Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
31
Common Misconceptions / Re: Agriculture: villain or boon companion?
« on: November 08, 2011, 05:31:46 PM »Mmm... I am not good at being a gypsy. Though I keep trying... I think most humans used to be only semi-nomadic; they would circle around and come back to camps where they used to live, and still had some huts, maybe...
This is an interesting side point. What I've read about nomadism in various cultures is exactly what you described of cyclical migrations. From this perspective, the whole landbase, the region within a community moves, would be considered "home". This is totally different from what I think of as being a "gypsy", in the sense of always moving from random place to another, never feeling connected to a particular place as "home".
32
Common Misconceptions / Re: Agriculture: villain or boon companion?
« on: November 08, 2011, 05:27:33 PM »It is said that North America was rather heavily populated at just pre-conquest, and that by the time the explorers went inland, the devastation European diseases left behind made the whole continent seem pristine and hardly inhabited. And of course nature was able to replenish itself tremendously.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I define intensification as a process of change, of growth or increase, and from everything I've learned about the first peoples of America, before European contact (i.e. before the apocalypse of smallpox, invasion, and genocide) the subsistence practices of the cultures of North America were stable - in other words, not in the process of intensifying (growing, increasing, etc). I'm sure various cultures had intensified their practices at some point in their history, maybe hundreds or thousands of years ago, before they figured out the level that kept their culture sustainable over the long haul.
I'm finding this discussion about sustainability to be interesting, because I'm realizing that I don't like it's basic premise. Namely, humans "designing" the part of land for human consumption, and leaving another part of the land "wild" (untouched by humans). The mindset behind this is humans existing outside of nature (the "wild"), and that we either leave land alone "wild" and don't live there or interact with it at all, or we totally alter the landscape to serve us and only us ("our" land). The book "Tending the Wild" presents a radically different view, that of humans being a part of the landscape the same as any other animal, and like any other species, altering the land in fundamental ways by our very presence. In other words, totally demolishing the dualism of humans vs. nature.
According to this latter way of existing in the world, humans wouldn't "design" certain areas and leave other areas untouched, but would instead have a true relationship with the land the way all other animals do, having an impact on the wider landbase through various horticultural practices, while respecting the wants and needs of the land and the other living beings that also live there. In other words, working alongside the rest of the community of life in the process of both taking from and giving back to the land.
33
Rewilding Mind & Heart / Re: Survival Instinct
« on: November 08, 2011, 04:12:39 PM »
I call this process enculturation - something that happens to every person as they grow up and learn how to become part of the community/society. In this sense it is innate, since we are a herd animal by nature (so we all want to be accepted by and join the community we are born into). This process can seriously damage people, however, if they are enculturated to suppress their inner feelings and self in order to be accepted. This happens in authoritarian environments where the relationship of parent to child is one of power-over (domination), which devalues those who don't have power (abuse). Arno Gruen ("The Betrayal of the Self" and "The Insanity of Normality") and Alice Miller ("For Your Own Good") both do a really good job of explaining this process.
34
Common Misconceptions / Re: Agriculture: villain or boon companion?
« on: November 07, 2011, 04:34:05 PM »But this examination must be rooted in the relationship with each particular type of land, and must encompass all our activities. Not just growing food, but how we build shelter, and how many roads we cut through, and how we treat the water, and so on.
For sure. Our whole way of life must be examined, as a whole package.
Any of these subsistence strategies, if endlessly pushed to intensify, will damage the land.
It is ratcheting intensification, imo, rather than specific subsistence strategies that is the problem here...
Maybe, maybe not (depends on the place, the practice, and how it was "intensified"). But the fact remains that these cultures didn't intensify their practices - what they did was sustainable (I'm not talking here about the N. American civilizations that came and went a long time ago). I don't think I am idealizing these cultures by acknowledging the reality of the impact they had on the land. Living harmoniously with the land doesn't make a culture perfect in any way - but acknowledging the latter doesn't negate the former.
35
Grief & Praise / Re: What can we do, if elites trigger a civilization-wide war in collapse?
« on: November 07, 2011, 04:12:00 PM »
Actually, I don't think outright WW3 is very likely. The era of that type of warfare (known as 3G war) is over - now is the time of 4G war, like the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Military strategists know that attacking the big powers in high-tech (tanks and such) frontal assaults (3G) would mean losing, whereas a sneaky, guerrilla-type war with the soldiers embedded (and hidden) in local populations means victory, even with few resources and low technology. The only strategists that don't seem to understand that are those in the Pentagon, who are so tied up with defense contractors and thus invested in the previous way of warfare (high-tech) that they can't (or won't) see reality even after 8+ years of it smacking them in the face.
So I fully expect the US to keep invading other countries, although in relatively small engagements (because that's all the public will support, and as long as they want to maintain the veneer of democracy, they have to care about that), but I highly doubt anyone would initiate a full-on war, or invasion, of the US. Instead, I anticipate more terrorist attacks, and insurgencies against US forces in their home countries.
Here in the "1st world", I think we have MUCH more reason to fear our own governments and militaries. Firstly, as the gloves come off and the police state shows its true face (particularly in response to increasing resistance by the people, which we are already beginning to see). Both the US and Canada have plans already drawn up for detaining large swaths of the population in detention centers (by converting ball stadiums and building new "residential facilities", which they are already doing) - the US already has the capacity for detaining 10 million Americans, last I heard. And secondly, as the "1st world" societies start to disintegrate, and they can no longer support the massive military, I expect groups of soldiers to splinter off and start doing their own thing, following former officers turned warlords. Not only has this already begun (in England, of all places), but historically this was the nature of the maurauding gangs of thugs that terrorized the populace.
Right now there aren't many open spaces on the map, although its totally possible to stay under the radar. But as this shit starts to go down, many more holes will open up, particularly in Canada (much larger landbase, lower population, and smaller military), but even in the US. The governments & warlords just won't have the capacity, or the desire, to hunt down small groups hiding in the wilderness. They will be concentrating their efforts on securing cities, where most of the people are, and rural farmland, where the food is.
So I fully expect the US to keep invading other countries, although in relatively small engagements (because that's all the public will support, and as long as they want to maintain the veneer of democracy, they have to care about that), but I highly doubt anyone would initiate a full-on war, or invasion, of the US. Instead, I anticipate more terrorist attacks, and insurgencies against US forces in their home countries.
Here in the "1st world", I think we have MUCH more reason to fear our own governments and militaries. Firstly, as the gloves come off and the police state shows its true face (particularly in response to increasing resistance by the people, which we are already beginning to see). Both the US and Canada have plans already drawn up for detaining large swaths of the population in detention centers (by converting ball stadiums and building new "residential facilities", which they are already doing) - the US already has the capacity for detaining 10 million Americans, last I heard. And secondly, as the "1st world" societies start to disintegrate, and they can no longer support the massive military, I expect groups of soldiers to splinter off and start doing their own thing, following former officers turned warlords. Not only has this already begun (in England, of all places), but historically this was the nature of the maurauding gangs of thugs that terrorized the populace.
Right now there aren't many open spaces on the map, although its totally possible to stay under the radar. But as this shit starts to go down, many more holes will open up, particularly in Canada (much larger landbase, lower population, and smaller military), but even in the US. The governments & warlords just won't have the capacity, or the desire, to hunt down small groups hiding in the wilderness. They will be concentrating their efforts on securing cities, where most of the people are, and rural farmland, where the food is.
36
Visions of the Rewilding Renaissance / Re: Rewild Wall Street!
« on: November 05, 2011, 11:01:34 PM »
Yes, these tactics would cause a massive backlash by those in power, since the status quo would be seriously threatened. But that's not necessarily a bad thing! I mean, it sucks that it has to happen (because people will suffer), but the fact is that an backlash will inevitably be caused by any serious resistance. No backlash means there is no resistance, no opposition to the death march of this culture.
And as we are already seeing, the backlash is what is motivating many of the people to get off their asses and take a stand. The resistance starts with the few who are motivated to take action, the backlash begins, and then the resistance is joined by more and more people (and the support of the wider society). This is exactly why non-violence works at all as a strategy for resistance - the violence of the state against non-violent people is the very thing that gains the resistance mass public support, and as the repression escalates, the more people join the resistance and start fighting back.
As long as the police stay "friendly", and the protesters stay non-confrontational (acting within the parameters allowed them by the state), the movement will not grow, and it will have no effect on the status quo. This spells death for the movement, because when people see their actions having no effect, they will get demoralized and will give up and go home - ending up even more disempowered than before. If the movement doesn't continue to escalate its tactics, while there is momentum to support it, the movement will die (just like every movement that has come before it). It truly is now or never.
And as we are already seeing, the backlash is what is motivating many of the people to get off their asses and take a stand. The resistance starts with the few who are motivated to take action, the backlash begins, and then the resistance is joined by more and more people (and the support of the wider society). This is exactly why non-violence works at all as a strategy for resistance - the violence of the state against non-violent people is the very thing that gains the resistance mass public support, and as the repression escalates, the more people join the resistance and start fighting back.
As long as the police stay "friendly", and the protesters stay non-confrontational (acting within the parameters allowed them by the state), the movement will not grow, and it will have no effect on the status quo. This spells death for the movement, because when people see their actions having no effect, they will get demoralized and will give up and go home - ending up even more disempowered than before. If the movement doesn't continue to escalate its tactics, while there is momentum to support it, the movement will die (just like every movement that has come before it). It truly is now or never.
37
Land / Re: Full cycle homestead
« on: November 05, 2011, 10:44:46 PM »
I think this question has crucial importance for us in figuring out how to live sustainably on the land, post-civilization. By local inputs, do you mean recycling what comes from the land (i.e. animals living on the land poop back onto the land), or do you mean importing resources from close by (i.e. the neighborhood cow farmer)? I think that even if the importing happens close by, it still isn't sustainable, because it still creates a net loss of nutrients for the place that the resources are coming from - unless the circle is closed by nutrients going back from point B to point A somehow, like hay going to feed the cattle or something.
Personally, I think the way forward requires abandoning the notion of living permanently in one particular spot, and making that spot provide all of one's food. Permaculture could technically allow this, but it has to be done exactly right to be sustainable in one place forever, and eventually, post-civ, we will have to abandon all the aspects of permaculture that require industrial technologies (at least what can't be scavenged) and (one-way) importation of resources. I think it just makes way more sense - life would be easier - if people moved around the landbase, either seasonally or periodically as resources get used up. In many places, the land just can't support humans living in one spot forever, no matter what we do (absent industrial civilization, of course).
In general I think many aspects of permaculture would be useful, particularly the ones that can be applied to the wider landbase to increase its biodiversity and fecundity. Looking at hunter-gatherer cultures, there is no dividing line between cultivation (horticultural practices of various kinds) and foraging - they are one and the same. As the people travel the landscape, they not only gather from the land but also practice many horticultural techniques, like pruning, weeding, burning, dividing bulbs, etc. Their interaction with the land is reciprocal - a true relationship.
By applying low-intensity, low-tech permacultural techniques over a broader landscape, we could not only make the entire landbase more food-producing, but we would also help to fulfill the responsibility we pretty much all share, of healing the earth.
Personally, I think the way forward requires abandoning the notion of living permanently in one particular spot, and making that spot provide all of one's food. Permaculture could technically allow this, but it has to be done exactly right to be sustainable in one place forever, and eventually, post-civ, we will have to abandon all the aspects of permaculture that require industrial technologies (at least what can't be scavenged) and (one-way) importation of resources. I think it just makes way more sense - life would be easier - if people moved around the landbase, either seasonally or periodically as resources get used up. In many places, the land just can't support humans living in one spot forever, no matter what we do (absent industrial civilization, of course).
In general I think many aspects of permaculture would be useful, particularly the ones that can be applied to the wider landbase to increase its biodiversity and fecundity. Looking at hunter-gatherer cultures, there is no dividing line between cultivation (horticultural practices of various kinds) and foraging - they are one and the same. As the people travel the landscape, they not only gather from the land but also practice many horticultural techniques, like pruning, weeding, burning, dividing bulbs, etc. Their interaction with the land is reciprocal - a true relationship.
By applying low-intensity, low-tech permacultural techniques over a broader landscape, we could not only make the entire landbase more food-producing, but we would also help to fulfill the responsibility we pretty much all share, of healing the earth.
38
Common Misconceptions / Re: Agriculture: villain or boon companion?
« on: November 05, 2011, 10:13:04 PM »
Vera, you've obviously read much more about Easter island than I have, and I haven't heard about the other islands. It sounds like they were fragile ecosystems that were easily disturbed by humans, and that some cultures figured out how to live sustainably while others didn't.
I think the only "debate" here is a difference of definition of agriculture. Etymologically, it stems from the root "cultivation", which technically translates to "tillage of fields". But I think of more relevance is that it is commonly used as a synonym of farming, which everyone seems to consider raising domesticated animals and plants for food (the wikipedia article for it is pretty much all about this), presumably including gardening but definitely focusing on monocropping. That's why I think using different terms is so useful, because it allows us to clarify whether we mean farming monocrops of grains, growing a variety of annuals (gardening), growing a variety of perennials (permaculture), or using a variety of cultivation techniques such as burning, weeding, pruning, etc (horticulture). These obviously aren't clearly differentiated categories (including whatever terms I didn't think of), and the term horticulture actually includes gardening & permaculture, referring more to a collection of techniques than a specific type of activity (in my opinion, at least).
Regardless of the terms we use, or how we define them, I think it's important to be able to clearly distinguish between the cultivation practices of sustainably-living, hunter-gathering peoples (like all the cultures of North America, for example), and the landbase-damaging, unsustainable practices used by civilized cultures. Not necessarily in the sense of x=good and y=bad, but in the sense of x has this effect, and y has this other effect, so what should we use? I guess the point in examining these things at all, for me, is to figure out (relearn) how to live sustainably on the land, in a harmonious way with the wider community of life - by determining what practices (in each particular place and situation) will enhance the fecundity of the land, and which will be detrimental.
I think the only "debate" here is a difference of definition of agriculture. Etymologically, it stems from the root "cultivation", which technically translates to "tillage of fields". But I think of more relevance is that it is commonly used as a synonym of farming, which everyone seems to consider raising domesticated animals and plants for food (the wikipedia article for it is pretty much all about this), presumably including gardening but definitely focusing on monocropping. That's why I think using different terms is so useful, because it allows us to clarify whether we mean farming monocrops of grains, growing a variety of annuals (gardening), growing a variety of perennials (permaculture), or using a variety of cultivation techniques such as burning, weeding, pruning, etc (horticulture). These obviously aren't clearly differentiated categories (including whatever terms I didn't think of), and the term horticulture actually includes gardening & permaculture, referring more to a collection of techniques than a specific type of activity (in my opinion, at least).
Regardless of the terms we use, or how we define them, I think it's important to be able to clearly distinguish between the cultivation practices of sustainably-living, hunter-gathering peoples (like all the cultures of North America, for example), and the landbase-damaging, unsustainable practices used by civilized cultures. Not necessarily in the sense of x=good and y=bad, but in the sense of x has this effect, and y has this other effect, so what should we use? I guess the point in examining these things at all, for me, is to figure out (relearn) how to live sustainably on the land, in a harmonious way with the wider community of life - by determining what practices (in each particular place and situation) will enhance the fecundity of the land, and which will be detrimental.
39
Common Misconceptions / Re: Agriculture: villain or boon companion?
« on: November 04, 2011, 12:25:58 PM »
I second moving this topic - the humanure bucket isn't for differing viewpoints, but for trolls, spam, people not following guidelines of forum conduct, etc. I think the name of the topic should stay the same, since it already poses the question: Is agriculture bad? I think this is an important discussion to have!
40
Common Misconceptions / Re: Agriculture: villain or boon companion?
« on: November 03, 2011, 11:56:57 AM »
Yes, the people of Easter Island were hunter-gatherer-horticulturalists, but they didn't deforest the island because of their horticultural practices, but because of cultural traditions that didn't have anything to do with food production. I personally haven't heard of any cases of horticulturalists causing region-wide, permanent deforestation and destruction of soils due to their horticultural practices, whereas agriculture has done exactly that over vast swaths of the earth (much much more today, considering the rapid drawdown of topsoil in all the "breadbasket" areas of the world).
Instead, I look at the way North America was before white people invaded - an unbelievably (compared to the rest of the world) fecund landbase, intensively managed for thousands of years (sustainably) by the horticultural practices of hundreds of cultures - and compare that to the deserts of North Africa, the Middle East, and the Mediterranean, which are the direct result of agriculture. In the impact these practices have had on the world, it is crystal clear how horticulture increases the fecundity of the earth over the long term, while agriculture decreases it.
As far as particular practices associated with agriculture go, they don't necessarily have a destructive effect on the land in every instance. You cite Mollison regarding tilling being useful in a particular instance (to initially prepare compacted, poor soil for rehabilitation) - but I don't think that at all means that tilling is neutral or not destructive as a regularly-used agricultural practice. In other words, agriculture is destructive as a whole package, even though the particular aspects of it may not always be destructive when used in isolation, or in particular instances. And even though agriculture and horticulture may overlap a bit with regard to specific techniques, they are very different as general practices - and their effects on the world (and on human society) are very very different.
Instead, I look at the way North America was before white people invaded - an unbelievably (compared to the rest of the world) fecund landbase, intensively managed for thousands of years (sustainably) by the horticultural practices of hundreds of cultures - and compare that to the deserts of North Africa, the Middle East, and the Mediterranean, which are the direct result of agriculture. In the impact these practices have had on the world, it is crystal clear how horticulture increases the fecundity of the earth over the long term, while agriculture decreases it.
As far as particular practices associated with agriculture go, they don't necessarily have a destructive effect on the land in every instance. You cite Mollison regarding tilling being useful in a particular instance (to initially prepare compacted, poor soil for rehabilitation) - but I don't think that at all means that tilling is neutral or not destructive as a regularly-used agricultural practice. In other words, agriculture is destructive as a whole package, even though the particular aspects of it may not always be destructive when used in isolation, or in particular instances. And even though agriculture and horticulture may overlap a bit with regard to specific techniques, they are very different as general practices - and their effects on the world (and on human society) are very very different.
41
Language & Oral Tradition / Re: what's in a name?
« on: November 02, 2011, 02:59:01 AM »
I don't have any desire to change my first name - the name everyone calls me by - as I feel like that should be given to a person by those who use it (who call them by it). Personally, I really like the idea of a person's community, or a wise elder(s) of that community, giving a person an adult name based on their understanding of the person's personality, life path, role in the community, unique talents, etc.
For me, right now I'm debating whether to change my last name (getting a divorce, and my "maiden" name doesn't really sound right to me anymore), and what to change it to. I don't like the idea of family names in general, since they are so completely a creation of patriarchy and the control of bloodlines (and family property) by men, but the government requires that I have one (or at least it would be a pain dealing with the government without one, I think). Preferably I would use the name of the female side of my lineage, but that's impossible since the family names were all passed down through the men. So I'm thinking of acknowledging my recent female ancestry by taking on my grandmother's maiden name, which resonates with me. Also, it was a traditional Romanian (Transylvanian, actually) name that every single one of my grandmother's siblings voluntarily anglicized in order to fit in better with white (anglo) America. So its a connection to the old country of that part of my ancestry, and a restoration of a bit of the heritage was lost in the transition to the new country.
For me, right now I'm debating whether to change my last name (getting a divorce, and my "maiden" name doesn't really sound right to me anymore), and what to change it to. I don't like the idea of family names in general, since they are so completely a creation of patriarchy and the control of bloodlines (and family property) by men, but the government requires that I have one (or at least it would be a pain dealing with the government without one, I think). Preferably I would use the name of the female side of my lineage, but that's impossible since the family names were all passed down through the men. So I'm thinking of acknowledging my recent female ancestry by taking on my grandmother's maiden name, which resonates with me. Also, it was a traditional Romanian (Transylvanian, actually) name that every single one of my grandmother's siblings voluntarily anglicized in order to fit in better with white (anglo) America. So its a connection to the old country of that part of my ancestry, and a restoration of a bit of the heritage was lost in the transition to the new country.
42
Visions of the Rewilding Renaissance / Re: Picking up trash
« on: November 02, 2011, 02:31:57 AM »
Dan, you bring up a good point, that the indigenous cultures of this land do consider certain places to be more sacred than others, and that deserves respect. I would take that even further and consider those places to be off limits to all non-indigenous activity that has any impact on the land. Picking up litter should be the very LEAST white people do to respect their sacred places.
43
Visions of the Rewilding Renaissance / Re: Rewild Wall Street!
« on: November 02, 2011, 02:04:27 AM »
So, some people are advocating an escalation of tactics away from symbolic protest and towards "flash mob" style occupations that directly impede business' ability to continue the status quo. Starhawk was advocating those types of tactics, at least in regards to marches (occupying streets), and my sister heard someone on left-wing radio pushing for this kind of escalation (literal occupation vs. symbolic). The movement Deep Green Resistance has also put out an open letter to the occupy movement that clearly spells out the form this escalation would take, and what it could potentially achieve. http://deepgreenresistance.org/occupythemachine/
44
Rewilding Mind & Heart / Re: Strangers and Community
« on: October 19, 2011, 10:39:46 PM »
MamaLove, I was thinking much the same thing - that the concept of "humanity" in general is abstract (and thus fictitious), and that what matters in practice is: what do I do with regard to the person who I am actually interacting with, right now? Similarly, if a person in front of me is in need, I will definitely do what I can to help them out. But in general, I exist to serve the earth and non-human life - at this point, their need is far far greater - and my personal community, first and foremost.
Regarding community: I feel that whoever I regularly share my life with (eating, sleeping, anything significant) is my community, including non-humans, embedded in a wider community of life, made up of all participants in the cycle of life and death, on the land. If someone is a stranger, and remains a stranger after our interaction, I do not consider them part of my community. If I were to (the way most people seem to), I think the word community would lose all meaning.
Regarding community: I feel that whoever I regularly share my life with (eating, sleeping, anything significant) is my community, including non-humans, embedded in a wider community of life, made up of all participants in the cycle of life and death, on the land. If someone is a stranger, and remains a stranger after our interaction, I do not consider them part of my community. If I were to (the way most people seem to), I think the word community would lose all meaning.
45
Rewild Camps, Events & Meet-ups / Re: Ready for the zombie apocalypse?
« on: October 19, 2011, 10:13:50 PM »
Someone I know (who I met at the Tracker School) is also teaching a "surviving the zombie apocalypse" course, with zombie actors, staged scenarios, and everything, in San Antonio, Texas. I can't remember the name of his school, but if anyone is interested, I can get you his contact info (if an internet search doesn't work).
Those courses sound like a lot of fun!
Those courses sound like a lot of fun!