Kitchen Garden Forum

I hope you are feeling better soon Johnboy.

'The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.' — Terry Pratchett

When a poster posts something at the start of their message you must always check whether it is factual or not. If they then base their whole argument on it, then you must double check.

I quote NB's first line "Topsoil used to be 3 - 4 ft deep, now thanks to intensive farming methods it is barely a foot, like our skin soil has functions for the huge organism called earth, so that it can support diversity. "


Some facts to back that up for the UK, Europe , Canda and the USA and China.. would be useful.

I mean proper documented independent research... not opinions..

It MAY very well be true, but I am very cautious of claims made without evidence.

If you will permit me a respectful initial comment: the earth is not a living organism; it is a planet which has life in/on it. The analogy with the human body and skin is at best fallacious, and at worst dangerously deluded (and unscientific).

Good on you Nature's Babe for encouraging folk to think a bit more deeply (pun intended). Anyone who wants to think of earth (and soil) as something that's simply inert with things living in and on it might care to consider the theory of James Lovelock, who co-devised the Gaia hypothesis. The link below gives a quick introduction to the concept that earth is more than a lump of rock with a thin layer of air, water and living stuff covering its surface...

http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/what_is_Gaia.html

Of course this might make uncomfortable reading for those with a rigid, human-centred mindest who insist on having a rational, human-friendly explanation for everything - and who seek to disparage ideas and thinking that unsettles them.

John Walker wrote:Of course this might make uncomfortable reading for those with a rigid, human-centred mindest who insist on having a rational, human-friendly explanation for everything - and who seek to disparage ideas and thinking that unsettles them.

Or, putting it another way, you might take solace in the company of a number of respected scientists who think it is a load of poppycock.

Of course this might make uncomfortable reading for those with a rigid, human-centred mindest who insist on having a rational, human-friendly explanation for everything - and who seek to disparage ideas and thinking that unsettles them.

Well I believe in trying to have ideas which fit in with facts.. and if they do not, then they are wrong..

I also believe in Occam's Razor as a general principle..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

On the basis of both of the above, I treat the Gaia theory with the same respect as I give to those who believe in faeries at the bottom of the garden.

John Walker

You wilfully choose to misunderstand what I was saying. Perhaps I should have been more careful and said “the Earth” rather than “the earth” – or perhaps have done the whole thing in Welsh, saying “y ddaear” [the Earth = planet in the solar system] as opposed to “y pridd” [= earth, soil]. The Earth (capital E) or y ddaear is a planet in the solar system consisting of elements which are (so the scientists say) to be found elsewhere in the universe. Due to a long series of accidents/coincidences over billions of years some of these elements have combined to create life. This life in multifarious forms exists on the earth (sorry, the Earth). You say “earth is more than a lump of rock with a thin layer of air, water and living stuff covering its surface”: actually the Earth (note capital E) is precisely that – find me a geologist that would disagree.

As for your link to Gaia.............

Paragraph 1:

Most of us sense that the Earth is more than a sphere of rock with a thin layer of air, ocean and life covering the surface. We feel that we belong here as if this planet were indeed our home. Long ago the Greeks, thinking this way, gave to the Earth the name Gaia or, for short, Ge. In those days, science and theology were one and science, although less precise, had soul. As time passed this warm relationship faded and was replaced by the frigidity of the schoolmen. The life sciences, no longer concerned with life, fell to classifying dead things and even to vivisection. Ge was stolen from theology to become no more the root from which the disciplines of geography and geology were named. Now at last there are signs of a change. Science becomes holistic again and rediscovers soul, and theology, moved by ecumenical forces, begins to realise that Gaia is not to be subdivided for academic convenience and that Ge is much more than just a prefix.


Most of us sense that the Earth is more than a sphere of rock with a thin layer of air, ocean and life covering the surface.
Where’s the statistical evidence that initial nonsense?

Long ago the Greeks, thinking this way, gave to the Earth the name Gaia or, for short, Ge.
Admirably advanced though they were for their time, the ancient Greeks had a whole number of beliefs which it would now be unwise to give credence to. A full list of these would not fit on the forum. A couple of examples; Zeus came to Leda in the form of a swan. Leda bore Helen and Polydeuces, children of Zeus while at the same time bearing Castor and Clytemnestra, children of her husband Tyndareus, the King of Sparta (no wonder our local swans look so self-satisfied); Four divine beings first came into existence: Chaos, the Abyss, Earth (Gaea) and Love (Eros). Then the world came into existence when Earth was forcibly separated from her consort Heaven (Uranus) for a time so that she might give birth. To effect this separation, Uranus's genitals were severed by his son Cronus (the father of Zeus) and thrown into the sea, from which rose Aphrodite.

Need I say more; to base belief on this ancient superstition is to declare oneself a fool or a charlatan. We have had suggestions on this forum that lunar planting is sanctioned by the practices of the Maya; the Maya also made human sacrifices to ensure successful harvests. Anyone recommend that now?

As time passed this warm relationship faded and was replaced by the frigidity of the schoolmen. The life sciences, no longer concerned with life, fell to classifying dead things and even to vivisection. Ge was stolen from theology to become no more the root from which the disciplines of geography and geology were named.
Presumably the term “schoolmen” is a way of rubbishing scientists.

Science becomes holistic again and rediscovers soul, and theology, moved by ecumenical forces, begins to realise that Gaia is not to be subdivided for academic convenience and that Ge is much more than just a prefix.
This is mere prolix mumbo-jumbo designed to impress not the open-minded but the gullible.

The rest of the text in the link is no more than sentimental, mystical rambling.

John. if you or any others truly believe any of this, I despair. And I certainly give no credence to any of your (or their) opinions on growing; which is a pity, because all advice based on provable/scientific facts is to be pondered and, perhaps, treasured.

And there was me worrying about a little Sow Thistle seed blowing about.

Hi Alan, A closed mind is not only closed to outside thoughts, it is often closed to itself as well. It is closed to new thoughts and anything that threatens the status quo. But if you can open the doors, maybe just a crack at first, the ideas that have been patiently waiting at your gates will flood in. I don't accept anything unless I weigh the logic and evidence first and test it out first, if I make a mistake i apologise and admit it.
‘It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it., minds are like parachutes, they only function when open.
Lets all play nicely and be respectful of one anothers ideas. John thank you fr the supportive comment sorry you caught the flak
Old herbacious, what's a ittle sow thistle between friends With the method I describe /linked to, even sow thistle and dandelion are removed easily, I just gently tease it up through the mulch and provided it is not seeding return the plant nutrients to the soil when dry. in a loose moist soil it pulls out very easily. You should all try it before you knock it.
Masdafish, my whole arguement was not based on that, I have posted a whole lot of links by other people to support my suggestions, it is your choice if you choose to read - or not. The last five links to the bbc videos received very good reviews and are thought provoking without claiming all the answers.

Nature's Babe wrote:I don't accept anything unless I weigh the logic and evidence first and test it out first:D

Nor do I! Which is why I reject the illogicality of the Gaia hypothesis.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it., minds are like parachutes, they only function when open.
Lets all play nicely and be respectful of one anothers ideas.

And not be so patronising.

Nature's Babe wrote:Hi Alan, A closed mind is not only closed to outside thoughts, it is often closed to itself as well. It is closed to new thoughts and anything that threatens the status quo. But if you can open the doors, maybe just a crack at first, the ideas that have been patiently waiting at your gates will flood in

That is so patronising it makes me feel a bit ill.
[snip]

Lets all play nicely and be respectful of one anothers ideas.

Yes.

If you thought my remarks were patronising Alan, then I apologise.
My intention was to keep the conversation positive, light and helpful rather than retaliate and inflame.

Your quote, The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.' — Terry Pratchett

I could have taken offense at this remark as implyong anyone can put any ideas into an open mind, which was Terry Pratchets way of making us laugh but i chose not to Alan,

I have an open mind: facts and a theory to fit them.
Simple.

Theories with no facts: the hallmark of the misguided or the willfully wrong.

Of course, you can be an Einstein and come out with theories - like light bending near massive objects - which were only proved AFTER the theory was written.

But it was proved.. As far as I can see, there are lots of things written and theories espoused which are incapable of proof . So they are just theories...and as such are worthy of interest but nothing else.

I still await the proof of where soil thicknesses have reduced by 2/3rds.. across the world I assume given the generality of the comments.

(If I don't get a sensible and convincing reply...I will draw my own conclusions...

Sorry, Masdafish, haven't been able to find the reference yet time is precious at the moment.

Masdafish proof the soil thickness is being depleted -
This guardian report gives an overview of the latest government defra report, which can be downloaded if you want to check the facts the guardian reported.
Hilary Benn. "Soil erosion already results in the annual loss of around 2.2m tonnes of topsoil. This costs farmers £9m a year in lost production. Climate change has the potential to increase erosion rates through hotter, drier conditions that make soils more susceptible to wind erosion, coupled with intense rainfall incidents that can wash soil away," he said.
We are letting down our children if we ignore this trend, and leaving grandchildren in dire problems. With the predicted world population increase food production needs to double,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ming-defra