Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!wmartin
From: wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin )
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Live Aid
Message-ID: <110@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 23-Jul-85 16:41:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.110
Posted: Tue Jul 23 16:41:43 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 01:32:13 EDT
References: <3326@drutx.UUCP>
Reply-To: wmartin@brl-bmd.UUCP
Distribution: net
Organization: USAMC ALMSA
Lines: 49

One of the main issues that is being ignored by the "build-up of the
infrastructure" effort, no matter what the population density of
Ethiopia might be, is the simple fact that there are areas of the planet
where agriculture is a mistake. These might be "permanently" unsuitable
(using permanent in a human but not geologic sense) or maybe cyclicly
unsuitable, over a cycle that might be measured in years, decades, or
centuries.

Just because it might be physically *possible*, given a lot of effort,
to perform subsistence farming in some areas does not mean that such
areas *should* be farmed. Some of the problems in the Sahel and such
areas are caused by the simple fact that the human populations that
could be supported by such environments in a simple hunter-gatherer
culture are no longer living in such a manner, but have been warped by
the old "revolution of rising expectations" to want to have some of the
goodies that are seen as part of "civilization", and thus have taken up
agriculture and settled down. The land briefly supports a richer
lifestyle, especially if modern technology and chemical fertilizers are
brought to bear -- thus the population explodes. Then the land, strained
beyond its limits, gives out (plus other impacts like rainfall changes and
the price of fertilizer zooming conspire to increase the ill effects). The
inevitable result is famine. 

However, we have at the same time started geopolitical activities, such
as the formation of governments and ideologies, and attached artificial
values to the concepts of "ownership" or "control" over such areas of
land. Thus, we seem to be unable to simply do what human beings did for
hundreds of thousands of years in the past when faced by unsuitable
environments -- withdraw and leave them. (Of course, the overpopulation
of surrounding areas also means that there is no place to withdraw *to*.)

If you are expecting a magical solution as a summary, think again. There
is none. As long as we expect that the planet will support more human
beings than are justified by the normal role of humans in the
environment and in the food chain, the problem will persist. Talking of
the rebuilding of infrastructure, transportation networks, teaching new
techniques, etc., as being "long term" is actually false hope. It might
be a somewhat longer term than just shipping over a billion tons of
surplus cheese or something, but it still ignores the basic cause -- too
many people living in inappropriate areas.

This applies elsewhere, by the way -- vast areas of the American West
that are presently farmed by depleting unrestorable deep aquifers are
just as unsuitably used. We happen to be rich enough to defer the
inevitable crises for a few more generations. It will still come.

Will Martin

UUCP/USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin   or   ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA