is, the sum of humanity still allows for a lot of variation even if we aren't separated by large spaces. True, there may not be the Athenians and Spartans of old, but those differences still exist in our society, we just happen to live together now. And if our system allows for change, when we do need a new system of government, economic model, or whatever, the people who best can apply that system will be on hand, somehwere, to show us the way.

 

[El_Machinae]

I know youre thinking about evolution

I was actually thinking about humanity in its contained ecology, growing and poisoning, and then eventually only competing with itself, sloughing off lower, unproductive, branches so that only the tip of the tree was green. Growing for its own sake, only to compete.

As well, in the real world, we have no farmer. We just are one type of plant in the field.

 

[El_Machinae]

What exactly is 'genre preservation' And

I thought he meant biodiversity 'islands'. By allowing Nature to own a plot of land, local extinctions are prevented (or reduced) because the natural land can support some biodiversity.

For example, by planting local wild plants in my backyard, I allow insects that need those plants a place to nest. This way, they're less likely to become extinct.

 

[Che Guava]

I thought he meant biodiversity 'islands'. By allowing Nature to own a plot of land, local extinctions are prevented (or reduced) because the natural land can support some biodiversity.

For example, by planting local wild plants in my backyard, I allow insects that need those plants a place to nest. This way, they're less likely to become extinct.

I've always supported reintroduction of humans into the wild

I'm just not sure what was meant allogorically by this: should be we isolating some countries to keep as humanity's diversity up? Should we be making sure that every ethnic creed has a bit of land to call thier own?