5 ms·

Despite the rude response from the previous commenter, I agree with the general response. It seems like you're suggesting we all revert to subsistence living by

Despite the rude response from the previous commenter, I agree with the general response. It seems like you're suggesting we all revert to subsistence living by growing our own food on little family farms or something. Fact is people actually like civilization. Modern civilization has led to an unprecedented quality of life for a larger portion of the human population than ever before in recorded history. People are hard pressed to give that up. Put another way, humans prefer to reduce their current misery than ensure all the future's climate issues are solved. Stepping away from modern civilization and our systems would result in unimaginable suffering.

carapace 5y ago
Cheers! I appreciate the constructive feedback. > It seems like you're suggesting we all revert to subsistence living by growing our own food on little family farms or something. Ah, no, not at all. I do think we should integrate natural systems into our homes and cities to a much greater degree. E.g. Village Homes, urban Permaculture, Integral Urban House, food forests, etc. > Village Homes is a planned community in Davis, Yolo County, California. It is designed to be ecologically sustainable by harnessing the energies and natural resources that exist in the landscape, especially stormwater and solar energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Homes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Homes "Urban Permaculture with Geoff Lawton" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qXgbrIYcFE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qXgbrIYcFE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Urban_House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Urban_House "Amazing 23-Year-Old Permaculture Food Forest - An Invitation for Wildness" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GJFL0MD9fc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GJFL0MD9fc I also think we should try to live within our "solar budget", the incoming solar energy per m², rather than burning fossil fuels. However, I hope clean atomic power becomes available too. (And rockets.) > Modern civilization has led to an unprecedented quality of life for a larger portion of the human population than ever before in recorded history. I agree, but it's not without its discontents, eh? When I said "Civilization as we know it is a kind of hypnotic trance." I wasn't referring to the technology, rather to the cultural influences that keep us from applying science and technology to make our civilization work in harmony with Nature instead of against it. > Put another way, humans prefer to reduce their current misery than ensure all the future's climate issues are solved. That's my point: we can reduce misery and solve our climate issues. It's the same solution, eh? Living in harmony with nature feels great! It's fun and fulfilling. I don't want to go backwards to some previous harsh lifestyle, I want to go forwards to a better (technological) civilization. (For example, the folks in the "Amazing 23-Year-Old Permaculture Food Forest" video above seem pretty happy and fulfilled and they haven't turned their backs on the benefits of modern civilization, eh?) Ecology is a science, after all. We can apply what we've learned about how natural systems work to improve our civilization. We can reduce misery, increase happiness, protect and even increase biodiversity, solve our climate problems, all by application of ecology. My puzzle is why don't we? What's preventing the rapid and widespread application of ecological knowledge and practice?
- themacguffinman 5y ago
  The state of the art for eco-tech is still prohibitively expensive and inefficient. Feel free to come up with better eco-tech, but what you've mentioned so far sucks. I don't want to live within a solar budget and I don't want to pay high food prices for ridiculously inefficient eco-farms. Organic food may yield higher profits per unit in the current system where they only occupy a niche, but that's because it only occupies a middle/upper class niche.
  - carapace 5y ago
    > The state of the art for eco-tech is still prohibitively expensive and inefficient. What are you talking about? > Feel free to come up with better eco-tech, but what you've mentioned so far sucks. Did you watch this video? "Treating the Farm as an Ecosystem with Gabe Brown Part 1, The 5 Tenets of Soil Health" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A He's more productive than conventional agriculture with fewer inputs. > I don't want to live within a solar budget So where do you want to get power w/o burning fossil fuels? The only other source of energy is nuclear, which would be fine but it won't help in time to tackle climate change. > and I don't want to pay high food prices for ridiculously inefficient eco-farms. Well fortunately that's not the trade off. Seriously, go check out what Gabe Brown is doing.
    - imtringued 5y ago
      I'm sorry but these people don't give a damn. They will just pretend that you can brute force the solution with "engineering".
    - themacguffinman 5y ago
      I'm talking about reliable solar panel setups being very expensive and often only barely worth it with substantial subsidies. I'm talking about "village homes" being incredibly space & land inefficient. I'm talking about permaculture-style forests wasting large amounts of land and resources hosting plants and herbs few people actually want but hey, it's a lot of greenery, who cares if it doesn't actually meet demand for modern non-herbal pharmaceuticals and food people actually want to eat. I doubt that a 2h30m video giving situational advice on soil health is an answer to the declining biodiversity this article is talking about. Even if his techniques are more "productive" (which means little on its own anyway, it's not efficient if productivity gains don't match time/labor/financial/scale cost increases), as long as his farm is still very much a farm it will largely exclude the kind of "wild" biodiversity that is declining which includes a lot of destructive, nasty or totally pointless flora & fauna. It's not a problem with solutions like "using less fertilizer" or "don't till the soil as much so some fungi can grow". "Real" biodiversity and utilitarian farmland have very little overlap, natural "wild" ecosystems generally suck at meeting modern consumer demand. The most relevant and compelling solutions that I see focus on increasing yield and space/land efficiency so we can meet modern demand with less space, leaving more space for low-utility wild ecosystems scientists care about. Ultimately, I'm not going to pretend like I'm an expert in the field who can competently analyze two hour technical farming videos. If Gabe and co can solve this problem more efficiently, I'd encourage them to prove that in the market by providing more and better produce. The market cuts through the bullshit and nonsense we tell ourselves about how much better something is. Show me something better and I'll vote with my wallet. > So where do you want to get power w/o burning fossil fuels? Perhaps a mix of centralized renewable techs and nuclear. Good solutions don't necessarily exist yet, that's why the world is working hard on energy tech, the world isn't giving up.

carapace 5y ago

Cheers! I appreciate the constructive feedback. > It seems like you're suggesting we all revert to subsistence living by growing our own food on little family farms or something. Ah, no, not at all. I do think we should integrate natural systems into our homes and cities to a much greater degree. E.g. Village Homes, urban Permaculture, Integral Urban House, food forests, etc. > Village Homes is a planned community in Davis, Yolo County, California. It is designed to be ecologically sustainable by harnessing the energies and natural resources that exist in the landscape, especially stormwater and solar energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Homes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Homes "Urban Permaculture with Geoff Lawton" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qXgbrIYcFE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qXgbrIYcFE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Urban_House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Urban_House "Amazing 23-Year-Old Permaculture Food Forest - An Invitation for Wildness" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GJFL0MD9fc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GJFL0MD9fc I also think we should try to live within our "solar budget", the incoming solar energy per m², rather than burning fossil fuels. However, I hope clean atomic power becomes available too. (And rockets.) > Modern civilization has led to an unprecedented quality of life for a larger portion of the human population than ever before in recorded history. I agree, but it's not without its discontents, eh? When I said "Civilization as we know it is a kind of hypnotic trance." I wasn't referring to the technology, rather to the cultural influences that keep us from applying science and technology to make our civilization work in harmony with Nature instead of against it. > Put another way, humans prefer to reduce their current misery than ensure all the future's climate issues are solved. That's my point: we can reduce misery and solve our climate issues. It's the same solution, eh? Living in harmony with nature feels great! It's fun and fulfilling. I don't want to go backwards to some previous harsh lifestyle, I want to go forwards to a better (technological) civilization. (For example, the folks in the "Amazing 23-Year-Old Permaculture Food Forest" video above seem pretty happy and fulfilled and they haven't turned their backs on the benefits of modern civilization, eh?) Ecology is a science, after all. We can apply what we've learned about how natural systems work to improve our civilization. We can reduce misery, increase happiness, protect and even increase biodiversity, solve our climate problems, all by application of ecology. My puzzle is why don't we? What's preventing the rapid and widespread application of ecological knowledge and practice?

themacguffinman 5y ago
The state of the art for eco-tech is still prohibitively expensive and inefficient. Feel free to come up with better eco-tech, but what you've mentioned so far sucks. I don't want to live within a solar budget and I don't want to pay high food prices for ridiculously inefficient eco-farms. Organic food may yield higher profits per unit in the current system where they only occupy a niche, but that's because it only occupies a middle/upper class niche.
- carapace 5y ago
  > The state of the art for eco-tech is still prohibitively expensive and inefficient. What are you talking about? > Feel free to come up with better eco-tech, but what you've mentioned so far sucks. Did you watch this video? "Treating the Farm as an Ecosystem with Gabe Brown Part 1, The 5 Tenets of Soil Health" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A He's more productive than conventional agriculture with fewer inputs. > I don't want to live within a solar budget So where do you want to get power w/o burning fossil fuels? The only other source of energy is nuclear, which would be fine but it won't help in time to tackle climate change. > and I don't want to pay high food prices for ridiculously inefficient eco-farms. Well fortunately that's not the trade off. Seriously, go check out what Gabe Brown is doing.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    I'm sorry but these people don't give a damn. They will just pretend that you can brute force the solution with "engineering".
  - themacguffinman 5y ago
    I'm talking about reliable solar panel setups being very expensive and often only barely worth it with substantial subsidies. I'm talking about "village homes" being incredibly space & land inefficient. I'm talking about permaculture-style forests wasting large amounts of land and resources hosting plants and herbs few people actually want but hey, it's a lot of greenery, who cares if it doesn't actually meet demand for modern non-herbal pharmaceuticals and food people actually want to eat. I doubt that a 2h30m video giving situational advice on soil health is an answer to the declining biodiversity this article is talking about. Even if his techniques are more "productive" (which means little on its own anyway, it's not efficient if productivity gains don't match time/labor/financial/scale cost increases), as long as his farm is still very much a farm it will largely exclude the kind of "wild" biodiversity that is declining which includes a lot of destructive, nasty or totally pointless flora & fauna. It's not a problem with solutions like "using less fertilizer" or "don't till the soil as much so some fungi can grow". "Real" biodiversity and utilitarian farmland have very little overlap, natural "wild" ecosystems generally suck at meeting modern consumer demand. The most relevant and compelling solutions that I see focus on increasing yield and space/land efficiency so we can meet modern demand with less space, leaving more space for low-utility wild ecosystems scientists care about. Ultimately, I'm not going to pretend like I'm an expert in the field who can competently analyze two hour technical farming videos. If Gabe and co can solve this problem more efficiently, I'd encourage them to prove that in the market by providing more and better produce. The market cuts through the bullshit and nonsense we tell ourselves about how much better something is. Show me something better and I'll vote with my wallet. > So where do you want to get power w/o burning fossil fuels? Perhaps a mix of centralized renewable techs and nuclear. Good solutions don't necessarily exist yet, that's why the world is working hard on energy tech, the world isn't giving up.