Green nanotechnology and permaculture?

Within the framework of the principles of Bill Mollison and David Holmgren, would it be coherent to use green nanotechnology in permaculture projects such as agroforestry designs, or does this contradict the ethics of low energy use and minimal intervention? Where do we draw the line between ecological innovation and extractive technification? Does green nanotechnology in permaculture inevitably introduce a technological dependency that is incompatible with ecological resilience?

What do you think?
Is green nanotechnology compatible with permaculture?

I think that within a month of the first general-purpose nano-assembler being made, all of ecology will be lost and permaculture will be moot. We'll either survive the experience or, more likely, we won't. But the transformation wrought on the globe will be so great that everything about the way we think today will be obsolete.

Maybe we mean something different when talking about nanotechnology?

Hi Ronaldo and Christopher,

To me (an enineer), "nano" means very small, and "technology" is just the way human-made things work or perhaps our understanding of how things work. To me "nano-technology" means technology on a very small scale. I think plants are applying a lot of "nano-biology" which inspires engineers to invent all kind of things we call "nano-technology".

I don't think that Technology is good or bad in itselves. It depends on how we apply it. I think knitting is technology as well as building a house. More complex forms of technology are computers and AI. Technology is nothing to fear. Only people using it can harm us. As an engineer, I do feel a responibility for what I am working on. For me, weapons: NO! Bicycles: YES!

I am moving towards a more sustainable life. Therefore I think a lot about sustainable technology as well as technology applied to grow food. In the Netherlands, where I live, there are high tech farms that grow letuce under growlights. They have multiple growing units piled on top of each other, meters high! So they can grow a lot of lettuce on a small ground surface. I think it is verry cool, and maybe it helps settlers on Mars one day. However, as a Permie I wonder about the "law of conservation of energie". Even if one would use solar panels to produce the energy to make this light (only purple and red, because plants don't need the green light to grow), would one not need a larger surface than the piles of lettuce growing units take up? And to what ratio is surface uptake with regard to growing lettuce on that same surface in stead? (Not even considering the energy spend on manufacturing the units, the solar panels, the building. The watering systems etc).

Back to your question Ronaldo: I think permaculture teaches us to use all that nature brings to the table. When we use it right, we don't need that much technology. However, I am grateful for the way technology makes it possible to learn from each other here on permies.

So Ronaldo, what kind of "green nano technology" are you talking about?

I thought nanotechnology is a system that can be viewed in its entirety on the nanometer scale, just as microtechnology (e.g. a MEMS gyroscope) is a system that can be viewed on the micron scale.

Wikipedia tells me Forget-me-nots have the smallest pollen, with each grain just a few micrometers across—but that would be thousands of nanometers. So that is an example, at least, of microbiology rather than nano biology.

Green nanotechnology...maybe that's a good new name for soil life? Might get the staunchest agribusiness people to think about it differently.

I feel like life is already amazingly adaptable and cooperative. It seems like working with that, and working with and trusting in the unknown aspects of life, would be the path that I'd be most comfortable sticking with. To each their own however.

Ned Harr wrote:I thought nanotechnology is a system that can be viewed in its entirety on the nanometer scale...

Agreed!

Releasing green nanotechnology bots in the vicinity of AI server farms might be an interesting show to watch.

Otherwise, how would it add value above the natural systems we all rely on, which predate the existence of modern humans?

I don't really see how you'd practically use nanotechnology in agroforestry design? Or why? As I see it, a lot of the appeal of permaculture is that it uses tools that can be understood by anyone, which makes self-reliance and resilience possible. None of us will ever be able to make a nano-bot from scratch without the aid of all of the industrial system. If we start using (and eventually depending on) the most advanced products of that system, we're effectively at its mercy.

Of course, I can't build a computer from scratch, and still I use them. However, if all computers were to break down tomorrow, it wouldn't affect my ability to garden. If, on the other hand, I'd taught myself to garden with lots of computerised aids, and convinced myself that was the only way, I might be in trouble if they were no longer available.

In short, I don't see the benefit of nanotech in permaculture, I think incorporating it might be very destructive, and I'd rather put my trust in a system that's evolved over 3.8 billion years than in one which might possibly be invented ten years from now.

Nynke makes a good point about vertical agriculture, when all of the energy if figured in, what is the point? We have plenty of land for agriculture, we should look at making the land more resilient and productive. Rebuilding the soil is the new opportunity.