From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: Sustainable lifestyles
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 16:30:42 GMT

Gary - thanks for your comments.

In article <1992Oct8.053215.26033@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.171803.12454@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>>A sustainable lifestyle might have the following attributes:
>>
>>	1) doesn't reduce topsoil depth
>>
>>RATIONALE: all life on this planet relies on a rather thin layer of soil.
>>           Its dispersal and denudation are reversible only in the
>>	   long term, and perhaps not even then.
>
>The goal is good, but the rationale is oversold. Two thirds of the globe
>has no topsoil, or subsoil either for that matter, yet life abounds in
>the oceans. 

Which in turn relies on the rest of the carbon, nitrogen and oxygen
cycles, significant parts of which take place in topsoil, as I'm sure
you know.
	     
	     Topsoil is often not difficult to build, mainly being the
>introduction of organics and bacteria into subsoil. It doesn't happen
>rapidly if left alone, but human intervention can speed the process to
>less than three years from barren subsoil to rich topsoil. I know, I've
>turned barren subsoil fill that wouldn't grow grass into high quality
>topsoil for gardening in less than three seasons. The key is the plow,
>spade, or power tiller that rapidly mechanically mixes the materials,
>a process that is very slow without human aid.

Accepted. 

>
>>	2) doesn't have more than a <XXX>% effect on atmospheric
>>		composition
>>
>>RATIONALE: there is evidence that atmospheric composition represents
>>                a dynamic equilibrium amongst producers and consumers
>>		of its contents. I don't know what <XXX> should be.
>
>Nor does anyone else. There's no assurance that the current mix is
>optimum, only that it works after a fashion. Performing blind experiments
>is potentially risky. Much more knowledge is required before deliberate
>tinkering with the mix is justified.

How much more knowledge is justified before non-deliberate tinkering
with the mix is justified ?

>>	3) doesn't redirect or restrict more than 1% of water flow
>>		in a given watershed 
>>
>>RATIONALE: ecosystems are generally close to dynamic equilibrium and/or
>>		carrying capacity. 
>
>Again there's no assurance that current ecological mixes are optimum,
>or even stable over the long term. A different hydrological balance
>could result in greater productivity of the systems. Static systems
>are often deadend systems. If we were to redirect the hydrological
>balance so the Sahara was more like the Mississippi delta, would
>the resulting ecosystem be more productive or less? It certainly
>would be different, but different doesn't equate with bad.

I absolutely agree. The problem is that the "historical" way in which
the complex systems that make up life on this planet have explored the
state space in which they exist is quite different to the one we as
humans tend to use today to accomplish our goals. Certainly,
hydrological balances may shift, resulting in greater productivity all
round. But the way in which that process happens, its timescale, its
scope and its side-effects are all things that we have changed
fundamentally when we build dams or redirect rivers.

>There's no law that says all adaptations have to be biological.

Agreed. Although of course, since we *are* biological (Drexler &
Moravec notwithstanding), one could argue that all that we do is
biological.

>>	5) leaves contiguous stretches of any given ecosystem
>>		connected to original (pre-human) neighbors
>>
>>RATIONALE: the strength of ecosystems relies heavily on diversity,
>>                which in part relies on corridors connecting
>>	        inter-dependent components.
>
>This seems to be saying that pre-human conditions are somehow more
>desirable than systems containing humans. It has no more validity
>than saying that the timberland of the Pacific Northwest should
>be restored to it's pre-owl condition by clearcutting. Real ecosystems
>contain humans and real ecosystems are constantly changing and adapting.
>The proper approach is to keep changes at a pace where real ecosystems
>can adapt and maintain a high degree of diversity, though the mix may
>be different than before the changes. Sam Starling replacing Hooty Owl
>and Randy Rat replacing Sally Shrew.

See above, and my followup to JMC's comments. I don't claim that the
replacements won't happen - however, its disingenous to first claim
"what we're doing doesn't hurt ecosystems", and then say "well, so the
system changed on us - no problem". Not that this is your claim, but
its implicit in some of the arguments I've read in timber industry rags.

>Change is not automatically bad and stasis is not automatically good.
>In fact stasis is a good working definition of death. To live is to
>change.

Excellent adage. Again, though, the mechanisms, scale and side-effects
of change are part of what life is too, and changing them because it
suits us right now is not necessarily wise, nor life-sustaining.

>>	9) does not use products whose production uses
>>		more energy than they save, either in terms of
>>		food or existing non-human energy supply.
>>
>>RATIONALE: encourage comfort and leisure through efficiency, not
>>                through expanded use of energy sources.
>
>This is more problematic. Few items represent closed systems. A wheat
>plant takes in more energy than it delivers as food value. Does that
>mean we should kill all wheat plants? A chair costs more energy to
>produce than it saves, should we all sit on the floor? The second law 
>says entropy always increases in a closed system, but truely closed 
>systems exist only as abstract idealizations. The Earth is not a closed 
>system to energy flows, even the Universe may not be a closed system. 
>In a localized sense, *everything* we produce takes more energy than 
>it delivers. Efficiency never exceeds 100%. On a larger scale, every 
>energy flow is downhill from source to sink. In a closed system, 
>everything is running down, dying, but in a system with outside inputs,
>complex organization and growth can occur.

My point relies on starting from *somewhere* and sometime between now
and, oh, perhaps 500 years ago sounds fine with me. Wherever you start
from, it seems best for me not to change how you live such that you
are expending more energy, be it in labor, food, irrigation,
transportation, or whatever. The choice of starting point depends on
what you consider an adequately comfortable life to be; having made
that choice (and I don't care how you make it, so long as you can
defend it), I'm suggesting that subsequent changes come about from
better efficiency, not use of new energy sources.

-- paul


-- 
There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
price only are this man's lawful prey.
						John Ruskin