Blog

In simple, right/wrong situations, information or data is often the key to solving problems. The right username and password, the right replacement part, the right analysis or diagnosis, the best practice to fix a dysfunction--these simply work.

In complex situations (such as those involving people, land, and money), ambiguity, conflict, and power struggles are reliable companions to almost any kind of problem, whether past, present, or future. With complexity, the habit of information delivery often persists. Experts, often self-appointed, supply facts, data, logic, and best practices to convince wrongheaded people to change their views, supposing that they are rational actors and will see the light. If that fails we can try ridicule, shaming, satire, and name-calling. We are defending our definition of the problem: a self-evidently simple one, with right and wrong answers or solutions. Who learns in this scenario, and what do they learn?

Conflict and power struggles are about people's values, feelings, perspectives, experiences, culture, and identity. I'll throw out a conjecture which I doubt is original: there are three primary pathways for acquiring beliefs, for learning, and for addressing and resolving conflict:

In the last post on the estimated losses of soil moisture worldwide I promised a more local example of water balances. Here are 1) a pair of charts of precipitation and evapotranspiration in central Montana, and 2) a kitchen-counter water cycle experiment that's easy to do.

NOTE: The Soil Carbon Coalition's updates and posts are now being distributed on Substack.

About a month ago Monte Bottens with the AgEmerge podcast interviewed me.

A very well-presented video by Cat Buxton of Sharon, Vermont on the soil health principles.