permaculture

[Greg E <gje@metaphasetech.com>]

snip...

>
> Now factor in space for wildlife and natural habitat, and my take on all of
> this is that we need to have the smallest ecological footprint we can
> manage, probably much smaller than we think.  Gene raised good questions.
> I'll rewrite them and add some others.  I start with the assumption that
> dividing lines between human and non-human land is impossible.  These are
> not meant to be rhetorical; if anyone can help explore answers I'd
> appreciate it.

This all very much pie in the sky stuff, but still definitely worth 
discussing, esp
after several beers to loosen up your imagination.. ;-) I don't have any 
answers to
these questions, but definitely some ideas.

I have thought privately long and hard about land use and what are 
"appropriate" and
most importantly sustainable % of developed land by the human population. I 
think the
only conclusion I have drawn thus far is that the current haphazard way 
population is
distribued and infrastructure developed across the various bio-regions is 
pretty much
as poorly designed a system as you can get.

In any land use analysis and solution (as if we could start over like a fresh 
game of
Sim-Earth) you need to do several things to get started, as design goals. 
These are
just some ideas that have been kicking around in my head for some time, feel 
free to
offer constructive criticism.

- identify major bioregions and map them out, document what each region has 
ample
supply of, as well as what it lacks

- align population centers closest to the area of existing AND sustainable 
natural
resources, in moderate climates

- minimize, disallow unnecessary transportation of good/materials long 
distances, i.e.
across bioregions

- establish large contiguous regions of land areas classified as 
"non-developed" for
wildlife, undisturbed ecosystems, carbon banks, and as air and water 
"scrubbers". (This
is in complete contrast to Eric's statement above about not separating human 
vs.
non-human spaces).

- plan out and implement sufficient infrastructure necessary for the human 
economy,
i.e. efficient transportation systems and high speed networks.

- embrace and continue to develop new and emerging technologies to enable and 
extend
most efficient use of what natural resources are still available, inclusing 
ares of all
types of energy production, genetic engineering, satellite technology and 
space
exploration.

- establish north/south trading corridors to efficiently allow movement and 
trading of
good and materials to support basic necessities, i.e. food, water, some simple
manufactured goods. This would still allow economic specialization and allow 
active
movement of items that can be better produces in warmer or colder climates, 
or vice
versa.

- setup up a long term (like over 50 years) plan to shift away from intensive
agriculture, and food production systems to more sustainable and permaculture 
based
systems.

Of course *all* of this flies completely in the face of today's reality of a 
global
economy, of unending consumption, and population growth, and centralized 
ultra powerful
ecomic entities, i.e. corporations and governements. And of course, not to 
mention the
forced relocation of possibly millions of people and billions of dollar of new
development and land buyouts. Which will most likely be viewed by the general
population as a conspirarcy theory plot by the wacko environmentalists/UN/New 
World
Order to take over the earth for their own evil purposes!

Many utopian systems I've read about speak of essentially throwing away most 
if not all
technology and basically shifting back to "the simpler times" of agriarian 
societies
from hundreds of years ago. I believe this is dead wrong, and completely 
pointless,
given the current state and size of the human population. We need to move 
forward, not
go back. This means continuing to support and develop and embrace new 
technologies of
all kinds to solve some of the problems we have created for ourselves in this 
current
mess, continuing on the thought from bullet item six above.

Nevertheless, I think it is fun to step back from reality now and then, and 
is useful
to think about would we might do if we could take the entire planet, start 
over from
scratch with a semi clean slate with no design limitations, and reconfigure 
the
developed (and *undeveloped) land masses (plus bodies of water), better 
balancing how
the human species interacts, and co-exists as a part of the entire system, 
not dominate
and eventually destroy it. Even if we never are able come up with the perfect 
design
and implement it (the hardest part), the current paradigm is so screwed up in 
so many
ways, it'd be hard NOT to improve things drastically!

Cheers,

Greg

>
> *Taking other species into account, how much of the Earth's total land
>       can humans ethically alter from a natural state?
>
> *Since it seems necessary to overlap human and non-human land use,
>       how do we do this fairly so that all can flourish?
>
> *What is our share of the solar budget?
>
> *What local factors increase or decrease the amount of land a person
>       should be using?
>
> *Are there just too many people now, and if so how do we ethically
>       reduce our numbers?  And what do we do in the meantime?
>
> *How small can one's ecological footprint be?
>
> *Others?
>
> Eric Storm
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to permaculture as: gje@metaphasetech.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')