Subject: Re: magic formula/land use

From: georg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 17:46:36 +0200

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

there is no such thing as a 'natural state' - 'everything gardens' is one
of bill's key statements, evry tree 'alters the natural state' by improving
the soil, every animyl poos and thus 'alters...' - what is natural as
opposed to 'unnatural' - is it 'unnatural' to control animals? but many
ants do exactly that. is it unnatural to export plant species into
different ecosystems? but birds, winds and sae-currents do axactly that,
that is exactly the way daisies and dandelions came to europe and
biscuitroot to the americas. is it unnatural to pave the land and destroy
habitats? but many volcanoes do exactly that. so please, what is unnatural?

my opinion: natural and unnatural are mental concepts, nature doesn't know
these, All life on this planet is coming from nature and ruled by nature's
laws.

>*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?

who is 'we'? we humans on this planet? this is no 'we', no common uniting
spirit.  we gaia? we will reduce it by our very own laws of balance, just
like foxes and rabbits keep their dynamic balance, or aerobic and anaerobic
bacteria in a given substrate - the only way to do this 'ethically'
(=without putting loads of leople to quite painful and possibly slow death
prior to the end of their biological lifespan) i can perceive of is by
collective enlightenment - in which case humans could simply stop
regenerating themselves for the most part - numbers could be down to a
fraction within two generations. while i certainly would love this
opportunity i would rather count on more physical means of re-balancing
gaia...

a viable question along the line of the stated questions would be for me:

* how much land may i dominate and still feel good about it (=be in harmony
with my inherent godliness/ethics) ?

(i am the son of a geologist, i grew up looking at the world development in
spans of hundreds of millions of years. my father used to call mankind
a'marker fossil' - a few hundred millions of years in the future some
geologers will be greatly aided by determining the age of certain mineral
layers by cocacola cans and other similar remnants of human dominance, just
like todays geologists are aided by the leftovers from ammonites... )

*

georg

********
follow your heart -
it is the only way to heaven on earth.. .  .
******************* * * *  *   *    *      *         *

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

---

From: eric + michiko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 21:53:11 -0700

In rereading this it sounded a little offensive.  It is not intended.  I
would like to try to understand your (Georg) point of view.  I am not sure
how your different ideas connect together, so I'd appreciate some more
discussion.  I get the feeling that either a basic premiss or word use
difference is underneath this.

Georg wrote:
 
> there is no such thing as a 'natural state'
 
Georg, I have some trouble with this.  It sounds like a word game (If that
is all you mean then most of what I am about to write may be irrelevant).
What's wrong with mental concepts?  Is it not a meaningful distinction, at
least to us, if not Nature?  Are you saying that to Nature there is no
qualitative difference between a virgin forest, an area of desert inhabited
by hunter gatherers, a Permaculture food forest, a field of mono crop
agriculture, a suburban subdivision and a metropolis city block?  This is
hard for me to grasp.

I can look at it two ways.  
One (perhaps your point), humans are a part of the natural systems of the
Earth and are subject to the laws of Nature, therefore everything humans do
is "natural".  While I can see this point, I find it  not useful (simply
requiring a different set of words, like harmful/helpful etc.), or
incongruous with my current ideas (I am not willing to say that there are
no environmental problems).  Yes, other creatures alter or have impact on
Nature, but it is a matter of scale and consciousness that makes the
difference.  While I agree that at some point natural forces will bring
about balance, I don't think it is ethical for us to go about our business
and wait for that to happen.

Two, humans have side stepped the natural laws (or perhaps more accurately,
postponed the effects of them) by things like tapping into fossil fuels,
creating synthetic substances and transporting materials over large
distances.  In this sense everything we do to avoid the natural
consequences is "unnatural".  By doing so, we harm the environment in
inexcusable acts of selfishness and arrogance.  Again it is the scale of
the impact and the consciousness of the  actions that makes the difference.

> 'everything gardens' is one
 
Is this meant to say that current human activities are acceptable and that
there is no need to try to do anything about "environmental problems"?  Or
are you suggesting that we use different words to describe the situation?
Or some other point I am missing completely.

> we will reduce it by our very own laws of balance, just
> bacteria in a given substrate

If this is the only way, we are in for some pretty tough times ahead.  (In
this case "we" refers to the entire planet system.)  Although I agree this
would eventually happen, I see it as ethically inexcusable, given that we
humans are aware of the needless damage and harm we humans are causing.

> - the only way to do this 'ethically'

I don't know that we need to do it as a collective thing.  Every bit helps,
and some form of collective effort would probably be beneficial, if
possible.  What physical means are you referring to?  The "laws of balance"
you mentioned above?  If so, I'm sure you can count on them, but do we
really want to wait until that happens?  The "side stepping" I mentioned
had allowed the scale of the problems to grow to a scale quite unlike most
other cases of other species over population and its related environmental
stresses.

> with my inherent godliness/ethics) ?

If whatever humans do is natural (=okay), then how much land would cause
you not feel good about it?  Can you dominate any amount of land and be in
harmony with your ethics?   I find it hard to put "dominate" and "harmony"
together.  Perhaps it is your shift from "alter" to "dominate" that is the
key to my misunderstanding of your ideas.

> like todays geologists are aided by the leftovers from ammonites... )

Perhaps you are speaking from this perspective, saying that hundreds
millions of years from now humans may not exist but life in some form will
still be around, or if it's not then that's okay too.  Can't really argue
with that, but that's mainly because it's all on a time scale irrelevant to
humans.  Thinking on this scale doesn't seem to lead to much of anything
for humans; I guess I'm not ready to give up thinking ; )

Eric Storm

---

---

From: georg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 12:03:40 +0200

>difference is underneath this.

thank you, eric, for your interest in my idea. obviously i have been very
clumsy in phrasing my thoughts, so let me give it a second go:

i have never felt offended in reading your response, but i am offended by
the idea of people - and be it the bestwilling permacultural
environmentalists on earth - sitting down to 'design the world', thus
superimposing their private valuesystem onto the rest of the world.

i am not saying that we do not have any environmental problems, but only
people have problems, the environment doesn't. so this game is not about
the environment, but about saving our own ass.

and yes, one of my points is that humans are a part of the natural systems
of the Earth and are subject to the laws of Nature, therefore everything
humans do is "natural".  and i do trust nature/life/evolution (different
words for one thing in my view) a whole lot. nature/life/evolution is
constantly experimenting and blindly stumbling towards a goal of higher
complexity and harmonious organisation. and in the long rung (geologically
speaking) all 'mistakes' are corrected, as only the successful models are
successful, obviously.

so here we are, billions of beings, a lot of them humans, with apparently
very different and opposing agendas. if this degree of intelligence and
ability to excert power has been a mistake and blind alley in itself, it is
certainly going to correct itself - ave nature, the fey salute you. but -
and this is what i apply myself for -  if there is potential and future in
this model 'human', it takes a braoder vision than the *my idea is better
than your's* crap that strives for dominance rather than *higher complexity
and harmonious organisation*.

we are in this together. nature/life/evolution works on a lot of differnt
levels stimultaneously, and bets on a lot of horses - to expect a single
human person to grasp nature/life/evolution's plans is like asking a single
braincell of a pc-designer to grasp the complete and open score design the
pc-designer is in the middle of implementing. all this braincell can do is
function the way it feels best (good feelings are always nature's reward
for the individual if it follows a bigger plan), and at the same time trust
that all the other cells will do their part too - even tho the braincell
would feel horrible in doing what they do.

now in our june 1999 scenario this would mean to 1. do what you feel good
about, dig your garden, plant trees along the roadside, educate your
neighbour's kids, get this local seedexchange going, give perennial
spinachplants to whomever wants them, and what the heck, if you feel
killing all those exxon-executives would make you truly feel better - go
ahaed, maybe you are a white bloodcell. and 2. don't think that all those
people with apparently different agendas, those that still pollute and
destroy are 'wrong'  - trust that they have other functions in this - and
be it only to realize their power before they do their next job.

we are going to succeed together or fail together - and by fighting each
other and making each other wrong we are increasing the chances for the
latter. apparently, if all that gaia is up to is about peaceful intelligent
monkey sitting in their beautiful forests and tending their gardens for the
bnext 3 million years until the next huge comet wipes them out, this whole
exercise of 'modern life' was futile - but maybe there are goals to be met
that are way beyond your and my comprehension - higher states of complexity
than earth has seen so far, higer degrees of organisation in deeper harmony
than any beeing has yet experienced - obviously this needs transient stages.

so i see us as work in progress, and while yes, survival is the key, it is
only the bottom drum, with quite different melodies played beyond it, or
else evolution resigned.

>humans are aware of the needless damage and harm we humans are causing.

each and every one is only responsible for our own actions or neglects - to
try to continue the dominance game is adding more damage. but i think i
start repeating myself *s*

sure there is alot more to be said about this, but let's take it bite by bite

all the best
georg

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

*

georg

********
follow your heart -

---

---

From: eric + michiko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 08:58:47 -0700

In an attempt to summarize, I have grouped some of what Georg has written:

- superimposing their private value system onto the rest of the world.
- 'design the world'
- to continue the dominance game 
- the *my idea is better than your's* crap that strives for dominance
- fighting each other and making each other wrong

I take these in their contexts to mean, "forcing ones views on others is
unpleasant and ultimately pointless".

- only people have problems, the environment doesn't
- i do trust nature/life/evolution a whole lot
- in the long rung (geologically speaking) all 'mistakes' are corrected
- it is certainly going to correct itself
- there are goals to be met that are way beyond your and my comprehension
- i see us as work in progress
- everything humans do is "natural"
- don't think that all those people with apparently different agendas are
'wrong' 
- if you feel [like] killing. . .exxon-executives. . .go ahead (sarcastic?)
- each and every one is only responsible for our own actions or neglects 
- do what you feel good about

And these to mean, "nature/life/evolution is in control, everything is
okay, so relax and do what makes you feel good".

- i apply myself for...a broader vision...*higher complexity and
       harmonious organization*
- dig your garden, plant trees along the roadside, educate your
      neighbor's kids, get this local seed exchange going, give
      perennial spinach plants to whomever wants them

And these are what make _you_ feel good, with the thought that, although it
makes no difference in the long run, it might lead to humans being around a
little longer.

I think I understand your point of view now (corrections appreciated);
thanks for the clarification.  Here are my comments:

To be consistent wouldn't you need to accept domination as having its
function in the bigger scheme of things?  I personally agree that its not
so good, but it fits with my ideas about some things being inherently good
and others being inherently bad.  There is a wide range of responses
between "domination" (forcing your views on others) and "do what makes you
feel good" (let everyone do what they want).  In particular I am thinking
about things like working together (willing cooperation) to change how we
do some things.  And the motivation is not just "feeling good" (although it
is possible you mean this on a more spiritual level) but more altruistic,
"doing good for others".  Yes, this requires a, possibly faulty, judgement,
but that's where these kinds of discussions come in; people need to work
together to decide what directions to move in next.  It seems too selfish
to only concern yourself with yourself and those you choose.  In my
opinion, lack of concern for others is a big human problem that spills over
effecting a lot of the planet.  Yes, some of us may "survive" this
selfishness, but I can't accept needlessly killing as okay just because in
the end that individual makes no difference.

As you can see, I have trouble with the popular ethical relativism where
"whatever an individual thinks is right is right for them" and "you should
just mind your own business and let others do whatever they want".  This
has lead to the lack of compassion, cohesion and the ability to cooperate
and the emphasis on consumption in our society.

I also feel it is worth repeating what I wrote in my last post, since it
seems to point out the difference in our views:
> for humans.
That time scale leaves me feeling empty and seems to give a green light to
hedonistic short sighted pursuits, which you might find geologically
trivial.  I can't quite see how you connect this large scale thinking with
"dig your garden, plant trees along the roadside, educate your neighbor's
kids, get this local seed exchange going, give perennial spinach plants to
whomever wants them", unless you just happen to enjoy gardening.

If you don't mind a little more detail, could you go into what you mean
by"makes you feel good"?  I guess my curiosity comes from wanting to be
able to see things from other points of view.  

Thanks for the discussion.  What do the rest of you think?

Eric Storm

---

---

From: Toby Hemenway <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 09:53:47 -0700

There have been many excellent ideas expressed in this thread; reducing our
ecological footprint and devising land-use techniques that share resources
with other species are imperative if humans are to survive. But I've been
wondering how we're going to implement any of this. I doubt if an
"eco-police" that reassigns land on a massive scale is ever going to work
(and that's a frightening idea anyway), and legislation that mandates
wilderness set-asides and other zoning changes is prone to being overturned
the moment any powerful group starts to feel the pinch. My thinking is more
along the lines of Georg's, who wrote " the only way to do this ethically .
. . is by collective enlightenment." Here the difficulty is that most
people simply aren't into voluntary simplicity. The high-consumption
lifestyle is incredibly seductive, and I can't believe that any but a tiny
minority of 'first-worlders" are ever going to voluntarily adopt the
essentially "third world" lifestyle that permaculture advocates. (My wife
says she can spot the permies on any block; it's the funkiest, most
overgrown-looking house with the piles of scrap wood and other "trash" in
the front yard. That's never going to win converts in urban/suburban
culture) So how do we get more people to adopt a "small footprint"
lifestyle? Some form of enlightenment must occur, but not a coercive "we
know better than you, you bad person" approach. And a pure "consciousness
raising" effort will be a slow one, though essential in the long run.
    One answer lies in the latest (Summer '99) Whole Earth Review. The lead
article is by sci-fi writer Bruce Sterling, called "The Manifesto of
January 3, 2000." Bruce says that we could seduce people into it. I've
often thought this: if we can create homes and gardens so lush and
beautiful that people line up in droves to live in them, we could lure a
lot of mainstream folks. But Sterling writes "The best chance . . . is to
convince the 21st century that the 20th century's industrial base was
crass, gauche, and filthy. . . . It's a severe breach of taste . . . to
boil and roast the entire physical world, just so you can pursue your cheap
addiction to carbon dioxide." He says we need "a form of Green high fashion
so appallingly seductive and glamorous that it can literally save people's
lives. We have to gratify peoples' desires much better than the current
system does. . . . Rather than marshalling themselves for inhuman effort
and grim sacrifice, people have to sink into our 21st century with a sigh
of profound relief."
   He recommends that "it should be considered a mark of stellar ignorance
to be unaware ot the source of one's electric power. . . .It should be
considered the stigma of the crass proletarian to foul the air every time
one turns on a light switch." He asks that we form an avant-garde to
"design a stable and sustainable physical economy in which the wealthy and
powerful will prefer to live."
  The whole text of this irreverent but provocative document is on the web
at <http://www.well.com/conf/mirrorshades/viridian.html>
    I agree that it's not exactly appealing to people's higher instincts to
ask them to embrace Green living as a status symbol, but if we can create a
model that is attractive, rather than trying to guilt people into
abandoning SUV's and giant houses, we'll be far more effective. I find that
an exciting dream.

Toby

---

---

From: georg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 23:09:58 +0200

>makes no difference in the long run, it might lead to humans being around a

addition/correction: i small braincell don't know if it makes a difference
or not - and i don't require that knowledge in order to feel ok, as i don't
experience this knowledge as part of my 'job' as a braincell 

>function in the bigger scheme of things?

i do accept domination as being a part of this, and it obviously was an
important part so far (look at history or the average marriage) - but i
doesn't make me feel good to go along with it - be it out there or my own
tendencies to dominate. 

'feeling good' might be quite different from 'doing what i want' - i mean
doing what gives you (and i am aware that i do not preach in the subway but
talk to quite sensitive and aware people here on a list about cutting edge
techniques for satisfying their material needs) the true and deep feeling
of meaning, of fulfilment, of feeling good about yourself. if we only watch
this we dont need to talk about cooperation and altruism and all this - i
dont trust any altruists who are not altruistic for the egotistical reason
that they can only be happy if you are happy too, we dont need to worry
about exxon-reps being slaughtered or lack of concern for others. 

now this certainly raises the question about all the rest, about these
people in the proverbial subway with the proverbial lack of concern for
others. well, i havent been born that way i am, 25 years ago i was doing
dope and booze and driving around for fun, disturnbing neighbourhoods with
my rocknroll at midnight and all that - and obviously it was exactly what
has gotten me to the point where i am. pressure breeds counterpressure and
prolongs the struggle.

>just mind your own business and let others do whatever they want". 

i would just slightly alter this: "whatever an individual does is right for
all of us (because it is personified nature acting)" and since i don't see
such a thing as my and your business only ours, i would rephrase that to
"let others do what they cant help doing and share your heartfelt reaction
with them" - and this is all i personally think i can do ethically (my
ethics i receive from my heart) - but i agree that it is far easier to go
into the blame bit...

>whomever wants them", unless you just happen to enjoy gardening.

again: this is not about superficial enjoyment but about following your
heart of hearts - but think you got this part of my reality so far *s*

thank you for caring

georg @ 2012.org

---

---

From: eric + michiko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 1999 21:35:46 -0700

Georg wrote:
> of meaning, of fulfilment, of feeling good about yourself.
>

Thank you for your patience with me.  This last post filled in the missing
pieces.

Eric Storm

---

---

From: eric + michiko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 21:59:55 -0700

Interesting article, Toby.  While perhaps somewhat tongue in cheek, it is
not too far fetched.  I'm a little unsure how I feel about "the ends
justifying the means", but there is something to be said about
effectiveness, too.  More food for thought; it's been quite a feast lately ; )

Eric Storm

Toby wrote:

> the difficulty is that most
> essentially "third world" lifestyle that permaculture advocates. . . 
> So how do we get more people to adopt a "small footprint"
> January 3, 2000." Bruce says that we could seduce people into it.
> He says we need "a form of Green high fashion

---