4 ms·

So basically, you want a systems approach for designing sustainable… everything. These guys seem to be on to something: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permacult

So basically, you want a systems approach for designing sustainable… everything. These guys seem to be on to something: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture

saalweachter 12y ago
Yeah, permaculture is interesting, but heavily biased towards agriculture. I'm also not sure if it takes a civilization-level view. Are current permaculture techniques a viable method for replacing industrial agriculture? Can they produce enough calories per acre to feed the projected world population on the projected amount of arable land? Can it function with the available manpower in our hypothetical civilization? Modern agriculture directly employees something like 1-3% of the population; do you need 10-20% engaged in permaculture growing food, or 80-150%?
- schiffern 12y ago
  >Are current permaculture techniques a viable method for replacing industrial agriculture? Note that industrial agriculture isn't a viable replacement for itself (that's what being unsustainable means). So if you're expecting any drop-in replacement for industrial agriculture to be sustainable, you'll be disappointed. Permaculture is a process for designing systems. You can use it to design food systems, financial systems, energy systems, etc. And like most processes, you can fuck it up and do a bad job. :) >Can they produce enough calories per acre to feed the projected world population on the projected amount of arable land? An underlying assumption here is that food has to be produced on "arable" (read: cleared) land. This is tremendously inefficient, since most sunlight strikes bare soil and therefore isn't photosynthesized. Forests yield an order of magnitude more biomass per hectare without any human inputs, so it's definitely possible. The trick is to design the forest so it yields useful outputs while minimizing inputs.[1] This is all pretty abstract, so here's a simple example. Human labor is an input, and one technique to minimize it is zone analysis[2]. During zone analysis you minimize labor and energy by consciously placing the most frequently visited elements closest, followed by the next, and so on. This sounds obvious, but it avoids many common mistakes. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixx1c3RSw_8#t=28m25s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixx1c3RSw_8#t=28m25s [2] http://deepgreenpermaculture.com/permaculture/permaculture-design-principles/4-zones-and-sectors-efficient-energy-planning/ http://deepgreenpermaculture.com/permaculture/permaculture-d...

saalweachter 12y ago

Yeah, permaculture is interesting, but heavily biased towards agriculture. I'm also not sure if it takes a civilization-level view. Are current permaculture techniques a viable method for replacing industrial agriculture? Can they produce enough calories per acre to feed the projected world population on the projected amount of arable land? Can it function with the available manpower in our hypothetical civilization? Modern agriculture directly employees something like 1-3% of the population; do you need 10-20% engaged in permaculture growing food, or 80-150%?

schiffern 12y ago
>Are current permaculture techniques a viable method for replacing industrial agriculture? Note that industrial agriculture isn't a viable replacement for itself (that's what being unsustainable means). So if you're expecting any drop-in replacement for industrial agriculture to be sustainable, you'll be disappointed. Permaculture is a process for designing systems. You can use it to design food systems, financial systems, energy systems, etc. And like most processes, you can fuck it up and do a bad job. :) >Can they produce enough calories per acre to feed the projected world population on the projected amount of arable land? An underlying assumption here is that food has to be produced on "arable" (read: cleared) land. This is tremendously inefficient, since most sunlight strikes bare soil and therefore isn't photosynthesized. Forests yield an order of magnitude more biomass per hectare without any human inputs, so it's definitely possible. The trick is to design the forest so it yields useful outputs while minimizing inputs.[1] This is all pretty abstract, so here's a simple example. Human labor is an input, and one technique to minimize it is zone analysis[2]. During zone analysis you minimize labor and energy by consciously placing the most frequently visited elements closest, followed by the next, and so on. This sounds obvious, but it avoids many common mistakes. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixx1c3RSw_8#t=28m25s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixx1c3RSw_8#t=28m25s [2] http://deepgreenpermaculture.com/permaculture/permaculture-design-principles/4-zones-and-sectors-efficient-energy-planning/ http://deepgreenpermaculture.com/permaculture/permaculture-d...