Sunday, September 15, 2002

Ever heard of "community supported agriculture?" This is where cityfolk (me, my wife, etc.) agree to pay a set fee to a farmer for a share of his crops over one growing season. The farmer sets out a wide range of crops: zucchini, carrots, apples, whatever. Then he delivers (or you arrange to pick up) the food as it ripens. You get a big box of fruits and veggies that are different depending on what's ripe at that time of year.

The upsides:

  • You get super-fresh fruits and vegetables.
  • You get something that you know is organic (if the farmer is organic, of course - most of them involved in these programs are.)
  • There is a little excitement factor getting this box of stuff and not knowing what it will be.
  • The farmer has guaranteed income every year, no matter whether there is drought, bad crops, whatever. No government subsidies required.
  • The food you get hasn't been shipped endlessly throughout the United States on a big truck, encountering whatever crazy things it might encounter on such a journey. (Every ridiculous drive-across-the-frigging-country movie comes to mind.)

The downside:

  • You (the cityfolk) might get a bad year and get less than your money's worth. You have to be in it for the long run, to let the good years counterbalance the bad years.
  • You aren't getting "salads in a bag" so you might have to wash and cut stuff more than if you buy it at a store.

To me, it's worth it. I heard of it for the first time from John Eastman. It is part of his vision for sustainability.


1:41:37 AM    comment []  

Still my favorite blog, She's Actual Size, Nationwide, Believe. If there is a way to sense beauty in someone's writing, I sense it in her. I can claim only that I spotted her genius early in the Salon blog experiment, nothing more.
1:34:49 AM    comment []  

By the way, I'm very open to real physicists telling me how I've screwed up these concepts. That's how I learn - screw up and become enlightened.


12:20:29 AM    comment []  

Okay, now about the quantum mechanics thing and women being right. Here's my thought. I was in a meeting with two women a few weeks ago and I asked a question and one of the women replied "I don't know." Then there was silence. It struck me that women are so much more comfortable saying they don't know something than men are. Men always try to have the answers to everything. I've often said "either I know the answer or I can find it out." For trivia, yes. For life? Fuck, no. But here was this woman stating in no uncertain terms that she definitely, positively did not know. What's the big deal?

In quantum mechanics, we find out that uncertainty is a certainty. We can estimate where a quantum particle will be and what its velocity will be, but it's just a guess. The old Newtonian laws don't apply. One particular quantum physicist created a thought experiment of a cat in a box. Inside the box was a device that could kill the cat. Maybe the device would go off, maybe it wouldn't. The physicist asserted that, until the cat was observed to be alive or dead, it was neither alive nor dead. It was in an "uncertain" state. Women are okay with that in their skin. Men have significantly more trouble with it. I know I do.

Quantum mechanics also says that light is both a particle and a wave, depending on what you are measuring for. If you decide to measure the wavelength, it is a wave. If you decide to measure the trajectory of a particle, it instantly flips into being a particle. How many times have I been frustrated by my wife telling me "I'm crying because I'm happy and sad!" Huh? No problem for her to say something like that. Men don't get it, though. I'm saying men better get our shit together and catch up to our quantum better halves...


12:19:00 AM    comment []