The Anti-Scientist
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มิ.ย. 2024
- Episode 24 - Albert Howard. Albert Howard’s research in India converted him to the Organic cause, although he didn’t quite fit within their social or political groups. Stapledon, as a scientist, also considers him an outsider and pokes fun at him when they meet. Howard promotes the ‘Indore Method’ of composting as a viable means to manufacture humus, organic matter in the top layer of soil. It was hoped that society might re-design itself around humus production, rather than sewage and landfill, and the need for nitrogen fertiliser might be avoided. In line with blood-and-soil ideology, Howard felt this would have health benefits for the population.
In his re-designing of the earlier ‘Humus Theory’, Howard establishes a ‘scientific’ opposition to scientific agriculture which endures to this day.
Sources:
E J Russell ‘Russell’s soil conditions and plant growth’, 1988.
Lord Lymington ‘A Knot of Roots’, 1965
Lord Northbourne, ‘Look to the Land, 1940
John Paull, ‘Lord Northbourne, the man who invented organic farming, a biography. Journal of Organic Systems, 9(1), 31-53, 2014.
Media used:
Make Fruitful the Land, British Council Archive.
Le Grand Chase, pixabay
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.79[1/2] แก๊งไทบ้านพาบุกเมืองบั้งไฟโก้ ยโสธรรรร!!!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ldr3_fvTEXk/mqdefault.jpg)
very interesting video but instead of expanding ideas and countering arguments you just keep repeating "textbook blood and soil stuff..." Id imagine for example that howards argument on that fungi and microbes aren't the enemy in a healthy soil system but can help a plant with immunity, growth and nutrient density (all scientifically proven) would be hard to counter (despite there being diseases and parasites present in that system, which btw are the reason that plants produce antioxidants, vitamins etc) and that depriving them of this protective system is making food systems more vulnerable. Because of depleting plants of natural defenses in large monocultures makes crops more sickly and dependent on expensive technologies which deminish farmer profits and drives big agri business like Bayer.
70% of the world is still feeding on subsistence farming yet the 30% relying on big agriculture which you frame as "scientific agriculture" is the mayor reason for desertification, deforestation, and nutrience deficiency and chemical related illness worldwide, its clearly not that sustainable of a practice which future generations should rely on...
you are just using specific studies to support the current model you're subscribed to and disregard the rest.
This hurt my brain to read... you cherry picked what was said, to accuse him of cherry picking? When people stand speechless at things you say like that wilted word salad of a critique, they are not marveling at your intelligence, they are speechless at your ignorance.
@@FreeManFreeThought which words would you need help with?
@@tseuren123 that 70% x 30% ratios arent true. Not in the world, not in our northen more productive world. In fact, the smallholders are disapearing at light speed and going to cities as they can. Wich is the cause of many abandon lands, wich in countries like mine means big fires..
And, consider this: those "70% self suficience farmers" usually aply more fertilizers and other chemical /sintetic products per acre then the big ones. I use to see it in my grandfathers homestead...the big ones usually have agronomous and try to aply the least they can, because its expensive.
Nowdays humanity growns more food, better food then ever. Not only in absolutes, but also per acre...
@@srantoniomatos you go from:
those numbers are not true too they are true but not where i live within 1 sentence. They are true according to UN Food and Agriculture Organization btw.
small scale agriculture absolutely uses less fertilizers, i dont know where you got that fact from other than your grandpa because that 70% also have the least amount of financial means and government subsidies to buy which you correctly stated are expensive fertilizers, resistant seeds, antibiotics and vaccinations etc.
Large agriculture companies, increasingly owned by enormous financial funds, autocratic state actors and multi-billion dollar assetbuyers do grow most food in the west that is true, but they also need an out of proportional amount of land, water, mineral, chemical and fossil fuel inputs.
All this to deliver a product that is scientifically proven to be less nutrient dense, more disease and deficiency causing, and the biggest driver of desertification, habitat destruction, water pollution, and the list goes on and on.
This way of farming is laying the costs with taxpayers not only to fund it, but also to deal with the pollution and loss of other potential industries (like for example the fishing industry, tourism, and all sectors that require clean water). and yet the biggest financial profits go to billion dollar multinacional corporations that dont pay tax in the countries they operate (or at all)
im curious about the wildfires, in most systems large fires are caused by dead wood and invasive (often planted tree species) building up because small fires keep getting succesfully suppressed by firefighters which in turn is allowing dead wood to build up over time, acting like a time bomb which eventually does start an uncontrollable fire.
but this is beside the point.
@@tseuren123 Wildfires in the US are one of the many problems we've made with industrial agricultural and unknowingly disturbing the ecosystem. By trying to suppress the wildfires that occurred, more and more material that would have burned built up, resorting to what we have now, big tinderboxes of forests, as well as the monoculture timber plantation that simply burn. We also caused the dust bowl with our practices. By killing off the 'pests' of pairie dogs, growing annual crops, and hunting the bisons to almost extinction caused the soil to erode to such a point we made a dust storm. Humans may be smart but nature has evolved through thousands of years to be where it is today for a reason. We should not support the monocultures that drive desertification, the dust bowl, the deforestation, the wildfires, and the chemical runoff that is toxic for people.
I've been a market gardener for almost 50 years, finally retiring, or at least trying to. It's been lonely, as in addition to being a market gardener I'm also a scientist by training and I've always objected to the anti-science position of so much of the modern "organic" movement. When someone tells me that to improve my soil I need to fill a cow horn with manure and bury it on a full moon night, then make a homeopathic dilution of it, I've tuned out. I use mainly organic methods to grow my produce, but I understand it's a luxury for rich people, not a way to feed the masses. These days people just want to believe in what they want to believe and ignore reality. Their lives have been sheltered enough for the most part to get away with that, one of these days that will change. Another great video. Thanks.
Some forms of organic farming are more affordable to poor people than conventional agriculture. For example food forests are a growing practice in poorer countries.
The Organico growers of Cuba were formed by exactly the contrary. Organic is cheaper to buy than nonorganic as nonorganic is seen as, how wealthier nations do it.
Depending on just how deep you are in the fog, it can be all but impossible to see things for what they are.
With respect.
If more people lived countryside and our culture raised us, not for consumption, but for growth of community - we could all spend an hour or two in the food forests doing good work.
The reality is we are coddled city folk and spoiled nobles - but broke.
Thanks for commenting.
One weird thing i notice when food and farming are mentioned ,everyone on the internet has a very strong opinion - and most are waaaay off.
Hey while i'm here i have a question you may be able to answer. Why are the united nations saying 1/3 of all food worldwide is wasted? How did they come up with that outrageous number??
I've been involved in various types of farming for 45 years,plus some work in distribution etc.I've never seen anything wasted to the extent the they're claiming. It's not even remotely close to that! And from the little ive seen of poor countries ,they waste even less.
So what the hell are the UN thinking?
@@ronchappel4812 The UN is all politics! It is authoritarian/collectivist propaganda for a few, at the expense of the many.
As a lifelong urban person interested in agriculture and in politics and economics, this is all incredibly fascinating! I hope the series will eventually get up to the modern day - I'm particularly interested to see what you think of the recent Waitrose announcement about sourcing all their UK meat/produce/dairy from farms that "use regenerative practices" by 2035.
Saying organic farming is fascist because some fascist believed in organic farming is like saying Catholicism is fascist because Franco was Catholic or that vegitarianism is fascist because Hitler was a vegetarian. Ya just bein silly.
When it comes to bandying around this word 'fascist' everyone suddenly becomes braindead.
Love this series. Tanks.
As a permaculturist (and pro landscaper) one can see how the same concepts are just being reload nowdays. Labels like organic, regenerative, permaculture etc are mostly anti capitalist, anti comercial, and a bit of new peasent, both in its ideologic origins and its pratices.
And its funny how comodities corporations are literaly buying this labels to sell its products to urban costumers who love to pay more for it to avoid their guilt of convinience.
For every new "no till" market garden, or new permaculture homestead , a thousand traditional more productive small holder agriculture disapear (in south america, africa, asia) , and big comodity high tech agro business gets even bigger and more centralized...but it looks great, on the internet, or as summer camp vacation eco turism workshop kind of thing.
Dont even known what to think...specially because im part of it. "Its funny" i guess.
More and more see that living on the land (more then off the land) as a small land owner, homesteading type of thing, its a privilege, certainly not a right. A privilege that demands work and sacrifices. And most people that "love it" online would hate it in real life.
Back in the good old days, homesteading was just called “living”. I’m fairly convinced that those days will come back, as the human population shrinks back down to a manageable size.
@@montrealbroadwaybelive the "good old days" were not that good at all. Lots of ignorance and misery. Humanity live better in the last 50 years then ever before. At lears the majority. Theres always wars, desease and other problems...
@@srantoniomatos for sure. But the good living of the last 50-100 years is all due to the extraction of oil from the ground. This finite resource is depleting, and there is no replacement in sight. The bad old days will return
@@montrealbroadway sure oil and its products (plastics etc) are a big part of why the world (and agro) got so big and rich in the last 80 years. But so far i dont see it going away anytime soon. They just keep finding more and more oil, everywhere. And having big wars to control it. Add to it nuclear and " renewables...and things we dont even know yet...seem like if we dont died of nuclear war its gonna be greater then ever!
This is a really interesting channel, well done exploring the agriculture/history niche!
Glad I found your channel. Looking forward to watching you grow. Your content is good... keep at it.
Do any of the blood and soil organicists have connection to theosophy or Gnosticism?
Lots of people who might be Gnostic involved but they rarely self identify so people use odd choices of words to identify them,
Maybe but hard to prove.
I'm really enjoying this series, farming has become just another bullet point to go through on a government manifesto, interesting how through the 18-20th Centuries it formed a far more major part of politics.
In regards to modern organic buying trends, I really think people just see "organic" = "a good word, like life", therefore the food must be better, somehow, and are willing to pay a premium. I doubt Joe or Jane Bloggs considers the environmental impact of ORGANIC farming when they're buying their onions in Waitrose.
Like many things in life, there's a simple, face-value, black-and-white answer, and a grey, complicated, usually more boring true answer.
Love your videos, you deserve more subs, a real diamond in the rough 👍
I'd love to hear what you have to say about lab grown meat, eating insects, and concerns around food supply in the future.
Really enjoyed your video, and it finally provides some nuanced thinking outside of the greenwashing you often see on places like LinkedIn. However, I think Howard’s point on pesticides brought in an ecological perspective to pest and disease control. You say that nature is where pests and diseases evolved, but you must take into account what they evolved with, natural predators, and an environment that wasn’t a monoculture field that they can flourish in. So using cultural controls like intercropping, hedgerows,mulching and reducing spraying to bring beneficials back in. Generally speaking I think that Howard and Fukuoka’s main criticism of the agricultural science is that it’s monofactorial, only considering the effects of one factor at a time, and that nature is holistic, doing one thing will effect everything else in some way shape or form. Really enjoy your channel and keep up the videos!
I believe we have around 60 million acres of agricultural land in the UK, so thats roughly 1 acre per person, which is more than enough. I'd like to flag up that farmers, science and capital brought us mad cow disease, swine flu, bird flu and let's not forget the damaging effects of agricultural chemicals on farmers themselves.
This idea that farmers are not in the business of damaging their soils in a nonsense. Grab yourself a microscope, take a few samples and measure the organic matter. Agricultural chemicals burn away the topsoil over time, this is not news to anyone.
I can understand why blood and soil is so offensive. The Nazis did a lot of cultural appropriation. I truly hope the health of the nation and our agricultural practise are not linked and the billions of pounds we spend on health care is not because we are mainly eating fruit, animals and eggs that are devoid of nutrition and pumped full of water.
Good luck with your channel.
Begging the question? Assuming “organic farming” is both real and beneficial?
according to the World Bank in 2021, just 0.09 hectares (0.2 acres) of *arable* land per person in the UK. You're assuming pasture could be converted into equally productive land, which isn't realistic. You're also ignoring population growth (7% since 2011) and climatic factors impacting yields, like increasing rates of flooding.
Don't forget all the disease & famines in existence prior to capital & science intensive agriculture... We can only strive to improve by solving problems, there was no former agrarian utopia to return to.
Can you show us the scientific studies that demonstrate :eggs, animal and fruit depleted of nutrition"?
Even if there was 1 acre per person, do you really think 1 acre can produce all the food you eat in year? Not only food...fibers, medicines, etc?
Teh amount of "farmland" includes forestry and pastures...
And about "organic matter"... sure it add something good...but no, its not essencial to grow crops. Put water in a sandy desert and it will bloom! Water, light, hydrogen, oxigen, nitrogen, etc are more important then organic matter...
@@srantoniomatosYou can produce more than enough food for a person in an acre.
Brilliant videos excellent content
You say our soil isn’t depleted, but almost everyone in Britain and the entire Anglosphere now dies from malnutrition.
If you consider that the ice age reset the soil then how did nature enrich it?
Microbes and insect colonies, falling , rotting, dead organic matter.
Loess
Could you expand on that question? I don’t understand what you mean.
@@jaydnhughes6947 Loess is wind blown fine dust and then there are volcanic ash plumes and weathering plus the action plants. Nor should we forget nitrogen from lightening and humus from decayed grass.
I just grow whatever I can because I love to grow things and I love fresh fruits, berries, vegetables, herbs and such. I eat most of it raw like my squash, tomatoes, cucumbers, mint, puslane and basil I picked today. I tried my first ever Golden Berry today and WOW they`re so delicious and I`ll have figs soon if the birds aren`t watching them. I have a mesh covering though that I can make fig baggies from with twine. How much are cucumbers at the stores now, 4 bucks each?
How about: “we don’t know, we should look after it and use our senses to tell if the soil is screwed”.
soil is also a very good metal band
All you need to add is biochar.
Innoculate it with microbes first otherwise it will suck all the nutrients out of your soil and take too much time to release it to roots
So *actually* what he was on about was a very particular form of urbism.
In our modern world we are highly dependent on a very complex system of agriculture. You won't notice when it's working but if it fails even a little bit it'll be catastrophic. It's dependent on things outside our control like foreign imports, water and energy supply. If these were disrupted we could not all survive. Howard's system is devolved, there could not be a system wide failure, but it would not support as many people.
This guy is hilarious.
Liebig was horrified by non return city waste-streams, and wanted municipal treatment with Charcoal to capture nutrient, and return it to the land. Economist's love Low skill Contract labor for farms which may on the surface be efficient, but would you want productivity of words per minute in an office without the Grammar, and the spelling. Mass production is an artifact of the Genesis of a 6 day creation where God is at the center of the universe rather than nature so living systems can be deferred as God is revered above while the soil below is Dirt.
Conventional agriculture produce cheaper food because it doesn’t pay for negative externalities, if it did it would be less economical than organic
The best description I have for organic farming is not paying your diets. If you remove something from the soils, you have to pay it back. That's my theory and my soil samples back it up.
You seem to have missed much of 'the science'!
th-cam.com/video/Sx4l4Ct6yeg/w-d-xo.html
Wow! Great link! Yes, if you kill the symbiotic fungi, the whole system goes downhill. I remember a retired soil scientist saying that once you got over 3.5% organic matter that everything would go well for your crops.
@@donnahudson4813 there are claims that chemical fertiliser is just as good as 'natural' fertiliser but it perhaps needs a field scale trial rather than a plot sized trail... I haven't read much of their research.
th-cam.com/video/BH3Wc3U-oys/w-d-xo.html
Although it's still mostly fossil fuel sourced which alone is a problem.
Howard’s ideology is more relevant today than ever
Humis is the environment for microbes
The religion of chemistry is not based on science it is based on corporate greed
The history is well presented but the interpretation is very different
per epistemological solipsism, only self knowledge is rational, so science is obviously a hustle.
oh, i should add. imagine yourself screaming in the middle of tucson. humus rofl.
My nomination for the sheep names:
The flock: "Raid Shadow Legends"
Sheep #1: Keeps
Sheep #2: Manscape
Sheep #3: Hello Fresh
Sheep #4: Surf Shark
Sheep #5: AG1
Sheep #6: Factor
I believe that this naming scheme will be able to help you attract sponsors to the channel so you can waste viewers time contriving videos just to get a few pennies from a venture capital backed marketing concern.
If the sponsors don't pay up then you can revert to more sensible names such as Osama bin Laden, Frida Kahlo and so on.
Also, I feel the series has jumped the start a bit. Can we rewind to when the Romans arrived and there were pastoral Celts living off cows and dairy, versus the farmers that had hill forts and granaries?
Just asking for a friend.
On this series you could do a video on how agro in general and organic farmming in particular are greatly improved and even become dependent on oil and its products, specially plastic. Nowdays its impossible to do organic farmming (comercial) without oil and plastic: plowing, irrigation, greenhouses, plastic bags, etc.
So organic matter isn't necessary for plants? Are you really making propaganda in support of modern, industrialized, synthetic chemical-based agriculture? You actually think that policy makers who have never grown a bean plant before make better planners than people who have worked soil sustainably all their life? I'm having a hard time believing you are serious.
@@skeletalbassman1028 you dont even need soil...its call hydroponics! Actually...you probably eat things growing inplastic for some years now, like tomatos and peppers...
@@srantoniomatos yes hydroponics works for some plants, but not all. It’s really best for herbs and lettuces; you certainly can’t grow potatoes or carrots hydroponically! Meanwhile, they’ve found microplastics in fruit and vegetables at this point and you can bet it’s from growing using plastic mulch or hydroponics. We are killing ourselves and our planet with our so-called agriculture.
@@skeletalbassman1028 funny enough...most "organic agro" seem to be mostly things you can grow in hydroponics.. like lettuce! You seem to want to get rid off agriculture, specially organic agriculture, since that one is specially dependent on plastic: tarps, mulch, irrigation, greenhouses, plastic to transport and storage. From begginning to end, the new fashionable "regenerative market gardens" could be called: plastic agriculture!
Whats your solution?
@@skeletalbassman1028 From the Internet: "Growing Hydroponic Carrots - A Complete Guide Written by Altiné
Growing carrots hydroponically might sound challenging, but if you put the effort and time into learning how to grow hydroponic carrots the proper way, you will reap all the benefits.
The hydroponic growing method refers to growing plants without soil with the help of an artificial medium that helps the plants grow effectively. Carrot is among the best vegetables to grow hydroponically.
Fwiw, I agree with you. I've tinkered with and researched many types of growing systems, and nothing imho has compared to the ease, and health of a garden fruit than good old fashioned dirt. People can play around with hydroponics, and yes that stuff is very cool, but how easy is it for them to set up and maintain? How much fossil fuel energy and hose water is needed for those endeavors? How many chemicals are they introducing to the environment by feeding and medicating their lab plants? If you find the right spot in nature, you can plant a seed and forget about until it's time to harvest. And also fwiw, I have grown The biggest tomato plant I've ever seen in my life doing just that- sticking a seed in the dirt, watering it in, then absolutely nothing else. This thing had 8 vines that all grew 10 feet or more, putting off maters until late October. I had many other tomatoes growing in raised beds, using higher technology, like "self watering" containers, drip irrigation and such, but nothing has ever produced anything as healthy, and vibrant as that one mammoth plant that grew in my secret garden spot last year. What's more is I planted another tomato (different variety) in that exact same spot again this year, and it's doing the same thing. It's early July and I haven't watered it once, yet it's never shown any sign of fade or weeping, while all of my other tomatoes in the raised beds have needed rescued with the hose several times as we've had a draught like summer here in Indiana.
I have been watching a few of your videos and it's criminal how little engagement you're getting, you are clearly putting in plenty of work and I wish you the best of luck with these videos
I'm struggling to find a connection between the health of plants animals and people being one and blood and soil ideology.
I think all references to such ideology herein are huge leaps from no real evidence at all to make the link.
In short, I think either you don't really understand said ideology, or the arguments are made to create false consciousness.