With urban centers on the rise, finding land to farm will soon become a problem.  That’s where vertical farming comes in.  It uses innovative technology to essentially build agricultural skyscrapers.  These multi-story farms would permit year-round, indoor farming.  Insulated from weather, insects, and other problems, such farms would require less intensive labor and produce heartier crops than traditional methods.  This also lends itself to producing mass quantities of organic produce, making our food healthier for consumption.  Plus, since it requires no tractors or plows, vertical agriculture uses less fossil fuel and reduces negative environmental impacts!

Multitasking Farms

The number one way to make farmland more usable is to multipurpose it.  Already, numerous farmers are selling some of their land for wind turbine construction.  Wind power is a great source of clean, renewable energy.  It is also quite profitable as more and more people invest in sustainable power.  Plus, the skinny turbines leave plenty of space for crops to be grown around them. 

Robot Workers

Developers are creating “Functionoids” that will be able to handle most manual labor tasks on a farm.  These machines will require considerable upfront cost, but will pay for themselves in the long run.  Farmers can run these robotic helpers for $5 per hour, rather than an average $15 to $20 per hour for regular farmhands.  Another robotic helper is the MUSHEEP, which can safely harvest wool without harming sheep.   

Biotechnology

Recent developments in biotechnology have allowed agriculturalists to produce modified crops that are stronger, grow faster, and produce more useable products.  Soon, scientists will be able to do everything from increase protein content in fruit to grow plants immune to pests. 

Community Supported Agriculture

This business model is already sweeping around the world.  It involves a partnership between small to medium scale farms and local consumers.  Consumers buy stock in the farm and subsequently get a share of the crops.  Why is this so important?  It allows smaller farms to produce diverse crops without having to compete with big cash-crop plantations.  By growing multiple crops, soil depletion is less likely to occur.  Farmers are also free to experiment more freely with organic growing methods due to community support.

Flickr

For the last 20 years the bee population has been in the decline. Initially perhaps because of the gradual decrease in bee keeping and the encroachment of towns into the countryside.A hundred years ago there were a million beehives in England, but now there are only around 240,000.

In the last couple of years the disappearance of Honey Bees has become noticeable to anyone who spends time out of doors whether in the garden or countryside. Last year one third of the hives did not survive the cold months of Winter and Spring. So extreme is the situation that it seems unlikely that there will be any British honey on sale at the end of this year.

If that does not seem disturbing then we should consider that Honey Bees pollinate 90% of our orchards, no bees means no pollination, which means no apples. But of course it does not stop there either. The effect on agriculture would be catastrophic. No less a person than Albert Einstein noted that without bees mankind could not survive for more than 4 years!

In the USA Honey Bees pollinate one third of the food grown. It is estimated that 30% - 90% of the Honey Bees have disappeared in some areas of America. Honeybees are not native to America (they arrived with the early settlers) but the native Bumble Bees are also disappearing. Once a common insect, and responsible for pollinating 15% of the crops in the United States, they are now rarely seen.

So what is happening? The bees appear to just fly away, leaving the Queen and her eggs behind, it is called "colony collapse". But where are the bees and why do they do this? There are no reports of masses of dead insects. Investigations are ongoing but the mystery has not been solved so far.

The varroa mite which feeds on bees is believed to be partly responsible. They are just visible to the human eye and many bees are infested with them now and they infect the bee with viruses. This can be blamed partly on warmer weather which favours the increase in the varroa mite population. Also bad weather deters the bees from flying out of the hive to clean themselves in the fresh air.

Some suggest that the radiation from cell phones interferes with the bees' navigation systems and they cannot find their way home. Others blame pesticides and genetically modified crops.

Perhaps all of these suggestions play some part but the worrying thing is that no-one really has an answer and meantime the hives remain empty. Regrettably little attention has been paid to the process of insect fertilisation. We have just left nature to take its course. Unfortunately it now appears that nature is not managing very well and we may only have ourselves to blame for that.

Flickr

The two disciplines with the largest impact were chemistry and biology. The name attached to agricultural chemistry is Justus von Liebig, a German chemist who in the 1840s formulated a theory on the processes underlying soil fertility and plant growth. He propagated his organic chemistry as the key to the application of the right type and amount of fertilizer. Liebig launched his ideas at a time when farmers were organizing themselves based on a common interest in cheap supplies. The synergy of these developments resulted in the creation of many laboratories for experimentation with these products, primarily fertilizers. During the second half of the nineteenth century, agricultural experiment stations were opened all over Europe and North America.

Sometime later, experimental biology became entangled with agriculture. Inspired by the ideas of the British naturalist Charles Darwin, biologists became interested in the reproduction and growth of agricultural crops and animals. Botany and, to a lesser extent, zoology became important disciplines at the experimental stations or provided reasons to create new research laboratories. Research into the reproductive systems of different species, investigating patterns of inheritance and growth of plant and animal species, and experimentation in cross-breeding and selection by farmers and scientists together lay the foundations of genetic modification techniques in the twentieth century.

By the turn of the century, about 600 agricultural experiment stations were spread around the Western world, often operating in conjunction with universities or agricultural schools. Moreover, technologies that were not specifically developed for agriculture and food had a clear impact on the sector. Large ocean-going steamships, telegraphy, railways, and refrigeration, reduced time and increased loads between farms and markets. Key trade routes brought supplies of grain and other products to Europe from North America and the British dominions, resulting in a severe economic crisis in the 1880s for European agriculture. Heat and power from steam engines industrialized food production by taking over farm activities like cheese making or by expanding and intensifying existing industrial production such as sugar extraction. The development of synthetic dyes made crop-based colorants redundant, strongly reducing or even eliminating cultivation of the herb madder or indigo plants. These developments formed the basis of major technological changes in agriculture and food through the twentieth century.

Before we can assess technological developments in agriculture and food, we must define the terms and concepts. A very broad description of agriculture is the manipulation of plants and animals in a way that is functional to a wide range of societal needs. Manipulation hints at technology in a broad sense; covering knowledge, skills, and tools applied for production and consumption of (parts or extractions of) plants and animals. Societal needs include the basic human need for food. Many agricultural products are food products or end up as such. However, crops such as rubber or flax and animals raised for their skin are only a few examples of agricultural products that do not end up in the food chain. Conversely, not all food stems from agricultural production. Some food is collected directly from natural sources, like fish, and there are borderline cases such as beekeeping. Some food products and many food ingredients are artificially made through complicated biochemical processes. This relates to a narrow segment of technology, namely science-based food technology. Both broad and narrow descriptions of agriculture are relevant to consider. In sugar production for example, from the cultivation of cane or beets to the extraction of sugar crystals, both traditional and science-based technologies are applied. Moreover, chemical research and development resulted in sugar replacements such as saccharin and aspartame. Consequently, a randomly chosen soft drink might consist of only water, artificial sweeteners, artificial colorings and flavorings, and although no agriculture is needed to produce such products, there is still a relationship to it. One can imagine that a structural replacement of sugar by artificial sweeteners will affect world sugar prices and therewith the income of cane and beet sugar producers. Such global food chains exemplify the complex nature of technological development in food and agriculture.

Carnivorous plants with their unusual shapes, and their most bizarre adaptations to low-nutrient environments, make them both fascinating and intriguing. The approximate 500 carnivorous plant species spread around the world have features to attract, trap, kill, digest prey, and absorb nutrients. They are most abundant in soggy soils in or near bogs and swamps, where the insects and similar pests they catch, help alleviate the shortage of nitrogen. Carnivorous plants, also known as insectivorous plants, prey mostly on insects.

Most plants absorb nitrogen from the soil through their roots, but carnivorous plants absorb nitrogen by trapping and digesting various insects, and other similar pests through their leaves which are specially modified as traps. Carnivorous plants do contain chlorophyll, and so they manufacture food like other green plants. They can, in fact, survive without eating animals, but they grow more vigorously and are healthier when they have this dietary supplement.

Carnivorous plants' leaves are colorful traps, luring insects and other animals accustomed to associating bright colors with sources of nectar, a sweet-smelling fluid. The bad order of decaying victims may attract such insects as flies, which, of course, often find their food by zeroing in on a malodorous source.

The carnivorous pitcher plants catch insects passively, but effectively. Pitfall traps of pitcher plants are leaves folded into deep, slippery pools filled with digestive enzymes. Typically the lip of the pitcher, the outward-bending portion of the leaf, is scarlet, maroon, or purple, often striped with cream or bright yellow. Along the wing-like ridge inside are cells exuding sweet nectar. They attract insects with the odor of this nectar. Below these is a band of stiff hairs that point downward --- a bristly barricade that prevents a creature from crawling up and out of the pitcher. Once inside, the insect finds it cannot get a grip on the walls of the pitcher cup and is doomed because a flaky wax on the interior surface peels off as it struggles to climb, eventually, falling into the water. The motion caused by the struggling pest stimulates the plant's digestive glands to release an acid. This acid is so strong that insects will disappear within hours. Eventually the pest sinks to the bottom and decays, its soft parts absorbed by the plant.

Pitcher plants, also known as hunter's cups, contain liquid that is drinkable: the fluid at the top of the top of the pitcher is clear, uncontaminated water. Their tubular leaves form an urn-like basin in which rainwater collects. In some, the leaf has a funnel-shaped top that directs water inside; in others, the tip of the leaf is spread over the opening like a hood, limiting the amount of water that can enter and preventing an overflow in heavy rains. At the bottom, of course, are the remains --- the indigestible hard parts --- of the plant's “meals”. However, with care these parts can be avoided, and nearly every pitcher offers at least a swallow or two of water --- and some much more.

Nearly half of all the species of carnivorous plants belong to the bladderwort family, with a bladder-like catching device where their leaves join the stems. The bladder has a hinged door lined with trigger hairs. The tiny bladders, rarely measuring more than a tenth of an inch across, are filled with air and have a single opening surrounded by bristles. The “door” remains closed until something pushes against it or touches the bristles, and then it pops open. The instant the “door” opens the water literally rushes in, sucking in such small items as tiny crustaceans and larvae. The suction traps are unique to bladderworts. The door closes again and cannot be opened from the inside. Eventually the water moves out of the bladder, but left behind is the “meal” to be digested and absorbed.

The majority of bladderworts are aquatic plants with submerged feathery leaves and no roots. Their flowers are generally small and bright yellow. However, not all bladderworts are aquatic. Nepenthes, a native of Southeast Asia and Australia, form pitcher cups, hanging from trees. It has a most unusual leaf that first looks like a normal leaf; then, develops a tendril at its tip, and finally the tip of the tendril develops an amazing pitcher. The top of the trap has a lid that initially covers the pitcher cup until its growth is complete. As the Nepenthes mature, it suddenly begins to inflate with air. Once the pitcher cups inflate, they begin to fill with liquid; then opens, revealing the enticing interior. When the leaf is fully grown, the lid opens, and the trap is ready. The trap lures its prey into the pitcher cup by a combination of decaying odors, and sometimes a red coloration. As the pitcher develops, it swells and droops due to its weight. It gains support by twining the tendril around another plant. The largest of the Nepenthes plants, the Rajah Pitcher, is able to digest mice.

The carnivorous sundew plant relies on first effectively trapping its prey with its sticky, glandular hairs, before it slowly rolls up the edges of the leaf. The leaves of sundrews are covered with red or bright orange hairs, each tipped with a shiny drop of fluid that looks deceptively like honey. It can enclose small flies with its' numerous hairs. A fly, an ant, or another hungry insect touching the droplet discovers instantly that the fluid is powerful glue. The hapless creature's struggle to break free only stimulates the surrounding hairs to bend over the catch, which soon becomes coated with glue-like slime. The insect suffocates. The sundrew than secretes an enzyme that digests the catch, leaving only the wings, the outer skeleton, and other hard parts. If a leaf catches two insects at once, the hairs divide their work and secure both. These digestive enzymes, including protease and phosphatase, increase in production once a prey has been captured, reaching maximum concentration about the fourth day.

The sundews, so named because their glandular leaf hairs glisten like dew in the sun, are not only common in bogs, but can occur on sandy banks and other mineral soils poor in organic nitrogen and phosphorus. Although one sundew is hardly an effective means of eliminating insect pests; it has been estimated that about six million insects can be trapped in a bog of about two acres. Cultivated sundews showed that those that which were fed insects were more vigorous, produced more flowers, and set more seeds than the ones that were denied any prey.

The European flycatcher grows in narrow coastal or maritime regions, a few kilometers from the coast, with regular morning fogs during summer, and is especially common in northern Morocco, Portugal and southwest Spain. Its sticky, grass-like leaves have been used locally as natural flypaper. In the wild, the European flycatcher is relatively rare. It is a shrub-like carnivorous plant, normally growing to be 40-50 cm in height (maximum 150 cm). Stems are 5-15 mm thick and tend to creep along the ground as they become longer. Ten or more slender, needle-like, triangular shaped leaves are generally found per apical rosette. Leaves typically reach lengths of 10-25 cm with a width of 2.5 mm.

Butterworts operate much like the sundrews, trapping insects in a sticky secretion on their long tapered leaves arranged in a rosette at the base of the plant. The leaves are yellowish in color, which is probably the source of the common name butterwort. The upper surface of the plant is continuously sticky, and tiny flies like mosquitoes, gnats, and midges readily adhere to the surface. There are two kinds of glands on the surface of the leaf. The stalked glands are the sticky ones and trap the insect. The short, surface glands provide the digestive enzymes, including phosphatases, proteases, and ribonuclease, and later resorb the digested material. The leaves bear short hairs, which secrete sticky mucilage, digest insects, known as flypaper traps. When an insect becomes stuck on the mucilage, the edge of the leaf slowly rolls inwards; however, they never completely close. When the insect is digested, the leaf edges unroll, becoming nearly flat, and is ready to act again. Most leaves make only two or three catches before they are shed and replaced.

There are 80 different species of butterworts spread throughout the world, including the southeastern U.S., are located in sunny, open, wet areas. They bear one or two flowers at the end of a long stalk. A butterwort when not in flower can be identified by its sticky yellowish leaves and by its habitat--acid areas that are wet throughout the year. Butterwort plants are perennials, living for several years.

Most carnivorous plants don't depend on speed to make their catch: they drown their victims in pools of water or catch them on sticky hairs or leaves. The Venus's-flytrap comes closest to being aggressive. The tip of each leaf on the flytrap is hinged down the middle like a clam-shell. Around its edges are stout tooth-like spines, and in the rose-to-pink center of the leaf are three trigger hairs. An insect or other creature attracted to the leaf cannot avoid touching a trigger. The sensitive hairs at the fold of the leaf prevent the leaf from closing every time a drop of rain lands on it, because the leaf requires that two or more of these hairs be triggered in succession. If a leaf misses its catch or is triggered closed by nonliving material, it opens again within half an hour. With its teeth interlocked and the two halves pushed tightly together, the leaf cannot be forced apart. Unable to escape between the hair-like teeth at the edge of the leaf, the helpless insect is slowly digested and absorbed by the leaf. Glands on the leaf surface secrete several digestive enzymes that help to decompose the insect. Once the insect has been digested sufficiently, the leaf re-opens for another victim.

Otherwise the leaf stays shut until it digests its victim, which may take several weeks. Most leaves make only two or three catches before they die and are replaced by new ones.

The Venus's-flytrap's mechanism of closing has fascinated biologists for many years. The most widely accepted explanation had been that a rapid change in the water pressure in the cells - the cells of the bottom part of the midrib, that is. This results in the expansion of the outside of the leaf and the "springing" of the trap. All this happens at lightning fast speed to make the leaf close. The cells remain at this larger size, and the cellulose eventually increases to strengthen the walls. This closes the trap, but in a few days, it must re-open. Once the insect is digested, the cells on the upper surface of the midrib will grow, much more slowly, and the leaf will re-open.

Corkscrew plants, also called Genlisea, are from tropical Africa, Madagascar, and South America. In their natural environment they grow as terrestrials or semi-aquatics. They grow as a rosette of spade shaped leaves, from 1 to 3 inches long. The traps of Genlisea grow underground, and are about 2 to 6 inches long which grow on a cylindrical stalk from the plant. A hollow bulb-like digestive chamber extends from the cylindrical stalk. Two pronged corkscrews emerge from the digestive chamber, thus the plant's nickname for its' trap of “lobster-pot”. The corkscrew structure has a slit down the length of the spiral where tiny insects enter. The spiral slit has bristly hairs that make the insects go to the digestive chamber. The digestive chamber structure has digestive juices which dissolve the insect, and then the plant reabsorbs the nutrient rich fluid. The corkscrew plants have of twisted tubular channels lined with hairs and glands.

Scientific investigations are being conducted in order to learn about the biological attraction mechanisms of carnivorous plants. Research has discovered that the carnivorous plant's chemical compounds can be evolved from plants to repel current attacking insects and other pests. Plants seem to be successful in ensuring that chemical cues are discernible to predators and parasitoids. Several studies have been conducted on the liquids secreted by carnivorous plants. Lima bean plants infested with mites and caterpillars were able to produce a certain odor which attracts mites and caterpillars. However, substances found in caterpillars were necessary for the lima beans to begin manufacturing and releasing odors and secreting liquids which attracts the pests. The lima beans were found to be able to produce the defenses, including manufacturing toxic and repellent chemical compounds, necessary to prevent their natural enemies from feeding on them. If the mechanisms of what attracts and retains a predator or parasitoid to plants are understood, they can be developed and enhanced to optimize control possibilities. Scientists can manipulate the system to maximize performance of biological control measures in agriculture. The application possibilities will prove to be as intriguing as the research itself.

The distribution of seeds in sunflower is spiral. The seeds of the sunflower spiral outwards in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions from the center of the flower. The number of clockwise and counterclockwise spirals are two consecutive numbers in the Fibonacci sequence.

The shells of the snails follow the Fibonacci sequence. In the same way, the shells of the nautilus follow the same rule. The only difference between these two is that nautilus' shells grow in a three-dimensional spiral, whereas snails' shells grow in a two-dimensional spiral.

Pine cones are one of the well-known examples of Fibonacci sequence. All cones grow in spirals, starting from the base where the stalk was, and going round and round the sides until they reach the top.

Another notable example is human body.In human body, the ratio of the length of forearm to the length of the hand is equal to 1.618, that is, Golden Ratio. Another well-known examples on human body are:

1. The ratio between the length and width of face
2. Ratio of the distance between the lips and where the eyebrows meet to the length of nose
3. Ratio of the length of mouth to the width of nose
4. Ratio of the distance between the shoulder line and the top of the head to the head length
5. Ratio of the distance between the navel and knee to the distance between the knee and the end of the foot
6. Ratio of the distance between the finger tip and the elbow to the distance between the wrist and the elbow

The same sequence exists on the leaves of poplar, cherry, apple, plum, oak and linden trees.

Crop Savior, Or Destroyer, GM Now Being Exposed

True, here in the U.S., the goal to finally release us from the bonds of the use of fossil fuels by our virtually fruitless attempt in producing Ethanol in our hopes to replacing gasoline as a fuel is having a devastating effect on corn production for food in this country. Given that the U.S. is a major exporter of this food crop is having a major effect on world pricing, which includes a wide range of corn derived products for both human and animal feed consumption. GM claims to increase yield of crops has been found to be only a marketing ploy and instead, farms in India and many other nations using GM are finding much less crop yield from its use, even to a point of bankruptcy. It is being used by some farmers here in the U.S. and thus a double whammy for all involved.

A Major new study shows that modified soya, using GM seed produces 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent. We certainly do not need to lower production yield of any food crop. The answer is simple. The battle to ban it is not.

Some Recent Findings And Opinions On GM

Last week the biggest study of its kind ever conducted - the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development - concluded that GM was not the answer to world hunger

More and more studies are being conducted through many universities and their findings are very close in their results, namely that GM seed produce less, yes from 6 to 11 percent less and these tests were conducted using normal untreated seed grown side by side in the same fields. It was found that only when extra manganese, which increased cost was the GM seed crop able to increase its yield near the level of the normal crop seed.

Professor Barney Gordon, of the university's department of agronomy grew a Monsanto GM soybean and an almost identical conventional variety in the same field. The modified crop produced only 70 bushels of grain per acre, compared with 77 bushels from the non-GM one. Simple common sense tells us that if this were adopted worldwide, the odds are very great that global agriculture would be greatly limited in feeding our expanding global population and probably bankrupt some developing country farmers.

Professor Bob Watson, the director of the study and chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when asked if GM could solve world hunger, said: "The simple answer is no."

Roundup Ready Sudden Death, Super weeds, Allergens…

Time to Wipe GM Crops Off the Globe

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins update on the failures of the most widely planted GM crop

A fully referenced version of this article is posted on ISIS members' web site. Details here

GM crops have failed on every count. Evidence has existed for years that genetically modified (GM) crops have lower yields, perform poorly in the field, use more pesticides and result in reduced profits for farmers [1] (“GM crops failed on every count”, SiS13/14). Yet the relentless growth of GM crops continued, through a combination of hype, half-truths and outright falsehoods and corruption

A Bit Of History On GM

Genetic engineering can create rice with enhanced vitamin A, but can just as well create seeds containing highly toxic bacteria. US researchers first did this in 1986. Genetic engineering of more toxic and harder to detect bioweapons was a major motivation for nations to call for a stronger convention on bioweapons.

The obvious advantage is that hair breeds do not need to be shorn. Shearing is very stressful on a sheep and often results in injury, in the form of nicks and cuts. Worse accidents have been known to happen due to the catching or incorrect handling, this would include things like broken legs or ribs.

The price of unfinished wool is relatively low compared to the effort involved and sometimes producers find they pay more for the shearer than they can sell the wool for. As such sometimes sheep are left with their wool on them, suffering in the heat for the summer. Hair sheep shed, some breeds may have small traces of wool but these are very minute and not worth trimming.

Hair sheep do not require their tails to be docked. This is a procedure done to lambs a few days after birth. The reason it is done is so their droppings do not cling to their tails. Docking always has a small risk of infection and, although brief, is certainly stressful on the little ones. As adults, a ewe with a long woolly tail covered in feces is putting her nursing lambs at risk of exposure to parasites. A ewe with a big woolly tail is less likely to be bred than a ewe who has had her tail docked, or than a hair sheep whose tail is therefore smaller in size.

Hair sheep are often smaller than wool sheep, making them more manageable to work with in terms of regular handling, such as worming, or feet trimming. Smaller animals work better for people who only want them for small hobby farms or as pets. The smaller size also makes them more efficient on food, requiring less feed over the winter.

Hair sheep are very attractive, some breeds resemble goats, but are much less destructive and not as apt to climb. Many look exotic, with large horns or mixed colors. If you want an unusual animal but cannot have exotic animals on your farm, a hair breed sheep may make the perfect alternative.

Hair breed sheep may be crossed with wool breed sheep. However one must be careful to use the larger ewes and the smaller ram. I have been breeding a Barbado hair sheep ram to many different wool breed ewes and been happy with the results, there are fewer lambing problems as the hair ram produces smaller lambs.

Hair breed sheep are noted for having a high resistance to internal parasites and because of their coats are more resistant to heat and humidity.

Most hair breed sheep are considered meat animals only, however a growing trend of keeping sheep as lawn, or pasture, control has resulted in many people wanting them as pets or living lawn ornaments. On hobby farms where uncontrolled pasture grass becomes a fire hazard, a hair breed sheep may be the ideal choice.

Some common breeds of hair sheep are: Barbado, Barbado Black Belly, Dorper, Kathadin, Painted Desert, and St Croix. The Sheep in the photo is a Barbado ewe.

image source

Some people have said hair sheep are more "wild" in nature than are wool breeds. I believe this is due to their wild look, and is not true of their behavior. I have owned several hair sheep and have not had an issue with them behaving wild. I have one ram who is harness trained and will follow me like a puppy, and many ewes who will eat out of my hand. I do not find them as aggressive at the feeder as the larger wool sheep, but in no way are they "wild". If you handle your sheep with kindness and teach them that you are their main source of getting food, they will not be frightened by you any more than another sheep would.

Endangering Our Planet For A Selfish Nostalgia

Over the years some have attempted to make Permaculture yet another myopic sub-culture, by hijacking the term to mask the views, or agendas, of those I call Neo-Luddites. Luddites seem to choose a point in time to be nostalgic about and hypocritically view all technology that happened after that time as bad. Sometimes it feels like these people try to control every aspect of environmentalism, or "going green", by superimposing their nostalgia based beliefs on them. Nostalgia for the time before The Industrial Revolution is quite understandable, however, many of those who long for those times have little understanding of them. Also many who have this type of nostalgia do not understand that many people do not hold this same nostalgia and, others who are living in such conditions in modern times do not want to do so.

Promoters of a Luddite lifestyle taint Permaculture and other Earth Friendly models with their nostalgia based beliefs to a point where these models seem distasteful or insane to others who do not wish to go to the same extremes. What is even more distasteful is that most people who promote forms of Ludditism are hypocrites in that they only follow Luddite type lifestyle when it is convenient for them or fits into their personal likes and tastes. If a person really is living a Luddite lifestyle that is fine if they can do so in peace and leave the rest of us alone to find earth friendly alternatives to fit our modern lives. Saddly, most of the people we will encounter who promote this type of lifestyle are promoting it through the Internet or television whilst at the same time condemning the rest of us for using such things.

Many of those who promote a Luddite lifestyle have the luxury of living in first world countries. I have lived in small towns, in a city in a third world country, on a rural farm, and in cities in the first world, and I can tell you that if you want "The Simple Life" then a First World city is your best bet. Although life can be fast paced in cities it is simple compared to living off the land. If you move to the country and try to live a Luddite lifestyle, and were not raised that way, you will most likely move back to the city very soon like many of those who joined communes in the late 1960s, 1970s, and 1990s did. People doing this has become so common place it has become a stereotype and fodder for comedy writers.

What it Can Be

Permaculture is something that must be able to transform country life, city life, and small town life in multiple ways. Most of all Permaculture needs to transform Suburban sprawl. Suburbia is a global threat with it's carefully manicured lawns. Permaculture can only work if it is sensitive to the needs of people, and environments, and can not become uniform world-wide as one system of doing things. Permaculture must be about multiple systems. If Permaculture is to become a vehicle for planetary change then those practicing Permaculture must distance themselves from those who cloud it with a Luddite agenda. We are beyond the point world-wide where humanity as a whole can go back to other eras of technology as a means of saving the planet or cleaning up Earth.

When practiced correctly, Permaculture provides food at low impact to the planet. Growing ones own food, raising ones own meat animals, producing ones own eggs and so forth, all in a low impact way by allowing systems to work together. Basically relying on your own land and work for your own benefit. It is possible to adapt some of these ideas even in a city.

Progression Toward A Sustainable Abundance

Originally Permaculture was proposed as a more rational and permanent replacement for modern industrial agriculture. Permanent Agriculture or Permanent Sustainable Culture being shortened to Permaculture. I suggest that keeping this narrow definition of Permaculture is in opposition to the original goal of Permaculture. If those who coined the term Permaculture are deified and Permaculture turned into something sacred that can not evolve and transform than it as a system is useless. Some try to keep Permaculture at the level of a religion, which is unfortunate. Religions often involve people blindly going through the motions of a belief system that they don't really understand because it's always been done that way or because of threats of damnation.

Permaculture needs to be treated like a Spirituality or Craft. Something that needs to be understood so that it can evolve into something better as time goes by. We need to not only create systems of permanent sustainable agriculture, but also, to create a Human Culture on a world wide scale that seeks to create sustainable systems within all of it's workings. When I see the words permanent sustainable culture this is what comes to mind to me beyond ideas of edible landscaping and forest gardens. Permaculture as the definition stands now is not a cure-all, it is purely an ingredient in a cure. Using the same terms of permanent sustainable culture to describe what humanity must create in order to survive and evolve we can begin to create regionally specific models that protect the earth and create abundance and wealth for all. New technologies need to be created and embraced that are sustainable and allow abundance for all. We may not be able to stop those of avarice and greed, but, we can though education and pointing out of hypocrisy, stop the hijacking of Earth Friendly paradigms by those who hinder our evolution because of their nostalgia for times gone by.

Many of the people who perpetuate the modern myths of "Cure-All Crops" live in Urban areas and have never lived Rurally. They simply do not understand what is involved in large scale agricultural production and processing. They don't understand that some Organic food production can have negative effects on various ecosystems and "Sentient Beings". They don't understand that "Cruelty-Free" does not exist and never will. Try to explain to a mouse that has been ripped in half by a plow why eating a tofu burger is better than eating hamburger. Tell the forest animals why their homes are being destroyed to produce a soy bean field. Explain to fish that have had their lake ruined by an excess of fertilizer (even organic fertilizer), and soil erosion, why a "Hemp Based Imitation Leather Belt" is better than the real thing? For Vegetarians and Vegans of the world "Cruelty Free", "Vegan Friendly" and "Organic" have become the trigger commands of deceptive marketers. Where as, with Human Omnivores, deceptive marketers use such trigger commands as "Free Range" and "Hormone Free".

Vegetarianism vs. Omnivorism is a Personal Choice

I was a vegetarian for many years and no longer am. I stopped Veggin' it Up for health reasons at first. Now I see vegetarianism as the same sort of threat environmentally, as are people who blindly stick to meat and potatoes. Vegetarianism vs Omnivorism is a matter of personal, religious, or spiritual conviction. Promoting Vegetarianism as a solution or "The Solution" to environmental issues is irresponsible and dangerous. Especially when much of the argument for converting to vegetarianism in regards to environmental issues hinges on a very limited number of crops, or an increase in production of a specific crops, such as Soy or Hemp. Humans are omnivores, they can eat less meat, (or be more selective where their meat comes from), but to covert everyone to a vegetarian, or vegan, lifestyle will have other implications on the planet.

Thinking Green With Your Own Brain

People need to do independent research about the agricultural industry as whole. Don't take my word or anyone's word as an absolute truth. Just consider what I am about to present to you with an open mind and use it as a springboard for your own research. Find out what is really Green Friendly in all areas from your diet to your clothing. Don't let Green Friendly become just a trigger command for deceptive marketers. What was destroyed to grow your flooring or your food?

A Deceptive Harvest

Let us look at a dangerous new comer to the "Coffee Shop" Environmentalist's bag of lunacy, our ancient friend bamboo. While bamboo is not so much being pushed as a food alternative, it is being marketed as a new fiber source. I love bamboo, but, cutting down rain forests to plant bamboo so that people can have "Environmentally Friendly Flooring" or other such products is simply idiotic. Anyone who has ever worked with Bamboo understands that they can be very invasive and this disallows responsible large scale production in areas where they are not native.

A better alternative, especially for flooring and wood products, would be the use of naturally fallen salvaged or rationally harvested trees. This also helps to provide income for indigenous people's which reduces clear cutting even further. When suggesting harvesting and salvaging, one will often be faced with the response "What if the locals get greedy and cut down trees they aren't suppose to?". Let's think this out logically. Should we clear cut a rain forest to plant bamboo as an alternative to rain forest or other woods, instead of promoting salvaging and harvesting, of because of the fear that a rain forest resident will get greedy and cut down a few trees? Yes, the harvesting/salvaging system will require proper laws and careful monitoring. However, dealing with a few "Tree Poachers" breaking the law, is a much better option than cutting down the whole forest and replacing it with bamboo crops under the pretense of "Saving The Planet".

Why Cattle are Not the Enemy

What about cattle production? Surely that does far more damage to the environment than Soy? Proper raising of cattle on the prairie or pampas is far less damaging to those ecosystems than planting any type of crop could ever be.

Range raised cattle are not the problem, feedlot cattle are, because land is cleared to raise food for them, destroying the rain forest to make room for cattle is another problem. Converting large tracts of prairie or pampas land to plant soy, or any crop for that matter, is not that different from clear cutting a rain forest to make room for cattle. Beyond this I will say the consumption of Beef by many in the developed world, needs to be reduced greatly, and we need to get away from the industrialization of the meat industry, and agriculture on a whole. Meat based protein needs to be obtained by the use of rational ecosystem specific agriculture. This can be achieved by learning from various agricultural systems of the past to create a new and better model for the future. Specifically, in regards to meat production, "Micro-Livestock" and "Aquaculture" need to be fully explored on an ecosystem by ecosystem basis including that of the urban sprawl of North America, Europe, and some Asian Countries. We would be best to control urban sprawl and introduce urban agriculture, in the form of Permaculture.

House of Cards, Not Monopoly

Being good stewards of Earth is like making a house of cards as it requires everyone to work together even those watching. If some people, groups, or industries view it as a game of Monopoly we all suffer. Myopic and Monopoly, are related words in that they are used to express things that focus on a single goal or thought. All Industries or Ideological Groups that attempt to create a monopoly by promoting myopic thoughts or "solutions" should be exposed as dangers. The only way to abolish these dangerous villians is through education and a free flow of knowledge. Violence should never be used against these myopic Industries or Idealogical Groups as it only makes martyrs out of these false prophets and profiteers. Free flow of knowledge exposes those who masquerade as saints, as the demons they truly are. There are No "Cure-All Crops". As good stewards of the planet we need to make multiple systems work together to keep the environment intact and maintain our home Planet Earth.