Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

Capitalism (as currently practiced) is great....!!!! So long as your the Capitalist (the one with all the money)......!!!! Everybody else are just the workers (slaves, serf's)...!!!!

The whole western economic system, is just a Pyramid Scheme, enriching the very few PPL at the top, at the expense of the rest of us, and the environment ........

so as morning's said, the current system is truly Parasitic Capitalism, and not true text book Capitalism

part of the reason for this, is that these few PPL OWN the system (Casino) that we are all playing (Gambling) in, and over time, the House ALWAYS Wins, because of the odds, and they rig the game anyway, making money blowing up bubbles, and then cashing in when the bubble burst's, leaving everyone else holding the empty bag, because the vast majority of western Politicians are bought and paid for Yes Men, who give great Lip Service to how to help humanity out of their current manufactured crisis, but never really do anything but what their owners want, and that is rarely in rest of humanity's best interest......

I say the parasites need a dose of Rotenone/Pyrethrin Spray......................

and they may get it soon, if enough of the world's population ever wakes up, and finely see's who is behind the curtain pulling the strings, that's been dealing them so much misery for centurys.......

maybe that last post was a bit harsh,

mornings said the same thing better.......

3) both always die a violent death accompanied by a lot of pain and suffering for the constituents.

Just keep in mind that everyone who earns even slightly more than they consume is a capitalist. Everyone has a stake in making it work well to keep or increase their standard of living -- no matter the political system under which they reside.

And the problem with any form of insurrection, even at the voting polls, it is extremely rare anyone ever gets anything better than they had; more often, it's worse.

The problem is not that there are greedy parasites (rich, poor or in between) -- they always exist. It is that they take over in the first place because people don't have a clue what is going on. Good example: THE AMERICAN IDIOT. If the same people revolt, we just get different and usually meaner parasites in charge.

Revolution has a high sound to it . . . but be careful what you wish for.

m

Carrying capacity is relatively easy to determine; if it can be done for a farm or an AP system, it can be done on a planetary scale. The trick is to determine what the balance needs to be between ecosystem services provided by nature and food production for humans. Then we need to determine what kind of world we want to live in - much easier said than done as most haven't realised our god like powers to determine the fate of the planet, let alone deciding how to employ them.

As difficult a task as it is we must start talking big picture stuff whilst acting on a personal scale - the old think globally and act locally.

I disagree with mornings who said that "nothing at the point of a gun works", just how did the USA come into being? The American war of independence was a failure then? To the British perhaps. Point being that force has it's place if the cause is just. Do you "slap someone out of it" if they are in a panic and about to harm them selves and others? Do we forcefully restraint those who would do others harm? Do we ever kill so that others may live?

I could go on but you get the point, and the point is exactly as our mothers told us, "It's not what you say that matters, but how you say it". In the case of restraining humanity for it's own good, it's not what is done that will matter, it rather how and why it is done that will carry the day.

unfortunately, you are right, so many of the PPL are Idiots when it comes to politics, and thus mostly the the worst megalomaniacs's end up in charge.......

so for the little guy, it's just be aware of what the near future possibility's are, hunker down, and learn how to grow something.......

but their are so many that still just don't have a clue, and when it all crashes to the ground, they are gona be the hungry ones, trying to take what i worked hard to grow, vs trying to help me grow it, so that I can feed them, and a 100 other PPL......... and show those 100 PPL how to grow enough to feed another 100 ppl each.......

anyway..... enough of this, back to the AP...........

Mornings, thanks for sharing that Vid.

RS .. your thinking is much like mine with regards to if/when things go bad, people will be more willing to "take" what I've worked so hard to grow than to ask me how I grew it. This direction of thinking has lead to my SO and I planning on a "second story" greenhouse. Harder for people to take what we have worked for.

Feeding the poor is in and of itself a catch 22. This is something that has caused some of the problems we see ourselves in now. I often thought that the "government" needed to mandate that foodstamp and welfare recipients attend some sort of training that would enable them to grow at least some of their own food and teach them to TRULY become more self-sufficient instead of Government dependant.

IMO the best way to "feed the poor" is to educate them. With even minimal investment a family of four can grow vegies to help feed their family.

I disagree with mornings who said that "nothing at the point of a gun works", just how did the USA come into being? ...

Well truthfully it was a failure in the strictest sense. We were a Confederation of States during and after the Revolution, before it was scrapped and the current Federalist Union - States was ratified in the US Constitution. Which goes to affirm the old Communist maxim that there are always two revolutions. The first to destroy the old. The second to instill the new.

As to carrying capacity issues. Carrying capacity is bounded by the lowest limiting factor. So as a rule the answer is a first order equation. But the fact is the limiting factor is not static. Example. How much biomass can be rendered in typical soil farming vs that same class of biomass in an AP or hydroponic system? 2x, 3x? How does going that route affect land and water use projections? By the time you add in the trickle effects of the new paradigm your answer has changed radically.

Based on this as a definition then all natural systems are in essence capitalist. Take a tree for example each year it utilises it's assets to grow it harnesses energy from the sun and reaches down draws up nutrients from deep soil it builds its structure uses what it must and then sheds the excess. This excess accumulates for it's future use and so the cycle continues. Interestingly some of this excess is available in the environment for others to use and so the whole community is benefited.

The thing that has always astounded me is the way people seem to have no idea of what they need, nor of what is important. The vast majority of our resources at least in western culture are devoted to entertainment and mostly meaningless entertainment. People follow fashions, abuse alcohol and drugs etc. I have never understood why the community throws so many resources at the Paris Hiltons' of the world, what have they ever contributed that is of such value?

By the way I don't claim to be immune, much of my resources are used on entertainment but I prefer my entertainment to also be productive i.e. AP or at least not wasteful like fashions.

mcfarm,

Good question. I suppose I should be a clearer in my explanations but your analogy, depending on context, instructs us the opposite of your intent. You indicate there was a success. But, if by "success" you mean a revolution that simply sent the Brits packing, your context is far too shallow to have any meaning. Surely, the purpose of a revolution is greater than winning a war . . . only to end up with worse tyrants.

You think these united States have been successful?

In the beginning, it wiped about 90% of the indigenous population (many of whom were my ancestors) and enslaved a foreign race of people for over a century -- in stark contradiction its written high principles of liberty and justice. Today, the Bill of Rights is, for all intents and purposes, null and void. There is nothing sacred in law any longer. The rule of law is a bad joke.

It has caused the land and environment to be raped and plundered by taking the people's right to redress in court and replacing it with a corrupt bureaucracy that has become something of a dictatorship in its own right.

It has become an empire of sorts. It is the bully of the world, creating and supporting dictatorships around the globe for many decades -- in the name of democracy, but really not fooling anyone to the real intent of dominating the world's economy. It creates boogey men (terrorists among others) to frighten its people in to hysterical support for initiated wars and foreign intrigue. And all the while it is becoming a pariah among nations.

It makes the poor beholden for its welfare system for which the poor unknowingly pay (plus a fee) through stealth taxation. This illusion ensures that the poor will continue their voting support for the scheming parasites we called politicians.

It has a food system, run buy handful of giant, legally privileged corporations that turn farmers into indentured servants, enslaves it own workers and destroys the health of its consumers. (watch the movies "Food, Inc" or "King Corn").

In only a little over 200 years and the gov't is beyond bankrupt; it has more debt than it can ever possible repay. The gov't is attempting to inflate (read: counterfeit) its way out of debt by screwing the rest of the world (those who hold US dollars). It's banking cartel (run by the Federal Reserve) has not only brought its own economy to its knees through its reckless gambling, speculation and avarice (supposedly regulated by a whole alphabet soup of agencies), it has bailed out its banking brethren at high a cost to unborn generations. And, it has brought the world economy to an economic precipice through its privileged use (force) of a reserve currency.

Am I angry? Yes. But please don't misunderstand, I love my country and its people (for the most part). I would have to be an ingrate not to. The people are generous, not unintelligent nor without passion, but they are clueless (watch that video I posted if you haven't already.) They sit idly by as "Rome burns", as the country's own wealth is destroyed or carried away. Through it own institutions it destroys community, the glue that holds what little dignity is still there.

None of this could have been accomplished without a gun to the head of its people and others around the world. Success? I don't think so. Not yet.

m

I suppose it's a bit like Gandhi being asked what he thought of western civilization in 1930 upon arriving in England, he replied "I think it would be a very good idea."

To be honest I am no fan of the USA as she is currently configured (crass paternalistic materialism wrapped up in flag and God), but I am a fan of the original intent and ideas of the founders. That said I wouldn't be too critical of your own country, on balance it is a force for the better. After all the US did produce Food Inc., King Corn, Michael Pollan, Joel Salatin, Elliot Coleman, Alice Waters, etcetera, etcetera. I guess a report card would read "much talent, but could do better".

I am very familiar with the ills of the industrial food chain and contribute to the debate a lot in my own country. I am in the middle of filming a TV series on the alternative food cultures and systems - not to mention running campaigns against the bureaucratic legalization of genetic material theft by corporations.

Anyway I recommend 'Slow Money' by Woody Tasch or visit http://www.slowmoneyalliance.org/ to get an idea of what they are on about - subverting the current 'growth at all costs' paradigm. Slow Money might be of use to aquaponic entrepreneurs?

This is a better synopsis of the problem we will all face in the next 20 years
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6094?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theoildrum+%28The+Oil+Drum%29

mcfarm,

Thanks for the links.
Me too. Likely one of the brightest spots in all history -- for all humankind, not just Americans. But, of course, intents and ideas are not quite enough, are they? Yes, America has some good people in spite of the fact that it has an increasingly decadent governing system (I think one almost has to call fascistic) which seems the outcome of an increasingly decadent or even moronic culture. It's increasingly difficult to know exactly which is cause and which is effect.

But my disappointment is not in gov't. or its many sponsored institutions. They will and always have been corrupt -- just the nature of the beast. In America, early on, people saw gov't as a necessary evil. Whether it was necessary or not, it was deemed evil and something to constantly guard against. Today, the American people find their salvation in the gov't. and these institutions. This is not just dangerous, it is suicidal.

Force, a gun at someone's head, is not the way to build anything. Gov'ts produce nothing. If they have a function at all, it is to do what they rightful can do for themselves, to simply protect people from force and fraud. All to often, Gov'ts become the prime perpetrators of force and fraud -- they make gangsters like Al Capone look like little Lord Fauntleroy. And, mostly the protection they provide is for themselves.

But let me get back to the point I made originally: If there is ever to be anything accomplished, it will be done through the goodwill and cooperation of people. Now, cooperation must free and voluntary. If it is not, it is not cooperation. The moment force enters any positive human endeavor, cooperation stops and it is replaced by various corrupting influences.

If there is any benefit to the use of force, it is almost always of an expedient nature. While we all have the right to defend ourselves, maybe even with the use of force, it is always better if force can be avoided. But what we hear more and more often is, "there should be law" . . . kill'em, nuke'em. We are conditioned to believe that the use of force will work when nothing else will, which brings about things like pre-emptive wars. The fact is, force never, ultimately, created anything positive.

Woody Tasch's Slow Money seems to be a very positive endeavor. It sounds very much like E. F. Schumacher and the "Small is Beautiful" movement back in the 60s . . . just updated with new terms. I'm not quite as sanguine as he is about philanthropy. Philanthropy is obviously good, but, alas, it is a symptom, not a cause.

People do not become cooperative because they are first benevolent. It's the other way round. People who live in a cooperative environment become benevolent, whether it be toward the poor on any worthwhile cause.

The way to raise the consciousness, so to speak, is build real community. And unfortunately, the only way I can see to do that is much like we build community here: you and me, at a one-to-one level. fot the moment we decide, for the sake of scale, to go to the use of force (typically gov't) the endeavor is immediately and hopelessly corrupted.

People, to want community must, to some extent, understand it --not so much intellectually, but almost viscerally by immersion in community. I live in a small rural community with only several hundred people. In my life I had been around what I considered communities but I don't know that I ever thought there was any great value to them -- until one day after about 15 years living here, I realized that I was a part of that community. Now, I understand!

The hard realization in this is that there are no guarantees. Even though such efforts are typically underestimated, the outcome of people acting freely can never be known for certain. So the temptation is always there to make a law, raise the taxes . . . use force, to be guaranteed the desired outcome. Of course, this latter "guarantee" is an illusion. Hence, you see the ugly parts of American history.

Now that you have suffered through my lengthy epistles, I will get on with the point.

If we really want to feed the poor, we need to understand what "poor" means. There are at least two components. The first, obviously, one's economic situation and, the second (and in my opinion more important), one's mind set. In my life, twice, I have been completely broke . . . busted . . . lost everything . . . no money, no welfare, nothing. But I have never been poor. I would say in retrospect I came out of it each time because of my attitude and, more importantly, the community around me, ultimately, a largely underestimated resource.

If we mean by feeding the poor, some sort of welfare or dole, we are doing nothing for them, well, except maybe, keeping them in a kind of self defeating bondage . . . really a great disservice. If we wish to feed the poor, the first object is to make them not-poor. Giving them wealth or simply feeding them, just keeps them in poverty and impoverishes everyone else too.

It is my opinion (again, I will say, I cannot prove this), creating or bringing people into real "community" is the only sure fire way to do away with poverty and, therefore, eliminate the need to "feed the poor". And, as non-pragmatic as it may sound, the use of force will never bring this about, nay, it will ultimately ensure that it cannot happen.

M

mcfarm,

I worked in Sustainable Agriculture for almost two decades. It certainly has done some good but there always seemed something missing. Anyway, I quit.

Recently, my daughter exposed me to what I think was missing. Sustainable agriculture was(and for the most part still is) about sustainable growth. But if you look closely, you see that something has been smuggled into the term -- really, a secret agenda: growth. This is what every banker and every politician on the planet wants. For the banker it means unending profits; for the politician, it means unending power. (if you are unsure of these, read the "Arms of Krupp" and/or the newer "assent of money". Eye opening)

The new concept (to me anyway) is sustainable development. On the subject of growth, it disinterestedly asks the question, "do we need it?"; "will it somehow make us more sustainable". If so fine; if not, don't do it.

Sustainable development suggests that development, not growth, is constantly necessary to develop and re-develop resources, but in a way that always has a positive outcome. It still uses the well worn trinity of economically viable, environmentally friendly and socially responsible, but it eliminates the trade offs that are more or less convenient to politics, the ones that often see some resources or people as expendable.

m

Feeding clothing the poor yes define poor in the last 12 months bush fires here killed hundreds burnt thousands of houses we as a group knew of one family who walked away with the clothes they were wearing we got together a small truck load of stuff chairs table refridgerator microwave linnen crockery ect quite nice stuff called them over they walked in looked it over said its not good enough and left
of all the stuff thats been donated over 1/2 has been dumped [not good enough ] theres a wearhouse full of stuff 12 months later still in storage [it will be dumped ]
also a lot of people that are rebuilding there neww house is bigger and better than the old one [amazing what insurance and donations will do ]
the average jo blow whose house gets burnt down in the suburbs does not get $100,000 thousand handout and a house full of furniture there block all cleaned up
dont get me wrong i feel sorry for the people that lost loved ones and there are some that meed help

Food&Fish,

Same issue here in the States. Many million dollar homes destroyed each year that get rebuilt thanks to the taxpayers (federal flood insurance). All of them sited close to the water. This kind of 'development' I find is unsustainable.

Back when I was growing up, very few people built near beaches or bays. They understood the risks. Fishermen built shacks at the waters edge that could be rebuilt cheaply.