A growing group of people is interested to learn about the relations between people and nature from a critical perspective. The emergence of this movement calls for more places where such learning is provided and facilitated. Many people deeply criticize our preoccupation with technology. We like to believe that technology can solve all our problems and that nature can be mastered. But can technology save us from all our problems? There is a strong call for the acknowledgment that health has not so much to do with mastering sickness by new technology but more with insight how to flourish. At the same time this is stressed for our most direct relation with nature: agriculture, forestry and fisheries. It may not be surprising that a large reservoir of knowledge about human interaction with nature, and how nature works, manifests itself in the domain of agricultural systems. But at the same time successful agricultural systems enabled people to live in cities and as a result the majority of the people were cut off from the complexity and biodiversity of their natural surroundings. The new movement is that a growing amount of people from cities are looking for new learning experiences in the countryside and the agricultural domain. It is not longer sufficient to sit back and relax on a campsite, or to do safari, but people want to participate in what is going on, and learn from it, get embedded in it. At the same time they want to offer their children to do the same thing. There is a realisation that certain experiences and knowledge can only be obtained outside the concrete jungle. These experiences can vary from getting access to open space, quietness, a touchable link with age-old history or seasonal cycles. What is important in this respect is that they not longer just want to be amused, as is the case in traditional tourism, but that they all search for experiences on the countryside that are meaningful for them in other ways. At the same time, in different places at the countryside, successful experiments are going on where people learn about their links with nature and about how to live from and with nature in a cooperational manner. All from a somewhat different angle, but they all increasingly open their doors for students. New thinking on ecology, agriculture, forestry and nutrition There are some extra-ordinary lessons on ecology to be learned in rural communities. An example is food styles. Some people on ecological farms started to experiment with raw food or wheat-free food and its possible advantages for health and ecology. In Finland there are “circular schools”. Courses are given at different times in different farms and communities on issues like permaculture and alternative food styles. One of the Finnish students is (re)discovering how to make raw vegetables better digestible by lactic fermentation Also he is experimenting with low temperature baking. He is ready, like many others, to share his experience sofar. Preventing the Nature Deficit Disorder of children Children are intrigued by nature. If children can experience a developed ecosystem with all its diversity they are naturally impressed. They feel part of a greater thing. It has recently been shown that grown-ups are more prepared to protect nature if they had such experiences in their youth. The conclusion the other way around is maybe more shocking: it is almost impossible to raise awareness on the values of nature among adults if they did NOT have extensive nature experiences in their youth. If so many people do not find it important, is it then still fundamental to protect nature? Can we really live without nature? From a holistic point of view, people are part of life systems, sometimes called biospheres. A person is a biosphere in itself, containing 10 times more bacteria and other life forms than the number of own body cells, distributed over more than 100 different species. We are nature and nature is in us. If we want to respect ourselves, we need to respect nature, that is: our relations with the environment and other living beings. Diminishing our natural environment and biodiversity means risking our own existence. Organic farms and communities in nature areas are perfect places for children to offer such intensive nature experiences. There are creative ways to facilitate even more these learning experiences, for example by letting children taste different products, and to let them discover the origin of our food. In the Netherlands a project is started, called: ”De smaak te pakken” (In English: get the taste). It is a mobile tent-kitchen that can be built in a city park. A cook, and several animators show children in playful way what food is made of, how the original ingredients taste and where they come from. Learning from the past for the future In many rural communities traditional ways of agriculture and forestry are still being practised, and many traditions that are connected to it are still alive. Many of the technical methods and also the traditional cultural skills seem to be of value again in industrialised societies. A nice example is the art of gardening and of conserving and cooking with seasonal food products. In Eastern Europe it is now possible to help the aged population in surviving in their villages, and at the same time learn from their vast experience with this. They can also teach songs, dances and old rituals in which the natural pace of nature and the seasons is being reflected. New ways to survive on the countryside At the same time, new communities are developing in the countryside where people survive by applying more alternative scientific methods of agriculture like permaculture and organic agriculture. They are often actively involved with local authorities in the renovation and management of traditional landscapes, connecting nature areas by eco-corridors, saving agro-biodiversity, etc etc.. They offer interesting experimental grounds for ecological building techniques, re-inventing or combining traditional building techniques and local materials with new scientific approaches. The same counts for renewable energy production and energy-saving. The new rural communities are more open than traditional communities. Inhabitants move more frequently or live only seasonally on the countryside. Also they have often jobs outside their village. The community is in a way not local but more global, connected through a network of rural and urban activist communities, for example the Transition Town movement, the Global Ecovillage Network (GEN), the Willing Workers on Organic Farms (WWOOF) network, the European Centre for Eco Agro Tourism (ECEAT) and the European Youth For Action (EYFA). RebelFarmer would like to consolidate this diffuse group of people into a network with access to critical literature, information, practical assignments and volunteering opportunities. On the RebelFarmer website it is described in more detail where learning experiences are currently offered. References Pollan, Michael 1991, Second Nature, A gardener’s education Rapport, David J. et all (ed) 1999, Managing for Healthy Ecosystems Louv, Richard 2005, Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder Chevian, Eric / Aaron Bernstein (ed) 2008, Sustaining Life: How Human Health Depends on Biodiversity Other organisations specialised in nature-humans relations www.wildernessawareness.org www.natureskills.com www.natureinstitute.org www.nsfarming.com www.leisa.info www.schumachercollege.org.uk www.birdwooddowns.com www.edibleestates.org Add Comment The self-fulfilling prophecy of peakoil 09/23/2009
"Crude oil futures for delivery in 2015 are currently trading near $85 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange" Any thoughts about this: normally people that warn against peakoil complain that they are not heard in the media. What about if they UNDER-estimated their influence, and traders and investors become afraid from all the predictions that have been made in the media and start buying up more future stocks of oil, and driving up current prices with it. Peakoilers would see in the rising prices a scarcity that they have predicted. But in fact, what they see is the result of what they partly have been causing themselves. I say this because it reminds me on what happened with the "multiculturalism debate" in the Netherlands. You know this debate went totally wrong, resulting in a transformation of a tolerant country to one of the most hostile ones in Europe towards immigrants. What went wrong here is that the proponents of multiculturalism have too long profiled themselves as underdogs, because they felt that they were not heard, while in fact a lot of policy attention was paid towards it. The problems of "integration" (in the beginning still a very not-political correct term in the NL) were in fact so huge, that it seemed like that the government did nothing to help to close the gap between newly immigrated people and the established Dutch. This was utterly condemned by the "new right", who believed that all the governmental support just aggravated the problem: it prevented that immigrants were confronted with "necessity" that they should "integrate". Like I said: this was in the beginning language only expressed by extreme right in the NL, now it is common sense (and I emigrated to France...) Anyway, back to oil: the biggest hatred and accusation from "oilpeak-deniers" or "climate change deniers" come from the fact that "money-squandering schemes" or "taxpayer money" are spilled to create a "no-growth" scenario, while in fact according to them this money should be spent on stimulating growth, because only growth can compensate for pollution. Now, I don't predict that the whole climate debate will finally come back this ideology, but maybe if peakoilers would reflect more about their own position in the debate, there would be less an ideological war as I can see right now between them and its "debunkers". I think the two best known websites on both side of the peak oil front, The Oil Drum and Peak Oil Debunked, are already doing a relatively good job in trying to stay "objective". And although I agree it is like fighting a war, which necessitates scientific theory to back up eachothers' ideological and moral standpoints, both parties need people who are above the party lines. Personally I am in favor for searching for no-growth scenarios (and for a world without borders ;-) but I did some economics on my university and with this background I can't see yet a serious theory that can guide a transformation. The Stiglitz commission might be a beginning. But massively claiming no-growth already as an ideology, because we feel have not enough (media/governmental) support might make its own fear come true: indeed no-growth but one without solidarity. Some of the more "objective information"that I know off: The Hirsch report Are we actually replacing stuff so many times because we want to stay in touch with modernity, or just for fun, just because out of habit or because we are bored? Is fun shopping a fundamental right on leisure, considering our incredible efforts that we spend on our job, or do we do it just because we are bored? Do we buy pre-packed and pre-cooked food because we have terribly busy life and we can’t spare a minute. Or are we just being lazy, and we don’t care enough about our health? Are we going on holiday so many times by airplane because it is one of the few opportunities to relax from our busy, productive life? Or do we lack the fantasy to amuse ourselves closer to home and without touroperator? Are we going by car to our work because it is the only efficient way, and we need a private moment, and public transport is terrible? Or is our car a status symbol, and we don’t really care about the effect of cars on the environment? Do we have trust in our farmers and science to produce safe food without impact on nature to worry about? Or are we just interested in the price of food, and we don’t really care where food comes from and how it is has been produced? I tend to be more and more dualist in my thinking about sustainable development, although my preference goes out for pluralism. What the hell do I mean? I mean that it seems that two main assumptions are driving people in their consumption behaviour. One is: believing that we can still gain productivity because of still endless possibilities for division of labour and subsequent economies of scale in the production process. Caring for the environment is a luxury that we can pay from our ever growing production (the “productivists”). The other is: we were able to reach our current productivity because of over-exploitation of human and natural resources which is not sustainable in the long run. We need to find satisfaction in a more modest behaviour (the “ecologists”). Purely based on arguments, the productivists are clearly loosing grounds. Fresh water, food, energy, rare metals, phosphor, signs of depletion of resources have been on red the last years, scaring many people. Even the link has been made between the price of oil, reflecting its scarcity, and the economic crisis in which we all are amidst. Now you see the two thought strands radicalising. The productivists are calling on their last trump. There is enough oil in the ground for centuries to go, and in the meantime our scientists will come up with something, like they have always did, to deliver us cheap energy. Like nuclear fusion or something. The ecologists say: we haven’t the time, and we can’t be sure! And here is where it is radicalising. The productivists started to accuse the ecologists of self-fulfilling prophecy. They spread fear that humans are not creative enough to cope with shortages of resources. Instead of stimulating innovation and economic growth, they advocate backwardness and economic stagnation. If the ecologists will gain sufficient power they make their own fear come true. On the other hand, we have the ecologists saying: it is an illusion to think that economic growth will enable us to limit environmental and social degradation sufficiently. We have to limit our greed. And it is greed that is driving economic growth. Anyone that is not respecting the precautionary principle of the UN Rio Treaty of 1992, is performing a criminal act against humanity. Until recently everybody believed in the merits of economic growth, except for a few hippies. It changed very rapidly. Now it has become difficult to take the “nuclear fusion argument” really seriously. On the other hand there is still no serious economic model for “no growth”. Is there a middle way argument? Or will an ideological war begin? RebelFarmer is in a strange position. One the one hand we would like to help ordinary people, that are struggling with their quality in their life, because they lack access to a good environment, nice food and rich nature. On the other hand: we are in the middle of spoiled, fat and bored consumers who are lacking drugs when the economy is in a crisis. Can we clearly recognize our “target group”? No, not really. In fact the ideological war is taking place in ourselves. We all have a bit of both of it in ourselves, and we all doubt. So we will just muddle through. Investing not really enough in our ecosystems and in our social fabric in order to cope with a post-peak resource reality and investing too much in money squandering schemes like CO2 compensation so that the world economy is not able to thrive like it should in order to create pleasures for the working class. It is astonishing to see that the amateuristic capitalism-hippy fights of the 60’s became an ideological conflict on world scale in such a short time. We are forced to choose sides. But it is the dualism in all of us, of all times with which we are kept being confronted: finding resistance to our own gravings for drugs, competition instincts and power abuse. Eco-documentaries for the masses: www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPIY7SrKdsg New ways of measuring gross domestic product (GDP): Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress Today’s newspaper mentions good and bad news for organic agriculture. The good news is that in France the sector experienced a 25% growth in 2008, and an annual growth of 10% the last ten years. The bad news is that production can not meet the demand and the growth is mainly realised by imports. Now, why is that? All those years, during the neo-liberal epoch, we had to hear over and over and again that the market is the most important driver of change. Ecological alternatives were all nice and clear, but if the people didn’t ask for it, all ecological people would remain in their own little bubble producing for eachother, living from a a miserable salary. Now, something wonderful happened. Finally the message came through about the contamination of our environment by agricultural pesticides and nitrates, and about our bad food habits. Parents became worried about the quality of the food of their children at school, companies and institutes became worried about the food in their canteens. The government took up an article in the new environmental legislation that public institutes should serve more healthy food. But how can one measure the rate of healthy-ness? There is in fact only one clear indicator available that satisfies most people involved: the percentage of organic food in the meal. Organic food has a label and this can be tracked down in the administration of the cantinas... So that is how demand is created. And that is one of the most important reasons in fact to have a label. Normally the World Trade Organisation (WTO) does not allow discrimination in the market place. And until recently the European Union followed this principle, with for example as consequence that it was forbidden for a school to grant a contract to a food supplier on the condition that it should be (partly) organic. This changed several years ago. The EU now allows “positive discrimination” in public procurement for labeled products that have considerably less negative environmental impact than comparable products without label. It resulted in an explosion of demand. Organic agriculture finally became a serious economic sector in France, as one of the last countries in Europe. But such long hesitation of France came from somewhere. There are not enough organic farmers or production in France to meet to growing demand, although many people would like to work in the sector. Something is terribly wrong. Did we interfere too much with the market? Created too much “artificial demand”? Or is the government not interfering enough? Allowing the strongest players to dominate, leaving no space for innovative young farmers? I think there is a combination of factors, but it boils down to one thing: the new message did not came through to important players and decision makers in French agriculture: the ministry of agriculture, regional chambers of agriculture and the main agricultural research institutes. They decide about stimulation and guidance measures, research programmes and use of available land. It is just two years ago that I spoke with a young couple in the Jura, looking since ages for 5 hectares of land to start organic horticulture. They would be the first ones in the whole province! The government has the right to buy agricultural land as first buyer if there is a threat that it will be lost for other uses. One of the rare opportunities to obtain land is from the governmental agency that buys and sells this kind of land. If you want something done by any French governmental agency you have to supply them with a “dossier”. And this dossier is decided upon mainly by a few mainstream farmers. So no chance. It is very seldom that an entire economic sector grows up without governmental support, especially in agriculture. So what basically happened in France is that the government stimulated demand, without stimulating production. The decision-makers with the old productivist ideas are still in power. They must be around 60 by now. They are open for approaches to use a bit less fertilisers and pesticides, let it be only for economic reasons. But they will never, NEVER, allow something weirdly holistic like organic agriculture seriously compete with their “scientific” based agriculture. Unfortunately for them, other labels that claim to be environmentally friendly and that fit more with a productivist approach, such as “sustainable agriculture” (Rainforest Alliance) or Agriculture Raissonée (“reasonable use” of pesticides)” never became a succes. But if the organic label will fail because too many people become disappointed that their food needs to be imported, there is a new chance on the horizon for a new environmental label! Of course I hope that the dinosaurs retire first. |
RSS Feed