Spoiler Alert , Some readers may find the following offensive.
Ageing farmers are not being replaced - all across the West
Please digest and help us keep the risk takers on the land.
Less than a generation ago, and for eons before , the great attraction of running a farm was being your own boss. Now, right across the West that great incentive is being lost.
Take the most urbanized, but key agricultural exporting nation of Australia .
Its farms now have two managers, One whose instructions come from the city ,and the other you know
The new manager comes with the Authority of government.
And we'll know you cannot have two bosses
While that authority person is not new to the Western idea of civil law, these particular instructors do obey the first rule of good governance; That of being " constantly engaged "with the issues. Romans 13:4
Unlike communist Russia, these new tyrants allow the peasant to stay on a bit of land he thinks he owns.
Unlike the West of the past, the owner is NO LONGER respected by a conversation ,,,and the giving and taking of advice. Our lonely friend in the field , who never needed a friend so much as now, is instructed by a one size fits all economic wedge called an "incentive",
Its often a crass subsidy, not a true innovation incentive ( good ones are more subtle and precise than those invented in the city and on paper) and are, therefore quite suspect as an economics and sound resilience driver. Have you ever seen how little paperwork a sensible land manager can live on?
And we'll know you cannot have two bosses --let alone a culture based on patronizing payments for being good: Let alone a higher good which few can really explain.
Many sound earth scientists say that the logic of necessary change from the city in panic mode is simply still missing, I hope you will test that idea !!
YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THE CURRENT IMPOSITION that make farmers prisoners on their own land. I am not talking so much about urban planning imperatives ( some of which are necessary) but things like the quite suspect ambition of soil sequestration ( many semiarid zone areas especially ) , rejection of harvesting ,fertilizing and spraying imperatives and the remote ambitions to remove all the pain in animal husbandry. Farmers already have a huge job to look after the animals on their property without some outsider offering "no touch" and other no care " help" from afar.
Not only do farmers have to put up with the ignorant and incompetent bull from these novice risk notetakers, they are forced to eat the stale bread of their incomplete advice that doesn't satisfy produce a yield with either their small picture, or in the big picture of the neighbourhood and the animals concerned.
Competent owners are very lucky if they have any integrity left after playing up this careless talk on risk, ecological and economic consequences; The aforementioned are issues they as occupants have mastered to be there in the first place.
The presumption of some progressives who imply farmers are backward must be challenged by someone other than themselves( esp competent scientists) ; otherwise we are talking ongoing repression , injustice , racial prejudice, suicide and war ( in some countries) .
Nothing works for good if it's not truly fit for purpose; and ALL ADVICE MUST fit the risk with a . sound resilience framework on the ground. See later references esp about the need for a different planning approach in rural areas.
These humiliated hard working people now take a cheque instead of having the joy of taking a known risk , having a go and getting the self satisfaction ( the very best kind of reward ) of seeing a healthy new crop which they have full responsibility for.
Respect for landowners to take responsibility for big land management decisions on their own land has gone, just like the hope of a sound responsible community conversation about real risk factors in rural areas. I hope you care enough to help change that.Sign up
If you have read this far, help usus get back to a situation where we truly respect the owners right to make his own decisions on his own land .
More historic and legal law references to follow .
