Jump to content

Bartholomew Jones

Senior Members
  • Posts

    190
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Bartholomew Jones

  1. Henry Ford betrays the human attitude about work in his autobiography when he explains his motive behind the design of the model-T production system.  The automobile wasn't even his objective.  It was a means to accomplish his objective of easier farmwork.  He hated the rigour required on the farm for the production of what in his view was an insufficient return in comparison.  A production system affording a probability for the population to each own a car guaranteed a highway system for the distribution of all the machine parts for all farming communities to assemble tractors.

    But the problem is people too often are grumblers because of work.  The farm had become a profit center.  Farms were competing in the sense of "keeping up with the Smiths."  The village where everyone was in it together, directly, was a thing of the past.

    The village economy is the highest form of human economy, short of heaven.

    56 minutes ago, zapatos said:

    Speaking of trace elements and digesting non-food stuff, many animals, including primates like us, have urges to eat dirt.

    I remember munching on ants once when I was 4 or 5.  I'm not bragging.  Lol

    1 hour ago, MigL said:

    Speaking of trace elements and digesting non-food stuff, many animals, including primates like us, have urges to eat dirt.
    This is especially true during pregnancy, and there have been studies done that suggests this is an instinctive way to get access to trace elements when food is scarce, as well as introducing a varied bacterial flora into the digestive system. It also fills you up when you are hungry.

    I think Bart's biggest problem is his dissociation of science from nature, and I usually laugh at people who say they prefer 'natural' as opposed to 'tainted by science'.
    They don't seem to realise science is simply the observation of how nature works.
    What could be more natural ???

    If that were the case, but it's not.  That's what it's supposed to be.  How is formulating a theory about human evolution; that is, humans evolving from a lower life form, then transforming that theory conveniently into fact, the observation of how nature works?  You're treating speculation as principle.

  2. 6 hours ago, Moontanman said:

    Have you considered growing plants that add nutrients to the soil? I am rather fond of crimson clover.. 

    Cover crops are a good way to enrich the soil.  I usually let as much "competing" vegetation come up with my crop as possible.  It works well in place, for example, of tomato stakes; and the alleged competition is negligible if not nil.  It tends to balance the place out.  For example, theres more roughage for the rabbit before he finds my carrots.

    Did you know alfalfa is a kind of clover?

  3. 3 hours ago, iNow said:

    Please don't pretend to know how hard I do or do not work, either professionally or personally. I can assure you I'm much more of a work horse than a show horse in most areas of life. 

    I take umbrage at your comments, and because you likely don't know this already, that means I find your comments insulting. 

    When one human disrespects another, you won't get the utmost respect in return.

    3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

    Your opinion is delusional, no amount of hard work can feed the population of the entire planet at this point.. 

     

    50% at least, of products purchased are packaged somewhat in plastic, or something not so biodegradable.  The product itself is often refuse to the environment.  The net product of the economy is hurtful, not helpful.  There's plenty of earth stuff for the whole population to flourish.

    The only earth people shift around is for so-called development.  If half the "work" being done for this kind of progress were done for food production locally, to restore land to what it was, people would be healthier and happier.

    3 hours ago, iNow said:

    Please don't pretend to know how hard I do or do not work, either professionally or personally. I can assure you I'm much more of a work horse than a show horse in most areas of life. 

    I take umbrage at your comments, and because you likely don't know this already, that means I find your comments insulting. 

    The "have to for money" aspect depreciates the value of work.  The value of work is for the works sake.

  4. 3 hours ago, iNow said:

    What narrow minded simplistic nonsense. Instead of spending our hours struggling to survive and avoid sickness and starvation, mass manufacturing and agriculture has freed humanity from immeasurable suffering and strife. Literally billions of lives have been saved through one scientific advancement in wheat crops alone, and the advancements extend well beyond that one item. Your glasses are rather rose colored... or just cloudy... glasses also being an advancement which stand counter to your “natural = wholesome” narrative

     

    Hard work is refreshing and replenishing and rejuvenating.  Your opinion is narrow minded.

  5. 1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

    Why didn't you address the point I made (and which you quoted)?
    It was about you saying "In other words, from the earliest ages we've always been toward better medicine at the expense of authentic wholesome foods. "
    And I asked "Why do you think that's an "either  / or thing?".
     

    Because it appears deliberate.  The earth produces food free, with little human effort, an apple tree, e.g.  And it improves the earth.  The food is better when the processing takes place in the kitchen.

    Medicine is a dependency that the power players like.  But it's presented as "better medicine."  Overprocessed foods are presented as better foods.

    Maybe I should have stated it, Mass manufacturing robs the people of good wholesome living.

  6. 4 hours ago, studiot said:

    Crop rotation won't fix this, if the trace element is not in your particular soil in the first place.

    That is why I mentioned an external source.

    There are plenty of soils in the world that are deficient in something so won't allow certain crops to grow or grow properly.

    I think there are also some folks in the world who suffer particular conditions as a result.

     

    I see what you're saying, except what distinguishes a trace element?

  7. 7 hours ago, swansont said:

    Correcting your misconceptions isn’t meant as an insult, even though there are some that interpret it that way. As for the rest, consider it societal pressure to improve your contributions. In a setting like this, when you repeatedly overstep your limit of competence, which requires correction, it is considered poor form. Further, you are doing so with unjustified confidence.

    Basically you’re decrying brusque behavior that’s a response to your own rude behavior.

    No, you haven't been antagonizing.  I appreciate your help.

    7 hours ago, studiot said:

    I hope you are not including me here.

    No, you've been fair.

    7 hours ago, studiot said:

     

     I see little untoward about this point view provided you are willing to allow other points of view into your fresh look.

    You have explained your meaning of 'energy to mass' in my opinion.

    It is a valid one and a shame that it could not have been achieved with out rancour.

    I hope you are not including me here.

     

    Talking of other points of view, I had an interesting discussion with a friend about composting.

    He was busy telling me how much he composts from his garden.

    I pointed out that I was sure he was right but only using his own garden material runs the risk of compounding and perpetuating any deficiencies present in his soil.

    Elements not present in his soil could never appear by recycling plants just from his garden.

    But if he added materials from elsewhere, say orange  and abnana skins, he would be adding trace elements he might be short of.

    Yes.  I've read how it's always good to move the location of each type plant in successive years for the same reason.

    The main thing I try to drive home is that the more diverse your materials the better.  When flowers came out early this past spring I harvested every day to get the new pollen on my ground.  I didn't get to see the result, so I'll try again this next spring.

    2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

    Trust me; if I set out to insult you, you would know about it.
    On the other hand, I'm quite happy to point out the problems with the society in which I live- not least among those problems is runaway capitalism. I'd be happy to do away with money.
    But we don't improve society by believing fairy tales.


    We know that plants get their mass from the air, water and minerals they grow in. Wishful thinking about other mechanisms will not help feed people.

    We know that the world has not changed size - at least since they built stonehenge- because if it had, the stones would no longer align with the solstice.

     

    I almost accepted that.  But I can't.  Everything in the soil is depreciating by decay; oxidation-reduction (redox) they call it.  The air has some good stuff the plant can take.  But there has to be some rich material source and it has to be the radiant energy.  I can't budge on that.  Sorry.

  8. 27 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

    `You say you have have two years experience of converting energy to mass.
    I'm saying you didn't understand the question, or you are lying.
    Which is it?

    I have 2 years working with plants, soil and minerals from the woods; that is, with my hands.  I've seen the work that nature does converting organic stuff to compost, to hummus to soil.  In addition I've reviewed other people's more conventional ways.  I don't read scientific discussions as a basis but as a fresh look.  The more views I have into the actual nature the better my next, "aha" experience.  Call it what you want.

    You people are willing to insult me because you despise what isn't serviceable to, your, money economy.  I despise money.  I treasure the created order.

  9. 7 minutes ago, iNow said:

    Is that purpose to make yourself look like a willfully ignorant stubborn ass and to waste both bandwidth and readers time? If so, then you’re seriously crushing it!

    You're a mere person.  Why should I care what you think of me?  I'm here to say what I see in nature.  I include science as one very useful angle into nature.  You have a right to exalt it as high as like.

  10. 10 hours ago, swansont said:

    It’s not that, either. It’s the carbon in CO2, facilitated by the radiant energy. But the energy isn’t converted to matter

     

    It has to be.  The only substance a plant could get from co2 is carbon and oxygen.  Carbon is that necessary material element for formation of living tissue (the carbon bond); but that tissue forms with an abundance of other elements.  The oxygen aspect is required for the oxidation for the organic chemical changes constantly taking place.  Oxidation means oxygen is passing through effecting changes.  The abundance of substance is from the radiant energy which this guy recognizes at the very end at least as stored energy in the wood (the plant).

  11. They didn't raise crops in equilibrium after the pattern of nature; replenishing the soil with materials from the woods.  If people would farm and garden in equilibrium the volume and surface area of the earth would expand.  The lions share of substance of flora isn't from the soil; the plant converts radiant energy to matter.  The soil is primarily conditioning.

    10 minutes ago, Sensei said:

    Single individual can return to the way ancient and prehistoric people lived, but entire human population cannot. Significant increase of human population is result of invention of artificial fertilizers at the beginning of XX century. Without them, pesticides and GMO, and modern automated  agriculture, billions of people would die.

    Reminding you, two (and more) centuries ago 90-95% of the all people were farmers. Not because they wanted. They had to produce food. Traditional agricultural work is ineffective.. Significant amount of production were lost due to bugs, illnesses, unpleasant weather conditions, and barren soil.

    That was in reply

  12. 1 minute ago, John Cuthber said:

    Do they do proper double blind trials or should we be ignoring them?

    I doubt so.

    To me it just makes sense that the digestive tract is for foods, not foreign substances.  You don't have to prove, for example, by science, that proper applications of family-time is wholesome to the individual, and that lack thereof is detrimental, to reliably trust that those are fundamental truths.

  13. 17 minutes ago, swansont said:

    You would do well to read The Poison Squad by Deborah Blum. It will dispel the notion of authentic wholesome foods being available (in the US, at least, in the late 1800s and on), and probably make you glad there are laws protecting the consumer. They weren't always there, and there's a reason they were implemented.

     

    Okay, I will read that as an exercise in objective reading.

  14. 11 minutes ago, swansont said:

    That's not going to mix too well with physics, which may or may not follow one's intuition, and benefits from having more facts at one's disposal. It's certainly not a justification for pontificating on topics you haven't studied. It's a justification for asking questions and learning. (and free scientific resources for learning are available, should you choose to avail yourself of them)

    Trust me, that's slightly possible.  I spend 4 hours a day translating 4 to 6 five gallon bucket fulls of forest stuff to my tiny field in town on foot for a crop this next summer.  It would have to start with a radical reinforcement of algebra.  Damnit.  Your crucifying me.

  15. 5 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Light doesn't suffer from air resistance in the same way as an arrow. The speed is constant for light, even in a medium (and in this case, a sparse medium).

    The deflection of light by a body as massive as the sun is hard to measure (~1.75 arc seconds for grazing incidence). The deflection by the earth is proportionally smaller. An arrow spends a lot more time in flight, so the cumulative effects would be expected to be larger (even before accounting for the difference between Newtonian gravity and general relativity predictions of the deflection of light) 

     

     Yes, well there's rather more to it than your not-very-rigorous analysis uncovers.

    Light waves having to travel at c is a discovery of electrodynamics which would be a good place to start — if you've studied electrodynamics.

     

    I can't afford too thorough a scientific study.  I'm a strong believer that you may only, always ever have a partial set of all the relevant facts; which necessitates (for example a mother's) intuitive judgment.

  16. 3 minutes ago, joigus said:

    Ok. I'll lose the flowers. Do I keep dysentery, diphtheria, TB, and polio?

    As you said, that's just the way you see it. We have diets (or the possibility of having them) rich in different essential minerals, complete package of aminoacids, vitamins, etc., and the amazing possibilities of GM food. The fact is much more people in the world have access to a diet that's far more complete than that of the ancients --no matter where they lived-- than ever before. Quite a different thing is the matter of dietary habits. There is a cultural factor there. If people choose to daily intake far too much sugar, or palm oil, it's largely a cultural issue. 10'000 y.a. people stuffed themselves with hydrocarbons, and they died in their thousands due to combination of poor diet combined with miserable existence conditions. The Romans drank lead diluted in sapa, to sweeten wine and several dishes, which resulted in big swathes of the population being lead-poisoned and becoming sterile, or die prematurely. Nice picture.

    Of course the older path is not always the good way.  But I have to think, and I myself doubt that it's imagined, that the VERY origin is more perfect.

  17. Now, Newton's law of gravity, as ascertained in college went precisely like this.  It wasn't quite mathematical: "Every object in the universe is attracted to every other object in proportion to the quantity of mass of the two objects, and in inverse proportion to the distance between."

    That's what was in the text book.  Mind you science didn't catch my attention until college (university).

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.