wolfyvegan

joined 1 month ago
MODERATOR OF
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/21310246

archived (Wayback Machine)

 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/21310246

archived (Wayback Machine)

 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/21310246

archived (Wayback Machine)

 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/21310246

archived (Wayback Machine)

 

archived (Wayback Machine)

 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/21310182

archived (Wayback Machine)

 

archived (Wayback Machine)

 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/21310065

archived (Wayback Machine)

 

archived (Wayback Machine)

 

Archived (Wayback Machine):

 

In the mid-1990s physicists Geoffrey West and Louis Bettencourt collaborated with biologists to study allometric scaling laws, where it is generally found that larger organisms are more efficient consumers of energy than smaller ones. After mathematically explaining these laws through fractal network effects, the researchers began applying them to the human built environment, particularly cities.

Certain environmentalists and sustainability advocates mistook the significance of these results, leading to decades of policy work and investments in urban growth that, West now admits, are doomed to fail.

The fact that so many, including the originators of the work, got this story wrong reflects the cultural blinders and techno-biases that typify most of us living in high energy modernity. Doing the opposite of our conditioned response to the overshoot predicament will likely lead to more favorable outcomes.

archived (Wayback Machine)

Cross-posting for the biology lesson.

 

In the mid-1990s physicists Geoffrey West and Louis Bettencourt collaborated with biologists to study allometric scaling laws, where it is generally found that larger organisms are more efficient consumers of energy than smaller ones. After mathematically explaining these laws through fractal network effects, the researchers began applying them to the human built environment, particularly cities.

Certain environmentalists and sustainability advocates mistook the significance of these results, leading to decades of policy work and investments in urban growth that, West now admits, are doomed to fail.

The fact that so many, including the originators of the work, got this story wrong reflects the cultural blinders and techno-biases that typify most of us living in high energy modernity. Doing the opposite of our conditioned response to the overshoot predicament will likely lead to more favorable outcomes.

archived (Wayback Machine)

Thought-provoking perspective.

[–] wolfyvegan@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago

Yes absolutely, though I find it a difficult spectrum between pure conservationism vs ecology. I want to plant as many natives as possible, but perfect is the enemy of good, and ultimately I believe creating habitat and restoring a functional ecosystem takes precedence over trying to wind back the clock on colonisation.

Reforesting with plenty of fruiting plants, both natives and non-natives that aren't too invasive, probably achieves the most reasonable balance. The land gets reforested, and you also get food, meaning that you don't need to buy produce that was grown by deforesting somewhere else.

Does your eco-community have any online presence?

[–] wolfyvegan@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago

Let us not forget that this is primarily due to deforestation, whether directly (due to loss of tree cover for moisture retention) or indirectly (due to climate change).

[–] wolfyvegan@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago

We need both, obviously. Ending animal agriculture is the most practical way to achieve it.

[–] wolfyvegan@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago

Anyway all policy scenarios with any hope of staying below 2ºC, let alone 1.5ºC, include a lot of net reforestation. So we’ll have to turn this around, somewhere.

It seems like people are working on it in various places, especially in the Amazon:

[–] wolfyvegan@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago

Did you ever find an answer to this re: reforestation projects? Could be useful to relocate termites in order to introduce the microbes to grasslands.

[–] wolfyvegan@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago (3 children)

You should have plenty of space if you can plant in the park! Public fruit trees are a great community service, and if you tell the park people that you want to plant native trees, they'd be foolish to say no. More fruit for you, more fruit for the birds, more fruit for anyone smart enough to harvest it, less grass and prickly stuff, more shade in the heat of summer. Everyone wins. Including the people at the persimmon nursery. :)

[–] wolfyvegan@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 month ago

Projects like this are in desperate need of serious people to help them scale up. If even a small fraction of the people who see articles like this (or videos, or whatever) were to contribute some of their time and energy to the projects themselves, then the odds wouldn't be so against them, and that little bit of progress would become reforestation of entire regions. The question isn't whether it's possible for a project like this to succeed; the question is whether there are enough people willing to make it happen.

[–] wolfyvegan@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago

https://worldfloraonline.org/ is useful for verifying plant names and finding botanical descriptions.

[–] wolfyvegan@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago (5 children)

There's never enough space! Have you looked into nearby lands where you could guerrilla plant some things? At least you got some pawpaws planted already. That's probably the most important thing.

[–] wolfyvegan@slrpnk.net -3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

All systems of oppression must be dismantled, no matter how inconvenient or unpleasant that process may be.

[–] wolfyvegan@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This article was (from what I understood) mostly referring to old heirloom crops that are no longer widely grown because they've been superseded by newer commercial cultivars. I remember hearing that in the early 1900s, there were something like 53 potato cultivars available to buy in grocery stores in the USA, but by the end of the century, there were only 4. That probably applies to other crops as well. Another example of capitalism reducing biodiversity, I guess.

view more: ‹ prev next ›