Subject: Re: magic formula

From: EFMonaco <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:40:01 -0400

I think it depends totally on how brittle or non-brittle the land is as
suggested by Alan Savory in his Holistic Resource Management literature. 
Other factors include: Topography.  There is a lot more surface area in a
hilly topography than in the flats.  Also, latitude and rainfall, length of
growing season.  With so many factors, it's difficult to say.
Gene Monaco
in Knoxville, TN

Message text written by "permaculture"
> How about a reply to this "simple" question .....
>
> x <[email-masked]>
> x wrote:
>
>> Is their a formula wherby we can get a rough estimate of how much
>> land it takes to support a given number of people?  Also how much
>> water it takes to make the land productive for one month?     -
>> gerald
>

----------------------- Internet Header --------------------------------
Sender: [email-masked]
Received: from franklin.oit.unc.edu (franklin.oit.unc.edu [152.2.22.59])
        by hpamgaab.compuserve.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/HP-1.5) with SMTP id
MAA28606
        for <[email-masked]>; Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:12:55 -0400
(EDT)
Message-ID:
<[email-masked]
nc.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 12:11:46 -0400
From: John W Irwin <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: "permaculture" <[email-masked]>
Organization: American Permaculture Directory
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "permaculture" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: magic formula
References: <001b01bd9ce7$5ee9c900$67003cd8@default>
<[email-masked]>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------6868353E5CDBA559FA8AB6E7"
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email-masked]>
Precedence: bulk

<

---
You are currently subscribed to permaculture as: [email-masked]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email-masked]

---

From: John Schinnerer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 16:27:40 -0700

Aloha,

>x <[email-masked]> 
> > wrote: 
> 
>Is their a formula wherby we can get a rough estimate of how much land it
takes to support a >given number of people?  Also how much water it takes to
make the land productive for one >month?     - gerald

...nothing "simple" about it - I would be highly dubious of any "answers,"
especially if claimed to be "universal."  

Just a few facets of the complexity...Where?  Growing What?  What sort of
diet?  Terrain?  Climate?  Water source?  What in the existing ecosystem is
altered to do this?  "Support" in what sense - basic food, food including
"luxuries" (oils, spices, sweeteners...), food and shelter, food and shelter
and clothing, ...?  What does "make the land productive" mean?

Some extrapolations have been done for pre-assumed parameters.  Ecology
Action ( http://www.crest.org/sustainable/ecology_action/index.html ) has
done some estimates based on UN statistics, particular food sources,
climates and growing methods, for example - but these are highly situational
and like all such attempts there are countless hidden assumptions.

Best wishes... ;-)

John Schinnerer

---

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 12:45:11 EDT

In a message dated 6/21/99 8:41:11 PM, you wrote:

<<I think it depends totally on how brittle or non-brittle the land is as
in Knoxville, TN>>

agree. another interesting place to start is the work of john jeavon's and 
biointensive gardening/farming. for one person, eating a completely 
vegetarian (and probably vegan) diet, with all of their calories and vitamins 
provided for, he estimates 700 square feet is needed. this is at high yields 
and is not sustainable. to make it sustainable by growing all your own 
compost it goes up to something like 1200 square feet. this assumes the nice 
california climate that john has in willits, and requires a considerable 
amount of water. I have heard him say that "agroforestry" systems take about 
twice the square footage. 

of course this says little about the precise water needs, making it truly 
sustainable for everyone involved (labor, etc.), bigger issues of 
sustainability, etc. but is a good starting point.

jeavons places great emphasis on true sustainability in agriculuture, 
particularly with regard to mineral availability in the soil.

christopher peck

---

---

From: Skye <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 18:51:49 -0600

Hola Gerald

I'd like to look at your question from the other end.

According to the book "Our Ecological Footpint" (Wackermagel & Rees)
the total land surface divided by current population (as of a few years
ago) gives an answer of 1.5 hectares per person. So, I guess, rather
than asking how much land do I need, you could start by acknowledging
that morally (ie you have the same rights as everyone else - and they
have the same rights as you), you have the right to 1.5 hectares per
person. 

Unfortunately much of that 1.5 is under ice, desert, tramac or concrete
or on top of high mountains - in terms of productive land - you only
have the right to 0.25 hectares!!!!

This is not just to grow all your food, but also you need to use this
area to collect your water (maybe you could use part of your share of
tarmac for that!!), treat all the wastes you produce and to grow enough
forest to recapture the CO2 released from your enery consumption. 

The Ecological Footprint for USA, in general is 4.8. In other words as
well as using their own share, USA citizens are using ALL of the share
of a more than two other people as well - hence the poverty in the
world!!!! (Note Canada is not far behind USA, with Germany,
UK,Japan......Australia not far behind)

Obviously your .25 hectare share is an average, and averages are...well
averages. If you choose land with good soil, water, climate etc, then I
guess you should be using your .25 to support more than one person, as
other sites are clearly not as favourable.

The Ecological Footprint concept/calculation is obviously a somewhat
crude/macro level instrument - lets not take the figures too literally
or too far - BUT it does give an interesting perspective to your
question!!!

Skye 

- 
Apdo # 391,  Patzcuaro, Michoacan, CP. 61600 México. 
fax  (52) 01 (434) 24743
Profesor y diseñador en Permacultura
Director del Instituto de Permacultura de México A.C.
Talleres de desarrollo humano, planeación participativa y 
economía comunitaria.

---

---

From: eric + michiko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 21:03:39 -0700

Skye wrote:
> I'd like to look at your question from the other end. . . .So, I guess,
rather
> person. . . . - in terms of productive land - you only have the right to
> 0.25 hectares!!!!
> - lets not take the figures too literally

Good input, Skye!  I agree that this is the moral perspective.  It seems
sufficient now, but it's getting smaller all the time.  How much land is
set aside for wildlife and non-human manipulated landscapes?  Can
individuals morally have large Permaculture properties without using it to
support many others?  Do the carrying capacities of our local regions
require certain types of land use and population limits?  Obviously
population is a key issue in sustainability.  Tough issues here!  Good food
for thought.  Thanks!

Eric Storm

---

---

From: EFMonaco <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 17:27:32 -0400

rather

Eric Storm<

Skye et al, I'm having a problem with this concept of humans having a right
to a certain area of land.  I know you said not to take this too far and
I'm probably doing just that; however, it begs other questions:  If humans
have a right to 0.25 HA of land, wouldn't deer have rights to that same
land?  What about the trees?  Don't they have rights to the land?  Are we
supposed to turn every hectare of land into production to maximize the
humans?  Are we being egocentric here in assuming that humans have rights
above every other thing?
Gene

---

---

From: eric + michiko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 07:50:06 -0700

> humans?  Are we being egocentric here in assuming that humans have rights

I think this topic brings up some important issues for Permaculture.  Since
Pc concerns itself with human land use and its integration with natural
systems, this brings up issues of scale.  The emphasis shifts from "how
much land one may be fortunate enough to buy" to "how much land can one
ethically use".  Again, we must take into account all human needs when
thinking about space; the ecological footprint idea seems helpful in this.
And we must think beyond human needs.

I think the term "right" is where things get muddy; it sounds exclusive.  I
take Skye's point to be about the _maximum_ space available for human use,
with the intention of pointing out that _even if_ you divided all of the
productive land among all the people, it is less land than most people
realize.  It also makes the point that we should not ethically expect to
use more than anyone else.  I don't see this to mean that each human should
use that much land, since, as Gene and I said, "what are all the other
creatures supposed to do?", but certainly not more than this.  I see
Gerald's original question representing one extreme (minimum amount of land
can we use) and Skye's point about land available as the other (maximum
amount ethically available).  Based on the information about Jeavons from
Christopher and Skye's info, the answer to both is "very little", or to be
more specific, "1,200 to 4,350 square feet (100 - 300 square meters)".
[Note that many new American houses are this big!]

Now factor in space for wildlife and natural habitat, and my take on all of
this is that we need to have the smallest ecological footprint we can
manage, probably much smaller than we think.  Gene raised good questions.
I'll rewrite them and add some others.  I start with the assumption that
dividing lines between human and non-human land is impossible.  These are
not meant to be rhetorical; if anyone can help explore answers I'd
appreciate it.

*Taking other species into account, how much of the Earth's total land
      can humans ethically alter from a natural state?

*Since it seems necessary to overlap human and non-human land use,
      how do we do this fairly so that all can flourish?

*What is our share of the solar budget?

*What local factors increase or decrease the amount of land a person
      should be using?

*Are there just too many people now, and if so how do we ethically
      reduce our numbers?  And what do we do in the meantime?

*How small can one's ecological footprint be?

*Others?

Eric Storm

---