5 ms·

Rural person here. We've been having this argument in the UK for the last... Oh, 400 years at least. It basically boils down to, some muppet in Whitehall should

Rural person here. We've been having this argument in the UK for the last... Oh, 400 years at least. It basically boils down to, some muppet in Whitehall shouldn't be making laws about what to do with sheep/cattle/pasture/abattoirs/grain coatings... There's a lot of truth in it. You think there's bad regulation in tech? It's nothing compared to regulation on farming and ag generally. In terms of solutions, the only one I've ever seen proposed which I think could work would be to have governing bodies for rural areas (and this could apply more broadly to areas of society), where they are free to make laws as it pertains to the area of responsibility of the group, with a coordinating body overseeing the groups to design for efficiency and arbitrate where conflicts arise.

Neil44 4y ago
Without getting bogged down in specifics there's definitely a sense sometimes that laws and policies are set by people who rarely set foot outside London.
- walthamstow 4y ago
  As an 'only-half-joking' London nationalist I feel compelled to tell you that London too is governed by voters in the rest of the UK who know nothing about the city, its economy or its people. This isn't a disagreement, I'm just pointing out how great regionalism/federalism could be for the UK
  - bowietrousers 4y ago
    London gets its own way, with its own affairs, a lot - it already has a mayor, an elected assembly, and its own transport governance.
    - walthamstow 4y ago
      You listed offices, but not powers. Those bodies do not really have any substantial powers. The GLA is not a legislative body at all. The mayor is responsible for transport and, uhh, that's about it.
      - uoaei 4y ago
        This kind of pointedly naive questioning -- starting the conversation over at zero -- is an extremely unhelpful "discussion" (debate) tactic, and is really annoying to boot.
        walthamstow 4y ago
        Fair enough. I've edited it. p.s. FWIW I don't think you should be downvoted for this comment. You were right.
  - svieira 4y ago
    You might like G. K. Chesterton's _The Napoleon of Notting Hill_ if you haven't already read it (neighborhood regionalism at its finest!)
bombcar 4y ago
> In terms of solutions, the only one I've ever seen proposed which I think could work would be to have governing bodies for rural areas (and this could apply more broadly to areas of society), where they are free to make laws as it pertains to the area of responsibility of the group, with a coordinating body overseeing the groups to design for efficiency and arbitrate where conflicts arise. This is basically subsidiarity which says to make decisions at the lowest possible level. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity
LatteLazy 4y ago
I won't defend the mess of current rules. But let's not pretend here either: the reason agriculture has to be run more centrally is because farmers are actually amazingly bad at farming. There are entire offices filled with people who's job is to try and convince farmers to do things that work. From new crops to new technology to when to plant to climate change, farmers just refuse to budge. One of the longest UK radio programs is dedicated to getting farmers to farm better. We have a special program that pays farmers to retire, because it's cheaper than dealing with how bad they are at their jobs (imagine that in any other sector...). That's the issue here. We could solve it the way you say, but then we'd need an actual market, and when supplies ran low to import and to accept many farmers going bankrupt and their land being sold off to farmers who do do it right. That's been politically verboten for at least 50 years.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
  This feels akin to architects armed with diagrams telling the developers who have been working on the system for 5+ years why they're wrong. Maybe it's true, but how likely is it? It's more likely the farmers have concerns that are not being addressed. I can easily see "You should do this because it will make more crops and we don't care about your increased financial burden from it".
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    Agricultural decisionmaking is ... distributed weirdly in many contexts. First, in many cases, the local operators (who are often not owners) are not especially autonomous, and may be acting on behalf of corporate concerns or decisions made far away, not infrequently in entirely different countries. To that extent, governmental regulation is a countervailing force to corporate power. Secondly, ag, food production generally (e.g., fishing and grazing), and forestry are classic cases of the somewhat maligned "tragedy of the commons" situation. Localised decisionmaking absolutely can and has resulted in long-term and permanent degradation of ecosystems and populations. This includes the deforestation of the Mediterranean basin as well as much of Europe, old-growth forests within the US, much of the Amazon jungle, and tropical woodlands throughout the world. (That some of this has occurred due to or subject to government planning doesn't negate the fact that much of the interest is corporate and commercial.) Even local small-scale decisionmaking can be exceptionally detrimental. Collapses of fisheries such as sardines off Monterey, California, cod off the Grand Banks, and elsewhere, commercial whaling, overgrazing throughout much of the world, and decimation of wild animal populations including the North American bison and passenger pigeon. Third, ag production is governed by a huge array of factors ranging from local soil quality and conservation (see the recent HN article on topsoil loss within the American Midwest), seasonal weather forecasts, and international trade policies, tarrifs, credits, and the like. In all, there are strong arguments against strictly local decisionmaking, no matter how unpopular that fact may be locally. In practice within the US, the Department of Agriculture is among the most distributed federal departments, with both a strong presence in the District of Columbia and numerous field, research, and teaching operations throughout the country. "Distant federal oversight" is a poor description of the actual situation.
cmrdporcupine 4y ago
Also a rural person living next to working farms, I'll just say this: Many things make more sense when you realize that farming is industry (and a workplace) and has to be managed by the state as an industry with similar regulatory, health & safety and environmental concerns. The bucolic picture of farms as family homes combined with a flock of peaceful sheep, a family dog, and some silly chickens and a hard working sole proprietor is really hobby farming and a primarily aesthetic thing at this point. The real world of the countryside is one of industrial extraction/production, but where somehow homes are mixed in. Not saying this is ideal, but a lot of the conflict that arises is around the disjoint nature of our traditional view of "the countryside" vs what it's actually "for" (industrial farming + future suburban development + mixed residential uses)
- mistrial9 4y ago
  > really hobby farming and a primarily aesthetic thing no one can say that with certainty, you use the same rhetorical trick as people in politics when "progress is inevitable" bad news for everyone -- the industrial world has spoiled the nest.
  - cmrdporcupine 4y ago
    I never said I liked it. It's not a "rhetorical trick" because I'm not advocating anything. Just simply describing what is out there. Myself, I am generally what you'd call anti-capitalist by convictions; but I've lived rural most of my life. And never in the actual "industry" that dominates the rural world, just... next to it.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    Believe it or not governments have a pretty strong interest in knowing this sort of thing so the data is certainly there! It's been a while since I looked at it and it depends on what you consider a "small farm" to be. But when I last checked a few years ago, farms employing little or no outside laborers were a small minority. And more significantly here, those households were both above median household income and half or more of their income came from outside-the-farm sources. You can twiddle with it if you want but to me that seems like a pretty reasonable definition of "hobby farming." Which is not a value judgement per se. Not being strictly dependent on farm income allows these farmers to pursue traditional or sustainability-focused practices that may not be economically viable otherwise. But just be clear-eyed about it. The ideal of the small, self-sufficient, productive and profitable family farm is just that, an ideal and to a large extent a myth. In a very serious way it's not how things ever worked and, maybe unfortunately maybe not, it's not how they're going to now either.
tstrimple 4y ago
We have relatively few regulations on ag land usage so farmers saturate their fields with nitrates which inevitably run off into our water system to the point where there isn't a river in Iowa which isn't unsafe for swimming and drinking water becomes polluted. https://apnews.com/article/politics-environment-iowa-des-moines-978cc6f9edb83389af50a5c1cb05d243 https://apnews.com/article/politics-environment-iowa-des-moi... Farmers don't care. They care about profits, not sustainability which is why they are fine letting the top soil just erode away. They know at some point they will be bailed out despite their complete irresponsibility in managing their resources. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-say-nations-corn-belt-has-lost-third-its-topsoil-180977485/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-say... Finally, there is some talk about gravel roads being the right choice for rural areas but that's not so clear cut. The cost for maintaining gravel roads is significantly higher than indicated and you often need more than just a grader and dump truck because these roads are prone to washing out which requires major repair. The initial cost of paved roads is higher up front, but the maintenance costs are lower over time. Gravel needs to be maintained yearly. https://blog.midwestind.com/road-maintenance-costs-unpaved-vs-paved-roads/ https://blog.midwestind.com/road-maintenance-costs-unpaved-v... Rural residents rarely feel the actual cost of maintaining their lifestyle. Miles and miles of county roads servicing a handful of people a day. In Iowa roughly 40% of the population lives in rural areas and there are 98,000 miles of road to support them. While the other 60% of the population needs 17,000 miles of road to support their daily activities and that's putting all highways on the city side of the budget. Rural residents love to talk about how much cheaper their lifestyle is, but they are being heavily subsidized by people who live in the suburbs and urban areas while pretending to be "fiercely independent" and "self sufficient".

Neil44 4y ago

Without getting bogged down in specifics there's definitely a sense sometimes that laws and policies are set by people who rarely set foot outside London.

walthamstow 4y ago
As an 'only-half-joking' London nationalist I feel compelled to tell you that London too is governed by voters in the rest of the UK who know nothing about the city, its economy or its people. This isn't a disagreement, I'm just pointing out how great regionalism/federalism could be for the UK
- bowietrousers 4y ago
  London gets its own way, with its own affairs, a lot - it already has a mayor, an elected assembly, and its own transport governance.
  - walthamstow 4y ago
    You listed offices, but not powers. Those bodies do not really have any substantial powers. The GLA is not a legislative body at all. The mayor is responsible for transport and, uhh, that's about it.
    - uoaei 4y ago
      This kind of pointedly naive questioning -- starting the conversation over at zero -- is an extremely unhelpful "discussion" (debate) tactic, and is really annoying to boot.
      - walthamstow 4y ago
        Fair enough. I've edited it. p.s. FWIW I don't think you should be downvoted for this comment. You were right.
- svieira 4y ago
  You might like G. K. Chesterton's _The Napoleon of Notting Hill_ if you haven't already read it (neighborhood regionalism at its finest!)

bombcar 4y ago

> In terms of solutions, the only one I've ever seen proposed which I think could work would be to have governing bodies for rural areas (and this could apply more broadly to areas of society), where they are free to make laws as it pertains to the area of responsibility of the group, with a coordinating body overseeing the groups to design for efficiency and arbitrate where conflicts arise. This is basically subsidiarity which says to make decisions at the lowest possible level. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

LatteLazy 4y ago

I won't defend the mess of current rules. But let's not pretend here either: the reason agriculture has to be run more centrally is because farmers are actually amazingly bad at farming. There are entire offices filled with people who's job is to try and convince farmers to do things that work. From new crops to new technology to when to plant to climate change, farmers just refuse to budge. One of the longest UK radio programs is dedicated to getting farmers to farm better. We have a special program that pays farmers to retire, because it's cheaper than dealing with how bad they are at their jobs (imagine that in any other sector...). That's the issue here. We could solve it the way you say, but then we'd need an actual market, and when supplies ran low to import and to accept many farmers going bankrupt and their land being sold off to farmers who do do it right. That's been politically verboten for at least 50 years.

P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
This feels akin to architects armed with diagrams telling the developers who have been working on the system for 5+ years why they're wrong. Maybe it's true, but how likely is it? It's more likely the farmers have concerns that are not being addressed. I can easily see "You should do this because it will make more crops and we don't care about your increased financial burden from it".
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  Agricultural decisionmaking is ... distributed weirdly in many contexts. First, in many cases, the local operators (who are often not owners) are not especially autonomous, and may be acting on behalf of corporate concerns or decisions made far away, not infrequently in entirely different countries. To that extent, governmental regulation is a countervailing force to corporate power. Secondly, ag, food production generally (e.g., fishing and grazing), and forestry are classic cases of the somewhat maligned "tragedy of the commons" situation. Localised decisionmaking absolutely can and has resulted in long-term and permanent degradation of ecosystems and populations. This includes the deforestation of the Mediterranean basin as well as much of Europe, old-growth forests within the US, much of the Amazon jungle, and tropical woodlands throughout the world. (That some of this has occurred due to or subject to government planning doesn't negate the fact that much of the interest is corporate and commercial.) Even local small-scale decisionmaking can be exceptionally detrimental. Collapses of fisheries such as sardines off Monterey, California, cod off the Grand Banks, and elsewhere, commercial whaling, overgrazing throughout much of the world, and decimation of wild animal populations including the North American bison and passenger pigeon. Third, ag production is governed by a huge array of factors ranging from local soil quality and conservation (see the recent HN article on topsoil loss within the American Midwest), seasonal weather forecasts, and international trade policies, tarrifs, credits, and the like. In all, there are strong arguments against strictly local decisionmaking, no matter how unpopular that fact may be locally. In practice within the US, the Department of Agriculture is among the most distributed federal departments, with both a strong presence in the District of Columbia and numerous field, research, and teaching operations throughout the country. "Distant federal oversight" is a poor description of the actual situation.

cmrdporcupine 4y ago

Also a rural person living next to working farms, I'll just say this: Many things make more sense when you realize that farming is industry (and a workplace) and has to be managed by the state as an industry with similar regulatory, health & safety and environmental concerns. The bucolic picture of farms as family homes combined with a flock of peaceful sheep, a family dog, and some silly chickens and a hard working sole proprietor is really hobby farming and a primarily aesthetic thing at this point. The real world of the countryside is one of industrial extraction/production, but where somehow homes are mixed in. Not saying this is ideal, but a lot of the conflict that arises is around the disjoint nature of our traditional view of "the countryside" vs what it's actually "for" (industrial farming + future suburban development + mixed residential uses)

mistrial9 4y ago
> really hobby farming and a primarily aesthetic thing no one can say that with certainty, you use the same rhetorical trick as people in politics when "progress is inevitable" bad news for everyone -- the industrial world has spoiled the nest.
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  I never said I liked it. It's not a "rhetorical trick" because I'm not advocating anything. Just simply describing what is out there. Myself, I am generally what you'd call anti-capitalist by convictions; but I've lived rural most of my life. And never in the actual "industry" that dominates the rural world, just... next to it.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  Believe it or not governments have a pretty strong interest in knowing this sort of thing so the data is certainly there! It's been a while since I looked at it and it depends on what you consider a "small farm" to be. But when I last checked a few years ago, farms employing little or no outside laborers were a small minority. And more significantly here, those households were both above median household income and half or more of their income came from outside-the-farm sources. You can twiddle with it if you want but to me that seems like a pretty reasonable definition of "hobby farming." Which is not a value judgement per se. Not being strictly dependent on farm income allows these farmers to pursue traditional or sustainability-focused practices that may not be economically viable otherwise. But just be clear-eyed about it. The ideal of the small, self-sufficient, productive and profitable family farm is just that, an ideal and to a large extent a myth. In a very serious way it's not how things ever worked and, maybe unfortunately maybe not, it's not how they're going to now either.

tstrimple 4y ago

We have relatively few regulations on ag land usage so farmers saturate their fields with nitrates which inevitably run off into our water system to the point where there isn't a river in Iowa which isn't unsafe for swimming and drinking water becomes polluted. https://apnews.com/article/politics-environment-iowa-des-moines-978cc6f9edb83389af50a5c1cb05d243 https://apnews.com/article/politics-environment-iowa-des-moi... Farmers don't care. They care about profits, not sustainability which is why they are fine letting the top soil just erode away. They know at some point they will be bailed out despite their complete irresponsibility in managing their resources. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-say-nations-corn-belt-has-lost-third-its-topsoil-180977485/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-say... Finally, there is some talk about gravel roads being the right choice for rural areas but that's not so clear cut. The cost for maintaining gravel roads is significantly higher than indicated and you often need more than just a grader and dump truck because these roads are prone to washing out which requires major repair. The initial cost of paved roads is higher up front, but the maintenance costs are lower over time. Gravel needs to be maintained yearly. https://blog.midwestind.com/road-maintenance-costs-unpaved-vs-paved-roads/ https://blog.midwestind.com/road-maintenance-costs-unpaved-v... Rural residents rarely feel the actual cost of maintaining their lifestyle. Miles and miles of county roads servicing a handful of people a day. In Iowa roughly 40% of the population lives in rural areas and there are 98,000 miles of road to support them. While the other 60% of the population needs 17,000 miles of road to support their daily activities and that's putting all highways on the city side of the budget. Rural residents love to talk about how much cheaper their lifestyle is, but they are being heavily subsidized by people who live in the suburbs and urban areas while pretending to be "fiercely independent" and "self sufficient".