[Sixstrings]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', 'T')he problem with permaculture, which I agree with SixStrings on, is that it does not operate at a human timescale. It has a slow ramp-up speed on its theoretical yields. A multi-level food forest with a canopy species like chestnuts is a multi-decade investment towards maturity. Over the same timescale I'm sure you could grow far more calories in annuals.

[Umber]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'I') have seriously thought about getting a bow, but they are quite expensive and as I understand take a good deal of strength. I'm kind of a feeble middle-aged lady.

[careinke]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '
')
In regard to calories produced versus taste, this is an issue I'm trying to deal with in my own permaculture garden. I've recently change to the "paleo diet" to lose weight http://www.nerdheaven.dk/~jevk/paleo_intro.php#menus and also because it is a diet I'm more likely to be able to grow than the normal civilized diet, as grains don't grow all that well in my climate. The grains folks grow here are oats and sorghum. I like oats ok but I've not eaten sorghum and not many people in our Western society do. I think it's more common in Africa. But both of them take a lot of space. I'm growing a lot of root crops which are the primary calorie crops in the "One Circle" Biointensive diet, but I hope to get most of my calories from meat. We'll see how that works out. Ideally I'd hunt the meat but having mental illness I don't think I should handle firearms and so far my husband isn't into hunting. I will be raising chickens for eggs and meat. But probably not producing all of my meat on my own place - I've contracted with my sister to get rabbit meat from her. I used to be mostly vegetarian but have recently become convinced that's not necessarily the most healthy diet. So far I have lost weight on the paleo diet which is important because I have congenital high blood pressure and anything I can do to keep it down is beneficial.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Is permaculture physically possible as the major food production system with a planetary population (apparently) rapidly headed towards, say, 9 billion real soon now?

Reading through the main thrust of these interesting posts, I get the sense this is fundamentally an "available resources" issue, so I just wondered.

If we could go back to a global population of perhaps 2 or 3 billion, it would seem to solve a LOT of problems, or at least make them FAR more manageable.

I suppose that will only happen if/when nature forces the issue on us...

[mos6507]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', 'I')s permaculture physically possible as the major food production system with a planetary population (apparently) rapidly headed towards, say, 9 billion real soon now?

[davep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', 'T')he problem with permaculture, which I agree with SixStrings on, is that it does not operate at a human timescale. It has a slow ramp-up speed on its theoretical yields. A multi-level food forest with a canopy species like chestnuts is a multi-decade investment towards maturity. Over the same timescale I'm sure you could grow far more calories in annuals.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'O')ne of the major elements of intensive permaculture forest gardening (or agroforestry) is that you interplant the future chestnuts/walnuts with quicker maturing perennials and annuals if you need a decent harvest from the get go.

Also, yields of walnuts can easily reach five tonnes per hectare after fifteen years, so I'm not sure where the 'takes up a lot more land' argument comes from. Given the high oil content, this is calorifically equivalent to better annual crops.

[davep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', '
')Think about it.. people have been growing food THE SAME WAY for what, 10,000 years? Humanity has learned that there's safety in maximum quantity.. that means big farms with rows of densely pack veggies, not a "garden of eden" outside everyone's house.

[davep]

And in a crisis, it is not maximum density, but maximum resilience, that counts. If you find you no longer have access to nitrate fertiliser etc, you have no resilience if you depend on it.

Ensuring all fertiliser comes from on-farm sources helps create that resiliency, as does ensuring that pest predators are allowed to thrive (in the absence of pesticides).

[Ludi]

Call me the grumpy permaculturist!

Some books to read:

Beginner's guide to permaculture: "Gaia's Garden" (puke title ) by Toby Hemenway

Big fat expensive book with too much about the tropics: "Permaculture: a designer's manual" by Bill Mollison

Growing food in a small space (Biointensive): "How to Grow More Vegetables" by John Jeavons

These books might be available online at http://www.scribd.com/

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', '
')Think about it.. people have been growing food THE SAME WAY for what, 10,000 years? Humanity has learned that there's safety in maximum quantity.. that means big farms with rows of densely pack veggies, not a "garden of eden" outside everyone's house.

[davep]

A couple more are Edible Forest Gardens by David Jacke, The Earthcare Manual by Patrick Whitefield and The Woodland Way by Ben Law. All three are oriented towards a temperate climate.

[davep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'P')ermaculture is based on the sciences of anthropology, geology, biology, hydrology, etc. Another strawman argument.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', 'I')s permaculture physically possible as the major food production system with a planetary population (apparently) rapidly headed towards, say, 9 billion real soon now?

[mos6507]

If we're in population overshoot, we've got a fork on the road. Our objective is either to keep everybody alive by any means necessary, even if it means stripping the planet to the bone like a swarm of locusts, OR we can try to envision a way of life that preserves and/or restores ecosystems.

"Our situation" is not "how to feed 9 billion people". "Our situation" is how do we inhabit this earth without destroying it in the process. Since few experts on the subject believe there is any conceivable way for 9 billion people to live sustainably, then ultimately the goal should not be to feed 9 billion people, not unless we all magically decide to have fewer kids from then onward and descend from that precipice before we push every other species on the planet to extinction.

Does that mean I'm looking forward to or in any way endorsing die-off? No. What I'm saying is that if we don't start protecting and restoring ecosystems, anything we pursue in the short-term will fail and we'll be in even worse shape. We basically have to TERRAFORM the planet back to some crude analog of what used to be there before, but skewed towards species that can support us directly.

Do I think we'll do that? No. Even if we acknowledged the benefits, we don't have the patience for that sort of long-term plan, and we certainly won't when food starts to get scarce. We'll do "what works" without thinking beyond our grumbling stomachs, and face the long-term consequences.

But when it comes down to the local or individual level, I know what I'm going to focus on.

*end soapbox*

[davep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '&')quot;Our situation" is not "how to feed 9 billion people". "Our situation" is how to we inhabit this earth without destroying it in the process. Since few experts on the subject believe there is any conceivable way for 9 billion people to live sustainably, then ultimately the goal should not be to feed 9 billion people, not unless we all magically decide to have fewer kids from then onward and descend from that precipice before we push every other species on the planet to extinction.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', 'I')s that so unreasonable?

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '&')quot;Our situation" is not "how to feed 9 billion people". "Our situation" is how to we inhabit this earth without destroying it in the process. Since few experts on the subject believe there is any conceivable way for 9 billion people to live sustainably, then ultimately the goal should not be to feed 9 billion people, not unless we all magically decide to have fewer kids from then onward and descend from that precipice before we push every other species on the planet to extinction.

[aldente]

The discussion of population control is pretty much a nuisence since uncontrollable in the first place. The fact that the Chinese oppose such a statement with a one child policy since nearly 30 years is remarkable, so - for all we know- they have a point.

"Modern" forms of politics here in Europe seem nothing but a play with hats on a Medieval market:

[americandream]

This is mere tinkering as long as we continue to personalise the usage of the earth's resources into personal title. All early societies prior to the advent of personal title practiced variants of communism which is precisely why their usage of resources were as distinguishable from ours as they are. We parcel off the earth's resources for personal gain and are taken aback at it's natural equilibrium, full spectrum exploitation. WTF!!

Overlaying this model of usage with sentimental tinkering, will, like all tinkering, result in commercial mutations of these superficial remedies and no real movement in a proper relationship with this one earth of ours, the finer nuances of that relationship aside.