Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] more re ethanol production

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: John Schinnerer <john@eco-living.net>
  • To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] more re ethanol production
  • Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 11:18:32 -1000

Aloha,

Society at large is not equipped to approach the problem in this manner. It has been built around the premise of infinitely convenient transportation at cheap prices. Change that and not only do we precipitate a worldwide depression, we become unable to serve a dispersed population.

We are equipped to change, always have been and always will be (until we're extinct anyhow). We're just not willing (enough, yet).
There are countless useful ideas and good designs and helpful steps from tiny to huge that *can* be applied, implemented, taken.
We're just mostly choosing not to do any of that, at least in mass/mainstream terms.
The ones we are choosing to focus large amounts of attention on (hybrid vehicles, large-scale biofuels, LEED and associated high-energy-industrial "green" building, etc.) are just rearranging the deck chairs.
Some of them could be useful transitional strategies for localizing and energy descent, and, we're mostly not using them that way.

It's exactly comparable to the distress an organism would feel if it were unable to get enough oxygen. Just advising it to learn how to get by on less air would not be seen as a viable approach. It must have more air!

The perceived distress may be similar.
The actual situation is not comparable.
An oxygen-breathing organism does in fact absolutely require a certain amount of oxygen to continue to live.
We do not in fact absolutely require our current high-energy culture in order to continue to live, and even live well.
Part of our problem is not discerning between perceived dangers and actual dangers.

> It is a tremendous step forward for
them and the dinosaurs who lead them just to begin thinking in terms of using switchgrass to generate ethanol.

It is no step at all in the direction of energy descent, when they are clearly talking about doing so in order to maintain and increase current energy usage (remember that we have an "endless growth" economy, which includes the need for endless growth in available energy).

It doesn't matter what imagined future people won't stand still for. If they have no choice, they will just have to stand still.
There is a lot happening all over the world that one could say people won't stand still for - war, torture, famine, despotism, drought, etc. And there they (we) are, standing in it.

Otherwise, a viable approach might be to do something about the projected nine billion humans we're going to have on the planet within the next forty years.

Projections like that, and plans based primarily on them, are part of the problem.
As with traffic - planning for projected future traffic pretty much guarantees traffic (and much else in 'quality of life') will get worse.

We need to find a lot of new energy-- and fast.

That's what the junkie says when their regular dealer gets busted...ohmigod gotta find a new source for my fix, no time to focus on consequences of my behavior in the larger picture.
Enabling denial is IMO only going to make it worse.

I don't even support building a nuke plant in *your* back yard, because the poison won't stay there, sooner or later it'll be in my back yard.

hi ho,
John S.

--

John Schinnerer - MA, Whole Systems Design
------------------------------------------
- Eco-Living -
Whole Systems Design Services
People - Place - Learning - Integration
john@eco-living.net
http://eco-living.net




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page