Ecotopian Dreams
by Jason GodeskyI’ve been thinking of getting a new car, and I keep wondering if perhaps it’s time to get a diesel. Biodiesel can cost cents on the gallon to produce, but diesel cars also often get close to 50 miles to the gallon. For me, making my fuel from vegetable oil hauled from a greasy spoon, this could be a really great thing. Of course, blown to the scale of a full society, and the result may not be so pretty–just ask Brazil. They switched over to ethanol produced from sugar cane on a society-wide basis in the 1980s. The effect of the air quality in the cities was tremendously positive; but it was disastrously negative in the rural areas, since all those sugar cane fields needed to be burned at a certain point in the growing season. Deforestation grew from those larger sugar cane fields, growing the nation’s primary fuel. Small farms and varied agriculture was replaced with vast fields of sugar cane. A new class of seasonal workers was created, and it proved a disaster for the precious biodiversity of Brazil–and its crucial rain forests.
It’s a common theme you’ll find in most environmental solutions–what works extremely well for a few individuals becomes disastrous as a society-wide policy. They face insurmountable problems of scale, but their effectiveness on a small scale entices us to think that we’ve at last found the secret to making our dreams come true. After all, if it works for me and mine, why can’t it work for everyone? I think Ran Prieur suffered from this common problem in his posts today, with such statements as, “The result is that we now have the knowledge to feed everyone in the world, even without oil. Growing your own food is a much more realistic survival strategy than foraging/hunting, because that requires a healthy ecosystem with lots of edible wild plants and animals.”
Permaculture is another ecotopian dream that shows a lot of promise at first blush. Its principles, and most of its techniques, are the same as tribal cultivators operating below the point of diminishing returns: horticulturalists. Ran repeats a common claim, that permaculture could feed the world’s current population, even without oil, but that’s not a view shared by David Holmgren, the man who innovated the modern incarnation of permaculture that claims to be so revolutionary and different from the horticulturalists it so closely resembles. In an interview with Adam Fenderson, Holmgren said:
The expectation that we can actually maintain industrial levels of agricultural activity—well, yes, it is possible in intensive gardening to produce more food per hectare than the most intensive industrial systems. But we’re looking at mostly garden agriculture, where there’s a net input of resources, compost materials, and it’s very labor intensive. And most of that is actually in urban areas where people live. So garden agriculture can yield more per hectare than the industrial equivalent form, but with broad-acre agriculture systems you definitely need many more people and you need the infrastructure for people to be able to live on farms.
Permaculture–like all horticulture–faces certain limitations. Seedballs do not work everywhere. Terracing requires hillsides or mountainsides. Some techniques require rivers or streams nearby. Marvin Harris calculated horticulture to be, calorie-for-calorie, the most efficient mode of sustenance humans have ever tried, and I have no doubt that permaculture shares that trait. However, we cannot simply multiply the per-acre yield of a permacultural garden by the land mass of the earth to find how many people permaculture can support. Like horticulture, permaculture cannot be practiced everywhere. Moreover, it will likely still require a good bit of supplementing. For horticulturalists, that supplementing came from foraging.
Usually, it was hunting that was more necessary, since horticulture–like permaculture–does not tend to yield very many high-protein crops. This put horticulturalists into a position pulled between two vying poles. While simply turning everything into a garden might yield more crops, it would also endanger the wilds they relied on for protein. Permaculturalists may already notice the similarity between this tension, and their own, on-going discussions of how large their “zone 5″ should be.
Steve wants to experiment with permaculture, and though I’m decidedly the most cautious about that idea, I am actually cautiously optimistic about the potential. The idea of permaculture as a means of rewilding, and repairing the damage done by agriculture, particularly interests me. But, what is good for me and mine may not translate well as a society-wide strategy. Where permaculture is possible, I have no doubt it will play a role. But that role is unlikely to be an easy swap-in replacement for monocropping agriculture. There is a ruthless efficiency to that practice that yields an absolute number of calories no sustainable practice could ever match. The idea that permaculture can support our current population is simply absurd, as Holmgren himself wrote in “Energy and Permaculture“:
The most productive sustainable systems imaginable may be able to provide for the needs of five or even 10 billion people. However they would never sustain large-scale cities, a global economy, and Western material affluence even if all the conventional energy conservation strategies were to be adopted. This is a bitter pill to swallow for Westerners raised on the notion of material progress.
Not all areas are suitable for permaculture. It would be difficult to eke out a permacultural living in a desert, for example. Foragers do rely on a healthy ecosystem, but healthy ecosystems flourish all around us without our notice. The Kalahari is a flourishing ecosystem that sustained the !Kung and the Hadza, though to our eyes it looks desolate, dead, unforgiving and uninhabitable. Foragers can survive almost anywhere on earth, and however much a threat collapse may be to human populations, we are still at least a century from significantly threatening the survival of life on earth.
Permaculture is promising, but it is not a panacea. It won’t work everywhere, and it will never support the billions of people who live by monocropped agriculture today. Ran suggested that only America would face mass starvation and cannibalism, but most of the world today is fed by America. Permaculture will no doubt save many who might otherwise have died, but to exaggerate its impact so much as to suggest that it can save us from collapse entirely seems to be buying into the same ecotopian dreams that drove Brazil’s disastrous experiment with ethanol, or Cornucopian responses to Peak Oil about economic substitutes and alternative energy.
Belittling foraging for its dependence on a healthy ecology forgets that permaculture also depends on a healthy ecology. Moreover, permaculture relies on a much more specific kind of healthy ecology than foraging. Growing your own food has always been a far more risky business than simply living like the lilies of the field or the birds of the sky. Permaculture’s most promising possibility is as a companion to foraging, not an alternative to it. And while foraging will be possible in all those same places where people will be able to practice permaculture, there will no doubt be many other areas–most of the earth, I would venture–where permaculture will not be possible, but foraging still offers a life of ease and plenty.
Hey –
I’m gonna take just a little bit of issue with this one, Jason.
Really, just a little.
Your premise is spot on, however, when you say that you can’t do permaculture everywhere… well that’s not exactly correct. Rather, you can do permaculture anywhere in the same way that you can hunt and gather anywhere. But in each ecology it will look totally different. Because permaculture is, fundamentally, looking at the natural environment and figuring out how to help it explode with diversity and health.
So, when someone says that permaculture can generate X tons of food per acre, that is REALLY misleading, because the climate and ecology will determine what each particular acre is capable of…
Janene
Comment by Janene — 22 January 2006 @ 9:27 PM
Tangentially related dreaming:
Scroll down to the end of this link to find a list of all ethanol compatible straight-from-the-factory (new/used) vehicles produced.
Not like I’d be brewing my own ethanol from local sourced waste product - as I could w/ biodiesel - but there are about 70 fuel stations in the Chicago area carrying E85. I like the redundancy of a flex-fuel vehicle. (warning - your mileage will be lower with ethanol).
Personally, for my usage (painting mule) I’m eyeing to upgradw to a ‘98 Dodge minivan with the 3.3L. Used, mass-produced American hardware also has a distinct advantage for D.I.Y’ers - salvage and junk yard availability that simply can’t be touched by imports, especially German VW’s (essentially the only diesel car out there).
Anyway - it’s a future, transitional step I’m contemplating…
In the meantime - I just placed an order for 3.3KW of photovoltaic panels (18 x 185W)!
Comment by JCamasto — 22 January 2006 @ 9:49 PM
That ethonal link misposted above is: http://www.ksgrains.com/ethanol/rege85summary.html
Comment by JCamasto — 22 January 2006 @ 10:05 PM
I was also reading Ran’s site today and was equally surprised that he had fallen into the permaculture trap when he should know better. More agriculture, nomatter how it has been repackaged, is only going to lead to what we already have. If an alternative is desired I would consider a pastoralist model (ranching) to be more compatible with a wild environment than hort/agriculture and also to be more accessible than foraging. This tradition is also still alive in the mainstream culture. Many options are available and I feel the Permacultists have been given more attention than they warrant. Thank you for this healthy skeptical analysis of a topic most green/PO/crash/anti civs take to be beyond question.
Mark
Comment by Mark — 22 January 2006 @ 10:46 PM
Yes, a diesel-powered car is desireable as you can burn just about any fuel mixed with some diesel, or biodiesel. There is a small hydrogen-making device (pipes hydrogen - made by electrolysis of water/baking soda solution - in through the air-intake) sold on E-Bay. I just recevied one and will let you know how it works.
Also, think GM is coming out with a multi-fuel engine soon, and these cars will be traveling long after the gas-models.
Comment by Rick Larson — 22 January 2006 @ 11:23 PM
While I am certainly a proponent of permaculture, I agree with your basic premise above. Permaculture–no matter how broadly, quickly, and effectively adopted–is not a panacea for civilization, and it will not prevent collapse. Where I see the role of permaculture is–as you pointed out–as a companion to foraging and hunting AFTER collapse. It is a part of the knowledge that we must carry forward with us through the collapse. Permaculture will be, I think, a critical part of our future, but it can’t solve our present problems. Collapse will, ultimately, re-shape the distribution and density of humanity, most likely making our smaller and differently distributed populations a better match for what permaculture CAN do for us.
Comment by Jeff Vail — 22 January 2006 @ 11:27 PM
David Holmgren himself believes in permaculture as a companion to hunting and foraging. Read his PowerPoint presentation about life after cheap energy (which can be found on his website) and you’ll note he talks about gathering wild edibles and hunting kangaroos as a food source.
Comment by meroe — 22 January 2006 @ 11:31 PM
I definitely agree that there are some places foraging makes a lot more sense. I would also agree that there is no way permaculture can support civilization. You seem so have misunderstood both Ran and Holmgrem though. Neither ever said that we could support civilization with permaculture, they both said that the current population could be supported, but that doesn’t mean they can stay in cities. (read your quote above a little more carefully, since I don’t think this “The idea that permaculture can support our current population is simply absurd” jives with this “The most productive sustainable systems imaginable may be able to provide for the needs of five or even 10 billion people”, which is what you used as support for the former statement) I’m not saying that would be a good thing either.
One more little point though, permaculture is more viable on damaged land than is foraging because….while foraging takes pressure off the land and allows it to heal itself, permaculture, if done correctly, actually speed up the recovery process and assists in the healing of the soil and general ecology. There have been many cases of permaculture restoring damaged land to climax soil health in less than a decade (sometimes as little as five years). It usually takes longer for an ecosystem to fully recover. Also, with foraging, the entire ecosystem of the area you are living in must be relatively healthy to support many people very well. With permaculture, though important, the ecology of the entire system is secondary to the health of that small piece of earth you call home. Its a lot easier to heal a square mile than a whole forest. Yes, I know, if the entire system is messed up, rainfall, erosion and pollution will be problems everywhere, but you can deal with these more easily in a permacultural system.
I’m still not saying that permaculture is better or worse than foraging, I just wanted to point out that you are a little unfair towards it.
Comment by limukala — 23 January 2006 @ 1:07 AM
I don’t know a whole lot about permaculture, but you’re spot on with biodiesel. I tried to emaphasize in my talk this weekend that its a local, individual solution and not a mass-population solution (thank goodness its not economically viable to the industry…yet).
That said, I highly recommend you pay the extra to buy a diesel car. The engine is so much more malleable and forgiving than an unleaded engine that with just a little study of the engine itself you can be doing your own repairs/maintenance right from the beginning (diesel groups like http://www.tdiclub.com are excellent for maintenance/troubleshooting help — I do ALL my own maintenance now). Plus if a pinch you can make your own fuel out of things at hand. Got kerosine? Throw it in! Got veggie oil, a 2-liter bottle, some lye and some wood alcohol (or methanol or ethanol)? Make a couple liters at a time! You don’t need a reactor like ours to make fuel, the process is extremely easy, especially on the small-scale.
The slow step is the obtaining of the diesel engine. Once you have one, a lot of freedom in choosing liquid transportation fuels opens up to you (and the more choices you have, the better).
Comment by valhallan — 23 January 2006 @ 11:55 AM
Actually they use permaculture to green desert like areas.
http://www.permaculture.org.au/ -> scroll down a bit and you’ll see a link to the video “greening the desert”.
Fukuoka (not permaculture) did that as well on small scale but suggested it could be done on very large scale if the goverments supported it (ethiopian police warned him not to distribute seeds to the people). Fukuoka says we should assist in recovering damaged nature.
Read the interview here:
http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC14/Fukuoka.htm
I think Fukuoka sees the world where you just live like a forager as ideal. But on so many places nature has been damaged that we must try to restore it (if we are capable of that) with simple natural farming techniques (like using seedballs - a technique which was also known by American Indians).
Ofcourse it might be that nature restores itself quite fast (without human intervention) once the negative human actions have been stopped (like in a collapse of industry?).
Comment by Anonymous — 23 January 2006 @ 11:59 AM
I noticed. I didn’t say Holmgren agreed with me on everything, just this point or that point. I do think it’s absurd to expect a human population of billions living off of permaculture, no matter what Holmgren says–especially when we’re facing drastic climate change. For all the hubbub, I’ve yet to hear any compelling reason why I should see permaculture as anything but a form of horticulture, and that means it will be bound to the same capacities as all other horticulture. And that means a human populaton of millions, not billions.
That may be true, but can permaculture heal the land, and feed humans, at the same time? Foragers can live well off of some pretty desolate landscapes, but as promising as I think permaculture can be for repairing the damage we’ve done, I don’t see how it could do that, and provide a food source, at the same time.
“Healthy” means two very different things for a cultivator and a forager. Remember, foragers live in the Arctic and in the Kalahari. The most blasted, marginal places on earth, where no cultivation is possible, is still abundant to a forager.
That’s actually one of the marks against the idea. I don’t know a damn thing about cars, and I’m not sure I want to invest in that knowledge.
Firstly, does that also provide food at the same time?
Secondly, I’m not sure that’s a good thing. The world wasn’t all greenery and forest before humans, either. Deserts are part of a healthy planet, too (just not as many of them, or as big, as we have now).
And that it does. Within 24 hours of the 2003 North American blackout, the air quality in Pennsylvania went through the roof. It takes just 25 years for a section of rain forest to regenerate. Life is very resilient, so repairing it might be nice–but I’m not sure how necessary it is.
It also worries me a bit, given the past history of our good intentions, roads paved with them, and where those projects eventually lead.
Just ask Brazil.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 January 2006 @ 12:21 PM
Well as far as I heard
-the Californian desert was created by the spanish bringing along new grasses and their domesticated cows which made the ecosystem go out of balance.
-the sahara was created by a civilization thousands of years ago which came from Libia (what it’s called now). They cut down all the trees on their own land and thus started conquering all the land under the mediterranean, cutting trees with slaves. Their civilzation collapsed when most of the trees were gone.
-In Africa there are only 3% of the trees left of what was there 100 years ago. They were cut down by humans.
-the great old civilization in the Middle East ends in 1 big desert land.
-I saw in a BBC documentary that the Australian desert was created by a kind of slash and burn agriculture.
-etc etc
So far it seems (from what i heard) that almost every desert has been created by civilization. Of course there were deserts before civilization, but far far less. Or so it seems!
Of course there is life in deserts too. There are animals and plants which almost only grow in deserts. But I think there were far less, like you say as well.
Comment by gunnix — 23 January 2006 @ 1:58 PM
Uh, you know a ton about Oerth, computers, and putting ketchup on your scrambled eggs, but you don’t want to learn about diesel engines because you don’t think it’ll be relevant in the future?
Don’t you want to have a little advantage in the ‘Mad Max’ section of the apocalypse? Soon I’ll be learning how to make wrist crossbows and bladed boomerangs I have to catch with big furry oven mits.
Comment by valhallan — 23 January 2006 @ 2:47 PM
Gunnix — I know. That’s what I said. I pointed out that we have more deserts, and bigger deserts, thanks to agriculture. But the world before us had deserts, too. The existence of deserts is important, and not something we should eliminate. Let’s be sure not to be so reactionary that we swing the pendulum all the way in the other direction and cause another catastrophe that way.
Didn’t say a thing about whether or not it was useful. I said I’m not sure I want to invest in that knowledge. Every kind of knowledge takes tme, and has a certain benefit. This knowledge does have a certain benefit, but I’m just not sure that benefit is sufficient, for me, to invest the requisite time.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 January 2006 @ 3:02 PM
according to the almighty Wiki, Permaculture is “a design system which aims to create sustainable human habitats by following nature’s patterns.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture
to me, that seems to include habitats meant for foraging, as well as for horticulture. personally, i don’t see the two directions as being mutually exclusive, so i’m not sure what the disagreement is even about.
unless people are meaning different things by that same term? (i’m rather new to the whole topic, so i don’t mind being corrected here.)
Comment by Librarian — 23 January 2006 @ 3:04 PM
also, i’m not sure i see how Brazil’s experience with biodiesel is quite the same as growing your own spirulina algea for the purpose of personal subsistance…
from George Monbiot’s editorial on the fuel topic:
“Before I go any further, I should make it clear that turning used chip fat into motor fuel is a good thing. The people slithering around all day in vats of filth are perfoming a service to society. But there is enough waste cooking oil in the UK to meet one 380th of our demand for road transport fuel(2). Beyond that, the trouble begins.
When I wrote about it last year, I thought that the biggest problem caused by biodiesel was that it set up a competition for land(3). Arable land that would otherwise have been used to grow food would instead be used to grow fuel. But now I find that something even worse is happening. The biodiesel industry has accidentally invented the world’s most carbon-intensive fuel.”
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel/
i think the real problem with biodiesel is the profit motive, not the practice of running an engine on fat products rather than on fossil fuel. there’s a major difference between doing something for personal survival, and trying to do it for a profit-earning business.
Comment by Librarian — 23 January 2006 @ 3:36 PM
First, “aims to” and “achieves” are two different things. Second, “sustainable” only means something over some period of time. I’ve seen quite a few “sustainable” schemes which, while sustainable for longer periods of time than the alternative, were still not something that could be practiced indefinitely.
Not at all. You’ll see I advocated such co-existence and even mutual use above, and apparently, David Holmgren himself has advocated the same. Really, I’m happy to coexist with anything that’s willing to coexist with me.
Didn’t say it was. Brazil’s my example of a fine technology for personal use becomng disastrous when we inflate it to the scale of a whole society.
I think the real problem with biodiesel is that we’re already taking up 40% of the earth’s surface farming enough food to eat, and that the trophic conversions to create biodiesel are not very good, so if we’re also going to grow all our fuel as well as our food, then we’re looking at the obliteration of all life on earth to realize that project.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 January 2006 @ 3:56 PM
actually, the *real* problem with biodiesel is the automobile, which, sadly, is Evil–no matter what you power it with
Comment by Librarian — 23 January 2006 @ 4:17 PM
Are trains Evil, too? Ships? Planes?
Comment by JCamasto — 23 January 2006 @ 4:28 PM
Would cars that run on happy thoughts be Evil? Hmmmm….
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 January 2006 @ 4:30 PM
Can I have a happy-thought car? Or how about one that runs on pure evil? (flashbacks of “Time Bandits” run through my head)
Best
Bill
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 23 January 2006 @ 4:31 PM
That might be ok until we cross: peak happy-thoughts
Comment by JCamasto — 23 January 2006 @ 4:46 PM
I have seen the peak.
Comment by valhallan — 23 January 2006 @ 5:27 PM
“Would cars that run on happy thoughts be Evil?”
yes!
and, “Are trains Evil, too? Ships? Planes?”
sometimes, sometimes, and probably most of the time (which is a shame, because clouds are REALLY amazing in a whole new way when you look at them from the top-side.)
you know, i lived for a few years in Madison WI in the early 90’s, and there was a clear heirarchy there of perceived Evil in certain communities when it came to getting around town: i watched the bike people scoff at the bus people, and the walking people, i suspect, felt secretly superior to the bike riders. i guess sometimes it’s more about feeling “right” than it is about anything else? maybe i need a car that runs on depressing realizations?
better to drive the Pure Evil-Fueled Evil Car, and just revel honestly in how evil you are!
Comment by Librarian — 23 January 2006 @ 5:32 PM
Dude don’t make biodiesel just run a diesel car on used veg oil…I do it all the time!
Scott
Comment by Scott — 24 January 2006 @ 10:54 PM
I am a modern scavenger forager. I scrounge old VW diesel cars,fix em up and run them on scavenged veg oil from local dives. Detritus rules!
Scott
Comment by Scott — 24 January 2006 @ 11:03 PM
To expand on what Mark said above
“If an alternative is desired I would consider a pastoralist model (ranching) to be more compatible with a wild environment than hort/agriculture and also to be more accessible than foraging.”
The current ‘trend’ in permaculture relies heavily on forest gardens and plant guilds….ie horticulture. However, at its core, permaculture is a far more comprehensive design system. Having a bountiful forest garden close to the house(zone 1), with interspersed vegetables, fruit, and nuts, makes great sense, but there’s also a place for pasture and woodlots (zones 3 and 4), which can round out a communities’ protein needs with proper management.
Cheers
Rich
Comment by rich — 25 January 2006 @ 4:33 PM
Hi,
The only obstacles for permaculture to feed the world, according to above quote from Holmgren, are just two:
- it requires more people involved into it than there currently are in agriculture.
- so many people must live within the middle of their fields some sort of infrastructure, other than existing one, is needed.
It also points that permaculture can not support so many people with the harmfull and wastefull way of living the live now.
———
What attracts me towards permaculture is its strong base of positive ethics upon which it is build upon:
- dont push your ambition against world
- search, understand and apply natural balances where you live.
- respect all living creatures.
- sufficient is enough
I think (yup this is my utopian thinking) it might have the potential to drive civilisation towards the oposite of this yerarchical, harmful, totalitarian system.
regards,
cezar
Comment by blimpyway — 8 July 2006 @ 6:36 AM
Those aren’ty the only limitations, Cezar, not by a long shot—as described above, there are distinct limitations of scale. In our interview with Toby Hemenway (podcast episode #5), even he admitted that permaculture can’t feed 6.5 billion people.
As for ethics, when given a means of producing food with an ethic attached, people have a way of stripping any non-essential ethics from the system and continuing to act as unethically as they can while still making the system work, because societies are only as good as their worst people. If only one person in a whole tribe is a murderer, well, you’ve still got a murder in your tribe, don’t you?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 8 July 2006 @ 11:12 AM
Hi Jeff,
I have problems hearing the podcast. Do you have any transcripts? (computer system not my hearing)
I think permaculture should work for me, in a relatively small acreage compared to population density in my country, with more success than hunting and foraging around here.
I can not make choices for 6 billion people.
Attaching etics to anything may not work in many cases, but can you bet that disregarding them is bettter?
Is our vision that shapes the way we live or the other way?
best wishes,
cezar
Comment by blimpyway — 8 July 2006 @ 4:32 PM
I meant Jason not Jeff. Sorry.
Comment by blimpyway — 8 July 2006 @ 8:40 PM