why don't you anti farmers try living without agriculture?
476962
This is news to me, is there a growing anti-farm movement brewing that I don't know about? Is this an early indicator I should make myself aware of? \n\nI happen to be big fan of fresh fruits and vegetables as well as lots of other products that need farms to exist like jeans and t-shirts(cotton), coffee, beer and almonds(what could be better than almonds?). So, even though I've been a city kid all my life, hooray for farms!
991780
We could all use it. The Quakers do well without many things.   No they don't all have farms. \n Oprah showed how a few goats or chickens can start a life for some-or other livestock. Some had to get water from miles away for the day.\n We can all do without many things, but not many want too.\n\nNo one likes to answer questions like these-it means self examination
909711
Well the agricultural business is seasonal.The produce has only a limited life.Especially fruit and vegetables.Another very important aspect of the business is weather.Extreme weather conditions have detrimental outcomes on the crop.Other businesses are'nt subject to such rudimentary rules.Like climate,or seasonable limitations or the shelf life of goods For example if a glass producer suddenly finds no market for the product.They simply stop production.With no harm to thier equipment.Should a dairy farmer lose thier market,they still have to produce milk,plus feed the cows and work for nothing.
14231
Ever since there have been more than one group of humans living nearby eachother -  Tens of thousands of years. It is more useful to enslave an enemy than to kill him. He can till your fields, pick your corn, and carry heavy items. There were slaves as far back as recorded history, and it surely has gone on since the population explosion after the last iceage.
305899
Do you want ancient farming life or present day farming life?\nYou have to be more specific with your questions
804296
for me firstly we need education, then we need good agricultural technology. educations bring a new generation that can make new ways to solve problems, good agricultural will give more food to the poor. when poor and hungry citizen get their food, they will not develop dissent thus will not make new civil war. \n\nempty stomach will only bring people to loot.
1086954
It's become more than a little ridiculous, hasn't it?\n\nUnfortunately, the only thing the people in government, academia, and management have to say about this is that we need to be even more competitive.\n\nHonestly, I'm not overly worried about that happening, I'm worried about what will happen when people finally get so sick of this stuff that they do something about it.\n\nYou can try being a sustenance farmer, but I'd look into it before taking the plunge. I've been told that independent farmers are having a lot of trouble staying out of debt.
230986
Seems to me that a farmer has three potential options with a piece of land:\nHe can grow a food crop.\nGrow a non-food crop that he can sell for cash e.g. tobacco or cotton (I think that's probably the distinction that the question is trying to make)\nUse his land for some other non-agricultural use e.g leave it fallow, build a theme park.\n\nSo the question is asking what the impact of growing too many of these non-food cash crops might be.\n\nI won't do your whole project for you, but these are the areas I think you should be visiting.\n\nEconomic impact\nWhat will happen when a lot of perhaps one particular cash crop is grown.\nSupply and demand suggests prices will fall\nMaybe balance of payments will improve if you can export\nMaybe foreign investment will come in to exploit the local availability.\nMaybe other industries will grow up to exploit the cash crop (think textiles or cigarettes).\nWhat will happen to the price of food though? Increase?\nWill you need to import more?\nIs famine a possibility?\nIf you are relying principally on one or two cash crops to generate income to spend on food imports what happens if the crop fails?\nThere are positive and negative impacts.\n\nEnvironmentally\nSo what happens if large areas of forest are removed to provide new fields for cash crops?\nWhat about the impact of large tracts of land given over to one crop.  We may be talking dust bowl here.\nWhat if the crop requires intensive farming methods - high use of fertiliser and pesticide.\n\nPolitically and socially\nWhat are the impacts of being a net importer of food?  Particularly if this means the difference between the nation starving or not.\nWhat about the extra cash coming in?  It could be spent on education, infrastructure.\nWhat happens to the Government the next election after a famine?\n\n5. Traditionally governments have used various methods:\nSubsidy: Give the farmer extra cash for producing certain crops.  Look up EEC common agricultural policy.\nTaxation: Tax the farmer for producing the crops you don't want.\nTrade barriers: Put import tariffs on the crops they want grown in the country.  Prices rise and more farmers are encouraged to grow the crops.\nQuota: Not so much in the western world, but certainly the case in the old Eastern Bloc - simply dictate to the farmer what he can grow.\n\nHope this helps
195957
No, at first I did but now that I live in the suburbs I realize that this life is much better than the urban jungle.  Some people move to the rural area for peace and safety. Peace and land is the bigger reason everyone that I know who moved out of the suburbs to the rural had plenty of money but no peace and no land.
307170
we all should think about keeping our farmers working  here in this country and not buy ALL our food from other countries like we have been doing.\nwe should tank them TOO !!\nso if our farmers get rich..and the other countries who are trying to ruin our economy does not get any more of our money so what..so be it..god for them\nbut they never will make that kind of money..our government will stop them..because the live in the USA..and the government will make them make more so we can have more and it is supposed to be cheaper for all of us\nONLY  TIME  WILL TELL
60462
Remember in Social Studies like 80 million years ago, when we learned about the barter system?\nI've often thought that society would be so much better if we acted like people did in the old days.\nBack when everybody was a farmer or had something to do with farming.....well, it WAS the life, after all.  People had to WORK, and therefore, children learned values and morals.  You couldn't have a roof over your head if you didn't build one, you couldn't have food on the table if you didn't grow it or kill it.\nPeople didn't get fat and lazy, because....well, if you're lazy, you die (based on the aforementioned actions of survival).  People didn't rip people off, because everybody had something somebody else might need, so why not work for each other and trade with each other....\nI prefer a simple life, myself.  I don't need much more space than you'd find in a single-car garage.  Plumbing is nice, but anybody who's ever been camping knows how to squat.  Food is far less expensive if you buy the ingredients in bulk and make it yourself, not to mention the nutritional value of ingesting foods not "processed"....  \nYou see where I'm going with this?
640714
Here is the problem; the soil in a rain forest is surprisingly not very good. Most of the loam and organic matter is up in the canopy of the forest, so when folks clear the land for farming they usually destroy the land. It might give crops for a couple of years, but then it fails. By carefully choosing crops farmers could probably grow good soil over time, but most indigenous farmers don't do that. Good farming practices usually involve crop rotation, growing deciduous trees mixed in for loam. Growing Beans and clover to fix nitrogen into the soil. The main problem with destroying the rain forest is that we are drastically cutting the biodiversity of land based life on Earth. Once a species is gone it is gone. \n\nAnother problem that agriculture presents anywhere but which is exacerbated in a rain forest is nitrogen and phosphorous pollution from fertilizer. I am not saying farmers should not use fertilizer, but it needs to be managed better than it is currently.
1153988
Agriculture generally requires large area of land and is land intensive. Land is ever becoming a scarce resource as world population is keeping exploding as a result of which the existing household per capita land is decreasing and hence people are cutting down forests in search of additional land for agriculture. On the other hand household lands are being monopolized by big commercial farms driving household farmers into towns. Still in some places household farmers are changing int producing high value products that do not need big land area.This has brought about a change in agriculture pattern in many areas of the world.
154960
Producers of what but animals depend on others because they cant do much on their own
1102396
Because the government doesn't care if poor people survive.  Have you noticed the truly healthy foods are very expensive?  Think about it.
451663
I get foodstamps b/c I have a lot of people to support and some of which are not able to work, some are too young. I hate people that cheat the system. It makes the gov't make all these new rules that make it harder on us who need them. I work hard,but I still need some help.
64768
To survive as a peasant farmer you would have to be able to work hard for long hours, know about farm animals, be knowledgable about planting and havesting, and know how to market.