Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 Next
Comments 26951 to 27000:
-
scaddenp at 10:18 AM on 22 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
But it is still subsistance farming if you are only producing it for yourself. Ie not supporting non-farming specialists. Farming and transport of foods are only around 10% of per capita energy consumption in western world (see MacKay's "Sustainable energy without the hot air"). so concentrating on reducing energy costs there while increasing energy consumption for virtually every other activity is false economy.
I also cannot find data to support your estimates of labour cost. Anything that looks like someone actually measured it is higher but cant find anything that separates organic farming from permaculture. Where did you derive the figure?
-
villabolo at 10:16 AM on 22 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
scaddenp @32
Growing protein crops like grain or legumes is pretty challenging in our climate but they doubted very much you could do it for hour/person.
I agree. Grain growing would be done through conventional mechanized agriculture although maintaining the integrity of the soil - overfertilization, erosion - would be problems that have to be tackled.
I don’t recall if I mentioned it but I believe that mechanized monoculture is the most efficient way of growing grain. However, less than 1% percent of the population (US) is needed to grow enough grain and that’s enough for an abundance.
PS: Check out Arcosanti. It’s not quite the same as I’m proposing but you might find it interesting.
-
villabolo at 09:27 AM on 22 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
scaddenp @32
Villabolo - what I meant by subsistance farming, is farming which is sustaining the farmer and not much else.
Yes, I know. What I'm trying to explain, and I mentioned it before, is that permaculture, in the form of food forests, is very low maintenance when it matures (let's say 10 years) which can be maintained in a fraction of the time that other horticultural methods require. Once the trees are yielding you only have to go to them to collect the food, like a trip to the supermarket.
Permaculture doesn't just reduce labor but energy input. You won't need an energy intensive method of transporting food through trailer trucks.
Nor does it have to follow that all individuals have to tend to an individual garden. Those villages can have a collective permaculture orchard, 2 acres per person, which can feed everyone several times over with a relatively small labor force.
Think of it as a self sustaining forest in your backyard where a substantial form of the biomass is edible as opposed to a regular forest.
-
scaddenp at 09:23 AM on 22 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
Thanks for those links. Fascinating and pretty scary. Suppose you have someone with the physical attributes but no record of criminal behaviour?
If you are filtering identified people out of society effectively, then what does happen to them. This is like something straight out of Brave new world or A clockwork Orange.
Actually, it is also off topic, so I had better shut up.
-
villabolo at 08:29 AM on 22 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
scaddenp @ 33,
http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=207996
These others are abstracts only:
http://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(96)00290-9/abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811907011706
Moderator Response:[PS] fixed links
-
gorm raabo larsen at 07:46 AM on 22 October 2015New UN climate deal text: what’s in, what’s out
.. thanks for the excellent overview..
-
scaddenp at 07:21 AM on 22 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
"Good point. For example, clinical psychopaths are considered to be 1-3% of the general population but are the cause of most grief in human society. They can be identified through brain scans that they cannot fake (It's a neurological problem with them)."
This really is Brave new World. Can I have a reference for this please?
-
scaddenp at 07:17 AM on 22 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
Villabolo - what I meant by subsistance farming, is farming which is sustaining the farmer and not much else. The methology is unimportant in this definition. Firstly, I would agree that real subsistance farming is low energy, low impact. Such farmers would have some of the lowest ecological footprints available - also "nasty, brutish and short".
My point is that the moment you do something else as well, then the energy impacts from such low density cut in big time. A fab plant has work force of 1000-5000. No fab plant, then no electronics, internet etc.My local hospital serving 180,000 employs 3000+. It is not full service - we have to go larger one 5 hours away for specialized things like some oncology treatments, neurosurgery, specialized pediatic etc. The distances involved for serving such a facility in your system would be large. And so it goes on. Our little university is a community of 28,000 in itself. The cost of splitting this into tiny portions or travelling to it boggles the mind. I am not sure how your part time police force would work either.
Like Michael Sweet, I struggled to find any reliable estimate for permaculture labour effectiveness. Since I have to support others who either too old or too young for gardening as well, even 1 hour/person is way more time than I want to spend. As with Michael, I suspect if it really was low, then commercial gardens would have adopted it. Instead organics of any kind are premium priced in my farmers market.
2 of the ecologists here are into permaculture but only for their vege and fruit. Growing protein crops like grain or legumes is pretty challenging in our climate but they doubted very much you could do it for hour/person. They also queried time requirement for food preservation given that nothing much comes out of gardens in winter.
I would also agree with ELIofVA that megacities need to be few and far between. 250,000 is biggest I would be happy in and 1-2M seems to provide most of what humanity could desire.
-
villabolo at 07:09 AM on 22 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
Tom Curtis @29,
That is, can current monoculture farmers (or their landlords) retain their land for that purpose rather than giving it over for permaculture villages if they desire?
Good point. One thing to keep in mind about my concept is that it will not be done in one drastic move but will have a transition period of 50-70 years.
Agricultaral landlords will keep their own land but will not be able to pass it on to their heirs. Instead their heirs will have the right, as will everyone else, to free occupancy of the village of their choice if they so choose.
-
villabolo at 06:57 AM on 22 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
One Planet Only Forever @#25:
Diligent monitoring to identify people attempting to benefit by behaving in ways that are understood to not be part of a lasting better future for all of humanity and swift action to limit the 'success' of such people (keeping their less acceptable behaviour from becoming too popular or profitable to be easily curtailed). (Some may bristle at this point, but any business enterprise that genuinely wants to have a lasting future needs to do this with their employees to determine who to promote, and who to retrain).
Good point. For example, clinical psychopaths are considered to be 1-3% of the general population but are the cause of most grief in human society. They can be identified through brain scans that they cannot fake (It's a neurological problem with them).
Filtering them out of corporate systems with those brain scans should be a condition of employment.
Another way of preventing "perverse incentives" would be a syndicalistic economy where the employees own, operate and manage their own businesses. They're not likely to slash their own salaries to squeeze a few percent out of a company's costs in order to make stockbrokers and CEOs rich.
-
Tom Curtis at 06:34 AM on 22 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
villabolo @28, leaving aside issues of viability, if your idea for society is voluntary, does that extend to rural landholders. That is, can current monoculture farmers (or their landlords) retain their land for that purpose rather than giving it over for permaculture villages if they desire? If so, then my prediction is that permaculture villages will only ever become an oddity in an overall culture that develops along current lines. If not, then you are only giving the urbanites the ability to volantarilly starve following the massive drop in surpluss food that will accompany the swithch to permaculture villages.
-
Tom Curtis at 06:26 AM on 22 October 2015HadCRUT4: Analysis and critique
knaugle @3, this page for monthly data. This page for links to all HadCRUT4 data. Data format described here. The data is currently available through to August, 2015.
-
villabolo at 06:25 AM on 22 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
CBDunkerson @24:
The bigger problem with 'ecomodernism', villabolo's plan, and indeed virtually all utopian visions... they always seem to ignore human nature.
Human nature has evolved within small intimate groups. Yes, there are many who would want exposure to a greater variety of people but there is nothing in my communitarian vision that would prevent that.
People would either travel 3 to 4 times as much to meet up with those with similar lifestyle or would create a village community of equal minded persons.
Could a society of rigidly concentrated/dispersed humans work? No... because it will never happen. The only way it could happen is if the humans stopped acting like humans.
That seems to be circular reasoning.
'Oh, you want me to leave my Wall Street accounting firm and go live in a small village in the middle of nowhere? Ok, bye!'
You can have a village of Wall Street Brokers each living in their McMansions. Think of their living in a gated community. Also, they would not be in the middle of “nowhere”. Villages made up of different cultures and affinities would encompass the whole region.
Seriously... humans just don't work that way. Ecomodernism. Communism. Objectivism. Et cetera. They're all designs based on fictional vaguely human-like creatures. 'Communists' all share equally with each other. 'Objectivists' all give each other full profit for their own labor. Humans? Not so much.
We’ve had decentralized societies before.
Come up with a system which humans could/would actually accept... then we can argue about whether the technology and economics actually work.
How do you know that many people would not accept such a society?
One thing I should mention is that my society would be voluntary. You would still have cities but I believe that most people would choose to live in modern villages with more land than your average suburbanite.
-
Dcrickett at 04:01 AM on 22 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
The comments here are as interesting as the essay itself, if not more so. Considering the extent of the disagreements, I am amazed at how civil the comments are.
-
ubrew12 at 02:50 AM on 22 October 2015Carbon pollution: the good, the bad, the ugly, and the denial
Corollary to what GWPF is doing with its report: "Take Colonheal and watch those painful Hemorroids disappear! (possible side effects include droopy lip, creeky neck, occasional blindness, paranoid delusions, and suicidal egomania. Discontinue use before any of these occur)."
-
knaugle at 02:47 AM on 22 October 2015HadCRUT4: Analysis and critique
I've noticed the MET stopped issuing their climate bulletins at the end of 2014, and the HadCrut4 data seems to end in March 2015. Yet ver. 4.4.0.0 was released, looks like in August. Is there a disconnect somewhere?
-
knaugle at 02:37 AM on 22 October 2015First Look at HadCRUT4
I haven't been able to find any HadCrut data after about December 2014, neither at the MET web site nor on WoodForTrees tool. Has something changed?
-
ELIofVA at 00:08 AM on 22 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
One thing nature has taught us, if we observe and listen, is that the dynamic stability of a climax forest is dependent on a highly adaptive and large variety of life organisms. Monoculture agriculture is like a primitive eco system where growth of a few species is favored until the limits of that expansion choke that species which favors a different species in a succession community.
I am sympathetic with villabolo's vision. I would not go on to say that all people should live in such villages. However, I do believe that those that do can have a rich varied cultural experience. Also, the spiritual connection by participating in nurturing life sustaining food can be a big improvement over what we have now.
However, the arguments that defend our current high carbon footprint way of supplying abundance is like the primitive ecosystem, works great until you meet the limits of expansion. In our growth economy, that limit is the ability of release heat because of the accumulative concentration of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and deforestation. The village model is a sweet spot of optimal partnership of community and nature. However, there can be larger cities for some functions. However, in my view there is no need for million + cities. These metropolises are separated from natural services for maintaining stability. They require continued input of non sustainable energy and pollution to maintain stability.
I am an amateur author. I offer my fiction for free, www.2050story.wordpress.com is a short fiction that a 35 year old describes his recent past from his 2050 perspective. In it, he describes how a transformation occured. It is not a utopian world. However, it offers the hope that is will not be a dystopian world, also. This story does not ignore or wish away the huge dilemmas we face. However, it does imagine how our culture might come to an understanding that the current trends will result in disaster and find motivation to adjust what they believe they need to find a better world.
Eli
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:07 AM on 22 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
CBDunkerson's point about the commonly developed attitude of humans in socio-economic-political sysems is indeed the problem.
But it is not 'a given' that greed and other self-interested pursuits that can be personally desired must be allowed to be gotten away with.
"Freedom without Responsibility to participate in the development of a lasting better future for all of humanity" is what is pushed for by those who understand the competetive advanatge they can have through their willingness to behave less acceptably than others.
Obvious options are:
- All humans are raised in socio-economic-political environments where they learn to want to be responsible participants in the development of a lasting development of a better future for all of humanity, which means living as part of the robust diversity of life on this or any other amazing planet.
- Diligent monitoring to identify people attempting to benefit by behaving in ways that are understood to not be part of a lasting better future for all of humanity and swift action to limit the 'success' of such people (keeping their less acceptable behaviour from becoming too popular or profitable to be easily curtailed). (Some may bristle at this point, but any business enterprise that genuinely wants to have a lasting future needs to do this with their employees to determine who to promote, and who to retrain).
Both paths to humanity having a decent future are actually jointly required actions, and require continued efforts to improve the 'understanding of everything that is going on'. And any new learning about the unacceptability of already developed attitudes and activity would be swiftly acted on to curtail those things even if they have developed significant popularity or profitability among a portion of any generation of humanity.
So the real challenge for humanity is undestanding the importance of overcoming the developed undeserved power of undeserving people so humanity can most swiftly achieve its fullest potential.
People who care more about 'getting the best possible present for themselves' and are willing to do things that are contrary to the 'development of the gift of a lasting better future for all of humanity' will fight as viciously as they can get away with against the advancement of humanity. The number of people 'choosing' that attitude and actions needs to be reduced, and the ability of those who resist changing their minds to succeed in their uderstood to be unacceptable pursuits needs to be strictly limited contrary to cries that the potentially damaging Utopian ideal of "Individual Freedom" somehow defends unjust and irrational behaviour.
-
CBDunkerson at 22:54 PM on 21 October 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Calls for a RICO investigation getting louder;
-
CBDunkerson at 22:50 PM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
The bigger problem with 'ecomodernism', villabolo's plan, and indeed virtually all utopian visions... they always seem to ignore human nature.
Could a society of rigidly concentrated/dispersed humans work? No... because it will never happen. The only way it could happen is if the humans stopped acting like humans.
'Oh, you want me to leave my Wall Street accounting firm and go live in a small village in the middle of nowhere? Ok, bye!'
Seriously... humans just don't work that way. Ecomodernism. Communism. Objectivism. Et cetera. They're all designs based on fictional vaguely human-like creatures. 'Communists' all share equally with each other. 'Objectivists' all give each other full profit for their own labor. Humans? Not so much.
Come up with a system which humans could/would actually accept... then we can argue about whether the technology and economics actually work.
-
ubrew12 at 22:49 PM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
"Ecomodernism holds that not only are humans driving the future of our world, but through technology can decouple our future from natural ecosystems." Anyone familiar with Science Fiction's need for World-building knows that its going to be a little difficult to develop bases on the Moon or Mars without such a decoupling. This will clearly have consequences back on Spaceship Earth (imho mostly positive), but I'm not sure if we need to defend ourselves against it quite yet. As regards any 'debate', I'm not sure if its helped by sentences like this one: "It is a vision of naive young urban professionals."
-
denisaf at 20:29 PM on 21 October 2015New UN climate deal text: what’s in, what’s out
Those quotes from the 1987 UN Report "Our Common Future" are very germaine but they cover only partof the predicament that society will inevitably have to face. The vast infrastructure of industrialized civilization can only provide a declining potential to instigate measures to cope with climate change as it irrevocably ages and the natural reources required for its operation and maintenance get beyond reach of technological systems.
-
michael sweet at 19:42 PM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
villabolo
Can you provide citations to support your claims of permaculture farms that require little work and provide infite food? Why aren't people doing this now if it is so great? Without citations it is just your pipe dream.
-
bozzza at 19:13 PM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
Re: current commercial farming practises,
This includes the acklowledgment of Governments that small players cannot compete as they cannot deal with the losses that seem to be increasing- an insurance issue basically.
** The invisible hand has many aspects!!
-
TonyW at 18:19 PM on 21 October 2015New UN climate deal text: what’s in, what’s out
Digby, yes, I would think that "success" would result in a decline in emissions and that should mean a reduction in fossil fuel production. Of course, even that might not be enough to keep warming below 2C.
On that last point, I'm glad to see that the option of narrowing the goal to 1.5C still exists (not that 1.5C would not be dangerous).
-
ryland at 17:47 PM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
Illuminating that in the article itself and in the comments both here and in the Guardian, no one refers to Huxley's f'ollow up book Ape and Essence. This is surprising as Ape and Essence is hardly arcane (h/t to scaddenp). Brave New World was written pre-WW2 and Ape and Essence post-WW2 and the effect of the war on Huxley is manifest in his contrasting views of humanity in the two books. The author of the piece compares Brave New World with 1984 which is really rather inapprpriate. A better comparison might have been between 1984 and Ape and Essence to compare and contrat the significant effects of the war on both authors.
-
uncletimrob at 17:47 PM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
We also need to consider the connection between access to "nature" and mental health. This page is one of many that concludes that access is vital to mental health enhance-your-wellbeing/environment/nature-and-us/how-does-nature-impact-our-wellbeing . As far as I can tell this goes against the model of ecomodernism.
-
Tom Curtis at 15:51 PM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
villabolo @17, permaculture is less labour intensive than subsistence farming, but is far more labour intensive than current commercial farming practises. That means a population of permaculture farmers can support far fewer information and cultural specialists (like librarians, professors, artists) or indeed, industrial workers. Granted the hours required per week in an established permaculture farm are sufficiently low that the permaculture farmers can if they desire be part time farmers and part time cottage industrialists (or researchers, or musicians, or what have you), but that doesn't solve the basic person hours equation, and only means the researchers, musicians etc in the society are less skilled at research, music etc. That might work for music, where practising has its own joy. It doesn't work for research. Nor does it work for medicine, or for teaching, and so on. The net effect, if your model were implemented world wide, would be an overall loss of technology and knowledge. Health standards would also decline after an initial boost from the elimination of excessive consumption and lack of excercise.
If, as is far more likely, it was not applied world wide, the nations that did not indulge in the experiment would soon find they had an overwhelming military advantage over those that did, and would take advantage of that fact to end the experiment in their favour. Armed forces are, of course, another of those specialized roles that are refined in ability by the fact that other people grow the soldiers food (and make their guns, etc).
-
villabolo at 13:45 PM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
Scaddenp @#16
It would not be subsistent farming. I see that as a recurring theme in your responses. Permaculture is less labor intensive than subsistence farming. It is also more efficient and sustainable than mechanized agriculture and lacks the side effects of soil erosion, over fertilization, etc.
Most of what you mentioned can be done by villages that specialize in whatever business endeavor you care to mention. Each village will have about 200 adults of working age. Four adjacent villages bordering each other will have about 800.
That is enough to man light manufacturing industries, hospitals, theaters, etc. As for energy it would be solar, wind and natural gas as a backup. The internet, wifi can encompass village areas. Security would be a Swiss style army.
Also, four adjacent villages could support a small school of about 250 students.
-
scaddenp at 12:32 PM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
No, not heard of Arcosanti, but I still dont see how numbers stack. Manufacturing (for finite systems), energy, health care, internet, entertainment, security forces, all requiring payment.
And this is assuming that we want to exist as subsistance farmers - and your option is open only to tiny portion of world's people where there is enough land/per person. In my opinion, a sustainable option is one that has to work for everyone, not just those who accident of birth gives them geographical advantage.
Now if you think you can subsist utterly independently (really and truly) and find others likewise interested, then go for it. As solution for worlds problems - nope, not without a massive downsize in population and expectation. Me? I have no ambition to farming - I am from line a farmers that started with my father and ended with me - and have no wish for a life where I cannot use the talents I do possess.
-
bozzza at 12:13 PM on 21 October 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
"..eh?"
That was gold!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:54 AM on 21 October 2015New UN climate deal text: what’s in, what’s out
I hope the result is meaningful change of the motivations driving the development of things, and acknowledgement of what has been unacceptable about development so far.
I think the following pair of paragraphs from the 1987 UN Report "Our Common Future" would make a good preface to the Paris Document.
"25. Many present efforts to guard and maintain human progress, to meet human needs, and to realize human ambitions are simply unsustainable - in both the rich and poor nations. They draw too heavily, too quickly, on already overdrawn environmental resource accounts to be affordable far into the future without bankrupting those accounts. They may show profit on the balance sheets of our generation, but our children will inherit the losses. We borrow environmental capital from future generations with no intention or prospect of repaying. They may damn us for our spendthrift ways, but they can never collect on our debt to them. We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions.
26. But the results of the present profligacy are rapidly closing the options for future generations. Most of today's decision makers will be dead before the planet feels; the heavier effects of acid precipitation, global warming, ozone depletion, or widespread desertification and species loss. Most of the young voters of today will still be alive. In the Commission's hearings it was the young, those who have the most to lose, who were the harshest critics of the planet's present management."Political and Economic change can be a gradual process, but what has happened since the global awareness of what needed to change was so plainly stated almost 30 years ago has been inexcusable.
-
villabolo at 11:22 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
scaddenp@14
I find the irony of lifestyle blocks where people feel very eco-friendly, raising their own food, generating their own electricity - and then using maybe 4x times a much energy as me because they then commute to work, school, activities, in their SUV (because, you know, they need one because they are "farmers")...
In my lifestyle you wouldn't need to drive 4 times as much for most jobs. First, many people won't even need a job if:
All their food is growing within a minute’s walk of their front door.
Their house is paid off and ready to be transferred free to their children and successive generations.
Also, their village or adjacent villages could run a business cooperatively putting their jobs withing a few minutes walk of their residency.
Then there are plugin hybrid vehicles including SUVs; hybrid buses running between villages; etc.
PS: Have you heard of Arcosanti?
-
scaddenp at 10:39 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
"doesn't sound like the good life to me" well that is entirely a subjective judgement and fortunately you are probably able to live that way if you chose. Just dont confuse it with a sustainable, low-energy life style.
I find the irony of lifestyle blocks where people feel very eco-friendly, raising their own food, generating their own electricity - and then using maybe 4x times a much energy as me because they then commute to work, school, activities, in their SUV (because, you know, they need one because they are "farmers"), whereas my city lifestyle puts most of that in walking/cycling distance. Many, if not most, lifestyle blocks are basically turning valuable arable land into over-sized accommodation and pet food. I have crunched some of the numbers deep within this analysis
-
villabolo at 10:31 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
scaddenp @11.
The land I live in is not considered arable, yet I was able to grow a garden with no problem. There are also fruit trees growing from cracks in the sidewalk and backyards in my apartment complex. I think that the definition of arable pertains to land that can be farmed with mechanized agriculture.
Don't underestimate permaculture.
-
villabolo at 10:04 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
scaddenp @#9
Yes, the population density puts it between suburban and rural densities. Commutes will be, if I did my math right, between 3 and 4 times as far.
However, bunching ourselves up, like sardines, until every mega apartment skyscraper has its own doctor and nurse and a violin teacher two buildings down doesn't sound like the good life to me.
-
Stardustoz at 10:01 AM on 21 October 2015New UN climate deal text: what’s in, what’s out
Please note that the link to the Skeptical Science survey is not working
-
scaddenp at 10:01 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
if you use the table in the reference above, you get 0.48hect/per person (actually 1.2 acre) including Alaska. 4x what we have in NZ. China is 0.06ha and Netherlands 0.02ha. Dont see this catching on. I think it is less sustainable than current system from its energy cost.
-
villabolo at 09:42 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
scaddenp @#7
Note also, that even in US, you have 1.6 acre/person if I have done the conversion from hectare to such an arcane unit correctly.
I also have trouble converting metrics to American. I believe the figures would be ~6 acres per person excluding Alaska. I would only take 1/3 of that for residencies and businesses.
-
scaddenp at 09:37 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
That sounds like high energy transport use and I just love commuting (not). Compare that very high density cities, which can sustain good public transport because there are high densities, with land efficiently farmed or are you saying permaculture cannot scale? Good health care because you have very large no. of people within the golden hour, and thriving arts culture because artists can get together. Tough life being a violin teacher if you have less than 50,000 people within 15 minutes.
Sorry, but your vision isnt for me.
-
villabolo at 09:14 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
Scaddenp @7
Society won't be limited to that one village but can be open ended with hundreds of thousands of people networking in the same way they do now.
You can have entire factories and retail establishments run by individual villages whose workers live in that village.
We currently have suburbs with people traveling to and fro. The same would apply to this type of civilization.
-
scaddenp at 09:03 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
And what about those whose skills are more like arts (musicians especially), brain surgery, programming, etc. A fab factory does not scale down to something a village of 500 can staff so presumably we are live without electronics. What does your health care look like? Note also, that even in US, you have 1.6 acre/person if I have done the conversion from hectare to such an arcane unit correctly.
-
villabolo at 08:15 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
@#4 Tom Curtis
The loose figures I cited are for the United States. I was envisioning permaculture which is not labor intensive and can, when the trees mature, be sustained with 1 hour worth of labor per person per day. We are already efficient with producing food with only a fraction of our population necessary and through permaculture we can still have the same efficiency with a substantial amount of time per capita necessary for the rest of our social infrastructure.
Please realize that permaculture/food forests are very different than conventional agriculture.
-
villabolo at 08:14 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
@#2 scaddenp:
No, I was proposing it for the US which has a lower population density than the rest of the world.
Also I'm not proposing it in one fell swoop but graduated throughout a 70+ year period where those who are experts in permaculture can teach those who are not. That time period could allow for 10,000 experts to teach 3 times their numbers within a 7 year period to learn basic permaculture techniques and become fully self-reliant. Once the food forests are yielding those persons could in turn teach 3 others and so forth.
In the meantime conventional grain agriculture can be maintained by the professionals who are now doing it.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:43 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
villabolo@1, given current estimates of total world arable land, there is currently 1.4 acres per capita of arable land. That means the world's population would need to reduce by 30% to even begin to impliment your utopia. Nor do I think it would be a utopia. As scaddenp points out, a significant reserve of people not employed in agriculture is required to sustain arts, sciences and an industrial base. Without those, your utopian community would quickly regress to a patchwork technology system (some high technology could be maintained locally) that was well below western 20th century standards. The lack of medical facilities (again, population surplus to direct agricultural production) would be partly compensated for by the lack of trade and low population densities significantly reducing the spread of disease, but life would still be "nasty, brutish and short".
-
Jonas at 07:16 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
See also:
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2015-09-10/ecomodernism-a-response-to-my-critics
-
scaddenp at 07:14 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
Are you proposing massive depopulation of world? You might like to look at this table and see how feasible this is with current population. I guess everyone with very specialised skill-sets that depend on large population densities to make a living are now unskilled agricultural labour? No thanks.
-
villabolo at 06:32 AM on 21 October 2015The Brave New World of Ecomodernism
My "utopia" would be the opposite of ecomodernism. I believe that humanity should live in villages of 300-500 people spread out throughout the land with extensive wild natural areas.
Each village in the United States would have 1,000 acres (4 square kilometers) which would be about a third of its land. This would come out to 2 acres per person.
Food would be grown with permaculture food forests and some mechanized agriculture which is optimum for growing grains.
The remaining land would have its ecology reconstructed to what it was before the Clovis overkill. North America used to have lions, mammoths, giant ground sloths, camels as well as bison. They can either be substituted with their modern equivalent or brought back through genetic engineering.
Decentralized, human scale communities, with participatory democracies and surrounded by the ancient wilderness we once had.
-
Tom Dayton at 02:59 AM on 21 October 2015Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
As usual, Dilbert makes the point concisely:
Prev 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 Next
