Sensible Simplicity

Context:

2012-01-25T20:27:00.000-08:00

This very well delivered talk worth one's time.

Here:

Now? More blather about sustainability?

The Greatest Enemy of Progress:

2011-12-08T10:07:00.001-08:00

A bit of a revelation shared here this morning. After my TEDx presentation in Hilo here a couple of months ago and a few follow up encounters I've had to admit that there were some very fundamental issues pertaining to climate change(and of course our debt issues, and resource depletion as well--it's all the same problem, after all), stuff that I'd really made the mistake of overlooking. . .I think most all of us made the mistake of overlooking. . .kinda on purpose a lot of times.

Let me posit a new meme, a prime requisite for engendering progress. . .

The greatest enemy of progress in the modern world isn't ignorance, but rather cynicism.

In speaking to a lot of people, one finds as the polls confirm, that the number of people who are in denial about the big issues of today are really pretty sparse, less than 1 in 5, and generally hold their views not because of any sort of thoughtful position but rather of selfish kneejerk ideology. They're unreachable, of course, but their rhetoric can resonate with a larger population--desperate to dismiss the evidence. Still, honestly, in speaking to people, this sort of stuff doesn't account for the main reason for their unwillingness to act.

Here's why progress is stalled.

1. People dismiss the data not because of the lack of persuasiveness of it. They don't get even as far as looking at it. They feel justified in dismissing the data even before looking at it because of the lack of evidence that "the evidence" seems to be persuasive to the very people that claim to find it persuasive. We are accustomed, hardened even, to a perpetual onslaught of sales pitches-- of people talking their book. To to be able to sniff out and reject claims on the basis of the apparent integrity of the one espousing them may be cynicism, pure and simple-- but in our culture it's also a very valuable survival skill. It's especially worth considering in this case, as there is a large moral component to all of our pressing issues, and there's an reasonable expectation that one who was in possession of such important truth would, well, "walk the walk." And there's very very very few examples of this, especially among "leading spokes-people," whatever that might mean. . . oh yeah, I guess I mean those people who have enough affluence and free-time to spend more than their share of time holding a microphone. Strike one!

2. Now, of course-- it doesn't help a damn bit that very often those ( talking the talk, not walking the walk) very often get involved in all sort of commercial ventures somehow loosely attached ideologically to "the issues"-- and set out in an obvious attempt to maintain their current unsustainable lifestyles by peddling "sustainable living." Whether pimping alternative energy, green building, whiz-bang technology, setting out to be some kind of eco-fabulous talking head, selling homeopathic tinctures that offset CO2-- or whatever, anything other than cutting consumption. . . Well, you know, people don't really like hypocrites, especially hypocrites that are selling stuff. Now sure, there's a certain amount of commerce in all of this stuff as hypocrites have a vested interest in buying stuff from other hypocrites in an attempt to try to give their cute tricks some credibility, but the larger audience doesn't buy it-- they see right through it, or at least think they do. For them it's simply further evidence that the "issue" is a scam. Cynicism Strike two!

3. Now here's the real kicker: The thoughtful individual who is mostly informed of the data, but full aware of 1 and 2 asks themselves. . .Wow, I'd really like to try to make a difference, but to do so will require some hard work and meaningful sacrifice. But I can't do it alone, and if I make sacrifices while others do not I gain nothing and only lose in both the short AND the long run. Sure! Straight up, clean game-theory here, and they're absolutely right and rationally justified in holding such a position. This is, in fact, not an attitude held of ignorance at all, but rather a well informed one.

Strike three! No wonder we're not getting anywhere. Whoops, rather to say, no wonder we're actually losing ground. Those of us who would set ourselves up as "advocates' for a better world would do well to realize that we're not very convincing-- and the reason we're not very convincing isn't that A) our facts are weak, nor B) people are too stupid to understand our argument-- it's that we ourselves come across lacking integrity and commitment personally and that we belie our own message by our actions and lifestyles.

We will not make any progress until we realize at the core of all these issues is a willingness to sell out the future for short term gain. We will not make any progress until there is meaningful economic justice and equal opportunity, across nationality, sex, race, or class. We will not make any progress until there is meaningful economic equality. This inherent fairness is critical, as it's simply impossible to ask those to choose against themselves for the greater good while others in positions of privilege exploit the greater good. . .and in fact profit by the fact of lack of justice and the crises engendered by it.

This is why it's patently obvious that guys like Al Gore and other eco-fabulous jackasses like that are the absolutely worst spokemen for "sustainability"-- and they'd do us all a great service if they dried up and went away. I mean, come on! Let me tell you some thing for certain-- if we actually get there, I promise you this: A sustainable planet can't have any Al Gores on it!

So, those of us who would want to strive for a better world had best attend to our own affairs first, and once we've been successful enough to possess a solid enough display of integrity to defeat objections 1) and 2) by our own commitments to justice, only then are we in a position to take on objection 3). Otherwise, let me suggest, or "shout out" actually, you're not helping a thing.

Rocket Stoves Revisited.

2011-11-29T09:51:00.001-08:00

Cooking for Thanksgiving last week gave me the urge to re-post some old stuff on rocket stoves, as it's been of interest for some time. And it should, as these are an ideal transition technology to utilize local biomass in a simple and practical manner. You'll start to view your strawberry guava as an asset rather than a pest-- grab yourself a good pair of loppers and harvest some fuel.

Enjoy! Questions answered and plans available.

Here's the link to old articles on the same.

Re-forestry Season:

2011-11-27T14:22:00.001-08:00

Record amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere this year-- what can one do?

UH has nice trees on occasion, selected for forestry. Give 'em a ring!

My TEDx Presentation in Hilo

2011-10-25T11:20:00.000-07:00

Hope you enjoy!

Occupy Wall Street Hilo: Oct 15

2011-10-12T11:31:00.000-07:00

Details here:

Our discussion here:

There is potential that this may be a pretty interesting moment in history. We'll see.

The Opportunity of the Decade!

2011-09-19T20:36:00.000-07:00

This weekend, in Hilo, at TEDx Waiakea-- you'll have the unique opportunity to. . .

Gosh, that's right! Actually see me not wearing work clothes. That's right, no pine tar, epoxy, motor oil, paint, varnish, hydraulic fluid, chain saw scuzz, PVC cement, banana juice, chicken shit, spilled beer, soldering flux, battery acid, concrete, sawdust, metal filings, fish scales, tree sap, filth, permatex, rust, charcoal, mud, bits of string, bottom paint, blood, and hopefully little sweat and tears. This is a rare event indeed, kinda shocking for me.

I fear an allergic reaction.

The topic of this TEDx event is "Simple Ways to Power Yourself and Your Community." While honored to be featured there, in many ways I've really learned the key to all that is "talk less, and do more." Making an exception, I guess, here on this blog, and certainly for the event, and I hope that I can offer a constructive message. It's been a lot of work for me putting one together, and one that has involved a great deal of soul-searching--as I've been forced to confront my audience--perhaps not so much locally but otherwise largely one of "mainstream" people -- something I don't have a lot of contact with anymore, and haven't, frankly, in years. In many ways my life path has been one of seeking "authentic" experience as a means to reach personal integrity. That personal integrity, of course, compels one to adopt an informed, realistic, but heroically optimistic world view(even if that part is kinda iffy) and this blog has a lot of that kind of observations muddled through it. The observation today, frankly, is that "authenticity" is rarely, rarely, rarely found in talk, but in the evidence of past action. As in a lot of ratty worn out clothes that are the badges of projects taken on and completed. It is remarkable that in order to reputably address a mainstream audience on the subject "empowerment" with a message of "authenticity" I'll need to personally shed any evidence of actually having any.

Please, can't I at least bring the welder? LOL.

Seriously, it is remarkable, and telling. A lot on my mind lately, in a constructive manner, sure. But I've got to admit to being deeply burdened by the reality of the moment and responsibility that comes from it. Our community is really starting to suffer, and that's just the facts-- it's easy for me to carry the concern that time spent flapping my mouth or typing away here could and should be better spent raising yet another round of birds, or welding up a cook stove or two(propane is now 6 bucks a gallon on the island), planting taro-- endless the options, there. However, I do feel though it may be as important as bear witness to hollowness and moral bankruptcy of the moment. . .simply, sincerely, authentically. . .to at least deny those that exploit the moment the defense of ignorance. . .as if any would believe it anyway.

Ah, but you friends of mine, don't doubt. You know I'll give 'em hell!

Thanks, Larry, for the opportunity, and all the time and effort put into organizing the event! Kilauea SilviCulture pledges to donate and plant a tree for all attendees! That ought to get some pants properly muddied up!

Appropriate Technology for the Future:

2011-09-16T11:40:00.000-07:00

We'll set aside my tirade about Rick "Imperial Dragon" Perry of the Koch Klimate Klan-- it looks to be a foregone conclusion that we'll (s)elect that monster to be the next "Leader of the Free World." I don't want to be accused of beating a dead horse here. . .

Did I mention he's the god-damned "antichrist?" Seriously!

Anyway, in the interest of being constructive I thought today I'd introduce skills that may well become important in the future that we're likely to face: Flint Knapping and Gnawing.

Flint knapping, of course, is the traditional art of making stone edged tools by chipping hard stone, like obsidian or flint. Without the means, especially fuel, to work metals, knapping can produce implements much superior to more primitive techniques, like poking stuff with sharp sticks or mashing things apart with rocks. Here in Hawaii we don't have in hard rocks like that, and probably won't have any fuel either--especially after the bio-mass to energy boys get ahold of the forests--so we'd better stick to techniques that we can actually manage in the future of scarcity that seems all but unavoidable.

Gnawing, as well, is a time honored tradition for getting stuff apart. Compared to knapping, it is relatively simple to master. Rats can do it. But it too has its technical limitations, as it relies on teeth, something already starting to show signs of scarcity in East Hawaii. Around the world scarcity of teeth, especially prevalent among males of the warrior class, was compensated for by again utilizing sharp sticks and mashing rocks, used to compel women and children(who still possessed the tools for gnawing) to perform the necessary tasks. Sharp sticks and rocks were also useful to produce extra children even among toothless women, so teeth proved to be a true renewable resource manageable even in cultures of comparative austerity. . .

. . .Now as promising as either of these two technologies seem to be, personally I kinda like to dream for the moonshot--like practicing a little, authentic, thinking ahead and conservation now--as it seems to me that if we responsibly steward our resources now, we might not even need to worry about the scarcity of teeth that much in the future. . .

. . .Nah, I know. Just a pipedream. Conservation? Good stewardship? Too much work. It would cut too much into our quality of life. . .be realistic, Jay.

Tao of the Ninja Mennonite: IV

2011-09-11T22:57:00.000-07:00

Big guns, now: good vs. evil?

See I wasn't really raised so much to believe in evil, as well, as Nietzsche said "You may search the world for evil, but alas, all you may find is the bad," meaning, of course, that being evil is really hard to do, and you've got to really want it, and you've got to be fucked up in a galactic kind of way to do that. You've got to be a bit superhuman, really. Most people want just the bad, which is just some weird twisted version of the good, selfishly-- so you'll sell out at your own convenience to get it.. A lot like our current President, or perhaps Mitt(Holy Underwear) Romney.

I was also a brainy geek kid, chess club sort, who loved Dungeons and Dragons and all that, as it was this completely wonderful world to play thought experiments with. Contrary to what the evangelical idiots thought, it wouldn't drag you to the DEVIL, as well, there was one, drawn up nicely by a set of rules, and all the rest in the game, you got to know "it" personally, and you'd figure out it wasn't a very good winning proposition to have anything to do with any of that DEVIL stuff unless you were nuts and self-destructive. In fact, being stupid doesn't work with "evil," you've got to really work at it or you just end up being "bad.". I'm telling you, it's not simple. Think about it. Take some time. It ain't a simple issue. You'll find, if you think about it, you can end up being good and stupid, by mere accident, and I guess it counts, if anyone keeps score, but to be evil you've to to really mean it. You've got to be deliberate. For what end? It can't be chicky-poos, or wealth, or power, or any of that-- that's just bad again. See, evil can't have an end but itself. You've got to want it because you just want it, itself. Ah, Epistemology. . . People still tell me they believe in "evil." I say, well, try a thought experiment. Lock yourself up in a closet and just be all "evil" by yourself for a couple hours and see how that works out for you. What do you figure you're going to do? Be pissy? Angry? Think mean thoughts? Cut on yourself?(can't do much of that, you've got a couple of hours!). Bunk. Evil is a joke!

Well, now we've got Rick Perry.

Now seriously, this makes me wonder. This dude is fucked up, in a supreme galactic sort of way. He can't, absolutely can't, impossibly can't, be as stupid as he makes himself. His state is in the worst drought in history. Nope, no such thing as climate change, he says. Evidence is out, like it is on dinosaur eggs. Or maybe Enron too, or a whole lot of stuff it's handy not to think about. He has executed more people that any other Texas Gov., a high bar, frankly, and has "no doubts, whatsoever" about his doing so. He believes, in spite of the fact that he lives square on top of the best piece of oil real estate in the US, that "environmentalists" are impeding oil exploration. . .Like there's parts of Texas that haven't been looked at? Isn't it legal in Texas to shoot environmentalists(whatever that means) on sight? He's a Christian Dominionist? You just look this up on your own. . .Let's be clear, this fucker is a monster. I understand it's poor taste to compare people to Hitler. I wouldn't dare, so I wouldn't. Hitler was a beast, for sure, but I don't believe he had some complete willing, complicit desire to destroy all of humanity and creation? Hitler was a fascist, a complete egotistical nutcase, and wanted to restore some kind of weird ass mythological motherland. As fucked up as that is, at least I can stretch my head to get around it, and maybe try to understand why.

To deliberately commit violent, self-destructive, self-demeaning suicide for myself and everyone else I might know, doing everything one can to drag them into it, well, is something I don't, or didn't, believe was a mindset possible to exist.

I've got to tell ya, I've been in a lot of churches in my time. My Dad was an undertaker, after all, and we got to see all that religiosity layed out in its glory. Dogma? Sure, seen lots of that. Bigotry? Sure, seen lots and lots of that. Racism? Sure, seen lots of that. Classism? Less of that, but growing, for sure. Homophobia? Some of that, but shrinking.. Stupidity? Tons and tons of that. Selfishness. all that? Well, of course. Evasion of personal responsibility? Well, hell! What do you think religion was created for?

Completely blind ass evil? I didn't believe it possible.

Rick Perry has expanded my mind.

The Tao of the Ninja Mennonite: III

2011-08-31T23:01:00.000-07:00

So it would have been in the late 50's or so when my Grandfather, a rather devout, even dogmatic sort of Mennonite farmer--plowed up a nest of dinosaur eggs preparing some new farm ground. The eggs are at a natural history museum in Spokane now. I've got half of one, cut and polished. I wasn't there, but I can imagine the scene a bit. It would have been the era, of course, where the whole creation vs. evolution(fight, you can't call it a debate) was probably hitting the mainstream in rural America. My grandfather wouldn't have been the kind of guy who would have spent a lot of time worrying about it, as wheat farming gave him all the worrying he needed--as he would have figured that if he was supposed to care, he'd probably be "encouraged" to do so. Well, here was encouragement to think about it--in the form of a half dozen perfect, oddly shaped eggs.

Now I can very much imagine his thought process. He was not particularly educated, but was a experienced and keen observer of nature. He would have known for sure that the size of the eggs were far too large for birds, and the shape was all wrong anyway, having seen plenty of snake eggs. He might have heard some of the hyperbolic explanations from the more evangelical sorts: explanations of how the dinosaurs were created on day one and the extinguished, or died in the "flood" or some crap like that, but I'm sure the fact that these were eggs would have held some sway, and a nest, which spoke of creatures living their lives rather than some exhibitory divine freakshow. He would have known also that it wasn't unusual to find other sorts of fossils either, stuff that couldn't possibly co-exist with big lizards, like mastodon tusks or dire wolves--and if anything to try to believe that all this stuff had happened in a week just a few thousand years ago was simply implausible. He wouldn't have needed to be a research scientist to known this, he was a natural scientist who had enough life experience and eyes in his head to think that a bit of a stretch. Creation was a revelation of God, after all, and it wouldn't lie to you. Besides, while he was familiar with his bible, for sure, he was familiar enough to understand that the "word of God must be read with guidance by the small, still voice of the Holy Spirit"-- meaning, that you just can't take everything in there verbatim, but you must practice a certain amount of cautious, thinking discernment. Jeez, how sensible. . .

See, being a bit of a bible scholar myself, having studied the thing cover to cover in my youth, I can promise you in there no-where is a commandment that one must be a dumb-ass. Science was encouraged in our household, for sure, as much as bible reading, as both, with guidance by that that "small, still voice" were was of understanding God. Ultimately, for me, I was far more persuaded by the likes of Issac Asimov or Carl Sagan-- perhaps also Hegel, Schopenhauer, Jung, on and on--Marcus Aurelius and Gung Fu Tze: these satisfied the answers of my "small, still voice" than did the various zealots from the dark ages. . .that's the path of growth, and how it happens. Does that "small, still voice" still speak to this atheist? Sure.

Contrasting now for a moment. . .just for giggles. Nervous ones.

Michele Bachmann? This woman probably hears voices, but I doubt they're "small, still ones." For fuck sakes, she's running for president and getting somewhere trying. Mind you, she believes 1) The earth was created in a week some 8000 years ago 2) Climate change not just not happening, but is a hoax 3) Her homophobic husband is actually straight.

Some video fun. There's much more along this line if you follow the links. Be careful, if you haven't heard this kind of stuff be prepared to pick your jaw up off the floor.

So just how do people get to be this stupid? It's really worth a question, and education or lack of it isn't the issue. What it is, as far as I see it, the causal element is privilege, mostly the privilege to live your life in evasion of any facts or details that might challenge your selfish preconceived opinions. It gives one the option of being removed from the details that make up what most of us call "reality." But that's good old Michele and to a large degree describes the overfed pin-heads that support her. Privilege? That's not my background, for sure, nor my family, and so we have a tendency to adopt a critical eye especially towards things we want to believe. One can find oneself in a position where one cannot afford the luxury to believe foolish things for comfort, nor the risk of being wrong. Lack of privilege demands pragmatism, and objectivity--not dogma or idealism-- it might surprise people that that my Grandfather sold his farm in 1976, because of climate change. He would have been unaware of the research, but he was wholly aware of the level of the water in his well and the dates he had planted and harvested over the previous 50 years-- that would have convinced him far more than any scholarly study. But we that work with our hands can't have our head, ahem, in the clouds.

Hand that stupid fool a shovel-- she might learn something.

The Tao of the Ninja Mennonite: II

2011-08-24T11:51:00.000-07:00

Following on the last post, it's worth putting some time and effort considering the implications of the "yoked" terminology. It's a much more refined view than one hears from many "empowerment" camps--who might otherwise use terminology such as dispossession, or exploitation, or enslavement-- see, the term "yoked" is important-- as within Anabaptist tradition one realizes that the "yoked" animal puts its head into the harness willingly, and performs work against its own better future for the short term gain of a couple of handfuls of feed.

The wisdom of this tradition is to understand that one has personal culpability in the bearing of a yoke.

Well?

See, personal responsibility is central to these people. There are no innocent bystanders in this world view. Sure, you'll find kids around the world in terrible situations, but in a lot of cases the fault for that child's condition and the villain can be capably lain at the feet of not only some oppressing elite class(a growing and currently favorite) but also the kid's parents, and grandparents, who stuck their head in a yoke and empowered the exploitative force by their own efforts to seek an easy handful of feed. And I think there's a good point, if not an absolute one, there: most people find themselves in the positions of "dis-empowerment" not by exploitation by others, but by selling out to them.

Cognitive Dissonance seems to me to be the critical flaw of most progressive movements I value: no wonder, our culture has high expectations of maintenance. Few are willing to carry the burden of remaining independent, and we have found that the most effective way of controlling a herd isn't bullwhips but to feed it well. (Alert! Feed sack is running empty, and bullwhips must suffice in such environments!) It's little wonder to me as to why we see such little progress being made-- using climate change again as an example -- of all these organizations "battling" climate change all the while "yoked" to funding, support, media access, even expectation of lifestyles--on and on, coming from sources that have absolutely the opposite goal in mind. End result? Losing ground, of course.

Look, let's be clear: there is no way to preserve "spotted owl" habitat and hunt Californian Perky-titted Golddiggers. Any of us who would want to make a change for a better world will need to be damned careful in what we do, how we live our lives, what our expectations are, who we work for, if we're serious about getting some traction on the issues we care about. The temptations to stick one's head in a "yoke" are strong, and opportunities ubiquitous. It may in fact be that at the moment it's all but impossible to operate effectively within mainstream--or even semi-mainstream society-- and keep one's values and benevolence intact. I expect that's the case. This is an extreme moment in history, and I see very few options left but stepping aside, washing one's hands of the whole business, and living in quietude, separation, and independence as much as possible-- until the season changes. There's a message here, but the corn-fed don't want to hear it yet. Once the whips come down, I expect there will be a renaissance of interest.

That's hardly powerless, after all. Enjoy the moment. Preserve your strength.

The Tao of the Ninja Mennonite

2011-08-22T23:14:00.000-07:00

Well, some of you don't know this, but the whole Mennoite thing is my Mom's family. Sure, I grew up around all that. And honestly, hardly a bad thing. Almost hip, really. It's not really such a big stretch to be an atheistic Mennonite really. Nor ninja. Fits me nicely., in fact.

Some people think-- stupidly, frankly, that the Anabaptist movement(meaning, re-baptizing people from ignorance into enlightenment, some time ago) has today some anti-technological element to it. Horse-shit. Mind you, these are the people that invented refrigerators. Or Issac Babbitt, who invented the modern alloy for bearings. Or a chicky-poo cousin, Tabitha-(a her, again. as Anabaptist guys like powerful girls that do things. . .) who invented, guess the first radial blade circular saw? Her? Eli Whitney's first business partner? Anti-technological? Well, they were anti-patent, rather than anti-technological--- and that's why they aren't household names. If you find yourself your average Amish, or Mennonite, or Hutterite master of technology you'll find a guy who could build you an engine out of iron laden sand. No kidding, and has respect for all of it. Any of you whizkid IT punks want to try that? No, motors are not built with a mouse click--I'm not kidding-- and by the way, you still need those kinds of motors to run servers, in case no one taught you that in school. The anti-technological Anabaptists? They have if anything the most profound respect for technology, meaning, that they understand both its values and its dangers. The real issue, basically, when adopting a technology, is whether or not by the usage of the technology you'll become "yoked"(important term!) to a world view you find inherently destructive. Well, Anabaptist or not, that "metaphorical test" is worth some time thinking about, because it seems to me most people I know aren't merely "yoked" but in fact "imprisoned" by that they're dependent on.

Maxim? So, use it, if it doesn't use you.

Easy, huh? Just that a lot of modern stuff doesn't pass that muster.

Sailing and Self-reliance as Empowerment

2011-08-20T12:40:00.000-07:00

So, how did I get involved in sailing? Only a dream really. I tell people as a kid from southern Idaho I grew up on prairie schooners, ha ha-- but that's not the case. I didn't grow up in the social class where people owned boats, and sailing lessons were completely out of the picture in terms of affordability. I bought books on sailing, used ones because they were cheap and read voraciously. I couldn't afford a sailboat, so I talked myself into building a little 12 foot skiff out of lumberyard culls, and, 6 months or so later launched it, having built sails and all, and I was pleased to discover it sailed. The first time I ever set foot in a sailboat was that boat, and the first time I ever went sailing was in that boat. It worked. I was so green that when I discovered it sailed upwind I wondered if I discovered something, it was utter magic. Got to say that sense of magic hasn't gone away.

One thing led to another as I was absolutely hooked. I also was, however, unknown to myself, a becoming a complete relic, a sailing iconoclast.. See, I started learning from sailing by reading books written in the 1920's in the pre-motor, or pre-yachting era. I figured, as the people in the books informed me, that self-reliance was everything-- that motors especially were unnecessary and if you learned how to sail, you wouldn't need one, but if you started sailing while depending on motors, you'd forever be dependent. I believed them. Since I didn't know anyone in “yachting circles” I didn't ever meet anyone to talk me out of that until later on once I had some skill under my belt-- then I was shocked to discover that I was doing something radically counter culture-- well, like something for real. Go figure. I really had no idea that the idea that one should rely on self-reliance and personal skills rather than technological aids was so crazy. I guess if you grow up in a poor community that comes natural to you as you is all you've got-- you can't buy solutions. Within the “yachting industry” the notion of doing without the newest modern aid to “navigation” or “safety” is tantamount to heresy. Facts have nothing to do with it. The statistics that confirm that the single most significant cause of fatal injuries or deaths in the sailing world (behind drinking) is engine and gear related failures, stuff you're dependent on, which then fail you and leave you hanging-- this is what kills people. Not storms, not whales, not sinking, not getting lost in the fog. But facts have nothing to do with it. It has to do with dogma, and the reality that few people will put the time and effort in to really learn the skills sailing requires, and engines and electronics provide a tidy way of covering up the fact that one's skills are actually pretty minimal. So obviously, they're popular.

But learning those skills, admittedly, can be tough work—not just physically but psychologically as well. You'll get a lot of heat from people when you try to really achieve something with an honest long term goal, especially if your efforts make theirs look silly. Especially people with 9 figure incomes. It's worth it anyway. I've got news for you, once I got to the point where I was making passages in my own 52 foot rescue cutter, no engines, a boat I had designed, built, rigged, sewed the sails for and the whole bit-- and my time was my own and I was king of my own domain, for real--I mean really, for real-- let me tell you that underway in the company of blue whales off the California coast going wherever you wanted to-- let me tell you that few people ever have the privilege of understanding the kind of “empowerment” that such an experience can give you. It never goes away. It changes you. You're different now, and always will be. But that cuts both ways.

I had a clue from this early one. I was at the dock one day, working on some project on the boat and this grand old lady stopped by. The sculling oar had caught her eye, surprising to me as few people knew what it was. “Well, Son, you're serious” she said. I don't remember her name but she grew up with a family on a sailing boat back in the 20's and 30's, and had been most everywhere at one point or another. She had plenty of stories, for sure, and good ones. As she was about to leave she said, “consider this” rather pointedly and told a story. She spoke of remembering in great detail the first time that she stood watch on the yacht on an ocean passage, at night, in the central pacific while the rest of the family slept. She was about 7 or 8 years old at the time, and said she could remember the night in compete detail, even though it might be 70 years ago. She said she knew full well what she was doing, and that her job was critically important to the safety of everyone she loved, and that her job mattered. Her role mattered. She mattered. There's that empowerment I'm talking about again. Upon finishing that she warned me “it will make you different, Jay, if you keep it up. You will do things, and think things, and know things that other people never will. And you'll find some loneliness in that. See, most people never get the courage to think or do anything. They can't, how could they?.”

Yup, she was right.

You see, my natural tendency with is blog really was to come here and blast readers with a pile of facts and figures about climate change, or resource depletion, or our seeming intractable debt issues, or all the rest-- as that's the kind of stuff I research incessantly, and it's how I think. I'm a sailor, after all, and good sailors keep eyes to weather all the time. Thinking ahead, always being a step ahead, always anticipating problems, always being prepared is the central skill of seamanship, and once learned, you just can't shake it. These things matter, especially if we're going to try to pretend to empower ourselves and our community we can't possibly do that if we don't have a good working idea of what kind of world we're empowering people to be empowered within. But you know, in thinking about it, I realized that all of you here are smart enough to have seen and read through all of that stuff, and probably wouldn't care a bit to see any more evidence of how tough the future is likely to be. Many of you will simply be turned off in an immediate knee-jerk reaction the second I would start to talk about any of it. I understand. See, without a certain level of “empowerment” such information like that isn't of any help at all. In many, if not most cases, people in our society really don't have the skills, or the sense of self-reliance, or confidence-- empowerment, right?, to really cope with what might be coming their way, and thinking about these things, even if they're critically important only produce as feeling of helplessness, anxiety, and despair and of course that's hardly helpful. See, rather than talk about the “bad” stuff, I understand what I really need to be doing is empowering people, give permission maybe, to take on a lifestyle of independence, self-reliance, and personal meaning—you don't have go sailing, of course, that was my path—but if you do you'll earn the right and develop the courage then to look at these issues squarely and adopt an empowered stance-- not one of hopelessness and fear, but one of bold heroism in the face of danger. Maybe in the same manner that a skilled captain, whom we all culturally respect, on seeing the barometer falls knows what's coming, and immediately and confidently makes preparation to ready the ship.

So while we respect in some manner the image of that Sea Captain, an embodiment of skill and experience, always looking out for the ship, always taking the conservative long term perspective, always willing to make the hard decisions-- boy, I tell you, our current society in fact couldn't be further from that ideal. Independence? Hardly, most of us are completely dependent on our jobs, careers, or checks in the mail and we're often completely beholden to where-ever the come from. That's hardly empowering. It's expected you've got to get expert advice, permission even, a lot of time for even the most mundane matters of life. That's hardly empowering. Self-reliance? Hardly, our lives are filled with the requirement of being dependent on a whole host of widgets and devices, cell-phones, computers, skype, whatever that we've no real idea how they work and have the tendency to just crap out suddenly and leave us hanging, often utterly helplessly. Even our icons of “independence” and self-reliance have largely become gutted of that. Custom motorcycles? You go now and buy a “custom motorcycle” off the shelf? Didn't guys used to build them for themselves—oh god, you need an expert now to do that for you. Oh yeah, born to be wild. . .be sure you get a safety check. . .And of course the sailing world, which I'm obviously familiar with, and how old Captain Piddlemarks can blab on incessantly about what kinds of equipment must be found aboard the properly equipped yacht. He sells that stuff after all. Geez, and of course we see where this all ends up: a society of co-dependent—not interdependent—people making a living capitalizing on the lack of empowerment people feel, making a living off the fact that people are trained to be to timid to think or do things for themselves. Boy, this does not make for a society of heroes. If anything, it makes for a society of victims-- and then we're surprised why it seems we can't possible tackle the simplest of issues, let alone--issues like climate change. We can't. We're too defendant on getting that next paycheck to pay for the services of others we need to get that next paycheck. No wonder our strategies are so shortsighted, because even if a solution might be offered that would be for the greater good of all, for the future, but that might threaten next weeks paycheck—we've immediately got to reject it. Even with our big incomes we're too impoverished to care about the future or very often each other.

This is why self-reliance is so critical to empowerment-- you, by becoming progressively less dependent upon a system, earn the right to think for yourself-- as the luxury of your independence guarantees it's something you can now afford to do. This is why I might suggest that a person who has a skill set developed enough to successfully make a go of it on a 4 figure income in fact, be well be far better equipped to provide real empowerment to people than any pep talk by some guy, though fabulous, no doubt, earning the big bucks and well spoken, but still firmly entrenched within a co-dependent system, and well rewarded for it.

So, self-reliance as a means to empowering oneself? What can one do? Well, anything one learns to do for themselves which they couldn't do before is empowering, of course. But, your ship will only be as secure as the weakest link in the anchor chain-- and it's best we focus on that link first-- something we're often very reluctant to do. We must always strive to challenge our comfort zone, not only in what we do but with the thoughts we're willing to entertain. You'll also find certain lifestyles, or professions, makes becoming self-reliance much more effective as they demand it. Others, frankly, don't, and discourage it. For example, you'd find if you took on learning real sailing, well, you'd find yourself in conditions all the time that challenges you, and the environment is always, always, trying and expanding your skill-set, your confidence, and with it, your relative empowerment. That's great. For this very reason I focus on teaching the skills of “sustainable homesteading”--as the same conditions apply. So go for it! How empowered to you want to be? Make that decision and set sail! How empowered do you need to be? You'll only discover that mid voyage, once you've learned the skills to properly read charts. But one thing leads to another, inevitably, and if one sticks with it's all but inevitable that one will get there. You will find indeed that one can become captain of one's ship, master of your fate. And please do, because I need like minded companions—fellow commanders-- who will join me in the task of building an armada to sail on the soonest tide, boldly, heroically, to confront the threat that now lies just beyond the horizon.

Farewell, shipmate. . .

2011-08-19T22:13:00.000-07:00

R.I.P. Paul. . .

"Unexpected rise in jobless rates"

2011-08-18T11:34:00.000-07:00

Unexpected by whom?

One may ask, how is it that "experts" or economists get it wrong practically every time?

Well, who do they work for? The news agencies that select them as "experts" perhaps?

And who do the news agencies work for? Their advertisers perhaps?

And how interested do you think GM would be in dropping a million dollar ad spot, pimping the new 2012 Chevy Tahoe or some such, into the middle of a news broadcast reporting 1) Current manifestations of climate change 2) Mounting resource depletion 3) and the generally crappy/negative outlook for the world economy?

No wonder the American people are so clueless. They've been sold.

Willful Ignorance.

2011-08-14T15:38:00.000-07:00

This very interesting study released earlier this year: Yale's Six Americas Report. It's really worth a look over. . .

The scope of the report:

This report extends and updates an ongoing program of research analyzing Americans’ interpretations of and responses to climate change. The research segments the American public into six audiences that range along a spectrum of concern and issue engagement from the Alarmed, who are convinced of the reality and danger of climate change, and who are highly supportive of personal and political actions to mitigate the threat, to the Dismissive, who are equally convinced that climate change is not occurring and that no response should be made. The Six Americas are not very different demographically, but are dramatically different in their beliefs and actions, as well as their basic values and political orientations. The groups were first identified in a nationally representative survey conducted in the fall of 2008, and were re-assessed in January and June of 2010. The current report is the fourth in the series; in it we provide new insights into the informational needs of the six groups, their understanding of the health impacts of global warming, beliefs about current environmental impacts of global warming in the U.S., and support for local adaptation and mitigation policies.

The crux of the issue, as I see it:

Of the Six Americas, the Dismissive were the most likely to say they are well-informed about global warming, with 91% saying they were very or fairly well-informed. Among the Alarmed, 85% said they were very or fairly well-informed, followed by two-thirds of the Concerned the Doubtful. The Disengaged were most likely to say they were not well-informed, with only 2% saying they were very well-informed.

Take the time to work through it. Unless, of course, you're one of those who already knows everything there is to know about the issue. . .

Unemployment numbers:

2011-08-12T12:47:00.000-07:00

Speaking of adopting new paradigms on how the future is going to work. . .

Jobs? Forget jobs. The role of whatever government we have isn't to create jobs, it's to allow for opportunities. And there's our problem with policy now-- we've the worst of both worlds, where job creation is impeded by lack of support, and opportunities are impeded by institutional restriction.

Now all of this serves big corporate interests very handily, as high unemployment makes for cheap labor when you need it, and you get away with offering miserable terms. Restrictions are also very helpful-- as anti-competitive practice -- as it's only the biggest of the big who can afford to bear the burden of compliance. Thus it's cheaper, and considered safer, by policy makers to ship a cage raised frankenchicken, butchered by slave labor in a prison camp in Alabama, 6000 miles around the world to an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean-- and out-compete local poultry farmers.

It works nice for Tyson Foods. Now of course Tyson is a big, big contributor to right-wing nut case causes, like Koch, or Coors-- But seriously, you really think a company like Tyson Food wants small government? Baloney--big government is critical to their profitability. If it wasn't for the existence of the regulations on the books from whatever host of various institutions at all levels-- keeping moderate producers out of the market-- there is simply no way they could dominate the market like they do. Small government my ass-- that's just code language for "insuring the biggest players enjoy the privilege of socialized costs and private profits, oh, and pay no taxes at all."

Makes you really wonder what kind of sucker can buy some of the rhetoric out there. . .

It may seem inevitable on the current trajectory our economy and policy seems to be following(anybody read "Gravity's Rainbow?") an age of austerity is more likely than a pot of gold. Maybe. It's worth considering, as the wealth our our society continues to be raided, that a certain amount of liberty is gained with the impoverishment of various institutions--and while clearly in such an economy jobs may be scarce but opportunities may abound.

Just thoughts.

Opinion vs Agenda:

2011-08-07T12:36:00.000-07:00

There's an interesting thought experiment that comes to mind here.

Imagine a 1000 people were giving the task of adding a column of a 100 numbers. Everyone turns in their results. We'll assume average math skills.

A certain percentage, maybe 70 percent(wild guess) will get their numbers right. Their results will be in agreement with each other.

A remainder will make errors here and there and get independently wrong results. Mistakes happen, and we should expect a random distribution of error results.

What would be really unexpected, however, is when/if you get a group of people who all make the same mistakes and all come up with the same wrong number--and insist it's right. This can't actually happen in the world of mathematics, it can only happen if you have some central outside influence, one that wants wrong answers, and that tells people what result they're supposed to get before they start adding and they make the necessary mistakes to get that desired and predetermined answer. Does this sound like Congress? There's a hell of lot of this kind of figuring going on right now. The debt debacle and the resultant downgrade by S & P is a great current example, but plenty of others exist, and while they certainly don't hold a monopoly share, mostly this crap is coming from the same camp-- those who claim to believe in a "right to life," but don't give a shit about the biosphere. They believe there's infinite resources of oil in the ground but also believe the Battle of Armageddon is just around the corner and we probably don't have the time to use it all up like we should. They have invisible friends and expect the rest of us who grew out of that phase of development respect them for that. They think there's no evidence for climate change, but there is evidence of the "virgin birth." Right down the line, it's a very handy convenient world view that nicely absolves one of any responsibility to the rest of humanity, or the planet, or even one's own children while maintaining a veneer of smug, entitled, self-righteousness. . .how nice for them!

I think that veneer has been about polished through, 'bout now.

See, I think people can tell the difference between "opinions" and "agendas." Opinions are positions based on one's current understanding of the applicable data. Opinions change on occasion. Agendas, on the other hand, are pre-conceived preferences defended by cherry-picking data or even outright fabrication. Here we have a pretty good track record of respecting each others opinions. Agendas, well, I think we're all a little chapped when it comes to hearing that stuff all over again.

Feel that one's opinion is unjustly labeled an agenda? Without a doubt, an honest, forthright, good faith willingness to look and discuss the facts at hand in a fair and objective manner goes a long way to creating the necessary good will to maintain a constructive dialectic.

Our society can exist with a difference of opinion. But sure as hell it's becoming increasing difficult to accommodate agendas, as they are inevitably --inherently-- divisive.

Practical Solutions: XT500

2011-08-05T16:30:00.000-07:00

Some months ago watching fuel prices rise I decided I'd better be proactive--even though I drive a relatively new Toyota Tacoma frankly it's not infrequent that my work outside the farm doesn't require such a vehicle, and while it can still get 25 or better MPG one could do a lot better. A friend had this old beater Yamaha XT500 that had been wrecked and left in the rain. I figured by the time I got the 100 pounds of rust ground off of it, it would be lighter than stock, fast, and it might be a fine machine. LOL.

It's coming along. This will be an utterly stripped, utterly practical back roads rager designed to run on E85 or higher with a bit of pre-heat(a wick wrapped around the fuel line, high tech!). Magneto, wholly. Banana juice goes in and smoke comes out. That's it.

All in all these were very fine machines, very ahead of their time and robustly built. Certainly equipped to breathe in an old school kind of way. In the process of lapping the valves out here. The seats cleaned up fine.

Actually, a very exceptionally well built machine--a Paris/Dakar winner back in the day, and perfect to my needs. The gauges and controls actually worked/were rebuildable, which was a minor miracle. The handlebars were bent, but that was fixed with the mapp gas torch and some dinking around. The head stock had a pretty good twist in it but I cut the whole works off with a dremel tool and stuck it back on square to the frame with the wire feed. No sweat! Took a tiny amount of rake out. Am trying to talk myself out of adding some length to the swing arm(and of course the 575 big bore kit--shame on me for even thinking about it! LOL Oh, and the cam, oh and the 49mm intake valve, etc.,) In reality at some point I'll need to replace the stock piston (8 to 1) with a higher compression unit (probably 10 to 1) to be serious about the high E formulations, but one thing at a time.

Hopefully will get new rings and a couple of seals in the mail this week to get the thing running. The spokes on both wheels are complete trash but the rims are passable. These are on their way from KEDO in germany, stainless steel this time around, as well as an oversized jet kit to run on back yard ethanol blends if need be. It's no trouble to get the permit to brew one's own E100, it does take some tinkering to build machinery to process it but certainly doable-- that and an acre or so of bananas or cane will keep a guy on the road in a cost effective manner for years to come. I'll have about a grand in it to have it running. It would be pretty trick for 1500. It would be radical for 2000--restraint! Restraint!

More conversation here. There's a place for a rally of such kinds of bikes. Hows that for hopeful fun?

So What's the Hold-Up?

2011-08-05T12:55:00.000-07:00

Continuing, obliquely, with the topic at hand. . .

So, why has the "sustainability" movement been so ineffective at initiating real change? Come'on, we've got to admit that-- by any metric, we're only losing ground.

The answer is in the "P's," I think.

Sustainability is most effectively achieved by altering paradigms. The primary paradigm which is in need of alteration is that the expectation of "economic growth" as a means to prosperity remains a viable world view. In a world of constraints, where we obviously find ourselves now, the only avenue left to increasing prosperity is through altering "process"--to ever more efficient, beneficent and higher real value return activity. Old timers call this frugality, and simplification of lifestyle and expectations is the fast track to achieving it. A vegetable garden isn't a bad example. Process, adopting this paradigm, leads to progress. Unfortunately, the bandwidth of the cultural consciousness is still captivated not by progress, but by profits, and the "sustainability" movement is no exception here. Profits aren't accessed by efficient process, but rather products--and yup, here is the hold-up.

There are those that will tell you that you can transition to a "sustainable" world by adopting solar PV's, high tech batteries, LED lighting, smart chargers, electric hybrid cars, triple-pane thermally active windows, etc., etc., which is all neat stuff, no doubt, except the problem is you'll never ever be able to afford any of it if you actually do something for a living that's "sustainable." Is pimping inherently unsustainable "sustainable" product a sustainable means of earning a living? Phat chance!

Here's it's more the message of-- turn off the lights, wear a sweatshirt. Take the bus. Funny but there's no money in any of that. . .of course if you adopt the process of progress you'll find have less need for profits anyway.

Musing on the Qualities of Leadership, or Lack Thereof. . .

2011-07-31T13:13:00.000-07:00

Well, no need to belabor the obvious, for anyone who pays attention to the news.

It seems interesting to me that one of the primary attributes of "empowered leadership" that for some reason we've wholly lost is the confidence to listen to evidence and be persuaded. Just where have we got the notion that blind adherence to rigid ideology is somehow a stronger manifestation of personal strength--stronger than than the confidence to impartially entertain opposing views, consider the merits of the argument, and alter one's opinions as the evidence demands?

It's utter craziness. From Oslo, to Washington D.C., to the guy that told me the other day that he knew climate change was a hoax because God promised in the Bible to never destroy the world again after the flood, and of course, if climate changed destroyed the world it would prove the Bible wrong. . .radical, dangerous, short sighted, entrenched, militant idiocy threatens our very survival. It's our consumerism again, our consumerism of ideas--selecting those things we'd like to think over those we need to accept-- and now increasingly demanding others participate in those kinds of destructive fantasies too-- all too often, ultimately, at the end of a gun.

I find it utterly terrifying that I know literally dozens of people who believe they are masters of various arcane sciences, are shamanic, whatever that means-- have magic powers, unique conversations with angels or whatever, or can heal cancer by chanting vowels. . .they're pretty insistent about everyone taking them seriously too. . .smugly grouchy even. . .and I know basically one capable mechanic.

God, this self-indulgence is really going to bite us in the ass.

Also: Bonus link for the psychologically inclined-- Diagnose your favorite Panglossian! Worth a read.

http://www.peakoilblues.org/blog/?p=2693

Musing on the Qualities of Leadership

2011-07-17T14:24:00.000-07:00

A couple of thoughts come to me this morning, observing world events and dynamics here locally.

Anyone who would deign set themselves up in a position of leadership must possess a certain level of hubris, and a sense of entitlement-- a sense of exceptionalism. That's natural and part of the job, and that narcissistic self-confidence is not necessarily a defect, rather it can be a source of great creative potential.

Still, I find it striking the enormous schism that exists between the two ways that a "sense of exceptionalism" can manifest itself:

1. The sense that because one is exceptional, the ethical mores that may bind mankind do not necessarily apply to oneself.

OR

2. The sense that because one is exceptional, the ethical mores that may bind mankind may apply to oneself especially.

Worth chewing on, I suggest.

The Numbers of Sustainability: 3

2011-07-04T14:37:00.000-07:00

So the "numbers" series is continuing to generate both interest and ire. Nice to know people are reading. . .

An email I received-- paraphrased:

"Jay, you've got no idea what you're talking about. My family has four 100 square foot raised beds and they easily grow half our food. That's for a family of four. . .maybe you need more practice gardening."

This fellow makes a partial living promoting and developing small garden beds. And he mows lawns, elsewise.

OK, that's fine, on the surface the claim sounds reasonable. But let's think about it a bit.

We can talk in terms of calories, and it would be very helpful, but no one wants to, because the numbers are irritating. We can talk in terms of pounds, but no one wants to weigh out and really quantify this either. So there's an attempt to keep numbers out of the conversation, but whoops, they're still there. Back of the envelope, and off the cuff, but still there. . .

Hypothetically:

We can assume that it costs perhaps 400 dollars a month at a reasonable minimum to feed an adult. If, as in this household they're 4 adults(two teens) that's netting 200 dollars a month(half their food) x 4, or 800 dollars a month. Times twelve, that's 9600 dollars a year in produce, out of 400 square feet, or a net yield of 24 dollars a square foot. If we assume my numbers of net value(the produce likely worth 2 dollars a pound, as in greens, brocoli, etc.,) that's cranking out 12 pounds a square foot a year. Sustainably too! Organic!

It's all in the mulch, he says. I think it's in the bullshit.

A one acre property "gardened" at this level of proficiency would net the gardener, what, almost a million bucks a year in gross proceeds, and that's assuming that you lose some square footage to pathways and a tool shed(approx 40000 square feet times 24 dollars a square foot.)

Boy, if I could plant beans like that, I'd quit my day job!

The Numbers of Sustainability: 2

2011-06-20T19:13:00.000-07:00

It seems my last post generated a lot of interest, and not a little ire. Some people hate it when you quantify things. Sorry 'bout that. I'm writing this blog for the purpose of helping normal people of average financial means to attempt to live sustainable lifestyles. It isn't as easy as some would make it.

So, constructively, here's another question people must ask if they want to succeed with a sustainable lifestyle. Their personal conclusions can differ, sure, as mine's a bit of a guess, but a good one--and as the economy changes so will the conclusion. My conclusion is based on my experience and what feet on the ground right now will likely experience. Not selling anything, just offering up my best analysis.You're welcome to your own answer: Just have one.

Question:

At what point does the per square foot cost of a given piece of land make farming/gardening economically nonviable?

Here's how I would think about it. Raw, round numbers again.

I'd assume that reasonably fertile land can return a quarter pound per square foot of produce per season.

I'd assume that a reasonable mix of produce may have a value on the current market of 2 dollars a pound. Bell peppers may be more, potatoes a lot less of course. This is a guess of a mix of things that constitutes a garden that might provide meaningful substance. Other guesses are worth hearing and will provide other results. Obviously if we try to cook the books by suggesting that we're growing saffron we'll get unrealistic numbers.

That means one can expect to gross .50 cents of value per square foot per season. This assumes no labor inputs at all, no water bill, no seed costs, no fertilizer, and no bugs. Honestly, any body I know who could crack out .50 cents a square foot is doing pretty dang good. I don't get even close to such a number, as such intensive ag would make for so much soil erosion I'd be done in 5 years.

To purchase a given piece of land either requires an out of pocket expenditure or finance-- in either case it would generally be considered bad business practice to expect to yield less than a 10 percent value return on such an investment. We can quibble about that number. I'd appreciate hearing other views.

That gives me, of course, a value of 5 dollars a square foot, as I see it, as a reasonable estimate the absolute maximum number at which a given garden can actual return more value than it consumes. 3 dollars a square foot is more realistic, and leaves some room for labor costs. 2 dollars a square foot may even net a very meager return. Again assuming no labor input or costs or losses. Beyond this projected value, the garden consumes more resources than it produces and becomes unsustainable. I'd appreciate hearing other values of what one might think is the breakback number where inputs are a wash and labor a loss. Surely we can all agree that such a number 1) exists and 2) is important. I understand that some are in a position where none of this matters, again, great, smoke 'em if you got'em. It's doesn't make you bad. But at some point, for sure, exercises in gardening become so uneconomic to be nothing else other than conspicuous consumption. That's all, and to obfuscate that fact may mislead people new to the issue and of more modest means to take on projects that won't pan out for them, and that's a shame.

Unfortunately, much real estate in suburban neighborhoods exceeds this number. The closer one gets to the beach, the more one exceeds this number. The Girl's old place in Venice had a cost in excess of 300 dollars a square foot at the bubble valuations, yikes!-- it would cost you 25 bucks, by that math, to rent storage for a dog turd. By contrast, I paid .14 cents a square foot for my property and one could go cheaper than that now. Obviously, if one wants to have a leg up on achieving sustainability, or even pretend to approximate economic decisions, those kinds of low costs give one a huge leg up.

Do the math, it matters. . .

The Numbers of Sustainability: 1

2011-06-15T16:35:00.000-07:00

I think it's time and worthwhile to start having this discussion. We may well be getting to the point where sustainability is no longer an option, and it's worth getting past the dress rehersal stage and face squarely the task in front of us. I'd appreciate discussion, feedback, and having folks check my math. There's going to be some major assumptions made here, and values attached to them. I think if they're kept transparent they work, though we can quibble about the details.

So, the question that prompts all this is this one, and I get it asked all the time: "How much land do I need to live "sustainably?" First off, I'm not sure I understand the question, as in most all cases the question comes from someone seeking the lowest possible value. In the years of teaching sailing I never met anyone, contemplating an ocean voyage, who asked "How little water can I get away with on a 2500 mile ocean passage?" Nobody asks questions like that, as it's a serious matter, and the consequences for failure are deadly--and obvious. Because people take ocean passages seriously a different kind of question is asked, much more resembling "How can I stuff as much water as possible aboard my boat?" Unfortunately, no body really takes sustainability really that seriously yet. I suggest we should, and part of the reason it's become even more pressing is precisely that fact: that no one really takes sustainability very seriously.

But let's try to put some real numbers to the "how much land do I need" question, even if without the numbers we've more or less answered it already-- you need as much land as you can personally physically manage by sustainable means. Still, it's worthwhile to put a bottom threshold to the issue. There's a lot of people making wild-ass claims about what "one can get away with." This sells seminars, and books, and offers false hope and security in the name of profit. Let's do a little better.

This is how I think about the issue.

While one can grow a lot of pounds of greens and whathaveyou in a small space, to focus on pounds of product can be very misleading. If we're interested in real sustainability, it's much more important to focus on how many "calories" of food can be produced in a given space, as that's really what we care about. One finds, once one starts to do the research, that numbers like "calories per square meter" are hard to come by from the gardening or permaculture crowd-- but you certainly can find such numbers from the biofuels industry, as, well, calories per square meter is all they're interested in. So that's where I start, and figure we'll factor in reality as we go along.

Plants aren't magical. They're organic solar panels. The energy in food comes from sunlight, and nowhere else, and the function of how many calories produced per square meter is a function of 1) how much sunlight one gets 2) how efficient the plant is at converting it to usable(edible) form.

Let's assume first, that we're growing sugar cane, which is just about the highest yield caloric plant on earth, at least not assuming algae and stuff like that. Suffice to say that most garden crops won't be anywhere as efficient in creating calories as sugar cane, nor are most gardens planted nearly as intensively as a commercial cane field but it's a great starting point to find the upper theoretical limits of reality. In doing the research, I find for industrial, completely unsustainable, NPK, mechanized cane a square meter of sugar can can produce a kilo of sugar per year. If we assume 4 calories per gram of sugar that produces 4000 calories of food a year per meter. If we take that 4000 calories and divide that by 365 days that produces 11 calories of food per day per square meter. If we assume that a large guy capable of handling cane consumes 2500 calories a day(although you'd die pretty quick living on sugar only, but it's efficient)-- you'd need 228 square meters of cane just to meet your basic calorie needs in this wholly unrealistic situation. Let's switch to square feet/acres to make it a bit easier for most of us now. 228 square meters is 2445 square feet, let's round to 2500. Now let's add some reality. Nobody is going to get close to the kinds of yields offered by cane-- if we figure we'll plant a mix of stuff one can actually eat-- so it's easy and conservative to turn that 2500 square feet into 5000. As well, it's wholly unrealistic to expect that sustainable permaculture yields will remotely approximate intensive, mechanized, NPK production--it's very easy to add yet another factor of 2. Remember, we don't want to cheat the numbers, as we plan to actually eat this stuff and survive. There's 10000 square feet of garden, realistically, and conservatively as I see it, assuming no bugs, slugs, pests, drought, pigs, screwups or neglect. An acre is 43560 square feet, so a quarter acre per person is about the absolute minimum I really see as viable, and that isn't living large, nor especially securely, and you'll not be growing fuel to cook any of this--whoops, fuel? We'll leave that out of the question for now, but it's worth noting you'll eat every stitch of what you produce, be a bit glum about that, and won't generate any income for property taxes, trips to Bali, or dental care. Or clothes for that matter.

Thoughts? All in all a half an acre for a strong couple isn't wholly unmanageable, although it's a pretty big project.

Further discussion here:

Progress:

2011-05-27T11:38:00.000-07:00

It's been a pretty busy month on the homestead, with spring now in full swing and growth rates back up--I'm having to run to catch up. The scale of everything planted over the last few years is really coming apparent and it's great to see the "fruits of one's labors." I'm going to try to start keeping a monthly log over at the Silviculture blog, just so those interested can see the progress and how it all comes along step by step. It seems that a viable system has been put together here and I'd like to share it.

Kilauea Silviculture

2011-02-17T09:48:00.000-08:00

Well, very little posting around here, mostly because the little farm has become a profitable venture and as is typical, those who are spending a lot of time doing something often have little time to talk about it! I hope to over the next couple of weeks create a dedicated blog to the farm itself and some of the very interesting programs and products we're offering. It's proven to be a very exiting and hopeful project, and as a model offers a unique opportunity for many. Here's the link to the new blog: http://kilaueasilviculture.blogspot.com/ Stay tuned! We hope it's helpful.

A surefire way to stimulate the local economy.

2010-09-30T21:24:00.000-07:00

So, as I was mulling the situation with the local economy the other day on the way to work--it's hard not to reflect a bit when passing the hundreds upon hundreds of "FOR SALE" signs on the side of the road that all of us encounter every day-- well sure, I'm sure some of those are pertaining to the recent election but same difference, right?. . . and suddenly it struck me-- a sure fire way to stimulate the local economy and set us back on the right track to prosperity.

Let's build a lot of damn big stone heads on the beach! Kinda like these but out of "green" materials. Is rock "green"? Bigger would be good too. After all, the ones in the picture were built a thousand years ago and surely we've learned something since then. . . By the way, I don't much care for the one with a lump of shit on his head, perhaps we could do away with that and keep the whole thing a little more subdued and austere. It seems that the lumps fall off and create a maintenance problem anyhow. I've never been a big fan of gratuitous architectural details--of the do it just because you can kind--and while I'm sure that lump of shit is heavy and there's some value in that, I'd still vote against it on aesthetic grounds.

Building stone heads accomplishes many things.

1) Building stone heads stimulates the economy, first by pissing away money, and secondly by stimulating tourism, as big stone heads around the world are a first class tourist draw.

2) Stone heads will solve all traffic problems on Hwy 130.

3) Building stone heads will address our problems with invasive species, feral cats, and climate change all in one fell swoop, and make us energy independent to boot.

4) Stone heads will repel potential invasive armies, as they are obviously scary.

5) Stone heads will create permanent jobs, as some must maintain and monitor the stone heads. Stone heads are ideal for creating permanent jobs as they last centuries with no maintenance or monitoring.

In fact, modestly I'd suggest it may even be possible to improve on my stone head concept by not actually building them, but just considering how and when and where to build them endlessly until all the money to actually achieve something useful is pissed away(pocketed), but none of it is actually lost to something as wasteful as real infrastructure that addresses the needs of future generations.

But I'll leave that issue open to study and review by the experts. Surely there's grant money in this!

Time to pick up your toys!

2010-08-02T15:46:00.000-07:00

Haven't posted here in quite a while, but of course I'm pretty busy with the forum and a zillion other issues--which is great, as after all, I ought to be spending my time working out the bugs of my "sustainable lifestyle" rather than blathering on about it. Still, I've heard from a number of people who were a bit surprised at a lack of a diatribe around here about the oil spill--especially considering my background. Hell, really, what is there to say? It's a terrible mess, and an obvious and unavoidable result of the demands of our lifestyles. Don't be blaming BP, blame us, all of us, and do a good job of it. Wallow in it, in fact. That would be my advice.

But let's not add insult to injury by not only refusing to relinquish our consumptive ways but in fact adding to them by indulging in extravagant group catharsis and weeping and wailing together in a sugar coated but oh so satisfying fashion-- getting that hypoglycemic hit so we can go on without upset tummies. We all have low blood sugar, you know, we need that kind of attention to our delicate appetites. We can't really be bothered by reality as we'll be squabbly at nap-time. Look, reality is that while the spill is a hell of a disaster, all in all it's anybodies guess whether or not the ecological impact of the spill is worse dumped in the gulf or rather all that oil, even though burnt in trendy Prius hybrids--, remember, it still ends up in the atmosphere, right?--hell, what's worse? I really don't have any idea at this point. I know CO2 is transparent to most people and oil is nasty looking and sticky, and I suspect that's why oily birds get more attention than the melting of the permafrost although it's the latter that's going to cook our goose. Mother goose, in fact. Back to comforting nursery rhymes, of course.

Look: sustainability. As complicated as people want to try to make it living the sustainable lifestyle isn't really all that complicated. It's really about one thing at the end of the day-- whether or not the total sum cumulative effect of one's lifestyle has a net constructive or net negative affect on the larger planetary ecosystem. Whether or not the earth is a better or worse place for yours or my having been born. This isn't a rhetorical question, either, it's capable in large part of being empirically derived. I've been at the "sustainable" lifestyle thing for a long time now, and I'd say while I'm very sad about the spill in the gulf, I don't feel any "guilt" in it as I've bent over backwards, made huge sacrifices in lifestyle for years, educated, advocated, and worked tirelessly for a better world to offset the very modest levels of consumption that I enjoy. That's an option open to anyone. But that's not how most of us want to go about it. We're like whinny spoilt children who want to scatter our expensive toys and treats about, never satisfied with what we have and wanting more all the while, and refuse in any way to be responsible for the mess we make. If someone were to ask us to "pick up our mess before bedtime" we'll squeal and raise all hell and expect to be coddled and rewarded even for our tantrums. Everyone has seen children like that, but we're in reality a nation of children like that. . .

Anyway, practically and today why this comes to mind--Jay's Chicky-Poo has a lot of hair and hairdryers are part of the forest project. I need to get back to work as we run a generator out here, and in order to responsibly clean up our mess I'm planting another half dozen Koa our here to eat our share of CO2 that this little indulgence creates. Hardly a big deal. It will take me a couple hours and we can run hairdryers out here for life. . .

Enjoy whatever you want, just be sure to pick up after yourself. . .

Biochar in a Food Forest Setting:

2010-05-25T16:31:00.000-07:00

Posted a couple of videos that are about my utilization of biochar in my Food Forest project. This technique provides a solution for invasive trees, woody waste, washed out, infertile acid soil all in one process. I'd really recommend considering giving it a try. Here's how you do it. Realize that early Hawaiians--and in fact most pre-industrial agriculture cultures-- used charcoal as a means of improving poor soil extensively. That technique needs to be rediscovered and re-applied. Here's a very very simple way of getting started.

Don't forget the hot dogs!

http://sensiblesimplicity.lefora.com/2010/05/25/biochar-in-a-food-forest-setting/#post0

What Sustainable Living Looks Like:

2010-05-05T18:08:00.001-07:00

Look, you can do this too: Get a hold of us--we'll help you.

Seriously, isn't this a more beautiful and hopeful vision for this island than tourism or more shoddy spec houses? Come on! Time's a wasting, let's set an example for a better world. There are better ways of living.

The Sen/Sem State of the Union Report

2010-04-12T20:48:00.000-07:00

Haven't posted too much around here lately, been very busy. . .but thought I'd offer up a few thoughts as our project comes along.

Topic 1:

I'm a big believer in the inevitability of stuff happening if it's going to happen, and understand pointlessness of hoping for events that aren't. I think really, all in all in human existence there are damned few things we really have very much control, and our ability to alter our personal trajectories through life is largely illusory. That's good and bad, good because we shouldn't feel so bad about the stuff we screw up, bad, kinda, because there's very few things we should feel entitled to take credit for. Not that it stops anyone, LOL, but there you go. Still, there are times and moments in which small nudges can have large effects and it's good to have a nose for those-- and having what we term success(or failure) in life is largely about saying either "yes" or "no" in those critical moments.

We all sense that, I'm sure. We as a group on the forum here have largely made a commitment of "yes" to personally making an attempt to moving towards a sustainable future. This is why we are here. This is why we're trying to work together. Recently, I've been hearing a bit of stink floating about about how perhaps, well, things might not be working out as expected. That well, things aren't going this way, or that way-- or that so and so is a jerk, or that some people are fake, or what have you. No doubt. We have all of that, I'm sure. I've been also hearing from the "get go" a year ago from people who would love to form community but feel jaded or cautious, feeling that they are cautious about taking the risk of "community" because they fear it won't be reciprocated. No doubt it won't.

Look, perhaps it's time to figure out that "community spirit" mostly is about giving to people who are jerks, or more typically merely useless, and getting nothing in return. That's the core of it. Being a good member of a community mostly is being the kind of person who has the sufficient richness of spirit that you're capable of doing that, repeatedly, and mostly cheerfully. A "Sustainable Community" as far as I can see it is a group of people who understand this, possess this non-trivial level of both competence and generosity, and have found each other. This is no small thing. Actually, it's a huge thing, and a heroic thing. Expect it will be mostly hard work in the short term, with little to no reward.

Got that? New paradigm, people.

Actually, not really all that new. While people are selfish by nature, of course, there are indeed matters of degree. Today, well, the selfishness is so entrenched it must be historically exceptional. By and large, we're just a bunch of spoiled, overfed brats, who have very little to offer, and demand an awful lot in return for what we don't give. This wasn't always the case-- when I think of my grandparents generation there still seemed to me to be a lot of giving simply for the joy of giving. But I must tell you, it's been probably 20 years since I've seen anyone bake the kinds of pies that I used to see as a kid--you know the kind, with the perfect crust, perfect filling, intricate lattice, all that stuff--photogenic. If you've ever tried yourself, you know why; because it takes about 4 hours to put a pie like that together and it's gone in 2 minutes. It's a weak effort/return on investment project. But I do remember the look on the faces of my Grandmother and other matrons I knew as a kid of the joy they felt watching their work evaporate. They were simply satisfied by making others happy, and that was good enough.

So again, got that? Expect to give, and not get shit in return. Expect that. It's the only way we're going to pull for a better future. At least in the short term.

Aloha!

No, I mean it.

Topic 2:

In one of my books somewhere I wrote that "there will come a day in which that we call a "fisherman" will not catch fish but rather will build fish habitat." We're getting close. I think we can expand that observation to the term "businessman" as well. There will come a time, damn soon, where to be a successful businessman won't be a matter of indulging in the mere exploitation of an economy, but rather a businessman will be one vigorously involved in the creation of one. We are going to need to get started on building our "sustainable economy" and pronto, as there's a possibility there will not be much else left here too soon for comfort. Fortunately, or unfortunately, there really isn't going to be much sensible debate about what that economy is going to be based on. Tourism? What, to come see slums, rain, marginal beaches--coupled with expensive hotels and costly airfare? Forget that! What, development? So we can have more empty house that no one can afford to buy because there are no jobs, who get purchased by aging boomers, mostly of a lower economic bracket, who end up on public assistance further crushing the local economy? Jeez, it would be easier to come up with a viable plan selling rock, if it wasn't taboo. I'm not really joking. There is indeed a rock and gravel shortage all up and down the west coast.

No, of course, the only viable game in town is agriculture. If there is going to be either tourism, or development, is will be accessory to the success of agriculture--meaning people will come to see the farms or build houses because they are successful farmers. This is where we need to go, and we need to get ripping.

The issue, of course, as a business model is that the tropics in general and Hawaii in particular offers unique obstacles to agriculture, and especially sustainable agriculture. These issues aren't insurmountable, but at this point require some tenacity and creativity to overcome. Mostly the issue comes down to the fact that to grow here, one is forced to purchase very marginal agricultural land at rates that assume residential construction, and to take on a project that requires a lot of latitude in application in a business environment that is increasingly litigious, complicated and restrictive for anything other than building--and when you realize that agriculture is a high risk, low return business at its core, well, one can see why no one is doing it, except for a few of us crazy folks. That doesn't mean it isn't viable. It is. But at this point the viability will only be visible to a very small number of visionary folks with unusual skill sets.

So, what can WE do.

Well, the first thing we should do is put together one of the first things suggested here-- the MOBILE farmers market. The "Produce Truck." Not only is it vastly more efficient to roll one machine to 1000 people than have 1000 people drive to one place--it is by nature forced and uniquely able to become a cooperative project. Since (as above) small farms are key to our future and (as above) giving and getting nothing in return is key to our future if we can come up with a cooperative plan to ease both "transitional" strategies that's all good. Perhaps a great place to give a "nudge" toward a better future. Why so effective? Primarily because the truck can do both pickup and delivery, and in that case operate vastly more efficient. Secondly, because of its efficiency, it allows for small producers a viable market immediately. What I mean is this--suppose you've got 4 extra eggs? Well, put them on the truck. To offer aid to transition, we must ease the effort and add encouragement--and hopefully some income-- to those who will for the first year or so measure returns in pounds not tons. Even if it is small potatoes for small potatoes that's no doubt helpful. We can work out the details, but I promise you all if you can find a market for micro-amounts of produce you will all grow more. Right?

We can work out the details. Surely you all can see the promise. Let's set a goal of getting the truck running by November 1.

My pledge: I have a nice 1 ton GMC truck coming my way, with a fresh engine and drivetrain. Under 30000 miles. This can be the powerplant, and it would be hard to beat for cost or reliability. This boat has as cherry 350 and even with the low axle ratio will get 10 mpg, burning 8 gallons a day on a circuit from Volcano to Hilo with a Honda EU 2000 in the bed running a refrigerator. I expect what we really need is a trailer, but trailers are relatively cheap. If we were very very intelligent people, we'd put a commercial kitchen in the trailer. Taco truck style. This way you can not only sell produce, but you can sell concept--there are a lot of viable foodstuffs we have here that people don't eat because they don't know what they taste like. If you can purchase/sell/distribute a whole communities output with one source, provide employment to a couple of drivers, a couple of cooks-- work for a better future, create viability for a local economy in one shot, well, we'd be stupid not to take a stab at it. Give and expect nothing in return.

Actually this is better than that. This will pay. It will pay at 10 dollars a gallon for fuel. It will pay carrying a driver at a living wage, a cook, and someone to work a counter. Who is in?

Yes, this will be a completely legal, everything above board, certified project. No prob. It will still work.

I'm giving use of the truck. Surely we can equally contribute to the trailer, both time and capital. I also pledge to the cost of the trailer, let's get a notion as to what it would cost. I expect 12k or so.

Look, at the end of the day whether it's biochar, or engineless sailing, or growing taro, or being a decent human being, just do the damn thing-- and help other people do the same, OK? Surely we're capable of doing something without whoring it out. Christ, really, surely we can figure this out.

Got Food?

2010-03-13T10:24:00.000-08:00

"Sustainability" and more tortured metaphors.

2010-02-13T14:08:00.000-08:00

So it was a couple of years ago I was walking down the dock and came upon a sinking boat. A crazed fellow was aboard with a 2 inch hole saw and was punching holes in the bottom.

"Dude! What the hell are you doing!" I shouted.

"What does it look like?" he snarks, "I'm washing the bilges. . ."

"You're nuts!" I cry "Can't you see your boat is sinking?!"

"Screw Al Gore and all that eco stuff. . ."

"What the hell does Al Gore have to do with any of this--just pull your head out and look, dammit!"

Begrudgingly and condescendingly he approaches the companionway. A moment of irritation is followed by a moment of recognition, which is followed by a moment of terror. . .

"God, MY BOAT IS SINKING!" He screams "Help! What do I do?" He begins to panic.

"First," I reply, "You've got to quit drilling 2 inch holes in the bottom of your boat."

"How will I wash my bilges then?"

"No problem!" I reply, "Technology to the rescue. Here's a 3/4 inch spade bit. I got a grant to study these and they're proven much superior to 2 inch hole saws. . ."

"That's STUPID!" a passerby exclaims, "Obviously his boat will still sink!"

"Don't be so negative," I retort. "Obviously it's a step in the right direction."

. . .

Well, sure.

Sustainability is a quantity, not an ideology. Ecosystems, cultures, economies, and lifestyles are either "sustainable" or they aren't. A small step in the wrong direction is only marginally better than a big step in the wrong direction. Let's not use the term "sustainable" loosely, and let's confine that term to strategies that are measurably "in the right direction" not mearly "less destructive."

Anyway, just had to say that. Come on, we can do better than that.

Deja Vu all over again: Vol 2 -- which is Navigation, Set and Drift, Vector Analysis, and all the rest. . .

2010-02-11T19:49:00.000-08:00

Ok. then.

Navigation, of course, matter to sailors. It matters a great deal more to some than others.

There's no question that in navigating a sailing vessel, which is limited, even severely, in its propulsive capacity, at least quantitatively relative to the natural phenomena that might impact it: ie., tidal currents--navigational skills matter. It's commonplace to be sailing 3 knots on a 3 knot current in many places in the world. It takes a lot of skill to "get anywhere" in that scenario. In fact, that is, indeed, the art of "sailing" is making 3 knots in spite of 3 knots of adversity. Sailing in perfect conditions is brainless. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy it. It's just that the skill comes out when it's hard. The rest of the time it's a "gimmey."

Some then, really get off on navigation-- as "navigational" skills are the the hallmark of a great "sailor." Ok, sure. Sailors need to know how to navigate. I don't contest that, I agree. There are a lot of techniques out there using hand bearing compasses(yup, those are good) and sextants(especially used sideways!) and GPS(while it works, I'm all for it) and lots of intricate calculations on chart tables an crazy spherical trig and all that. Sure, great. It's great, while ashore, to spend a lot of time learning as much of all that as one can stomach. There's tons of tricks there and some of those tricks are completely capable of saving your butt. Shame on you for not knowing them! Indeed! It's very common, in fact to need to plot set and drift scenarios, and work vector analysis on a chart table. Sure. But there's a problem, and that problem is reality.

The reality is that very very if not almost always in the times you really need a "vector analysis" answer you also very likely: 1) Can't let go of the tiller 2) Don't have time to work the problem out 3) Might well barf on the chart table if you tried to actually work it out.

Indeed. Kinda curious, really, because in conditions where you don't need to know you could spend all of the time in the world working all that out. Of course it wouldn't matter, because, pointless, after all.

I've found that a curious paradox in navigational knowledge--you don't need it in conditions where it doesn't matter--but you can access it, BUT-- you can't have it in conditions you do. There's a 1 in a 1000 scenario where it helps, and that's cool, but basically, that's very rare and pretty small potatoes anyway and explains why completely incompetent people routinely sail around the world. Dumb luck, really, as most often, the world is kind, in spite of what we do to it to louse it up. Odd are, at the end of the day, going to be OK. The reality is, in the real world, the envelope of error vastly exceeds the resolution of the problem at hand. Thus, skill comes in and you fly by the seat of your pants. . .

Still, and this is damned important: The key in navigation, really, isn't knowing when you're going to be OK. It's knowing when you're not. That's why one studies navigation. But even a really bad navigator can compensate for lack of ability by being conservative and cautious and being doggedly and relentlessly obstinate in the goal of making port. . .

Well then, the sustainable lifestyle. . .obviously a bit of navigational talent is important here too.

In sailing we need to know our weather forecast, our boat's capacity to make good, the tides, perhaps obstacles and traffic, hours of day light, visibility, and a whole host of things.

In sustainability we need to know our economic forecast, our fiduciary means, the tides(meaning local influences), obstacles and traffic(um, interference in general, politely), hours of daylight(meaning how long one can hang in there), visibility(how far one can see), and a whole host of things.

So then, one can indeed plot on a chart table things like:

Let P + D + I + R + T = Ea

Where P = Production
Where D = Debt Service
Where I = Innovation
Where R = Resource Costs
Where T = Transportational Factors

Where Ea = Economic Activity

But, I'll suggest 1) You won't need to work that silly equation when you don't need too-- and 2) It won't mean much to you when you need to. In fact, I think the activity of really sitting down and doing so is very likely to make you barf on a chart table too.

I need to go deal with chickens: vol 3 will follow.

So what, is, indeed the "engine" of the unsustainable lifestyle?

Deja Vu all over again. . .Vol 1

2010-02-07T19:43:00.000-08:00

I haven't posted a proper diatribe in a while.

Well, let's see. It was about a decade ago(actually a little more than that) that the Oar Club was founded, such as it was. I was sick and tired of being the only person I knew who sailed(that means, of course, not motoring around all the time and sometimes using a sail, ahem. . .) a sailboat (which means, of course, the boat I "sailed" had sails but not engines) and the internet was just firing up to be accessible to most people. Many don't know this but the Oar Club publications first started as print, which I printed off and distributed at my own expense and we spoke by mail. That lasted about 6 months and I went online. Thank god, as I wasn't going to keep paying money to get nasty mail from people I pissed off. Of course this didn't slow the hate mail down a bit. This was 1997-99, of course. Gas wasn't even a buck a gallon, and we hadn't had our dot com bust, peak oil was something only fringe folks had ever heard of, nobody had blew up the twin towers and everyone was going to be movie stars, or something like that, I guess, even if you happened to be poorly complexioned. I started the Oar Club for people who wanted to know other people that wanted to sail. I mean for real. The project was a success. I officially quit maintaining it(rightly so, as I'm not sailing at the moment, and have no business offering my sage advice there) and, well, it's a concept now entrenched enough that it's running along on its own wind supported by those that see its value. That's pretty cool.

My Oar Club message was pretty simple and so were the premises--framed rhetorically might be stated thus: 1) Why go sailing unless you want/intend to go sailing? 2) If you're a normal person and you want to go sailing, economic constants apply. The first question, of course, highly aesthetic and ideological--why would one want to indulge oneself in the archetypal exercise of sailing and then cheat the guts out of the experience by motoring around when "you can't be bothered" with the sailing part--the second question a completely practical one: um, how the hell are you going to pay for this exercise? The answer to both questions, of course, was eliminate the engine. You solved your issue about faking things and saved yourself enough money to make the whole project doable in one fell swoop. Makes all the sense in the world. Of course it pissed people off to no end whose real goals were different: they wanted to look a certain way and had the means to purchase the image. The engine, indeed, was the means to achieving this image. Whoops, that was made to look lame. This kind of ideo/practicality when spoken has a tendency to make a lot of things look like flaming(as conspicuously on fire) bullshit and not everyone enjoys being "outed." Well, bummer. Those who can afford to purchase images for themselves in their idle time can hire folks to handle the PR after the fact of being exposed as full of crap. Not so surprisingly, the most support I'd get for the Oar Club stuff didn't come from wanna-be sailors, it came from powerboaters. They'd say "I think you're crazy, but what you're doing is pretty cool." They didn't have a dog in the "pissing match" and were capable of saying such things. The most heat I ever got was from a guy, who I assume is sane, and was a big time med researcher in Portland, Oregon, whose sailing career involved motoring the 5 mile stretch of river between the I-5 and I-205 bridges on the Columbia River, who sent me a 25000 word manifesto about, well most everything, including the rights of quadriplegics to sail, etc., all sorts of stuff. It never stopped . I still have it somewhere. Touche, bro. As John Stewart Mill would say--it's easy to win an argument, it hard to get your opponent to care. Well, I guess that guy cared. I guess I laugh.

For the record: Quadriplegics motorsailing= plenty cool enough.

People have asked lately--do you miss sailing? Um, kinda, although I got my fill, I'll tell ya. It got to the point where in my mind the question smacks of "Jay, so do you miss driving forklift?" or some such. Hell no, not in the particulars. Most importantly, rather, I feel personally I'm still doing the same thing. All in all, none of this is really so much about sailing but rather integrity and trying to create meaning in a world where there's very little to grab on to that will support that. Sailing, for real, is one thing you can grab onto.

So is my current project--sustainability.

And very similar rhetorical questions apply--why on earth would one want to live sustainably? Kinda pointless really. Screw it. Screw everyone else. I'll get mine and everyone else can go without. Girls like powerboats better. Regardless of whether your world view is created by an intelligent, well researched analysis of our financial system, energy delivery systems, commodities, or our ecology--or you're one of those kind of people who scratch themselves thinking about Sarah Palin in the middle of the night mouthing "drill, baby, drill" oh so softly--why bother really? Why bother caring? It's a lot easier not to. I promise that. Why bother? It's a great question, and a hard one to answer. And the fact is the answer is very much the exact same answer applies to sailing. I want to to care. I need to care. Or, simply, and heroically, because you've chosen to affirm that it's the right thing to do. Because it is, of course. Obviously. And you don't want to be a Schmuck. It's about integrity. To yourself, or all of the rest of us. It's one of those things like recognizing sailing is sailing and motoring is motoring.

Guess what! I've a couple of rhetorical questions to ask. 1) Why pretend to live "sustainably" if you're not going to live sustainably. 2)If you're going to live sustainably, economic constraints will apply. Shocker, right? Well of course. Again, I find myself in a situation where I'm running afoul of those who in the same manner as yachtsmen want to purchase an image for themselves as some kind of "master of the sea"-- those who want to purchase themselves some kind of image as being "the masters of a sustainable" future when at the end of the day there's damn near nothing that they do that can be remotely equated with sustainability. This isn't a matter of ideology. Not at all. Just look at what they do, quantify it, and form a judgment. Bullshit. And as in sailing, I find the majority of support that I find comes from people who are ardent "not caring" sorts, the kind that don't even bother to pretend--who as in the manner of powerboaters would say "I think you're crazy, but what you're doing is pretty cool."

Believe me, sustainability is going to be all the rage. Why? We've gone to sea as pretend sailors and our engine has conked out. Mixed metaphors, eh? Really, it applies. We are wholly adrift in foul waters right now as a society(all sailors will understand the terror of that phrase) and our future is far from certain, our fate mostly directed by dumb luck. Let me tell you, the worst time to learn to sail(although it's how I got started) is when you have to because the engine conked out. That's dangerous. The worst time to learn to live sustainably(with much much higher stakes) is when your engine conks out too. Boy Howdy, and a hell of a lot more dangerous.

. . .

. . .

. . .

Some savvy sorts will recognize that my metaphorical comparison is incomplete. In sailing, the issue, was, of course the "engine."

So what, rhetorically, is the "engine" of the unsustainable lifestyle? Opinions? Very important question, really.

I need to care for chickens. Vol 2. will follow.

PS:

It's been a source of never ending humor to me how few people "get" the "Oar Club" thing. If you're sailing(for real, meaning, that's all you've got) and you end up in the "Oar Club" well, that's not a good thing. Actually that really sucks to have to row your butt off a reef because you screwed up and now risk losing your boat. But, the negative reinforcement goes a long long way towards skill acquisition. Indeed it does. You won't do it twice.

On the Sustainability line maybe I should start "Starve Club." LOL. That's a lot less poetic, but we've already got a couple billion members. . .

Go Saints.

Biochar again:

2010-02-01T17:59:00.000-08:00

Be sure those of you interested in biochar(and if you're not, shame on you!) take a look at Ben and Debs result on their first biochar experiment. The data speaks for itself.

Again, anyone interested in biochar is welcome to get a hold of me and I'm more than willing to share what I've found to be the most effective and practical manner to produce it for a small farmstead. I'm more than willing to put together a demonstration if any would desire it.

Here's the link. Check it out.

http://washedashore.com/eggsntea/2010/01/farm-update-4/

Suraj's Journal

2010-02-01T11:17:00.000-08:00

Just added a link to the worthy reads section. I'd recommend this blog highly, as there's a lot of practical insightful information there. I hope you take the time to check in out.

Sensible Simplicity Book Club:

2010-01-26T10:11:00.000-08:00

Over at the forum we're putting together a book club and I'm offering a open invitation to any and all who'd enjoy participating. I believe we'll start the "book club" as a virtual sort of get together utilizing the chat room. I've suggested that as we've a lot of members and friends who are scattered all over the world and it would be a kick to draw on such a wide range of perspectives. Anyway, if you're interested, please get in touch.

Cooking Club Night will follow as it's simmering on the back burner. . .stay tuned.

Catching Up. . .

2010-01-10T13:12:00.000-08:00

Ah, with dead computers, tons of planting, work and all the rest I'm getting very behind on this blog business--hope to correct that soon--obviously there's a lot going on over at the forum.

Besides, it's been a source of unending amusement to see the responses to the last photo. I've received a lot of those from people thinking my "toast" to nature was demeaning and off topic, and thought it shows that at the core I'm really not in touch with nature at all, but rather full of myself. Not one of these keen observers of nature saw the "big honking preying mantis" which, of course, is the core context of this humorous photo. . .

Actually, I try to keep as much nature out of my little cabin and out from under my fingernails as I can. I got all the "oneness" I can handle. . .

Anyway, updates later. There's a lot of them.

A Sense of Oneness With Nature. . .

2009-11-09T09:23:00.001-08:00

Excellent Perspective

2009-10-19T10:15:00.000-07:00

Doing my Monday morning news check, watching the US dollar continue its collapse. . .

Excellent article this morning on Mish's site that's worth a read. While the US population is captivated by Michael Jackson's ghost, the balloon boy, or what the hell else tele-tubby kind for crap is being dished out. . .well, other stuff is going on.

Here's the link. It's worth one's time, especially the interview with Max down the way.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/10/where-hell-is-outrage.html

Welcome to the Jungle

2009-10-15T20:37:00.000-07:00

So, as someone recently asked. . .

"Hey, what's with the guitar and class-A amps? How minimalist is that?"

"Very-" I say, "they double as space heaters in the winter."

Got Guava?

2009-09-26T10:51:00.000-07:00

Here's an excellent current research piece on biochar production. A little weighty but well worth one's time.

http://www.biochar.org/joomla/images/stories/SteinerPhDSummary.pdf

This describes the technique I've found to work best on my site.

Feeling Hopeful.

2009-08-21T15:04:00.000-07:00

The garden/farm has really been coming along, making great strides at every turn, or so I'm pleased to report. The "Forest Garden" concept clearly can be demonstrated as a viable one at this point. Over the next 6 months or so the 8000 or so square foot concept garden will be expanded over perhaps an acre and a half. Food self-sufficiency for myself is pretty well in the bag at this point, and grocery store runs are far and few between. For longer term true sustainability to include fuel inputs and cashflow adequate to my needs I'll need to press in about another 40 or 50000 square feet. All things being equal I should be there by this point next year. 50k of forest garden should sustainably produce .25 per square foot of salable produce annually. There's no additional cost in that, or at least minimal cost, as I'm producing materials on site for planting. There will likely be the addition of lime and trace minerals, but all in all things look pretty good. Biochar has been very important. One step at a time. Ultimately it looks as if as the improvement in the soil quality improves, yields per square foot may well double. I'd say there a very stong possibility that a dedicated couple or individual could make a modest but sensibly comfortably and secure, and very satisifying living farming in this manner. Proof should be in the bag by next August.

I find this very hopeful indeed. My primary goal from the onset of this blog was to both advocate and demonstrate an alternative but viable in which one can work for a sustainable(I mean sustainable in the real sense) future not only for myself but for Hawaii and even the world. This is an effective model. There may well be others, and I'd enjoy seeing them, but few out there are much past the dreamer/concept stage. We need to do better than that. I'm strongly of the opinion, uncertainties included, "Forest Gardening" at least in Hawaii is perhaps one of the most promising--and hopeful, humanely hopeful--projects one could take on.

It's also been very helpful to meet so many others in the last 5 months with the forum and all of us in this very active group have learned a great deal from each other and all of our individual projects have been greatly advanced. It's tough to go it alone for sure, and it's nice to not worry about that anymore, at least locally.

Anyway, thoughts after coming back from the shop with a very heavy basket of goodies.

HR2749

2009-07-27T10:51:00.000-07:00

It's time to raise a hue and cry on this one, on its way through congress at the moment. This bill could be a potentially devastating blow to any progressive agricultural project, and especially would impact Hawaii. Take the time to do some research on the intent and the likely consequences of this legislation. Read it for yourself.

I don't like to offer my opinions on such things, as I believe people should read such material for themselves, but few seem willing to do so. In a nut shell, at the moment, these are the ramifications of this bill as I see them.

1) Every "farm" in the country must be federally licensed and registered. A 500 dollar annual fee.

2) Every "farm" in the country is now open to federal inspection at any moment in time.

3) Every "farm" must provide in essence a detailed "MSDS" on every farm product. If you grow a green bean, you'll need to register with the federal government what kind of green bean it is, where the seeds came from, the process by which it was grown, and any and all soil amendments, or fertilizers, or mulches, or pesticides, or whatevers where used in the process. 10000 dollar fine for each omission. This includes home brewed mixtures of garlic juice and tobacco or elsewise.

4) Of course, all of those fertilizers, or mulches, or carts of horseshit you use to grow those green beans will require producer "MSDS" sheets as well, as to what the mulch is made of, or what the horses ate, or where it all came from.

The strict interpretation of these provisions are onerrous in the extreme to any small farmer, and the fines so threatening for small operations that surely the bill will discourage small farming. The provisions are especially difficult for small operations that emphasize diversity, or organic practice, or permaculture, as the paperwork load required will be hundreds of times more complicated than that of, say, a huge factory farm growing GMO corn. . .this is how I see it.

Read the material for yourself and form a educated opinion. Primarily this will impact the consumer, rather than the producer, and everyone has a vested interest in the details. Kiss farmers markets good bye if the bill passes in its current form.

I'm trying to get a discussion going on the forum, by the way. It's important.

UPDATE: Farm language has been modified, thankfully, to be specifically exempt as long as no processing occurs on the farm site. The language pertaining to processing is very precise, and involves simple things like cutting or drying. More on this as it comes along.

UPDATE: annual fee for drying herbs has been raised to 1000 bucks, from 500, from zero. Monsanto may care little. You might.

UPDATE: This bill, written by people on the Monsanto payroll(no shit, really.) has passed the house. Some exemptions have supposedly been made for small farms, no details.

There's two other bills in tow behind this one if this one doesn't achieve the agenda. Again, written by those on the Monsanto payroll. No shit. Stay tuned.

Corrupt Government II

2009-07-10T10:34:00.000-07:00

Here is an interesting opposing view to many of my contentions, and it's worth a read and thinking about.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/08

I profoundly disagree, but the points raised are valid and interesting, and to take the time to answer some of the objections raised is worthwhile.

Discussion here:

Fear of commitment

2009-07-05T11:58:00.000-07:00

"Fear of commitment." This is something I've heard from a number of people lately. Would it not be nice to enjoy the luxury of indulging in such things?

I relate to the fear. Over the last couple of years I've been forced to accept some very major truths about the world and where we are in history, and the future that faces us. I've wrestled for certain with "fear of commitment" to the validity of such truths and the necessary repercussions that these truths forcibly demand. Change is upon us, and epic change it is. Our lifestyles will change as well. The new paradigm by which we will live is far from clear, and a rigorous and adaptive heroism will be required of all of us. Where this all ends up, short of the resolution that the macro scale provides us, individually, is also far from clear. Suffice to say: Take nothing for granted.

A little over a year ago finally I felt forced to make the commitment to the "new world coming" and get started on crafting a way of living that will remain workable in the future. Sustainability is key and core to that way of living. I was full aware that I was doomed to failure if I either made the mistake of indulging in comfortable half measures or dilettante morality. I needed to make a "commitment" to the ramifications my rationally derived and studiously researched knowledge as well my ethics. A big deal, and no way around it. Ignoring the issue was appealing but no longer an option. Evasion neither. Sailing away to a far corner of the world would escape nothing. It was time to get busy.

Nine months later:

We are well past the time for talk. Talk at this point only puts one further into the deficit of lack of preparation and lack of adaptation. This deficit will have consequences for many. I really think it is high time to have serious, honest, and introspective conversations about the reality that is coming our way. Make a commitment with the results of that conversation. Then get busy. All in all, a lot can happen pretty fast once that commitment is made.

Biochar II

2009-06-27T09:19:00.000-07:00

The initial garden beds I've established with biochar are getting close to a year old at this point, and I've got a bit of data and miscellaneous observations to report. The biochar I'm using is primarily charred guava, homemade in steel drums. I've probably at this point produced a ton or so of biochar. There's about 1 pound per square foot of it mixed in jungle soil that's on the average of 8 inches to a foot deep. That may seem like a high loading to some, but very high carbon contents are key to the game and one could go twice that, I'm sure.

Observations:

Immediately but perhaps not obvious: Soil is black. It gathers and retains much more solar radiation. Germination rates are higher and faster.

Initially I was pretty concerned that the biochar was having a toxic effect on growth. Many of the plants were showing what appeared to be a nitrogen deficiency, slow growing, yellowed leaves, and puny. These effects have disappeared. I can project two reasons why this may be the case.

1) The clean charcoal is in the process of absorbing such nutrients from the soil, so a temporary scarcity is bound to occur.

2) One may produce a P-K surplus or imbalance where the majority of the plant growth is dominated by root growth. The plant eventually recovers and flourishes, but initially things look rough.

I'd suggest at this point not applying biochar to the soil directly, but rather applying biochar to a composting process--and then applying the whole mix of compost and innoculated biochar. This seems to produce much greater and immediate results.

Any casual observation of the microfauna levels in the treated soil as opposed to jungle soil will leave one with no doubts about the healthy effects of the biochar. Small fungi abound, and are not present in the latter. Clearly there's a great deal of aerobic activity(odor) where the jungle soil is so anaerobic in places it stinks like sewage.

All in all the reports seem to bear true. I'd suggest one will see about a 20 to 30 percent growth yield over untreated soils. For those of us who intend to as much as possible function in the absence of(or minimal usage of) commercial fertilizers(organic or not) and follow a food forestry model, biochar is an absolute godsend and really makes it look much much more viable. As well, we've turned every invasive plant on the island into a valuable commodity.

Over the next few months my goal is to move from the "concept farm" of perhaps 10000 square feet to about an acre and semi-commercial status. Proof of concept has really been had, and I'm pleased to be able to report that this sort of concept is unquestionably a do-able, sustainable, and profitable enterprise. Table taros will be a big part of that project and finally I've enough clean planting material to make that jump. So far, the primary crop out here is U'ala Piko sweet potatoes with a few others thrown in the mix. As much as possible no-till practice. Yields at 9 months are reliably .25 to .5 lbs per square foot. No pest trouble yet to report. Topdressing only with small amounts of 10-20-20 special and trace elements. Some lime applied, as well as clean wood ash. I harvest the sweet potatoes when they're large enough to start poking out of the ground. The chickens find them for me.

. . .and meanwhile most everyone out there is bitching about the terrible economy and that "the kids here have no future". . .

Corrupt Government:

2009-06-17T14:07:00.000-07:00

Is there any other kind?

In light of the current blatant bullshit going on here locally, a thoughtful discussion of how to deal with the local politics issue--or whether to deal with it at all-- is timely. I in no way want to offer my thoughts as any kind of "official" view of the forum or anyone else--but I think it's really worth considering whether or not it's even possible to work for meaningful change for a better future within the "approved" mechanisms of the system. I think it's important to ask this question in a very deliberate manner. My answer? no, it's not. As I see it, politics as a completely rigged game that favors money and power, and money and power is required to play. Some well meaning people don't really look at themselves as privileged power brokers, but at the very least one must be of significant enough privilege that one has the free time to fiddle around with political sorts of stuff, and have ample enough time to sit through endless procedural processes. Face facts: most honest working people don't have this kind of time. Also, important, but not to go too Howard Zinn on anyone, these processes have largely proven to be utterly pointless. It's worth looking at the historical record to see if one can find a single damn instance where meaningful change has come from within the "approved" system. I don't ask this rhetorically. In every significant case I can think of, business as usual dominated and until the population finally got agitated enough to take to the streets with axe-handles very little happened. Otherwise, the policy of government in general is to placate, divert, or ignore the will of the people. In general, the range of the "permissible" debate is very narrow, whether right/left wing or progressive or not the whole is controlled to be palatable within the "approved" system. This guarantees again--business as usual. But that is the point of goverment as it exists: Protect the status quo. If you think that a system designed from the start to protect the status quo will allow the existence of effective mechanisms to challenge that which it's designed to protect--it's probably worth thinking that over again. And maybe once more. It's useful, no doubt, to offer mechanisms that look like they offer avenues for discourse or progress or change--as long as at long last the status quo and its interests are still protected.

"Sustainability" will become a huge human rights issue within the next decade. You will see people in the streets here as well as around the world as vested government interests protect the priviledged while steering humanity on a suicide course. Eventually, people will freak out about that, and once it gets started, look out. I've no idea what form that sort of thing will take, or whether such events will be at all constructive, but such a path seems all but inevitable. The status quo has no interest in sustainability, as that would get in the way of personal profits. It may be useful, no doubt, to offer mechanisms that look like they offer avenues for discourse or progress or change for the better-- as long as those profits are still insured. Eventually, however, people do wise up to what is going on. It can take a long time, and we're not there yet. Still that day is coming fast. Faster than many think. There will be a shooting war over these issues at some point. I'm not looking forward to any of this.

But I'm not dogmatic about all this. I can be persuaded and am in fact eager to get behind any positive cause that has real intelligent focus and inherent integrity. I'm not, however, interested in jumping out of one sinking boat into another one that has the holes arranged a bit more cosmetically. Neither am I interested in recreational legislation or meddling in other people's lives to satisfy some perverse and narcissistic need to feel like "I'm doing something for the future." Most importantly, and pointedly-- I sure as hell have no interest in getting roped into some campaign against pro-growth development interests to then replace these with other pro-growth development interests. . . This being said, I do however, see a real need for real solutions. Real solutions. Real solutions. They involve real questions: I don't see these questions being asked in any meaningful way, except by persons and individuals, who are also answering those questions in personal and individual ways. There's a lot of urgency in those people, often, because they look around and like myself, see others not asking those questions--and it's all in all getting to be more than a little terrifying.

Real questions:

1) How is Hawaii going to survive the current ongoing collapse and restructuring of the world economy?

2) How is Hawaii effectively going to survive the steeping prices and increasing scarcity of food, energy, and raw materials?

3) How is Hawaii going to preserve as much as possible of the island's ecosystem as we face a 1 degree temperature rise per decade over the next 100 years?

Everything else is trivial. Some may find my attitude contemptuous and selfish. Or needlessly combative. That's hardly the case. Personally, it comes down to one thing to get me involved--I need some convincing that there's good reasons that I should take time and energy away from planting trees or building water tanks--stuff that matters and contributes in a measurable way to a better future--to quibble about greenspace, or roads, or fast food restaurants or or shit that doesn't. God, let's get a little perspective, perhaps! Anyway, that's my take.

Still, it's not my intent to unduly bust or criticize anyone's efforts. This is simply how I see it. I also feel a strong sense of inevitability about all of this and have no doubt whatsoever that sooner or later a critical mass will wake up to what matters. If others feel that there may be some good use to participation in those processes, go for it. Please, however, be duly considerate of the fact that much of the time the only real effect of these activities is more and more complication, which has the sole result of making life more difficult for the average joe. While it's seldom the intent, too often it is the result. At this point in history, life is complicated enough with all sorts of other pointless hindrances to effective living.

So for myself, I'll just keep focusing on demonstrating effective living, the kind of living we need to adopt to squarely face our future, and do so to the best of my ability. I see no other effectual option. At the very least if the political process fails humanity like it looks like it will, somebody out there had better have done some homework. . .

Food Forest Project Update

2009-06-09T20:12:00.001-07:00

The view out towards the workshop. Well, let's just say this sort of farming works.

Pavement is the answer! Is Jesus the question?

2009-05-27T19:22:00.000-07:00

Mind you all, like everywhere else in the world I expect there's some sort of territorial pissing match going on about who is going to be in control of the world's future. For myself, I only fight winnable battles, and I'm afraid just surviving this one will be a victory. Endurance is my forte. That being said, here in Hawaii, it's all about the pro-growth forces who haven't figured out yet, or more likely don't care--that if you paved every square inch of the island it might impact tourism, huh? We could still have laser light shows, right? -- never mind it would preclude everything else, like agriculture or families or a quiet still night sky or other trivial things like that. . .--and those who understand what's actually going on here and what needs to be preserved.

What needs to be preserved most preciously is the lifestyle, every bit as much as the land, or anything else. All else follows. If you preserve the lifestyle, you will preserve the forest, or the reefs, or the taro patches, and all the rest too. The more complicated the pro-growth people make life the less likely anyone will have the time to sit around on the porch and have a good time with friends playing music. The more expensive they make life the more likely people will steal koa or hapu'u ferns out of the forest to pay their property tax. I'm not kidding. It's wholly corollary. Of course we all know that by now, don't we? I mean really?

Anyway, take a listen to good Darren here and his buddies.

This is authenticity.

http://islandnotes.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/vernacular-volcano-lanai-music/

Whoa there, Bessie!

2009-05-25T20:46:00.000-07:00

Ok, so I get a lot of e-mail that says "I'm so glad to find other people who believe the world is going to collapse like I do."

Well, OK. The problem is I don't believe the world is going to collapse. And while some may make of this a fine distinction I disagree. Again, I don't believe the world is going to collapse, but I do believe for very good and thoroughly researched reasons, that at least on the macro scale we've seen the end of human expansion. I also believe we've blown beyond what the planet can bear sustainably by a great deal, maybe even an order of magnitude. So sure, while I agree all of this is going to suck and be difficult, I'm damn determined that the world isn't going to end, at least locally, for me. I feel pretty optimistic in all that. Now if you ask me how the average dufus is going to fair, well, that's a different story. "Out there" I expect some areas will be downright ugly. Sure, we all know that. It's important, however, to not focus on end of the world thinking as it's inherently a self-defeating attitude. Plan for a planned future, and do what you know you can do. Throwing up one's hands and expecting the end of the world is every bit as much a cowards cop-out as denying the reality of the situation we're in. We need now, more than ever, thoughtful rational preparation.'

So sure. There's a good chance by the time the century draws to a close that 1/4 of all higher species on the planet will be extinct, and the human population may be under a billion people. That will no doubt be a drag to live through, in a world especailly that looks like it's dying, and may well be doing just that. It will take some backbone to hang in there, no doubt. Most of what you love will be dead, and that will be depressing. Is this the end of the world? Of course not. Most of the biomass on this planet is microorganisms, fungi, and worms that look like they're eager to crawl some unwelcome place--I expect these will fare just fine. For us, however, things look less promising. I doubt anyone really disagrees with that--we're not so much looking at the "end of the world" as a "really difficult change" in it. Really, really, actually, difficult change in it.

Why do I bring this up? Because the "deny anything is happening" crowd and the "it's all going to end" crowd are the same people. Both positions simply represent groups who are advocating a position that conveniently absolves them of their personal responsibility to the present--and that's just bullshit.

I'd suggest it's high time to figure that out. They only "peoples " you is fooling is you.

The Great Schism II?

2009-05-20T09:23:00.000-07:00

Got rained out early today and am sitting here with a bit of time to consider a lot of stuff that's been on my mind hard for the last couple of weeks.

Do you feel the vibe out there? It's getting ugly.

For the last 25 years it's been very convenient to lump people into one of two camps: liberal or conservative. That was pretty stupid, and a lot of us didn't fit either of those camps very well, but the distinctions were useful for the media to use while enlightening us all about where the world was going. Really, never more than a caricature, but a useful one for a lot of people who had an invested interest in dumbing down the issues. It was exploited to the greatest degree, because you could win elections on trumping up the prolife/prochoice-- gun rights/gun control-- gay rights/burn all gays in bonfires false alternatives. What I find most interesting is the very rapid rise of the 3rd group, which most all of us fit into--those who recognize that we must have sustainable policy and we're looking square in the face at trainwreck of collapse if we don't get it together. The rest of that shit is just foolishness. Ideology has very little to do with it. One of things I enjoy about this site is the wide range of perspectives. While outright whackoism isn't tolerated, and while those with conservative bents may be more focused on taxation and the debt issues involved in sustainability, and others with ecological bents may be focused on climate change and ecosystem destruction, we're ALL interested in the destruction of watersheds and the depletion of minerals or fuel souces. You bet. It's a big picture perspective with very heavy first principles, and it's getting to the point quite quickly, quicker than many of us would have expected, where these issues will be day to day realities.

And then, there are those, who just don't want to think about all that. Here is where the gulf is. The gulf exists not between liberal and conservative or any of that bullshit, but rather between the people who understand that the ways of living of the last 50 years or so are over, never to return--and those who simply don't want to think about it. It's between those who understand that NINJA loans are a bad idea and that a nation that runs credit almost to the exclusion of productivity cannot maintain an economy-- and those who just don't want to think about it. It's beween those who understand if we haven't passed peak oil, we will by 2020, and we're unprepared for either--and those who just don't want to think about it. It's beween those who understand that while technology is a good thing, mostly, there ARE NO viable alternative fuels even on the drawing board or hypothesized that compete on a manner of scale with our current fossil fuel dependence-- and again, those who just DON'T want to think about it. I could go on and on and on-- but it's really between those who understand viscerally that our way of living is going to change, either by choice or duress or necessity, soon-- and those who just don't want to think about it. At all, ever. For good reasons too, as it would involve involving oneself in a thought process that if it had the slightest amount of intellectual integrity would require radical changes in priorities in what one did and how one lived one's life. That would be a pain in the butt, wouldn't it? But it's harder to maintain those narrow ideas every day, isn't it? And so the deliberate attempts to remain willfully and comfortably uninformed is getting downright snarly to anyone who suggests that perhaps the conversation should be broadened a bit. That "bit" I'd suggest, would be an honest comprehensive look at the state of the world--its resources, its state of health, its population, and every other pertinent detail and then projecting a sensible forecast. It doesn't bother me much if that forecast differs from mind, just that people do it. Then, and only then, we can work together perhaps. It is absolutely foolish in the extreme to stick with the status quo, a prediction no more sophisticated than this one: tomorrow will be just like today. While "statistically" that projection is 8 or 9 times out of ten true, no one cares. What we care about is not so much people who can forecast when things don't change, but when they DO change. That's what requires action. And in spite of the fact that anyone credible is screaming "train wreck!" there's next to no response from the "I don't want to think about it, damn it!" crowd. We need to realize that this isn't so much a difference of opinion, but rather sanity attempting to deal with a pathology.

Christ. . .

So what to do? Well, just what we're doing. Keep soldiering on personally working for a better future. Hopefully one that would be better for many, but better for oneself in the last resort. This is no small thing. It's going to get harder every day to live in denial, even in the level of denial that all of us who try our best to understand where the world is going still embrace in our lives. . .the Les Paul? Ah phooey. Easier to construct than a pipe organ! The amp too!

Anyway, just thoughts as we tumble down the rabbit hole.

Blue Shirt Facism?

2009-05-14T16:06:00.000-07:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/us/14explorers.html?_r=4&hp

I mean really, can it be seen any other way?

Truth

2009-05-12T21:21:00.001-07:00

Really worth a listen. . .

2009-05-07T21:38:00.000-07:00

It will take a little bit to get through it all, but it's very helpful.

I mean really. If you've got the time. . .listen.

http://www.pen.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/3487/prmID/1376

"Sustainable Biointensive Ecoforming" vs. "Permaculture"

2009-04-30T12:06:00.000-07:00

This is going to be a wonkish post. Sorry about that in advance. There's a point to it.

"Sustainable Biointensive Ecoforming" or SBE--is a term describing a system using an amalgam of both novel and traditional techniques with the intent of creating sustainable eco-habitats. The concept borrows heavily from all available sources and is centered around the core values of "best practice," "appropriate technology," and "sustainability."

"SBE" has a great deal in common with Permaculture, especially in the fact that both have tricky names that somebody just pulled out of his ass. With "SBE" that ass happens to be mine.

What SBE does not have in common with Permaculture is that in spite of the fact that I coined the term, I have no intent to trademark it. Nor to I have any intent to sell "SEB design course" certificates to suppliment my "sustainability." Certainly while there are remarkable and admirable examples of Permaculture techniques to be seen, there are also an awful lot of courses out there with nothing more to show than a spiral herb garden, a few straggling fruit trees, and a bunk house full of trustfund kids from Mendecino County all paying 500 bucks a week to hoe weeds. SBE is far more concerned with profitably farming produce than farming youthful good will for a profit. In fact we here at the "SBE Institute of Hawaii"--LOL--advocate staying as far away as is possible from anything that might resemble green profiteering. It smells of gimmickry, threatens the integrity of the concept, and ultimately isn't sustainable anyhow.

Personal sustainability is impossible without a larger sustainable community. I personally cannot reconcile the notions of "certification courses"--especially expensive ones-- which practically for most people stand as a barrier to the access of knowledge--I cannot reconcile this sort of practice with the very real need to educate and advocate. It is in my self interest to involve as many others as I can, even at my own personal cost, as without critical mass sustainability is bound to fail.

Anyway, I think it's worth thinking about.

Psst. . . Hey Buddy--you need a carrot?

2009-04-24T10:28:00.000-07:00

In the past I've written a lot about a couple of terms--"mainstream" and "counterculture"--and their values as opposed to "extra-cultural" values. In any given society you have the consensus majority values, and you have a group of people who rebel against those values. In the sailing world which is notorious for its factionalism, you have "racers" and "crusiers"--one group that makes a virtue out of going fast and the other reactionary virtue of going "slow." You also have the "high tech" sailors and the "traditionalists"--one group that makes a virtue of using every possible conceivable technological advance and the other group who goes out of their way to use the most ancient and even obsolete tools--except of course, engines. Racers, crusiers, the high tech and tradtionalists are all about those engines. When you find yourself in the crowd of those who "sail" without relying on engines at all, you find yourself in a completely different crowd with completely different values. And, by and large, values that are more explicit and practical. This is the "extracultural" essence of real sailing. It involves wholly different values than what is mainstream and pursues wholly different ends. You'll find few debates about "wood boats" vs "plastic" boats or full keel vs. fin in the real sailing crowd. Use laminate sail cloth, or blue tarps, or coconut husks. No one cares. These aren't ideological issues, they're completely practical ones, and by and large no one really cares how you go about your sailing as long as you do. It's only the mainstream groups--both the pro and con ones--who squabble about such stuff. And squabble they do, especially because they're going out of their way to make a set of values that are pretty silly in the first place more "emotive" and personally meaningful, I guess, by creating artificial conflict. And bickering about those sorts of things at seemingly endless length is a lot less work than actually learning how to sail a boat, for real, in a meaningful fashion, without cheating. I guess that's the appeal.

Once you pull the engine out of the boat the whole gig changes completely. It reminds me a great deal of my current project--sustainability. Once you educate yourself of what sustainability is, and what it takes to achieve it, not only on a personal but a global scale--and you do so in a well informed manner that relys on numbers and not adjectives--the whole gig changes as well. You'll find yourself not in either a mainstream or counter-culture position but an extracultural one. The comparisons one can draw from sailing to sustainability are near endless. And the conversation, among those who are endeavoring to learn such a lifestyle(with all the perils one might face abandoning the engine) involve primarily practical issues. Where the squabble comes in with the mainstream and countercultural crowd who are fighting about the best way to keep their "engine"--ie., a consumptive lifestyle--it seems that here too the commentary on that issue is near endless. As for me, and a growing number of people who have manifest other values, well, we're just planning to get along without all that.

Expect however, as the anchor comes aboard in the chill morning just as the fog starts to lift in the still dark morning--and the steamy mists from one's cup of rapidly cooling coffee are the sole telltails of the day's weather to come--as you drift from the anchorage on the ebb tide in the manner of sailors for centuries past. . .expect no company but the terns. While can be hard and lonely indeed to live on the frontiers of humane integrity, intimate at once personally and with the world--don't unduly begrudge those warm and comfortable ashore. They sleep.

Love.

2009-04-14T19:04:00.000-07:00

It was a few years back, and I was walking back from some project to the boat along the IU trail in Bellingham, when I saw a little shitty dog break loose from its oddly misshapen owner's grasp and sprint across four lanes of traffic. Initially aghast, the misshapen fellow pursued in obvious terror for his pet's life, and did so in a state of agitation and heroic fearlessness that I would have never thought this pudgy wonker capable of. Stopping a freeway he rescued "Fluffy" from the jaws of death and tenderly carried his beloved animal to the side of the road, where he proceeded to give it the cruelest beating perhaps I've ever seen.

My dad was an undertaker, and I grew up in that biz as many of you know, and you get to see some stuff, alright. It does change how you look at things. While I never pursued the "playing dolls" with dead people part of the business, I did have a hand in estate and funeral planning for a couple of years--this is where I caught the bug to watch finance--but all in spending time with families there was a central lesson to be learned.

And this is it. In spite of all the talk, people don't much give a damn about their kids. They really don't. Not any more than they do their pets, IF it's that much.

You must realize that even if you're talking estate planning to a couple, you're in a very small subset of people. The majority of people don't plan at all. The reason for this is very simple. They don't want to talk about it. It's scary to them to expect that they might die, even though it's obvious that they will, and they'd much rather not talk about it and in so doing let their kids be stuck with the bill, the taxes, the mess, the anxiety, and all the rest that comes from not planning or being honest. Even of those who do plan this is a huge obstacle. A few do, and do plan, and do care, but it's probably less than 5 percent of the population that has the level of maturity to deal with issues like this in a responsible manner. For most, however, it's much easier to deny and evade and play silly and just let the issue take care of itself, as, after all--they won't be there to see it, ha ha!

So, don't be too surprised when climate change--something more complicated to understand than death, I guess--has so little steam with people. Or at least meaningful steam. There are very few ways to escape the reality that as a parent--one had, and enjoyed the benefits of, a completely complicit hand in destroying their children's future. It is possible in the past that one may have been innocently ignorant of the effects of one's actions. No longer. Today you must be willfully ignorant to be unaware. So what are people doing? Or at least most? Nothing at all. And the reason is exactly the same as above--it's simply too painful to bear the emotional cost of the responsibility of destroying one's childs future.. So, as long as is possible, people will ignore it. As I say, I've seen it before, and I expect nothing else.

Look, love is an action, not an emotion. No body experiences what you might feel, they only witness what you do. . .

Do we love our planet and our future generations or not?

Truth Always Prevails:

2009-04-08T14:39:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately, it generally prevails far too late to matter. . .

In the interest of education, I have found a wonderfully thoughtful source for a very sensible and rigorous look into sustainable energy. Many of us have a high degree of technical illiteracy when it comes to such things--and we can't expect to make either good personal choices or have an understanding of policy choices without being conversant in the details. I'd really recommending either purchasing--or taking advantage of the free PDF. download here. Print yourself a copy, and form an informed opinion before it's too late.

http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html

Really, it's a valuable a piece and is worth a look.

Seeking the Farms of the Future:

2009-04-06T19:43:00.000-07:00

Here is a great video from the BBC that sums up our situation very well.

The future is in small high intensity sustainable farms managed primarily by manual labor. There's really no other answer that I can see.

"Greater Fool's Game:" Peak Fool?

2009-04-05T10:42:00.000-07:00

Not hardly. I asked myself, where on earth could you find investors stupid enough to get involved with the TARP program. I mean, really really stupid and with a lot of money to spend too?

Ah, well, of course.

I mean, you really couldn't make stuff like this up.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE53323S20090404

Darwin Sez:

2009-04-03T09:20:00.000-07:00

"It's not the strongest, nor the most intelligent that survive and evolve: It's the most adaptable."

Hmmmm. This duck saw the front approaching and flew south.

Storm clouds?

We live in a nation that thinks it can run an economy on debt. . .not credit, mind you, but debt. It's credit if you borrow to purchase an asset. It's debt if you borrow and piss it away.

. . .where we now have more people that work for government than work for manufacturing. . .

. . .where we now have more people in prison than work in agriculture. . .

Your share of the US debt, if you take into account the federal deficit, and your share of the private sector debt, and you add in your share of the un-funded liabilities of social security and the rest--although a bit hard to wring out the numbers, can credibly be said to approach $500,000.

If you've got a little time on your hands, this video will give you something to think about.

Peak Unsustainability?

2009-03-31T14:51:00.000-07:00

This is one hell of a moment in history.

It's interesting in how the forum is going along, and the level of keen interest that's been generated even in one short week. I really sense, and I'm sure a lot of you do too, that we're living through a unique, even epic time. There's still a lot of confusion and denial out there floating around, and the fear of what's ahead explains a great deal of all that, perhaps even excuses a bit of it. No matter, what's coming is coming and rather than debate it's time to prepare.

The synchronicity of the moment is so shockingly unlikely on one hand--and so obviously predictable on the other that one cannot help but be a bit bewildered. We're seeing something I guess I'll call Peak Unsustainability for lack of a better term. Isn't it more than a little crazy that the housing market would collapse, primarily because people overbought, assuming an obviously unsustainable level of asset appreciation would continue forever? At the same time, they bought huge vehicles, assuming an obviously unsustainable supply of near freebee fuels would pour out forever? At the same time banks decided that they could carry a seemingly unlimited amount of debt on their books, assuming that they'd be able to float an obviously unsustainable amount of leverage forever? At the same time, of course, agricultural regions around the world begin to suffer a permanent drought, brought on by soil loss and the destruction of aquifers--and policies and practice that seem to by and large assume you could pump water at whatever rate you wanted to out of that well, in an obviously unsustainable manner--forever? The list goes on and on and on--in fact, one finds few individuals, or industries, or nations even, that haven't completely ignored their "balance sheet" and haven't run up completely unservicable debts not only in the realm of finance, but against our ecosystems, our croplands, our climate, even the integrity of our communities, institutions and personal relationships--the wealth and common good and even good will and trust has been completely looted. And to make matters worse? All of this wealth was squandered--tossed away on idle entertainments for the mega wealthy, trinkets for the rest of us, and, oh, I guess we got a couple of sex flicks out of Paris Hilton. . .

Obviously, key to to the lack of sustainability in the past was the complete neglect and even willful evasion on the part of most everyone in keeping good books. The amount of credit received either from bad loans or squandering natural resources was vast, but by and large kept in those mysterious "off balance sheet" assessments that now need to get valued. . .and so the response? Attempt to keep the party going by trying to squeeze even more blood out of that wrung out turnip. . .print money and expand the economy! Growth! As if this policy isn't obviously unsustainable and will only drag us deeper into the hole--but certainly patent unsustainability hasn't restrained anyone in the past, and it looks at this point that pumping that well will continue with bigger and bigger pumps until only dust comes out. . .

We have a lot to learn from this tendency. First, we must personally keep a rigorous accounting of our own practices. It's going to matter. Not only is unsustainable practice unsustainable, it's about to become rapidly and increasingly unaffordable, and as such no longer an elective for most. This will be a very big change in how things are done, oh boy--especially as we wind down a whole lot of people are going to find that they were sold out.

And they aren't going to be happy about all that.

Nexus

2009-03-30T20:51:00.000-07:00

Any of you ever actually catch a banshee by the tail before?. . .

It happens, sometimes.

Sustainability vs. Self-reliance.

2009-03-27T10:48:00.000-07:00

Let's not confuse the two, as it can lead to sloppy thinking and bad planning.

Let's take the case example--one familiar to me--of preparing a sailing vessel for a voyage. That sailing vessel, it is obvious, needs to be self-reliant. Even a week at sea will shake out a great number of possible problems that must be within the means of the vessel and crew to deal with without outside aid. Both Homesteads and Seasteads need to have the capacity to operate in a self-reliant manner much, if not the majority of the time. Certainly in the context of ocean sailing many of the dangers one may face are pretty transparent and obvious. With homesteading ashore, at least in the context of recent history--many of the dangers are much less well understood. There is a fixation with many with growing food--but as with Seasteading--one can quickly find out that food self-reliance is the easiest thing to achieve. It's the first step, and a critical step, and must be achieved, but there's a hell of a lot else to think about as well.

While Self-Reliance is certainly a value to be sought after--sustainability requires a community. Certainly the more self-reliant one is, the less often one will need to call on the services of the community that one cannot provide for oneself--but it is unrealistic to think that one is going to provide everything. You will need sail cloth, cordage, chain--and while it's possible to consider or fantisize about providing all of those things for yourself--it's a lot more efficent to allow someone in a community that has far more interest in weaving cloth or spinning fiber to take on that task rather than dinking away at it yourself. At the very least, someday, somewhere, you're going to get sick--and unless there's someone to bail you out, your self-reliance will come to an end.

A realistic look at what it would take to "major" climate change.

2009-03-26T18:11:00.000-07:00

http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global-warming-solution-350-450-ppm-technologies-efficiency-renewables/

I would add to this "cover your ass" in case the rest of the world drops the ball.

The Forum is Booming!

2009-03-23T18:33:00.001-07:00

Thanks for the interest. I'm certainly open to any suggestions in how to improve and or make it more useful. . .

New sustainability forum!

2009-03-22T10:20:00.000-07:00

Please be involved!

http://sensiblesimplicity.lefora.com/forum/

Food Forest

2009-03-19T16:39:00.000-07:00

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7404455615181917912

Here is an interesting video I was just introduced to. It's pretty interesting and is very similar to what I'm working through here. Interesting to see even many of the same plants. It's worth a look.

Here's a picture of my place booming along:

Alchemy

2009-03-17T16:49:00.001-07:00

A thought last night as the quiet rains fell on the hapu'u, and I beside the cheery woodstove with a glass of wine and the Les Paul. A comfortably sore back from planting but a full belly. A lot of the world seemed a long long way away.

We must remember--the secret ingredient that unfailingly is able to convert despair into beauty--heroism.

One meal per square foot?

2009-03-14T19:55:00.001-07:00

Well, not quite, unless perhaps I toss in the bird.

Seriously though, I'm really coming along on this whole thing.

The U'ala Piko sweet potatoes I can attest conservatively produce at .5 lb per square foot per year. I've 1500 square feet of those and plan to double that here in the next couple of months. The potatoes alone will give me 100% food self-sufficiency and double as a very effective cover crop. I've written about this in detail before. As well, any extra or culls can easily be put into ethanol production with relatively high yields. The U'ala is a basic and reliable survival crop that with a years efforts can bring most any homestead in the area into near sustainable status.

They're good eats too.

You'll note above the sweet trick I'm giving away--the corrugated PVC roofing made into 12 foot hot houses. Perfect solution for my area building greenhouse space--bug, slug, vog and chicken proof for a 1 buck a square foot. I grow perfect greens in these and it makes my previously difficult crops flawlessly successful. It would be impossible to greenhouse for less money. Besides, you're growing in real soil so the flavor--and nutrition is much higher than anything one could possibly produce in a hydroponic situation. Here I am again, giving away a million dollar idea. . .ah well, what the hell. Beets, carrots, and spinich in those in the pictures, and the herb garden on the left.

God, I can grow some honking big sweet potatoes up here. . .that sucker in my hand must weigh 4 lbs.

Here's an interesting read. . .

2009-03-14T16:03:00.000-07:00

http://culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=325&Itemid=1

Oh yeah, the easy way the sailor cooks Taro.

2009-03-12T17:34:00.000-07:00

Throw it whole in a pressure cooker and nuke it. 1 hour. Take it out and peel it. You can't fail. Be careful not to overdo it. . .use it like you would any other starch at that point or just eat it.

Never trust the candidate that big money supports.

2009-03-12T15:20:00.000-07:00

It's about damn time someone starts asking this question:

http://www.slate.com/id/2213027/pagenum/all/#p2

As well as a whole lot others, like what the hell Tim Geitner or Holder or any of these other scamsters that are doing in this whole supposed administration of change? All Obama has done thus far, except for some token crap to keep progressives convinced that they haven't been suckered, is to take Bush's economic policy and push it twice as much.

As well, get ready for the "bailout" of Madoff's investors that he rams down our throats. . .I saw this coming months ago. . .

Peak Food: growing taro as a basic staple.

2009-03-12T13:44:00.000-07:00

It would be next to impossible to find a basic staple as effective for the small homestead as taro. It is no mystery as to why the ancient Hawaiians and others throughout the Pacific revered it so highly--what is a bit of a mystery is why in modern times taro production and consumption has been much diminished. I expect the main issue is that few anymore cook "slow food" sorts of things, and a great deal of misinformation about "toxins" in the plant has discouraged others from even giving it a try. It's hardly any big deal--and any Hawaiian homestead is incomplete without at least a few of these plants.

I grow a number of different varieties here on the shoulder of the Volcano, but mostly I focus on table taros as opposed to poi taros. Yes, there is a difference--in flavor, in consistency, in the amound of "bite" in the raw corm and all the rest. It's important to discover not only what grows best in ones area but also what style is best suited to the usages you expect from the plant. As I use the taro personally as a basic starch in most everything, the firmer table taros are what I focus on, although many do very well.

In the climate I have, most varieties go from very small 'oha to maturity in perhaps 13 months. I find due to the moisture it's often best to harvest small to avoid disease and root rot, but all in all I haven't had much trouble with any of that. Most of the types I grow produce perhaps 6 'oha through their growth cycle, so you can get a bit of an estimate of how long it takes to get a sustainable taro patch up and running. You had better expect 2 years to really be functional. Don't expect to run out and just purchase a bunch of plants. While many farmers are generous indeed with their plants--it's important to realize that they're a valuable gift that you just wouldn't want to toss away to anyone. You'll figure out why. . .as well, you don't want plants from just anyone as it's very easy to import a disease that will destroy your efforts forever. Be aware, there are pitfalls in this as in anything, and the plant is so important to sustainable success here you don't want to make any big errors.

All in all the plant is easy to grow if you give it good practice and sensitive attention.

Please be considerate. These plants are very emotionally valuable to some here, including this atheist. Think like you're planting crucifixes, and your taro patch is a temple of sorts. Don't be some pinhead hippy stoner about the whole thing, so in touch with yourself you're about to get twitchy, ahem, or elsewise. Don't pretend you know what it means to the Hawaiians--you don't. Understand what it means to you, which may rapidly become every bit as valid. Respect a plant that embodies hope. As magical as the plant is, you'd have damn insensitive not to get it. Of course, if you're that brain dead, you'll never be able to grow it, either.

There are people out there more knowledgable than I, for sure, when it comes to this sort of thing that you'll find to get you started if you look. I don't know of anyone else on the island that is growing at my altitude, however, so perhaps there is something to (re)contribute here to the lore. Historically they did, but no longer. At this point I don't really have any huli to give away, as I just replanted, but within the year should be at my goal of 1000 or so plants and will be in a better spot to be helpful to others.

Peak Food: the obvious strategy

2009-03-08T12:51:00.000-07:00

So, in light of this, it doesn't take a lot of insight to figure out that increased food prices, and increased taxation, even outside of the context of price inflation and stagnant wages--growing one's own food is starting to make a hell of a lot of sense. Even at this point it's starting to make real economic sense, and especially for couples the model of one wage earner and one gardener is very attractive. The garden produces implicit untaxable(so far) income and it's disproportionally valuable. Clearly it will only become more so.

So, what to plant? I think the mistake that I see most often is that people get all fired up about planting tomatoes and herbs and the like, which is good--but not at the cost of neglecting staples. Many assume that major staple foods like rice and wheat will be available if expensive but garden crops like the above will not. This is not what history suggests: Actually the basic staples are the first thing to go. Again, we've already seen this with rice, and to some degree both corn and wheat. In the age we live in, these common and traded commodites are also much more vulnerable to market manipulation--whereas other crops are not. This is a risk as well. Also, we face competion from the biofuels market for things to eat--this as well has caused a great deal of price pressure on basic staple crops. I do not see any of these trends easing any time soon.

The great difficulty is that the majority of staples are difficult to grow in a garden setting. They tend to be best cultivated in large land holdings and with mechanized cultivation methods. Growing wheat in a small home garden is a near pointless exercise and a waste of space. While one can grow beans, or chickpeas, or even corn and potatoes--and certainly I grow a lot of sweet potatoes--yields beyond what basic subsistance requires are often difficult to come by. Few options exist, and careful research is bound to be important. Ask, what is it that you're going to eat every day? It's not going to be lettuce. What will be the backbone of your homestead?

Peak Food: the economics of eating.

2009-03-08T12:26:00.000-07:00

Let's make a few assumptions to preface the conversation and put it in the context of sensible simplicity--meaning efficiency, right?

Let's look at the average individual in round terms at the moment--and the food issue.

This person makes 20000 - 25000 dollars a year at the prevailing wages of 10 to 12 dollars an hour.

This person eats 3 meals a day. Of course they eat out all the time at McDisgustings and the rest--but assuming they might cook on occasion--it's very easy to assume a food budget of 20 dollars a day if one isn't surviving on complete poverty food. Dry goods across the board at the moment will cost most of 2 dollars a lb--adjusting back and forth for calorie density--and those who have provisioned for "voyages" or elsewise will recognize that 3 lbs per day of dry food in the mix is very sensible. If you're going to throw in anything remotely healthy like a vegetable or two adding a couple of bucks a meal is easy, and if one isn't sedentary throwing a bit of meat in there can easily add another couple bucks.

At 20 dollars a day in food it costs over 10000 dollars a year in earnings. Remember this poor bugger is paying a dollar of taxes on every 3 of earnings. A 20 dollar a day habit will eat 30 bucks of wages a day--and you eat 7 days a week while working 5.

So, let's assume the price of food across the board doubles. Rice did last spring, at least, and this isn't really very radical a notion.

Can the average American worker withstand a 40 dollars a day food budget? Consider as well that it costs 60 dollars of wages to earn that 40 after taxes--obviously not, as you've ate your wages completely and then some. If we assume this person again pays 500 dollars a month in rent, 100 bucks a month in utilities, and nothing at all on cigarettes--honestly, a doubling of food costs is something that simply cannot be borne. In fact, the situation gets very rapidly into the case that it simply doesn't pay to go to work--as it will cost one more in expenses to get there and feed oneself than the prevailing wage pays.

The point of this post is to observe that the median wage earner in this country is so pinched in terms of monthly income that there simply isn't the extra money to overcome large food price increases. So don't think that hardship will be isolated to the remote deserts of Africa. . .

Peak Food:

2009-03-08T11:06:00.001-07:00

It's getting timely to insert this term into our collective jargon as the reality is right around the corner. It looks very possible to me that this summer will herald the arrival of the first of the global famines, as we crush up against the inescapable fact of our unsustainability. Sooner than I would have expected, certainly, but we've learned a great deal in the last few years about how the supply/demand relationship is more sensitive and inelastic than one might have thought, and how small changes in availability can create large cost spikes and bubbles, especially in a world with commodity speculation and the ETF's. We saw a quite the bubble in rice prices last year and spot shortages, and we can well expect to see the same this summer.

The day in which a 50 lb sack of rice was cheaper than a 50 lb sack of potting soil is gone forever.

We'll look into this issue in a bit more depth in the next couple of posts. If we use the motif of "preparing for a voyage"--as it isn't far off reality--we'll have a better sense of what sustainability really means in a practical manner. The issue is likely to be very practical.

It was a little over two years ago that I stood in a Costco in Los Angeles a bit agast at the flies of consumerism crawling over the shit--and I happened to see a pre-packaged tray of sushi in the fridge case. Fraiser River Sockeye! the package screamed, Bleck, I thought to myself, in a Costco in L.A.? but my eye caught the words(product of China). A closer look was warranted at this point. Can you imagine that there was a moment in history in which things were so cheap that you could catch a fish in Canada, freeze it, fly it to China to have people cut it up and make sushi out of it, pack it in into wonky little 30 piece trays, fly it back across the Pacific Ocean once again to Los Angeles, and the whole thing can be bought for 12 bucks, including the half of the entire product which won't be bought by anyone and be pitched in the trash? God, I wish I had taken a picture of that. . .

Worth a look. . .

2009-03-07T11:12:00.001-08:00

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12252

Waena--putting the "perma" back in permaculture

2009-03-04T08:54:00.000-08:00

One understands "waena" gardening when one understands that the skill involved is understanding each plant and cultivating it in a near natural state in a place that it flourishes. Most agriculture techniques or even permaculture techniques attempt to modify the local environment to suit the plant. Of course borders on each of these concepts become vague and blurred but--there is a big difference between walking out on ones property, finding a spot X, knowing that plant Y will grow in plant X, and planting plant Y--rather than attempting to cultivate plant Y on site X and using a cat to hammer the land into condition to do so.

As James Lovelock often points out, one of the things that's difficult about the modern "eco progressive" movement in general is that by and large the majority of its proponents are middle to upper class urbanites. While they may be very educated about ecological issues in a theoretical sense, they are often very disattached from the realities and practical issues of a non-recreational life in harmony with the land. Just a little. One large and very well promoted permaculture project right down town Los Angeles comes to mind--while an amazing example of fine gardening--a farm kid would immediately ask how on earth one pays the mortagage on a square block of prime real estate worth 2000 bucks a square foot with bok choy. He may also ask where in this permaculture project one gets the water--to which the trendily dressed vegan anarchal-feminist will point to the pipe, of course, dummy.

So what's special about waena? Not a great deal. It's another type of subsistance lifestyle(that's what they used to call permaculture before grant money was invented) that many of our ancestors lived. Subsistence lifestyles are by nature "sustainable" or people die. Plenty have died and still do and more will yet. This is one of those realities and practical issues of a non-recreational life in harmony with the land. But, as subsistence goes, waena is a particularly good style of a particularly fine climate, and the crops it relies on are particularly fine and reliable. As well, Hawaii is only a 100 or so years removed from this kind of lifestyle being commonplace, as opposed to perhaps 500 in Europe, so the idea of working within a natural state and the means of doing so aren't so lost or alien. Since any sort of better or survivable future will require a restoration of as much of the natural state as we can--pressing new land into service for agriculture, even permaculture, is simply not a tenable option.

Waena III

2009-03-03T19:39:00.000-08:00

So what are the risks of waena farming, or the downsides? Few, really, especially in an uncorrupted ecosystem. A previous cleared area, especially one cleared and neglected, will require a great deal of time and effort to weed and remove invasives and grasses, but within the forest itself simply removing the false staghorn, by mulching and controlled burning historically--and immediate planting with taro or u'ala one will get good results. Since the forest encourages small patches in multiple zonal habitats, the likelyhood of pest infestation or weed introduction is limited simply by isolation. In a day with new bugs and viruses all the time not having all one's eggs in one basket is pretty sensible!

For weed control I use the u'ala sweet potatoe (piko) as a perpetual cover crop. Bare ground will rapidly become infested with something, so one may as well infest it with sweet potatoes! The sweet potato at least in my area seems to be of very little interest to many insects, and seems to work well as a border barrier as well protecting more vulnerable produce. The single biggest mistake one can make is to open a garden plot without any immediate usage. It will rapidly become infested and the work involved will be radically increased. If you're foolish enough to clear and let the guava get going, you're going to be duly rewarded for your neglect.

Waena II

2009-03-02T18:49:00.000-08:00

So let's look at the primary advantages of this technique. Pictures tomorrow maybe, if I feel like it.

For Hawaii, or any rain forest climate, certainly having multiple dry and wet zones where both upland and wetland plants can be cultivated is a huge advantage. Since taro is the backbone of the Pacific one would have to be nuts not to grow it, in fact I'd go so far than you have to be nuts not to give it a try if it's even remotely possible. You can hardly get a more perfect staple, and the plant is near magical in its loveliness anyway--something I can't say for, well, perhaps barley, which makes me sneeze just thinking about it. Since with taro the low holes and muddy spots are already spoken for, with a sustainable yield potential of possibly 2 lbs a square foot-- the rest of sustainability is easy. Taro is especially valuable because it's labor intensive, but labor intensive for everyone. There are no effective mechanical harvesters, and everyone is in the same position--for a market crop it makes a lot of sense. I focus on high end table taros, not poi taros, because they historically have grown better in my areas than anywhere else, and look like they still do. It's worth looking into.

Man, I can grow taro that comes out of the ground and tastes like a twice baked potato straight up, with the sour cream and butter built in. Thanks, Jerry! Some of that and a couple cups of kava and I'd need precious little else. . .

These muck holes in the rainforest are generally so rich and anerobic than near nothing can live in them. They are unutilized space in the native forest as even the plants more or less used to the area will die of root rot. Not taro. Planted with taro, in this sense, per acre, the bioresperation of CO2 is markedly increased--the native forest is unimpacted, but the yield is maximized by perhaps even a factor of 2. Too good to be true? Well, we'll think about that tomorrow. There are things to think about.

Waena farming in Puna, Hawaii.

2009-03-01T18:12:00.000-08:00

The term "waena" stems from the Hawaiian term "waele" meaning "to clear of grass." In a cultural context waena style farming is an ancient practice of farming in an agriforestry setting. Historically it was most practiced in Kona, Ka'u, and Puna, but in the last century many of these techniques have been lost and the upland farms have been abandoned for lower level elevation properties and techniques. In some way my project here is rediscovering the wheel, but the the need is timely. Much of the valuable lower altitude agricultural land has foolishly been lost to development and a fair bit of the farms still in operation are somewhat vulnerable to drought and introduced pests. These issues do not face the prospective higher altitude farmer who works in harmony with the forest, and as far as I can see this may be one of the most valuable techniques for the would be homesteader/permaculturist in any mid to high altitude tropical environment.

My acreage here near Volcano is in a natural state, with virgin forest and a good deal of natural topography. There are many peaks and ridges and holes to be found, with a vertical relief of perhaps 10 feet. Obviously many zones that require sensitivity the needs of various plants to flourish and it is easy to make mistakes. The major food staples of taro and sweet potatoes do very well here indeed--and to have one's nutritional needs covered with reliablity is more than many can hope for.

The main advantage, however, is this--you don't screw up the ecosystem. There is no clearing or machinery involved, and if one were to cease production within a decade, for certain, the site would return to a natural state. This is no small thing and far more responsible and low impact than many "green" concepts out there. Of course yields are not as high, hypothetically, as they might be with a cleared lot and flat ground--but neither are the infrastructure needs. The vast majority of fertility and composts come from the site itself in a proven sustainable manner--the ohia trees are excellent soil builders--and with careful culling of limbs, thining, and utilization of biochar the whole makes for an uniquely viable system.

Damn the Doom!

2009-02-28T17:46:00.000-08:00

Ok, enough of this already. . .here's a "few, we lonely few, we band of brothers" bit. . .

There is a lot of talk about "uncertainty" out there, and people feel that they don't know which way to turn. Allow me advocate that this moment uncertainty is an erronious attitude born of denial. We have nothing to be uncertain about except the most trival of details. We have been for a while lost in a forest, unsure of our path, many of us paralysed by indecision. No longer. We know the path that lies ahead, and we know it's going to be a miserable grim slog at times. There is really nothing left to do but pick up and soldier on.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing either. Acknowledgement of a task engenders effort towards its end. It is time to acknowledge the task that lies ahead. We have no option but adapting ourselves to our new future and our lot in life. This will be painful for many, of course, if not most. No matter.

We a dire future, but not necessarily a hopeless one. The hope is up to us, and the heroic manner in which we face what is ahead. I will not deny that hope and delusion can be very difficult to discern at times. Fine, so be it. The alternative at this point is dispair. I resolve to maintain meaningful hope even if my is an outright and undeniable lie.

We must either learn straightaway in a completely functional manner how to care for ourselves and our loved ones in every aspect of life, certainly including many of those we have taken for granted till now--or beg for aid from those who have been foresighted enough to do so. Whether by land or by sea the age of dabbling in these lifestyles as a recreational dilettante is over and to persist will be fatal. We still have time to press ahead honestly and make a few mistakes, but less time than we did a year ago.

Frankly, I intend full well to prosper. I would expect any enterprising individual with a good mind and the willing to learn--one that is a first order producer of knowledge or value will be as succesful as any. The brokers and agents of this world, or any of those who managed or outright stole the efforts of others will find it very difficult to adapt. The only bond between men and women and society will be one's word and one's integrity--woe to you if you've not demonstrated any to date!

One must:

Provide a secure dwelling that one owns, or owns with others. Whether a cabin in the woods or a boat--or the back of a datsun wagon, to be without a castle of some variety will be a recipe of sure dispair.

Provide oneself with a diversified means of income--cashflow will be part of human society for the near future, and a great deal will be demanded likely. You will not be able to rely on "employment." You will need to produce value. Whatever that means is up to you so long as it works.

Provide oneself with a network of knowledgable dependable freinds and cull the rest.

Provide oneself with the mental maturity and determination to succeed, as well as not to be a detriment to the community that by necessity one will find themselves within. Success will require acute technical understanding of the task at hand.

Lastly, resolve to make life meaningful. Whatever that takes. This may well be the last line of defense that the hero has--one must believe that one is carrying on for something. This something is not going to be hard to find--in fact, there are unlimited deserving opportunites that will require a hero for survival. . .

And with that, I resolve to stick with more practical stuff in posts for a while. As, it is, all in all, the practical stuff I do best. . .

and YET ANOTHER plug for George Soros.

2009-02-28T15:08:00.000-08:00

http://www.dailystocks.com/forum/showtopic.php?tid/1728/

Game theory and the "Tragedy of the Commons" pt II

2009-02-28T09:58:00.001-08:00

Some rambling thoughts.

Obviously, then this CO2 problem is going to be a tough nut to crack, and in the classic "Tragedy of the Commons" manner we are operating dangerously close to the "problem impossible to solve by technical means." Everyone at this moment has a vested survival interest in using the atmosphere as a sewer. In fact, certainly, if you don't, you are severely penalized. My integrity in wanting to live a low impact lifestyle through the last decade caught me no end of grief and alienation--it ended freindships and relationships as well as opportunities. Jay thought flying off to Bali was unethical material consumption, and well, that wasn't fun enough for some and made others feel bad or stupid. Others in a more comfortable and flexible manner had different "feelings" about the matter and different "beliefs." I had a different understanding of the issues at hand. Still, we all recognized a looming problem that promised to be unsolvable. All in all, however, as game theory dictates, the only way to win in such circumstances is by a radical redefinition of the game rules. Most people instinctively understand this, but not how to do it, and this is part of why we have the muddled mess that we do.

One of the very great dangers I see among those who I know who share similar values to mine is a particularly insidious one. There is a tendency among many who are repulsed by the mainstream values, in any culture or in any time, to project that the mainstream values are destructive and will ultimately end to some sort of apocalyptic demise. Sure, the gods will avenge the "evildoers" in the end and disposessed people have always whined that. This is a very different attitude than a well informed and technically literate understanding of a given society's trends--although the predictions of dire consequences may sound very similar in most cases. Some people are worried about the next decade because of credit default swaps, some because of peak oil, some because jesus is on his way back or some such. Let me point out that while there is a certain camaradarie in such doomsday talk, each of these people will engage in a "radical redefinition" of the game rules in order to win in a different manner. Redefinitions predicated on erronious first principles are unlikely to be successful.

For myself, this has always been a central concern. Back in my late 20's I felt a great deal of pressing anxiety about the future and in what manner I was going to face it. I was in a position where I certainly could have taken that career path to some degree anyhow, but for technical reasons really felt that it would be a dead end at some point--at any rate I wasn't connected enough to every be very successful in that world--and finally made a very conscious choice to "radically redefine" my game rules in a manner that I felt I might win. That choice was the "extracultural" lifestyle of Seasteading and, all in all, it was a good choice. At any rate there was a great deal of deliberate purpose in the whole thing--I knew either choice would have grave consequences--as well if I were to go about either choice in a half-assed manner I'd certainly lose.

Driven to succeed? Not really. I'd say the central motivation I have that has carried me forward was the desire to understand. I wanted to know what I was talking about beyond a trivial level. I wanted to have reliable and technically applicable understanding of the world I lived in and the forces that shaped it. Understanding, I find, is always vastly more powerful in engendering action than casual belief. Far too many are comfortable with mere belief, and while they may have strong "feelings" about those beliefs, far too often there's a heavy air of "I can't be bothered with the details" attutude that floats around with it as well.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the issues we face at this moment are technical issues that require a technical understanding and technical solutions. Ideology and belief will not suffice to achieve anything. In fact, ideology and belief may well be powerful hinderences to accurately "redefining" the game rules. . .

So, then after that ramble--what will be "winning" and what will be the rules? What rules have radically changed?

I think a few things really may come to be understood with a higher level of resolution than in the past.

First-- "Feeling" states are very important. Passion is meaning. Still, feeling leads to the phenomenology of experience, not to comprehension. As well, affluence in general has a tendency to cheapen experience by making it far too accessible, and as such commonplace. I believe we will need to jealously guard our feeling states in this hard future in a manner to which many are unaccustomed--and adopting a deliberate integrity in our actions is the way to do so.

Second--Money will be a markedly less valuable and reliable tool for achieving those winning states--whether good times, or security, or companionship. Money has been pretty much the only tool in most people's toolshed for some time, and they're going to be pretty lost without it.

How I measure my CO2 footprint.

2009-02-27T09:02:00.000-08:00

This is a tricky buisness. Measuring any of this sort of thing is a very inexact science, and the only way to keep integrity in the process is to hedge the numbers very conservatively. But here a start and critique is invited.

In the high altitude tropics where I live the daytime temperatures are in the 60's to low 80's all year round. 140+ inches a year in rainfall mostly well distributed throughout the year. Stuff really grows and biomass abounds. As far as I can survey, I have about 1500 Ohia trees ranging from small and immature to nearly 3 feet at the butt, with the average size of perhaps 8. I have over the last year planted Koa as well in various places, several hundred trees. Most are doing well. The Ohia are prodigious soil builders requiring little in nutrients and producing large amounts of heavy leaf mold throughout the year. No wonder they are sacred here. They are the real backbones of the forest that the whole island system is built on.

Early on I built a couple of stations in the forest to measure the quantities of biomass dropped per square foot. Quantities are significant. With these and other estimations it is fair to assume 20 tons an acre in carbon rich biomass is produced annually. This seems to be consistent with other local crop yields of taro or sugar cane, or at least is sensibly in the credible range.

So, perhaps that sounds like a lot, but only a portion of that is carbon, and only a portion of that is sequestered. Some becomes wood in trees which is relatively longterm storage, a good part of it rots giving off CO2 and CH4, not so good. So, the actual pumpdown in the amalgam is probably only a 3rd of all that, or about 20000 pounds.

So, what does that offset, really? The answer, of course, is nothing, as the the "ecowankers" and others are still flying around the world raising awareness about global warming. But, minding my own buisness, the figures are different. So, what is my allowable consumption to be carbon neutral? Well, roughly 200 gallons of gasoline a year, or 4000 lbs of wood in the woodstove, or elsewise in consumption in the mix. Of course here it gets very complicated, and it gets tempting to cook the books. Personally, I think the easiest thing to do is to scale it all in gross dollar consumption because the spending of every dollar has a carbon impact at this point, and the price of a gallon of gasoline is probably the most accurate measure of the real impact of a purchase, as fuel is one ingredient in everything we buy. If I assume 200 gallons of gasoline at 3 dollars a gallon as an average(since I don't burn that much gasoline) we have 600 dollars of consumption: if we assume that fuel is at least 10% of the cost of any purchase, conservative indeed--this gives me a consumption level of +/- 6000 dollars a year at current valuations as what I'd see as the upper allowable limit of personal expenditures. Of course this is a little over twice of global GDP so I'm living pretty high on the hog. A good number for a lot of reasons: 3 acres per person, perpetual permaculture, living under one's federal standard deduction so tax money doesn't directly go to undermine one's effort(another topic). At the moment with world population where it is there is almost 5 acres per person on the planet so the effort is sensibly ethically dependable. . .3 acres per person in agriforestry permaculture with cash expenditures not to exceed 6000 dollars a person for annual expenses to me seems to be a very good estimate of what sustainable really means. It is indeed do able, and of course, central to the theme around here, is a strategy that makes the forthcoming economic collapse of pretty small consequence. . .

Thoughts? Obviously unless you're living very sustainably off the land itself this isn't achievable. 5 gallons a week will not run a homestead and drive you to work. It will however, power a homestead alone. The immediate implication is that any functional homestead must provide both food, infrastructure, and income to be sustainable. Going elsewhere to earn a living is prohibitably ineffient and something we'll need to change.

Let me point out as well that the forest here is improving. This property is moving from a "natural" state to an "enhanced" state. By careful stewardship the output and carbon cycle of the land can be greatly enhanced. Careful applications of soil ammendments, tree husbandry, the introduction of biodiversity(koa especially) and biochar promise to move me from carbon neutral to into the plus column quite rapidly. Of course to then increase my standard of living is counterproductive--restaint, remember?--but does demostrate that this small living can work and provide for a lifestyle that indeed moves in the right direction. More on these techniques in the next few days.

UPDATE and AFTERTHOUGHT:

So, what this all means is that the average N. American couple will need to pare back consumption and expenditures by 80 to 90 percent. This is a lot. A lightbulb, casual recycling and a spiffy new Prius isn't going to cut it. Funny that I would find that number to be applicable because -- http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE51Q22X20090227 -- these folks have come to the same conclusion. I don't see any way around it.

So, really, what gives? Are we really really right there at the brink of the Malthusian Nightmare? Yeah, I guess so. Yeah, I really think so. Honestly, I've been trooping and working on this stuff for years and it's caught me by surprise. But, all in all, this how it works. Life is what happens before your ass gets wiped off the planet.

Here's another term: Ecophile. One who loves nature but in a self-centered, delusional, destructive, and exploitive fashion. As in Pedophile.

Anyway, excuse me while I attempt to go sweat out the rest of this fever. . .

Oh, and lastly, so since I've been asked a great deal lately--how long will it take to get a homestead together in the manner in which you have? Two years. If you have help. I'm not there yet either, but certainly striking distance and have may a few, but not to many mistakes. I don't mind being a pioneer. Someone needs to.

Here's a new term for the day: Ecowankerism

2009-02-27T08:55:00.000-08:00

Thanks to an anonymous source for this one:

Ecowankerism: the belief that one can live in an ecologically benign manner without significant personal sacrifice in consumption or lifestyle.

CQ. . .CQ. . .CQD. . .

2009-02-26T17:40:00.000-08:00

Umm. . .

There's a lot more of you out there than you think. I'm running more e-mails a day than ever--(30 today) with inquiries of sailing and seasteading and homesteading and the rest. . .I smelt the smoke early on and left theater a decade ago. . .and we're just about to see everyone else wake up and run for the exits. . .

Sure, it's obvious. Seasteading works. Hawaii works. Both have worked for centuries if you have due respect for the lifestyle and the land(sea) itself.

Get serious: get in touch. I want people like you to be my neighbors, not Oprah.

Along with all that, "food" for thought. . .

2009-02-26T09:12:00.000-08:00

The timeless piece "tragedy of the commons" is worth a re-read at the moment. Here it is:

http://dieoff.org/page95.htm

Obviously the issues are timely. In the interest of a discussion--let us look at the various "commons" that have been exploited to the point of collapse.

The ecosystem for certain,

Of course the atmosphere in general. . .but also.

The economy, where it is in everyone's interest develop new buisiness, hence oversaturating every market. . .

In relationships between people, where the "common" responsibility and good will is often taken for granted and exploited.

In one's personal health,

Indeed in one's mental health. . .

Perhaps the greatest ethic we can hold up at this moment in history is "restraint?"

Updates and Etc.

2009-02-25T11:21:00.000-08:00

It's been quite a while since I've had a chance to write a bit, but have a quiet morning. The parents are here visiting and they did a great job of importing a nasty cold to my little oasis and it's quite the plague colony around here. Drinking coffee and bourbon and trying to cough up a lung but may as well write a bit at the moment.

Certainly over the last month or so I haven't been idle. While work has been very difficult due to the weather and rain in between the squalls I've managed to put together a shop and a greenhouse, which will greatly expand production around here even in the bad weather. It is really becoming quite the little homestead and things are more viable every day. The Hawaiian word for water is "wai" and interestingly for wealth it is "waiwai." If one is ready and in syncroniscity with the weather and island lifestyle, the rainy season is unquestionably a season of bounty. The growth out here in the uala and kalo is scarce to be believed.

It's interesting as I go along how things are discovered. The major discovery is the style of farming that is best suited to my area and climate, as well as its historic precident. There was at one point a significant agricultural tradition in the Hawaiian islands of upland mountain farming, especially of taro, in the style termed "waena" --meaning "admist the grassy clearings in the forest." Certainly interesting that instinctively I gravitate towards it, as it unquestionably is the most viable and sustainable of the various planting

styles. Unfortunately, by and large, the style has been lost and again I find myself to a large degree reinventing the wheel. Still, it is exactly the kind of task that my temperment is best suited to--with heavy research and practical application hand in hand--and it reminds me a great deal of teaching myself to sail. Yeah, and I mean, really sail. And of course as most of you know, that meant without relying on engines. I still stand by the observation that sailing is sailing, and boating is boating. Boating isn't a crime, but calling yourself a sailor when you're a boater isn't too fair and one should know better. This has nothing to do with being an extremist or a purist or any of that. There are all sorts of things in human life that are either/or propositions. Either you are faithful to your partners or you're a cheat. Either you are honest or you are a thief. Either you are a sailor or you're a boater who sails when

it's convienient. Of course, and again, as the atheist I am, I can't really say that being a thief, a cheat, or a boater necesarily makes you bad. If that's what you are go for it with your head held high. There's some integrity in that. Where it gets irritating to the rest of us when one is a hypocrite as well as a fake.

So let's talk about environmentalists and the "sustainability" movement.

When I mean that I'm striving for "sustainability" I mean exactly that. I mean sustainability as a measurable and objectively emperical quantity. I mean precisely that I'm attempting to live a lifestyle that definitavely does no ecological nor social harm, and is infinately perpetual. The social harm aspect is especially important, as if my lifestyle, if ecologically sustainable, is still so consumptive that it forces others through my acquisition of resources into lives of unsustainable deprivation--well, that's being a cheat. As has been discussed here at the moment we do indeed know what sort of land is availiable at the moment for

each and everyone, and what our fair share of the earth's resources really is. It isn't a great deal, but it's all we have and any level of consumption above what is sustainable isn't sustainable. Period. Do you care about that? I do. A whole lot of other people claim to, but as far as I can see in the vast majority of cases this attitude is wholesale bullshit. Do you care? No one is going to make you care if you frankly don't. Still, as was the case with sailing--when one demonstrates the ability to reliably cruise port to port without relying on an engine--well, it make the nay sayers really look like asses--Certainly when one demonstrates real sustainablity it makes these "green" pretenders look like asses too. Don't give me any of that "change a lightbulb step in the right direction" horseshit. If you need to go west, taking pride in the fact that you walk very slowly east is nothing to brag about, even if you're walking very much slower than others. Especially when just the shortest distance to the east is an unthinkably dangerous abyss.

I am not there yet, but I'm getting very very close. I'm very certain that I'll be 100% carbon neutral by the end of the year, and carbon positive thereafter. All the ducks are in a row; all the pieces are there. At this point it is simply scale, and I need one more growth cycle in the taro and two in the sweet potatoes and I'm there. Measurable, uncontestably, by any sensible metric. Critique is invited. If you can find holes in my project, I'm more than eager to hear about them, in the same manner that I'd appreciate hearing the there was a hole in my boat. Again, I'm not only doing this because I'm compulsively ethical and really do care about the ecology and my personal integrity, but because the way things are going in the world it's going to save my ass. In the same manner that no matter how big a sailor you think you are, Posideon is the one who you'll need to turn your "final" into for grading--I'm afraid Gaia is going to be a real hardass when it comes to grading this final project in "ecology 100" and a lot of people are going to fail the course.

Back among the living. . .

2009-02-24T14:02:00.000-08:00

Finally, 3 hard drives and a motherboard later the computer returns from wherever, and it works, mostly. Certainly over the last month have been very busy and indeed productive, and will have a lot of progress to report, most likely later in the day after I catch up a bit!

The Conversation with the Inner Sailor.

2009-01-04T20:42:00.000-08:00

I've mused about this for years.

The sailor is indeed an archetype. In many cultures, the sailor is even one of the most well defined of the archetypes. While the ideal lends itself to caricature--it is hard to suggest that the image of the robust, aware, hard-living, passionate voyager with a worldly eye is a mistaken one. . .I know many "sailors," in type, only a few of which have spent time at sea, and fewer yet at sea under sail. There are many archetypes in our human community, for sure, but I will still insist that the sailor, at least in western culture, is a huge one, if not one of the very biggest. Far too many of our scholars, or writers, or thinkers have been sailors at at least some part of their life for this to be mere coincidence. Why? Sailing requires looking ahead, and looking ahead squarely and bravely as its prime requisite. This seems, more and more, to be a shockingly rare characteristic. I guarantee you: while you may cross an ocean with your eyes closed, you will not make port unless you a paying a hell of a lot of attention to what is going on. As we voyage into a very uncertain and uncharted future, only those of us with the highest level of attunement to water and waves, and have the crackest crew, and the most wary hand on the lead will sound our way to safe harbor without mishap. Really, for damn sure. And this doesn't mean that the coast we close with is a friendly one.

People would do well to understand that a sailor, as an type, once he has determined that there is a hole in the boat, and she's taking water, will expect action in a timely manner. He may, as well, be a little less than polite in the urgency of the request to man the pumps.

. . .pump her boys, pump her dry
down to hell and up to the sky. . .
. . .bend your back and break your bones
for we're only a thousand miles from home. . .

Advocating a local currency.

2008-12-29T11:43:00.000-08:00

In light of all these developments it's time to start thinking about this sort of thing, at the very least to provide a non-inflationary alternative to the status quo. Please take the time to educate yourself about how effective and powerful a means for constructive change a local currency can be, and has been over the years.

Here is a link to very well thought out commentary on successful local currencies:

http://www.smallisbeautiful.org/publications/essay_currency.html

Here is the link to the local discussion:

http://www.punaweb.org/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7575

Critters

2008-12-28T14:17:00.000-08:00

It's becoming a bit hard to account for the fact of the explosion in wildlife around here in the last few months. All sorts of stuff is certainly moving in which a year ago simply wasn't present or was just uncommon. Now, it's just not the case. I'm sure a little chicken scratch lures a few like the cardinals and the pheasants, but to see the Io and now the Hawaiian bats moving in was a bit of a surprise. It's not a simple matter of not seeing them before--the bird population isn't even pretending to be illusive at this point--a year ago one would scarcely see a thing no matter how hard one tried.

Certainly this is a positive development but I'm curious as to what is indeed the root cause.

The point of all this:

2008-12-27T20:45:00.000-08:00

You all NEED

. . .to start living sensibly

. . .and simply.

It is about to cease to be an option.

The Happy Ending

2008-12-27T19:58:00.000-08:00

There are no happy endings. Endings are endings, and none of them are happy. An Epoch is in its death throes. It was a time of beauty, and I, this strange kid, got to see a surprising lot of it. The sea turtles were the big thing. I wanted to see those since I was the tiniest kid. I've now had the experience of them eating out of my hand. . .

Sadness in inherent in beauty, because comprehending beauty embraces the temporal nature of life.

And, or course, "Passion is Meaning." Some of you are familiar with that quote. . .

Take pictures. Love your people. Write about what is going on. It will be important at some point. I'm wholly with Mike that booze will be constructive. Whatever it will take to keep your heroism intact will be completely justified. . .

I spent the day planting trees. A pessimist does not plant trees. Why would I bother to mess around in the mud dealing with something I will see no benefit from in 20 years? Maybe ever? Why? Self indulgence? Delusion? Maybe. . .from the perspective in my own mind--no, not at all.

In some sense the future we face redeems us all from a kind of responsibility, perhaps, we should not ever have attempted to bear. . .

Jesus! Can't be!

2008-12-27T10:50:00.000-08:00

Well, I didn't make up the rules, and personally over the years I've made a real attempt not to contribute to any of this mess but "facts is facts." We can pretty much expect that this next year, this next magic year of 2009, will be the one in which human-kind really fucks up. We will get behind the supply curve, due to frozen credit markets and incompetence, and make a future of peak oil and its ramifications--until now not really a certainty--inevitable. The ball was dropped, and we will suffer the consequences. As well, in terms of climate change, we needed to get on capping emissions. Does anyone really believe that the will exists in this society to reduce CO2 emissions by 90 percent by 2020? This is what it will take, optimistically even, or we're just buggered, and there is no going back. Technology? Bunk. Unless you can roll out a winning technology next week on a global scale, forget it. It would take 20 years to implement anything meaningful on a meaningful scale if we started with unlimited funding today. . .

Forget it.