Comeback of Ancient Farming Practice

[Susan BBPM]

Eh. We're a species that is capable of providing for ourselves. Most other infestation simply consumes what's available.


Darwin is correct.

Better to teach them to make the most of their current location. Knowledge is easier to spread than moving people.


See Dr D again. I'm not sure why we tried to stop the Tide Pod challenge.


Back to the top. Y'all were smart enough to ship in food rather than starve. I'm not sure how imported food undercuts local farmers unless you're importing too much.

Centralized or globalized? I believe in self sufficiency to the extent possible. Sure it's nice to trade with friends, but it's possible for friends to become enemies. Then what?

OK, as an example....

UK farmers still farm in a fairly traditional way (compared to the US). Certainly in Scotland things haven't changed much. I live next door to what was a dairy farm but is now a beef farm. The cows graze in the fields. The farmer grows hay to feed them in winter.

In other countries (and in England to a lesser degree I think) food is factory farmed. Animals aren't treated well and farming practices cause all sorts of problems. But the net result is cheap food - British farmers can't compete. And so we become reliant on shoddy imports. And when you fall out with the countries you import from - you starve.

Shipping in food isn't a smart move for ordinary people. It's a smart move for the fat cats that want to get fatter at the expense of ordinary people.

For sure ship in what we can't produce. Extras. But we ship in pretty much everything, and mostly it seems from countries that are now becoming our mortal enemies.

We have crazy scenarios here where fish caught in British waters is shipped to China for processing then shipped back to the UK for consumption. That works because of cheap foreign labour. Meanwhile, communities that were built around providing these things are destroyed.

Did you know that when the Irish were starving to death because of the potato famine the land owners were exporting locally grown produce? We didn't need to import food to avoid starvation - we needed to eat what we grew. But bigger profits were made by exporting.

 

[Susan BBPM]

Also....

Yes, we're more sophisticated than most species in that we're capable of using what's available in complex ways. However, like every other species we use what's available. We don't manufacture anything out of thin air.

Our way of life requires constant expansion. Exponential growth. Unfortunately for us, this isn't possible in a finite world. For a while we got to expand by conquering new lands - America, Canada, Australia. But now they're all full up too. We limped along for a few more decades by exploiting the third world - but they now seem to be looking to work together and cut us out of the loop. We have nowhere to expand to. Space travel hasn't delivered.

And of course - as with any infestation - eventually it gets so succesfull that it creates a weakness. A weakness that will be exploited eventually by another organism. Remember the War of the World's story? That superior lifeform that humans couldn't defend themselves against was erradicated by a common cold!

Mankind's best chances are probably to live in balance with nature - rather than to fight it. But of course, that means accepting the laws of nature - such as survival of the fittest.

There will of course be a happy medium - a degree of technological help. But we are WAY past what's sustainable.

 

[headfullofbees]

If it were any other species we were talking about the word we'd be using would be 'infestation'.

As far back as I can remember there was always famine in parts of the world. Nature is cruel - if a land isn't capable of sustaining a population then said population is culled. Now sure, that's not nice - of course you don't want anyone to suffer and die - least of all your own family and friends!! Helping to make a land more fertile - drilling for water etc - is good.

But increasingly we're taking people from cultures where you have a dozen kids expecting most to die. We're saving the kids, giving them all smartphones and internet access and encouraging them to flock to the West to be used as cheap labour, undercutting the native workforce.

Harsh as it sounds - sometimes you need to let people die. None of us can live for ever. Better to enjoy life than to make everyone utterly miserable in a futile attempt to prevent death.

If someone can't have children naturally - maybe, just maybe mother nature knows best? If someone has a genetic condition that would kill them in childhood without intervention - maybe, just maybe they shouldn't be helped to have children (thus flooding the gene pool with bad genes).

And if a landmass isn't capable of supporting life, then really you need to let nature work things out. There is a certain number of people that the UK landmass can support. And it's a LOT less than the current population. This makes us reliant on imports of food, which in turn undercuts local farmers rendering us utterly helpless.

And this is why I am looking at Ancient farming practices. I don't give a flying f**k about feeding the world. The world is screwed. I'm only interested in me and mine right now. Modern ways are all centralized. What we need is to return to distributed system. And we can all make a start with ourselves!!

Every famine since the start of the 20th Century was caused either by political dogma or war.
The planet can easily sustain TWICE the present population.
Remember when you express your programmed misanthropy that
1) Cities take up 2% of the planet's landmass.
2) Man is the only creature on Earth to care for other species.
3) We've had a global food surplus for 5 decades.
4) Humanity haters never consider man's ingenuity when making their predictions of doom.

Still hungry – DW – 10/27/2011

The UN aimed to cut global hunger in half from 2000 to 2015, but today even more people are starving than at the beginning of the millenium.

www.dw.com

 

[Meadowlark]

...
And this is why I am looking at Ancient farming practices.

I think many people vastly underestimate the power of small gardens employing ancient farming practices. My garden, that many on here consider as large, is actually only a small fraction of an acre...you could multiply my space by 16 and still have just under an acre.

My garden provides well over 90% of our veggies plus considerable excess some of which goes to the local food bank on a sustaining basis...i.e., no synthetic fertilizers and only organic insecticides and fungicides. So, I say 1 acre using ancient farming practices will easily provide sufficient vegetables for 16 families. Texas alone has over 171 million acres of land. Of course, a lot of that land is not available for gardening, but millions and millions of acres of it are. That is a lot of family's worth of capacity.

The unused potential production of small gardens is staggering. We don't have population problems... we have management problems. Humans consistently make bad management decisions regarding the Planet we live on. The capacity for production is there should people ever wake up to it.

Sadly, I'm not optimistic that they ever will until catastrophic events drive the human race to make better choices.

 

[Susan BBPM]

Every famine since the start of the 20th Century was caused either by political dogma or war.
The planet can easily sustain TWICE the present population.
Remember when you express your programmed misanthropy that
1) Cities take up 2% of the planet's landmass.
2) Man is the only creature on Earth to care for other species.
3) We've had a global food surplus for 5 decades.
4) Humanity haters never consider man's ingenuity when making their predictions of doom.

Still hungry – DW – 10/27/2011

The UN aimed to cut global hunger in half from 2000 to 2015, but today even more people are starving than at the beginning of the millenium.

www.dw.com

I don't hate humanity. I just accept it for what it is. We, like every other species, are a product of natural selection. Time will tell how sucessful the current gene pool will be. Perhaps our perceived success in taming and controlling our environment will be what wipes the species out altogether? Things aren't looking good right now.

There may well be a global food surplus, but at what cost to the environment? There wouldn't be a food surplus if it weren't for factory farming and a whole host of damaging chemicals. Factory farming is failing - which is why people are so keen to look at Ancient Farming Practices - an attempt to undo the damage done by modern ways.

You say the planet can sustain twice the population. But at what standard of living? Currently, 20% of the population are hogging most of the resources. When they all demand a fair share you need to multiply what we currently use by five just to stand still. So - for everyone to live like us you'll need 5 times the energy. That's without doubling the population.

What form will that energy take? Oil? Coal? Gas? We have used millions of years worth of stored energy from the sun (fossil fuels) in a few decades. That is not sustainable - common sense should tell you that.

So what will fuel this 15 billion world population? Nuclear? They haven't yet figured out how to make the byproducts safe - currently nuclear is leaving future generations with a ticking timebomb that won't be safe for 1000 years.

Anyone over 40 must notice the massive reduction in insects. Nutritional content of food is a fraction of what it was. Our seas are full of plastics and we're running out of places to dump all the cheap tat that we MUST buy in order to keep our economy from collapsing (resulting in societal collapse).

The way we've been doing things is not sustainable. Going back to ancient farming methods would certainly work, but not for the massive population that we now have.

Lets see how things play out before congratulating ourselves on our ingenuity. It may well be that our 'ingenuity' erradicates our entire species - perhaps taking every other species with it!! Nukes anyone? Or what about a lab produced deadly virus?

It's one thing to observe that we're being lied to about climate change etc. It's obvious they're trying to herd the population using fear tactics. But you only have to open your eyes to see that we are up shit creek without a paddle. What is worse - our illustrious leaders are busy drilling a hole in the bottom of the boat.

Think chickens. There is only so many birds that a given piece of land can support. For sure, with man's ingenuity we came up with factory farming. Chickens packed into cages unable to move. But hey, they're alive!!! That's what the powers that be seem to have planned for us. Factory farmed humans. packed into little cells in 15 minute cities eating bugs. But even that isn't sustainable.

 

[Susan BBPM]

I think many people vastly underestimate the power of small gardens employing ancient farming practices. My garden, that many on here consider as large, is actually only a small fraction of an acre...you could multiply my space by 16 and still have just under an acre.

My garden provides well over 90% of our veggies plus considerable excess some of which goes to the local food bank on a sustaining basis...i.e., no synthetic fertilizers and only organic insecticides and fungicides. So, I say 1 acre using ancient farming practices will easily provide sufficient vegetables for 16 families. Texas alone has over 171 million acres of land. Of course, a lot of that land is not available for gardening, but millions and millions of acres of it are. That is a lot of family's worth of capacity.

The unused potential production of small gardens is staggering. We don't have population problems... we have management problems. Humans consistently make bad management decisions regarding the Planet we live on. The capacity for production is there should people ever wake up to it.

Sadly, I'm not optimistic that they ever will until catastrophic events drive the human race to make better choices.

Yes, but the houses and infrastructure is in cities where there isn't room to grow food.

What would be the impact of moving people out of cities and distributing them all over the planet each with their own little plot of land to farm? What would that do to the environment? Farming has an impact on the environment. I'm not convinced that billions of little plots of land being farmed using ancient methods would work. Left to it's own devices the planet will revert to forrest. You can't farm a forrest.

 

[Tetters]

Harsh as it sounds - sometimes you need to let people die. None of us can live for ever. Better to enjoy life than to make everyone utterly miserable in a futile attempt to prevent death.

If someone can't have children naturally - maybe, just maybe mother nature knows best? If someone has a genetic condition that would kill them in childhood without intervention - maybe, just maybe they shouldn't be helped to have children (thus flooding the gene pool with bad genes).

It would be well to re-consider this kind of thinking, and comment. My grand daughter has a small boy. Her mum died when she was young with Marfan syndrome. Her daughter is a lovely girl. She works hard and is very positive thinking, she is enjoying the short life she has - she also has Marfan syndrome, and so does her little boy (my great grandson) My son lives with this sadness, and bears it well - they are a loving family. His wife is dead, and he and his kids are painfully aware of what is to come.

 

[Ruderunner]

I think many people vastly underestimate the power of small gardens employing ancient farming practices. My garden, that many on here consider as large, is actually only a small fraction of an acre...you could multiply my space by 16 and still have just under an acre.

My garden provides well over 90% of our veggies plus considerable excess some of which goes to the local food bank on a sustaining basis...i.e., no synthetic fertilizers and only organic insecticides and fungicides. So, I say 1 acre using ancient farming practices will easily provide sufficient vegetables for 16 families. Texas alone has over 171 million acres of land. Of course, a lot of that land is not available for gardening, but millions and millions of acres of it are. That is a lot of family's worth of capacity.

The unused potential production of small gardens is staggering. We don't have population problems... we have management problems. Humans consistently make bad management decisions regarding the Planet we live on. The capacity for production is there should people ever wake up to it.

Sadly, I'm not optimistic that they ever will until catastrophic events drive the human race to make better choices.

Susan

OK, as an example....

UK farmers still farm in a fairly traditional way (compared to the US). Certainly in Scotland things haven't changed much. I live next door to what was a dairy farm but is now a beef farm. The cows graze in the fields. The farmer grows hay to feed them in winter.

In other countries (and in England to a lesser degree I think) food is factory farmed. Animals aren't treated well and farming practices cause all sorts of problems. But the net result is cheap food - British farmers can't compete. And so we become reliant on shoddy imports. And when you fall out with the countries you import from - you starve.

Can't compete or won't compete? Adapt or die. See Mr Darwin.

Shipping in food isn't a smart move for ordinary people. It's a smart move for the fat cats that want to get fatter at the expense of ordinary people.

If one goes to the store and purchased food, is one expected to cook and eat the food in the store?

It's still shipping food if you take it home, just a small scale.

For sure ship in what we can't produce. Extras. But we ship in pretty much everything, and mostly it seems from countries that are now becoming our mortal enemies.

See my comment about self sufficiency.

We have crazy scenarios here where fish caught in British waters is shipped to China for processing then shipped back to the UK for consumption. That works because of cheap foreign labour. Meanwhile, communities that were built around providing these things are destroyed.

You're not alone. Some countries are subsidizing their industry in order to capture market share from established countries. There's a certain one on the west edge of the pacific that is particularly troublesome.

Did you know that when the Irish were starving to death because of the potato famine the land owners were exporting locally grown produce? We didn't need to import food to avoid starvation - we needed to eat what we grew. But bigger profits were made by exporting.

The Irish can cook something other than potatoes? Haggis?☺


Simple math and a quick googly search indicates that there's almost 16 acres PER PERSON on the planet right now.

If one cannot grow or raise enough to feed themselves on that much land, well Darwin is correct.

Note, that much land could easily accommodate a house for a family, plus a barn for animals and still be enough to provide.

Ok, sure, the polar ice caps are probably included in the available surface, so call it 25 percent deduction. Now you're talking 12 acres per person, still very doable.

And that's just dirt, not including water areas that can provide fish etc.

The earth isn't overcrowded, but we're saving too many damaged goods.

 

[Ruderunner]

Yes, but the houses and infrastructure is in cities where there isn't room to grow food.

Specializing is a good thing. Keeping the people out of the fields has benefitted society in great ways. Not everyone has a green thumb. I'm a mechanic but not everyone with tools knows how to use them. I garden as a hobby, if it works then great, if not off to the store where I can get professionally produced food.

Brought to the store by another group of specialists, truckers. And on and on.

What would be the impact of moving people out of cities and distributing them all over the planet each with their own little plot of land to farm? What would that do to the environment? Farming has an impact on the environment. I'm not convinced that billions of little plots of land being farmed using ancient methods would work. Left to it's own devices the planet will revert to forrest. You can't farm a forrest.

No, but you can harvest trees and build homes.

Sam Kinison made the comment, give them luggage, let them move to where the food is, nothing grows in sand. Crass but correct.

 

[Ruderunner]

I don't hate humanity. I just accept it for what it is. We, like every other species, are a product of natural selection. Time will tell how sucessful the current gene pool will be. Perhaps our perceived success in taming and controlling our environment will be what wipes the species out altogether? Things aren't looking good right now.

How much of this is nature vs politics?

There may well be a global food surplus, but at what cost to the environment? There wouldn't be a food surplus if it weren't for factory farming and a whole host of damaging chemicals. Factory farming is failing - which is why people are so keen to look at Ancient Farming Practices - an attempt to undo the damage done by modern ways.

Based on what? How many starve to death daily? I wager that number is smaller than ever even with a larger population.

You say the planet can sustain twice the population. But at what standard of living? Currently, 20% of the population are hogging most of the resources. When they all demand a fair share you need to multiply what we currently use by five just to stand still. So - for everyone to live like us you'll need 5 times the energy. That's without doubling the population.

And? The folks living without need to stop fighting amongst themselves and perhaps develop their own power sources. And water sources and food sources. But this gets back to politics. Too busy fighting with each other to care for themselves.

What form will that energy take? Oil? Coal? Gas? We have used millions of years worth of stored energy from the sun (fossil fuels) in a few decades. That is not sustainable - common sense should tell you that.

Maybe not, but by all accounts, there's a half millenia of existing supplies.

So what will fuel this 15 billion world population? Nuclear? They haven't yet figured out how to make the byproducts safe - currently nuclear is leaving future generations with a ticking timebomb that won't be safe for 1000 years.

Working on it. Nuclear has only been around for 75 years or so.

Anyone over 40 must notice the massive reduction in insects. Nutritional content of food is a fraction of what it was. Our seas are full of plastics and we're running out of places to dump all the cheap tat that we MUST buy in order to keep our economy from collapsing (resulting in societal collapse).

If you feel you MUST buy things, that's on you. Sure, there's things everyone has to buy because it's impractical to make yourself. But there's many things that on can choose not to purchase.

The way we've been doing things is not sustainable. Going back to ancient farming methods would certainly work, but not for the massive population that we now have.

Lets see how things play out before congratulating ourselves on our ingenuity. It may well be that our 'ingenuity' erradicates our entire species - perhaps taking every other species with it!! Nukes anyone? Or what about a lab produced deadly virus?

For certain, mankind will self destruct. We may even eradicate pretty much all life on this dirtball, but the dirtball will still be here and something else will likely take our place.

It's one thing to observe that we're being lied to about climate change etc. It's obvious they're trying to herd the population using fear tactics. But you only have to open your eyes to see that we are up shit creek without a paddle. What is worse - our illustrious leaders are busy drilling a hole in the bottom of the boat.

Think chickens. There is only so many birds that a given piece of land can support. For sure, with man's ingenuity we came up with factory farming. Chickens packed into cages unable to move. But hey, they're alive!!! That's what the powers that be seem to have planned for us. Factory farmed humans. packed into little cells in 15 minute cities eating bugs. But even that isn't sustainable.

Calm down. Nobody here gets out alive. Once you accept that, things get easier.

 

[Susan BBPM]

My first paragraph is an observation of nature, evolution and natural selection. Nothing whatsoever to do with politics.

Fewer people starve today because food and supplies are shipped into areas that aren't capable of supporting human life. Countries that used to be culled on a regular basis by famine (keeping population at a level that the land could support) are now dependant upon chemicals that destroy their environment, and / or food shipped in that's produced using chemicals that destroy the environment in the land that grew it!! The population in these places is increasing massively, and we're now at the point where the young men are flocking from their homeland and into Europe. The infrastructure of those countries can't cope, and society is breaking down as the 'cultural diversity' trashes common bonds and long established ways of life.

That's 100% political - intervention in the natural way of things. Centralized control. Globalization. People meddling - social engineering.

Nature will 'cull' a population to keep it at a level that can be supported. It's a political decision to defy nature and force your will. A decision we've still to see the outcome of.

Western society, and indeed the whole world, is reliant upon constant expansion. The monetary system that underpins civilization requires constant growth - if world economies stop expanding government go bankrupt and can't honour their debts (pensions, welfare, infrastructure, defense, healthcare, education etc). Society collapses.

It's been proven beyond doubt that from the first industrial revolution onwards there has been a direct correlation between economic growth and availability of cheap energy. For the economy to keep expanding we need an ever increasing, cheap supply of energy. The economy boomed when coal was discovered, again when oil was discovered, gas......but modern renewables are too expensive and not reliable enough. Yes, nuclear MIGHT be made safe in the future; we might crack nuclear fusion. But thus far we haven't.

1/5th of the world's population benefitted from the discovery of fossil fuels. We've taken the low hanging fruit. For sure there's more available, but A) the other 4/5ths of the population want their share, and B) it's much more costly to obtain - the easy to get stuff is used up.

Bottom line - we need ever increasing amounts of energy at low cost for the ecconomic system that underpins the Wet to survive. The reality is we're facing dwindling amounts of more expensive energy.

Mans ingenuity may well solve these problems. But will you want to live in the world that the psychos in charge create for us? 15 mintue cities, herded into 'smart cities', eating insects and genetially modified food, pumped full of 'vaccines', energy rationing, tyranical rule by the WHo?
I'm not hearing any ideas for how to solve the very real problems we face that sound appealing.

So, for me it's a case of going back to the 'Ancient Farming Methods' on a small scale, Collecting water, solar generators, woodburner - maybe some ducks and rabbits later on. The only hope is that I live out my days in peace before hell on earth catches up with us all.

 

[Susan BBPM]

It would be well to re-consider this kind of thinking, and comment. My grand daughter has a small boy. Her mum died when she was young with Marfan syndrome. Her daughter is a lovely girl. She works hard and is very positive thinking, she is enjoying the short life she has - she also has Marfan syndrome, and so does her little boy (my great grandson) My son lives with this sadness, and bears it well - they are a loving family. His wife is dead, and he and his kids are painfully aware of what is to come.

No - I think deeply about things. I dont need to rethink.

I too have family members with genetic abnormalities. Of course everyone wants the lives of their loved ones to be made better.

But the FACT is that meddling with natural selection is dangerous for the long term health of the species. There have been plenty of people that have written about the ethics surrounding this. I'm not saying anything contraversial here.

I make no comment on what SHOULD happen. Only on the consequences of our actions.

 

[Susan BBPM]

Specializing is a good thing. Keeping the people out of the fields has benefitted society in great ways. Not everyone has a green thumb. I'm a mechanic but not everyone with tools knows how to use them. I garden as a hobby, if it works then great, if not off to the store where I can get professionally produced food.

Brought to the store by another group of specialists, truckers. And on and on.

No, but you can harvest trees and build homes.

Sam Kinison made the comment, give them luggage, let them move to where the food is, nothing grows in sand. Crass but correct.

The current (crumbling) infrastructure in the West was built at a time when industrial revolution and discovery of new energy sources was driving massive exapansion. Also, there was no minimum wage so cheap workforce - slavery even!!

Think of the practicalities of trying to completely rebuild the entire infrastructure. Where will the raw materials come from?

The most resource rich country in the world is Russia. The world's factory is China.

 

[Tetters]

No - I think deeply about things. I dont need to rethink.

If you are that smart my dear, maybe you could at least moderate your language a little. It lets you down rather.

 

[headfullofbees]

I don't hate humanity. I just accept it for what it is. We, like every other species, are a product of natural selection. Time will tell how sucessful the current gene pool will be. Perhaps our perceived success in taming and controlling our environment will be what wipes the species out altogether? Things aren't looking good right now.

There may well be a global food surplus, but at what cost to the environment? There wouldn't be a food surplus if it weren't for factory farming and a whole host of damaging chemicals. Factory farming is failing - which is why people are so keen to look at Ancient Farming Practices - an attempt to undo the damage done by modern ways.

You say the planet can sustain twice the population. But at what standard of living? Currently, 20% of the population are hogging most of the resources. When they all demand a fair share you need to multiply what we currently use by five just to stand still. So - for everyone to live like us you'll need 5 times the energy. That's without doubling the population.

What form will that energy take? Oil? Coal? Gas? We have used millions of years worth of stored energy from the sun (fossil fuels) in a few decades. That is not sustainable - common sense should tell you that.

So what will fuel this 15 billion world population? Nuclear? They haven't yet figured out how to make the byproducts safe - currently nuclear is leaving future generations with a ticking timebomb that won't be safe for 1000 years.

Anyone over 40 must notice the massive reduction in insects. Nutritional content of food is a fraction of what it was. Our seas are full of plastics and we're running out of places to dump all the cheap tat that we MUST buy in order to keep our economy from collapsing (resulting in societal collapse).

The way we've been doing things is not sustainable. Going back to ancient farming methods would certainly work, but not for the massive population that we now have.

Lets see how things play out before congratulating ourselves on our ingenuity. It may well be that our 'ingenuity' erradicates our entire species - perhaps taking every other species with it!! Nukes anyone? Or what about a lab produced deadly virus?

It's one thing to observe that we're being lied to about climate change etc. It's obvious they're trying to herd the population using fear tactics. But you only have to open your eyes to see that we are up shit creek without a paddle. What is worse - our illustrious leaders are busy drilling a hole in the bottom of the boat.

Think chickens. There is only so many birds that a given piece of land can support. For sure, with man's ingenuity we came up with factory farming. Chickens packed into cages unable to move. But hey, they're alive!!! That's what the powers that be seem to have planned for us. Factory farmed humans. packed into little cells in 15 minute cities eating bugs. But even that isn't sustainable.

You don't hate humanity but call us an "infestation"?
Things don't look good?
Humanity is the richest it's ever been.
Up until 140 years ago we ordinary folk in UK/USA were living on less than $1 a day at today's rates. I absolutely agree with redistribution, but WEF's plan is for the ordinary folk to bear the brunt of redistribution, instead of the nauseatingly rich. As for oil/gas/coal they are precisely what have made us rich:
ENERGY = the ability to do more work & individuals can do what tens of people could do without machinery.
THINK ABOUT THIS:
We are not being herded into 15 minute ghettoes because we've done anything wrong.
Hunter gatherers would strip areas of absolutely everything they could forage with no thought about the environment; they were too poor to have any choice.
We have the right to eat meat, & it's not eating meat that causes cruelty; it's the PROFITEERING from eating meat which is to blame.
YES we could feed the planet on organic practices alone, eventually, but that would involve a lengthy changeover & hugely more labour, reducing profits (which isn't a concern to me).
Humanity is a benefit to the planet & the wealthier we become, the more we can afford to care about the environment.
Make gas & electricity universally cheap, set people free from unrelenting grind; that's how to look after the environment.

We have thousands of years of natural gas reserves including fracking reserves etc. We've used a tiny proportion of it.
People have been talking "Peak Oil" for 40 years now, yet tar sands in Canada alone, for example, could power the whole planet.
Those who tell you that oil & gas are past their peak, do so as part of the same oppressive agenda.
Renewables are dirtier & more polluting than fossil fuels.
The idea that there is a foot of plastic floating in the oceans the World over is another lie:

The Ocean Cleanup On Alleged "Staged" Plastic Removal Efforts (Exclusive)

Environmental and conservation organization, The Ocean Cleanup, is currently under fire after getting accused of staging an ocean plastic cleanup.

www.greenmatters.com

Are we really “choking the ocean with plastic”? Tracing the creation of an eco-myth

By Larry Kummer, from the Fabius Maximus website Summary: Last week Kip Hansen’s “An Ocean of Plastic” thoroughly debunked myths about the “great garbage patch”. But who created this story? Like ma…

wattsupwiththat.com

There are, Susan, people who hate humanity & the powerful ones wish to use the less powerful to spread an agenda that we are harming the planet far, far more than we actually are. This agenda is to be used as justification to repress us, to lock us down, to impoverish us & to take away everything that we have struggled for.

Those who are powerful are wicked wicked people, most the powerless misanthropes are just dupes, loud, angry dupes, but dupes nonetheless.
Reject them, rejoice in humanity. We deserve neither shame nor repression.