Food and climate change

Simple living, extreme early retirement, being wealthy, ...
User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3456
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: Food and climate change

Post by Alphaville »

ellarose24 wrote:
Fri Apr 16, 2021 7:06 am
I have not read the entirety of this thread--but I do have to wonder if permaculture and backyard farming are as good for the environment as people think they are.

[...]

I think a fix for this would be learning to use native foods and to forage native foods. Many native plants have been used as food in the past--acorns/red buds/all kinds of wildflowers/hell even crab grass (which is not native, invasive so BAD) but even crabgrass is a staple crop in some parts of africa with people making flour from it.

Native plants don't need a bunch of extra amendments, either to be organic or chemicals--they are find on your soil as is--in fact putting too much compost may displease them.
hey there. i read this some days ago and wanted to rejoin the thread but was tuned to other frequencies.

yes, there is an ongoing debate on organic vs. borlaug agriculture. and borlaug laughs at permaculturists as a naive lot, but i think he's not taking all factors of permaculture into account. he's more or less counting on "all else being equal," which it's not meant to be under a permaculture paradigm

i used to homestead in the us sw high desert (sort of homestead) and did some experiments with native plants, but they are not so easy to grow as formal crops. in part because the existing tools and protocols and technical support are design towards commercial crops. and then there is a lack of markets. eg you can grow indian corn but people buy sweet corn to eat. indian corn is used for... decorations :(

there is also an issue of increasing desertification and loss of habitat.

now in a city i keep wanting to find a plot to grow amaranth but my proposal gets shot down by neighbors because it's "an invasive weed." even though it's as good as spinach, plus the seed is super protein dense, the flowers are beautiful, etc. invasive weed! o well. but european gruenkohl in need of amendments otoh is well regarded because dietary fashion.

anyway interesting discussion you started i look forward to catching up with the rest of it.
Last edited by Alphaville on Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7235
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Food and climate change

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

I think it is very important to keep in mind that it is almost always the use of human technology which favors invasive species. For instance, in city parks, you will frequently find garden escaped naturalized species growing along the tool maintained edge of paths, but more native species as you explore deeper into interior of thicket. I am currently reading a book which details how the creation of extensive canals in Chicago in order to reverse the direction of the river flow of sewage provided super-highway for invasive aquatics. Extra irony being that some aquatic invasives were originally introduced as biological controls to be favored over chemical controls in earlier era. Kind of like any time humans try to close the loop on one flow of crap, we end up creating a different flow of crap (or carp.)

Has something to do with rule of thumb that any complex system has to input net more complexity within boundaries in order to survive/grow. For instance, the complexity of a human = complexity of food - complexity remaining in crap. It's not completely coincidental that carp can survive on the complexity left in human crap. Voracious top feeders create an attractive vacuum for voracious bottom feeders.

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3456
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: Food and climate change

Post by Alphaville »

yeah there is also a debate over what constitutes "invasive" under rapid climate change.

e.g. in my state there is an ongoing (losing) war against siberian elms. they will colonize every spot they can take up.

eg see this concerned neighbor:

https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/life/2 ... 502545002/

HOWEVER (i dont have my permaculture documentation at hand to link) others argue that in an environment of ongoing desertification we might as well welcome whatever tree we can get.

eg where my family has land the piñon tree (evergreen) is being massacred by the bark beetle, which proliferates during droughts. the insect is impossible to kill: only rain and snow keep it in check.

but the invasive siberian elm (deciduous) thrives in the floodplains of the area.

50 years from now we might have no piñon left and might have to be content with the elms.

me, i got tired of killing elms around my cabin (unfortunately built on a floodplain) and decided to let them grow on the east and south and west where they provide seasonal shade and wick moisture away from my foundation. "deep adaptation" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

ps when we tried planting deciduous native floodplain trees around the house they croaked and looked like cinders due to lack of rain, and our watering by hand wasn't enough. whereas the elms need zero help. so i'd argue the elms may be filling a vacated niche under drought conditions, rather than actively killing the competition.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7235
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Food and climate change

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@Alphaville:

Yes, that is a very good example of what I meant by "just plant a tree."

There is generally a lot of misleading statistics when comparing Borlaug methods within Borlaug reality to Non-Borlaug methods within Borlaug reality. For instance, if you are running a non-profit with the mission of reducing food waste in the U.S. and you have a limited amount of funds to direct towards your mission, you will get more bang for your buck by educating people that vegetables canned or frozen using modern methods are nutritious. IOW, directing them away from previously educated belief that fresh produce is much better for health which results in fridge drawer rot and lowered consumption of vegetables due to too much prep work hurdle to overcome. However, it would not make sense to broadcast this message if majority of population was engaged in growing their own produce and frugal systems kitchen economics OR eating exclusively at restaurants.

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3456
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: Food and climate change

Post by Alphaville »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Mon Apr 19, 2021 9:55 am
@Alphaville:

Yes, that is a very good example of what I meant by "just plant a tree."

well the beauty of the elms is they don't even need planting. they just sprout :lol:

it was in fact the native trees we planted that failed.

so my preferred method for that land is neither "plant" nor "garden native" but FACILITATE ECOLOGICAL SUCCESSION (not yelling, just for visibility, lol).

simply fencing our area to keep away overgrazing cattle enabled the return of many native species right next to the "invasive" elms. as a result we're now receiving family photos of deer browsing in our plot. the deer just hop the fence :lol: while the cows moo greedily.

also the beauty of the deer is they don't overgraze or trample. they eat a little, go away, and are well integrated with the native flora.

i cannot control ecological succession

i can just stop interfering with it--and keep the blasted cattle from interfering with it also. wish we could turn them all into hamburger and cease breeding them, but no! family likes them around. can't talk them out of it.

the main battlefield for humans in this is not in the biosphere, but in the culture, whether we're talking cows or quelites.*

* sorry, i'm speaking mexican. quelites (keh-LEE-tess) is amaranth, purslane, lambs quarters, and other similar wild greens.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7235
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Food and climate change

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Facilitating ecological succession is wonderful where appropriate, but if/when you also have to fit feeding humans into the system, I believe the question ellarose24 was "asking" was whether it is better to have highly efficient Borlaug like agriculture in one part of the system in order to maximize space available for wilderness in other part of system? This is a question about managing the edge, and one of the principles of permaculture is that the system will be overall improved if edge is valued or roughly "maximized." For instance, at the level of urban/regional design, valuing/maximizing edge might suggest fingers of "wilderness" reaching into urban park system and fingers of park system reaching into every neighborhood. However, since permaculturists have not been granted control over many regional/urban design projects (yet), the problem can not be solved ideally at the level of individual homestead or suburban plot or urban apartment. So, should I create a little bit of wilderness vs. should I create a little bit of farm might seem like a conflict.

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3456
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: Food and climate change

Post by Alphaville »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:42 am
Facilitating ecological succession is wonderful where appropriate, but if/when you also have to fit feeding humans into the system, I believe the question ellarose24 was "asking" was whether it is better to have highly efficient Borlaug like agriculture in one part of the system in order to maximize space available for wilderness in other part of system? Tartment. So, should I create a little bit of wilderness vs. should I create a little bit of farm might seem like a conflict.
oh! i was answering to the responsibility of growing native plants for landowners part.

also my experience was more concerned with growing quelites to feed people. they're native, they're edible, they're nutritious, they're both greens and protein, but the consumer prefers the gruenkohl (kale) cuz it's what dr oz juices or whatever.

"invasive weeds!" farming is totally possible, with native plants which are part of the succession. the problem is not so much lack of crops but lack of humans. i'd rather harvest the occasional deer than have cows puttering around too. native meats.

the density issue is another story, yeah, have not addressed, but i'm trying to deposit a check using the stupid mobile app from my cu which is difficult as hell to use and hope to get around to it... to both the check and the density :D

--\\\

eta: meanwhile here's native amaranth plantation to feed the masses in places where the population culturally accepts the grain as a staple not a curiosity http://edgarespinozamontesinos.blogspot ... t-las.html

here's quelites for sale at a mexican market right next to the lechuga

Image

here's the gringo version:

Image

unfortunately not widespread enough

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7235
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Food and climate change

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@Alphaville:

I agree. I even stuck a little identifying popsicle stick in the lambs quarter clump on my urban permaculture project. It’s delicious in homemade spanakopita, but majority of kcals (too many!) in that dish came from outside my garden.

I’ve also grown amaranth as ornamental*.I was considering it as part of quick messy edible hedge design along with sunflowers.

*Love Lies Bleeding

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3456
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: Food and climate change

Post by Alphaville »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:49 am
@Alphaville:

I agree. I even stuck a little identifying popsicle stick in the lambs quarter clump on my urban permaculture project. It’s delicious in homemade spanakopita, but majority of kcals (too many!) in that dish came from outside my garden.

I’ve also grown amaranth as ornamental*.I was considering it as part of quick messy edible hedge design along with sunflowers.

*Love Lies Bleeding
i see. i could have harvested corn, amaranth, squashes, beans and other native crops from my field. plus we had a little hoophouse in the works.

for native seeds around my region, see: https://www.nativeseeds.org/
(they specialize in arizonan sandy lowlands, so not applicable to everywhere, but they have some high altitude/clay soil stuff too. viability of some seeds might extend to texas for @ellenrose depending on climate/soils.)

problem for me was, due to long covid (haha) i mean long drought (same difference), plants that had grown in that field in the past with monsoon rains were no longer viable (this relates to siberian supremacy)

SO i had two option:
-dig water channels and swales on contour for greater water infiltration, or
-explore the possibilities of dryland agriculture, as recommended by an nrcs expert

i dug some channels with backhoe (fun!), but the swales needed a more delicate touch and i could not find the laborers or spare the labor myself. then we moved away.

so it's in my "maybe/someday" folder, for when i can find reliable laborers. ditch-digging is a tough business, and rural boys these days prefer to toughen themselves with "call of duty" :lol:

dryland agriculture... i need to get schooled about it so that my brain may begin to churn options.

==

as for the permaculture vs borlaug problem, i mulled over a bit while fixing my lunch:

i don't think it's possible to solve it in a rationalistic, "grand design" way. like all highly complex problems, we can only solve empirically, due to effects of changing markets, populations, demand, innovation, and other things too large and significant to predict which are right now invisible to us. there is no crystal ball, no matter how smart we may be.

i think that as long as permaculture continues to grow and innovate, it stands a chance, and should be able to compete/contribute to feed humanity in a substantial way. but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so we'll see, but to make that pudding we must keep experimenting.

ellarose24
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:44 am

Re: Food and climate change

Post by ellarose24 »

Alphaville wrote:
Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:29 am
yeah there is also a debate over what constitutes "invasive" under rapid climate change.

e.g. in my state there is an ongoing (losing) war against siberian elms. they will colonize every spot they can take up.

eg see this concerned neighbor:

https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/life/2 ... 502545002/

HOWEVER (i dont have my permaculture documentation at hand to link) others argue that in an environment of ongoing desertification we might as well welcome whatever tree we can get.

eg where my family has land the piñon tree (evergreen) is being massacred by the bark beetle, which proliferates during droughts. the insect is impossible to kill: only rain and snow keep it in check.

but the invasive siberian elm (deciduous) thrives in the floodplains of the area.

50 years from now we might have no piñon left and might have to be content with the elms.

me, i got tired of killing elms around my cabin (unfortunately built on a floodplain) and decided to let them grow on the east and south and west where they provide seasonal shade and wick moisture away from my foundation. "deep adaptation" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

ps when we tried planting deciduous native floodplain trees around the house they croaked and looked like cinders due to lack of rain, and our watering by hand wasn't enough. whereas the elms need zero help. so i'd argue the elms may be filling a vacated niche under drought conditions, rather than actively killing the competition.
I have wondered about this as well--is combatting invasives going to ultimately be a failure, and perhaps do MORE ecological harm in a way that we don't yet understand? It simply seems everything humans try to control fails whether ten, fifty, or hundreds of years down the line.

It really is extremely sad that invasives are now better adapted to your location than natives. And that does get rid of any of the appeal of planting natives. I've wondered the same about cedar elm. I'm constantly terrified of the (invasive) elm beetle coming after it. It just seems the more I learn the more the answer becomes no one really knows what is best.

Meanwhile, my naturalized/native mixed wildflowers make me happy. Maybe that is all I should care about at this point. The amount of stress I have with my lawn up to this point is beginning to be not-fun. Planting dutch clover because it's "good for the bees" only to find out it's invasive in my area. My initial excitement at creeping charlie only to find it is also invasive. My wildflower mix is only about 5% native. Most of the bees go for the dandelions no matter what i plant. It's kind of been a massive failure, and the more I learn the more I learn that I've failed. I assume anyone who is doing away with sod/herbicide/etc is still probably ultimately leagues ahead the average american lawn. I tend to become dogmatic with my interests, which ultimately does no good for anyone. Perhaps telling people "Plant 1 native shrub in your yard" is a feasible goal and one that would help. I also read that if everyone made their backyards treed--the ecological impact to your neighborhood would be immense. Some birds need 20 or more acres of forest to consider nesting--doesn't matter the way the forest is connected--a long line of backyards would do. Rethinking the land we have, however small it is, and making small changes to benefit wilderness--at least we are doing something? Subrban sprawl fills me with dread and I simply don't know how to deal. I would imagine using native plants to provide shade where needed for monoculture might be nice? Why not just a little bit of both? I don't know. I think there is ingenuity in both movements and perhaps combining the engineering and knowledge from both to complement eachother would be a nice effort. I don't know how that would be done--people from both sides seem to despise the others has been my experience.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7235
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Food and climate change

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

I think it’s great that you have attempted something other than lawn. I have failed a bajillion times over in my years of gardening career. My first solo garden literally fried itself to oblivion in an early heat wave ( summer of 88)Making a suburban backyard entirely native is like an expert level challenge. No way I could do it. But it’s fun to try extreme challenges and they often expedite the learning process.

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3456
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: Food and climate change

Post by Alphaville »

ellarose24 wrote:
Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:10 pm
I have wondered about this as well--is combatting invasives going to ultimately be a failure, and perhaps do MORE ecological harm in a way that we don't yet understand? It simply seems everything humans try to control fails whether ten, fifty, or hundreds of years down the line.
:lol: short answer:yes.
ellarose24 wrote:
Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:10 pm
It really is extremely sad that invasives are now better adapted to your location than natives. And that does get rid of any of the appeal of planting natives. I've wondered the same about cedar elm. I'm constantly terrified of the (invasive) elm beetle coming after it. It just seems the more I learn the more the answer becomes no one really knows what is best.
not quite, it's just the elms, and salt cedar in some arroyos at lower altitudes. people hate it, but i say salt cedar is better than erosion ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

since fencing out the cows we got a lot of native grasses and flowers returning, verified by nrcs technicians, who knew all their names and could point them out to us, while outside our fence it's an increasingly barren wasteland.

so the native undergrowth (mixed with non-native grasses) doesn't really seem to hate the siberian neighbors as much as concerned citizens do. there are other trees coming and going though. i suspect in some decades we'll just look more like southern arizona and southern new mexico as species migrate north.

the way i see it, nature knows better than us what it's doing, because it works via trillions of experiments rather than "one large theory that may be found wrong tomorrow". thinking about nature as "our" garden is what generates trouble. in my view, gardens are nice behind walls. the rest should be wilderness, the less we mess with it the better.

ellarose24 wrote:
Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:10 pm
Meanwhile, my naturalized/native mixed wildflowers make me happy. Maybe that is all I should care about at this point. The amount of stress I have with my lawn up to this point is beginning to be not-fun. Planting dutch clover because it's "good for the bees" only to find out it's invasive in my area. My initial excitement at creeping charlie only to find it is also invasive. My wildflower mix is only about 5% native. Most of the bees go for the dandelions no matter what i plant. It's kind of been a massive failure, and the more I learn the more I learn that I've failed.
hahaha! congrats! failure it's a sign that you've been working. don't sweat the failure. failure is the absentee father of discovery, invention, and success :lol: seriously, dont be afraid of failure, just learn from it.

bees are a european import btw. i prefer to think generally of pollinators. do sunflowers grow well around you?

to specifically help the bees, i avoid buying non-organic almonds, which are grown in bee concentration camps. a very ugly scene. i blame useless "almond milk". doesnt even have any nutrition.

ellarose24 wrote:
Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:10 pm
I assume anyone who is doing away with sod/herbicide/etc is still probably ultimately leagues ahead the average american lawn. I tend to become dogmatic with my interests, which ultimately does no good for anyone. Perhaps telling people "Plant 1 native shrub in your yard" is a feasible goal and one that would help. I also read that if everyone made their backyards treed--the ecological impact to your neighborhood would be immense. Some birds need 20 or more acres of forest to consider nesting--doesn't matter the way the forest is connected--a long line of backyards would do. Rethinking the land we have, however small it is, and making small changes to benefit wilderness--at least we are doing something?
yeah. keep trying and experimenting, and abandon all grand plan delusions. i forget if i read this from ianto evans, but you want to set up a system of small transactions, like think of pennies not dollars (i think that's how he put it). same thing as tinkering and small experiments. keep testing, observing...

btw, if you want technical assistance with habitat restoration, i wholeheartedly recommend checking with your local nrcs office. their folks are really up to date with all you need to know. unlike other parts of the federal government, their mission is to conserve natural resources. they even have grants to prevent erosion and do other things, but those are a bureaucratic pain. their technical assistance and knowledge of local resources and constraints however is priceless--they have really good people working there.
ellarose24 wrote:
Mon Apr 19, 2021 2:10 pm
Subrban sprawl fills me with dread and I simply don't know how to deal. I would imagine using native plants to provide shade where needed for monoculture might be nice? Why not just a little bit of both? I don't know. I think there is ingenuity in both movements and perhaps combining the engineering and knowledge from both to complement eachother would be a nice effort. I don't know how that would be done--people from both sides seem to despise the others has been my experience.
i hate the suburbs and will never live in them again. it's either the country or the city for me. have done both, have done wilderness... i think humans should get packed in dense cities and leave the rest of nature alone. or else garden judiciously.

but sprawl... drives me bananas. i'm sorry, i rant... anyway "retrosuburbia" might be a hegelian synthesis and a positive development from that dialectic... check it out somewhere.

but yeah, keep making small experiments, keep failing, keep learning... the only way to really know complex things.

Qazwer
Posts: 183
Joined: Thu May 16, 2019 6:51 pm

Re: Food and climate change

Post by Qazwer »

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/17/e2023483118

‘People have shaped most of terrestrial nature for at least 12,000 years’

Native and pre-human is getting harder for more to understand

‘the current extinction crisis is better explained by the displacement of species-rich cultural natures sustained by past societies than the recent conversion and use of uninhabited Wildlands’

The issue is not people. It is not nature. It is that we have gotten really good at short term optimization and science over the past 500 years.

ellarose24
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:44 am

Re: Food and climate change

Post by ellarose24 »

Alphaville wrote:
Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:02 pm

but sprawl... drives me bananas. i'm sorry, i rant... anyway "retrosuburbia" might be a hegelian synthesis and a positive development from that dialectic... check it out somewhere.

but yeah, keep making small experiments, keep failing, keep learning... the only way to really know complex things.
Oh my goodness--this retrosuburbia--every time I think I have had a genius idea, it has already been done (which I am grateful for, this gives me a template and makes me feel less like a mania- fueled project)

I have been pondering and tinkering with the idea of buying homes, making them extremely energy/water efficient and replanting all native plants, with a small section in the backyard for a garden and to do what one wants to do.

I do NOT really think I would make a ton of money. Perhaps I can, and I'm just not creative enough. The houses where I live are notoriously (after the last winter storm shows) inefficient in terms of energy/insulation/probably any way you can imagine.

My idea was to do this in the neighborhood I currently live, which was previously working class and does not have an HOA--and then make them all rentals. The idea being if they are rentals, they cannot dig up my native front lawn, nor can they get rid of the efficiency that I put in. If I do it good enough--upscale, I think i can rent to all of the Californians fleeing to my state with money.

This was less an idea of generating income, I think I might generate a small amount of income, and more of a project of "what if"--what if we take existing structures and make them vastly more efficient, what would an all native expanse of front lawn look like? I don't know. This is just a wild idea, one that I haven't found a way to think about seriously--but it is 100% in line with the "retrosuburbia" movement you just linked me to. Although I have a feeling they might not be happy with landlords.

Until then, I'm offering my neighbors free native trees. But I can't pretend property values wth mature oaks doesn't play into that... some day.

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3456
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: Food and climate change

Post by Alphaville »

Qazwer wrote:
Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:56 pm
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/17/e2023483118

‘People have shaped most of terrestrial nature for at least 12,000 years’

Native and pre-human is getting harder for more to understand

‘the current extinction crisis is better explained by the displacement of species-rich cultural natures sustained by past societies than the recent conversion and use of uninhabited Wildlands’
well, sure. you go to any wilderness you find humans in their wild state. who did you think make mammoths go extinct in this continent? it wasnt climate... and mammoth extinction altered the ecology of american prairie btw, to the point that some biologist have suggested introducing elephants.... but i digress.

nevertheless, we apes used to be more "of nature" but we now more or less stand outside of it. i mean, we used to be part of wilderness, like beavers altering the course of rivers or something. you'd go into any wilderness, there'd be wild humans.

but when bolsonaro's ranchers go into the amazon killing natives and burning down the jungle and bringing their goddamn cattle herds... yeah that's conversion.

sure, we're "of nature," nothing exists outside of nature, but now we're as natural as cancer.

now, i understant the argument, but it's an academic one considering the scale at which we operate now.
Qazwer wrote:
Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:56 pm
The issue is not people. It is not nature. It is that we have gotten really good at short term optimization and science over the past 500 years.
im not sure i get what you mean here. please elaborate?

Qazwer
Posts: 183
Joined: Thu May 16, 2019 6:51 pm

Re: Food and climate change

Post by Qazwer »

If we cut a few trees or burn areas for farming or hunting,’nature’ can adapt. If we build a mega city with steel and concrete, we have not given enough time for a new equilibrium to be found. This only became an issue in the past 500 years with the scientific revolution allowing us to constantly improve our methods. We are better at farming. We are better at building. And we keep improving. Biodiversity increased with previous human interventions (megafauna excepted). Now we are just too good at optimizing everything. This optimization is good for the species in the short run (human population growth over the past 500 years). Not sure how short term optimization though will relate to long term optimization for the species.

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3456
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: Food and climate change

Post by Alphaville »

ellarose24 wrote:
Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:18 pm
Oh my goodness--this retrosuburbia--every time I think I have had a genius idea, it has already been done (which I am grateful for, this gives me a template and makes me feel less like a mania- fueled project)
the... retrosuburbia i found out about it here actually, some people have been reading it.

i'm still pro-city, anti-burbs, death-to-cars (haha, i like cars as machines... just hate car culture as a way of life)

re: mania--i don't know. i've had bipolar friends throughout my life. i like a bit of mania i guess? neurodiversity is a boon to humanity.

but i promise to be honest and let you know if i think something sounds too grandiose/out there/unreal. so far no.
ellarose24 wrote:
Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:18 pm
I have been pondering and tinkering with the idea of buying homes, making them extremely energy/water efficient and replanting all native plants, with a small section in the backyard for a garden and to do what one wants to do.
inlike the idea. best way to experiment might be at home where you could develop a blueprint of sorts? then iterate.
ellarose24 wrote:
Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:18 pm
I do NOT really think I would make a ton of money. Perhaps I can, and I'm just not creative enough. The houses where I live are notoriously (after the last winter storm shows) inefficient in terms of energy/insulation/probably any way you can imagine.
i don't know about this kind of business, but maybe someone around here does.

for me money is not a motivator to do things. i like the innovation/experimentation aspect of it though.

anyway i think the energy is part of the retrofitting aspect? i havent read that particular book though, i just know of it. my interest lies in apartment living in densely packed cities where you can walk everywhere and there's always something open.
ellarose24 wrote:
Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:18 pm
My idea was to do this in the neighborhood I currently live, which was previously working class and does not have an HOA--and then make them all rentals. The idea being if they are rentals, they cannot dig up my native front lawn, nor can they get rid of the efficiency that I put in. If I do it good enough--upscale, I think i can rent to all of the Californians fleeing to my state with money.
oh. i like the idea. i'd rent in a place like that maybe. better than a blasted "lawn" sucking up pesticide and potable water.

btw read brad lancaster on water management. great books, and nice guy, i've met him, he's for real.
ellarose24 wrote:
Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:18 pm
This was less an idea of generating income, I think I might generate a small amount of income, and more of a project of "what if"--what if we take existing structures and make them vastly more efficient, what would an all native expanse of front lawn look like? I don't know. This is just a wild idea, one that I haven't found a way to think about seriously--but it is 100% in line with the "retrosuburbia" movement you just linked me to. Although I have a feeling they might not be happy with landlords.
i really dont know. it's not a bad idea and it's not a bad model for my taste. but im not a normie, so... niche market i guess. after the artists come the hipsters after the hipsters come the architects and lawyers.

i used to work in a hippy store back when whole foods was just another hippy store. and look at things now!

it can be a good thing to be in the vanguard because the time eventually arrives that everyone else catches up with it.
ellarose24 wrote:
Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:18 pm
Until then, I'm offering my neighbors free native trees. But I can't pretend property values wth mature oaks doesn't play into that... some day.
hahahaha. yeah. barbara corcoran says it's not the value of the house but the value of the block thar counts.

i'd be willing to play ping-pong with these real estate notions, but maybe in an independent thread?

eta: this could be an ideal one: viewtopic.php?f=18&t=11796
Last edited by Alphaville on Mon Apr 19, 2021 9:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3456
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: Food and climate change

Post by Alphaville »

Qazwer wrote:
Mon Apr 19, 2021 8:21 pm
If we cut a few trees or burn areas for farming or hunting,’nature’ can adapt. If we build a mega city with steel and concrete, we have not given enough time for a new equilibrium to be found. This only became an issue in the past 500 years with the scientific revolution allowing us to constantly improve our methods. We are better at farming. We are better at building. And we keep improving. Biodiversity increased with previous human interventions (megafauna excepted). Now we are just too good at optimizing everything. This optimization is good for the species in the short run (human population growth over the past 500 years). Not sure how short term optimization though will relate to long term optimization for the species.
ah that's because we've been optimizing like blockheads lol. the anthropocene just began in the 50s yeah?

btw, i heard mentioned in a documentary i think it was that genghis khan brought about a bit of global cooling because he killed so many people wood burning took a sharp downturn and forests recovered :lol: (sorry, humans)

eta here you go https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... opped.html

white belt
Posts: 639
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 12:15 am

Re: Food and climate change

Post by white belt »

It does seem like we are starting to rehash some of the same things we talked about in the Retrofitting Community thread (and earlier in this thread).

Back on the topic of food and climate change, what I've found is it is best to focus on individual actionable steps. What I discovered is that if I want to reduce the impact of my food consumption on climate change, I'm going to need to develop some skills first (in-line with the ERE philosophy). So instead of getting overwhelmed trying to find a perfect masterplan solution, I'm taking steps that improve my skills so I can incorporate more sophisticated solutions down the line. It would be great to create a master system solution that incorporates rainwater harvesting, native plants, food forests, etc etc. However, if I don't even understand the fundamentals of how to grow fruits and vegetables, or how to process/store those yields, then it doesn't make sense for me to jump right to that. So for now I'm starting with root vegetables in containers, microgreens, some mushrooms, increasing dairy consumption, increasing plant based protein consumption, and so on (see Apartment Homesteading thread for more on those projects).

I do look to folks like Brad Lancaster, Rob Greenfield, and others on youtube for inspiration. See here for some inspiration on producing food in an urban/suburban environment (1/10th of acre): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IbODJiEM5A

ellarose24
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:44 am

Re: Food and climate change

Post by ellarose24 »

I apologize, I have never met others who are educated and have so many resources to share! I got a bit overly excited.

Actionable steps are good. The other day I watched fishspiracy--which besides the guy using stupid editing tactics and being quite an ass just in general, the message still resonated with me but left me feeling nothing but hopeless. It also brought up the fact that the donations that I am sending to environmental groups leave me with almost zero knowledge of exactly how and in which ways they are using my money. I try and fund local groups, but for instance, one of the conservancy groups I am most involved in is funded largely by shell oil.

Is the main point to worry about how to survive climate change or how to help make a difference? Because as far as survival goes, I have zero hope of being able to do so. Luckily (yikes), for me--I would imagine the poorest nations will feel it first, and likely the real negative impact (besides expenses going up etc)--I am hoping won't happen until I'm much older. The first world CAN change their diet, they did for the world wars, and they can do it again to reduce meat and luxury consumption--but not until they are forced to.

I am stuck between trying to utilize effective altruism to "make a difference"--or truly, to just be anything besides a net negative on the world. Or dropping out completely for my own mental health.

I do think ERE tenant would be the first steps whatever your goal is--surviving or making a difference. Reducing dependence and reducing consumption.

Post Reply