Greta says "How dare you?"

Abraham Palma wrote:Even knowledge is finite.

I can't wait until we reach its limit! Right now I think we're so far from it, that we may as well think it's unlimited. After all, we're just a "Type I" on the Kardashev scale.
One of the coolest Wikipedia articles: Timeline of the far future.

Nathaniel, you're flying high ;D
Ancient texts of all kinds are very inspirational, but shouldn't be followed too literally...

It's a very interesting topic, by the way! I loved Paul's video too, it's a great idea to explain the principles of permaculture with simple examples, such as heating the house. Or cooling. Most of permaculture is about the complexity, it's always "it depends", so it's a good idea to talk about experiments that everyone can perform.

Most people who are more into permaculture are very inqusitive, love to learn and to experiment; I think it's the curiosity that draws people to it, and the feeling of accomplishment when you grow your first tomato :D

Flora Eerschay wrote:
Ancient texts of all kinds are very inspirational, but shouldn't be followed too literally...

If there's a reservation made with laws based on Torah, I'm abandoning everything and anything it takes to get there. If such a place will ever exist, it will have to be all or nothing. Or else it would not be Torah.

But until then I can point my soul to the One that gives the Law and promote amongst my peers the legal provisions of infinite and perfect freedom.

I spend a lot of time reading supreme court reports and the history of law. I've taught myself to see how certain legal principles will affect society. I can assure all who may hear, from my years of study, that freedom does not come from man. I would imagine that if many on this permies forum can consider it beyond the manufactured revulsion against it taught by society, it would resonate extremely well with them. That, and if enough of us invoked the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and insisted on living out our moral convictions, we could have the freedom the "Department of Make You Sad" works tirelessly to destroy.

"All laws made by man are born, they live, and then they die." - Maxim of common law.

Well permaculture is definitely more on the science side; it can be a lifestyle, but it's not a religion. Like there are religious people who are also scientists, there can be religious people who practice permaculture; no problem with that. I'm just saying not to take the ancient texts too literally. You can, probably, find even a lot of practical knowledge in Torah and other texts, but it would be a bad idea to (for example) stone your enemies to death; also you don't have to freak out about menstrual blood that much ;)

More from my favourite astrophysicist about that, and other stuff also interesting from this (permaculture) point of view:

Well.....
Call me understudied, but a community based on the Torah (especially the part about the year of Jubilee)... With current population density.....would need a revolution every century or so to keep it from becoming an aristocracy.

One of the current problems is already an overload of owners hogging lands far beyond their ability to use,
Between governments, oligarchs, (Bill Gates owns 640,000 acres of farmland!) non-profits, (college legacies, Save the Pink Nosed Newt, WWF, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (and foundations for every other specie)) celebrities buying million acre ranches and military reservations, much of which is being held out of production,

We are at the cusp of death and pestilence being humanities best friend, (Soon to be exploited by a politician near you!)

It's not that we can't support current population density.....it's that anyone with the resources to do so...has already proven themselves far from altruistic.

Within spitting distance of you there will be dozens of people willing to buy dozens of acres, that they have no intention of working to "keep the neighbors from getting too close."

If we really want to make St. Greta's future bright..... population control either gets implemented, ...or starvation becomes the de-facto method of implementation....eventually.
And..... we need to get the largest hog's noses out of the trough...so someone else can get a drink.
Unused land is useless land. Homes need to be built on scrub lands, instead of tearing up fertile fields for developments, aquifers need to be monitored  (and maintained) and desalinization made a priority

And then if you can accomplish all that!..... You still need to address humanities drive to dominate, dominate the land, dominate the fauna, and dominate each other.
In any given group of people the most competitive.....will also be the most pragmatic, "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs" will be their motto, and they will happily sacrifice everything to be at the top of the heap. Love, family, and for damn sure your future.

Greta has much more to worry about then temperature fluctuation

Population density is a non-issue. Even if we were going with the Anglo-Saxon proscription of land ownership, there would be enough land for every head of household in America to have 38 acres of land. Even now! Arguments about population density are appeals to fear and emotion.

But people don't need 38 acres. They need significantly less. The idea from the seventh chapter of Isaiah that gets us through the drought in a transitional phase from slavery to freedom, each head of household only requires enough land for one cow and two sheep. Liberally construed this would be five acres. Conservatively it would be three. Good cause would be demanded as to why someone would hoard land, meaning that such actions would be up for review. After the people have what they need, then they can acquire what they want. The Law states that there should be no poor among us.

It is entirely reasonable for me to believe that any number of people could begin a community according to standards lined out in the Bible. The more the better.

I've devoted much time in studying this. Courts could be set up in the community pursuant to the common law as is mentioned in the seventh amendment. Article VI, paragraph 2 of the Constitution (the supremacy clause) brings forth the Magna Carta (the common law) into full force and effect. The common law would be the means of administration, and the Torah would be the paramount charter. Entering such a community would necessitate a contract agreeing to these terms which findings of such a court would take precedence in any Congressional article 1 court according to the Federal Arbitration Act! There have been shariah law courts that have formed around the nation successfully using these principles. The cherry on top is that it would be a court of original jurisdiction because it is in pursuance to the common law. One out of a million will appreciate this information, but there you go, millionth person!

Thank you for the video. I have a video from a philosopher that is a former satanist who worked with Anton LaVey. In this video he talks about socialism.
https://youtu.be/Ee2jKzCRVqE

After the people have what they need, then they can acquire what they want. The Law states that there should be no poor among us.

Which works pretty good....until the second generation when "what we want" has been established and once again we bang up against a shortage,
What then? We confiscate and reapportion the "what we want" to them that needs?  In that case we have nascent ...socialism!

Or when we run up against an even more uniform "common law" ....might makes right.
Variously expressed as "manifest destiny", the needs of the people / party / society, and the Will of God (in the finest Mosaic tradition of the move of the Israelites to the Promised Land!)

Even with your incredibly optimistic goal of 38 acres per head of household that leaves 3 generations (100 years) to 4 acres per head of household....counting on just a single split per generation....or if you fail to split it, motivation for fratricide, or fraud. (Supplanting the polite term in the case of Esau and Jacob!)
Any way you count it up either the population is voluntarily limited, at some point or starvation and strife do it for you.
It happens in nature, on cattle and sheep ranges, and with wolf populations, and to imagine it isn't going to happen to humanity is to ignore history...because it has ...frequently.

While I'm no fan of Law and Order...as we know it, I'm even less keen on the idea of competing jurisprudence's,
if you could wall off your society from all outside contact perhaps,
(but then its even fewer generations until population pressure would cause you to eye your neighbors inheritance with evil intent)
...but Sharia is definitely contrary to western law and to add the Law of Moses to the mix just begs for civil disorder.
We have enough problems with competing jurisdictions in any nation...let alone completely incompatible systems of law.

Although .... between Hebraic stoning, Islamic beheading, and the Wests suicidal hedonism we may delay the mandate for several generations!
(Wait A Minute... We're back to strife doing it for us....)

Not that I mean to discourage your hopes, I just shudder at the inherent carnage that seems to my poor old weak mind a logical extension...it aint like the Law kept the Israelites on the straight and narrow! ... Nor even a modestly trouble free history....

There must be fundamentalist Kibbutz's that you could test your notions on for size.

There will be cities where people can live. The Bible mandates that cities will be built for certain persons to dwell in. Don't let the idea of overpopulation discourage you. There's plenty of people that would rather be in cities than in an agrarian lifestyle. I'm making the argument that there's enough land for everyone if they so choose to live like that.

Don't forget that this community would be 100% consensual. The current laws would not allow for us to stone murderers and rapists. If we did make a court of original jurisdiction, we would be able to do this lawfully, but the current government would become angry that we went over their heads and they would go to war against us. Everything becomes a pissing match with the government and we have to pick our battles, so we would end up calling the county sheriff, who would be informed of everything we're doing anyway.

Don't forget also that where the Federal Arbitration Act is involved, there really is no competing jurisdictions. Really, they give courts of arbitration precedence! They've worked tirelessly to replace common law with Roman civil law for so long that we've come full circle! Contract law now enforces constitutional law. Who'da thought?

The fact is that it works for Islam, even in America. It can work for Torah.

As far as the law that there shall be no poor among you, this in no way implies a future police state. Why would anyone need 100 head of cattle in a Torah community? A Levite or priest must be present whenever an animal is butchered. Such massive amounts of land would only be established in the community after all the poor are accommodated. So one cow and two sheep.

This system would be the furthest thing from socialism. Watch that video I posted. The government would have no part in production or distribution of resources. This system, however, would be a network of grand juries. Grand juries are the highest authority in the land, who's powers exceed those enumerated in the Constitution. Each village would have two of them.

The power this community would have would grow with time and population. It would be a true de jure government by the people. It would be a shining city on a hill. And I dare say it's the only way to implement the laws that our ancestors preserved unto us. By the law we did conquer Britain, and by the law we will conquer America.

I would also like to point out that manifest destiny did not originate with the common law. It originated as Catholic doctrine so when knights would rape foreign women, it would deprive the (products of rape)s' claim on land because of their noble lineage. They were deemed legal monsters, which they then extended to the native Americans to deprive them of their own land here.

If it was up to me, all original charters with the natives would be reinstated and upheld! I'd give them their land back if it was up to me!

I do it all the time, but I am seeing a lot of straw men getting the shit kicked out of them on this thread.

The nature of socialism is to eventually "point the finger" at everyone.
As soon as their villain is exterminated or canceled, they move on to the next "bad guy", until they, themselves are the only ones left.

Your next.....

Nathaniel Swasey wrote:Population density is a non-issue. Even if we were going with the Anglo-Saxon proscription of land ownership, there would be enough land for every head of household in America to have 38 acres of land. Even now! Arguments about population density are appeals to fear and emotion.

Really? How about over here in Denmark there's enough land for 1.9 acres per person, but not all that land is usable, lots is under towns, roads, other buildings, it can be sand dunes and swamps there is just over 1 acre of "farmland" per person here. The same applies in the USA not much you can do in Death valley is there? farm sand? There's less than an acre per person in the UK and a lot more unusable hills as well. I'm not even going to start on places like Taiwan with three times the population density. And remember those numbers you are looking at include wild lands, if we spread the population out like that there will be no wildlife at all.

It's amazing to me that we're having this debate here on permies. Wasn't it Geoff Lawton that said all problems can be fixed in a garden? Where does future population purges play into that?

I don't believe population purges are ever necessary. I believe that humans are adaptable creatures. If it comes to living in cities, then we can live in cities. At least we'll have good laws there.

It would be my intention to give allodial title on the land to whoever gets it. If there's a system of grand juries, they would be able to make adjustments that would help them in that time. I agree that an inheritance should be given.

The idea is that our ancestors gave us an awesome system that we never really implemented correctly. It's my desire to use all of it. The common law and the Torah.

Isaiah 1:26 KJV — And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city.

2 Esdras 13:42-44 But they took this counsel among themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the heathen, and go forth into a further country, where never mankind dwelt, That they might there keep their statutes, which they never kept in their own land. And they entered into Euphrates by the narrow places of the river. For the most High then shewed signs for them, and held still the flood, till they were passed over.

I'll work with what I can get. I seek not for power, but to pull it down. If this system went up and running, tyranny would be impossible wherever it went. Future purges would be impossible. People would flee from population purges to this system. There would be no poor there.

If you think that we would destroy the world because of overpopulation, then so be it!

Genesis 9:6 KJV — Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Lawton said all the problems can be fixed in a garden.
He never mentioned growing our population to the infinite. He never said to claim every little piece of land for people benefit, leaving nothing to the wild life. He never said we all should live with whatever we can grow in just 1 acre. He never said to consume only food from the garden. (In short, he never said grow and multiply, or to rule over the creation, that's the other guy in your ancient book written for problems of other times.)

But rather that we can reverse the erosion of the soils, that we can feed people again with just renewable sources (permanently), that we aren't doomed to use pesticides or artificial fertilizers, that we can put carbon back on the soils and reverse and mitigate climate change, and that we can be more resilient by producing most of what we need nearby. These are grand achievements, but they don't live up to your expectations.

Personally, I don't think permaculture farms produce more than industrial farms, but they are the only sensible thing to do in degraded soils. So, even if it produces less in the same land, permaculture gardens can produce where it doesn't make economic sense with industrial methods, so in a sense it can increase production by putting some useless land into production again. But if we were to replace every industrial exploitation to permaculture methods right now, there would be not enough resources for everyone. By resources I mean not only food, but fibers, timber, medicines, oils, rubber, clean water, and a excedent for the bad times, everything that we need for a luxurious life, like Wheaton likes to say.

Staff have deleted a lot of posts in this thread - and I think a lot more will be deleted.  This post is to act as a reminder that politics and religion are to be posted in the cider press.  So if you put a lot of work into a post and you want people to see it, you really need to post to the cider press - if you post it here, there is a good chance it will disappear quickly.

So I think we are missing the point somewhat or leaving out the most important.  The best conclusion for a life is that it was a happy one.  Permaculture is so nice because it teaches you in a short course what would take a long time to observe from nature.  Part of that teaching is that if you really want something, then figure out a way to get it without making someone else buy it for you.  Part of that teaching is that more money will not necessarily buy you more happiness.  This morning I woke up thinking of how something positive can come out of all this.  We should get together with our local people (neighbors), and our small towns (community).  We should realize that we all have strengths that we should contribute to help, but that we should ALL contribute.  This would make us all happy and fulfilled.  No need to fight each other or to watch so many bad examples.  For some of us, we already have great communities that is made more interesting by different colors and ethnicities, but we are watching what is happening afar and applying it to our great community.  We should all slow down a minute, shut off the electricity, and realize that the treasure can be in our own backyard.  There will always be a few bad apples to exclude from that circle.  If they are excluded much, perhaps they will change their mind, move, or just keep their own company.

paul wheaton wrote:My political position is:  we have what we have and changing stuff at that level is just not my thing.  I choose to try to move forward despite the political obstacles - make the best of it.  

I agree with the position that changing the political framework probably won't solve the carbon footprint issue.  But the things I advocate WILL solve the carbon footprint issue despite the political framework.  
...

I like your position for its realism and positive attitude towards making the most of human potential to do good things, including using natural resources efficiently and effectively. Personally I have learned that my initial acceptance of the idea that carbon dioxide emissions had become somewhat dangerous somehow wasn't as valid as I thought, but that's separate from treating the people and resources available to me with care.

Since childhood I've been driven to make things. I'm 75 now, so that's a long run and I'm not done. I had to learn some things the hard way, and I wouldn't recommend trying to farm like it was 1920 -- unless you want to see if your body can stand it. Modern tools are great enablers, and being able to use them now is a big part of seeing myself carrying on for a couple more decades at least. I'm delighted to have found the Permies community, certain that it will help that to happen. I came for the hugelkultur and stayed for the rocket mass heaters and more. Permaculture forever! But that's the main idea (and redundant☺), isn't it?

I think Greta may have sincerely felt what she was saying but she’s also a really good actress. If you look there’s a point when she takes a breath and then she puts that very same exact look on her face that same emotion back on. That’s not to say it isn’t a legitimate cry for help or expression of her feelings but She’s the one doing this because she figured out or was groomed to create a certain effect.

she takes a breath and then she puts that very same exact look on her face

This isn't surprising, given that Greta Thunberg lives with Asperger Syndrome. A common manifestation of Asperger in social interaction is "impaired nonverbal behaviors in areas such as eye contact, facial expression, posture, and gesture".

Asperger Syndrome

People on the autistic scale don't have the same affect (way of showing emotions) as "normal" humans.  

love greta.
yeah ok she's young, she hasnt figured out how complicated things can be, how most people are doing the best they can, and etc. i cant wait to see where she comes to once she matures.
agreed,  it would be great if she finds permaculture and related ideas.
for now she's the child whos calling out the emperor on his lack of clothes - crystal clear - definitely an old soul.
i dont see any acting here at all - this is 110% sincere, in a way most humans arent brave enough to express.

as to the other tangents and ideas on this thread - religion and spirituality, and politics are definitely tied into the grand picture of the general PROBLEM
- but what is that root thats deep enough to heal all these ideologies and distorted world views that allows us to treat our earth so poorly ?

i do believe that you have to get into the purple here, and woo woo, i think the fundamental deep problems are spiritual / mental ...or at least that is deep enough- that a shift in ideology is the deep root that shifts everything else - politics and religion included, and shapes our cultural narrative to head off into a healthier- more holistic- direction.

the fundamental shift that needs to happen yesterday has to do with acknowledging and respecting our interdependence with all of life, the human and non human peoples - to end exploitation, objectifying and commodification of each other and especially "re" source / sources - we need to learn to use sources in a balanced way that allows regeneration....instead of either conservation or rape....using resources responsibly and at sustainable levels.

that means a lot of LESS, less consumption, less stuff, less room, less travel especially.
so without trying to ruffle anyones feathers here - but these things are not compatible to the kind of dark aspects of capitalism, the illusion of infinite growth, the illusion and creation of scarcity, and even illusions around distorted forms of "private property". without addressing the fundamental systemic issues of capitalism, well this is central in our current dire problems atm. then again i do believe there can be kinds of ethical capitalism, and i think the best thing is a big messy mix up of some aspects of capitalism, socialism, volunteerism, with a strong gifting economy.