I can’t agree with your reply #757, where you say that Totalitarian Agriculture produces food the same way as any other form of agriculture.

Reading about different types of cultivation, I see that agriculture is a way of cultivating by catastrophe, where people till the soil to emulate the effects of a flood (and this method doesn’t tolerate diversity on the landscape) while permaculture/horticulture is cultivation by participating in ecological succession and aiding in building up the soil and fostering diversity in the landscape.

A while ago a friend of mine and I spent some time discussing our ever-growing planet-killing population. We parted as perplexed as before, but he continued to mull the problem and came up with something to talk about—more a sort of “thought experiment” than a plan anyone could actually put into operation.

Suppose, he said, that someone developed a highly deadly, highly contagious air-borne virus and was able by some means to spread it very rapidly throughout the world, reducing the human population to three or four billion.

If a decimation of our population could be achieved by such means, would you endorse it?

On 1/11/13 the national academy of sciences released a draft report on climate change that’s open to public comment for three months. This could be a good time for Ishmael.org to inform people about this.

What I found interesting was there policy on agriculture. Chapter 6 page 228 line 1 specifically talks about efficiency in increasing agriculture production in climate change.

How can it be that they do not see the danger of increasing food production. Is it greed? Or they just don’t know?