Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - RE: Sustainable Futures

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: John Schinnerer <John-Schinnerer@data-dimensions.com>
  • To: 'permaculture' <permaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Sustainable Futures
  • Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 15:53:26 -0800


Aloha,

Pardon the delay...

-----Original Message-----
From: eric + michiko [mailto:emstorm@metro.net]
Subject: Sustainable Futures

>The process of living, whether human, fish or tree, necessitates inputs and
>outputs, or, in other words, exchanges with its ecosystem.

What might we be missing through the (over)use of explanations such as
"input" and "output" (an industrial/production-consumption manner of
thinking and acting). What can we *not* understand by explaining in this
manner?

>Humans are relatively new, but had they stayed within their original
>ecosystem and kept new behaviors to a minimum they would surely be as
>sustainable as the antelope and grasses around them.

Might it depend more on *what* the "new" behaviors were than just that they
were "new?" There would theoretically be an infinite number of "new"
behaviors that would not pathologically disrupt ecosystems, and an infinite
number that would.

>Now humans are as
>widely spread as any species and can not be expected to limit themselves in
>habitat or range within any relevant time frame.

Assuming this cannot happen may make it less likely, because it is of course
possible (how probable it is does not affect it being possible).

> - number of interconnection between species

What's an interconnection between species? Who defines this, and how? How
does any such definition limit understanding?

> - health of species populations

How is "health" to be determined?

>- rate of extinctions

How about rate of appearance of new species as well?

> - percentage of land area affected by humans

This would be effectively 100% at this point, considering windborne toxins
from waste incinerators, etc. etc.

Let's not forget all the water, as well...toxic Orcas and whatnot...

>Some resources (such as gravity, solar, wind and geothermal energy,
>and perhaps things like salt water and nitrogen) are available such that
>they may be considered virtually undiminishable.

Yes, and...how they cycle is not trivial. We can pump synthetic nitrogen
fertilizers into farmland, but that doesn't "work" regardless of how
"undiminishable" nitrogen may be.

We may also be blind to how diminishable anything within the ecosphere
(including salt water and nitrogen) are. Not so long ago the ancient
forests of north america (for one example) were clearly seen by all
intelligent, informed people to be vast, endless, virtually
undiminishable...then we created the D9.

>Waste production must be limited to a rate and in kind so that the
>ecosystem is not overwhelmed...

In effect, "waste" as a human concept must be eliminated. Ain't no "waste"
in (essentially) unimpacted ecosystems, or even in one of those little
closed-system aquariums.

>Instead, the emphasis should be on restrictions to resources from
>within one's ecosystem and equitable availability within local areas.

I suspect that reframing this in terms of abundance withing ecosystems and
sharing of surplus (hmmm, that sounds familiar somehow... ;-) would be more
effective amongst human beings.

>Evaluation of local carrying capacities would provided a good overview.

Who does these - who determines how, what, where, when, who...?

>Humans surely lived sustainably until about 10,000 years ago, allowing for
>a few possible exceptions. Population was low and still spreading around
>the globe.

It could be argued that since we were not controlling our population with
intent to avoid exceeding bioregional carrying capacities, we were not in
fact living sustainably at all. Population was low...but it didn't stay
that way. We let it increase unsustainably the whole time.

>Technologies were also limited by knowledge, energy and local
>resources...

And sometimes by cultural implicits. I have read that the ancient Greeks,
though they had sophisticated technologies aplenty for their era, did not
consider technology for technology's sake worthy of much attention - they
had other cultural priorities and did not become slaves to their
technologies (though they did have slaves...).

>So any of the
>hunter gatherer cultures

"Gatherer-hunter" is probably more appropriate for most of these...gathering
was the mainstay, hunting was a supplement, except for locations with no
edible plants/trees (arctic, desert, etc.). As the old vegetarian joke
goes, "vegetables are a lot easier to sneak up on..."

>Many of the less westernized cultures living in the undeveloped countries
>could become sustainable if they were to limit the import and export of
>people and materials from their local ecosystems.

What's their motivation, in the face of relentless propaganda, to NOT become
just like us? In other words, how does this theory manifest?

>...though smaller cities of less
>than perhaps fifty to a hundred thousand people might still be viable.

How would you implement basic sanitation services to this size community
without industrial-scale systems (water, sewer, etc.)?

>I would hope that such a transition would not lead to the spread of poverty
>and hopelessness, with people simply throwing away all that the present has
>and resigning themselves to a bare existence.

What do you mean by "poverty?" Is it implicitly tied to "hopelessness?"
What of what "the present has" would you keep, and what would you throw?
Material goods, cultural patterns, etc.? What makes an "existence"
something other than "bare?"

>The main obstacles to change toward a sustainable future are not
>technological.

...except in a culture that assumes technology is the way, the light and the
truth...

>Current discussions about sustainable economics,
>development and agriculture are too superficial to accomplish a truly
>sustainable future. We must look much deeper to the supporting
>motivations, values and beliefs to begin any real and lasting change toward
>a sustainable future.

I'll second that one. It's all about human relatings.

My most general comment is that approaches like "restrictions,"
"limitations," etc. are probably less viable than others. Humans do not
typically respond positively to impositions (or even rumors) of scarcity.

My most general other comment is that there are a lot of assumptions that
certain "factors" ("carrying capacity," "health of species,"
"interconnection between species," size of groups/towns, etc. etc.) can be
"figured out" to everyone's satisfaction and then everyone will know what to
do and happily do it. This brings us back to "supporting motivations,
values and beliefs..."

John Schinnerer




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page