permaculture

["Tradingpost" <tradingpost@gilanet.com>]

Then here's some more thoughts. No doubt, if NY population was spread out 
thinly over New England and put in McMansions on country estates, it would be 
far more wasteful of resources.  But without more than anecdotal evidence I 
won't press that density issue. We just don't have enough hard information.

>urban and rural people, living the way we do
>now, both have similar demands and require the same services from
>infrastructure (my rural neighbors all shopped at Wal-Mart). That
>infrastructure can be built and maintained with less embedded and expended
>resources per person when people live more densely.

Unless I heard wrong, permaculture isn't about the way we live now but the 
way we should live. If we're looking for sustainability then we could 
consider less wasteful rural arrangements - instead of comparing NY to the 
most wasteful rural arrangements, i.e., typical energy-hogging country 
estates.  Even without the McMansions,  long paved roads, individual septic 
tanks, and cable aren't usually considered the most efficient or sustainable 
use of resources. Nor is an hour's drive to and from work every day.

For people in the concrete jungle it may be hard to see beyond the city 
limits.  Where I live most all-weather roads are not paved, or do they need 
to be. Code allows alternatives to $5,000 septic tanks which waste enormous 
amounts of pure drinking water (scarce water I might add). Satellite TV is 
the norm and not cable (though I don't have and don't want TV). And here 
almost nobody drives an hour to and from work. They have work right here.  
And almost none of us slave away as cogs in the corporate machine.

The basic flaw in packing people in like sardines is, people need to live out 
there on the land to be good  stewards of the land. That's a fundamental 
premise of permaculture.

paul@largocreekfarms.com
http://medicinehill.net

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 10/20/2004 at 11:58 AM Toby Hemenway wrote:

>It's good to see all the thoughtful posts here.
>
>Will Carey <cure@rtinet.com> wrote:
>
>> But the last time I co-taught a Permaculture course ten years ago... I
>got a
>> lot of blank stares from everyone about incorporating concepts from
>Richard
>> Register, Paolo Soleri, John Todd and John Tillman Lyle into the PC
>course
>> curriculum.
>
>Courses I've seen lately do cover (and in some cases, build or visit
>examples of) Register's, Todd's and Lyle's work. Soleri less so, altho a
>course I did a couple of years ago had a participant who'd worked with
>Soleri and presented on his work. Reviews were mixed on that one; seemed
>more dream than substance.
>
>Stephanie wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>But it's per capita that allows you to compare apples to apples. Sure, NYC
>has an incredibly huge infrastructure. But look at how many people it
>serves! The New Yorker article pointed out that if the inhabitants of NYC
>were spread out at the same density of the small Connecticut town where the
>author now lives, they would occupy all six New England states plus
>Delaware
>and New Jersey. Think of all the roads, wires, pipes, fuel, etc, etc, that
>would consume--far more than what NYC uses now. One consumption pattern
>uses
>far less reources than the other, and per capita allows you to measure the
>value of choosing which lifestyle is easier on the planet.
>
>In the rural community I just left, there were 12 houses on our 2-mile
>road.
>Each one had several hundred feet of driveway, with an equal amount of
>phone
>and power cable going to it. That's a lot of materials. Each family (except
>one retired couple and ourselves) made 2-4 roundtrips on the road every
>day,
>driving 12-50 miles to work, kid's school, soccer practice, etc. They all
>worked in small offices or shops that are much less efficient to operate
>than those ugly big office buildings in cities. That's a staggering amount
>of infrastructure for just 12 families. Here in Portland, the 12 houses on
>my block use about 600 feet of road total, and maybe 100 feet of cable
>apiece. Many bus to work, and several work at home. That's a fraction of
>what a rural place uses to serve the same number.
>
>If we've got 300 million Americans, I'd rather see them consuming at urban
>levels and not the more damaging and higher rural and suburban levels. Just
>saying "SF consumes more than Davis" might fool you into thinking a Davis
>lifestyle is less damaging, when the SF lifestyle clearly is.
>
>> but what about that treatment plant, eh?
>
>Well, our treatment plant, covering about an acre, serves about 40,000
>households, with, I'd guess, a hundred or so miles of pipe going to it.
>Compare that to 40,000 septic systems (many of which aren't functioning
>well, which means pollution). That's 40,000 800-gallon concrete tanks,
>about
>2000 miles of drain pipe, $10,000 per system, a zillion yards of drain
>rock.
>I think the treatment plant uses fewer resources; it sure costs a lot less.
>This applies across the board: urban and rural people, living the way we do
>now, both have similar demands and require the same services from
>infrastructure (my rural neighbors all shopped at Wal-Mart). That
>infrastructure can be built and maintained with less embedded and expended
>resources per person when people live more densely. To me, that seems just
>a
>simple law of physics: distance times work and materials equal resources
>used.
>
>
>Toby
>www.patternliteracy.com
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>permaculture mailing list
>permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture