Re: Alternate history[Here's my Timeline](long)

In a message dated 2/20/00 8:36:23 AM Central Standard Time,
bbrush2@unl.edu 
writes:

<< As someone who grew up in the middel of the area you're talking
about, I 
happen
 to know something about the "Great Plains Exodus".  It's true that the
 population of rural areas in the midwest is decreasing.  The amount of
land
 under cultivation is not, however, except in areas that never should
have 
been
 cultivated to begin with.  And believe me when I say this, NO farmland
is 
ever
 "given up".  Farmland, even bad farmland is extremely valuable.  What's
 happening out there is the farmers who don't compete eventually fail,
and 
their
 land is bought up by the guy on the next farm who can farm it 
competitively.>>

I live in a fairly large agricultural state, (Texas) and have seen the 
numbers as far as the amount of land under cultivation. It is now less
than 
at any time in this century, and the decline is still happening. The
simple 
reason, more crops can be grown on less acreage than at any time in our 
history. Considering that we regularly have surpluses that drive the
prices 
down to the point that farmers can't even pay their loans, and are
forced off 
their lands, with them sold to their neighbors or an agri-business. Yes
the 
inefficient farmers are taken over by the more effecient ones, but a lot
of 
the land that was used for crops is not being put back into use,
especially 
in the plains states that we're talking about. Conbine that with the
fact 
that the aquifers in the plains are running out of water, and the
farmers 
there, unless they miracle their way to a water source, won't have any
water 
to grow those crops, and you have a perfect setup for the kind of
situation 
that we're talking about.
 
 <<Now maybe in a hundred years the population of the world won't be fed
by 
the
 produce of the midwest U.S., but I doubt it.  If Earth begins
colonizing 
other
 planets it's going to be even more vital that the cultivation of the
Amercan
 midwest is not only continued, but increased in output and efficiency; 
because,
 those other planets will most likely not become self-sufficient for
food any
 time within 20 years of their colonization.  Once one colony becomes
 self-supporting, then there would surely be another colony to
support.>>

It'll be much cheaper in the long run to feed the colonists by
greenhouse 
forced-growth techniques, vat-cloned meats, or some sort of algae based
food, 
than importing all their food stuffs from the homeworld. The transport
costs 
alone for all that food would drive the price of colonization to the
point of 
collapse. Besides, the history of colonization isn't one of continuing 
expenditures for colonial welfare, "vanity" colonies quickly
disappeared. The 
only colonies that, historically, survived, were the ones who quickly
became 
self-sufficient, in regards to their basic needs, the mother countries
were 
more than happy to make money off their colonial possesions by supplying

everything else.
 
 <<Now as far as the "red-necks" love their homes bit goes, it's
basically 
true,
 although I take offense at the implication that anyone who lives out
here 
that
 isn't a native american is a red-neck.  The Amercian midwest is a great
place
 to live although it may be hard for people who grew up in more heavily
 urbanized areas to believe.  Let's see, it's got clean air, clean
water, 
cheap
 food, large areas of open land where you can hunt, fish, or just
appreciate
 nature.  The way I see it, the reason more people don't live here is
that it 
is
 physically far from the centers of commerce, government, and popular 
recreation
 areas.  I don't see physical distance remaining an obstacle for people
who 
want
 to live in the midwest and work on the coast in a world that has
managed to
 invent FTL travel, fractional cee inter-planetary travel, and
inter-stellar
 warfare.  I also think that anyone who thinks you're going to take an
area 
that
 currently produces 75% of the worlds grain out of cultivation and turn
it 
into
 a park isn't living in the real world.  It may not be recognizable to
us as
 farming, but I am confident that a 100 years from now, somebody will be

farming
 somewhere.  Humans have only been doing it for a couple of thousand
years, I
 don't figure they're going to quit in a paltry 100 years.>>

The area we're talking about is already being taken slowly out of 
cultivation, if you look at the numbers. The only thing we're trying to
do is 
to forecast reasonable results of current trends. It doesn't mean the
entire 
area would be taken out of cultivation, just a broad swath of it. The
areas 
of great plains farmland furthest east would probably stay into
production, 
and would, given the increased production due to agrcultural science, be

producing more than the entire area does today. As far as the "red-neck"

thing goes, people of any sort will not stay in an area that they can't
take 
care of their families in. The whole history of the US is one big story
of 
"voting with your feet", leaving for greener pastures when your current
ones 
got bad. I see no evidence that that will change in the future. 
 
 <<JMO, it's probably worth what you paid for it.>>

A very interesting conversation...

John
JohnDHamill@aol.com