------------------------------OK
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.