Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] Maintaining the standards of permaculture -important issues

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "John D'hondt" <dhondt@eircom.net>
  • To: "permaculture" <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] Maintaining the standards of permaculture -important issues
  • Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 20:40:48 +0100


Dear Daniel, I concider you a friend. I am as much aware that CAP and Trade is a farce as you are. But I am just as sure that man made global warming/climate change is a fact. Think about all these billions of tons of oil and coal that mankind burns. You can more than double the weight of those fuels to calculate CO2 production. And, most important you can watch CO2 content of the air rising.
Of course just like "health" it is not that simple. We also blow huge quantities of other molecules into the athmosphere. One good example of this are sulfur oxides that on the one hand lead to acid rain and on the other hand make that more sunlight is being sent back straight into space. This is called "global dimming". And I can see that happening right here in Ireland by following what my solar panels put out.

On the one hand things are obviously warming up on average while we get less light on the surface. This is rather tragic for the consensus of scientists is that we are moving into a worst case scenario where a large portion of the planet will become uninhabitable. It is also thought we are already over the tipping point where we can reverse this trend just by stopping to burn fossil fuels. I have not read much about this but I fear that when the burning of fossil fuels comes to an end, as it must, sulfur oxides will settle down much faster than the green house gasses and that only then will we begin to understand the true meaning of "global warming".

Anyway, there is not much that any one of us personally can do to change this and if the mox fuel pool in Fukushima no 4 should go up in smoke in the mean time we won't have to worry about climate change any longer.

The only thing we can do is to tread as lightly as we can upon the soil and permaculture is the best way to do that.

John





Dear Toby,


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 12:03:59 -0700
From: Toby Hemenway <toby@patternliteracy.com>
Subject: Re: [permaculture] Maintaining the standards of
permaculture
- important issues
To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <87BD2B12-1AD5-4B28-9070-DAF5DE6F73C8@patternliteracy.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii

Daniel-- I wanted to address a few of your points
specifically.
OK

> It is kind of depressing to see the laden responses;
not based on a discussion of the facts provided in the links
by Oystein.

I did discuss some facts from those really awful websites
(god, if I ever hear of the evils of the "hockey stick"
graph again, I will throw up), but like I said, anyone can
come up with selective facts, and they don't change people's
minds. It's too low a level to be worth discussing at; we're
big picture people here, right? Let's think permaculturally:
what are the important factors that influence our decisions?
The quality of the reasoning and the motivations are far
more telling and persuasive That's why I focus on that
level. Facts can be manufactured by money; as they say, if
you torture the data long enough, it will confess.

Excuse me for saying this, but who made YOU the expert? Who gave you the Truth about the hockey stick graph. What about the tone you set? "I have to throw up????"!!!!
This is what I mean with making the arguments LADEN with emotional overtones; because it implies a ridicule of the other's point of view, or the validity of their facts.
The big picture is that we are still beset with lies within and without ourselves, you and I not being an exception! How can we make a 'permculture world' or solve the problems of sustainable living, when we continue to communicate in this manner.

I my opnion, getting a clearer personal understanding of the true causes of health and disease, ecological destruction and restoration, the problem between numbers of people and the quality of their thinking, is EXACTLY what permaculture is about. Not just planting guilds or making a food forest and then sticking our heads in the sand about the rest. These issues are very important, and will become very very real for us on a daily basis within the next few years, whether we like it or not. Better to be ready, is what I think.

Also I feel you do not appreciate the extremely low level of willpower and morality that most of our "experts" exhibit; and actually the whole population on the planet as well. Mammon rules nearly everything! I mean nothing has changed since Diogenes was looking for an honest man with a torch in the light of day. A truly honest man is nearly impossible to find.
You are aware of the climate-gate scandal; the release of the private emails of Dr. Mann, and his colleagues, right? You are aware of their contents and the implication for the entire IPCC?


> 1 - Climate scientists are dependent on their funding
from grant foundations, etc. Who controls that money?
Rotary, Rockefeller, CFR, etc, etc... aka The elite.

So, why would the elites, who are dependent on a fossil-fuel
industrial economy, be biased toward anthropogenic global
warming (AGW) that undermines the basis of their wealth?
They aren't dumb. This makes no sense. I believe it is not
an explanation.

Just because you cann't see the relationship, doesn't mean it is not there.

> Now, during my PhD, I saw how easily my own professor
was writing grant proposals in which he HAD TO put SOMETHING
about climate change, because the funding agencies wanted to
hear it.

Of course there is bias in the handing out of grants; we're
human. But you know how funding agencies work: grant
proposals are reviewed and awarded by scientist peers of the
applicant, not by the industrialist board members (who would
vote against them!). It tends to boost an existing
consensus, but the consensus comes into existence because,
usually, some good science originally supported it or aat
least raised the question (I've studied this, because I
worked with many scientist grant reviewers. They try hard to
be objective). Your anecdotes about funding don't support
the argument that AGW doesn't exist; they support the
argument that there is a lot of funding to support AGW
research. Again, why would that be if it undermines the
money economy of the major donors? Occam's razor, rather
than supporting the idea that there is some convoluted
conspiracy in which the elite funds their own destruction
for some Byzantine purpose, suggests that it's because there
are good data, o
r interesting questions, to support further AGW research.

If they know the system must crash, they can select and guide it in the way that will keep them in power. Very simple, really! Happened in Russia during the revolution. Just one example, there are many more.
Besides, spread the false notion of climate change, and offer the solution: Cap and Trade. Says enough, doesn't it. Global carbon tax on every human being, being sent straight to the UN? Oh, all of this is in the works; look it up. The documents are accessible online. And how could elitists NOT like such schemes? It is right up their alley. More control, more tax and debt peonage and more bureaucracy.

> Only 1 argument for me on this one. The population PLUS
modern technological living standards = disaster. Yet 7
billion people in 7 million eco-villages around the globe
plus a change in diet (no grain, no meat)? I foresee no
problem!


So: the existing situation is a disaster doing vast harm
right now, but overpopulation poses "no problem" because of
a fantasy scenario that may take centuries to enact. I
don't follow that. Also, some terrible ecological damage is
being done by people living well below Western standards, so
eliminating high tech is not an answer. Sheer numbers is the
problem--slash and burn is excellent at low population
levels, and disastrous under high ones. So are many low-tech
methods.

True, and not true. The number of people are a problem. The level of awareness is also a problem, a BIG problem. But the real problem is actually this: Population reduction!
Who will be reduced? Will you sacrifice yourself, of should some poor ignorant Thai farmer go first? What do you think the captains of Industry would like to see happen? Who will make the choice? Don't you think that governments around the world are thinking about this? Because one thing is for sure; history has shown it many times. If the elite don't act to preserve themselves, society will collapse chaotically and they will likely be first upon the chopping block! They will then surely lose their power.

Again, the only reason we have 7 billion is oil-based food.
Run the numbers: the amount of arable land needed to feed 7
billion, when, without oil and gas, 4 acres of fertility
crops are required to sustainably produce 1 acre of food,
means we must cut down all the forests to grow compost, and
that still isn't enough (John Jeavons, World Watch, and many
others have done the numbers). Incidentally, animals are
essential to efficiently feed humans; it's how we can turn
grass, bugs, and garbage into food. They pose no ecological
burden and in fact are helpful when done right. I think I
learned that in a permaculture course somewhere.

I agree. We have overpopulation, and since perhaps only 1% of the world will want to live in an ecovillage, the 'fantasy' will not happen. I know this. But I prefer NATURAL stagnation and decline of the population, instead of a 'controlled' reduction! The reasons, as pointed out above, should be fairly obvious (to me at least). I think such is more in line with Fukuoka's ideas, since it is still 'natural'.

Okay, really, fun as this is, this is enough. I have tried
to argue that we need to look at the level of thinking
required, rather than the highly selective use of "facts"
and anecdotes, if we want to address these issues
productively, but I don't think it's getting across very
well since what I'm getting back is more "facts," and
accusations that I'm not arguing the facts. So unless we can
discuss the reasoning rather than conspiracies or the
"facts," I'll try to stop myself from further attempts.

Agreed. However, you dominate and over-shout the discussion and then call it quits for all of us? Implying my thinking and that of others is not of a 'high enough level'.
I'll keep this logged under: miscommunication due to the nature of the topic and the awkward communication medium of email. But just to make it clear; I am not pleased with the tone you use in your communications or the 'level' of your thinking.

Daniel
_______________________________________________
permaculture mailing list
permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
subscribe/unsubscribe|user config|list info:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
message archives: https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture/
Google message archive search:
site: lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture [searchstring]
Avant Geared http://www.avantgeared.com







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page