Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>
>
> And wouldn't that be good for the starving masses in poor countries?
> What's wrong with mechanizing agriculture to feed hundreds of
> millions of people? I can't shake the suspicion that you have some
> aesthetic objection.
>
Aesthetically, I prefer mechanized to hand agriculture, having experienced too fucking much of the latter by the time I was 16. And I prefer what one might call super-mechanized ag at that; the probable reason for the hearing aids I wear now is driving an orchard tractor from 12 to 17. "Modern" field tractors come with an insulated cab. But it doesn't seem to me that Michael is invoking aesthetics. Rather, he seems to be taking what is conventionally called an "all-around" perspective. Sheer statistics, as Dickens dramatized in _Hard Times_ (I can't tell until I know who's _got_ the money), don't tell us anything about how to feed people unless they are put in a comprehensive political context. I can't escape the suspicion that you are just honing your self-image as an independent lone ranger of the left.
Carrol