the squibix family blog

His argument is as follows:

Wherever the rural poor have gained access to improved roads, modern seeds, less expensive fertilizer, electrical power, and better schools and clinics, their productivity and their income have increased. But recent efforts to deliver such essentials have been undercut by deeply misguided (if sometimes well-meaning) advocacy against agricultural modernization and foreign aid.

Leaving aside the snarky parenthetical (what, advocates of sustainable agriculture sometimes want to help local farmers, but other times are just screwing with them for kicks?!), Paarlberg is himself deeply misguided for several reasons. One of them is something he himself brings up in the article, only to fail to grasp its relevance: the rising cost of worldwide food prices. Those rising prices aren't due to the growth of sustainable or organic farming practices (as much as those may affect prices at Whole Foods), but to the very industrialization of farming that Paarlberg advocates. Yes, fertilizer and improved (and patented, naturally) seed will improve yields for a single year, but then you have to buy them again next year. And at the same time, in order to make your operation efficient and corporate-buyer-friendly, you need to dedicate your entire growing area to your cash crop. Congratulations, you are now linked to the world economy! But don't worry, if food prices rise faster than what you take in for your crop, you can always eat your Roundup-Ready soybeans.

Seriously, most farmers in the United States, one of the most industrialized farming countries in the world, are barely scraping by. Every year the US loses about 10,000 farms, as farmers realize that even with government subsidies they just can't make a go of it. Paarlberg would probably claim that the shrinkage is due to the effects of increased efficiency, which may be—but the last thing countries in the developing world need is tens of thousands of out-of-work farmers flooding into cities... where they will be dependent on the ever-increasing production of industrial food to keep them alive.

Of course, there is absolutely nothing wrong with aid to Africa. But in the litany of "improved roads, modern seeds, less expensive fertilizer, electrical power, and better schools and clinics", some of these things are not like the other (bonus points if you guess which are most exciting to a former adviser to Monsanto!). Wouldn't Africans better off if, rather than being tied to the world agricultural economy, they were given tools to improve their ability to grow their own food? The system of factory farming in the United States emerged gradually—organically, if you will—once conditions made it possible and apparently desirable; if such a system is going to take over in the developing world then perhaps we can let it happen the same way (only, you know, without the multiple ecological catastrophes that marked—and continue to mark—American factory farming).

I will now pause to allow those more knowledgeable than me about the state of African agriculture to comment, should they choose to do so; I will follow this post with another refuting the suggestion—made frequently—that abandoning industrial farming methods, including petroleum-based fertilizers and monoculture plantations, will lead to worldwide starvation.

I was contemplating something similar today as I walked the dog. The problem is as follows: many people in the developing world endure poor living conditions, by their own standards as well as ours. It is a problem that needs to be addressed, and because it cannot ethically be addressed by shrinking populations (or allowing them to shrink: Barbara Kingsolver in Poisonwood Bible) we need another solution. Paarlberg, technical-rationalistic and teleological (if the teleos is global capitalism) would fix things by increasing incomes: "improve" agricultural methods, link farmers to markets, get them paid for their produce so they can buy nice things. As he writes:

Poverty — caused by the low income productivity of farmers' labor — is the primary source of hunger in Africa, and the problem is only getting worse.

I would suggest that a better solution would be to redefine the terms of the "poverty" in question. If we can look past the equation that tells us that "money = security", surely "food insecurity" would be more productively addressed by increasing farmers' ability to produce actual food. Can't eat cash! This is where Paarlberg and others who share his point of view go wrong, because they don't actually care about food.

As a point of comparison let us consider the other side of the world, where increasing numbers of people are choosing to pay more for their food in order to see higher quality and a lighter impact on the world's environment and resources. The most forward-thinking among them—like me, naturally!—are working to grow some of their own food, or at least to understand intimately the conditions under which it's grown. That is to say, we are moving in exactly the opposite direction than Paarlberg suggests for Africa. Are we misguided? Stupid? Spoiled first-world brats who are just playing at sustainability while cursing Africa to poverty? All three have been suggested.

Leaving aside the question of whether sustainable, organic farming itself will lead to a collapse in the world food supply—a ridiculous but oft-mooted suggestion that deserves its own post—I think that Paarlberg's dismissal of sustainable-food enthusiasts in the United States as dilettantes who are somehow not connected with the real world is at the heart of his misunderstanding of the situation. Produce from a small organic farm in New England is not a luxury, but an investment in the idea that food itself is important, and in fact is more important than the money involved in buying it. Paarlberg wants to solve hunger by making food cheaper and giving people the opportunity to make more money; I would rather make food better and give people the opportunity to be more involved in its production rather than wasting their time in useless jobs. Would my ideas lead to the collapse of the economy? Maybe, but I'm not concerned with the economy, I'm concerned with food. Unlike Paarlberg.

He wrote his article to condemn those who argue against his kind of aid to Africa. We will curse them with starvation, he says, if we do not encourage development in a specific direction, one which will not only align third-world farming with the Western economy but which will tie third-world farmers inexorably to the Western farm-industrial complex. American farmers have already found out how tough it can be to escape that machine. No one today—well, not many people—would suggest that, since the burning of coal in tremendous quantities powered development in the Western world, the same model should apply in Africa: most sane individuals would agree that we now have better solutions, and that developing nations can learn from our mistakes rather than repeating them.

We are now learning in the United States that our prevailing system of agriculture is in large part a mistake. We need to avoid exporting it. Instead, we should be encouraging sustainability both in the Third World and at home, and we should be listening to African farmers as well as preaching to them: maybe they have as much to teach us as we have to sell to them.

The problem I think—aside from the fact that that is just how I write, so much the worse—is that I craft my arguments without any research whatsoever, which can't help but result in an end-product that is somewhat juvenile. I stand behind the opinions, of course! It's just that I wish my tone were perhaps more measured and scholarly.

Happily, people who are more measured and scholarly than me occasionally agree with what I have to say, which makes me feel a little better. Like Jo, for example. Or Anna Lappé, who wrote a response to Paarlberg's piece that also appeared on Foreign Policy's website (thanks Tom for the link!). Paarlberg responds in the comments, and he sounds just like anyone else arguing on the internet:

I welcome Anna Lappe’s response to my FP article.... Her argument illustrates nicely the weak foundation of evidence used by those who promote organic farming.

Pwned!!!1

Anyways, our engagements this evening prevent me from writing the polemic about the potential for local sustainable food production that I am very eager to share, so it will have to wait until a later date.

(It's not that we do our laundry late at night, it's just that we usually have better things to do than put the bed together until the point at which we want to go to bed. Somethings, clearly, we wait a little bit too long.)

Clearly Michael suspects we're trying to put one over on him; or else he's just out of ideas after "one failed attempt" at a summons.

"Carl and Carolyn are both spouses," his message helpfully informs us. "I recommend they call this number... It's not a fine, it's a *garbled* for their arrest."

So if you're out there, Carl (and Carolyn), you should know that this is serious business—if you somehow had not come to that awareness over the last, oh, five years since you changed your phone number. If you want to come clean and end the running and the lies, all you have to do is call Michael at 888-393-6050; reference case number 16200MA10. This can still all be settled peacefully!

[All quotes rendered as accurately as I could manage.]

One of these years I'm going to really get organized so everything gets in the ground when it should. I'm also someday going to have screened compost so I can prepare proper seedbeds, because that's sure not something we have going on now. Today I sowed some more carrots, collards, and chard, and though this time I did take care with the job the fact is that my soil—made mostly of a little proper compost and alot of composted sod—is kind of lumpy. I read somewhere that carrots are hard to grow, so all of a sudden my success of last year is looking like a fluke; I don't want to take carrots for granted!

In other words, we're still working on things in what time we have available. Harvey had fun this afternoon playing with a couple of new trucks (new to him, straight out of a neighbor's trash yesterday!) and eating more dirt than I might have liked, but less than I might have expected. He sure looks cute out there. Even if we don't manage and vegetables we can take credit for growing a good baby.

You can see Harvey didn't wait for the official start of summer to take his first dip. Or rather, given his limited degree of agency at this stage, we didn't wait to dip him for the first time. Even though the water was too cold for us. But don't worry, he loved it; and mama was there to wrap him up in a towel as soon as he started getting chilly. He had a great time, and it could have been improved only by having a little bit more beach to play on—Walden Pond is rather higher than usual thanks to the little bit of rain we got this past spring.

I have to say, it's pretty exciting watching Harvey gain skills almost every day—exciting and a little bit nerve-racking when one of the skills is climbing the stairs, something he has almost managed. He loves playing in water (when we visited some goats the other day he spent most of the time splashing in their water bucket), and he likes picking up tiny objects from the ground, and he seems to enjoy playing with trucks. It's almost like he's a real person! He'll be talking and walking around on his own before we know it. I can't wait to see what he has to say.

While I did manage to bike to work for a while this year, and still do whenever it fits around the child-care schedule—that is, Thursday and Friday—I do know that it is in fact very difficult for most folks to do. Heck, the only times I could make it last year were when my car was in the shop, and I have a much shorter commute than most. Still, there are people who manage it, like a coworker of mine who enjoys a blissful car-less existence in Somerville. When I told him about bike-to-work day, he replied that he'd be sure to ride tomorrow. He does sometimes take the bus, it must be said.

If you can manage it, though, it can be very rewarding. There's something about it that makes you feel apart from the workaday rush—certainly, you're probably going slower than everyone else (though not always). It can make even the morning commute enjoyable! I can't wait for the day when increased cargo capacity lets me do even the grocery shopping via cycle; at that point my smugness will be unstoppable. For tomorrow though, it's just to work.

The best part of the deal for me was that, on the way home, I was able to draft off of a gentleman who was late for a meeting. Now there's motivation for a quick ride! Unfortunately, I didn't hear about his predicament until the stoplight where he was turning off my route, or I would have handled more of the pace-setting (more than zero, that is—hey, he passed me at an intersection but couldn't drop me, so I think hanging on his wheel was entirely within my rights).

What do you think, should we do it again on Monday?

Certainly, the "Stop Obama" messages pictured above (and that's only one of many: almost every stop sign along the path in Lexington has been so tagged) mirror similar anti-Bush graffiti from a few years ago. More pointed, and thus more difficult to explain, was the accusation spray-painted on the guard-rail on the side of the trail at one point: "Ted Kennedy was a hypocritical fat-cat," it read. Right on! Way to stick it to the man! I would have loved to get a picture of that one as well, but before I remembered to bring my camera it was gone, painted over in white paint. I guess it hit a little too close to home for some folks.

In other tomato-related news, the upside-down planter fad has made the New York Times. The article is mostly enthusiastic, and it does point out the effect that upside-down growing would have on reducing the ravages of cutworms, that most annoying of early-season garden scourges. But when you get right down to it, there's only one thing you need to know about trying to fight gravity:

Regardless, Mr. Nolan said, "The upside-down planters tend to dry out really fast, so I have to water a lot — probably once a day in the heat of the summer."... Many gardeners reported that the thinner, breathable plastic Topsy Turvy planters ($9.99) dried out so quickly that watering even once a day was not enough to prevent desiccated plants.

The result of that thirstiness, around here at least, is that I have never seen an upside-down planter containing a live tomato plant by August. Late summer, when you should be harvesting, it's pretty much all dead sticks all the time. Admittedly, the problem isn't unique to upside-down planters: any container-grown plants will need a whole lot more water than those planted in the ground. But at least when your pots are on the ground you can just spray the lot of them with a hose and feel like you're doing something, and you aren't distracted by believing you've bought an "ingenious tomato planter" that gives you a crop that's "bigger, better tasting, healthier, and easier to grow than ever before."

In short, don't do it. At least, not with my seedlings. If you want any, you're going to have to put them in the good old-fashioned ground.

Obviously, it's a little disconcerting that your Facebook login info—and all your friends' info, too—now follows you all around the internet, thanks to Facebook Connect or whatever it is that puts those little "Like this" buttons on the bottom of thousands of stupid articles and web pages. But privacy? I hate to tell you folks, but when you make an update on Facebook the little button you push to send it in is labeled "Share". And as anyone with any sense knows, when you share anything on the internet you need to consider it public property, because one way or another it will be. If it's any interesting, of course. If it's not, nobody will care. And as far as data security goes, you get what you pay for when you're relying on a free third-party site to manage your internet presence. You want to control your own settings? Get your own hosting!

Perhaps my lack of concern means that I don't fully understand what Facebook—or indeed "social networking" in general—is really about. I don't, contra the assumptions of the quitfacebookday.com folks, find it at all "engaging, enjoyable and quite frankly, addictive". Oh-for-three! It is a way to connect with friends and coworkers with whom I would otherwise not communicate, but since I'm not going to share anything with those folks that I wouldn't want getting out to a wider audience, I'm not bothered about privacy. Or maybe I don't care because I don't see the wider plot afoot, as spotted by a commenter a Wired article about the whole to-do:

Mark Zuckerberg is a Jew and so is [Wired writer] Fred Vogelstein. Convenient isn’t it, how a group comprising 1% of American society seems to always coincidentally prop up its weak and stupid members? The Jews are always looking out for each other, and ONLY each other. Fellow Americans, you have to watch the Jews very, very closely, and question them at every turn, or else they will take everything from you.

Ohh-kay.... I'm going to read that as trolling satire and walk away.

Anyways, reading all the articles published this weekend about the affair, one thing (from a PCWorld article) made me laugh:

The organizers of "Quit Facebook Day," Joseph Dee and Matthew Milan, both of Toronto, couldn't be reached for comment.

Well sure, no one could get in touch with them: they're not on Facebook!