J Thomas on May 05, 2011, 06:34:26 pm

Assuming no one else is using the rain forest for any purpose that they would be inclined to defend by force, yes you should.
Does breathing count? Although, admittedly, phytoplankton make a much larger contribution to that.

In any case, the soil of the Amazon is not really suitable for any kind of conventional agriculture.

That is political correctness, like the story that DDT poisons people and fails to poison malarial mosquitoes.

That's misstated. The only people I've heard of that got poisoned directly by DDT had mistaken DDT for flour and cooked it into pancakes. DDT is bad for some fish and shellfish, and it poisons some of the invertebrates that some fish depend on. What got it a lot of publicity was killing off birds, particularly carnivorous birds.

Mosquitoes have been getting DDT-resistant pretty easily for a long time now, and I don't see why that would be in any way controversial.

Quote
The Amazon soil is barren without fertilizer, but farmers add fertilizer, and get huge crops of soy beans and sugar cane.

Well sure, if you're ready to add all the fertilizer your crops will need, then you can grow crops on any substrate that can drain and that isn't too poisonous or too rocky. Some Amazon land does drain, and isn't too poisonous, and doesn't turn to rock so bad. And it has plenty of water some years. And it doesn't get too cold except occasionally. So if you want to grow crops on really really bad soil then cleared Amazon rain forest is a possibility.

Quote
If you are eating any soy products, they very likely came from what very recently used to be the Amazon rainforest, often rainforest recently and illegally seized by farmers in quiet defiance of the Brazilian government.  This soil supposedly unsuitable for agriculture is feeding a large part of the world.  If the laws were effectively enforced, there would be world wide famine in the poorer countries.

I don't understand why not grow soybeans on other bad land instead? Is former rain forest the only worthless cropland available to dump huge amounts of fertilizer onto?

Quote
The problem with traditional rainforest agriculture is that the soil has few nutrients and lots of pests - both of which problems are easy to remedy.

If you say it's easy to remedy those in a cost-effective way, then -- well, OK, if you say so. I'm not going to put my investment money into it. You put yours into that, tell me in 20 years how it came out.

Quote
The greenies complain that the farmers are mining the soil by exhausting the nutrients, but they are not, because the problem is precisely that there are very few nutrients in rain forest soil to start with.

Well no, those quiet defiant farmers tend to cut down the trees and burn them to provide fertilizer. It's the big corporations that have the money for lots of commercial fertilizer. The subsistence and one-cash-crop farmers tend to not even pull out the trees that are valuable for timber first.

Quote
So private farmers always add nutrients as their very first step when they plant.

That little word "always" makes me suspect that you have only listened to one propagandist's story.

Quote
Far from destroying the rainforest soil as the natives do, and politically correct agriculture does, the pioneers are converting barren soil into rich soil.

The fertilizer doesn't stay in that soil long, does it? Don't you have to keep adding more each year you want some? How is that converting it into rich soil?

J Thomas on May 05, 2011, 07:00:58 pm

Danger Will Robinson! You guys are pontificating about something entirely different than what you think. "Prior appropriation" is a legal word of art. It has nothing to do with land allocation. It only refers to one theory of water rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior-appropriation_water_rights#Prior_Appropriation_Theory_applied_to_other_goods

About half of the prior appropriation wikipedia article is devoted to other applications besides water.

They say that in the US west the same doctrine was applied to mining. The first one to find and exploit a mineral deposit got the rights to it.

And the first farmer to grow crops on public land got the rights.

And recently, they've come up with the idea that we can afford just so much pollution, and the businesses which have already produced that pollution have the right to it, and can sell pollution rights to others who want to pollute.

It isn't just water.

Quote
The "prior appropriation" thread arose out of a post about water rights. If you want to talk about land allocation, use some other terminology, such as "finders keepers." Otherwise you are muddying the discourse at best, and being intellectually dishonest at the worst.

I was just following common practice as demonstrated by Wikipedia.

Quote
Also, please relate your posts to the ZAP. E.g., "When you shoot an Amarind and take his land, are you violating the ZAP?" Thank you for paying attention. :D

It depends on whether he owns the land. If it's his land, then you are violating ZAP when you invade his land and shoot him. But if it's your land, he is trespassing and depending on how he behaves and whether he leaves promptly when you tell him to, you might easily have the right to shoot him.

So, does the first person to live on the land have full rights to all the land he lives on? If his lifestyle collecting nuts and berries that he never planted requires a square mile per family, does he have full rights to a square mile because he is so inefficient? You could have a productive farm on a 16th of that, producing far more than he does. Does he have the right to keep you off your share?

I don't have a good answer because I don't think prior appropriation is appropriate all by itself anyway.

When deciding what to do, somebody who is already operating a going concern should have a say because they are already doing something useful that might get disrupted. But they should not have the only say. This should apply to anything which might disrupt what they are already doing, whether it involves water rights or land rights or whatever else.

Rorschach on May 05, 2011, 09:34:40 pm
I think we've beat the Prior Appropriation bit to death. ZAP is great for homesteads, but you need a regulatory body for any sort of common resource management. Tragedy of the Commons must be avoided. ZAP is also great for bar scenes, but not so good for terrorism or a hostile economic takeover. ZAP doesn't apply to Kudzu or Line Cutting, but can be extended to many social situations with a lot of reliance on lawsuits and arbiters.

NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on May 05, 2011, 10:05:51 pm
Upon examination, most rights are alienable and untenable. For example, the right to life. Does that mean that we need to bankrupt everyone in order to provide every possible medical procedure possible? The right to life is not even recognized as such in the United States, there is no right to medical care. ER will provide *emergency* care, but I have no right to insulin. I'm actually legally prevented from getting insulin through the free market. How about the pursuit of happiness? That must be the worst legal fiction I've ever heard.

The right to life does not create an obligation in others  to support.

The right to property does not create an obligation in others  to provide it.

The right to pursue happiness does create an obligation in others to make you happy.


Austen.E on May 05, 2011, 10:48:50 pm
Hi all! I apologize for interjecting in a very interesting and heated discussion, but I cannot seem to determine a way to create a new thread to say 'hello' in so I will have to say it here (don't worry - I have some more relevant thoughts as well a bit further down). I found this comic a few weeks ago and have voraciously read it to catch up and now am frustrated by the 'slow' update rate of only once per day  ;) - absolutely love it as well as the forum discussions.

Have lurked about for a while reading some of the topics, and I think I am getting a handle on the dynamics here. One thing I would commend everyone on is the (relative) civility that everyone is using for these super-contentious topics! I haven't stumbled across any other AnCap related community - and finally decided to hop aboard and blather out some of my own no-doubt ridiculous opinions.

So, Hello there everyone! I'm very excited to be here!

DISCLAIMER: In the middle of final exams, so I'm deliriously tired and writing this in between papers. No guarantees of sensible logic or good grammar

Back on topic, I would like to propose a useful definition for what can be legitimately called a 'right.'

I think a right has to have three major conditions:

1) It must be able to be applied universally to all sentient entities (normally I'd say people but EFT is in the 'Future!' so I will keep it broader than that just in case)
2) It must exist naturally - so nothing that is constructed from or granted by social constructs or coercive monopolies
3) It imposes a duty on all others

The third is the most important, and combined with one would probably eliminate all positive rights (e.g. 'Right to Vacation' or 'Right to Healthcare') since imposing a duty on everyone to provide something for everyone else would lead to a bit of a pickle.

So we would be left with negative rights like 'Right to One's own Self' or 'Right to the Products of One's own Labor'. I would probably go as far as to say that it all boils down to a sort of fundamental right to property, so the ZAP would then be a simple guideline for how free people act in such a way that minimizes violation of that right.

Out of curiousness, are the author's channeling a bit of Rothbard here with that ZAP? Or are they more Friedman style utilitarianesque AnCaps?

SandySandfort on May 06, 2011, 12:02:52 am
Out of curiousness, are the author's channeling a bit of Rothbard here with that ZAP? Or are they more Friedman style utilitarianesque AnCaps?

Okay, here comes the name dropping. I met Murray Rothbard in San Francisco and we talked some, but only peripherally. Some of him may have rubbed off. I really admired Milton Friedman, but he wasn't AnCap at all. His son, Dave, and I have been at the same places at the same times and exchanged some chit-chat. He is much more hardcore than was his father and some of him may have rubbed off there as well.

My biggest influence, of course, was Robert Heinlein. I met him and Virginia once and I corresponded with Virginia over the years. (For an only slightly fictionalized version of the evening we met, buy my novella, The Resurrections of Robert A Heinlein; It's available on Amazon and elsewhere). He was my second father. Funny part is, he would probably not have responded positively to "market anarchy," but much in his real life was wholly consistent with him.

I love L. Neil Smith, even though his cat attacked me. Poul Anderson was a strong influence and we attended each other's parties. Harry Browne and Ayn Rand were also very influential in my intellectual development.

Frankly, utilitarian arguments are fine, but they are just gravy. The ZAP and related precepts are what guide my beliefs, my writing and how I live my life. Take from that what you will.

sam on May 06, 2011, 12:27:10 am


Assuming no one else is using the rain forest for any purpose that they would be inclined to defend by force, yes you should.
Does breathing count? Although, admittedly, phytoplankton make a much larger contribution to that.

In any case, the soil of the Amazon is not really suitable for any kind of conventional agriculture.

That is political correctness, like the story that DDT poisons people and fails to poison malarial mosquitoes.[/quote]

That's misstated. The only people I've heard of that got poisoned directly by DDT had mistaken DDT for flour and cooked it into pancakes. DDT is bad for some fish and shellfish, and it poisons some of the invertebrates that some fish depend on. What got it a lot of publicity was killing off birds, particularly carnivorous birds.



Mosquitoes have been getting DDT-resistant pretty easily for a long time now, and I don't see why that would be in any way controversial.

The word is “resistant”, not “immune”.  Even DDT resistant mosquitoes do not like the stuff.   http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/79127.php

Fact is, if people spray themselves, their clothes, and their houses with DDT, what with killing some mosquitoes, and discouraging most mosquitoes, they are a lot less likely to get malaria.  And that is what really pisses off the greenies.  Humans surviving when nature is trying to kill them.

]If you are eating any soy products, they very likely came from what very recently used to be the Amazon rainforest, often rainforest recently and illegally seized by farmers in quiet defiance of the Brazilian government.  This soil supposedly unsuitable for agriculture is feeding a large part of the world.  If the laws were effectively enforced, there would be world wide famine in the poorer countries.

I don't understand why not grow soybeans on other bad land instead?

Its warm, there is plenty of water, and no one is using it for cattle, because the ground is apt to turn to stone if you do.  So if you want land, no one is defending it except the government and the indians.

If you say it's easy to remedy those in a cost-effective way, then -- well, OK, if you say so. I'm not going to put my investment money into it.

But lots of people are, often illegally - indeed, so many are that it is a major source of world food.  This has the greenies mighty pissed, and the question then is are they pissed because rainforest is being replaced by soybean, or are they pissed that soybean is feeding people?

I suspect the latter, because whenever alternative energy actually works, for example the Severn barrage, the greenies immediately discover eco grounds for objecting to it.  They only like energy sources that do not provide useful energy, and they only like food sources that fail to feed people.

You put yours into that,

Since the farms are mostly illegal, the only way to invest is to go there and farm.  One cannot invest from afar.

Quote
The greenies complain that the farmers are mining the soil by exhausting the nutrients, but they are not, because the problem is precisely that there are very few nutrients in rain forest soil to start with.

Well no, those quiet defiant farmers tend to cut down the trees and burn them to provide fertilizer.

Projection:

That is the indian slash and burn agriculture that the Greenies and the government love, and yes, it does destroy the soil.  That approach fails to fertilize the soil adequately to produce crops for export.  Soybeans are produced by modern methods, with chemical fertilizer and mechanical harvesters.  The ash supplies a reasonable amount of potash, some trace elements, and a small amount of phosphate, but for soy beans you need to add a lot more phosphate, and if you are adding phosphate, might as well toss in some more potash and some trace elements.  Modern farmers use truckloads of fertilizer, which you do not get from ash.  The fertilizer comes in in trucks, and the soybeans go out in trucks.  Farming the Amazon is not a paying proposition using traditional agriculture.  It is a paying proposition using modern agriculture - even when illegal.

It's the big corporations that have the money for lots of commercial fertilizer.

I know lots of farmers.  None of them are a big corporation, all of them use commercial fertilizer by the truckload.  Some of the old folks, who are scaling down their farming to hobby farm levels - well they still use truckloads of fertilizer, but it is only a pickup truckload.

The illegality makes it difficult for big corporations to invest in farming the amazon.  The amazon farmers are ordinary people.  In this era, ordinary people farm with truckloads of fertilizer and mechanical harvesters.  I know lots of ordinary people, family farmers, doing it, though I do not know any in the amazon.  These are people with chickens out the back, half a dozen farm dogs, and a few dozen cows, a vegetable patch, and as I drive down the long semi dirt track to their house to buy a jackfruit, driving slowly because I have to wait for cows to get off the driveway, I see hulking great farming machines parked in the dirt, that must weigh many tons each.

That is how family farming is done in the twentyfirst century.

sam on May 06, 2011, 12:29:50 am
I think we've beat the Prior Appropriation bit to death. ZAP is great for homesteads, but you need a regulatory body for any sort of common resource management. Tragedy of the Commons must be avoided.

The tragedy of the commons is easily avoided:  Privatize the commons.

When we were hunters, we started to run out of animals, so we privatized the cattle and became herders.  Then the grass ran out, and we privatized the land.  If it was not for governments stopping us, we would have privatized the oceans by now, and probably will soon do so regardless.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2011, 03:20:35 am by sam »

dough560 on May 06, 2011, 05:54:40 am
Quote
But murder is. And self-defense can be a matter of getting away with it when the laws are bad.

The U.N. Human Rights Committee does not recognize an individual right to self-defense.  Self Defense is not murder and is independent of existent law.  (This right existed prior to codified laws.)  While various jurisdictions deny the individual right of self defense; the right is retained on a societal level, exclusive to government.  England is a case in point as England follows UN Guidelines.  The U.S. does not.

Quote
General rules.  1.  A person within 21 feet of you can close that distance in 1.5 seconds or less.  A weapon in its' holster will not make it into play.  But if it does make it into play, it may be hard to miss at point blank range. Something for the attacker to think about.

Once an attacker is within your reaction loop, he has control of your actions.  The attacker initiates action to your reaction.  Standing there, attempting to meet the charge, means you loose.  You need to gain distance and time to bring an equivalent or superior weapon into play.  Doing so, you lengthen the duration of the incident, increasing your chances of survival.

Quote
 2.  The person attacking has skills equal to or greater than your own.  If your attacker believed you were his equal, there would not be an attack.  Attackers want a "sure thing".

Quote
Not always so, sometimes people attack against the odds, when they feel they have no better choice. But when it is so, somebody who looks like they have a weapon is less a sure thing than somebody who looks unarmed.

The object is to win.  With as little risk as possible.  If your attacker believes you are armed and he still attacks, it will be with the belief his tactics and tactical situation will neutralize your weapon.

Quote
  3.  Turing to run just means you'll be tired when the attacker catches you and the attack will come from the primary direction from which you will not be able to effectively defend.

Quote
It depends on their intention. If taking your wallet is the point, they see their loot running away. They might chase you down or they might possibly laugh and look for a sure thing with shorter legs. If they are "defending their honor" against what they take as your insults, etc, they might likely take it as a win if you run away. My experience is limited, but twice I did pretty well by running fast and around a corner, and then kick the first guy who came around it after me. The others clustered around him asking him what happened instead of chasing me, so it worked out in the short run. Once when it was only one guy chasing me I ran until we both started getting tired, then I ran up 4 steps up a stoop and then turned around and yelled and he ran away. I was about ready to kick him in the face but I hesitated and it turned out OK. That was back when I could run fast, though.

You were able to change the tactical situation and employ tactics which convinced your attackers you were too "expensive".  You forced them out of their action loop into a reaction loop, which you now controlled.

Quote
4.  Waving a weapon around as a threat means it will be taken away and used against you.  You have to communicate your intent and determination to use force,  to have any hope of an attacker retreating.

Quote
Agreed. Don't point a gun at somebody until you shoot him. Don't wave it around. Maybe it's good to keep it in your pocket along with your hand? But if you shoot you'll spoil your pocket....

Pockets are cheaper than your life or one of your family members or even a complete (defense of another) stranger's.  Smith and Wesson makes a hammer-less snub nosed revolver chambered in .38 special, 357 magnum and .44 special calibers.  It is designed and intended to be carried in and if necessary, shot through a pocket.  As a bodyguard, I carried a conventional .38 special snub nose on my ankle to backup my primary handgun of a .45 caliber pistol.

Quote
The trouble is, the first time it's always a big shock and people tend to freeze up or do something at random. So ideally people should not face violence the first time. Start with the second time. ;)

Don't I wish.  Just remember, sooner or later, everyone will "freeze".  Prior thought and training will tend to lesson the tendency and shorten the duration when it happens.

Quote
quadibloc.  Fraud is theft.  Whether the theft is by trick or force is immaterial.  The victim has been harmed with the theft of a period of the victim's life.  One way can get you dead very quickly.  The other could still get you dead, but you're more likely to end up in arbitration as your victim seeks restitution.

Quote
If somebody tells you they have an interesting story, and you listen to them and it turns out to be boring, is that theft? You'll never get back the time you wasted listening to them. And they'll never get back the time they wasted telling it to you. In that case nobody wins.

No, wasted time but not theft.  Theft/fraud have criminal intent to deprive you of your property.  Someone telling a bad story, has no criminal intent, unless its to facilitate a crime.

Quote
Is it only theft when they get something out of it, and you lose something? Or is it theft if you are harmed, regardless what they gain? Do you have to be harmed? Sandy has argued that you don't have to be harmed.

Even attempted crime causes harm.  A criminal tries and fails, it's still an attempt.  The Criminal Intent to harm was present.  The intended victim may not be aware of the situation.  But can still be harmed.  If the intended victim was not aware of the situation, the perpetrator does not have to worry about the intended victim's response.

mellyrn on May 06, 2011, 06:10:04 am
Quote
Intent to harm was present.

Intent is crucial.  I can think of a situation in which initiation of force -- attempted assault and battery, with a very real possibility of injury and even death -- is not only acceptable but actually required, and even so does not violate the spirit of the ZAP, because the intent to harm is not there.

mellyrn on May 06, 2011, 06:31:07 am
Quote
I think a right has to have three major conditions:

1) It must be able to be applied universally to all sentient entities (normally I'd say people but EFT is in the 'Future!' so I will keep it broader than that just in case)
2) It must exist naturally - so nothing that is constructed from or granted by social constructs or coercive monopolies
3) It imposes a duty on all others

I wonder if part of the fascination with vampires arises from a vampire's being a sentient entity whose "right" to live directly violates another sentient entity's similar "right".  (Vampires that can get by on just drinking blood, and buy it from a butcher's, or who can survive off animals, just don't have the same je ne sais quoi.)

Welcome to the party, Austen.E.

Quote
Tragedy of the Commons must be avoided.

Tragedy of the Commons, while the concept makes sense, still arose as a means, or an excuse, for the rich of 19thc Britain to control the poor.  When there were commons, if a local employer paid for shit or treated his workers badly, the local laborers could -- and did -- quit working and use the commons for hunting and foraging to feed and shelter their families.  When the commons were taken away, they were forced into dependence on whatever the local employer felt like dishing out.  It must have been humiliating at the time, but it's worked well in creating learned helplessness in the lower classes.

J Thomas on May 06, 2011, 06:57:20 am
I think we've beat the Prior Appropriation bit to death. ZAP is great for homesteads, but you need a regulatory body for any sort of common resource management. Tragedy of the Commons must be avoided.

Well, it doesn't have to be avoided. One alternative which is often used is to just use up the common resource until there isn't enough left that anybody cares about. Then whatever wreckage is left over can be privatized.

I haven't studied it in detail, but it looks to me like that's what happened to the Chesapeake bay. We had generations of watermen who made their living by collecting crabs, clams, etc from the bay, and we had expensive government attempts to keep them from overfishing. But of course there were more clammers than the bay could support, and so the government had the choice between telling some of them they had to do something else, or regulating it so that no one could make a living, or failing to regulate it. Rather than be unfair to the fishermen they let them take more than the system could sustain, and go broke.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-01-23/news/1992023145_1_watermen-clams-department-of-natural

Then when there weren't enough clammers left to be a political force, they let professionals lease the best-quality areas. All the shellfish in those areas belong to them, so in theory they will not over-fish their "herds". In practice, they buy sprat and let them grow and harvest them all. It's a chancy business because of the pollution and the epidemic disease, and sometimes it's hard to get bank loans to do it, but if you have the political connections to lease good areas it can be quite profitable. In a good year it can bring in over $60,000/acre. There are a lot of government subsidies available too, if you have connections.

http://www.trulia.com/blog/tony_mcmahon/2011/05/maryland_s_plan_to_boost_chesapeake_bay_oysters_will_require_alot_of_hanky-panky

Quote
ZAP is also great for bar scenes, but not so good for terrorism or a hostile economic takeover. ZAP doesn't apply to Kudzu or Line Cutting, but can be extended to many social situations with a lot of reliance on lawsuits and arbiters.

We may be overgeneralizing. There are people who advocate the Golden Rule. And there are people who advocate ZAP. Assuming you don't like to be aggressed on, ZAP is a weaker form of Golden Rule. In either case, you can't expect to base a whole legal theory on just one simple moral principle.

But ZAP would be useful anyway. When you hear about an arbitration result you don't like, you can tell people "Damnit, it's just wrong. This result violates the ZAP." And come up with some argument why it violates ZAP. If enough people believe you, maybe the next arbitration will come out different.

spudit on May 06, 2011, 08:36:00 am
Look at the ZAP as part of a barest minimal structure, a scaffolding to support whatever grows. No need to look for every single weakness now. No, start out with the simple don't steal, cheat or start fights concept, it is fine even if limited. Keep ZAP KISS, now there's a slogan Then live with it and within it and see what happens, what is needed or not. Every problem will have multiple solutions, pick one.

To borrow a concept and mix some metaphors, let a common law grow around it like barnacles on a bottle until we have a nice big reef. We don't know enough to do it all at once.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

J Thomas on May 06, 2011, 08:43:54 am

Mosquitoes have been getting DDT-resistant pretty easily for a long time now, and I don't see why that would be in any way controversial.

The word is “resistant”, not “immune”.  Even DDT resistant mosquitoes do not like the stuff.   http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/79127.php

That looks like it would be an interesting article, but the review didn't provide any link to the actual work. They did give the name of a publication, though. Here is the link:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000716

Their emphasis was dramatically different from the review you provided. Their central point was that people usually think of mosquito control entirely in terms of killing mosquitoes, but that repellants and irritants are also important for persuading mosquitoes to stay out of homes. Their studies done entirely on one laboratory strain of DDT-resistant mosquito, showed that DDT had a better repellant effect on that strain than the other two insecticides they tried. So they suggest that insecticides be tested for repellant effect too and not just lethality.

Quote
Fact is, if people spray themselves, their clothes, and their houses with DDT, what with killing some mosquitoes, and discouraging most mosquitoes, they are a lot less likely to get malaria.

This study did not show that at all. It showed that portable huts designed to mimic some huts used in Thailand kept only 30% as many test mosquitoes if they were treated with DDT. They released 100 mosquitoes and after 7 hours only 30 or so of them were still in the hut, active. If 1% of mosquitoes carry malaria, and the ones with malaria behave the same, and houses get on average 100 mosquitoes per night, then the chance of getting malaria would be reduced by 70% per day. (They released their mosquitoes in the morning and not when their mosquitoes usually hunt.) If 10% of mosquitoes carry malaria, then DDT would reduce the number of infected mosquitoes from 10 to on average 3. (Assuming that fewer mosquitoes fly into houses with DDT while they hunt, as opposed to what they tested which was mosquitoes flying out of houses with DDT in the first 7 hours after escape from confinement in the morning.)

The bigger picture here is that a long time ago, DDT was very cheap, pretty much harmless to humans, and effective against insects. So naturally people over-reached and thought they could use it in massive quantities to eliminate mosquitoes entirely and with them malaria, yellow fever, etc. That did not work and it had some very bad consequences.

So naturally people over-reached from there, and decided DDT was harmful and must be eliminated even though it can still have some modest uses.

Quote
And that is what really pisses off the greenies.  Humans surviving when nature is trying to kill them.

No, it's just people acting like people normally do.

Quote
In this era, ordinary people farm with truckloads of fertilizer and mechanical harvesters.  I know lots of ordinary people, family farmers, doing it, though I do not know any in the amazon.  These are people with chickens out the back, half a dozen farm dogs, and a few dozen cows, a vegetable patch, and as I drive down the long semi dirt track to their house to buy a jackfruit, driving slowly because I have to wait for cows to get off the driveway, I see hulking great farming machines parked in the dirt, that must weigh many tons each.

That is how family farming is done in the twentyfirst century.

Ah. Where do you live? They grow jackfruit in southern and southeast asia, east africa and brazil, and maybe other places now.

Anyway, if it takes great hulking farming machines that weigh many tons each to do family farming now, doesn't that mean it takes rich people to do family farming now? Or is it people with collateral who are mortgaged to their eyeballs and the banks haven't foreclosed yet? Or something else?
« Last Edit: May 06, 2011, 09:04:32 am by J Thomas »

J Thomas on May 06, 2011, 08:47:15 am
Look at the ZAP as part of a barest minimal structure, a scaffolding to support whatever grows.

That looks very good! I keep hearing people imply that unadorned ZAP is everything you need, and then they argue when I doubt that.

But clearly ZAP should be part of the foundation for a good system.