"Ethan didn’t think much of the liberals’ point of view. But he didn’t think much of his neighbors’ unbounded optimism either."
Feels good to read this.
As a liberal-leaning farmer, I feel myself in between two worlds: many farmers around me see me as a depressing doomsayer, and insist in business as usual and are not really interested in adapting farming practices or leveraging conditions for long-term insurance; "city people" see me as a bunny killing, biodiversity ravaging agro-capitalist.
As a city dweller who is fond of "eating food" from time to time, I'm happy there are people out there trying to figure out better, more sustainable ways of producing it.
I don't think all of those are going to be pretty or quaint, or look like the family farm of my mind's eye.
I liked this article; it shows some nuance and insights that typical, shorter articles do not.
> Meanwhile blaming every weather anamoly on climate change is rather tiresome.
Not nearly as tiresome as disregarding the clear and ongoing increase in the frequency and intensity of these anomalous weather events, where every record set just the previous year being toppled yet again is somehow another mere "weather anomaly", only to be considered in isolation.
We seem to have rather a lot of these anomalies, though, don't we? They also seem to be getting more extreme. Perhaps those are data points we might consider. When a class of anomaly becomes less anomalous in frequency (that is, they happen more often, perhaps even becoming the norm), but more anomalous in intensity (read: are bigger), mightn't that suggest something beyond mere fluctuation in a dynamic system?
I wonder what might be dumping all kinds of extra energy into the system, such that it behaves like we're observing...
If any title needs a "[year]" indicator then this one does. Still, weather that is too wet is almost as hard to farm with as weather that is too dry.
Except, there is a second-order effect that nearly swamps this first-order weather effect, with respect to farmers' profits. It isn't enough to judge the weather correctly and produce a bumper crop. One also needs other farmers to fail. It is impossible for all farmers in a given commodity to succeed. If they all have good production, the price will crater so much that most will struggle to pay the interest their loans. Just look at the markets for corn and soybeans. They've been too low for profits for years. That's why so much is in long-term storage, on the forlorn hope that prices will rise. This year all of the Missouri River flooding inspired unaffected farmers to plant more in order to take advantage of expected lower numbers. Only, they bulked up so much that production actually increased! Elevators are still full, outdoor storage is still slowly decomposing, and sensible politicians still threaten to shut off the ethanol tap.
It has been this way in North America for a long time; rural population has been dropping since 1890. Ag tech has continued to improve, and so capital has continued to eat farmers. This process may only be reversed by de-commodifying, which only works in limited numbers in particular markets. Some consumers will spend more for organic or higher quality or better-marketed ("genuine Angus", etc.). Most will not.
Beautiful article, I don’t have too much to add except to the unexpected conclusion:
> “So why is it,” I asked, “that when I hear people talking about you, and you hear people talking about me, the only thing they ever talk about is that 5 percent?”
I feel like this is a solved question. There is a mathematical pattern present in our political system which says that a political party must either spinelessly focus on that 5% or die. The pattern says that few folks in the US are truly “conservative” or “liberal”, most are “terrified of those crazy liberals” and “terrified of those crazy conservatives”—this farmer seems to be an example of the former. Focusing in the 5% allows you to do this; if you don’t do this for Deep Principled Reasons then you lose your voters to a Spineless party which focuses on those 5% issues to demonize that other party.
The “spoiler effect” present in first-past-the-post voting and could be changed by building political support for moving to a proportionate House of Representatives: rather than endless gerrymandered districts, every state becomes one big multi-representative district: you vote for a party, not for a representative; your state’s parties each publish a list before the election, “here are our representatives that we will put in the House in order.” This is a very standard electoral approach in many parliamentary democracies; there is no reason that we couldn’t use it here to relax some of this internal tension and actually get work done on that remaining 95% that we want to solve.
I once ran a voting experiment with my friends to see which ice cream was the best. We did run off vote, everyone suggested their favorite ice cream, we made a list, then everyone ordered their choices pulling from the list. Only a few people voted first for cookie dough, but pretty much everyone had it in their top three.
[+] [-] pgrote|6 years ago|reply
https://www.facebook.com/coxlandandcattleinc/
[+] [-] chicob|6 years ago|reply
Feels good to read this.
As a liberal-leaning farmer, I feel myself in between two worlds: many farmers around me see me as a depressing doomsayer, and insist in business as usual and are not really interested in adapting farming practices or leveraging conditions for long-term insurance; "city people" see me as a bunny killing, biodiversity ravaging agro-capitalist.
[+] [-] davidw|6 years ago|reply
I don't think all of those are going to be pretty or quaint, or look like the family farm of my mind's eye.
I liked this article; it shows some nuance and insights that typical, shorter articles do not.
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] chrisco255|6 years ago|reply
"The U.S. just had it's wettest 12 months on record"
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/the-us-just-had-its-wettest-12-...
Meanwhile blaming every weather anamoly on climate change is rather tiresome. The climate has never ever been static, period.
[+] [-] rosser|6 years ago|reply
Not nearly as tiresome as disregarding the clear and ongoing increase in the frequency and intensity of these anomalous weather events, where every record set just the previous year being toppled yet again is somehow another mere "weather anomaly", only to be considered in isolation.
We seem to have rather a lot of these anomalies, though, don't we? They also seem to be getting more extreme. Perhaps those are data points we might consider. When a class of anomaly becomes less anomalous in frequency (that is, they happen more often, perhaps even becoming the norm), but more anomalous in intensity (read: are bigger), mightn't that suggest something beyond mere fluctuation in a dynamic system?
I wonder what might be dumping all kinds of extra energy into the system, such that it behaves like we're observing...
EDIT: Phrasing
[+] [-] jessaustin|6 years ago|reply
Except, there is a second-order effect that nearly swamps this first-order weather effect, with respect to farmers' profits. It isn't enough to judge the weather correctly and produce a bumper crop. One also needs other farmers to fail. It is impossible for all farmers in a given commodity to succeed. If they all have good production, the price will crater so much that most will struggle to pay the interest their loans. Just look at the markets for corn and soybeans. They've been too low for profits for years. That's why so much is in long-term storage, on the forlorn hope that prices will rise. This year all of the Missouri River flooding inspired unaffected farmers to plant more in order to take advantage of expected lower numbers. Only, they bulked up so much that production actually increased! Elevators are still full, outdoor storage is still slowly decomposing, and sensible politicians still threaten to shut off the ethanol tap.
It has been this way in North America for a long time; rural population has been dropping since 1890. Ag tech has continued to improve, and so capital has continued to eat farmers. This process may only be reversed by de-commodifying, which only works in limited numbers in particular markets. Some consumers will spend more for organic or higher quality or better-marketed ("genuine Angus", etc.). Most will not.
[+] [-] SketchySeaBeast|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anarchy8|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crdrost|6 years ago|reply
> “So why is it,” I asked, “that when I hear people talking about you, and you hear people talking about me, the only thing they ever talk about is that 5 percent?”
I feel like this is a solved question. There is a mathematical pattern present in our political system which says that a political party must either spinelessly focus on that 5% or die. The pattern says that few folks in the US are truly “conservative” or “liberal”, most are “terrified of those crazy liberals” and “terrified of those crazy conservatives”—this farmer seems to be an example of the former. Focusing in the 5% allows you to do this; if you don’t do this for Deep Principled Reasons then you lose your voters to a Spineless party which focuses on those 5% issues to demonize that other party.
The “spoiler effect” present in first-past-the-post voting and could be changed by building political support for moving to a proportionate House of Representatives: rather than endless gerrymandered districts, every state becomes one big multi-representative district: you vote for a party, not for a representative; your state’s parties each publish a list before the election, “here are our representatives that we will put in the House in order.” This is a very standard electoral approach in many parliamentary democracies; there is no reason that we couldn’t use it here to relax some of this internal tension and actually get work done on that remaining 95% that we want to solve.
[+] [-] seph-reed|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anarchy8|6 years ago|reply
"terrified of those crazy liberals" - people who want to ensure I have my rights protected, and my wellbeing.
Please don't pretend that both sides (or even the "extremes" of the sides) are the same.