Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:29:42 -0500
From: danceswithcarp <dcombs-AT-bloomington.in.us>
Subject: Re: Just a thought


At 12:23 PM 7/12/00 +1200, The Lorax wrote:

> > I know a little bit about urban sustainability. As far as I know, 
> there's no
> > reason why food can't be grown in the city on rooftops, in basements, etc.

Structural reasons for one.  Water runs off of building roofs so the weight 
in minimized.  Trap rainwater in soil and you increase the dead weight 
tremendously.   This is not to say it can't be done as there are several 
buildings in Chicago and New York that I've read about that have rooftop 
gardens.   However the reality of people living in multistory urban 
buildings means the amount of food grown in a limited rooftop space 
relative to the number of mouths that live under it is minimal.

Also, I grow a garden about 25 meters by 20 meters and the overall amount 
of food it produces wouldn't sustain anyone for a year, even if the damned 
rabbits, squirrels and groundhawgs weren't taking their taxes right off of 
the top.   I believe the commonly accepted formula is it takes one hectare 
(two acres or so) intensely farmed to support a family of four people.   A 
hectare of cropland  is also about the amount a family of such size can 
actually tend to without machination.

To supplement the garden I grow tomatoes, onions, peppers, (a LOT of 
peppers) and cucumber bushes in the yard in pots and troughs.   They make a 
nice dietary supplement but they don't really provide nourishment of any 
magnitude.

Perhaps a very good example of the amount of land that is required to feed 
a humyn can be found on commercial billboards scattered all through the 
Kansas wheat country.   These are 1,000 acre spreads.  The billboards say 
"One Kansas farmer feeds fifty people."

> > New inventions are making it easier, too. An Israeli engineer recently
> > invented a hydroponic "factory" about the size of a cargo container. It's
> > completely automated and can grow any fruit, vegetable, tuber, etc. 
> Also, I'm
> > not sure I understand your definition of industry, because in my city
> > (Vancouver) we've got plenty of it.

Industrial farming is a Bad Thing, but it is the only thing that will 
sustain the wirld's population at current levels.   Veg-heads make much of 
the fact it takes 10 calories of grain to create one of meat.  What no one 
likes to admit is that in industrial farming it takes 10 calories of 
hydrocarbon energy to make one calorie of grain.

Go figure on what "sustainable industrial farming" would be.

Oh, and while I'm thinking of it I showed the musical catroon version of 
"The Lorax" to my 8th Grade students this past spring.  Then I asked them 
if they were Oncelers or the Lorax.   Heh-heh.   The really bright ones 
admitted we are all Oncelers.

> > And keep in mind that we won't be needing all those office buildings after
> > the revolution. Plenty of room for homes, factories, or whatever else we
> > decide to put there!

Hmmm.  A mega-economy with no administration?   Pray tell us, will it run 
on inertia?

>There were some trees and bushes growing on an abandoned building down here in
>Christchurch and the fucking council had them removed because they somehow
>thought that some nature in an "innapropriate" place was an eyesore that
>distracted from the fascist right angles of the surrounding shiny corporate
>insect hives.

Around in these parts those things are tourist attractions.  Over in 
Greensburg, Indyanna there's a tree growing out of the courthouse dome.   I 
believe it's the second one.  When the first one died they replanted one so 
people would still come to look.


carpo