permaculture

[lblissett <blissett@optonline.net>]

Very interesting discussion here. Here are a few thoughts:

1) I don't think the "city vs country" and "flight to / fleeing from the
city" mentality really fits with modern American life anymore. There simply
is no "flight to the city" anymore -- that phenomenon ended after WWII and
rise of suburbia, when many cities were actually severely depopulated by a
mass exodus to the kinds of sprawling developments we still see being built
today. There are still plenty of Northeastern cities like Buffalo or Newark
which have tons of under-used infrastructure because everyone left for the
burbs. What is really decimating rural America? Is it cities? Not really.
Every day you see farmland being torn up to build housing developments and
Walmarts. Focusing on the cities only serves to ignore suburban sprawl as
the predominant form of waste in the post-WW2 automobile-centered
fuel-burning culture of America.

2) That being said, there is still a huge quality of life issue with living
in cities. On paper cities might actually prove to be more efficient than
other forms of settlement, but the experience of the city (especially
Manhattan) will be dirty, noisy, and unhealthy. In my own opinion, "living
well" in an urban environment today seems like an uphill battle that can
only be fought with loads of money. But there is a difference between
ecological impact and personal impact. Ideally we would want to live in
ecologically sustainable, high-efficiency human environment which is able to
balance our need for nature, peace and quiet, regenerative surroundings,
etc., with the other social and cultural advantages that come with city
life.

3) Urban infrastructure requires a lot of energy, but this isn't necessarily
a bad thing, because urban infrastructure necessarily has to be long-term,
and it's the short-term model of "disposable development" which is really
threatening to the environment. Long-term planning isn't necessraily a
picnic if it's wasteful and poorly planned, but building an imperfect
structure that will last for 80 years is better than building a perfect
structure that will simply be torn down and rebuilt in 15 years.

4) "Caging ourselves" -- I think what Sean is suggesting here is that
because of the prohibitive cost of otherwise wasteful things (like 3 cars
per family, oversized houses, a strip mall every five miles, etc) people
might be more ecologically friendly than they'd want to be. The high cost of
living in a city demands a certain level of efficiency and requires
long-term planning in terms of population and infrastructure. It's almost a
kind of forced environmentalism, although it's still just a question of
being better only in degrees. It's the system that's flawed.

- David Travis




----- Original Message -----
From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@gilanet.com>
To: <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: [permaculture] self-sufficiency


>
> You seem to be thinking outside the box (literally "box") there, and IMHO
that's what we desperately need.  I can't see making the concrete jungle
sustainable.  You mentioned "those fortunate enough to get to the country
side" but I'd make it "determined enough".  And "We need, in effect, to
learn to cage ourselves into our own little zoo, otherwise known as cities".
I don't follow the reasoning there. It seems to contradict permaculture
completely. Small town America has been decimated for decades by the flight
to the city; rural economies have suffered; and there's more than enough
room (and work) in small town America for all who want to flee the concrete
jungle. If we can't see that, it's because our mind is still stuck in the
city.  My belief is the world could practice permaculture and feed itself
and live in harmony if socioeconomic institutions and concentration of
wealth and power didn't control most of the world. Let's keep thinking
outside the box.
>
> paul@largocreekfarms.com