I completely agree that we need a common language and a very powerful narrative, as there is currently no political mandate for saving the planet. As the saying goes, people find it easier to accept the end of the world than the end of capitalism.
The problem is that the new narrative has to be bulletproof. Anything built on questionable assumptions or opinions will not survive contact with the enemy. I am working on something and will post a draft as soon as it is available.
Thanks for writing this. I have been thinking exactly about the same recently:
"Currently, we fuel our agricultural system, marking us the only creature on the planet which uses more energy to produce our food supply than we get from consuming it. It costs 10 calories to produce 1 calorie of food by industrial agriculture"
Do you have some good uptodate references on this? I did the usual googling but couldnt find good sources ...
Thanks, I had found this one, but it doesnt seem to contain a source for the claims other than the speech by Michael Pollan. I don't doubt that the claim is true, but before I repeat it to somebody, I would like to have a solid scientific reference.
The language you are using in this essay is clearer than normal. I have a number of thoughts but will tone it down to one. Calories is a marketing strategy of the agribusiness elite stemming from the age old experimentation of figuring out the minimum food requirements to feed the masses, or serfs, or slaves, and still get work enough out of these people to siphon off the surplus.
What we ought to be thinking and talking about is nutrition, that which can only be supplied with a diverse diet of food grown being fed by living soil.
Only smallholders can manage living soil (and that would be a topic all on its own).
Whilst I agree with you, I think creating a language that communicates the precarity of the food system, and using that as a metaphor for all fossil-fuelled systems, is the first step.
I completely agree that we need a common language and a very powerful narrative, as there is currently no political mandate for saving the planet. As the saying goes, people find it easier to accept the end of the world than the end of capitalism.
The problem is that the new narrative has to be bulletproof. Anything built on questionable assumptions or opinions will not survive contact with the enemy. I am working on something and will post a draft as soon as it is available.
Thanks for writing this. I have been thinking exactly about the same recently:
"Currently, we fuel our agricultural system, marking us the only creature on the planet which uses more energy to produce our food supply than we get from consuming it. It costs 10 calories to produce 1 calorie of food by industrial agriculture"
Do you have some good uptodate references on this? I did the usual googling but couldnt find good sources ...
Thank you! Here's a post to the data: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/10-calories-in-1-calorie-out-the-energy-we-spend-on-food/
Thanks, I had found this one, but it doesnt seem to contain a source for the claims other than the speech by Michael Pollan. I don't doubt that the claim is true, but before I repeat it to somebody, I would like to have a solid scientific reference.
The language you are using in this essay is clearer than normal. I have a number of thoughts but will tone it down to one. Calories is a marketing strategy of the agribusiness elite stemming from the age old experimentation of figuring out the minimum food requirements to feed the masses, or serfs, or slaves, and still get work enough out of these people to siphon off the surplus.
What we ought to be thinking and talking about is nutrition, that which can only be supplied with a diverse diet of food grown being fed by living soil.
Only smallholders can manage living soil (and that would be a topic all on its own).
Whilst I agree with you, I think creating a language that communicates the precarity of the food system, and using that as a metaphor for all fossil-fuelled systems, is the first step.