Ludi wrote:I should mention what really seems the main difference between our approaches is that Wildwell appears to promote "top-down" solutions imposed by government, whereas I promote "bottom-up" solutions which individuals, families, and communities can choose to implement as they are able. I don't personally see any evidence whatsoever that government will help us with this mess, except to help make it worse. Plus I don't personally have any power in government on any level, so expecting government solutions would leave me feeling entirely helpless, whereas I can implement some kind of small-scale mitigation by myself following the information I have available, which does help keep me from utter despair. My hope is to provide a model for others to emulate if they are inspired by it.
So, there, I think, is the main difference. At least as far as I can see.
I’m probably slightly disinterested because I don’t even have a garden. Not to say that was always the case, because we did grow much of our food and keep chickens and ducks at one stage and have lived ‘in the country’ almost all my life.
I think it’s best to start by explaining what I mean by an ‘agricultural economy’ and an ‘industrial economy’.
An agricultural economy is a society based around agriculture and can be traced back towards improvements in seed drills, livestock rearing, ploughs, and different methods of breeding. This existed before the industrial revolution, and came in different forms. For example in England, there was small holders, a peasantry, landlords, local barons and so on. Essentially people lived on farms and grew their own food. In addition some had trades (wheelwrights, carpenters, ironmongers, shipwrights, tailors and so on). The economy was highly localised, so much so, that even in a small country like England you had several time systems. The time was different in Norwich, compared to Bristol. Disease and poverty were rife. Life expectancy was low, because of poor water supply, sanitation and medicine. Education standards were very low, because before Caxton’s printing press, all books had to be hand written and few could afford them, even fewer could understand them, provided to could ‘distribute’ the knowledge. These days we take it for granted that you can set up a website and broadcast your ideas to the world.
An industrial economy is one where the economy is diversified but generally centralised and people don’t necessarily grow their own food, build their own houses. Instead, through skills they trade for essentials and non-essentials using money. Most production of products, including agricultural ones is done on industrial scale, usually using machines or large farmsteads.
I’ve read some of the permaculture stuff and quite frankly most of it is utter bollocks. A lot of it is very middle class, and based upon this mis-guided romantic notion that farming your own food and procuring your own water is fun. The agricultural economy was especially unstable because of: Poor harvests, disease and poor education. Believe me, self sufficiency during poor weather will result in die off, war, famine and God help you if you catch anything. How on earth do you think education and medicine can thrive without some degree of centralisation?
I have to chuckle when the writers talk about cars. Especially as cities are generally less energy intensive as people can walk between places, or don’t even own cars. (aprox 50% in most European cities). If we all moved out to the country, or lived in less dense development, it would require more energy and more cars.
The writers often argue that culture is unimportant and people can (and wish) to live very locally. In fact people have always travelled because of famine, looking for trade, and natural inquisitiveness and obtaining land (usually through force). There is no evidence that people enjoy living within a few miles from birth, or it is sustainable. In short, most of those sites describe an agricultural economy – with cars. An absolutely bizarre mix, especially as you are trying to reduce car use and energy consumption. But hey, there are 'car free' days.
Until I’m blue in the face I have pointed out that cars (and to an extent) air travel are principal components in unsustainable oil use and you had no such problem pre (aprox) 1950.
Permaculture is not a solution for people who live in towns and cannot afford large tracts of land. Have you any idea how expensive land is in Europe and Japan? Compact European and Japanese cities do not have huge dwellings nor land to grow food and if you were to decant the urban population into the country or de-centralise cities, you would need much, much more land, which is simply unavailable, it also makes less energy intensive mass transit unviable. Therefore is not an acceptable solution.
Perhaps I am suggesting a predominantly (although not exclusively so) top down solution, because I see very little evidence, apart from a certain section of the middle class who actual want to go off and live the good life or who are remotely interested in environmental affairs. I’ve said many times, most people do not know where their food, water, products, services or anything else comes from. Do you? They are not interested in sustainability; they are interested in getting by in everyday life, which is hard for the majority of the world, even in rich western countries.
So I see no other choice that the government(s) must educate the population and put in certain checks and balances as well as plan adequately for PO and long term sustainability.