permaculture

[eric + michiko <emstorm@metro.net>]

Greg wrote:
> This all very much pie in the sky stuff

"Pie in the sky stuff"?  Do you mean philosophical and not "hands in the
dirt stuff"?  I guess it is, but I find it quite relevant to daily choices.


> 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.

Thanks for sharing  -- your thoughts, not the beer ; )

 
> only conclusion I have drawn thus far is that the current [system] is
pretty > much as poorly designed a system as you can get.

Designed?  Maybe that's what we can add now that was not possible before.
We have the perspective to see a bigger picture (big enough?) and do a
better job at design.   Are humans capable of designing well enough?  I
suppose any improvement might be worth the effort.

 
> 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.

This gets more into that "pie" you were talking about.  Although we can't
start over, you may have brought up some ideas that will lead to things we
can do from this point forward.

I see many of these as things that can be worked toward on a local level.

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

If we do not transport much, then what it lacks is less important.  Locals
will need to work with what they have.


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

This seems tough to do.  Perhaps as people limit themselves to only
sustainable ways of living, they will move to areas that make it easier.

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

I like this.  I see the transportation across large distance as one of the
main causes of our unsustainability.


> - 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).

I may not have worded it well, but I was talking more about Nature in human
areas than humans in wild areas.  I think "non-developed" areas is a good
idea _if_ we can not learn to live in harmony within Nature.  I see humans
as eventually being able to live so that the line between wild and
developed disappears.


> - 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.

These seem rather ambitious given how little land and resources are
available and the current human population.  


> - 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.

What happened to your third point?  I liked that one.  This one sounds too
much like the global economy that isn't working.

 
> - 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.
 
50 years seems too long, but we'd just have to see how long it takes.


Thanks again for the ideas, Greg.


Eric Storm