Here's a conversation I've been having with an individual some of you know.
I didn't get his permission so I'm deleting his name but I thought the
conversation was interesting.    REH

 

Interesting read.  (below)   I think there are many things to be done but
not in the structure that you live in or are advocating.    

 

Sustainability has to be a responsibility for all life on the planet and the
planetary systems including the human.     Designing an approach to  weather
sensitivity and alignment  is crucial.     You could solve all of the issues
you point out and still encounter an astronomical  weather change that would
make it all impossible.     The people's of the amazon had huge populations
that were sustainable in the midst of a rain forest.   They were doing fine
and developed terra preta for the issue of soil sustainability but they
could not fight off the viruses brought by one boatload of Spaniards and the
entire civilization collapsed.     With the Mayans  and Hohokum it was the
weather.    With the Amazonians and much of North America it was microbes.


 

Cities today leave less of a carbon footprint that Frank Lloyd Wright's
Usonia or Oklahoma Cities spread out all over the place.     We also handle
the weather better with the structures and the internal heat.    I use less
in New York City than my parents did relative to the space they had in
Bartlesville, Oklahoma.     I believe there has to be a coherent study of
all of the structures on the planet and then a way to design a "gardening"
method that allows the structure to flourish within all of the parameters
while still maintaining and developing the evolution and development of
individual consciousness and growth.    The development of

 

.         responsible freedom, 

.         individual growth, 

.         systems balance, 

.         harmony and happiness

.         a legacy of leaving the systems as we found them

.         or even more stable/dynamic.  

 

 

Only then do you have a hope of sustainability without  tyranny.    I
believe the answer to this lies in the development of a serious aesthetic
consciousness that understands systems and patterning and consciously
enlists the Art of Architecture and the other Arts to make a smaller
footprint but a happier people.    Needless to say, today's economic
footprint with the value being monetary is exactly the wrong answer to these
issues in my opinion.  

 

Ray Evans Harrell

Nuyagi Keetoowah Cherokee [from Oklahoma]

New York City, Conductor, Opera Director and 

Performing Arts Teacher.

 

 


Subject: RE: Warmer temperatures in the HOLOCENE

 

You wrote: --- From: [email protected] ---To: ........---Subject: RE: Warmer
temperatures in the HOLOCENE ---Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 08:18:47 -0500

 

"Are you claiming there is nothing happening and we should worry or plan to
survive it?"

 

XXXXXXXXXXXX RESPONDS -- There are tremendously important things going on
that we can "plan" to do something about. Natural climate change is not one
of these things.

 

----------------------------I invite you to read my treatise on the
overshoot of carrying capacity that has been developing for 10,000 years as
humans have mined and diminished the very resources upon which they are
dependent for their sustenance. I wish I had known about "the quinacrine
pellet method of nonsurgical permanent female contraception - QS"  ---
----------

 

 

----- that appears to offer a very efficacious method of fertility control
by individuals who are convinced that this is the right thing to do 

 

I have been interested in the relationship between agriculture and
population growth since about 1969, and I started writing about the
necessity to curb population growth BEFORE the new 'green revolution' crop
varieties were released by Norman Borlaug and his compatriots. Borlaug
himself opined that the new crop wheat and rice varieties ,being produced by
CYMITT in Mexico and the International Rice Research Institute in the
Philippines in the early 1970s, were only stop gap measures - and that the
necessity to constantly increase food production would never end if global
population growth was not halted.

I believe that we are now seeing the ramifications of a global 10,000 year
old debt crisis (PONZI SCHEME) characterized by the creation of money that
supposedly represented actual wealth -- which is the ability to produce food
and fibre for the needs of the Earth's human population. This 10,000 year
old 'PONZI SCHEME' has incorrectly assumed that environmental services such
as soil fertility and other supposedly renewable natural resources were
externalities with infinite capacity that need not be accounted for.

I have proposed that humanity "overstepped" the long-term sustainable
productive capacity of the soils upon which it relies for its sustenance as
soon as cultivation agriculture was adopted.

My thesis suggests the first and most important resource humans have used
non renewably (long before fossil fuel depletion/peak oil) is the arable
soil on the planet; soil mining by cultivation agriculture began ~ 10,000
years ago. This is the culmination of my ~ 40 year investigation into the
relationship between humans and their supporting ecosystems. If my thesis is
correct -- then the 'population bomb', that continues to make natural
resource management problematic, exploded a long, long time ago, see:

My 'guesstimate' for sustainable human numbers in the 100s of millions, if
correct, suggests that the present global population has so far overshot the
carrying capacity of its supporting ecosystems that most analyses of the
relationship of excessive human numbers to SPECIFIC ASPECTS of environmental
damage are simply indulgent academic exercises.

 There are more people on the planet (and have been for millennia) than it
can sustainably support.

 Many of us have concluded that even TWO CHILD FAMILIES -- that would only
slowly stabilize the human population -- are not an adequate response to
this problem.

 We require the VOLUNTARY adoption of NO or ONE CHILD PER FAMILY behavior to
orchestrate the population decline that is necessary now, so that ultimately
our numbers will be small enough to live OFF RESTORED INTACT ECOSYSTEMS ON
THE LAND -------- as opposed to supporting ourselves by DESTROYING THE LAND
BY IMPOSING SIMPLIFIED MANUFACTURED ECOSYSTEMS UPON IT.

 

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to