"The Whole Horse"

This passage was only interesting because I was able to see someone else’s point of view for believing in such a thing as agrarianism. I was interested in the argument that the author presented as well as some of the solutions that they brought up. I do believe that it would be a challenge for such thoughts as conserving what is barely left of certain lands being worked. I am somewhat against the whole idea of conserving and of the author’s dislike for industrialism.

Industrialism may have been a bad outcome in certain aspects for the land but it was advancement for mankind. Since industrialism we have been able to expand our lives, which agriculture could have never done on its own. The benefit of agriculture was the spawning of industrialism from it in hopes of more efficient ways. I’m not saying burn the forests and build Corporations ‘R Us but I am saying that maybe some things as such are necessary to move forward.

I find that there could be no harm coming from what we have started. If our natural environment dies we will have the technology to create a synthetic one. If everything we ruin destroys the hopes and lives of our future generations then so be it. Our future generations most likely will do the same but it shouldn’t matter because what is the point of conserving? Is it not our destiny to use it all up and then we are done? And if not then what is it? I think it’s necessary to know these questions in order for anyone to be correct about the ordeal. Who are we to say what’s right if everything is all done for nothing? This is not from a religious view but probably one better described as cynical. We are probably making a big deal out of nothing that will be worth while in ten years from now.