They figure that usingThey figure that, but has it been shown to be true? Why wouldn't it leave the other 4-5 acres for 4-5 other one-acre lifestyle people? I suppose it would work if for some reason human population was a constant. In Bangladesh, where people have lifestyles requiring about one acre, are there 4-5 acres of wilderness for each person? And is the environment in any better condition there?
an acre a person is a person's fair share, and that leaves the other 4-5
acres for other wildlife and plants.
At the present though I am looking at things more from a viewpoint ofYeah, that's one approach, but what if they were to make their living by using zones 4-5 more - say foraging for more of their food, rather than intensifying zone 1? Or supplying some of their needs through sustainable forestry. Maybe then they would need 40 acres, instead of 3. Not everyone could live that way, but those that could would be maintaining a huge amount of rich diverse land. They would be spreading their influence wider.
integrating permaculture and footprints with people perhaps owning 3 acres
per person (and the other 2-3 per person used for public places, roads,
preserves,
and with chunks of forest kept intact as nationally or group owned forests)
And then I think the object would be to try and get one's permaculture 1-3
zones on 1 acre and zones 4-5 on the other 2 acres.
I'd be interested in hearing how people would design their acre or a familyI guess I'm not much of a homesteader, my dreams run something more like this:
of four's four acre chunk(or whatever your real or ideal family
configuration might be) to produce 90+% of their needs. I'd also be
interested in things you might do differently to make this possible such as
using cloth napkins rather than growing the fiber for paper ones, etc. I'd
also be interested in how feasible you think the one acre strategy is.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.