It is at least plausible that electric farm machinery could run on a combination of photocells and batteries charged by windmills, or small generators on streams crossing the relevant farmland. We might also prioritize machines for the most debilitating labor, while increasing labor intensive production in some tasks now done by machine — the ones humans can more easily handle without being worn out and prematurely aged. Then there are the possibilities for generating and burning methane from animal wastes, processing what remains into sterile fertilizer without relying on oil, and new forms of crop rotation. These all require more decentralized production, but also a well integrated industrial economy to supply the necessary technology. It might even require an electrical grid, so temporary surpluses can be channeled to areas of equally temporary deficit. The sun doesn’t shine equally each day on each square mile.

As for industrial irrigation — let’s talk then about water depletion, ok?

You’re setting up a false dichotomy, i.e. that we have to choose between rejecting everything about current agricultural methods on one hand and animal-powered family farms on the other. We don’t. We can easily choose to keep combine harvesters while using more responsible, sustainable methods. As evidence, I submit for your consideration the fact that the vast majority of “organic” produce is produced on factory farms which avoid most of the more damaging problems associated with industrial agriculture while still pissing the hell out of the hippies. As further evidence, I submit for your consideration the fact that the vast majority of the Midwest–which is semi-arid after all–would be largely useless for agricultural purposes without significant industrial irrigation infrastructure.

I’m less interested in historical causes per se than I am in a recognition that we are where we are (and what we are, as far as that goes) because of what has happened before us. That the past does in fact matter, at the very least because it can teach us how and why things are the way they are. I have no time or sympathy for arguments that x is the problem and y the solution which fail to contextualize themselves in historical reality.

And the constitutional issues weren’t brought up by me. I was merely responding to them.

If you want something with an immediate concrete impact, without a re-imagining of “conservatism” or whatever is being attempted here, go to Transition Towns or a similar project instead.

Dr. (I assume it’s Dr. anyways) Peters was not my only implied target, but he is a chief offender. Let me show you what I’m talking about. Remember the exchange over this post? I’m sure you do. There, Peters attempted to use an argument from history to make a point about technology. Fair enough.

Peters cites a speech by Lord Byron. Before responding, I tracked down the speech in question and read it. Go ahead, read it for yourself. I’ll wait.

…

Does the main thrust of the speech have anything to do with Peters’ point, that the Luddites represent a principled stand against industrialization? No! Not in the slightest! It’s about a particularly difficult domestic situation caused by the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars. Byron is critical of the Lords’ handling of the situation, not the fact that the situation needed to be handled. His solution is not to abandon the evils of industrialization but to 1) make use of the civil legal system before calling in the military, and 2) stop spending so much on foreign aid that people starve within a hundred miles of London. Yet Peters plucks the one quote from that speech–which is all over the Internet, do a search, will you?–having anything to do with his argument and in so doing ignores the bulk of Byron’s argument. Color me unimpressed.

Where, then, does Peters draw his historical characterization? From historical sources? From a historian? No! From that omnicompetent novelist, Wendell Berry! And I’m supposed to take this seriously… why exactly? I grant that Berry is a good novelist, but I’ve no evidence for the belief that he has any idea what he’s talking about historically. Do you? I appreciate the fact that Dr. Peters is far more knowledgable than I about Mr. Berry, but this is starting to look like a man with a hammer thinking everything is a nail.

This was a particularly glaring example, but the site is full of others. There is a consistant disregard for history throughout. And don’t call me “progressivist”. That’s not what I’m going for. Can’t you see? I’m not the one operating under the Enlightenment concept of history, you are. I’m advocating for a nuanced, complex, and interdependent concept of history rather than the simple “Things were great, and then the Industrial Revolution screwed it all up” Romantic story which is the dominant trend on FPR.

I’m talking about things like: blaming the disintegration of the medieval manor system on industrialism when it in fact had been coming apart for centuries due to demographic pressures; advocating for a return to what is held up as the Framers’ original design when the design in question was abandoned by said Framers as unsatisfactory; calling for radical modifications of federal structures in the name of restoring the balance federalism when exactly those ideas were rejected by the Framers as unbalanced; and most of all, arguing for economic and logistical structures which absolutely cannot scale beyond a minimal population engaged in subsistence agriculture.

If anything, my brush wasn’t adequately broad to capture the scope of my complaint. It’s not just history that’s regarded, but logistics. There is very little appreciation around here for just how complex the material organization of life really is, for the fact that even the most basic agricultural implements have for centuries required significant industrial infrastructure. I’m not arguing that this life is better or worse than that of ages past. But I am dismayed by the fact that so many articles on FPR display a complete disregard for the realities of the way we live.

Why am I here? Why do I bother? Because I think the FPR project is worth doing, and anything worth doing is worth doing right. That means seriously engaging with both history and the realities of the world in which we live, not waving them away as irrelevant and thumping our rhetorical chests in outrage when someone dares question the large-scale viability of the agrarian lifestyle or suggests that hey, technology has its uses.

Though I will say that the fact that no one seems to care about these concerns is sufficiently discouraging that I’ve been commenting less and less frequently. All I can say is that until people around here start caring about history, FPR will continue to have little practical influence beyond a defense for particular lifestyle choices. For an idea whose time has come, this is depressing.

Sadly, there’s not much reason to expect things to get better soon. I recently had a conversation with the new head of the London Business School, who I think in most respects is a pretty bright guy, suggesting that all students get a course in economic externalities–that it should be a requirement. His response wast something along the lines of stop being delusional–why would studens need to learn that? Sigh.

Now we all know that divorced from any religious or moral foundation at all, enlightenment philosophy has been used in modern times to deny that there is such a thing as morality. However, we are each, individually, accountable to God, who is the ultimate source of morality. What we have lost is the ability for private morality to exercise honest and honorable influence over individual behavior, therefore over community and culture, which, in a democratic republic, shapes the secular laws determined through referenda and representation. We need to get all that back without resorting to bishops issuing marching orders to voters of their respective denominations.

What passes for conservative economics, as well a what passes for liberal economics, is utterly antagonistic to any focus on family, for example, because the employee is merely a Tayloristic tool of the employer. If the employee has a family, they are expected to “put the company first.” In a truly free market, an individual could put their family first by finding another employer, but most sources of employment are, in this sense, “too big” to set aside.

What?! A Catholic text receiving little official attention at a Catholic university?

Not to question Prof Deneen’s honesty, but I find that difficult to believe…

Suffice it to say that while the Austrian economists are more right than the likes of Krugman, who would be Austrian if his bleeding heart left enough blood for his brain to see his authoritarian sentimentality for what it is, their refusal to acknowledge the role of anthropologies (i.e. what we think humans are and how they choose, live, etc.) leaves them perpetually clueless as to why these humans don’t listen to them.

Ryan, I really shouldn’t get into internet discussions with you. But I don’t think anyone on this site (including “English professors,” by which I can only assume you mean Jason Peters) looks at philosophical, theological, and economic questions with “absolutely no respect for history.” This is an extremely broad and baseless claim . When I read your comments, especially on Mr. Peters’ posts, I wonder why you’re reading them. You seem to be reading them with absolutely no consideration that maybe he knows something you don’t, which results in such winning arguments as, “C’mon, guys, he thinks cars are bad,” as if this is reason enough to dismiss him entirely. I question this tactic on two levels: 1. you don’t know me from Eve. Why do you care if I (or anyone else who frequents FPR) agree with Mr. Peters? 2. The very fact that I read this site suggests that I, like other FPR readers, think that something is quite amiss with the way that we live including *gasp* our reliance on cars.

I’ll be clear, in case you misinterpret what I’m saying: good for you for reading this site. In my opinion it’s the best thing on the internet, save some discussions of Jayber Crow in my inbox. But it’s only worth reading if you read with openness that other people might know more than you. Otherwise, it’s worthless to do. This doesn’t mean you need to agree with everything that is said here (I don’t), just that you take it seriously.

Finally, of course you mean history as it was taught to you. Rest assured, the progressivist version of history taught to you was taught to the rest of us as well. How could it not be? But, if something is amiss with the reformation/enlightenment periods (as you seem to agree), shouldn’t we question the historical interpretation that results from this? Shouldn’t we question the technological method that follows, that is about dominance of the earth rather than understanding of it?

I’m sorry to other FPR readers (and to Mr. Deneen) as much of this comment is off-topic to this specific post.

Thanks again for your clarity in explaining some of the fundamental assumptions shaping our economic climate. It is helpful as I continue my journey to a better philosophy and world-view.

_Justin

Before the Fall, it writes ad campaigns.

Mr. Scott is spot on with his warning about the One Big Theory.