3 ms·

I think the author's point here is that most people just don't want to let go of the _idea_ of the american farmer. Culturally, we want a farmer to be a guy rid

by hooande 17y ago

I think the author's point here is that most people just don't want to let go of the _idea_ of the american farmer. Culturally, we want a farmer to be a guy riding a tractor or milking a cow, not some guy who puts animals into boxes and then churns them out factory style. The image of a farm that contains happy animals in a field has been put into all of our heads at a very young age (remember "Old McDonald"?). The practice of industrial farming isn't only distasteful to think about, but it goes against some of our strongest cultural archetypes. I think that's why the author used so many examples of unpleasant things that he saw as a farmer growing up. He was trying to say that no matter how it's done, farming is a dirty and bloody business. It's nice to picture farming like it was in re-runs of Lassie, but that doesn't mean we should expect him to run his business based on outdated ideas. I think that this is a case of technology progressing faster than society is comfortable with. Whatever problems are created by industrial farming (environmental damage or harm to the animals) will be corrected by some ambitious startup founders who come up with clever solutions. The idea of industrial farming is relatively new, especially when compared to the thousands of years put into mastering regular farming. I don't think it's wise to stand in the way of progress just because we find certain elements of it to be distasteful (but not harmful).

encoderer 17y ago
But the reason the "family farm" you describe went extinct isn't because we all need so much more food than we used to. While that's true, looking at the history, there's no reason to think the move away from multi-crop rotations to corn on corn on corn was done for any reason aside from short-term financial interests of farmers decades ago, and then a shit load of direct farm welfare since. I haven't read Omnivores Dilemma tho I have read In Defense of Food. Thinking I'll pick up the former this week. Sounds like a good read.
bmj 17y ago
I think that this is a case of technology progressing faster than society is comfortable with. Whatever problems are created by industrial farming (environmental damage or harm to the animals) will be corrected by some ambitious startup founders who come up with clever solutions. I find this attitude to be a bit dangerous. Sitting around waiting for some entrepreneur to save the world doesn't strike me as the best solution. Regarding the bloodiness of farming, Pollan, in _The Omnivore's Dilemma_, doesn't shield the reader from this. In fact, you get a very detailed view of what chicken farming and processing looks like on a sustainable farm. What's most interesting about it is how human Salatin and his family are about it--they understand they are killing things, and that if they don't give themselves some respite from it, they will change for the worse. The biggest issue I have with technology and farming (particularly the use of chemicals and hormones, not as much with machinery) is that we don't understand the ramifications of what we are doing yet. Consider that at one point in time, we thought it was smart to spray ourselves with DDT. We may not learn what the various herbicides and antibiotics and hormones are doing to us for years to come. One of Pollan's primary points in his writing is that food is too important for us to hand over to technocrats and big business.
plesn 17y ago
Farming always has been dirty and bloody. It is maybe more cynically bloody because we use ways of killing animals directly taken from extermination camps, and maybe eating meat nearly every day is not worth it. And there is no such thing as "way of progress" unless you say history has a goal (set by god?). Progress depends on many factors amongst which technology (otherwise our "progresses" in killing technology would have already eradicated humanity). Technology is a tool with a lot of complex implications: sadly, it is more often used to free powerful people from their dependence on dominated people than the contrary.

by hooande 17y ago

encoderer 17y ago

But the reason the "family farm" you describe went extinct isn't because we all need so much more food than we used to. While that's true, looking at the history, there's no reason to think the move away from multi-crop rotations to corn on corn on corn was done for any reason aside from short-term financial interests of farmers decades ago, and then a shit load of direct farm welfare since. I haven't read Omnivores Dilemma tho I have read In Defense of Food. Thinking I'll pick up the former this week. Sounds like a good read.

bmj 17y ago

I think that this is a case of technology progressing faster than society is comfortable with. Whatever problems are created by industrial farming (environmental damage or harm to the animals) will be corrected by some ambitious startup founders who come up with clever solutions. I find this attitude to be a bit dangerous. Sitting around waiting for some entrepreneur to save the world doesn't strike me as the best solution. Regarding the bloodiness of farming, Pollan, in _The Omnivore's Dilemma_, doesn't shield the reader from this. In fact, you get a very detailed view of what chicken farming and processing looks like on a sustainable farm. What's most interesting about it is how human Salatin and his family are about it--they understand they are killing things, and that if they don't give themselves some respite from it, they will change for the worse. The biggest issue I have with technology and farming (particularly the use of chemicals and hormones, not as much with machinery) is that we don't understand the ramifications of what we are doing yet. Consider that at one point in time, we thought it was smart to spray ourselves with DDT. We may not learn what the various herbicides and antibiotics and hormones are doing to us for years to come. One of Pollan's primary points in his writing is that food is too important for us to hand over to technocrats and big business.

plesn 17y ago

Farming always has been dirty and bloody. It is maybe more cynically bloody because we use ways of killing animals directly taken from extermination camps, and maybe eating meat nearly every day is not worth it. And there is no such thing as "way of progress" unless you say history has a goal (set by god?). Progress depends on many factors amongst which technology (otherwise our "progresses" in killing technology would have already eradicated humanity). Technology is a tool with a lot of complex implications: sadly, it is more often used to free powerful people from their dependence on dominated people than the contrary.