v2vhD7HK
To be honest I would prefer millions of people doing zero waste perfectly and a handful eating the rich. There aren't many of them after all.
To put this in perspective, 250 Gt at the start of 2023 means each of the 8 billion persons on the planet get a 2.6 t/year budget if we collectively reach net zero in 2035, and a 1.16 t/year budget for 2050.
Moreover, to be fair to underdeveloped countries, it would make sense for them to have a larger allowance of this budget given that they are the farthest from having the infrastructure needed to get rid of fossil fuels while ensuring quality of life.
Considering population is still growing, that the current global average (per the article data) is around 5 t/year/person, and that this average is also still growing, we can all see that's not happening.
More on this line of thought: https://medium.com/@bumblebeeunbarred/is-britain-doing-its-bit-for-climate-58f9c78074eb
I only said jobs in the intermediate economy provide no value. I invite you to read more about it at https://leanlogic.online/glossary/intermediate-economy/
What value is the transport that brings me food produced thousands of kilometers from where I live, when it could've been produced locally, requiring no transport?
What value is the bureaucracy that keeps this exceedingly complex system working, when a smaller, easily manageable community would provide the same amount of well being?
I don't think any task is fit only for machines. That line of thinking, especially when applied to agriculture, leads to loss of skills, authenticity, and connection to our ecosystems
I meant productivity as output/labor not as output/land. You're right in saying permacultural production exceeds industrial agriculture in output/land productivity, however it does require more labor.
This is a problem because nowadays a tiny proportion of the population works in agriculture. 200 years ago the vast majority of the population were farmers, and it couldn't have been otherwise. Until industrial agriculture allowed us. The vast majority of the population now dedicate themselves to other tasks, in the intermediate economy, which ultimately provides no value: transport, bureaucracy, etc. Let us call this "intensification".
Despite ultimately providing no value, these tasks are still required for our society to function, and thus we can't decide to do without them. Intensification is a one way process. If we want to keep the current society intact, we are stuck with industrial agriculture.
Perhaps as you say modern greenhouse is more productive in output/land, but this doesn't matter if we don't have the labor force to do it.
Now it may seem like I'm destroying my own point by saying permaculture is not globally viable. It's not, really. For it to become so, we'll need some sort of societal collapse at one point or the other. Deintensification.
Modern industrial agriculture has one outstanding advantage: productivity. Hundreds of acres of land can be cultivated with the labor of three or four persons.
Permaculture on the other hand doesn't allow for such productivity. Most people will need to grow their own food to some degree. That's actually great in the sense that food production becomes increasingly local, produced where it is consumed, in such a way that all nutrients make their way back to the soil in a cycle which has been broken by modern agriculture.
As another commenter pointed out, permaculture can seem unscientific at times. And it's perfectly fine. We all have different sites, climates, soils and experience, no size fits it all and it's often difficult in such circumstances to find the best solutions. Some will employ more unconventional ideas, as long as it works for them.
In the end, it will always make a lot more sense than planting a few hundred acres with a genetically engineering crop monoculture that can only survive with a constant supply of pesticides and fertilizer, while depleting the soil.
More reading: https://leanlogic.online/glossary/lean-food/
I didn't watch the whole video, but just economically your quote makes a whole lot of sense. Saving money and reducing our ecologicial footprint have a lot in common.
- Not having a car, instead riding a bicycle or taking the bus: less greenhouse gases, but also much cheaper.
- Cook your own food instead of buying over-packaged, ultra-processed food. I make my own bread which costs 0.75$/loaf vs. 3$ at the grocery store, for the same weight.
- Buying stuff that lasts not only reduces waste but also costs less in the long run.
- Leisure: reading a book is cheaper than going out.
To exist, a better world implies the current one being fucked. How will the transition go though? No one can tell yet.
Can't ducks fly though? How do you keep a bird that flies?
Guild Wars 2
A normal bike or I walk, my own two legs are good enough.
While I wholeheartedly agree with what is said the article, I cannot fathom how banning cars could even begin to happen. The car is strongly anchored in western culture, a majority of people own one, and there are no alternatives that would satisfy these people.
Evolving into a car-centric democratic society is a one way transition. By the point the majority of voters own a car, all possible alternatives are delayed and watered down to the point of become insufficient, if they are implemented at all. Some places in Europe have never fully adopted the car. North America though? Forget it.
Let's say some city administrators believe in transition. Thus, they decide to build a tramway for the city. Of all the voters, 70% own a car, and 50% oppose the project, perhaps having been convinced by the opposition that the project will make their taxes jump through the roof. By the time the project starts, the term has ended and the administration is voted out, the project is dropped.
The asbestos comparison is flawed in that asbestos didn't have a hundred billion dollar industry backing it, lobbying and brain washing the population into thinking a life without a car is impossible. People didn't need asbestos for earning their livelihood.
People know cars are dangerous. Everyone who has taken a walk down a busy street or uses a bicycle know it. Ironically, the best way to protect yourself from cars is to own a car, the biggest car you can get. So people who care about their safety buy bigger cars, exacerbating the problem.
Let's also not forget that most people lack the ability to plan years ahead of time. They make choices that will be good for them today. Hence a majority of the population don't give a fuck about the climate change, because they're not affected by it today (or so they believe). Now .when the choice to make is about diverging from a path taken by all your friends and family for three or four generations (owning a car), it's very nearly impossible to give a fuck.
So to be honest, I have zero hope for a transportation transition in western societies. I believe it will take something more. A collapse of the fossil fuel supply, lasting multiple years.