permaculture

[Greg E <gje@metaphasetech.com>]

> > 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.

Good point. Saying current land use is a "design" is giving things more 
credit than is
due. Basically what we have to work with is the remants of 300 years of 
haphazard
settlements and land grabs, attempting to squeeze out profits and livings 
every step of
the way. Planning, any planning at all, beats this random haphazard 
development, which
assumes infinite resources, any day.

snip...

> > - 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.

Hmmm. I just see larger contiguous tracts of wilderness or undeveloped areas 
kept away
from urban, and industrial centers as most efficient. No offense, but saying 
"the line
between wild and developed disappears" seems nonsensical to me. Take for 
example all
the deer problems that are showing up in city suburbs due to unchecked, 
unplanned
suburban sprawl in the US. There are still enough medium sized pockets of 
undeveloped
suburban land that it has produced rampant population explosion of deer, 
because their
predators cannot survive hiding in and around a few non contiguous acres of 
cover. This
would not happen if we more definitively divided areas into urban, industrial,
commercial, and human residential distinctly separate from wilderness, or 
simply
"undeveloped" areas.

>
>
> > - 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.

Ambitious, yes. And there is *plenty* of land and resources still available 
to us. We
are blessed with unbelievable amounts of natural resources, still. Not 
infinite, but
sufficient. Trying to solve these problems without continuous and profound 
advances in
science and technology is simply impossible IMO.

>
>
> > - 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.

There's a big difference between a global economy and establishing finite 
north south
corridors or "trading zones" Im suggesting, to take advantage of climatic and 
other
economic specialization opportunities. Mostly the difference is in the scale 
of things.
Many goods, foods and raw materials literally travel around the world several 
times
before becoming finished products. All Im saying is limit that transport to 
sensible
locations inside these trade zones, preferably along energy efficient, well 
designed
central transport systems for a given region. Suggesting that every small 
region
can/should produce *everything* it needs, is neither useful or necessary, IMO.

Be careful when you say the global economy "isn't working". In some ways the 
global
economy is working fantastically, at least for some. In terms of efficiency, 
inflation
control, employment, quality of life, scientific advances, etc. (Of course in 
many more
ways the same global economy is failing miserably. Of which these are well 
understood
and too numerous to mention here). Lets not abandon useful aspects of the 
current
systems that are working. In other words, don't throw out the baby with the 
bathwater.

Please don't anyone be offended by any of my remarks that disagree with 
yours. Im just
creatively thinking out loud here, not trying to pick a fight,

Greg