Frontlines of Permaculture

This is not the frontline I want to be on.

I do not want to live where gunmen kill, and fleeing authorities, slam through busy intersections killing more people.

I do not want to hear sirens passing, heralding another violent tragedy.

I do not want a helicopter bristling machine guns circling a point just a few blocks from my home, pounding away the peace of twilight with its thwop-thwop-thwop and pushing back the night with its searchlight.

I want to live at the frontline of unmaking the system that has institutionalized classism, ableism, sexism, globalism, and whatever "ism" stands in the way of people treating each other humanely. I want to live at the frontline of spreading seeds of future greatness, of future opportunity, of future abundance. I do not want to live at the frontline of this urban violence.

And yet, I do live here.

People are dying by violence in Pakistan, in Gaza, in Darfur, in Sri Lanka... and in Berkeley and Oakland. Caitlan notes the irony of requiring an illiterate parolee to fill out and mail a postcard to the parole officer who tracks addresses; Betsy notes the lack of choices available to low-wage earning parents with children enrolled in public schools that are failing under the "No Child Left Behind" program; my black neighbor struggles to distance himself from the black thug that sometimes roams our street, to create for himself a future where "black" does not equal "criminal."

In permaculture, there is no away. You cannot throw trash away, because the whole world is your backyard. I submit that in urban permaculture, we are all on the frontline. There is no place you can "escape" to, because the problems are all around us. The problems belong to all of us.

We've made our street safer, through diligence and connecting with neighbors who value working together, through parties and food and sitting in each other's yards. Prejudice is not vanquished, but there is grace and tolerance here. We have yet to take on a larger task, such as ensuring children in the area get access to fresh produce, or that parents in the area have energy left to attend parent's night at school after an emotionally wearying workday. Were I to live in a place removed from violence, would I be safer? Or simply less at risk? What use is my mortal life if I've forsaken the task and destiny of my immortal soul? Am I allowed to risk my children? What choice does a parent in a refugee camp have? What choice do I have? What is my choice?

I'll choose to see that I am at the frontline. Of Oakland violence. Of Sri Lankan violence. There is no away. There is no shirking from choosing to help. This permaculture, intentional community, food justice and opportunity for all demonstration project that I am part of, is what I am doing and will continue to do. It's small. It's slow. But it is change.

Small. Slow.

Change.

Space-Based Solar Power

PG&E has agreed to buy electricity from start-up Solaren. PG&E buys electricity from many sources. What's new here, is that Solaren plans to build their facility in orbit.

When Elon Musk got into solar cells, and electric cars, and low-cost orbital access, I told everyone I knew to watch for the the first commercial space-based solar power project to be announced. It's fun to be right.

Why do we need space-based solar power? You're going to hear many environmentalists and even my friends in the green/relocalization/power down movement get all up in your face and on the airwaves about what a bad project this is. What I hope we all come to realize is that the problem isn't that humans have an insatiable appetite for energy. It's that we use it so poorly, poisoning ourselves and dirtying our nest.

Environmentalists who have traditionally been anti-nuclear power have finally seen that it's a great alternative to fossil fuels. What they will hopefully see is that space-based solar power is an even better option, cleaner, greener, and more full of job opportunities and economic growth with far less risk than nuclear. Space-based solar power is less risky than even coal-fired plants.


This chart shows that, over time, we find more energy-dense sources and drive our standard of living higher. The saddle shape of each energy source (wood, coal, oil) reflects that it starts out expensive, leads to a nice decrease in cost, which then as the resource is used up (or replaced by a superior energy technology) increases again.

The only technology we've got that continues this trend is moving power generation off-planet.

The reason it's important to continue this trend, is there isn't a viable method to "conserve" our way out of the mess we're in. We've exported consumption idealism to the world. We didn't invent consumption; it's a ramped up version of celebrating abundance, which Life itself invented.

We can scale back, but the imperative of Life to grow and change become more complex and grander is unstoppable. As conscious beings, we get to choose how we focus on this imperative. We've done a poor(ish) job so far. We're realizing our choices have far-reaching consequences. So we need to find solutions that reduce the impact on the planet, on people, on the ability of future generations to care for themselves. The best solutions will be enabling technologies, creating the foundation for future abundance.

To reach these goals, our best choice is space-based solar power.

Progressives win 2008!

Well, lookit that! the GOP has flip-flopped all the way onto a progressive platform: morality isn't the government's business, experience isn't required to be President, and freedom of choice is equivalent to right to choose.

Hmm... I wonder if I really believe that the party that brought us 8 years of the same-old-crap is really the party of change?

It's sort of nice to see that all their principles evaporated when McCain picked Palin. Nice to now that experience isn't required (even though they said, not even two months ago, that Obama's inexperience was a problem). Nice to see that "Stay the course" has morphed into "Embrace change."

I wonder how many people can really appreciate the Orwellian doublespeak the GOP is practicing? It's as if Karl Rove read 1984 and missed the point. Or maybe he got the point, and the rest of us missed it.

No matter what the specifics, it's terrifically exciting that no matter who you vote for, you're clearly voting for change.

Except... some people have been advocating change for a decade, and some just jumped on the bandwagon, sensing the wind, and are doing what they can to win and stay in power. Do we want that? Leaders should certainly be sensitive to the desires of the electorate. But who will be the better leader? Those who sensed it early? Or those who jumped aboard, trying to hold on to their power?

I want servants, not powermongers.