Proposed Solution To Impending Global Catastrophe.

Originally posted by stompk

Idea #6
Nobody pays rent. Put a 100 acre cap on the amount of land a single family can own. All money that is squandered in affordable housing projects and other government cash cows gets diverted into buying land from people who deem it necessary to own 80,000 acres to put their 20 bedroom house on, and divide it up in 10 acre parcels and give it to people who are renting, and financially encourage them to farm it.

Sorry. This one amused me way too much.

First, do you have ANY idea about the economics of farming? Don't waste your breath, it was a rhetorical question. I grew up on a farm, in a family of farmers, in fact, and I can say with some certainty that 100 acre farms aren't commercially viable, and those 10-acre vegetable gardens you're proposing are a waste of time and resources. What you'll wind up with is an entire country full of 10-acre plots of bare ground, minus its topsoil, with crappy drainage, and almost no crop production. Most people in the US...in fact, I'll go out on a limb and say 'most people in the industrialized world' don't have more than a faint clue about land management or good agricultural practice...and even if they do, they don't have the time to farm their micro-plots, because most of us have jobs to go to, and farming isn't a hobby, it's a full-time occupation in and of itself.

Frankly, this entire idea sounds like nothing more than a serious case of class envy. It's certainly not grounded in any reasonable look at any problem, nor does it show a grasp of current events or recent history. It's the same kind of land redistribution that did wonders for agricultural production in Cambodia and Zimbabwe.

I don't know of any 'nice' way to put this...but as long as we keep using more and more gadgets, and considering them basic human rights, or necessities of life, energy consumption is going to go up over time. If you really want to do something about energy consumption, turn off your iPod/MP3 player, your PC/Mac, your TV, your air conditioner, your refrigerator, and your lights. Park your car. Wash your clothes and your dishes by hand. Welcome to the 1800s.

There's some truth behind your reply, Stormhammer.

I'm always surprised how few, really efficient and important solutions are proposed within such threads. Sure, it is good to think about others, and to be compassionate with those who are not on the lucky side.
Way too few care about others at all. They don't even think a single minute a day about what "we", indirectly and passively are contributing to the misery of other places in this world.

But that isn't the whole story. If people think that being compassionate and thinking about problems a bit, is enough.. I guess they are wrong.
Might be some kind of evasive behavior, to find impossible solutions and be benevolent.. but subconsciously knowing that this kind of solutions cannot succeed or change anything. One has "done" his good deed of thinking a bit, and doesn't have to do anything else.

Do you guys really believe, that those who want things to stay the way they are.. care about others? They are often very cold and calculating. They abuse the most fundamental "social rules" to manipulate and profit from warm-heartedly people who naively believe that every individual IS as compassionate and benevolent, as they are themselves.

People have to realize this and they have to be prepared against what techniques "evil" individuals use. Rather than expecting from everyone to be positive towards oneself or others. Rather than playing the role of the victim, over and over again.

- Do you really believe that you can change something by introducing free "land" for families? Do you believe the "Dark Side" will support you, or not intervene.. against your ideas?

- Do you really believe that by inventing highly potential forms of energy, you can do the world a favor?

- Do you really believe that you could save many people by finding a very efficient cure for severe illnesses?

I am not saying that those things should not be our goals. Those things should become possible, one day. Absolutely. Because they are the only reasonable goals.

-> But the truth is: Renewable forms of energy are growing. The 1999 alternative Nobel-Price winner and german politician, Hermann Scheer, states the following:

100% Renewable Energies

"It is therefore astonishing that, in spite of these facts, there is such great debate about the possibili-ties of renewable energies. There is only one likely reason: the arguments that renewable energies have limited potential justifies the continued utilization of nuclear and fossil energies. The proponents of this argument are either ill informed or arguing ideologically in favor of conventional energies. Their ideas are simply unscientific."

Energy is a driving force for our civilisation

"THE DILEMMA OF STATISTICS

1. When you speak of global energy statistics, you say that they are wrong. What do you mean by this?

"They are wrong and unscientific. Science means to have a comprehensive view about things. Therefore, energy statistics must also be precise. And if energy statistics ignores the non-commercial energy flows and take into account only commercial, then they must be wrong. They are giving us the limited picture on energy. Recent energy statistics do not merit being scientific. They are nuclear and fossil energy statistics, not energy statistics. For example, the use of solar collectors is not included in energy statistics.

Conventional, nuclear and fossil energy is only additional energy, which gives us on average only plus 10 degrees. Which is not much. That means that conventional is a minor energy. So, with new technological help we have to substitute this 10 oC of minor energy with solar energy. Then we will have a global renewable energy system. This is our target."

2. How to achieve this?

"The solution is to set the target to substitute nuclear and fossil energies. And this is possible to achieve with renewable. But this is only possible if scientists, politicians, and industry will change the energy paradigm.""

As you can see, the possibilities are here. But there are powerful people, who still want to make money from conventional energy.

-> And the same problems are valid for every aspect of our life. Be it Society, Science, Law, Politics.. or Medicine.
I can give you another example: It's about a really astonishing method for treating addicts of heroine, and other highly addictive drugs. An african root called "Iboga Tabernanthe".

IBOGAINE IN THE NEWS

Sounds very promising, but there won't be any investment by the Corporations. They are not interested in efficient one-time treatments.
After all Methadone, Subutex and Co. is a government deal.. and is consumed for life. So you can have a guess of what is more important. Money, or Health. And also, they are very likely to spend money into the prohibition of Iboga.

Same goes for researchers who might have found cures for cancer, for instance. I always wonder why that kind of people is massively being discredited by government or corporate institutions. Publicly depicting those people as "Killers", "Racists"... or "Criminals".

If that kind of people, who get discredited.. are really only charlatans? Why would anyone care? I mean.. I don't remember the Law enforcement showing any interest in persecuting Charlatans. The opposite is the case, if you look @ "Scientology".. for instance. It is legalized.

The only reason for this.. is because they might be telling the truth. And endangering cultural or scientific cover-ups, influence, power and profit.

Therefore, as a conclusion I can only say that my idea of a solution, would be to engage the cause for supressed development. I might even say.. the people who are supressing our "evolution".

And that would be, the system.

I know it is a boring statement which can be heard from every "homeless" individual on the street. But it is the only answer. A radical answer, against radical Crimes. Which is only possible if the majority of us have a positive opinion, interest.. and enough courage. It's only possible if many people are actively contributing towards the same goal.

It's only possible if we stop believing in immigration problems, wars, corporate media, 911-Discussions and similar distractions.

Let's stop wasting our time.

osram, Nice Post!
The resposibility, I believe, ultimitely lies with us. Each individual. There is nothing wrong with technology, as long as we use it for good.
One can farm 100 acres and feed their family and several others. But if we had more small farms, gardens, greenhouses, etc, we could produce plenty through co-op. Emphasis would be more on self sustaining crops, rather than income. Research and development would be in improving efficiency through better watering techniques, pest control through natural ways such as bats and the like. You see, we need to get away from the money system and back to bartering and self substinance. The system that leaves no person behind. Why do people like to live on top of each other. I never understood the high rise concept. Is there not enough land?
Why do the rich like to live in such large houses. Most of the time, they are not comfortable, just lavish. Didn't they read the passage, "It would be easier to through a camel through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to get into heaven"? Hording wealth will get you nothing. Spreading the wealth, while living comfortably, will give you a much better life. Just ask the wealthy.

So, we all need to become yeoman farmers, working our 100 acre plots? Sorry, man....I grew up farming, and I much prefer my current job working with computers. The agricultural utopia you seem to want to 'go back to' never really existed. We don't have the skill set to be a nation of farmers, nor do we have the inclination.

Problems with farming aside, there are other problems with your concept of land redistribution. Under your system, each family can own a maximum of 100 acres. Now, suppose, as a hypothetical case, that I come from a prosperous family (as we will redefine prosperity), and have my 100 acres. My wife also comes from a 'well off' family, and owns their 100 acres. When we marry, our new family owns 200 acres. Does the government get to just waltz in and take half of my property just because I married someone? Which hundred acres do they take? Am I in any way given some form of compensation for the lost land?

As for people living on top of each other, a lot of it has to do with convenience. People go where the jobs are, or where the good climate is. They like to be close to things like markets, entertainment, churches...so eventually, they either build more and bigger markets, or they have to start living closer and closer together. That eventually leads to the formation of cities, and high rise apartments, both of which date a lot further into the past than most folks realize (there were dwellings in Rome that were 6-8 stories, which is a fairly tall building in pre-elevator days, and cities date so far back that we don't know where the first one was).

As for a cash-free, barter-driven society, there's a reason that money eventually replaced barter, and it didn't involve conspiracy. One driver was convenience. Let's say that you're painting my house, and I've agreed to pay you in barter...four dozen eggs, a chicken, and one of the nice hand-stithced quilts my wife makes. I hope you brought a wagon Or, we can exchange small, easily stored chits representing value, rather than large, fragile, and sometimes-messy goods. Oops, we just got back to money. There's also the matter of consistency. How do we decide what an item is worth for bartering purposes? Again, it's much easier if we have some item that has a fixed value.

First of all, we are and should be the government. Hammer, why did you get out of farming? My guess, farming is hard, thankless work. I know. I grew up on ranches, and my father was into farming before me.
My point about the land is, it is a God given gift. He gave us the land, and the water. It was never meant to be owned, just used. Everytime I go to public lands, I have to go farther and farther into national forest, cause people are fencing off the land. Now these were grandfathered in, but the people that owned them before, never put up no trespassing signs and built extravagent driveways and houses.
Is it public or private? Who's is it to sell. 100 acres is plenty, and you need more your chasing the buck, which is the ultimate underlining problem. Money. Bartering systems work on supply and demand. Most things that we need in life, can be made on a small farm. Living off the land and technology can be nicely incorporated.
We have too many people in careers that really have no purpose in life. The problem is, people are force to work at menial jobs, because they don't own anything. They rent, they have no land, they have a beat up car. Are they lazy? Some maybe, but most are hard working, tax paying people. Is this what they deserve. Who is responsible for their welfare? Those that have more are, because they put themselves in a position of leadership, therefore they have more responsibility to their neighbors.

I got out of farming for a really simple reason. Not only is it hard and thankless work, it's work that I'm not really good at. I'm much better with computer gear, or sound equipment...so I went into jobs where my talents fit.

I'm still wondering if your proposed system of minifarms and barter trade would actually work in a technological society. What's the rate of exchange for intangible services? Who pays for legitimate 'public works' like highways, and how do they pay?

As I mentioned above, how do you keep a family from owning too much land? It's not *my* fault I fell in love with a rich girl, is it?

If you're really concerned about saving land, might I suggest that, other than the kind of redistribution that you're looking at, we simply enforce the laws about public lands and wilderness areas.

Hammer, in order to enforce the law, one should absolutely free of any infractions of the law they are enforcing. Unfortunately, this is nearly non existant.
I remind people of God's laws, which coincide pretty much with mans law. I'm not perfect by any means, so therefore I have no right to judge or enforce.
As for the land, more than 100 acres means lots of work and upkeep. 10 acres is manageble for a family, and they could even make it very productive, with good farming skills and such.
Is it your fault you married a rich woman. No, unless you were just looking for a rich woman to marry. With wealth, comes responsibility. I don't deny that. The responsibility lies in taking care of others. Got enough? Have extra. Make someones day by giving them $100 bucks. That's how money brings happiness. Got an extra acre or 2 in the back 40. Give a family a chance to own something. Then, you've brought someone up with you.
Thanks by the way, for your thoughtful post.