Healthy soil and sustainable growing

["TradingPostPaul" <tradingpost@riseup.net>]

Ok, I get to disagree too ;-)-- I don't see any future for photovoltaic -
because of it's bad long term impact on the environment and its cost to
individuals. And what I see right now is PV systems costing more and more,
regardless of the theory that demand drives production up and prices down.
One bright spot - here in NM the utilities are investing *big time* in wind
generation - not PV. The cost and payback is realistic. I think we agree
though that we don't want technology to keep destroying our resource base;
we want sustainable, appropriate technology we can live with, hmm? 

Of course I'm not against Permaculture, Holistic Management, and Organic
gardening/farming, but the practices they involve that actually work as we
want were developed centuries ago by indigenous cultures scattered over the
planet, and most every bright idea somebody comes up with today to get on a
gardening show came from someone else long ago. Rodale and Sir Albert
Howard were among the very few who gave enough credit to the many who went
before. You notice so many garden writers hit on a clever name for their
methods and make their mark with it, Food For All, Square Foot Gardening,
Victory Gardens, Super Nutrition Gardening, on and on. But everything that
works was worked out long before they put their name on it. I have nothing
original myself, nothing at all. I'm studying market gardening from a cost
accounting standpoint - which again involves nothing new.

paul tradingpost@lobo.net

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 12/2/2006 at 6:41 AM E. E. Mitchamore Jr wrote:

>She's disagreeing with she sees as a rejection of technology.  But you're
>both right; you're just looking at it from different perspectives.  From a
>micro-perspective (an individual, a family, a business, etc.), any
>technology that improves efficiency and/or reduces the long-term impact on
>the environment in a cost-effective manner, is unquestionably positive. 
>From a macro-perspective (a nation, the world), technology cannot solve
>our problems.
>
>However, that is where our innovative minds and disciplines like
>Permaculture, Holistic Management, and Organic gardening/farming come into
>play.  They show us ways to move toward sustainability, using appropriate
>technology to move from being part of the problem to part of the solution.
> I particularly appreciate Holistic Management because it requires us to
>perform comprehensive analyses to make decisions.  With that approach I
>can justify certain decisions (such as a solar system) on the basis of our
>long-term impact on the environment, rather than simply on the basis of
>its cost-effectiveness in our business' annual budget.
>
>BTW, some of your statements ("these high dollar gems like batteries and
>inverters
>don't come down"), contradict previous discussions of Jevons' Paradox. 
>The idea is that perceived personal benefits lead to increased demand. 
>Demand leads to increased production, which lowers prices, which increases
>consumption to the point that the overall effect on society is negative. 
>The benefit to the individual is still positive.
>
>The last section of your original post is absolutely correct and worth
>repeating: 
>
>"Still, there are millions in this country who need to be more self
>sufficient in food,
> growing more of their own, swapping with neighbors etc. because they
can't
> make ends meet. Two or three generations ago people knew how. They don't
> now. But those who do learn again how to live on the land - without
>relying on fossil fuel inputs - will be more secure. I promote that. It's
>an
>individual choice."
>
>Good Job!
>
>E. E. "Mitch" Mitchamore
>www.hillcountrynatives.biz
>  ----- Original Message ----- 
>  From: TradingPostPaul 
>  To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org 
>  Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 12:43 AM
>  Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] Ultimate season extension
>
snip