Controversial Discussions

[newfoundland]

Is it really true that there are people who 'don't know how' to grow a few basic vegetables? If this is the case I am very surprised, except that my son brought me some seeds home from the US and I did think the information on the packet was very sketchy. Is there therefore a good argument for making the information on the backs of seed packets a lot more detailed and comprehensive?

 

[Farmer Mike S]

Is it really true that there are people who 'don't know how' to grow a few basic vegetables? If this is the case I am very surprised, except that my son brought me some seeds home from the US and I did think the information on the packet was very sketchy. Is there therefore a good argument for making the information on the backs of seed packets a lot more detailed and comprehensive?

I'm sure almost everyone can figure out how to put a seed into the ground and grow it, but few people know how to do it properly; i.e. soil type, amount of water, proper pruning, amount of sun. But again that's why there's people out there for it. What bothers me is stuff like what happened this past weekend; going to someone's house and they don't even know how to work a leaf blower. It would be a stereotype to say this is a "city people" thing because a lot of city people do know the basic skills. It's just like saying that "country people" don't know math, because a lot do. But this is becoming a more common thing with stuff like that, people not knowing how to cook, etc.

 

[chooks4life]

Controversial opinions, eh? Kinda thinking "who has time for debate for the sake of it", lol... The debates I've gotten into on this site have been because someone has attacked my statements or opinions, not because I go around soliciting pointless arguments or attacking people for the funzies.

If I was debating something with someone, somebody else stepping in and arbitrarily telling us it's not to be spoken about anymore, would definitely just provoke me to quit the thread and/or take it to PM. So this wouldn't wash:
Quote: I prefer the old fashioned method, i.e. both debaters keeping at it until the mods delete the whole conversation. >

Ok, seriously, I don't, I prefer to reach some sort of mutual understanding in the middle, or at least agree to disagree, but generally this is not something anyone who debates with me has been open to. Being into what I'm into (natural alternatives etc) is an unforgivable insult to some sorts; it doesn't mean I actually want to engage in pointless b*tchfests with them.

@Bens-Hens :

Quote: There would always be farms, especially if there were no cities, because people still need to eat. Before cities were built there were always people producing to feed themselves. The old family farm versus the massive company farm. Without that distinction being made the issue becomes confused.

Back through history all the way until we're addressing hunter-gatherer societies, cities are built based on those who produce food. Those who provide the food are not dependent on cities until we start involving economics and commercialism. Commercial farming is a rather modern concept which obviously gives the impression that farms need cities, because massive farms these days are profit-oriented not self-sufficient. Even then, 'need' is a subjective term.

At the end of the day, the only job a person needs is one that gives them food, not money, so if all cities were wiped off the earth, farms would survive just fine. But if all farms were wiped off the earth, cities would begin to die immediately.

This brings me to another point, the whole idea of rural people 'needing' city people. Again, before there were cities, there were family groups supporting themselves. Rural folks don't need city folks. Now it's all tied together economically, but if worst came to worst, people wouldn't die for want of money, they'd die for want of food. Farm > city in terms of importance.

Also, about that idea that if everyone supported themselves there would be no doctors... Who missed history class?! Even in the most primitive societies there are, and have always been, those who doctor other humans and animals. Even animals will to some extent attempt to doctor others and themselves. I.e., a mother chicken with good instincts knows to seek out specific foods when her infants are sick with certain diseases, and animals have de-worming programs they put themselves through if you only make the herbs etc available to them, and so forth. Health care is so intrinsic to life that even the less intelligent animals have a health treating 'instinct program' they adhere to which self-adjusts based on whatever the animal's needs are.

Before there was official accreditation and the invention of the certificate, there were always members of each group of people who were doctors in all but the modern title, versed in knowledge of human or animal health care, at least to the best extent possible within the constraints of their times, which was not as outright ignorant as modern kids are taught they were.

We're still discovering the truth in many of the "old wives tales" and things that were soundly dismissed by mainstream scientists just a little while ago. Which are now accepted, i.e. the antibiotic properties in the Allium family, spiderwebs, healing properties in various plants, etc as well as the rather profound healing properties of healthy foods themselves, in terms of the actions of vitamins and minerals and macro, micro, trace elements etc in our systems.

The lore of natural healthcare is thousands of years old in every country, and every people no matter how apparently primitive had their own local-specific lore, it's just now being scientifically verified after previously having been groundlessly scientifically dismissed.

Quote: No. You do not need any of those other jobs to have doctors, barring possibly the teacher, which was historically always just another doctor or 'medicine person'. In most cases medicinal lore had much of its beginning in watching what animals used to treat themselves for different disorders, and experimentation was not as large a part of it as you'd possibly think.

In history, even in the most primitive times and societies, there have always been those who knew what certain plants do to certain conditions, wounds, etc, and basic health care, who passed this information down throughout the ages with every generation. Recently more knowledge has been gathered in many areas, but throughout history there have been periods of greater knowledge, often lost soon after and followed by periods of ignorance, it's a cyclical thing.

The modern concept and lore of health care is developed from the ancient and primitive, not pulled out of thin air like a magic trick, or recently invented. There are many recent discoveries but medicine itself is ancient.

Quote: Humanity used to live like this, it isn't some abstract idea. It's history. Money is not the be-all and end-all and it's easier to understand how people used to live when you focus more on the importance of bartering/trade etc, which existed instead or, or alongside, money, in most societies.

Everyone producing everything for themselves isn't really something that happened in most societies. People traded and bartered for extras while producing all their own staples. For example the people farming lush land had all the vegetables etc they needed but also needed salt, seaweed, etc from other places and would share their produce with those who harvested those natural products from such places. People exchanged goods so everyone had what they needed.

If you're talking about a family of 6 people providing their own necessities, it's not the case that every single person plants their own patch of every vegetable they need, and keeps their own flocks, in most cases there was a single family garden and a family group of animals tended in part by everyone, kept for everyone's benefit, but usually with everyone having their own specific roles and areas of expertise. For those things they couldn't obtain themselves they would trade or barter or use some kind of financial system to obtain from traveling merchants.

Doctors were paid likewise, and of course worked for 'free' within their own families, because it was just another job around the place that had to be done. Nobody really worked for free because everything was in common; everyone worked for everyone's benefit. Everyone used to be a jack of all trades. Nobody was 'just' a farmer, which actually is many jobs rolled into one anyway. Only comparatively recently have trades separated and become so specialized, compartmentalized and totally money oriented.

This is not some guess at how humans used to live, it's known and proven history, and still is the way some more primitive tribes live. A further self-education in primitive societies would benefit some people enormously and answer these sorts of basic historical questions, as well as provide some fascinating views into history. In some places the educational system is a literal joke and you must educate yourself, because the system certainly won't.

Quote:
I don't know if you're joking. If you're not, if those are serious statements/questions, then your school has failed you. In case you're serious, I will answer. In case you weren't serious, I apologize in advance.

Your immune system combats viruses. With a healthier, more natural lifestyle, most viruses are not an issue, and as always the strongest survive and breed more strong ones. With modern lifestyles and population densities and the prevalence of artificial antibiotics being used to make superbugs (I mean defeat some quantities of some viruses and strengthen the percentage that is not defeated, lol) the viruses are stronger than they have been in history, spread faster, and have more weakly hosts to attack.

Historically, bone-setting has been one of the earliest medicinal achievements. It's thousands of years old.

Broken bones fix themselves, or more to the point the body heals naturally, unless they're seriously messed up --- and even then they can often fix up into some sort of functional form, without medical help. Even in wild animals, you will see some hideous disfigurements that they've survived without medical help. Bone setting, splinting, etc is an ancient bit of medicinal practice.

And you can indeed "just grow antibiotics". Spiderwebs used to be used in open wounds, and recent science has confirmed that they are rich in many natural antibiotics, which our ancient forebears knew anyway, even if they didn't call them antibiotics --- they still knew there was something in the web that stopped infections. Garlic and others in the Allium family are rich in many natural antibiotics which recent science has found are more powerful than even the most powerful man-made antibiotics, hence their ancient revered status as disease killers. There are many natural sources of antibiotics, not just the Allium family. Mouldy bread, even, used to be used for its penicillin.

Quote: A neurosurgeon rarely sees the death of their patients compared to for example nurses and GPs. Those who cut into brains do it while the patient is under general anesthetic and on a form of life support. Even if the patient dies then, with them being on some form of life support, it's rather harder to discern; when the patient fails to recover, it's apparent, but the neurosurgeon doesn't necessarily see that. When the neurosurgeon is done with the surgery, they walk away, and the normal care takes over, so nurses etc tend the patient; these are the people who arguably see the most death firsthand. In most cases the neurosurgeon will hear back later about the patient's progress or death. Not see it or have to deal with it firsthand.

Anyway, best wishes. and history is fascinating, really worth looking into how ancient cultures survived.

 

[Bens-Hens]

I think in your reply, to a degree you supported my opinion.

I can't speak for every country, but currently, if every city here was wiped out, the farming industry would shrivel and die quite quickly. Yes, families would survive, but the industry, that is supported and trades with those farms would turn off just as quick as the cities. In Australia our mean farm size is 33,40Ha (8250 acres), but we have many much larger (an average of 43,000Ha or 10,6254 acre) stations in our remote area's. That much land can be run without support. The cities provide that support in order to be fed.

I stand by my opinion that farming and cities go hand in hand, however, if you are talking about the semi rural, hobby farmer who has a bit of everything in the 5 or 10 acre property them I am sure they could go on quite comfortably should their nearest capitol be leveled. Life would be different sure, but if the community pulled together then they would have the best chance at surviving the longest no doubt.

Secondly, to be self sufficient, I would define that as not needing others to survive, so self suffice in not community bartering or trading. IMO being self sufficient is providing a variety of water, fuel, crops and meats. As you say, this used to be done to a degree, but it didn't work, so trade came into effect. Modern life has stems from that evolution. Families grew to communities, communities grew to villages and before you know it we had cities eating up resources. "The old way is history" through progression, if it worked for everyone we would still be doing it that way.

 

[Farmer Mike S]

Everyone used to be a jack of all trades.

In some places the educational system is a literal joke and you must educate yourself, because the system certainly won't.

Anyway, best wishes. and history is fascinating, really worth looking into how ancient cultures survived.

I find ancient cultures interesting and I also find self reliant communities very interesting. This is more what I think about when I start dreaming up a perfect society. The only issue is that you can't really compare ancient cultures to today, because we now have what, 6 billion people on the planet? This in itself is a problem, but it truly is hard to live this kind of way with so many people on the planet. Also, back in these times people didn't live to be 70-80 years old average like today. Just because of the population this is why you need modern agriculture and city life in my opinion. What I find interesting though is that these old fashion self reliant communities still do exist, I've seen communities like this on tv. I find it very cool.

I almost consider myself a jack of all trades because I'm good with carpentry, horticulture, agriculture, auto mechanics, etc. I feel like I would be able to take care of myself if I was put alone. Like I said earlier, what concerns me about society is that you have people that don't know how to work a lawn mower, can't identify 10 plants, etc. I see more and more of this as time goes on.

The educational system I can go on a rant about all day. I already mentioned earlier how they're taking people out of the trades, so I won't go off on that. But I truly do think I learn way more by educating myself through research and experimentation then I do in school. I find most of what I do learn in school useless because we are simply taught something and tested on it; it's never really applied to real life. I can memorize a math problem and write it on a test, but how's that gonna help me if I don't really know what it does? They also tell us "what to think" rather than how to open up your mind and figure something out. Schooling is based on taking facts and memorizing, less of actually finding the facts. I really like the way my residential construction teacher teaches his class; we are working on SIP panel dog houses, and he basically told us how to make the panels and how they are put together. But all I'm given is two 4x8 panels, and I have to figure out how to turn these two panels into a doghouse. It actually requires me to think more rather than just be given plans, and I feel I learn more this way.

I really want to live a self reliant lifestyle myself and I kind of want to be a jack of all trades to do this, so I kind of find college useless because I would be paying more to learn less. I was looking into agriculture internships/help exchange programs, because there are these self reliant homesteads that take people in and teach them everything about the lifestyle in exchange for labor. The things I would be taught I believe are stuff like natural medicine, raising food, cooking, building, and just everything else in the lifestyle. These are individual homesteads so there isn't anything "set" I would be learning. I feel like I would learn more about a bunch of things this way then I would learn in college. I'm still debating whether I should go to college first so that way I have at least a "backup plan". I got accepted into a college for horticulture and I'm waiting on the decision of a free trade school for horticulture. I would definitely do this kind of help exchange program after college if I do go. If you know anything about these kind of programs chooks4life or anyone else, and you are willing to help out and give advice, you can PM me about it. If not no big deal

 

[newfoundland]

Well I must own up to never having even seen a leaf blower, have always swept up leaves, a technology that has passed me by I'm afraid. I do agree that people are not as practical as they once were. Certainly in my childhood, all dads had a last and mended the family shoes. Woolworths, as I recalls, sold off cuts of leather for this. Of course in those days, shoes had leather soles and heels. An amusing story about trying to be more self reliant, and 'coming a cropper' as we say. Some of the terms may be different from the ones you use but here goes:

An elderly aunt was complaining to her husband how much the garage wanted to charge her for a service. My uncle remarked that she should at least be able to top up the oil and explained about checking the levels on the dip stick. Pulling the dip stick out she went through the procedure he had told her, carefully wiping the stick on a cloth and then putting it fully in again before taking the reading. Some time later she came back into the house muttering furiously. On being asked what was wrong she said, 'Look at my shoes! I have ruined a perfectly good pair of suede shoes! they are covered in oil! It's all very well checking the oil levels, but how are you supposed to get oil in through that tiny little hole?' Oh dear!!

 

[3goodeggs]

 

[Rosa moschata]

It's interesting to read people posting about how "some" people don't seem to know how to do "basic" things -- on an internet forum. I'm sure there are plenty of "city people" who fully understand how computers and code work who could say the same things about "country people". Remember that we have advanced our knowledge because of a division of labor -- some people excel at some things to the point that they can perform those duties well enough to allow others to focus on other duties. This began with successful food production, freeing other individuals to make other discoveries. If we were to turn back the clock to when everyone grew all their own food we'd be way further back than the 1950s -- we'd be back before writing existed. So the next time a "country person" is about to disparage a "city person" on an internet forum for not knowing something about agriculture, I hope that "country person" realizes (s)he is likely just as clueless about how exactly that computer is allowing him/her to do so. If we were all "jacks of all trades" there'd be no "master of anything." And farmers would be back to doing everything by hand.

 

[Fierlin1182]

Well apparently, although we all know it's the open-minded, "right" attitude to take to say "cities and farms are both important to civilisation, and no one is better than the other", none of us really think that way.

I can see that most of you are definitely pro-country, even though you grudgingly admit that cities provide benefits to humanity (most of you; I don't refer to chooks4life, who obviously doesn't think this way, unfortunately), and you can see that I am definitely pro-city, even though I grudgingly admit that farms are a necessity to sustain our species.

I'm not knowledgable enough on the subject to be able to argue on some of the issues, such as medicine or ancient history. I also admitted to this in my previous posts, and never asserted that what I was saying was right, because I wasn't sure. They were just my ideas. I never did biology or history past year 8 in school, but I will bet that I know more about physics or chemistry than some of you. Do not label someone as ignorant because their knowledge set is different from yours. That is an extremely narrow-minded and arrogant opinion to take, even if you disagree with the usefulness of certain industries and/or specialisations. I agree with rosa moschata that nobody would be great at anything if everyone had to do everything. It's fantastic that there are people here who are well-versed on history, and also people who are well-versed on computers, or animal science, or particle physics, etc. People as a whole can acquire and utilise a much more diverse range of knowledge this way, for the good of everyone, maybe in some ways many wouldn't even know how!

I have more to write but I'm already late for a lecture. So I'll be back later.

 

[Rosa moschata]

http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/