"Although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcoming of it." - Helen Keller
--
Jeremiah Bailey
Central Indiana
TCLynx
My books, movies, videos, podcasts, events ... the big collection of paul wheaton stuff!
It's C. Hopper but you can call me Chopper.
"When there is no life in the soil it is just dirt."
"MagicDave"
Our inability to change everything should not stop us from changing what we can.
Robert Ray wrote:I personally don't think that sustainable means that I would be static. I understand that I have to have some input through energy expended to keep my gardens up. I evolve through replacing plants that don't perform with plants that perform better. So even though I am guilty of bastardizing the word I still use sustainable. Restorative isn't quite the right word either. Maybe Hippocratic land use is what I do.
"When there is no life in the soil it is just dirt."
"MagicDave"
Our inability to change everything should not stop us from changing what we can.
Fred Morgan wrote:I like the idea of banking, when the bank is my land. Used to be the meaning when you banked up something. When I do something sustainably, it means that I am saving in something that won't deflate overnight, my land, my water, my infrastructure.
Fred Morgan wrote:An example, I see people cutting trees down in a field that weren't crowded. The trees could have continued to grow, getting larger, but they cut them down to put the money in the bank. Weird, very weird. Better off to let them keep growing until they out grew their space.
paul wheaton wrote:
In the broad spectrum of all the things that can happen, there is:
1) fast death
10) medium speed death
100) slow death
1000) death that is really, really slow
1416) sustainable - barely avoiding death, but no more
2000) _________
10,000) _______
100,000) ________
1,000,000) ________
I would like to find the words for the blanks.
Growth? Prosperity?
Any ideas? Surely there are some excellent words and they just aren't popping into my head right now.
It's C. Hopper but you can call me Chopper.
Lloyd George Wrote:
all of life is just ahead of death..it is the nature of life...
It can be done!
"By God Woodrow, it's not dyin' I'm talkin' about. It's livin'." -Augustus McCrae
Max Kennedy wrote:Sustainable is not a constant. What is bare sustenance for a thousand is a bountiful plenty for a hundred. In many parts of the world we are well beyond the 1000 level mark hence the deaths in Africa due to drought and famine. Until we approach reproduction as a responsibility not a right and learn to differentiate between need and want, subsistence is what we will turn the bounty of nature into.
Walter Jeffries wrote:
I log, sustainably. Perhaps as a non-logger you don't see it but that tree out in the field may be at its optimal point for me to cut it and market it. That then pays the (high) real estate taxes so I can continue stewarding our land. As a forester I make judgements on each tree, millions of them, thinking about should they continue to grow, be culled, provide shade, provide habitat for wildlife, provide seed for the next generation, nuts for my livestock, etc. Just leaving the tree there until it falls down does not help make my farm and forest land continue. If I can't pay my taxes then the government takes away my land and gives it to someone else who builds condos. The trees are a crop and I farm them. A very long term crop that may take 70 to 100 years to grow, easily.
Sustainable Plantations and Agroforestry in Costa Rica
M Troyka wrote: I think the more important measure is how many farmers and acres of land is required to feed x number of people. If it takes 1000 farmers and a million acres to feed 1000 people, I wouldn't say you're doing too well.
EDIT: I think variety is equally important. There used to be over 130 different varieties of apples grown in the US, and now there are only about 12.
It can be done!
Max Kennedy wrote:
M Troyka wrote: I think the more important measure is how many farmers and acres of land is required to feed x number of people. If it takes 1000 farmers and a million acres to feed 1000 people, I wouldn't say you're doing too well.
EDIT: I think variety is equally important. There used to be over 130 different varieties of apples grown in the US, and now there are only about 12.
I respectfully disagree. Current high intensity farming methods have done much to degrade soil and exhaust water supplies. Setting the highest productivity as our goal is what has led us into the realm of industrial agriculture and the Monsanto's of the world. Destroying our resources, as we are doing with our soils and water, is NOT a laudable goal. In the past farming practices acted to preserve if not enhance the natural fertility of the soil. Making the deserts of the world bloom and produce has depleted aquifers the world over, poisoned waterways with fertilizer runoff, and sown salt on huge tracts of land. What needs to be considered is how much productivity can be maintained indefinitely on any parcel of land given it's soil, water and climate characteristics. If we try to support more people than the land can support there will be an eventual balancing due to famine when the system collapses. It isn't a matter of if but one of when. In effect targeting maximum productivity is stealing resources from our children and grand children. More farmers on smaller farms can promote increased productivity through increased variety of produce grown at differing trophic levels on the same land. The negative is this comes at the expense of increased personal/corporate profit, our current and over-riding god.
It seems to me that in most cases when considering logging, the serious damage is clear cutting. I grew up in the northeast where hardwood logging has been a way of life for over 100 years. The area where I lived has been selective cutting rock maple and white ash over multiple generations. I have heard that in recent years the white ash has been considerably depleted though. Those "logging families" have always made their living "working in the woods" and understood that cutting down large tracts was counter productive. There are alternatives to wood however and I for one have been doing my part for the legalization of industrial hemp.Fred Morgan wrote:
Walter Jeffries wrote:
I log, sustainably. Perhaps as a non-logger you don't see it but that tree out in the field may be at its optimal point for me to cut it and market it. That then pays the (high) real estate taxes so I can continue stewarding our land. As a forester I make judgements on each tree, millions of them, thinking about should they continue to grow, be culled, provide shade, provide habitat for wildlife, provide seed for the next generation, nuts for my livestock, etc. Just leaving the tree there until it falls down does not help make my farm and forest land continue. If I can't pay my taxes then the government takes away my land and gives it to someone else who builds condos. The trees are a crop and I farm them. A very long term crop that may take 70 to 100 years to grow, easily.
What do you mean, as a non-logger? I guess I am not a logger, I just employee those who do... I am own plantations of forests, which we planted. My comment was about someone cutting down a tree to put the money in the bank, though there was plenty of space for it to continue to grow. Notice, I didn't say anything about letting a tree grow till it dies. The increase in the value of the tree is more than you can normally get in a bank, or many investments, so it is wiser to let the tree just keep growing till you need the money.
But, if you need the money to pay your taxes, well then of course it makes sense - or even a well earned vacation. But to merely convert a growing tree into cash to store in a bank, that is just weird to me.
"When there is no life in the soil it is just dirt."
"MagicDave"
Patty Hankins wrote:
I have also read reviews of a book called PLENITUDE that documents various endeavors along the line of OSE that show that it is toxic politics and not lack of resources that cause scarcity. I don't have the book yet.
It can be done!
paul wheaton wrote:The word sustainable is used a lot these days, but it doesn't really fit what I want to do.
In the broad spectrum of all the things that can happen, there is:
1) fast death
10) medium speed death
100) slow death
1000) death that is really, really slow
1416) sustainable - barely avoiding death, but no more
2000) _________
10,000) _______
100,000) ________
1,000,000) ________
I would like to find the words for the blanks.
Growth? Prosperity?
Any ideas? Surely there are some excellent words and they just aren't popping into my head right now.
Help me develop a design kit for permaculture enthusiasts: http://legendofthegreek.com/permaculture-planning-pack/
Max Kennedy wrote:After looking at this concept of post scarcity I cannot agree with it. If one applies everything spoken of to 7 billion people the math shows we would still do irreparable harm to the environment. Though toxic politics definitely plays a big role in exacerbating scarcity due to unnecessary poverty even without it there is simply not enough for everyone without a significant decrease in expectations regarding material, energy, mobility, food, etc. The thoughts that business as usual cannot be maintained is true but the replacement being presented is just as unsustainable. To be post scarcity we need a significant decrease in population as well as migrating from a disposable society to one of reuse and limiting resource extraction to sustainable levels.
It can be done!
My books, movies, videos, podcasts, events ... the big collection of paul wheaton stuff!
Paul Cereghino- Ecosystem Guild
Maritime Temperate Coniferous Rainforest - Mild Wet Winter, Dry Summer
She still doesn't approve of my superhero lifestyle. Or this shameless plug:
Free Seed Starting ebook!
https://permies.com/t/274152/Orta-Guide-Seed-Starting-Free
|