Tiago Simões

Paul, I agree 100% that inching towards gertitude is the way to go.

I also enjoy imagining a more gert-y future.

My stumbling block here (relating to the babies vs no babies theme) would be, how would a gert village deal with its own population growth?

I don't like to imagine, 200 years from now, a gert nation at war to conquer lands from the remains of what we now call "ordinary people"! Of course that sounds nonsensical right now :) but that's how demography works.

Just to clarify: I would have liked to have a kid or two (my wife can't have kids). But I'm happy with our life, in spite of all the difficulties. I'm not in favor of either extreme.

Everything always depends... I think.

Jerry McIntire wrote:

Tiago Simões wrote:Others, like me, can't reach a single trace of actual wildlife in a thousand mile radius.

I hope you are able to move soon. But really, there is mo place without wildlife for a thousand mile radius. In the most densely populated cities, there are birds and fish and insects and squirrels and ...

All right, clarification, sorry for straying off topic:
I live in Portugal. There are some wild animals here, lots of birds, some rivers even have a few fish (don't know if I would risk eating them though).

Every square meter has been humanized at some point, most places have been inhabited continuously for some two or three thousand years. Some for 80.000 years. We had Neanderthal people here, interacting with some of  the first modern humans.

Not only there is zero old growth forest left, there is zero second and third and fourth growth forest. All of it has been harvested for timber, firewood, etc at least since the time when the Romans invaded here. Then the several peoples from central Europe came, then the Moors with their irrigation canals, then the middle ages and their wars, then the gigantic production of sailing ships in the 1500s, then coal and railways, and now the extremely flammable and inhospitable eucalyptus plantations for paper pulp.

Yes, some animals have managed to survive, but mostly by harvesting from human activity. Example: we have foxes, but they don't rely on wild rabbit. They are omnivores, often eating from our waste streams, and of course our poultry whenever they can. Lynx populations (recently reintroduced from Spain after having been locally extinct) are having a hard time coming back, because of not enough wild rabbit. I also heard that the only deer in Portugal are either in (managed) wildlife preserves, or in (heavily managed) private hunting preserves.

Nowhere can you find a scrap of nature that hasn't been heavily damaged for centuries. Outside the few state-managed nature preserves, just about everything that has trees in it is privately owned, and is either low scrub constantly at risk of burning (because no herbivores), or is a pine or eucalyptus plantation, usually with no undergrowth whatsoever.

I have a very small place to call home, only 5.000 sq meters (one and a quarter acre), inside a tiny village. I won't move away from here because there's no better place in my country to move to. And because I believe in fixing the mess left by my ancestors, instead of abandoning it and making a new mess somewhere else.

Maybe that's part of the reason why having "too many" kids, whatever that means, makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. It's not that I find it invariably a bad choice, I understand that in some contexts it may appear to be the best idea. But in my whole life, I always found myself surrounded by too many people, and too many reminders of past people invading the lands of previous people, again and again...

Sorry for the depressing text

I still feel this subject is being discussed with too little attention to the large scale patterns.

Even Paul's quote turned into a meme, while entirely true in a strict sense, only remains true in its proper context: yes, one human can change into a net positive force for the planet, but that argument breaks down at some point. 500 trillion humans, no matter how permie-esque they try to be, simply can't fit in this planet. Especially not if they still want some places to remain "zone 5".

So yes, some of us, like Josh, live in places with few other humans. Others, like me, can't reach a single trace of actual wildlife in a thousand mile radius.

But what was Paul's post about, really? Does it have a single answer, or like so many other things, "it depends"?

Josh Hoffman wrote:
We are moving in the other direction. We are soon to have 6 kids. I am pretty certain our little property can support them all, and their families, if they have them. If expansion is needed, it is available for cheap because we are not near a large city.

While I don't entirely disagree with most of the rest of what you wrote, I would like to ask you about this paragraph you wrote, but in a broader context:

Why is land available for cheap there? Is it always available everywhere away from large cities? What about in other countries?

Will it remain like that when the cities' unsustainability makes them gradually unlivable, and all those people start getting out?

Historically, how did people do that "expansion" thing? What did they displace when expanding?

And in the far future, how can we make sure the future generations will prioritize Nature Care over Lots of Kids? Which part(s) of your worldview are likely to remain relevant in the long run, and which will become a hindrance?

How can any of us tell whether the values we inherited from our parents/ teachers/ chosen books/ etc remain relevant here and now?

My thoughts on all this, to quote some guy with a much bigger beard than mine, is: "The opposite of a bad idea is usually another bad idea." The world we live in is always more complex, more nuanced, more unpredictable than we would like. No simple answers anywhere.

But that's just me...

This is absolutely great!

Would it be too much to ask about the original order in which all these formidable people gave their talks? Just because I heard Mark Shepard say something about Paul's presentation having been prior to his.

Not very important, I know... but I'm sure this information is probably already written somewhere...

In any case, thank you so much for this opportunity! It will take a good long while to go through it all!

Alan Burnett wrote:I'm dismayed by the idea that someone who truly cares about the future would consider their duty to avoid having children.

While I don't actually disagree entirely with you, I would like to challenge a few assumptions, if you don't mind. Please don't take this as a personal "rebuttal", my intention is to contribute to the conversation, and your words helped me clarify my thoughts.

Alan Burnett wrote:There will be a next generation, and they will carry the values imparted to them,

How many of your own values have been imparted to you by your own parents? In my case, maybe quite a few, but very far from all of them. And judging by the adults I know well enough to know their relationship with their parents, it's a very hit-and-miss situation. Curiously (and this might not be statistically significant), the people I know who have strong nature values and also have grown up children are less successful than average in imparting their values on to those children. Don't know why, it's just a recurrent pattern I've seen.

Alan Burnett wrote:Classic game theory says that you make the play that maximizes the chance of victory,

In my mind, the word "victory" pressuposes an adversary. If you're placing your set of values in a situation where victory or loss are the expected outcomes, your expectations will push the situation into a conflict/competition between your values and the adversary values, where one side wins and the remaining side(s) loose. I see this as a natural consequence of the choice of perspective.

But if there is no "other" to play a game against, game theory does not apply. My perspective, when I can reach it (which is not always), is to try to hold the "other" set of values to be just as valid and justifiable as my own. People are not evil. We humans sometimes make really lousy choices, but aside from serious mental illness contexts, we have reasons to make those choices. Each of us, at any given time, may be mistaken. And then find the mistake, fix it, and become a better person.

Alan Burnett wrote:My kids will grow up and enter the world as a reflection of my values.

This seems to me a risky assumption, for two reasons:
One, while your kids will grow up with you, there is no guarantee that they will still agree with your values when they grow up. Yes, you do your best for them, but not only can you (and your kids) make mistakes which upend entire worldviews for each other, but also there is more than one "right" set of values, and they are not always compatible with each other.
Two, this attitude has a lot of potential for encouraging "moral laziness", if you take my meaning. While values should be upheld when challenged by difficult situations, they should also be thoroughly questioned internally, preferably in a time and place of Peace. This is what keeps them sharp, and also what allows us to find subtle but crucial mistakes. If you don't question your values, sooner or later your kids will!

Alan Burnett wrote:What I fear is that people with pro-social values are so uncomfortable by the problems facing our species that they choose not to raise a family.

The way I see it, a person who has real, deep pro-social values, and lives truly by them, can probably influence everyone around them, regardless of being part of their family or not. These kinds of values have a tendency to be contagious

Alan Burnett wrote:Humanity has gotten through many tough times. Could they be so tough that you would choose not to contribute to the next generation?

The next couple of centuries might well be a lot tougher than what you seem to imagine. Then again, they might not. In any case, the choice of not having biological kids of your own does not seem (to my eyes) the same as not contributing to the happiness and well-being of the next generation. If a person sees an excessive number of human beings in the region where they live, not making more seems a sensible choice. Just as, if you live in a large farm in a sparsely populated region, having a few more humans around makes sense, I think.

Alan Burnett wrote:Would you suggest everyone do the same?

No, I wouldn't. I personally would like that every human being would, and could, do what seems best to them, according to their own hearts, brains and spirits, regardless of what anyone else chooses. Diversity is key!

Alan Burnett wrote:I believe anything short of total nuclear annihilation and humanity will continue on, generation after generation, finding joy, forming relationships, having children, continuing on as we always have. It's going to happen whether or not you have children.

For a while, until we become something else or go extinct, I believe the same. But this apparently seems to contradict what you said earlier, that it would be important for people with pro-social values to have kids. Have I missed something?

Alan Burnett wrote:There's also a self-indulgent piece to becoming a parent. It's pretty cool to have a little toddler that looks like me and wants to be like me. It's practical to have a helper happily following me with a basket while I pick green beans. It's gratifying to build a climbing structure or a sandbox and watch my kids have fun with it. We each get one shot in life, and becoming a parent is a pretty classic part of the human experience.

I take it that you haven't yet had the experience of having a teenaged kid

A Garfield Cat quote: "life is like mashed potatoes, you have to eat the lumps together with the good part". War is also a pretty classic part of the human experience. That's another reason why it's important to keep questioning your assumptions.

Alan Burnett wrote:To anyone who would want to influence the next generation with their values, but is discouraged because of their personal contribution to overpopulation, please consider becoming a foster parent.

Wholeheartedly agree. And there are even more equally good options aside from these two (having children or adopting) .

Please forgive me if I sounded too harsh at times. Again, I thank you for your words, because they helped me to write as well.

I've used flax fiber with no added "substances" for a few years, so far no problem. I assume it might not last as long, but on the other hand, me and all living stuff around me might last a bit longer!

There were a couple of plumbing parts, I think made of brass, that broke when I tried dismantling them, and now I try to use stainless steel whenever I can. No idea if that gooey stuff would have helped or not...

Good luck!

paul wheaton wrote:

Most humans don't make decisions based on rational information processes.

I think that they do it because they want goodies and luxury and monies.  It just happens to also be good for the environment.

Well, maybe I didn't say it the right way, but what I meant was, many people (and I actually mean people I know personally) never decide "I will do this because I expect that as a result". They make the kind of choices that feel less like a choice, and more like doing what they think is expected of them, usually subconsciously. Free will is scary, because it comes with responsibility.

Also, many people do their level best to avoid having to deal with themselves, leading to bad family arrangements, leading to an overwhelming need to be constantly busy doing nothing in particular, preferably out of the house. This makes Gertdom, and happiness, and even simple relaxation, a very scary prospect.

I would say, many people I know would be happy to get one or two of your permaculture bricks working in their lives, but if I even mention too soon the possibility that there may be dozens of other bricks, they get frightened and avoid any more bricks. If they suspect that what I'm doing with my bricks is an actual, livable permaculture life, I usually lose contact with them pretty quickly. (How dare I take so much freedom into my own hands! That's dangerous!) But, I've learned to respect these fears. They have a reason to exist.

Sorry for the rant... I  just don't see a very large amount of logical thinking in most people, and I think those of us who are used to logical thinking sometimes have trouble understanding those who aren't. They live differently, but they do have the right to live like that, and we can learn to live with them in harmony... if we are humble enough to learn from them about feelings and fears and vulnerabilities and stuff like that, which is as uncomfortable to me as responsibility and logic is to them.

Embracing diversity within...

paul wheaton wrote:
First, I think that if every american read my book ( https://permies.com/bwb ) then we would probably be carbon negative.  I think the level zero people would shift things down to 15 tons, the level one people would shift things down to 5 tons, and the rest would be carbon zero or carbon negative (possibly to the point of covering the footprint for several dozen people).
 

Why would you think that?

Most humans don't make decisions based on rational information processes. Even you have said something about things working out better when you just do what feels right for you, instead of what your brain tells you would theoretically work best.

Most people follow "successful" people, not by judging whether their actions made sense, but because "successful" people seem happier and more fulfilled. What catches someone's attention is not how well researched your book is, it's how happy and fulfilled you become by doing those things you wrote about.

Does this make sense?

You know, we're all just mere humans. Why would we be able to actually understand anything properly, much less make really good decisions about it?

If we humans are lucky enough, maybe some historians and sociologists a couple of centuries from now will have enough hindsight to figure out what we should have done. But who's to tell today that what we permies are doing is actually the best way to invest our time and energy? We can only do our best, and it will have to do. We believe in what we're doing.

Future generations will look back on us mostly like we look back on our ancestors: some really knew what they were doing, but most were clueless to the point of being harmful. What changes is mostly the context (society, ecology, etc.), but humans are and will remain only human.

Have kids, or don't have kids, mostly your decision, depends more on your particular context than on some global ideas about "shoulds". I can't have kids, don't have a choice, and have made peace with that. Not having kids frees up a lot of time to build a better life for me and my wife, make mistakes, figure stuff out, and hopefully serve as an example, but that's just as out-of-my-hands as the hypothetical life choices of my hypothetical kids.

Be the best version of yourself you can in all ways you're capable of, be really useful and caring towards others, and also demanding when that makes sense, keep the humility of remembering you might be wrong at any time... you know, the usual stuff. If you become a really good, strong, happy, fulfilled person, many around you will feel motivated to become like that as well, and the world gets a bit better.

It doesn't matter much whether those people around you are your kids or someone else's. Just be a really good you.

P.s. dear Paul, I write very little here, so please allow me this opportunity to thank you deeply for what you have done with your life so far. You have enabled many to become better humans.