permaculture

["Gaden@ziplip.com" <Gaden@ziplip.com>]

Re: John Schinnerer's -   "Viridian Principles - They contradict themselves, 
though: >Platonic visions of absolute reality, and Christian visions of 
eternity, are very unhealthy for bipedal mammals in a biosphere. and >Don't 
mistake mystic wish-fulfilment and the promptings of your unconscious for 
objective evidence. So they don't want absolute reality (or at least not 
someone else's...;-)but they do want objective evidence.  Good luck!"


I suppose I interpreted this a little differently. A biosphere is essentially 
a closed system. Thus solutions to problems need to come from within the 
system. In other words, systemic solutions that need to be integrated within 
the whole (holistic).

I know fundamentalist Christians who believe in apocalyptic theology. That 
is, 'The End' is not only nigh but it is also inevitable, unavoidable, and in 
fact desirable. The 'chosen anointed ones' will be protected from harm by 
divine intervention. Then the really really good stuff 
(paradise/heaven/eternal glory) comes after the (evil) system collapses. They 
dismissively discard the imperatives of environmental issues as being 
unimportant and insignificant against the warm glow of personal celestial 
glory.

Others believe in paternalistic technocratic gods. That what ever happens, 
SCIENCE & THE MEGACORPS, will come to the rescue. Us, 'little people' simply 
have to get on with our lives best we can, safe in the assurance that we will 
be looked after. Just keep paying off those credit cards, mobile phone bills, 
and the household mortgage. It will all be okay. Trust us.

Both views abrogate individual responsibility for initiating solutions at an 
intimate personal level.

In another post, John Schinnerer said "IMO it's important (and core to Design 
practices, PC or otherwise) to not limit ourselves to what is proposed by 
others, but to create what we want."

Sustainability issues will inevitably have to be addressed at the personal 
level. Arguably, Govts & Megacorps are not interested in low-cost, achievable 
and sustainable technologies (such as ancient technologys). For the simple 
reason that there is not a high enough profit margin. 

If you can sustain and supply for your own needs within your own allotment 
boundaries, you vastly reduce the opportunities for Govts/Megacorps to 
take/tax/charge away their (rightful?) share. Heck, these 
politicians/executives don't want to actually work (uggh!) for a living. 
(sorry, that's a bit cynical)

An exception to that is where Govts/Megacorps can see (shortsighted as they 
are) a looming systemic failure that may threaten the efficacy of their own 
operations. 

For example, I can think of a municipality which for decades used local 
building bylaws to prohibit individuals from rainwater harvesting. (Household 
rainwater-tanks) Water rate charges were an important component of local 
government income.

Then climate patterns for the region began to change. Annual rainfall became 
erratic and reduced. Water levels in regional dams & weirs fell to 
dangerously low levels. The population looked like possibly running out of 
drinking water. Then 'overnight' individual rainwater harvesting became 
legal, fashionable and heavily promoted.

Large scale research projects into issues such as alternative energy sources 
are obviously important and necessary. But there is the risk of replacing one 
energy hegemony with another. Perpetuating the disempowerment of individuals 
to also persue their own levels of sustainability and thus reducing their 
'ecological footprint'.

Gaiden