R Spencer wrote:
That said, lasting memories don't feel like satisfaction for the need to 'keep the torch burning'. If one puts in a ton of work over a lifetime into creating a wonderful symbiosis with nature where humans, trees, and many allies thrive together, ain't it a shame for that person to pass on and that system to be left in the hands of folks who might screw it up? If the trees took over, that'd be one thing, but realistically without a kid or meaningful successor in a will, the state and/or highest bidder will become the new land manager (for better or worse).
So I ask: what is succession for the childless? How to keep the momentum of a wonderful homestead, farm, forest going in the right direction?
R Spencer wrote:... but I also seek answers from any and all contexts, especially from non-human ones.
Lucrecia Anderson wrote:First off, I don't think it is at all realistic to expect that biological children would make any difference with regard to the land being misused after your death (unless of course you are Amish and leave it to your farming offspring).
James Freyr wrote:This made me smile, but I'm a terrestrial. I do hope that if we have any non-terrestrials here on permies, that they please chime in. I'm a believer. :)