The second thing is that citizen activism is important, and often more effective than we think. It seemed like it was an unreachable goal, that we couldn't do anything about stopping those nuke plants, but I somehow think we have had an effect in stopping them, and I think that the same kind of citizen activism that was necessary in bringing the Vietnam war to a halt and slowing nuclear power is also the same kind of thing that's necessary to get a hold of this industrialized agriculture and turn it around. A lot of people could grow their own food in their own yards. There is no reason we have to have a lawn. England is the only country in Europe that has lawns, and that's because of a history with sheep.
People can start working in little ways.
And I think that political activism in necessary. The first thing I would do is acknowledge that, in terms of public policy, giving money to support the family farm is a bad idea. That money probably ought to be allocated to restoring rural community, and the family farm is then a derivative of the rural community. On the other hand, if it came through the farmer and there was a minimum of these inputs, in other words more of that which comes from nature rather than that which is provided by industry, then the money goes through the hands of the farmer into the local community, the small town or whatever. Then you can sponsor the rural churches, schools, baseball, all of the stuff that goes to make up rural culture.