Dr.RedWhite
Active member
My point was that one persons version of sustainability could be another persons version of destruction.
Factory farms are bad only to those that care about animal rights. The millions of people they feed on the other hand might beg to differ. Not buying the byproducts of these industries does not mitigate their existence. It could be argued that the failure to use the byproducts creates more harm than good. What else are we supposed to do with all the blood and bone and feathers and manure, etc, - make massive piles of all these to sit and leach into specific watersheds? Is not utilizing the byproducts in a manner to grow agricultural commodities not only environmentally friendly but also THE BEST application in regards to sustaining an ever growing populace?
TECHNICALLY, animal husbandry, and the usage of farms lands to grow grains to feed these animals is unsustainable in the long term. These are lands that could be growing food crops for human consumption. I suppose, if sustainability is the primary concern, we should all become vegan.
Global shipping of amendments is bad to those that concern themselves with carbon footprint and destruction of ecosystems due to crude spills, etc.
TECHNICALLY, if one is against such things we should all be encouraging people to drive an electric car and invest in solar farms so the electricity needed to charge said cars is coming from a sustainable/renewable source.
Guano bad to those who consider animal habitat.
Peat bad for those who consider ecosystem and renew-ability.
Oyster shell bad for those that consider marine coral systems.
Rock dusts of all types bad to those that are against commercial strip mining.
Comfrey, nettle, yarrow, horsetail, etc could all be considered invasive non-native plants depending on where live that could quickly overtake the local fauna.
I mean, really. The list could go on forever. There is an caveat that could be applied to the usage of pretty much anything. THAT is my point.
When people discuss why they use a given amendment, it should be from the perspective of soil health and nutritional provision - not from the notion of a superior moral high ground on global impact.
I don't mind people sharing their personal decisions for why they use what amendments they use - but to the point a group of people tries to influence the masses based on that subjective morality, which indirectly states others are some how inferior in their methodologies, again, it becomes dogmatic. I don't view that statement as being derogatory either, as much as I see it applying definition to the scenario being discussed.
I don't disagree with these statements. What I do have an issue with, (and not saying this applies to you, we are just conversing) is when people decide their particular niche of encouraging sustainability or particular model of eco-friendliness is somehow better than that of another.
I'm not trying to defend my usage of any particular amendment or belittle the choices others make on what to use, but I am acknowledging the fallacy that comes into play once you open that can of worms. There isn't MUCH we do as humanity that is truly in line with living in harmony with nature. Doesn't mean we shouldn't TRY - it just means where one seeks to make an argument or defense of a given practice, it is far to easy to make a rebuttal that is equally as based in logic or principal, depending on what your personal ideologies are, and how one personally views their interaction with the world around them. I would imagine, we each feel, in our applied usage of various materials, that we are making the "best" choice.
I think the ONLY truth to be had in such discussions is to the tune of sourcing LOCAL. That means "best" is going to be something different for everyone.
Good conversation, Weird. You know I have respect for you - and I appreciate how often you present your opinions in a manner that is well thought out and defended without using language that attacks or belittles. You're good people, F.A.M.
dank.Frank
Absolutely outstanding post!