I have just finished Jack Reed’s wonderful book called The Next Evolution. I highly recommend it. It is in strong agreement with the following article from the SynEARTH Archives.

---

 Co-Operative Trusts

Timothy Wilken, MD

Today, most humans solve their problems as individuals or at best as nuclear families. They meet their individual needs with  individual actions. At best they may meet the needs of their nuclear family through family actions, but this is rarely more than a husband and wife both working. The extended family is an organizational pattern rarely seen in modern society.

This focus on individuality results in a massive loss of opportunity to co-Operative strategies that could result in greater efficiency and economy.

Individual Actions

Even though we humans are an interdependent class of life, we choose our actions based not on what we are, but on what we think we are. Today, modern humans are convinced they are an independent form of life. This deep belief in human independence means that most modern humans seek to meet their needs as individuals and make their choices independently of their fellow humans.

In our present culture humans meet their needs by purchasing products and services as independent individuals. In today’s fair market there are providers of products and services and there are consumers. Both the providers and the consumers for the most part think of themselves as independent and make their choices without great awareness of what others are doing.

In today´s marketplace, the providers and consumers meet only in the retail space. They have little or no direct relationship with each other. In this ignorance, both are, for all extent and purposes, blind and ignorant. The provider doesn´t know his consumers, let alone what they might need or when they might need it. And often the consumer don´t know the providers.

Bird’s Eye View

Let us imagine an aerial view of our community on an average evening at 10:00pm. Looking down we notice that within one square mile there are several small convenience stores open from seven to eleven. These small stores are all competing with each other as well as with larger supermarkets now staying open 24 hours in order to compete with them. At this hour of night there are only a few available customers to be divided up among all these providers.

Each store is paying one or more clerks to staff the store, plus the costs for lighting and heating each store. From our view above our community, it is obvious that most of the clerks could be sent home and most of the stores closed and still allow every customer seeking products and services at that hour to get what they needed. This would also produce enormous savings for this group of providers. To all stay open, the providers must pass the costs of doing business on to their customers, so this means that the prices in all of these stores is higher to subsidize this inefficiency.

Why is this happening? In today´s world we mostly ignore each other. After all, since we believe we are “independent”, each individual is supposed to look out for himself. So there is little communication between provider and consumer. The providers are keeping the stores open in hopes that someone will need something. If they were communicating with their customers, they would know when to be open and when they could close. They could then operate much more efficiently.

Now imagine that this same inefficient process is going on with many different kinds of products in every community in our nation and you start to sense the enormous amount of wasted time and energy.

Let’s return for a moment to our bird´s eye view of our community. Only this time let us imagine a time lapse video camera above our neighborhood. Imagine a family of four, two adults and two older teenagers in local college, having four automobiles. If we focus the video camera on the garage and parking area next to their home we would discover that there are times when there are no cars at home. This means that the family has four cars in use. Sometimes there is one car parked, so three cars are in use. Sometimes there are two cars parked, so two cars are in use. Sometimes there are three cars parked so only one car is in use. And sometimes we will find all four cars parked, so on these occasions this family has no cars in use.

Now careful analysis of our time lapse photography will reveal that this family is, on average, making use of only only 1.8 cars. This means that on average 2.2 cars are parked and not in use. Yet this family is making payments on four cars, paying insurance and taxes on four cars, and experiencing depreciation on the value of four cars whether the cars are in use or not. And, this is without considering the expense of operating the cars. Since most modern humans solve all their problems as individuals, they have chosen the most expensive solution possible.

Now if we move our time lapse camera higher, we discovery that this same phenomenon is occurring at every home in the neighborhood. If we examine all the homes within just a few blocks we discover that there are always cars in the neighborhood that are not in use.

Now, as we continue to watch from above, we see that often times the members of this neighborhood are going to the same place. They all go to the same supermarket. They all rent from the same video store. They use the same post office and drug store. As we watch we discover that often one individual will make the same trip to the same place maybe only a few minutes earlier or later than a neighbor. Again, we see that solving our problems individually means that we have chosen the most expensive option. We are doing this because in our neutral culture we don´t even know our neighbors let alone what their transportation needs are.

Now, if we move our aerial time lapse camera high enough to see the entire community, we can now see the parking lots at stores, supermarkets, shopping centers, places of work and schools. And again at any one time most of the cars are parked.

We also discover that one individual living at the north edge of the community is driving to the south edge of the community to his work in a retail store, while another individual is passes him going in the opposite direction, this individual lives on the south edge of the community and is driving to work on the north edge of the community to a similar job. Of course neither individual knows the other, or even how similar and paradoxical their situation is.

We could also analyze these same neighborhoods and discover that each garage contains a lawn mower and numerous tools that are only being used once every two weeks and all of these tools are expensive and require maintenance. I would imagine that in the neighborhood I live in, that on any given moment, ninety five percent of the tools in our garages are not in use.

Individual Actions are Expensive

Our current reality requires that we meet our needs as individuals. This guarantees that we will pay the highest prices for the products and services we need, and with the greatest waste of time and energy.

In any average week, if we total the time and expense involved in making multiple trips to the grocery store, pharmacy, hardware store, nursery, dry cleaners, video shop, post office, etc. etc. etc…, remembering to include the cost of individual transportation with each of us acquiring, maintaining, insuring, and operating our own cars, it would be hard to imagine a system that could be more expensive and inconvenient than our present reality.

---

Co-OPERATION

While limited forms of cooperation are and have been used in the production of both products and services. Co-Operation is almost non-existent in product and service consumption. Almost all of us consume as individuals.

This has several effects. It insures that the prices we pay for products and services are much higher than they have to be. It further insures that the hidden costs we pay in time and expense related to simply acquiring needed products and services is also much higher.

Synergic relationship is the win-win relationship. We first discover synergic relationship in the microscopic universe. It is the basis of human cellular organization. Each of us has approximately 40 trillion cells organized within our bodies. These cells are related synergically, each acting in a highly co-Operative way.

Synergic relationship becomes available to human individuals because of our human intelligence. Our ability to invent and to understand new ways of doing things creates a new possibility for co-Operation which does not exist in the world of the plants and animals.

Co-OPERATION  -def-> Operating together to insure that both parties win and that neither party loses. The negotiation to insure that both parties are helped and that neither party is hurt.

Here are some examples of how co-Operative actions might be used in the future to reduce costs and increase efficiency.
 

Co-Operative Videotape Rentals

The provider of videotape rentals operates much as do all small stores in our communities. The provider must select those available tapes which he feels will be popular and then make them available for rental. He keeps his store open long hours for the convenience of his customers, which travel on a regular basis to pick-up and drop-off tapes. This of course, results in lots of travel time and expense for the consumer, and when the consumer fails to find time to view the tape before the rental period expires, they are charged significant late fees.

Now imagine this alternative scenario: Instead of going to the video store you connect to the store via a web page on the internet. The available video tapes are listed with images from the movies, a list of actors, and even reviews.  You select the tapes you want to rent. And they are delivered to your home.

You have a locked delivery box outside your home in which you can retrieve new tapes when you order, and return for pick up when you are finished.

Co-Operative Consumption means that in addition to this scale of convenience, the provider and consumer now have a synergic and intelligent relationship. Using the same internet web page technology, the provider would query their customers as to which of the new releases of tapes they would be interested in renting. These choices could again be provided to the customer along with images from the videos, lists of actors, and reviews.

You could select one of three choices: Yes, Maybe or No.

This information would allow the provider to order an appropriate number of new tapes to fill the expected needs of their customers. Also, if your choices were popular and these tapes would be viewed many times, you could realize a rental at much lower cost. But, if your selection was unpopular, i.e. you were the only one wanting to see a particular tape, then the cost of rental would rise to could equal the full cost of purchasing the tape itself.

This is what is meant by an intelligent relationship with the provider.

The implications of this alternative are great in reducing the cost of rentals, increasing the likelihood that those tapes you are interested in are available, and with all the loss in time and inconvenience, let alone cost of picking up and dropping off tapes eliminated.

If this becomes the primary mechanism of videotape rental, the provider can close the retail Video Store in the high rent district and operate out of a low cost warehouse with delivery vans reducing the costs even more. Now imagine, how this same process could be be applied to many other products or groups of products.  

Co-Operative Neighborhood Garages

Imagine purchasing a membership in a modern community garage within easy walking distance of your home. This garage could have a variety of automobiles that would be available for your use anytime day or night. The garage would be clean, well lighted, and safe. It would be staffed 24 hours a day, the automobiles would always be clean, serviced and full of gas.

Using either computer or telephone you could reserve a car for your own personal use. The garage could easily have many different types of vehicles available to serve your particular needs. You could reserve a station wagon, sports car, utility vehicle, or limousine. The garage could also run shuttle services to those destinations that were commonly and frequently requested.

The number of automobiles needed to meet the needs of the members co-Operatively would be much fewer than the number needed for the same members individually. Total costs would be much reduced and the secondary advantages would be tremendous.

On those occasions when all the cars happened to be in use, transportation needs could be supplemented by taxies or rental cars arranged by the garage.

What would the cost of such a service be. Well first, realize that ìattached garage” now a part of almost every home could be eliminated or turned into additional living space. Your cost of membership would be reflective of you use of automobiles. I would expect most families would experience major savings. Those very heavy needs for an automobile would find the costs to approach the same costs as owning their own automobile.

Now there is no reason the Co-Operative Garage should just offer automobiles. It could also provide garden tractors, lawn mowers, and tools of all kinds. The extent and value of co-Operative action is limited only by your imagination.

Co-Operative grocery shopping

Recently a new company has created a prototype for what I am recommending.

Peapod is an online virtual grocery store now available on the internet. You connect to a web page on the internet where you select and purchase items you would like delivered to your home. Peapod uses professional shoppers to go out to major supermarkets and drug stores in your community, and then delivers those items right to your door. Their supermarket partners include Jewel/Osco in Chicago, Kroger in Columbus, Randalls in Houston and Austin, Stop & Shop in Boston, Safeway in San Francisco, and Tom Thumb in Dallas. In Peapod´s own words:

You place the order …
And soon you´ll be cruising the aisles of our virtual store. Selecting from the most popular products and brands you would find if you shopped in the store yourself. You will have thousands of products to choose from, including meat, produce, drug store and specialty items.

We shop for you …
Your grocery order receives personal attention from Peapod´s professional shoppers. They make sure everything you ordered is exactly as you would expect–fresh, healthy, and temperature-controlled. At Peapod we pride ourselves on picking only the highest quality meat and produce available. In fact, we have trained Produce Specialists whose only job is to pick the highest quality produce available in the store.

We deliver your groceries when it´s convenient for you…
Peapod delivers groceries to your door any day of the week – you choose the delivery time that´s convenient for you. Peapod guarantees that your groceries will be there, and that you´ll receive friendly service every step of the way.

The same high quality groceries you would select yourself
  ïChoose from thousands of name brands – the same ones you buy at your
   local grocer and drugstore
  ïCertified professional shoppers shop for your order, including Produce
   Specialists who hand-pick only the best fruits and vegetables using Produce
   Marketing Association standards
  ïItems stay fresh (or frozen) with temperature controlled delivery containers

Convenient shopping, we guarantee it
  ïNo bad weather, no traffic, no parking, no lugging, no rushing, no stress
  ïOrder 24 hours a day, 365 days a year from anywhere
  ïPeapod promises to provide friendly and superior service to every one of its
   customers, and we guarantee every order we deliver

Never create a shopping list from scratch again
  ïYou can always review your last three grocery orders – we keep them for you
  ïCreate individual shopping lists to fit your unique household needs

You´ll never need to go to the grocery store again
  ïPeapod can take care of all your shopping needs so you never have to go to the grocery or drugstore
  ïOur professional shoppers and delivery people work together to ensure that
   your order is just what you want, when you want it

Shop for a week´s worth of groceries in about 20 minutes
  ïBrowse virtual aisles, just as you would in a conventional grocery store
  ïLocate a specific item or brand in seconds by using innovative features like
   “Find Item”

FDA nutritional information at your fingertips
  ïReview the FDA nutritional labels for thousands of items while you shop
  ïClick to sort lists of foods by criteria such as fat, cholesterol, sodium, Kosher, etc.

Choose a delivery time that is convenient for you
  ïNext-day delivery, in most cases
  ïArrange for delivery to your home, 7 days a week
  ïIf Peapod ever makes a mistake, we´ll make it right

Save money and time
  ïInstantly sort groups of items by unit price to get the best value
  ïRedeem paper, store circular, and electronic coupons
  ï Stay within budget – Peapod displays a running total of your order as you shop

Were here to help
  ïTrained Technical Support Specialists are there when you need them
  ïCustomer Care Specialists handle all customer service inquiries
  ïOne call does it all! 1-800-5-PEAPOD (1-800-573-2763), or e-mail us

You can experience Peapod for yourself. While the service is only available in few cities at this time. Now Peapod is an step in the right direction, but they are only going part of the way. They are just a typical business seeking to make money, but they have stumbled in the right direction. As their customer base stabilizes, they should soon be able to know exactly what their customers need and begin realizing more significant savings by purchasing scale. They could even dispense with the retail stores altogether and begin purchasing only wholesale. Most of these savings could be passed onto the consumers with the elimination of retail stores and expensive parking lots in high rent areas etc. etc. etc..

---

What is the size of your Biosphere?

Science defines the term biosphere as that environmental zone wherein a living organism can meet its needs and act to survive.

How large is your current biosphere?

How far do you have to travel to meet your needs. If you get out a map and place your home in the center and draw a circle with a radius large enough to enclose all of the stores and businesses you visit to meet your needs. This is your biosphere. The larger your biosphere the greater your expences in time and energy will be to meet your needs. 

If you are seeking to save time and energy, then reduce the size of your biosphere.

Co-Operative actions are powerful methods to reduce the size of your biosphere. The savings individually and collectively are enormous. This will quickly translate into a major increase in the quality of one´s life and with an enormous savings in time and energy.

Time is the most valuable commodity that any human being can have.

By this I mean time spend doing what you want do do. This does not include time spent working to accomplish the goals of others, nor time spent transporting yourself or your family, nor the time spent physically acquiring the products and services you need to survive and enjoy life.

Integrated Communities

Another prototype for future living that takes advantage of co-Operative actions is the emergence of integrated communities. Integrated communities defined as those unitary environments structured so that the residents there can live, work, and recreate in one safe and pleasant place with all activities within easy walking distance. Integrated communites will offer their residents the greatest savings of time and expense. As integrated communities becomes available, I predict they will be so attractive that humans will move almost anywhere to live in them.

---

Reposted from The New Farm.

---

Farming the Wind

Dan Sullivan

Barely above the tree line, this windmill is poorly sited and will suffer the effects of turbulence. A good rule of thumb for tower height is blade length, plus the height of the mature tree line, plus 30 feet. When it comes to evaluating whether wind-generated electricity makes sense for you and to selecting the best equipment for your particular application and site, a host of choices and variables are worth considering. Will the savings be worth the up-front investment? (Generally speaking, there is at least a break-even point compared to conventional electricity over the estimated 20-year lifetime of smaller-scale wind machinery. As you go bigger, the savings over conventional power can be substantial, and don´t forget the huge savings to the environment.) Should I go with new or remanufactured equipment? (If a quality rebuild from a reputable company is available to suit your needs, you will likely save a bundle). Should I choose a system with two rotor blades or three? Ah, that´s a very good question. The spin on rotor blades Remember wind towers are a 20 to 30 year race. The initial benefits of a 2-blade system are easily burnt by the long-term stress caused to the machine. Pictured, a 3-blade, 40 kW Enertech E44-40 sits atop a 100-foot free-standing tower. Wind power guru and Organic University instructor Mick Sagrillo minces no words when it comes to the question of rotor blades. ìStay away from two-bladed systems,” said the founder of Sagrillo Power and Light, a consulting firm specializing in home-sized wind-turbine technology and educational workshops. ìThey will literally tear your machine up.” By Sagrillo´s own admission, the advice is somewhat counterintuitive. Blades can account for up to 40 percent of the cost of an entire wind system, so two blades over three can offer significant savings. And two blades spin faster under the same wind than three, meaning increased rotor speed and more electricity produced as coils of wire inside a generator create an electronic pulse each time they spin through a magnetic field. But like a great vessel on high seas, a two-bladed system is prone to the effects of yaw–in this case the generator pivoting on its bearings as it tracks the wind– ìcausing enormous strain on the generator, the blades, the welds and the fasteners,” explained Sagrillo. While three blades results in some level of inertia, ìevery time you add a blade it causes a bit of turbulence for the one behind it,” said Sagrillo, the stops and starts, or blade chatter, that a two-blades system experiences as it tries to maintain its plane of rotation make it too prone to damage from stress. Preventative maintenance There´s no such thing as ìmaintenance-free; don´t let anyone tell you different,” Sagrillo told the class gathered for the prequel to the Upper Midwest Organic Farming Conference in La Crosse, Wisconsin. ìFor most wind turbines today, what maintenance involves is inspections.” Do you have the power? Good sources for learning the average wind speed of a given location include the National Weather Bureau and the Wind Energy Resource Atlas. In his 17 years installing and inspecting wind machinery, Sagrillo said, the most common breakdowns are a result of flagrant neglect, such as failing to tighten a loose bolt. ìNobody is on the tower for four, five, or six years and guess what?–the turbine explodes. A bolt loosens, a nut falls off, another bolt loosens, and pretty soon the blade is in the tower. You´ve got two or three thousand dollars damage, and it all could have been prevented by tightening a bolt. The life of the system is directly related to the involvement of the owner. You should be checking welds, fasteners, nuts and bolts, looking for cracksÖand if you find something wrong, take care of it.” Sagrillo also warned against going in for ìmaintenance free” gimmicks such as sealed bearings. ìSealed bearings are a sales pitch, he said. ìFrom a maintenance perspective, there´s nothing advantageous to them.” Evaluating your wind resources Mick Sagrillo, founder of Sagrillo Power and Light, teaches a course on wind energy at the Upper-Midwest organic conference in La Crosse, Wisc. Winter is the optimal time for wind power, Sagrillo said, because more molecules are present in the air. This, he said, is why you can expect to harness 13 percent more electricity from the wind in wintertime under the same wind speed and at the same location than at any other time of year. It´s also why wind power and solar power make such a great combination. ìThe sun picks up when there´s no wind around; they are remarkably complimentary, wind power and photovoltiacs.” (As well as temperature, Sagrillo said, altitude and humidity also affect the density of the air.) It is not uncommon for two relatively close spots to differ in average wind speed by a few miles per hour or more, Sagrillo said, adding that even a small increase makes a monumental difference in a location´s capacity for generating electricity. This, he said, is due to the formula P=1/2dAV3 (where P=power, D=density of the air, A=area, and V=windspeed). Because wind speed is cubed, Sagrillo said, even in incremental increase in wind velocity becomes hugely significant as far as capacity to generate power. (An increase from 8 to 10 miles, he said, can result in twice the power generated.) And the one way to increase wind speed at any given site is to go higher. Relative costs of wind energy systems* Make and model Capacity in watts Turbine cost Tower height/type/cost Inverter/ storage Bergey Windpower XL 1 1,000 (1kW) $1,890 NRG 84-foot tilt-up, $1,310 $3,500 Bergey Windpower Excel 10,000 (10kW) $13,500 120-foot guyed (lattice), $13,500 $9,400 Jacobs 31-20 20,000 (20kW) $19,000 120-foot free-standing, $19,00 $4,500 *Additional costs of installation, concrete and rebar, electrical work, shipping, and sales tax will vary. ìAs wind speed increases the amount of work that can be done increases as well,” Sagrillo said. ìAnd as you increase away from the surface of the earth, wind speed increases dramatically. That´s why wind farms are in the 200-foot range, and they´re going to be approaching 300. To illustrate the cost-effectiveness of going higher, Sagrillo calculated the cost of putting two small-scale electricity-generating windmills on 30-foot towers (around $63,000) versus setting up the same model windmill on a 120-foot tower ($36,000) in order to generate roughly the same amount of power. ìIf you want to increase your output, increase your height,” Sagrillo said. ìIt´s always, always, always cheaper, and the reason is that the fuel isn´t down low; it´s up high.” How high can you go? A tower can be anywhere from half to four times the cost of the rest of your system, Sagrillo said. ìWhat determines the tower height is the obstacles in your area.” ìThere are essentially two enemies to a wind generator. The first one is called ground drag, getting caught up in the earth´s zone of friction. You get into a laminar flow, just air over air, above the surface of the earth.” A 10 kW Bergey XL is supported by a cushy 122-foot guyed tower, easily outreaches the nearest obstacles. On this model the lattice work doubles as a ladder. Computer generated models help determine the wind resources at a specific site, Sagrillo said, and an investment in a professional wind audit is a sound idea before investing in a lot of expensive equipment and positioning it wrong. (Sagrillo himself teaches wind-assessor training for the Midwest Renewable Energy Association.) ìEverybody´s got solar, it´s a democratic renewable, but wind is very site-specific. The problem with wind, you hear, is that wind is very unreliable as opposed to solar or hydro. But it´s not about the reliability, it´s about the tangibles. In reality, we don´t know on a day-to-day basis what the wind is going to do, but we do know on a seasonal basis.” This, he suggested, makes wind every bit as reliable as solar. [Editor´s note: A recent AP story posted on the Environmental News Network http://www.enn.com/news/2004-04-28/s_23255.asp tells of a new project in Norway where a combination of wind turbines, hydrogen generators, and fuel cells produce clean electricity year-round.] ìThe other enemy of a wind generator is something called turbulence.” [Turbulence is a swirling agitation of the air as the wind hits a physical barrier such as a building, tree, or hill]. ìWe actually use turbulence to prevent some wind-blown problems,” Sagrillo said, giving the example of planting trees for windbreaks to prevent erosion and snowdrift. To keep turbulence from interfering with rotor performance, Sagrillo said, ìthe rule of thumb is that all three blades have got to be a minimum of 30 feet higher than anything within 500 feet, or 30 feet above the tree line, whichever is higher. ìAnd the thing you have to remember about trees is, they grow–towers don´t. So you´ll need to know the mature height of your trees in 20 to 30 years, the life of the wind system.” If the mature tree line is 60 feet and the blade length is 10 feet, that means a tower height of 100 feet minimum, Sagrillo said. ìBelow that you are going to have turbulence, and that turbulence is going to eat up your wind generator.” Sagrillo sketched a number of geographical scenarios to demonstrate how topography, prevailing winds, and accompanying turbulence might affect location. For a single hill rising from a plain he selected the peak as the optimum location and the base of the lee or downwind side (where turbulence would be greatest) as the worst. For a bluff facing prevailing winds, he suggested placing the tower at least 200 feet back from the ledge, just outside of the zone of turbulence. ìIt depends on the prevailing winds,” he said. ìYou want to know the prevailing winds and capitalize on them in fall, winter, and spring. You are looking for the most consistent winds.” (There are two exceptions to the fall, winter, and spring rule, Sagrillo said: the southeastern part of the United States and the far southwest, where wind can be a considerable resource in summer as well.) Tower of power ìThe three most common mistakes” when installing wind equipment, Sagrillo quipped, are ìtoo short a tower, too short a tower, and too short a tower.” A fan of the acrophobic the tilt-up tower collapses to repair. Pictured here, a 1kW Bergey xl1 on 80-foot tilt-up tower. Residential and small-farm-size towers come in three general types, he said, free-standing, guyed (supported with cables or guy wires), and ìsomewhere in between.” Free-standing towers typically have three legs (sometimes four), are purchased and assembled in 20-foot increments, and are supported by diagonal and horizontal latticework or trusses (and lots of concrete below). ìThis is the most expensive tower you can buy,” Sagrillo said. These towers taper up from the bottom; the lighter gauge construction material used, the more space the base of the tower will occupy. These towers also have ladders built into them so that the wind equipment can be accessed and serviced once it´s installed. New heavy duty towers, Sagrillo said, sell for about $80 a foot while used ones go for half that price or less. Used light duty towers cost about $15 to $25 per foot, he said, while new ones cost about twice as much. Guyed towers are considerably less expensive but also take up more space down below, Sagrillo said. They also weigh much less than a free-standing tower, he said, offering the example of a typical 10-foot section of a lattice-style guy tower weighing in at just 70 pounds. ìThe guy wires go out typically about 75 percent of the height,” Sagrillo said. (This compared to a typical light duty free-standing tower where the height-to-base ratio is 4 or 5 to 1 and a heavy duty free-standing tower where the base to height ratio is just 9 or 10 to 1. Guy wires attach to the pole at various incremental heights and go out to three equidistant points forming an equilateral triangle around the base of the tower. Guy towers also require the least amount of concrete, are easy to climb (if they are of the lattice type), and can be had (including all hardware) for about $15 a foot (new ones for two to three times that figure). The biggest drawback of guy towers besides space requirements (if that happens to be a factor), Sagrillo said, is that those available on the market today are only designed to handle up to about a 10kW system. The ìsomewhere in between” tower to which Sagrillo referred is a tilt-up tower–a good choice if you are somewhat acrophobic–typically costing somewhere in between the price of a free-standing and a guyed tower. ìThe advantage of a tilt-up tower is you don´t have to climb it,” he said. The trouble is, you can´t climb it, and breaking one down is no small task. ìNot being able to climb it can be a problem if you just want to check something,” Sagrillo conceded. Tilt-up towers are supported by guy-wires going off in four different directions (forming a square around the base rather than a triangle) and are typically raised and brought down with the help of a gin pole (a braced lifting arm) and a vehicle, Sagrillo said. To wrap up his lecture on tower types, Sagrillo laid out the costs of a typical 120-foot guyed tower ($6,800, plus another $1,000 for concrete and rebar), a 120-foot tilt-up tower ($8,500 to $9,000, plus $3,000 in concrete and rebar) and a 120-foot free-standing tower (around $19,000, plus an additional $5,000 to $6,000 for concrete and steel). (These are tower-only estimates.) Although the wind is a force for generating electricity, it´s also a force to be reckoned with. ìThe wind sees the tower as a lever,” Sagrillo said, reminding us of the familiar and relevant equation that work equals force times distance. ìThe wind sees an opportunity to knock that tower over; it´s trying to knock it over, and it´s trying to pull that concrete out of the ground.” ©2004 The Rodale Institute

---

Dan Sullivan is senior editor at The New Farm. Mick Sagrillo is owner of Sagrillo Power and light, a Wisconsin-based consulting firm specializing in home-sized wind-turbine technology and educational workshops.

 

This morning’s author writes: In 1980, when I was twelve years old, R. Buckminster Fuller spent two days explaining his perception of reality to me and two other kids for Richard Brenneman´s book, Fuller´s Earth: A Day With Bucky And The Kids. Bucky found us deeply programmed and conditioned by society.  He wanted to pursue the origins of specialization into deep history, hoping thereby to correct or eliminate our ìnormal” concepts.  Bucky stated that misconceptions were intentionally perpetuated as a form of control over the masses.  That it is naÔve to think that certain misconceptions have not been intentionally held in place by local governments. This think piece, The Great Pirates, is an attempt to pass along a little of what he gave me. 

---

 

The Great Pirates

Ben Mack

Author’s Note: Thank you for consuming this Think Piece.  Now, think peace. For a Fuller version of this story, please see Operating Manual Spaceship Earth. … You can write Ben Mack at: [bengsmack(AT)hotmail.com]

---

You can also read Buckminster Fuller’s Legally Piggily, a story of modern humanity, written in 1981: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6. … See Part 2 for a discussion of pirates.

Reposted From The Wilderness.

---

 

Eating Fossil Fuels

Dale Allen Pfeiffer

Human beings (like all other animals) draw their energy from the food they eat. Until the last century, all of the food energy available on this planet was derived from the sun through photosynthesis. Either you ate plants or you ate animals that fed on plants, but the energy in your food was ultimately derived from the sun.

It would have been absurd to think that we would one day run out of sunshine. No, sunshine was an abundant, renewable resource, and the process of photosynthesis fed all life on this planet. It also set a limit on the amount of food that could be generated at any one time, and therefore placed a limit upon population growth. Solar energy has a limited rate of flow into this planet. To increase your food production, you had to increase the acreage under cultivation, and displace your competitors. There was no other way to increase the amount of energy available for food production. Human population grew by displacing everything else and appropriating more and more of the available solar energy.

The need to expand agricultural production was one of the motive causes behind most of the wars in recorded history, along with expansion of the energy base (and agricultural production is truly an essential portion of the energy base). And when Europeans could no longer expand cultivation, they began the task of conquering the world. Explorers were followed by conquistadors and traders and settlers. The declared reasons for expansion may have been trade, avarice, empire or simply curiosity, but at its base, it was all about the expansion of agricultural productivity. Wherever explorers and conquistadors traveled, they may have carried off loot, but they left plantations. And settlers toiled to clear land and establish their own homestead. This conquest and expansion went on until there was no place left for further expansion. Certainly, to this day, landowners and farmers fight to claim still more land for agricultural productivity, but they are fighting over crumbs. Today, virtually all of the productive land on this planet is being exploited by agriculture. What remains unused is too steep, too wet, too dry or lacking in soil nutrients.¹

Just when agricultural output could expand no more by increasing acreage, new innovations made possible a more thorough exploitation of the acreage already available. The process of ìpest” displacement and appropriation for agriculture accelerated with the industrial revolution as the mechanization of agriculture hastened the clearing and tilling of land and augmented the amount of farmland which could be tended by one person. With every increase in food production, the human population grew apace.

At present, nearly 40% of all land-based photosynthetic capability has been appropriated by human beings.² In the United States we divert more than half of the energy captured by photosynthesis.³ We have taken over all the prime real estate on this planet. The rest of nature is forced to make due with what is left. Plainly, this is one of the major factors in species extinctions and in ecosystem stress.

The Green Revolution

In the 1950s and 1960s, agriculture underwent a drastic transformation commonly referred to as the Green Revolution. The Green Revolution resulted in the industrialization of agriculture. Part of the advance resulted from new hybrid food plants, leading to more productive food crops. Between 1950 and 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture around the globe, world grain production increased by 250%.⁴ That is a tremendous increase in the amount of food energy available for human consumption. This additional energy did not come from an increase in incipient sunlight, nor did it result from introducing agriculture to new vistas of land. The energy for the Green Revolution was provided by fossil fuels in the form of fertilizers (natural gas), pesticides (oil), and hydrocarbon fueled irrigation.

The Green Revolution increased the energy flow to agriculture by an average of 50 times the energy input of traditional agriculture.⁵ In the most extreme cases, energy consumption by agriculture has increased 100 fold or more.⁶

In the United States, 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually to feed each American (as of data provided in 1994).⁷ Agricultural energy consumption is broken down as follows:

Σ        31% for the manufacture of inorganic fertilizer

Σ        19% for the operation of field machinery

Σ        16% for transportation

Σ        13% for irrigation

Σ        08% for raising livestock (not including livestock feed)

Σ        05% for crop drying

Σ        05% for pesticide production

Σ        08% miscellaneous⁸

Energy costs for packaging, refrigeration, transportation to retail outlets, and household cooking are not considered in these figures.

To give the reader an idea of the energy intensiveness of modern agriculture, production of one kilogram of nitrogen for fertilizer requires the energy equivalent of from 1.4 to 1.8 liters of diesel fuel. This is not considering the natural gas feedstock.⁹ According to The Fertilizer Institute (http://www.tfi.org), in the year from June 30 2001 until June 30 2002 the United States used 12,009,300 short tons of nitrogen fertilizer.¹⁰ Using the low figure of 1.4 liters diesel equivalent per kilogram of nitrogen, this equates to the energy content of 15.3 billion liters of diesel fuel, or 96.2 million barrels.

 Of course, this is only a rough comparison to aid comprehension of the energy requirements for modern agriculture.

In a very real sense, we are literally eating fossil fuels. However, due to the laws of thermodynamics, there is not a direct correspondence between energy inflow and outflow in agriculture. Along the way, there is a marked energy loss. Between 1945 and 1994, energy input to agriculture increased 4-fold while crop yields only increased 3-fold.¹¹ Since then, energy input has continued to increase without a corresponding increase in crop yield. We have reached the point of marginal returns. Yet, due to soil degradation, increased demands of pest management and increasing energy costs for irrigation (all of which is examined below), modern agriculture must continue increasing its energy expenditures simply to maintain current crop yields. The Green Revolution is becoming bankrupt.

Fossil Fuel Costs

Solar energy is a renewable resource limited only by the inflow rate from the sun to the earth. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, are a stock-type resource that can be exploited at a nearly limitless rate. However, on a human timescale, fossil fuels are nonrenewable. They represent a planetary energy deposit which we can draw from at any rate we wish, but which will eventually be exhausted without renewal. The Green Revolution tapped into this energy deposit and used it to increase agricultural production.

Total fossil fuel use in the United States has increased 20-fold in the last 4 decades. In the US, we consume 20 to 30 times more fossil fuel energy per capita than people in developing nations.Agriculture directly accounts for 17% of all the energy used in this country.¹² As of 1990, we were using approximately 1,000 liters (6.41 barrels) of oil to produce food of one hectare of land.¹³

In 1994, David Pimentel and Mario Giampietro estimated the output/input ratio of agriculture to be around 1.4.¹⁴ For 0.7 Kilogram-Calories (kcal) of fossil energy consumed, U.S. agriculture produced 1 kcal of food. The input figure for this ratio was based on FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN) statistics, which consider only fertilizers (without including fertilizer feedstock), irrigation, pesticides (without including pesticide feedstock), and machinery and fuel for field operations. Other agricultural energy inputs not considered were energy and machinery for drying crops, transportation for inputs and outputs to and from the farm, electricity, and construction and maintenance of farm buildings and infrastructures. Adding in estimates for these energy costs brought the input/output energy ratio down to 1.¹⁵ Yet this does not include the energy expense of packaging, delivery to retail outlets, refrigeration or household cooking.

In a subsequent study completed later that same year (1994), Giampietro and Pimentel managed to derive a more accurate ratio of the net fossil fuel energy ratio of agriculture.¹⁶ In this study, the authors defined two separate forms of energy input: Endosomatic energy and Exosomatic energy. Endosomatic energy is generated through the metabolic transformation of food energy into muscle energy in the human body. Exosomatic energy is generated by transforming energy outside of the human body, such as burning gasoline in a tractor. This assessment allowed the authors to look at fossil fuel input alone and in ratio to other inputs.

Prior to the industrial revolution, virtually 100% of both endosomatic and exosomatic energy was solar driven. Fossil fuels now represent 90% of the exosomatic energy used in the United States and other developed countries.¹⁷ The typical exo/endo ratio of pre-industrial, solar powered societies is about 4 to 1. The ratio has changed tenfold in developed countries, climbing to 40 to 1. And in the United States it is more than 90 to 1.¹⁸ The nature of the way we use endosomatic energy has changed as well.

The vast majority of endosomatic energy is no longer expended to deliver power for direct economic processes. Now the majority of endosomatic energy is utilized to generate the flow of information directing the flow of exosomatic energy driving machines. Considering the 90/1 exo/endo ratio in the United States, each endosomatic kcal of energy expended in the US induces the circulation of 90 kcal of exosomatic energy. As an example, a small gasoline engine can convert the 38,000 kcal in one gallon of gasoline into 8.8 KWh (Kilowatt hours), which equates to about 3 weeks of work for one human being.¹⁹

In their refined study, Giampietro and Pimentel found that 10 kcal of exosomatic energy are required to produce 1 kcal of food delivered to the consumer in the U.S. food system. This includes packaging and all delivery expenses, but excludes household cooking).²⁰ The U.S. food system consumes ten times more energy than it produces in food energy. This disparity is made possible by nonrenewable fossil fuel stocks.

Assuming a figure of 2,500 kcal per capita for the daily diet in the United States, the 10/1 ratio translates into a cost of 35,000 kcal of exosomatic energy per capita each day. However, considering that the average return on one hour of endosomatic labor in the U.S. is about 100,000 kcal of exosomatic energy, the flow of exosomatic energy required to supply the daily diet is achieved in only 20 minutes of labor in our current system. Unfortunately, if you remove fossil fuels from the equation, the daily diet will require 111 hours of endosomatic labor per capita; that is, the current U.S. daily diet would require nearly three weeks of labor per capita to produce.

Quite plainly, as fossil fuel production begins to decline within the next decade, there will be less energy available for the production of food.

Soil, Cropland and Water

Modern intensive agriculture is unsustainable. Technologically-enhanced agriculture has augmented soil erosion, polluted and overdrawn groundwater and surface water, and even (largely due to increased pesticide use) caused serious public health and environmental problems. Soil erosion, overtaxed cropland and water resource overdraft in turn lead to even greater use of fossil fuels and hydrocarbon products. More hydrocarbon-based fertilizers must be applied, along with more pesticides; irrigation water requires more energy to pump; and fossil fuels are used to process polluted water.

It takes 500 years to replace 1 inch of topsoil.²¹ In a natural environment, topsoil is built up by decaying plant matter and weathering rock, and it is protected from erosion by growing plants. In soil made susceptible by agriculture, erosion is reducing productivity up to 65% each year.²² Former prairie lands, which constitute the bread basket of the United States, have lost one half of their topsoil after farming for about 100 years. This soil is eroding 30 times faster than the natural formation rate.²³ Food crops are much hungrier than the natural grasses that once covered the Great Plains. As a result, the remaining topsoil is increasingly depleted of nutrients. Soil erosion and mineral depletion removes about $20 billion worth of plant nutrients from U.S. agricultural soils every year.²⁴ Much of the soil in the Great Plains is little more than a sponge into which we must pour hydrocarbon-based fertilizers in order to produce crops.

Every year in the U.S., more than 2 million acres of cropland are lost to erosion, salinization and water logging. On top of this, urbanization, road building, and industry claim another 1 million acres annually from farmland.²⁴ Approximately three-quarters of the land area in the United States is devoted to agriculture and commercial forestry.²⁵ The expanding human population is putting increasing pressure on land availability. Incidentally, only a small portion of U.S. land area remains available for the solar energy technologies necessary to support a solar energy-based economy. The land area for harvesting biomass is likewise limited. For this reason, the development of solar energy or biomass must be at the expense of agriculture.

Modern agriculture also places a strain on our water resources. Agriculture consumes fully 85% of all U.S. freshwater resources.²⁶ Overdraft is occurring from many surface water resources, especially in the west and south. The typical example is the Colorado River, which is diverted to a trickle by the time it reaches the Pacific. Yet surface water only supplies 60% of the water used in irrigation. The remainder, and in some places the majority of water for irrigation, comes from ground water aquifers. Ground water is recharged slowly by the percolation of rainwater through the earth’s crust. Less than 0.1% of the stored ground water mined annually is replaced by rainfall.²⁷ The great Ogallala aquifer that supplies agriculture, industry and home use in much of the southern and central plains states has an annual overdraft up to 160% above its recharge rate. The Ogallala aquifer will become unproductive in a matter of decades.²⁸

We can illustrate the demand that modern agriculture places on water resources by looking at a farmland producing corn. A corn crop that produces 118 bushels/acre/year requires more than 500,000 gallons/acre of water during the growing season. The production of 1 pound of maize requires 1,400 pounds (or 175 gallons) of water.²⁹ Unless something is done to lower these consumption rates, modern agriculture will help to propel the United States into a water crisis.

In the last two decades, the use of hydrocarbon-based pesticides in the U.S. has increased 33-fold, yet each year we lose more crops to pests.³⁰ This is the result of the abandonment of traditional crop rotation practices. Nearly 50% of U.S. corn land is grown continuously as a monoculture.³¹ This results in an increase in corn pests, which in turn requires the use of more pesticides. Pesticide use on corn crops had increased 1,000-fold even before the introduction of genetically engineered, pesticide resistant corn. However, corn losses have still risen 4-fold.³²

Modern intensive agriculture is unsustainable. It is damaging the land, draining water supplies and polluting the environment. And all of this requires more and more fossil fuel input to pump irrigation water, to replace nutrients, to provide pest protection, to remediate the environment and simply to hold crop production at a constant. Yet this necessary fossil fuel input is going to crash headlong into declining fossil fuel production.

US Consumption

In the United States, each person consumes an average of 2,175 pounds of food per person per year. This provides the U.S. consumer with an average daily energy intake of 3,600 Calories. The world average is 2,700 Calories per day.³³ Fully 19% of the U.S. caloric intake comes from fast food. Fast food accounts for 34% of the total food consumption for the average U.S. citizen. The average citizen dines out for one meal out of four.³⁴

One third of the caloric intake of the average American comes from animal sources (including dairy products), totaling 800 pounds per person per year. This diet means that U.S. citizens derive 40% of their calories from fat-nearly half of their diet. ³⁵

Americans are also grand consumers of water. As of one decade ago, Americans were consuming 1,450 gallons/day/capita (g/d/c), with the largest amount expended on agriculture. Allowing for projected population increase, consumption by 2050 is projected at 700 g/d/c, which hydrologists consider to be minimal for human needs.³⁶ This is without taking into consideration declining fossil fuel production.

To provide all of this food requires the application of 0.6 million metric tons of pesticides in North America per year. This is over one fifth of the total annual world pesticide use, estimated at 2.5 million tons.³⁷ Worldwide, more nitrogen fertilizer is used per year than can be supplied through natural sources. Likewise, water is pumped out of underground aquifers at a much higher rate than it is recharged. And stocks of important minerals, such as phosphorus and potassium, are quickly approaching exhaustion.³⁸

Total U.S. energy consumption is more than three times the amount of solar energy harvested as crop and forest products. The United States consumes 40% more energy annually than the total amount of solar energy captured yearly by all U.S. plant biomass. Per capita use of fossil energy in North America is five times the world average.³⁹

Our prosperity is built on the principal of exhausting the world’s resources as quickly as possible, without any thought to our neighbors, all the other life on this planet, or our children.

Population & Sustainability

Considering a growth rate of 1.1% per year, the U.S. population is projected to double by 2050. As the population expands, an estimated one acre of land will be lost for every person added to the U.S. population. Currently, there are 1.8 acres of farmland available to grow food for each U.S. citizen. By 2050, this will decrease to 0.6 acres. 1.2 acres per person is required in order to maintain current dietary standards.⁴⁰

Presently, only two nations on the planet are major exporters of grain: the United States and Canada.⁴¹ By 2025, it is expected that the U.S. will cease to be a food exporter due to domestic demand. The impact on the U.S. economy could be devastating, as food exports earn $40 billion for the U.S. annually. More importantly, millions of people around the world could starve to death without U.S. food exports.⁴²

Domestically, 34.6 million people are living in poverty as of 2002 census data.⁴³ And this number is continuing to grow at an alarming rate. Too many of these people do not have a sufficient diet. As the situation worsens, this number will increase and the United States will witness growing numbers of starvation fatalities.

There are some things that we can do to at least alleviate this tragedy. It is suggested that streamlining agriculture to get rid of losses, waste and mismanagement might cut the energy inputs for food production by up to one-half.³⁵ In place of fossil fuel-based fertilizers, we could utilize livestock manures that are now wasted. It is estimated that livestock manures contain 5 times the amount of fertilizer currently used each year.³⁶ Perhaps most effective would be to eliminate meat from our diet altogether.³⁷

Mario Giampietro and David Pimentel postulate that a sustainable food system is possible only if four conditions are met:

1.   Environmentally sound agricultural technologies must be implemented.

2.   Renewable energy technologies must be put into place.

3.   Major increases in energy efficiency must reduce exosomatic energy consumption per capita.

4.   Population size and consumption must be compatible with maintaining the stability of environmental processes.³⁸

Providing that the first three conditions are met, with a reduction to less than half of the exosomatic energy consumption per capita, the authors place the maximum population for a sustainable economy at 200 million.³⁹ Several other studies have produced figures within this ballpark (Energy and Population, Werbos, Paul J. http://www.dieoff.com/page63.htm; Impact of Population Growth on Food Supplies and Environment, Pimentel, David, et al. http://www.dieoff.com/page57.htm).

Given that the current U.S. population is in excess of 292 million, ⁴⁰ that would mean a reduction of 92 million. To achieve a sustainable economy and avert disaster, the United States must reduce its population by at least one-third. The black plague during the 14^th Century claimed approximately one-third of the European population (and more than half of the Asian and Indian populations), plunging the continent into a darkness from which it took them nearly two centuries to emerge.⁴¹

None of this research considers the impact of declining fossil fuel production. The authors of all of these studies believe that the mentioned agricultural crisis will only begin to impact us after 2020, and will not become critical until 2050. The current peaking of global oil production (and subsequent decline of production), along with the peak of North American natural gas production will very likely precipitate this agricultural crisis much sooner than expected. Quite possibly, a U.S. population reduction of one-third will not be effective for sustainability; the necessary reduction might be in excess of one-half. And, for sustainability, global population will have to be reduced from the current 6.32 billion people⁴² to 2 billion-a reduction of 68% or over two-thirds. The end of this decade could see spiraling food prices without relief. And the coming decade could see massive starvation on a global level such as never experienced before by the human race.

Three Choices

Considering the utter necessity of population reduction, there are three obvious choices awaiting us.

We can-as a society-become aware of our dilemma and consciously make the choice not to add more people to our population. This would be the most welcome of our three options, to choose consciously and with free will to responsibly lower our population. However, this flies in the face of our biological imperative to procreate. It is further complicated by the ability of modern medicine to extend our longevity, and by the refusal of the Religious Right to consider issues of population management. And then, there is a strong business lobby to maintain a high immigration rate in order to hold down the cost of labor. Though this is probably our best choice, it is the option least likely to be chosen.

Failing to responsibly lower our population, we can force population cuts through government regulations. Is there any need to mention how distasteful this option would be? How many of us would choose to live in a world of forced sterilization and population quotas enforced under penalty of law? How easily might this lead to a culling of the population utilizing principles of eugenics?

This leaves the third choice, which itself presents an unspeakable picture of suffering and death. Should we fail to acknowledge this coming crisis and determine to deal with it, we will be faced with a die-off from which civilization may very possibly never revive. We will very likely lose more than the numbers necessary for sustainability. Under a die-off scenario, conditions will deteriorate so badly that the surviving human population would be a negligible fraction of the present population. And those survivors would suffer from the trauma of living through the death of their civilization, their neighbors, their friends and their families. Those survivors will have seen their world crushed into nothing.

The questions we must ask ourselves now are, how can we allow this to happen, and what can we do to prevent it? Does our present lifestyle mean so much to us that we would subject ourselves and our children to this fast approaching tragedy simply for a few more years of conspicuous consumption?

Author’s Note

This is possibly the most important article I have written to date. It is certainly the most frightening, and the conclusion is the bleakest I have ever penned. This article is likely to greatly disturb the reader; it has certainly disturbed me. However, it is important for our future that this paper should be read, acknowledged and discussed.

I am by nature positive and optimistic. In spite of this article, I continue to believe that we can find a positive solution to the multiple crises bearing down upon us. Though this article may provoke a flood of hate mail, it is simply a factual report of data and the obvious conclusions that follow from it.

 

---

 

ENDNOTES

¹ Availability of agricultural land for crop and livestock production, Buringh, P. Food and Natural Resources, Pimentel. D. and Hall. C.W. (eds), Academic Press, 1989.

² Human appropriation of the products of photosynthesis, Vitousek, P.M. et al. Bioscience 36, 1986. http://www.science.duq.edu/esm/unit2-3

³ Land, Energy and Water: the constraints governing Ideal US Population Size, Pimental, David and Pimentel, Marcia. Focus, Spring 1991. NPG Forum, 1990. http://www.dieoff.com/page136.htm

⁴ Constraints on the Expansion of Global Food Supply, Kindell, Henry H. and Pimentel, David. Ambio Vol. 23 No. 3, May 1994. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. http://www.dieoff.com/page36htm

⁵ The Tightening Conflict: Population, Energy Use, and the Ecology of Agriculture, Giampietro, Mario and Pimentel, David, 1994. http://www.dieoff.com/page69.htm

⁶ Op. Cit. See note 4.

⁷ Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy, Pimentel, David and Giampietro, Mario. Carrying Capacity Network, 11/21/1994. http://www.dieoff.com/page55.htm

⁸ Comparison of energy inputs for inorganic fertilizer and manure based corn production, McLaughlin, N.B., et al. Canadian Agricultural Engineering, Vol. 42, No. 1, 2000.

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ US Fertilizer Use Statistics. http://www.tfi.org/Statistics/USfertuse2.asp

¹¹ Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy, Executive Summary, Pimentel, David and Giampietro, Mario. Carrying Capacity Network, 11/21/1994. http://www.dieoff.com/page40.htm

¹² Ibid.

¹³ Op. Cit.  See note 3.

¹⁴ Op. Cit.  See note 7.

¹⁵ Ibid.

¹⁶ Op. Cit. See note 5.

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ Ibid.

²⁰ Ibid.

²¹ Op. Cit. See note 11.

²² Ibid.

²³ Ibid.

²⁴ Ibid.

²⁴ Ibid.

²⁵ Op Cit. See note 3.

²⁶ Op Cit. See note 11.

²⁷ Ibid.

²⁸ Ibid.

²⁹ Ibid.

³⁰ Op. Cit. See note 3.

³¹ Op. Cit. See note 5.

³² Op. Cit. See note 3.

³³ Op. Cit. See note 11.

³⁴ Food Consumption and Access, Lynn Brantley, et al. Capital Area Food Bank, 6/1/2001.  http://www.clagettfarm.org/purchasing.html

³⁵ Op. Cit. See note 11.

³⁶ Ibid.

³⁷ Op. Cit. See note 5.

³⁸ Ibid.

³⁹ Ibid.

⁴⁰ Op. Cit. See note 11.

⁴¹ Op. Cit. See note 4.

⁴² Op. Cit. See note 11.

⁴³ Poverty 2002. The U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty02/pov02hi.html

³⁵ Op. Cit. See note 3.

³⁶ Ibid.

³⁷ Diet for a Small Planet, LappÈ, Frances Moore. Ballantine Books, 1971-revised 1991. http://www.dietforasmallplanet.com/

³⁸ Op. Cit. See note 5.

³⁹ Ibid.

⁴⁰ U.S. and World Population Clocks.  U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

⁴¹ A Distant Mirror, Tuckman Barbara. Ballantine Books, 1978.

⁴² Op. Cit. See note 40.

Reposted from The Yellow Times.

---

 

Time for Americans to Wake Up

John Brand, D.Min., J.D.

President Bush keeps saying over and over again that he wants to export American democracy to Iraq. But how can you export something that you do not have? Or, at least, how can you export something that you are in the process of destroying on a daily basis?

If the Patriot Act is an example of democracy, then the activities of the Secret Police of the Nazis and the Communists were supreme examples of constitutional government in action.

If the cabal of government, big business, and religious fundamentalism are an expression of the hopes of the Founding Fathers, then mediaeval feudalism is an excellent case history of democracy.

If secret meetings among top government officials reflect a government of a free society, then the Star Chamber Courts of James I and Charles I are a fine examples of democracy.

On January 6, 1941, President Roosevelt in his message to Congress announced that “In future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.” He listed 1. Freedom of Speech, 2. Freedom of Worship, 3. Freedom from Want and 4. Freedom from Fear as the four cornerstones upon which the world’s hopes should be built.

The latter two freedoms are not specifically mentioned in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. But they are goals of a society that in the Preamble to the Constitution declared “the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect unionÖestablish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfareÖdo ordain this ConstitutionÖ”

If these four freedoms represent the goals of a democratic society, it will not be long before the collective goose of the world will be cooked. The present administration disregards each one of these four prescriptions for a world of freedom and peace.

1. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are simply two sides of the same coin. On more than one occasion, the President’s representatives have firmly stated that to disagree with our Chief Executive Officer indicates a lack of patriotism. If such expressions represent the President’s beliefs, then he has no right to speak of constitutional governance.

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black quoted in “The New Republic,” July 2, 1945, said, “The constitutional guarantee of a free press rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public, that a free press is a condition of a free societyÖ

“Freedom to publish means freedom for all and not for some. Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to continue to prevent others from publishing is not.”

Is it not interesting that the President wants to bring democracy to Iraq but our provisional government denied free speech to an opposition newspaper? This is a throwback to the papal right prohibiting publication of books that do not meet party standards. Is not such action a return to the mentality of the Dark Age?

Iraq has had that sort of censorship under Saddam. What is it we are exporting? Is it not fair to ask that perchance we are importing Saddam’s repression of free speech into the U.S.?

2. Freedom of Worship is guaranteed in the First Amendment. Yet is has taken on a strange turn in recent years. Jefferson in a 1813 letter to Baron von Humboldt wrote, “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”

In a letter to C. Clay in 1816, Jefferson remarked, “This loathsome combination of Church and State.” Thomas Paine in “The Age of Reason” wrote, “The adulterous connection of church and stateÖ.”

The present administration embraces the politics of religious fundamentalism. The big issue revolves around abortion. By some legalistic contortion, derived from religious convictions rather than law, Supreme Court justices ruled that a fetus is a human being. The scriptural basis for such thinking is found in Jeremiah 1:5. God said, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.” Nowhere, except in religious dogma, do we find any support for the idea that a fetus unable to sustain itself outside the womb is a living human.

There is nothing in the Constitution requiring anyone to accept the Bible as an absolute statement issued by an assumed perfect God. The Constitution does not force anyone to surrender a religious conviction even if it is based on pure bias, myth, or ignorance. However, it does not grant anyone the right to impose her or his conviction on anyone else.

Some profoundly religious people do not subscribe to Jeremiah’s assumption. There is no right to impose any tenet of faith on anyone else. Fundamentalists sneak in through the back door, claiming that abortion is the equivalent of murder. The state has the right to prevent murder – not on religious grounds – but solely for the benefit of the welfare and the peace of the state. By declaring the fetus a human being, fundamentalists attempt to make the state an enforcer of a religious view.

But when does a zygote – a fertilized egg – become a human being? The developing embryo passes through stages reflecting our evolutionary ancestry. In the fish stage, the embryo actually has gill slits. The brain of the developing organism forms from the inside out. It first forms the neural chassis, then the basal ganglia (the reptilian brain), then the limbic system (the pale mammalian brain), and finally the neocortex (the neomammalian brain).

Now, I am sure Jeremiah knew nothing of that. So assuming that God really spoke to the prophet, the former did not want to befuddle the old seer with 20th Century knowledge. Giving expression to a religious conviction, Jeremiah just assumed that God told him while he was still in his mama’s womb that God knew who he was – gill slits and all.

If some folks nowadays want to assume that belief, that is fine. The Constitution gives anyone the right to spurn modern science and to remain in a state of ignorance. But the Constitution does not grant the right to impose mythological assumption on anyone else! Legal imposition of religious doctrines is a dogmatism no different from a dictator’s fiat that one and all must subscribe to the party line – right, wrong, or indifferent.

I fear that the President in siding with religious fundamentalists has forgotten his oath to uphold the Constitution. Neither the President, nor the Pope, nor Pat Robertson has the right to inflict his dogmatic religious convictions on others.

If that is what the President is seeking to export to Iraq, they already have that kind of stuff.

3. While not in the Constitution, freedom from want is certainly a goal in keeping with the Preamble’s intent to “promote the general welfare.” You can’t promote the general welfare when over 40 million Americans do not have health insurance. You certainly can’t “insure domestic tranquility” when your major goal is to cut taxes and thereby undercut and destroy the infrastructure that is the life of any culture.

You can’t promote freedom from want when the government spends money like a bunch of drunken sailors to benefit the favorite few. Present monetary policy favors the in-crowd but leaves millions upon millions facing declining pensions, declining Social Security, and a Medicare system that will soon be in shambles.

I am sure the Iraqis do not need to have that sort of stuff imported. Under Saddam, the few wealthy became even wealthier and the rest just grub for a living. America’s fiscal policies do not promote the Constitution’s goal to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquilityÖpromote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.”

What present policies do is to establish a feudal system in which the rich think of themselves as lords and the rest of the folks are serfs. The idea of the divine right of kings went out the front door a long time ago. But it seems the concept has sneaked in by the back door in the last few years.

Iraq already had that during Saddam’s reign.

4. President Roosevelt’s “Grand Design” includes freedom from fear. I started to express my fears about the authority of the 130,000 people who are on the Homeland Security Force. What are the functions of these employees? In a country kept in fear with continuous rainbow alerts, how well are these troops being trained to protect us from terror while also maintaining our civil liberties? Where are they being trained? Who does the training? What are their qualifications?

I started to think about fears created by the covert operations of the CIA that seemingly always aligns itself with dictators and suppresses the welfare of the masses.

But just then my wife came into my office and called my attention to a website about the Medicare-Approved Drug Discount Cards. I went to that site, downloaded four pages that told me next to nothing. Then I clicked on another reference which was about 36 pages long. After reading that gobbledygook I am more afraid of a Congress that passed such a law and the bureaucrats who will implement it. If that is looking out for the “general welfare” of the people, then we are in bad shape indeed. About all it does is give folks on Medicare a mere lick of the lollypop while the private insurance companies and pharmaceutical manufacturers get to swallow the whole thing.

Thinking about it, I am more afraid of senators who pass legislation to finance the building of an artificial rain forest, a local museum, battleships the Navy does not want, and who pork-barrel our limited funds to death.

I am afraid of the deceit, the mendacity, the unfairness which our government is palming off on us. We don’t need that kind of stuff and I am sure the Iraqis will say, “No, thanks. We have already been there and done that.” If that represents constitutional democracy, we are in bad shape indeed.

What is it we are importing to Iraq? Maybe the better question is, “What is Saddam importing to us?”