Appropriate Technology for the Future:

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.

The Tao of the Ninja Mennonite

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.

Practical Solutions: XT500

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?

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.

The Numbers of Sustainability: 3

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

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

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: