h a l f b a k e r yReplace "light" with "sausages" and this may work...
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Biodiversity, planting small areas, reusing resources,
merging with nature, for example having insects, birds,
wild animals and microorganisms all share and assist each
other: These are the foundations of Permaculture.
Industrial, wide area plantations, using a single type of
crop over a
large area, removing all other plants and trees,
flattening any hills, killing all insects and bio-organisms -
that is the way the millions, no billions of people feed
themselves today. If we stop this system, most of us will
be without food.
In fact in the early 1980's I remember as a teenager
reading that the world would over populate and there would
be a food shortage by 1999. And they were not talking
about radioactivity killing the Japanese fish or the
Ukrainian grain (except Douglas Hofstadter, who
specifically warned and still does, of that)
Permaculture is definitely something which would be beneficial to the world, for both humans and animals: - we
the people, would be closer to nature, we would have more
oxygen and cleaner air, more cooperative people, more
robustness against sickness, less human killing off of
species (and of each other), cleaner air, darker nights,
everything more natural while more comfortable. Can it
be attained? Can it supply the vast quantities of produce
needed for thriving cities? The answer is probably "yes
with technology" - specific technology for Permaculture.
Every field that is plowed today with a giant John-Deer,
must be replaced by a group of small robots that will do the
job, while allowing for trees to grow in the middle, and for
a mole hill to exist.
It can be done. It IS done on a small scale. In home
gardens, where nobody wants to see only one kind of grain
for miles and miles. So we need to build an extensive
system for the replacing of industrial agriculture with
permaculture.
Silent Running
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067756/
The irony is overwhelming. [8th of 7, Mar 27 2011]
Soyatein
http://www.ishopind...arian-pr-24011.html
"containing nourishing protein food for the entire family." I eat a lot of it actually. [rcarty, Mar 27 2011]
The only way to go. Seven acres of produce from one acre of garden.
http://www.montreal...he_7-Layered_Garden
[2 fries shy of a happy meal, Mar 27 2011]
small equipment
http://www.ditchwitch.com/zahn/
[EdwinBakery, Mar 28 2011]
small equipment
http://www.toro.com...ssional/sws/loader/
[EdwinBakery, Mar 28 2011]
small equipment
http://www.amazon.c...=1301325269&sr=8-10
[EdwinBakery, Mar 28 2011]
small equipment
http://www.messicks...ompactTractors.aspx
Even though it's small it still has a PTO [EdwinBakery, Mar 28 2011]
small equipment - trencher
http://www.northern...200112524_200112524
trencher for only $1200 (US $) [EdwinBakery, Mar 28 2011]
perennial agriculture
http://blogs.nation...al-grain-crops.html
silly idea; fool's errand. Will only amount to maybe cheaper animal feed [EdwinBakery, Mar 28 2011]
terra preta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta
this has potential also [EdwinBakery, Mar 28 2011]
small scale grain harvest
http://www.prairieh...ster_Hand_Held.html
still kind of expensive at around $1,000 [EdwinBakery, Mar 28 2011]
Appropriate technology
http://en.wikipedia...ropriate_technology
[briancady413, Mar 29 2011]
Boiling water weed killer
http://www.thedaily...eed-killer#fbIndex2
[pashute, Jul 26 2011]
Hot water as pesticide
http://en.wikipedia...ticide#Alternatives
[pashute, Jul 26 2011]
About Organic Cotton website
http://www.aboutorg...rg/woven-world.html
Turns out cotton growing is one of the largest consumers of pesticides [pashute, Jul 26 2011]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
Dear [pashute], I was once concerned about the environment, but now I look at futile attempts at the preservation / conservation of the Earth with a type of cynicism. I see statistics for global population growth as being more significant to social theory/ sociology than ecology. The best stewards for the planet are not robots, but humans which there is an overabundance of. If many people were given the opportunity to live simple lives without intensive technological education, such as that required to produce robots, they could work in local initiatives. However, the trajectory is towards a technological solution to an yet unknown, but perhaps speculatively predictable, future crisis caused by that same technological development. |
|
| |
[rcarty] is psychic. That was largely the point I was going
to make. |
|
| |
We can either solve a thousand problems temporarily, or
one problem permanently. |
|
| |
We can either tackle CO2 emissions, soil erosion, food
shortages, monocultures, habitat erosion, noise pollution,
light pollution, landfills, energy generation and everything
else, by reducing our lifestyles (or insisting that the rest of
the world lives at a lower level than we do) and our
ambitions and by developing a host of band-aid solutions. |
|
| |
OR we reduce our population back to something sensible -
maybe the one or two billion that it was only few decades.
If we do that, then we solve all of those problems in one
go. We can all afford to live the high-tech, carbon-rich
meat-based lifestyle which we all want (and will all get, by
hook or by crook, in the long term), without having a
terrible impact on the earth. |
|
| |
The earth is a big place, and it can handle a lot of crap.
But when there are so damned many of us, even knitting
our own wholegrain windmills is not going to save us or the
planet in the long time. |
|
| |
It always makes me laugh when people tell me they want
to save the planet for their children. It's their children
(plural rather than singular) which are the damned
problem. |
|
| |
<Obligatory Soylent Green reference> |
|
| |
Obligatory soylent green link. A product of populous India. |
|
| |
You are using the word "technology" in a somewhat Clarkean
sense. |
|
| |
Arthur C. Clarke, or Jeremy Clarkson ? |
|
| |
Sri Lankabhimanya Sir Arthur Charles Clarke |
|
| |
Yes, but it's better to be clear about these things. |
|
| |
It seems the Iranian Shiite supported "protests"
around the world are a first step in MB's 2nd
proposal. |
|
| |
//Humans are not vermin// |
|
| |
You might need to re-define vermin. |
|
| |
Viewed objectively, Earth is overrun with human vermin. |
|
| |
Of course, we don't view Earth objectively. |
|
| |
I wonder what conditions would allow Earth to support 42 billion humans? How many species would become extinct as a result? |
|
| |
Whoa whoa whoa! Just in case anyone misunderhended
my intention - I believe there are too many of us, but I do
not think anyone should leave. We (and I mean all of us)
should simply shave a bit of our procreation rate from 1.03
(or whatever it is now) to 0.97 - just take it a bit slower,
and the population will shrink gently instead of expanding.
That's all. So please do not bandy words like "racist", "mass
suicide" or "shiite" around, at least if you're referring to my
non-suggestion. |
|
| |
As for how many people the earth can support - yes,
probably several 10s of billions. I just think we can live
happier and more comfortable lives without having to live
on algae and eat the rain-forests if there aren't so many of
us. |
|
| |
Just a point, but the inherent population growth rate in developed countries tends to slip negative. Immigration offsets this in many of them, but a stable, developed world would most likely have a stable population. |
|
| |
Technically vermin is not vermin. Humans designate whatever vermin is. There are seven billion people on Earth so the referent for anyone's usage of 'human' surely does not take into account everyone. Also there are people in the world who have their own name for who / what they are. You'll be surprised who's out there, and what goes on. I think we're all on the proverbial ship of fools. Nobody knows the ultimate destination. We're all aboard and taking on new crew for either Star Wars / Star Trek simulacra of simulacra, or the destruction of the Earth by a normal accident on the way there. You're right humans are not vermin, because we're actually not whatever we tell ourselves we are. We're not even human, that's just a really good idea for us to have. But we each have a 'carrying capacity' for being human too, and that's a certain amount of fear, hunger, hatred, blood alcohol, etc. |
|
| |
any agriculture is going to involve killing off competitors (weeds) and predators (pests). Indeed it's part of the very definition of agriculture - once you're planting things you want to eat and ensuring that they grow, it necessarily involves getting rid of the native vegetation. There are only a few instances here and there of growing a few fruit trees in the woods and then harvesting from those - and it's only fruit trees, so it can't provide any significant food/calories for populations. |
|
| |
also, there are plenty of smaller-scale construction/agricultural equipment available. They weigh less than 1500 lbs, and you stand at the back, and they can even take different attachments. And then of course there are typical garden-scale machines - push-behind tillers, weed whackers, mini trenchers, etc. There's plenty of cheaper, small scale stuff. |
|
| |
Now, are we talking about perennial agriculture culture- that is the idea to replace all grains with perennial versions of grain to stop erosion and the work of replanting? Becasue that idea is nuts, that's never going to happen. The guy working on that found one nice grain from the midwest, that could be useful in producing feed, but that's about it. You're never going to replace corn, wheat, rice, etc. and we're nowhere near genetically engineering them to become perennial. It's a fool's errand. |
|
| |
after providing my link, I read a little bit of the article, and it says this guy found a wild relative of wheat that's perennial. If they do some genetic manipulation and breeding and make a tasty, bread-makeable (needs enough gluten) perennial version of wheat then it would indeed be a godsend. Would be even better if it's engineered with the roundup ready gene. Then all farming would involve would be planting once and from there on only spreading fertilizers, spraying weed-killer, then harvesting with combines every year. Drastic saving in cost by skipping the step in planting and taking care of sensitive seedlings. |
|
| |
the only equipment that's really hard to find is a small and cheap plow. The cheapest/smallest is using a sub-compact tractor. |
|
| |
sub-compact tractors from what I understand start at $8,000 new - probably will be more like $10,00 or more when all is said and done after you purchase it. |
|
| |
this was in fact so successful that there were huge civilizations in the amazon before the Spanish brought diseases. The first Spaniard writes accounts of seeing like 10,000 + people centralized cities deliberately planned and built circular with city walls. The remains of the city walls have been found by an archeologist. Most remains are gone however because wood was their only building material - there was no stone available. |
|
| |
Not much difference between a small plow and a roto-tiller with a single blade. |
|
| |
I envision specific technology for Permaculture. Not
just small tractors. Examples to come when I get
some time. |
|
| |
Has anyone calculated the amount of land that needs to
be devoted to feeding an individual, either as part of an
industrial agriculture, or as a sort of homestead operation? |
|
| |
The latter might well be better environmentally "per
square metre". It might even be better environmentally
"per person fed", but I'm not sure the second point has
been proven. |
|
| |
In other words, is it better to feed a person by having 1
acre (or whatever it needs) under industrial agriculture, or
by having 3 acres (or whatever it needs) under "small-
scale" farming? |
|
| |
I'm not pre-judging, just asking. |
|
| |
[MB] to some extent it depends on what is being
grown and how it is being grown. Truck gardens
(vegetables, fruits) don't benefit from economies
of scale as much as grain crops (for instance) do,
and they're also more expensive to transport long
distances. |
|
| |
In addition, it's practical to grow many of your own
vegetable needs in a fairly small plot (a 2m square
bed will provide more than enough tomatoes for
immediate consumption and canning/freezing for
1-2 people). As a result it's possible to grow these
in green space already associated with residential
areas, and not require extensive land set aside for
this purpose. (And this ignores the benefits of
not spending fertilizer/mowing/lawn care on grass
for purely decorative reasons). |
|
| |
In addition, the small areas required for this are
much more practical for
composting/vermiposting, companion planting,
and intercropping, all techniques that increase
the yield in a small area, but are not (yet)
practical for the automation used on large farms. |
|
| |
As such, growing your own local tomatoes is
probably going to be more efficient on a per
person fed, growing your own wheat, probably
not. And I'm afraid I don't have specific numbers
to back this up, just a general sense of the effort
and inputs involved. |
|
| |
Yes, but if you're hoping to benefit the environment,
would
you not do better to let a commercial grower produce your
tomatoes in a quarter of the space, and turn your garden
into a bramble or nettle thicket? You could also use the
time and effort saved to build a bat-box or help wayward
toads cross the road. |
|
| |
I'm not trying to be facetious, but I have this half-idea that
intensive agriculture actually uses less of the environment
than domestic agriculture. I mean, I could clear my woods
and use them to become self-sufficient, but I wonder if
they're not better remaining as woods? |
|
| |
A commercial grower is not going to produce
tomatoes (or lettuce, or carrots, spinach, etc.) in
a
quarter of the space, especially if the home
grower does use inter-cropping, and the
commercial grower is going to use more fertilizer
and insecticides since they use it as routine rather
than as needed. The home grower can improve it
even more by composting their own materials
rather than petroleum based fertilizer and
companion planting for pest control. Most
vegetables have a maximum growth density that
home growth will reach just as easily as the
commercial grower. |
|
| |
Add in the cost of transporting vegetables cross-
country, and the home grower is going to be far
more efficient. |
|
| |
I agree that cutting down woods probably doesn't
make sense (although planting nut or fruit trees in
the woods might) as mature woodlands are great
carbon sinks. Since you can produce dense
vegetables in a small enough space that you can
probably use lawn space that already exists,
however, that's usually not a major issue. |
|
| |
Admittedly my favorite is edible landscaping. If
you're going to have a hedge, plant blueberries
instead of boxwoods. If you're going to have a
fence, plant berry bushes along it. Instead of a
decorative (non-fruiting) tree plant apples or
cherries or peaches. If you have woods, plant
chestnut or walnut (which can also be harvested
for lumber in 50 years). If you have flower
gardens, interplant greens with attractive leaves
or stalks. |
|
| |
The point is that people can take care of their
lawns and landscapes or they can grow food. Thus
even it was less efficient than commercial
agriculture, it's energy that would be spent
anyway. |
|
| |
That being said, I am reasonably sure it's not less
efficient for most vegetables to be home grown. |
|
| |
[MechE] and [MechE] - interesting points - thanks. |
|
| |
Add to that, that sustainable systems are just
that: sustainable. |
|
| |
Ancient Babylon today is barren land, because of
salting, after overuse for thousands of years (2 or 3
for the Babylonian system) |
|
| |
Growing things using biodiversity and sustainable
methods is technologically plausible and would
REDUCE the areas needed for growing, compacting
them, and using them to the better. Today's
industrial agriculture is simply not thinking in the
long run, which is quickly becoming shorter and
shorter. |
|
| |
It turns out that all cotton grown in Israel is done
with organic methods (boiled water and salt)! And
there are other examples of emerging techniques. |
|
| |
For large cities there are also agricultural towers
being proposed. |
|
| |
But your correct, MB, it would be good and
interesting to have some real
numbers. |
|
| |
[RCarty] - I'm not talking about the "green"
rhetoric and jargon. 100 years ago Europe and
Australia lived in black smoke. Then it changed.
Sidney is one of the most beautiful places to be
at. The change was planned. |
|
| |
30 years ago, and I can attest to that, I was 17,
Haifa was a beautiful city to look at, and Jerusalem
had clear air, depicted in a famous song. Then
came "the rock law" where all buildings must be
covered with white stone. Within two years
Jerusalem became one of the dustiest cities in the
world. Road construction (in which I worked -
computerizing it's financials) was increased, and
with it a big black line drawn on the whole Israeli
coast. Receding every Saturday, and Disappearing
once a year on Yom Kippur. |
|
| |
So, my opinion is that we can and should change
things. And the way to go is to introduce
technology that will enable it. (Join
GreenWorldGroup on Linkedin) |
|
| |
Hey [brian] thanks!! So it's baked. All the better. |
|
| |
//all cotton grown in Israel is done with organic methods (boiled water and salt)// |
|
| |
What? What do you mean by this? |
|
| |
do you mean the processing of the harvested cotton? |
|
| |
I mean without pesticides. There was a writeup
about it in one of the major papers a few years
back. I think Maariv. Once they changed over, it
was worth it to change the processing too. |
|
| |
So now supposedly all Israeli cotton is all organic,
from the growing to processing (I'm sure it's not
100%...) |
|
| |
Looked it up. First Hebrew link in google tells the
tale. In the south of the country it turns out, the
organic system was abandoned for various reasons,
although costs for growing both ways are very
similar (long explanation why). So only the
northern Israeli cotton is organic. |
|
| |
boiled water and salt can act as pesticides? |
|
| |
I think maybe that refers to the processing - like they boil the ginned cotton in salty water as part of the processing |
|
| |
boiled water and salt can act as pesticides. See
link.
Sorry, link is about boiled water as herbicide. |
|
| |
I found that Prof. Oded Yekutieli got the Israel
Prize
for discovering a method of processing and
disinfecting fruit and vegetables with boiling
water
instead of insecticides. |
|
| |
I still did not find anything about the boiling water
sprayed from airplanes on cotton fields. |
|
| |
[Edit] Found: in Wikipedia:Pesticide: #Alternatives
In the U.S., farmers have had success controlling
insects by spraying with hot water at a cost that is
about the same as pesticide spraying.[18] (Miller
GT (2004), Sustaining the Earth, 6th edition.
Thompson Learning, Inc. Pacific Grove, California.
Chapter 9, Pages 211-216) |
|
| |