Re: magic formula (long)

[eric + michiko <emstorm@metro.net>]

Greg wrote:
>Please don't anyone be offended by any of my remarks that disagree with
yours. >I'm just creatively thinking out loud here, not trying to pick a
fight,

No offense taken.  I enjoy creatively thinking out loud, whether or not we
agree.  In that spirit . . .

 
>Hmmm. I just see larger contiguous tracts of wilderness or undeveloped
areas >kept away from urban, and industrial centers as most efficient. No
offense, but >saying "the line between wild and developed disappears" seems
nonsensical to >me. Take for example all the deer problems that are showing
up in city suburbs >due to unchecked, unplanned suburban sprawl in the US.
There are still enough >medium sized pockets of undeveloped suburban land
that it has produced >rampant population explosion of deer, because their
predators cannot survive >hiding in and around a few non contiguous acres
of cover. This would not happen >if we more definitively divided areas into
urban, industrial, commercial, and human >residential distinctly separate
from wilderness, or simply "undeveloped" areas. 

Our apparent difference of opinions _may_ be from a difference in how far
into the future we are looking.  I recognize that in the short term that
the way humans will live will not be compatible with Nature to a large
degree.  There are some strong arguments to be made for separating "wild"
and "human" areas, mostly boiling down to the fact that we aren't very
respectful or healthy to live near.  So as long as we are talking about
"urban and industrial centers", which I have yet to visualize as
sustainable, I suppose we will need to place ourselves into some kind of
exile from the natural world.

My earlier comments we based on looking further into the future to a time
when humans will have recognized that we are a part of Nature and must live
accordingly.  We can not, and would not want to, escape our connections to
the natural cycles.  As we learn to be good neighbors again, we can begin
to reintegrate ourselves with Nature.  I see this as a gradual process made
up of many spurts and pauses.

You mentioned "deer problems . . . due to unchecked, unplanned suburban
sprawl". I think you answered you own questioned.  It is _because_ our
unplanned, unthoughtful, disrespectful, selfish.... way of interacting with
the "wild" that the deer become a "problem".  Of course from a Pc point of
view this "problem" has several obvious "solutions".  If the deer's
predators can not live in and among our houses, perhaps we can become their
predator, instead of spending all the time, money, effort, cruelty,
pollution, etc. to "raise" other species for food.  By this I am not saying
that I see our suburban sprawl as a good way of interacting with the
natural cycles, just that _even_ with what we have we can do better.


> > >embrace and continue to develop new and emerging technologies to enable
> > >and extend most efficient use of what natural resources are still
available
> >
> > These seem rather ambitious given how little land and resources are
> > available and the current human population.
> 
>Ambitious, yes. And there is *plenty* of land and resources still
available to us. >We are blessed with unbelievable amounts of natural
resources, still. Not infinite, >but sufficient. Trying to solve these
problems without continuous and profound >advances in science and
technology is simply impossible IMO.

This may be the place where we'll need to respectfully agree to disagree.
I disagree with every part of the above statement.  You may see my point of
view of nonsensical, but I see it as the only way we can ethically proceed
and the only way we'll find a life worth living and a place worth living it
in.


>There's a big difference between a global economy and establishing finite
north >south  corridors or "trading zones" I'm suggesting, to take
advantage of climatic >and other economic specialization opportunities.
Mostly the difference is in the >scale of things. Many goods, foods and raw
materials literally travel around the >world several times before becoming
finished products. All I'm saying is limit that >transport to sensible
locations inside these trade zones, preferably along energy >efficient,
well designed central transport systems for a given region. Suggesting
>that every small region can/should produce *everything* it needs, is
neither >useful or necessary, IMO.

In my opinion, I see this as a down sized version of the same system we are
using now.  It may be _more_ efficient and _less_ harmful to the
environment, but it would be only with other deeper changes (probably not
what you have in mind) that such a system could be sustainable.  As a mind
set ("small regions can not satisfy their needs"), I doubt that it will
lead to a sustainable system.  Moving large amounts of bio matter around
very quickly leads to imbalances in natural cycles.

 
>Be careful when you say the global economy "isn't working". In some ways
the >global economy is working fantastically, at least for some. In terms
of efficiency, >inflation control, employment, quality of life, scientific
advances, etc. (Of course >in many more ways the same global economy is
failing miserably. Of which these >are well understood and too numerous to
mention here). Lets not abandon useful >aspects of the current systems that
are working. In other words, don't throw out >the baby with the bath water.
 
While I agree there are some good things, it sounds like we may disagree on
what they are.  I do think we need to take advantage of what we have
learned and find ways to use them and create a new way of living on the
planet.  Going "back" to earlier, or current "primitive",  examples is a
way of taking from those examples what worked.  By combining these good
ideas, I believe that we can come up with a large variety of ways to live
sustainably and in harmony with the natural cycles.  In this sense it is
moving "forward".  I see it as more a baby in a lake; while we don't want
to loose the baby, there's a awful lot of water to get rid of, or better
yet, grey water that can be put to better use.


I'm sorry that I am not able to take more time to fill in some of these
points.  I'll let it go for now and fill in later where needed.  Again, I
appreciate an open discussion where people are willing to discuss their
views, especially when they don't (seem) to agree.  It is through such
discussion that we refine our ideas and find new ones.


Eric Storm.