> regions where sickles (or machetes) are traditionally used
I don't understand how it's possible that there are regions that don't use scythes (for crops that warrant them), when scythes have been around for over a thousand years?
I would venture to say that if they haven't transitioned yet it's because they don't want to (for whatever reasons--no idea what those might be).
* Scythes need to be sharp, a machete will work even when poorly maintained.
* Machetes are cheaper to make.
* Machetes are easier to use
* Scythes are a specialized tool, where as I can buy a machete for ten dollars at Canadian Tire. Economics of scale are different.
> There are still several remaining scythe factories in the world. In recent years a competitive, market-driven economy is making it difficult for scythe making factories to retain the quality level that was once a standard.
Invention and adoption of technology, even "basic" technology, is very contingent on circumstance. Bows are pretty near universal (but not quite), but specific improvements like recurved limbs are patchy. And people aren't exactly quick to adopt new farming techniques when a failure could mean they starve. I guess that's also why this organization is pushing uphill. But I think it's very possible that lots of people haven't heard of or seriously evaluated a scythe.
There's illustrations inside the pyramids that are thousands of years old showing people watering their fields using a bucket on a long swinging arm. It needs just a couple of long poles, a bucket, and a rope.
I saw this still in use today when I went to Egypt. That blew my mind.
I don't understand how it's possible that there are regions that don't use scythes (for crops that warrant them), when scythes have been around for over a thousand years?
I would venture to say that if they haven't transitioned yet it's because they don't want to (for whatever reasons--no idea what those might be).