[permaculture] A Permanent Culture:-Rural or Urban or......

Sean Maley semaley at yahoo.com
Sun Oct 16 16:02:24 EDT 2005

--- Scott Vlaun <scott at moosepondarts.com> wrote:
> Hey Sean,
> In a shrinking world, I think the urban/rural
> distinctions are becoming increasingly irrelevant
> and the creation of community on every level
> increasingly important. We're all in this together
> and there is much to do.
> Peace,
> Scott Vlaun
> Moose Pond Arts & Ecology
> Otisfield, ME

The general Portland area of Maine serves as a model
for what we hope to see in other areas of USA.  I do
find it alarming north of Bangor; but mostly because I
have family there.  Many parts of NYC can be regarded
as far more alarming; albeit with less energy
consumption per capita.  In the balance, I'm sure
there is a solution to the Babylon like dialog between
urban and rural inhabitants; both have the same babble
to overcome.

Here in NYC, there just isn't the space to keep
canning equipment, carboys, and a full garden for our
north facing windows.  Nevertheless, people find ways
to start pickling businesses, grow mushrooms for local
restaurants, and other things that should just be
impossible to carve out a living, yet they do.

My local activity in NYC includes the exploration of
Daniel Quinn's ("Ishmael", "Story of B", etc) concept
of "New Tribal Ventures".  Even collectively, most
potential tribes don't have the funding to overcome
the inertia of acquiring land needed for
self-dependence.  Thus, those of us in rural areas
might consider merging with urban activities, in so
far as supporting a network of self-reliance; an
unanswered call around NYC.  Properties in the city
need to be bought so the urban participants aren't
feeding the monster; as well as in the country, so the
monster can't feed there.  A regular transportation
network needs to keep all the urban and rural
settlements connected.

We are moving slowly, but will pick up speed as our
self-reliance networks emerge.  It might just be that
the city inhabitants relocate to what are now rural
areas; the city will simply change location to
experiment with new places; a frightening thought to
simply move the problem.  It might be that people
spread more thickly across the land; the least
efficient large population solution, which billions of
lives are at stake.

I'm hoping that the cities can be contained and the
land slowly repaired.  The nightmare is what we are
all urgently discussing; for example, 8 million New
Yorkers walking upstate in search of food or land to
try to grow it, which there are a million more people
immediately to the north with now insufficient land to
sustain themselves, and another million on the way to
Albany who will have to fend off the onslaught.

How can others perceive breaking the inertia?  We need
to raise millions to secure 100 acres within 100 miles
of NYC and develop it at a village scale; just to have
a simple example for others in the region to emulate. 
Closer to NYC, it's millions just for a single acre. 
Within NYC, 2BR small apartments sell for over $1M,
never mind how much the building on a tiny piece of
land costs and the looming exodus of the middle class
in northern Manhattan (current trend, but a bubble
burst is more certain).  Breaking the inertia any time
soon requires either an investment "angel" (there
isn't one) or serious consideration of exploiting the
monster we all rave against.

To be more than a fad, Permaculture needs working
networks, which are cheaper to do for our governments
than feeding the welfare meters.  If the conundrum of
NYC can be resolved, there is hope for billions of

Please take no offence, as we are desperate for a
solution here.  The Marxists and the Capitalists just
can't speak the same language, but need to figure it
out quickly.  Godel's ideas may help pull the system
out of the box, so that a solution may be devised.

With good hopes and tenacity...


Yahoo! Music Unlimited 
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

More information about the permaculture mailing list