permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: permaculture
List archive
- From: "Michael Kramer" <MKramer@hawaii.rr.com>
- To: <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: [permaculture] Re:self-sufficiency
- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:02:19 -1000
I'm reminded of the anonymity that accompanies life in large-scale settlements, which historically has unravelled many a civilization. In other words, the issue of whether or not cities produce/consume energy in efficient or inefficient ways is not nearly as corrupt as the psychological isolation that derives from anonymity. I personally believe that mobility of the American population (primarily based on the individual's pursuit of education and career) is what primarily prevents us from creating sustainable communities. And I would suggest that this now affects rural communities as well, since the knowledge base of living within the carrying capacity of those regions continues to erode with each passing generation. The innate self-centeredness of our society fosters independence rather than interdependence, and since people aren't deeply rooted to a place these days, how can we possibly feel connected enough to it to truly observe its nuances or offer insightful design suggestions. This is the collective loss of a true sense of home; what we see in most of our cities is a boiling pot of caucaphony - millions of people doing their own thing right next to one another. There is the illusion of group but not the feeling, for people are afraid to sey hello, wary to even look others in the eye let alone offer a helping hand. I still laugh at my own disbelief that people here in rural Hawaii will actually stop on the main roadways without provocation to let people on side streets come into traffic - it's a holdover of a now largely bygone era of being socially courteous. Of course, there are helpful people everywhere, but the point is that culturally we are very isolated because we think of the self first and community later if ever, and cities foster this more than most people realize. The days where extended family are waning, at least for most white folks; you still see close-knits subcultures in our communities, though.
I also think we all know that the stress that the noise, soot and visual stimulation of urban environments is taxing on the soul; we must remember what regenerates it, and while it's a little different for everyone, people do know peace when they experience it. Nevertheless, there is a vitality in towns of between 10-30,000 people based on adequate diversity along with a feeling that one is part of a meaningful web of relationships. There is far less social and economic competition, and it is easier to make decisions because there are fewer layers of beaucracy and special interests dominating the political landscape; access to power is a key aspect of being a social organism, and the collective disempowerment and tranquilization of the populace in the country should be of concern to us all.
So personal power, a deep knowing of place, and regenerating the soul and are qualities of human existence we should keep in mind; if people prioritized on these issues, I'm not sure we'd continue to urbanize.
-----
Michael Kramer, Accredited Investment Fiduciary
Natural Investment Services
P.O. Box 390595
Keauhou, HI 96739
Michael@NaturalInvesting.com
www.NaturalInvesting.com
808-331-0910
Toll-free: 888-779-1500
Socially Conscious Portfolio Management & Hourly Consulting
Sustainability Strategic Planning and Education
"Be the change you wish to see in the world."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message ----- From: <permaculture-request@lists.ibiblio.org>
To: <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 3:12 PM
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] permaculture Digest, Vol 21, Issue 19
Send permaculture mailing list submissions to
permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
permaculture-request@lists.ibiblio.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
permaculture-owner@lists.ibiblio.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of permaculture digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. some thoughts on urbanism, suburbanism and infrastructure
(lblissett)
2. Re: some thoughts on urbanism, suburbanism and infrastructure
(Tradingpost)
3. Re: self-sufficiency (Stephanie Gerson)
4. Re: self-sufficiency (Deborah)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:05:02 -0400
From: lblissett <blissett@optonline.net>
Subject: [permaculture] some thoughts on urbanism, suburbanism and
infrastructure
To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <002d01c4b61f$4d7ebf10$0300a8c0@brunhilde>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
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
that's what we desperately need. I can't see making the concrete jungle
You seem to be thinking outside the box (literally "box") there, and IMHO
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
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:59:23 -0600
From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@gilanet.com>
Subject: Re: [permaculture] some thoughts on urbanism, suburbanism and
infrastructure
To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <200410191559230076.0377762F@mail.gilanet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Whether small town America flees to the city or the suburb of the city is really immaterial; they're leaving the land either way. What's the difference if a China-Mart pops up in a city or a suburb? Either way development eats up farmland. Nobody's ignoring suburban sprawl; it's the result of cities imploding under the weight of their own population problems. And now those problems force people out of the suburbs, to "exurbia" - new communities beyond the suburbs where they can pay for the suburban lifestyle without the suburb. But they're not repopulating small town America, and they're no more sustainable than the suburbs or the cities. They tend to be retirees and pensioners.
They're not growing anything or producing anything. They fish and golf. They still depend on the real rural America to provide them with food and fabric and all the byproducts from agriculture. Nothing gained. The flight from small town America continues unabated.
It's not my imagination. I see the numbers elsewhere and I see it right here, just outside a town of 300. Kids don't hang around after high school. And the newcomers don't come to farm or raise livestock, and they try to bring the city with them. I'm the exception.
Urban infrastructure can't be more sustainable in the long run when it's falling apart or sitting unused. In that case, who cares if it lasts 80 years? But it won't last. Everything needs maintenance, and cities aren't getting it. The "war zones" of the rust belt cities are testimony to that. Even the bridges and Interstate highway system are falling into disrepair. . Is that "forced environmentalism"?
paul@largocreekfarms.com
tradingpost@gilanet.com
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 10/19/2004 at 5:05 PM lblissett wrote:
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
that's what we desperately need. I can't see making the concrete jungle
You seem to be thinking outside the box (literally "box") there, and IMHO
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
_______________________________________________
permaculture mailing list
permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:26:21 -0700
From: Stephanie Gerson <sgerson@stanfordalumni.org>
Subject: Re: [permaculture] self-sufficiency
To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <431iJswAV4608S11.1098224781@cmsweb11.cms.usa.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Interesting discussion, folks.
But it almost seems too easy to criticize cities and idealize rural life. I
know Toby warns against this, and makes a good case, but I would also refrain
from citing per capita statistics - considering that while per capita costs
may be small, the overall cost of the system they compose may be enormous.
For example, Toby writes that while living rurally, he had "a whole septic
system instead of a bit of drain pipe and a tiny fraction of a treatment
plant" - but what about that treatment plant, eh? He also cited that "an
average apartment in San Francisco uses 1/5 the heating fuel per capita that a
tract house out in Davis uses" - but what about the entire city of San
Francisco versus Davis? So, we must acknowledge the entire system.
But back to the easy bit. Instead of simply condemning cities (which, I
admit, may deserve condemnation), can we move onwards and consider other
questions? What is the goal, per say, of a city? To fit as many people as
possible in the smallest amount of space? And if so, how to sustainably
satisfy this goal, considering the ideas Sean raised in his post? Or, if we
assume that this goal is in itself unsustainable, how to make a bridge from
un-sustainable human settlements to sustainable ones - in terms of urban
planning (a la Smart Growth), policy initiatives, and otherwise? I know these
topics have already been elaborated upon, but still curious to hear what you
think...
I think outside the box is stuck in the box.
peace
*Stephanie
------ Original Message ------
Received: 12:08 PM PDT, 10/19/2004
From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@gilanet.com>
To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
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
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 10/19/2004 at 10:15 AM Sean Maley wrote:
I think what is important in this discussion is the
following:
The problem is the solution.
Here we have huge expenditures to build a city, verses
an individual that could pack dirt in tires on their
new plot of land. The importation of food is clearly
a vulnerability to city life; and frustrating to walk
home with. There is no affordable land here, so we
are stuck with the following problems:
At $600/mo for parking here at 55th and Madison, I
wouldn't think of driving to work and risk a total
$800/mo parking bill between uptown and downtown.
There is a lovely bike trial up and down the west side
from tip to tip of the Island, so that is a start for
an alternative. Rule of thumb here in a super sized
city: "Don't own a car, just walk it. Take the
subway if you really can't walk it, or forget about
it." At $4000/mo for 2br rent, I can't afford to live
close enough to walk, so I take the subway part way
from my "bad neighborhood" $2000/mo apmt.
Growing food entails the use of rooftops and/or grow
lighting (very few apmts have the needed sun-light for
many food crops). The problem with the roof involves
insurance companies and denizen sun bathing having
been identified as why insurance costs more if there
is any access to the rooftops. NYC building codes
resist the concept of wind power on the rooftops, but
solar only helps negligibly in comparison. Meanwhile,
CSA's and green markets only operate fully in the
summer months.
The glaring opportunities underneath these problems
are Zone 0 + 1 development, and lobbying for
greenroof/wind mill building codes for a city this
size. For those here in NYC, please please work with
me to package workable solutions for the people of the
city. Did I say please? It's all well and good for
those fortunate enough to get to the country side,
which the city folk desperately need you in terms of
things like year round CSA's and green markets.
However, there are billions of people, not millions.
Humans have far overextending themselves to keep
looking at this as people per acre problem. This is
an equation of 6 billion and growing need to stop
over-populating and figure out how we can sustain
ourselves away from the natural world, but with how
the natural world works. We need to be separated
because there are too many of us, but we need to bring
those components we need for survival into our
isolation. We need, in effect, to learn to cage
ourselves into our own little zoo, otherwise known as
cities.
My building has 64 apartments with an average of 3
people per unit. The apartments are big by Manhattan
standards, but are still not nearly large enough to
maintain the fl aura for food alone. The funny thing
is that there is enough space to have fish tanks for
walls and, with edible fish, have enough protein
source to feed everyone, yet not space to grow the
plant population which that fish population could
support. There is also a weight issue for most
buildings if this much water were applied to a closed
apartment ecosystem. The power for grow lights would
have to come from Wind (plenty with vortical growth
factored in).
Any suggestions on other Urban Zone 0 or 1 concepts?
Is it possible to have a gourmet, non vegan, meal on
less than an acre? Contact me if you are interested
in ultra-urban permaculture applications. I've lived
in several Northeastern US cities and NYC is a
completely different animal from what most think of
when the words urban and city are used.
The past is the past and most of these buildings where
created too long ago to apply to urban vs rural
thought experiments. What could be applied today to
make a building for many people, vs many buildings for
many people? Are we replacing suburban sprawl with
eco-village sprawl? That sounds like an upgrade, but
isn't it really just playing games with people
density, which each person is comfortable with what
they are familiar? What is an ideal human social
density without individual bias? What is an ideal
ecological density? What of the economics to keep it
fair balancing the two?
In hopes that I have not offended anyone... In hopes
there is productive discussion... In hopes we have
real ideas applying permaculture to repair the blight
known as totalitarian agriculture....
-Sean.
--- Tradingpost <tradingpost@gilanet.com> wrote:
Granted that in general apartments and mass transit
can be less wasteful of resources, but that's about
it. Owen only looks at individual people's footprint
living in those apartments and taking the subway.
The big picture tells the opposite story. He forgets
how all the infrastructure got there in the first
place, and forgets that most of those millions also
have to have someplace to work (terribly wasteful
office buildings), and apparently that doesn't
count. Owen doesn't consider the enormous cost in
resources to build those apartments in Manhattan
versus cost of apartments elsewhere. Or the
unbelievably high cost of materials, fossil fuels,
and labor to construct subways in Manhattan,
compared to mass transit in most other places.
The argument on transportation and distribution of
goods is equally questionable. Fighting traffic for
hours in densely populated areas wastes fossil fuel
just like driving all over the countryside. And
stats on electricity usage are misleading if we
compare apples and oranges. City infrastructure
itself burns enormous amounts of fossil fuel. I live
in a large county with no stoplights or sidewalks at
all, and only the county seat with 1,500 people has
a municipal sewer system. And rural looks even
better if the "electricity-hogging" farm produces
more of its own needs (and its neighbors needs)
instead of having them shipped in from far away.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
permaculture mailing list
permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
_______________________________________________
permaculture mailing list
permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
+++++++++++++++
Stephanie Gerson
sgerson@stanfordalumni.org
(c) 415.871.5683
____________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:11:40 -0500
From: "Deborah" <dtv13@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [permaculture] self-sufficiency
To: "permaculture" <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <20041020011238.YMSH20108.out005.verizon.net@COMPUTER2>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
One of the main problems I see with urban dwellings is that they usually don't get cross-ventilation, so tenants are dependent on AC. Almost all of the 70s homes in this suburb of Dallas have stationary windows, which can't be opened on cool days, even if the owner desired it (most don't'). That may not be a problem in northern states, but sure is in the south. I would think that the high rises (up instead of out) interfere with wind flow. Is that true? Also, with all the concrete, seems that what air was moving would be hot, not enough trees to cool it.
There is the obvious need for more green space to grow food. Try getting that past a POA. I lived in a rural meditating community for several years and they were even opposed to the idea of a visible community garden- because it was 'unsightly' (as were clotheslines and bicycles). Go figure. I was very disappointed to say the least and put up a retractable clothesline anyway. But, how could a garden space in the city compete with real estate. All parks and public spaces should be planted with edibles and trees everywhere to shade the concrete.
One thing that took me a long time to re-adjust to in the city is the noise and light pollution. It's never quiet or dark. I don't think that's healthy and see no way of fixing that problem. I get infuriated when I drive at night and see large office bldgs with all the lights on and no one working. And, one of my pet peeves, breathing perfumed air from dryer sheets. Yulk.
I recently found this interesting interview on what inspired the film 'End of Suburbia'.
http://www.postcarbon.org/eos/main.html<http://www.postcarbon.org/eos/main.html> Scroll down to the little black box.
He had some interesting ideas for cities. And, a humorous story of how he thinks things will go when the oil's gone. He says that all our money is tied up in suburbs which will be totally worthless. People with money will be leaving their sprawling mansions for the city. Ten to twelve poor families will be living in the suburban home and will turn the manicured lawn into garden.
There are things I like about both urban and rural life. Both could use some balance though. Both usually poorly designed. Cities too crowded and rural life is often too isolated. Isn't there a formula in Permaculture for the ideal village/settlement size? Seems the city neighborhoods (villages) need to spread out, and the country homesteads need to be less spread out.
Wouldn't switching to composting toilets make the rural homestead less toxic than if using a septic? And if the city water treatment facility were composting all the poop, wouldn't that be more sustainable. There are ways to make both better.
I'm sure everyone here knows these things, so I must be missing the point of this discussion. Feel free to clue me in because I can't imagine that the argument is whether one is better than the other. Both are poorly designed and both could be improved on. Personally though, I think cities are way more toxic and damaging to all life forms.
Deborah
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
permaculture mailing list
permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
End of permaculture Digest, Vol 21, Issue 19
********************************************
- [permaculture] Re:self-sufficiency, Michael Kramer, 10/20/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.