permaculture

[Marimike6@cs.com]

Michael Kramer writes

>I'm not sure that economic growth is really the problem. As population
grows, more goods and services are needed. In permaculture we discuss the
need to limits our needs and conserve resource use, and to use ecologically
appropriate materials, but growth is inevitable and necessary. I'd counter
that the central issue is linking resource regeneration to economic activity
so as to account for the cost of resource use. 

That would be a beautiful world to live in, Mike. But the issue is hopelessly 
politicised in this country, and comes down to votes. You may be familiar 
with the Willamette Valley dispute, where they opened up the region to potato 
farmers in order to justify building a dam. Then some years later they 
noticed 
that subspecies of salmon was dying as they weren't leaving enough water in 
the 
river at spawning time for them to keep their backs wet. And biologists 
advised changing the seasonal regimen so not as much water would be drawn 
down at 
the critical time.

But there were by then more potato farmers than fishermen, so the routine 
since then has been to draw down so drastically as to erase these pestiferous 
pisces, making the question moot.

Welcome to Century 21, Mike. We do things democratically around here, and 51% 
of the public seems to have accepted the need for Social Darwinism (even 
while many still accept Creationism). If they say the fish gotta go, the fish 
gotta go. We reasonable sorts are relegated to the universities, where we're 
called lefty liberals.

There's a war out there that's being won by crafty campaigners like Karl 
Rove, not by sensible planners who can create a greater order of priorities 
by 
allocating limited resources in the real world of tomorrow to the greatest 
needs 
of humanity. He has made the deeper study of what it is that motivates frail 
flesh when it's too busy with the job and the kids to do much theoretical 
intellectualizing.

This seems to go over most people's heads. They like the profit motive just 
fine, if that's what we've decided makes the world go 'round. And if that 
tells 
them they have to drive a Hummer because it makes them feel like a million 
bucks-- what's wrong with that? Sinclair Lewis used to call such people 
Babbits 
a long time ago. They set the tone, unfortunately, for the American Way of 
Life. It will take more than education to turn them around.

Which leaves us with a relatively small community-- one leaving a tiny 
economic footprint on the world, since we use resources lightly. I kind of 
think of 
us as the Indians, living in small pockets outside the mainstream until gas 
deposits under our feet need exploring.

Voters are too quick to think that's just the way it is, and get used to 
living in a world where the wild places all get developed in the end. They're 
not 
too comfortable with the existence of people who have alternative life 
styles. 


You have to put on your friendly face when trying to explain things to them 
in the light of the spirit of fair play. They think we're at war. And that 
they're going to win.