http://blog.sina.com.cn/u/485ea8790100051y
Failed Planting
2006-09-10 17:40:00
This year I had two failed planting attempts, one with corn and one with chayote. The seeds of both plants came from Yunnan.
The corn grew well at first, but it was too luxuriant, and the plants grew too tall—some even reached 3.4 meters! There were also some stalks without ears, and some were even covered with black mold. The reason may have been inappropriate seed selection. The seeds came from Simao, Yunnan. There, they were not tall either, and not overly luxuriant, but once brought north they changed. My father says that usually seeds from the south, when planted in the north, become too luxuriant, with late flowering and maturity. As for corn, I don’t know, but I have observed morning glories for many years. I know that morning glories in the Northeast bloom earlier, more than a month earlier than in Beijing. Also, judging from my observations, this place is no longer suitable for growing corn; the black mold suggests that corn has been planted here frequently before. Next year, I may consider planting roses and some vegetables in moderation.
Figure 1: The corn I planted grew too tall and luxuriant, produced small ears, and was easily blown over by the wind. The main reason is that the seeds were not suitable for planting in Beijing. 2006-09-09
The problem with the chayote is that it only grew vines and simply did not flower at all! I consulted some materials and found that it may be because it is a short-day (SD) plant; additionally, temperatures above 25 degrees caused it not to flower. There is still some time left, and the current daylight and temperature are both suitable, so perhaps it may still flower.
Corn was something I planted year after year when I was little, whereas chayote was my first encounter with. The latter is a perennial: in winter you preserve the roots, and next year you try again. In Yunnan, a single chayote vine can bear more than 500 chayotes; in Beijing, my expectations are not high—one or two will do!
As a pastime, I personally can try anything casually. But as a farmer, absolutely not. These two failures also help one understand how great the risks of agriculture and of being a farmer really are.
Figure 2: This kind of corn grows in Beijing; its prop roots form many layers and are especially well developed, and the stalk is stout and robust. 2006-09-10
Article comments
[Anonymous] icu
2006-09-14 02:40:28
Teacher Liu’s experience of farm work is interesting.
[Anonymous] ME
2006-09-14 07:28:59
Agricultural civilization is a sustainable civilization. But now it has been polluted and destroyed by industrial civilization.
[Anonymous] 古雴
2006-09-16 17:40:40
The historical fact is that agricultural civilization is not necessarily a sustainable civilization either; in fact, among ancient agricultural civilizations, the only one that has “continued” to the present is China. Moreover, those agricultural civilizations that did not continue—whether Babylon, India, or Central and South America—met their end for reasons that were more or less related to ecological destruction. Even in China, the Loess Plateau has been damaged quite badly by agriculture. What is truly sustainable is probably hunting and gathering or nomadism; the way of life of steppe civilizations is the most ecological. However, nomadism has difficulty supporting a large population, and a lack of a fixed abode is also unfavorable to the transmission and development of culture.
Just as agricultural civilization may be unsustainable or sustainable, industrial civilization may well also be sustainable; this depends on many other factors, including cultural and ethical ones.
There is another question: what exactly is industrial civilization? Probably it is classified by modes of production and ways of life. But viewed from the source of subsistence, those所谓 industrial civilization people still survive on agriculture. The distinctions among hunting and gathering, nomadism, pastoralism, agriculture, and so on reflect essential differences in the ways food is obtained; yet industrial civilization has not undergone any essential change. People still survive on agriculture. At most, agriculture has itself been industrialized and mechanized, but this is like fire farming, ox plowing, and so forth: it is only a difference in the “craft” of tilling the land, and not much of an essential change. And these craft-level changes are often overvalued by modern people, as though, in the way of barbarians and agricultural peoples, there were some huge leap between “industrial people” and agricultural people. In fact, to improve the craft a little does not necessarily mean that one has become much more “civilized,” or that one has acquired much of the high-handed wisdom and qualification to despise agricultural civilization from above. Perhaps “industrial era” is a more appropriate term. As for whether it is “civilization” or “barbarism,” whether it is as hopeful as the Renaissance or as dark as the Middle Ages, that is a matter for later. “Industrial civilization” too easily makes people float on air…
In the industrial era, urban people really ought to understand agriculture more, even experience it themselves. That way, people will never forget that the so-called industrial civilization still lives off agriculture, and they will not commit the two mistakes Leopold spoke of: thinking that food comes from the store…
Some time ago I saw a news report saying that in the United States some people are advocating turning the lawns in front of their homes into small vegetable gardens, replacing weeding with cultivation. I think that really is rather good! It would be very suitable for promotion in the U.S. Of course, China does not have such conditions, but in cities, the “landscape green spaces” that provide hardly any oxygen and require wasting large amounts of water to maintain should also be reduced. We should consider replacing them with something more meaningful; perhaps planting some crops in moderation—not for agricultural production, but simply for “landscape” purposes, so that urban people who know nothing of the five grains can broaden their horizons a bit. That would surely be more meaningful than planting so much imported lawn grass, wouldn’t it?
[Anonymous] ME
2006-09-16 20:41:23
Long time no see. With more population, agriculture really does have problems. Controlling population is a major boundary condition. Human beings are just too formidable on this earth; if they do not control themselves, no other large life form can really do much to them. Civilization is a mode of survival—only a “local adaptation,” and hardly representative of progress.
[Anonymous] 古雴
2006-09-17 15:52:22
Hello, Teacher Liu. Something happened at home some time ago, and I was at my wits’ end, forgetting everything about papers, Teachers’ Day, and so on. Today I’ve just arrived at school and am beginning to get back on track…
I wasn’t saying that the term “industrial civilization” is inappropriate; rather, I was saying that when people use this term, they often mix in too much arrogance, because the word civilization is usually opposed to barbarism. Civilization implies wisdom, enlightenment, cultivation, and so on. It may make some sense to say that agricultural civilization is more “cultivated” than steppe civilization, because the nomadic tribes’ unsettled way of life makes it hard for them to sustain a deep cultural heritage or accumulate rich philosophy, art, ethics, and so on, whereas agricultural civilization’s emphasis on history and culture does indeed mean it is always more “cultivated” than steppe civilization. But when it comes to “industrial civilization,” that is not necessarily the case. Industry is merely an improvement in technique; it does not mean an improvement in the degree of “enlightenment.” European civilization after the Industrial Revolution strengthened its power to conquer and plunder others, just as in ancient times steppe tribes often possessed fiercer and more advanced iron implements than agricultural tribes; this did not mean they were more enlightened or more cultivated. Those who possess industrial technology may be “civilized people,” or they may be “barbarians.”
Personally, on the one hand I certainly do not agree with a simplistic view of social progress, but neither do I want to go to the opposite extreme and deny “progress” in any sense. From “barbarism” to “civilization”; from ignoring history to valuing history and consciously transmitting it; from a way of life of eating raw meat and drinking blood, to a way of life of continual expansion and plunder, to an enlightened, kind, and tolerant way of life—these are all bona fide forms of “progress.” Such progress is indeed reflected in the transition from “hunting-gathering” to nomadism, and from nomadism to settled agriculture; yet the emergence of industry does not necessarily represent the progress of civilization.
[Anonymous] ME
2006-09-17 17:44:26
I only hope that things on your side will all turn out better!
What you say makes sense. I am also quite conflicted about the concept of “progress.” It won’t do to do without it, and one cannot make one’s case self-consistent without it. But using it often, or using it without reflection, is also problematic. Or one could define “progress” in another way: so-called “progress” is simply when, at the moment, one feels that things have “gotten better”; in fact, that too is only a kind of “local adaptation.” I wonder whether you would agree with this view?
[Anonymous] 古雴
2006-09-17 21:40:01
So-called “progress” means that at the moment one feels that things have “gotten better”—that’s rather interesting; I basically agree with this view. But this view merely shifts the problem: next comes the question of what exactly counts as “feeling that things have gotten better at the moment”? That is also a similarly headache-inducing problem. Whose “feelings” should be taken as the standard? What is good? That still is not easy to make clear… I personally lean toward what I call “perspectivism.” I remember you (if memory serves, it was you) mentioned “replacing one Whig history with multiple Whig histories”; that seems rather good. One should not simply toss off the two words “progress” and be done with it. Whenever one mentions progress, one should always attach a clear perspective: exactly which aspect is supposed to have “progressed,” and what the standard of measurement actually is. There is not only a single way to measure progress, nor is there no way at all; there are many ways. For a question’s answer, the traditional dogmatist thinks there is only one, while the radical relativist thinks there is none; perspectivism holds that the answer is not nonexistent, but too numerous. To speak loosely of a “progress” detached from concrete problems and positions and perspectives is meaningless; but if one has a clear standpoint and a clear problem, then one can still use this word carefully.
[Anonymous] ME
2006-09-18 07:45:43
Absolutely agree. We can use the two words “progress,” but we must at the same time spell out what its supporting “perspective” is, and what the “context” is. What I mean by multiple Whig histories is precisely this: who doesn’t have bias? Who possesses the truth? Our idea is to find a way out between dogmatism and strong relativism.
Postscript:
The word “progress” is a very important keyword; related to it is the word “evolution,” which is also used frequently, and also frequently abused. Recently, while paying attention to the influence of evolutionary theory and biology on philosophy and culture, I have noticed the particularity of the concept of “evolution.” So-called “advance” always contains some kind of “directionality.” What is the direction of “progress”? What is the direction of “evolution”? Has society been “progressing,” and if so, how? And can it also be regarded as “evolving”? These concepts need to be carefully sorted out. My research project funded by the president’s fund will involve this area.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply