Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Farming, especially non-mechanized traditional farming is hard work, unpleasant, and not for everyone.
It's more or less true for cash farming, where one must grow a cash crop and buy all his groceries in stores, even though many people do like hard work (especially when they sit in front of TV and reminisce over olden days ). It's not true for hobby farmers who grow for pleasure not for living,. Subsistence farming is an ancient American tradition, it's still alive. Jefferson vision for the USA - country of subsistence farmers - philosophers feeding themselves and selling only surplus if any. My wild guess, there are at least a couple of millions of people across the country for whom semi-sufficient subsistence living is their ultimate "career" goal. It's an expensive goal so many never reach it, but there are plenty of people willing to do unpleasant (for majority) work. It's just too expensive to start such a household. And property taxes on a home + 10-40 acres are prohibitive for most of smallholders (who don't generate substantial farm income) in many states.
Basically, it comes to the national "priorities". What is better for us to have 2+ millions of people feeding themselves (and bringing some charm back to the country) and maybe selling little bit of whatever surplus they may have to us. Or it's more beneficial for us to have those 2 millions locked up in town and cities and employed (in the best case) in fast foods, pet poo scooping and the rest of equally important services. It would take government local and federal to streamline tax policies to make smallholding possible. Right now it takes quite a small fortune (or inheritance) to start and fend off tax collectors.
Quote:
And in America's case, the concept of a compact village of farmers surrounded by their fields never took off.
It took off, but then it was killed off. Don't forget that plenty of Frenchmen lived within modern US borders at the time Louisiana Purchase. French compact villages were were surrounded by farmers fields and communal pastures. French villages clashed with American model and were annihilated.
Quote:
American family farms are usually based on a solitary farmhouse in the middle of the property, separate from other farms. So America's family farmers were often isolated, bereft of social contact, and lonely.
Not more lonely than lonely souls amidst city crowds (especially these days). I think 300+ of natural selection produced an American type who is able to withstand outer space like loneliness of all kinds. Unfortunately, it would take all kind of disasters to go back to the localized villages of the past. I doubt you can find many of "classic" villages in W. Europe (even E. European countries of former soviet block destroy (economically) their functioning villages and embrace American model of large farmers + agrobiz + a few hired hands. It's simple logic of agro capitalism of scale. Until there is cheap (relatively) fuel, nothing can be done. When the age of cheap fossils will be over, gosh I don't even want to think about that, it's gonna be rough, many people will have no choice but to go back to the land. The question is - in what capacity, as modern serves providing muscle power for a few remaining landowners or as independent farmers/villagers. I smell blood, lot's of it. I have no trust in human ability to foresee and (especially) to act in the interest of majority to avert doom scenario.
Quote:
There was an old saying, "How will you keep them down on the farm?"
Those were olden days when the age of science and progress generated all kind of dreams, demands, desires and consumer expectations in human minds. People felt they miss on something big that is available only in cities. Ironically, the same age of science and progress generated 180 degree opposite dreams&desires in many modern minds. Pendulum is swinging back. But there is a gotcha. If rural to city escape was relatively inexpensive, the reverse flow costs pretty penny.
Quote:
Mid scale agriculture, based on farming villages, might work, in the post - petroleum, post - SHTF future. But that is so foreign to the current status quo, that I doubt that it would happen before a collapse.
It might work if people of the future will have guts (and means) to fight existing property rights. More likely old good plantations with hundreds of hired (for a bowl of soup) laborers will replace John Deeres.
Quote:
And in America's case, the concept of a compact village of farmers surrounded by their fields never took off.
It took off, but then it was killed off. Don't forget that plenty of Frenchmen lived within modern US borders at the time Louisiana Purchase. French compact villages were were surrounded by farmers fields and communal pastures. French villages clashed with American model and were annihilated.
Can you present some data in support of that?
Where and when, would suffice.
I doubt you can find many of "classic" villages in W. Europe
Open Google Earth to Germany, and zoom into the tiny village, Bibersfeld.
49° 4'53.04"N
9°41'20.08"E
Sure enough, surrounding the village are neat rectangles of fields - no farmhouses.
And other small villages are in the distance, generally following the pattern.
As one examines surrounding areas and other countries, that pattern is repeated, over and over.
In fact, Europe has far more petite villages surrounded by farmland that agribiz.
In contrast, go zoom to Plains, Georgia, USA. Small town. But as you examine the fields - they're mostly isolated farms, with farmhouses on the property.
Your vision of compact villages of farmers sounds appealing...much as the Amish organize their society, in other words? Isolation is not healthy for community. But sharing resources and equipment-and labor when needed-- makes a lot of sense.
I haven't seen any Amish farming villages. The ones I've seen tend to follow the typical American pattern of isolated family farms (central Pennsylvania).
But I have no direct experience with SE PA Amish, near the bigger cities.
One side effect of village based farming - there's little incentive for suburban sprawl. No one is going to expand the village, at the expense of arable land.
In the coming years, things might drastically change, so that it is reasonable to construct farming villages. In fact, folks might want to build fortified villages, to keep out mutant zombie biker gangs (joke)...
One solution: ring villages
These are two concentric rings with continuous balconies on each level. The multistory walls are the apartments and enterprises. Instant "gated community". Think of a line of townhomes (or a strip mall) and wrap it into a circle. Add another circle inside that. Now you have a dual ring, a central park, a ring boulevard, with gated access for improved security - and disaster resistant.
(Seal the gates when flood, etc, threatens.)
Chinese Hakka Tulous (Clan homes) are a similar idea:
The majority of Americans want cheap food. They don't care where it comes from and they care who grows or how just as long as it is cheap. Food Inc hits the nail on the head but most chose to ignore the facts. In many cases it is a matter of finance rather than taste or judgment. Sadly it is cheaper to eat off the dollar menu at a fast food joint than to have a healthy salad.
Is it any wonder that American produce that is available to us is lacking in taste and nutrients. It is grown in soil that no longer has the growing power of dust and fertilized with chemicals and bathed in insecticides. Commercial growers do this with blessing of our government and in many cases are federally subsidized. Food grown like this will cause health problem of every description. Hormones, A/B's, fertilizers, and pesticides in our food will take their toll on the human body in the form of cancer, tumors, etc. There are alternatives but they are usually more expensive and difficult to find, but if you have the money and time search out farmers markets, small organic farms, and products that come from natural organic sources. Be careful of how products are advertised. Many egg producers advertise "free range" but that may mean "free to run around a darkened barn." Look for "pasture eggs, and pasture chicken, etc., because these chickens really are allowed to roam, better for the chicken and much better for the consumer. Try to buy organic if you can afford it.
The other choice is to continue to buy the unhealthy products and then pay far more to the pharmaceutical companies in an attempt to get well.
Sadly it is cheaper to eat off the dollar menu at a fast food joint than to have a healthy salad.
Actually I've seen salads on the dollar menus, so that's not really true. In fact the whole "people eat fast food because it's cheaper" is a total crock (we've been through this here before, I'll see if I can find a link). They do it because they like the taste and it's easy. ie they're lazy fools. That family they showed on Food Inc making such claims was the weakest part of the whole thing.
Quote:
Is it any wonder that American produce that is available to us is lacking in taste and nutrients.
Taste is subjective but I disagree w/both of these as well. Pesticides can be bad, but they don't suck the nutrients out of produce.
no, book clearly refers to 18 century french villages in Illinois. Actually, there is town named "French Village" in Illinois. Saint Louis, Missouri; Detroit, Michigan as well as scores of smaller towns have french roots also.
Taste is subjective but I disagree w/both of these as well. Pesticides can be bad, but they don't suck the nutrients out of produce.
Plants suck nutrients out of the soil, then much of plant material is removed, eaten and buried in septic tanks or flushed into oceans, only N, K and P from chemical fertilizers are being replaced. In the past 100 years mineral content of vegetables plummeted anywhere from 30% to 100%+. You have to eat much more of tasteless vegetables (and all the facilitating chemistry) to get the same amount of nutrients.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). It's not true for hobby farmers who grow for pleasure not for living,. Subsistence farming is an ancient American tradition, it's still alive. Jefferson vision for the USA - country of subsistence farmers - philosophers feeding themselves and selling only surplus if any. My wild guess, there are at least a couple of millions of people across the country for whom semi-sufficient subsistence living is their ultimate "career" goal. It's an expensive goal so many never reach it, but there are plenty of people willing to do unpleasant (for majority) work. It's just too expensive to start such a household. And property taxes on a home + 10-40 acres are prohibitive for most of smallholders (who don't generate substantial farm income) in many states. 
