can any technology beyond the stone-age be truly sustainable?

[Johnny Electriglide]

Mike Reynolds in Earthship shows a multi-unit structure going up the side of a hill, like continuous two story models. The stories only partially overlap. Earthships do not use nearly as much portland cement and steel, which are heavy CO2 producers. While The "Mycoplex is a high vertical rise reinforced high portland content concrete and steel structure. The Earthship has some limits with retainment; 1' arc in 18' for 8' retainment, and 2' arc in 18' for 10' retainment. There are compacted earth squared step up designs, too.
The area of self heated gardens for just the vegetable needs of one person is 100 square feet in a sunny area. With total water recycling in an area of 15" of rain per year, each person needs 500 sq. ft. of roof for themselves and the garden, counting the need to have a blackwater system also to get rid of high detergent and grease water that would gum up the filters. The recycling system needs two large tanks. One below floor level and one above after sand filtration, for gravity feed to the garden or pumped through filters and UV to a pressure tank. Blackwater from dishwashing and clothes washing cycles through a Staber type washing machine (low water use, low solar power use) must go to a small septic system, or the biomass system. The rainwater and catchment tanks tend toward cooling the unit down--from experience.The humidity from the gardens condenses on windows and cold tanks, creating mold, so extra power is needed for a dehumidifier.
The area of each persons solar panel or wind generator needs can fit on the 500 sq. ft. of roof per person.
The waste from each person should be used for compost to keep the garden soil healthy. Liquid waste goes to blackwater, and trash to recycling and some to biomass. The biomass per person is insufficient for all cooking and heating needs, and solar thermal gain is necessary for each unit, unless natural gas heat is brought in. Heating and cooling a tall building can not be done by convection mixing, but needs powerful fans to take summer heat and put it under the foundation in water or insulated earth storage for partial heating in winter. Climate and sunlight would be critical, along with actual roof area needed for rainwater catchment. The taller the building, the more living area necessary for each resident. Figure it out. Going up 5 stories tall would require each personal unit below to be 2,500 sq. ft. so that each has 500 sq. ft. of rainwater catchment.
The idea of one person producing enough biomass and compost for the garden and their own power and heat/cooling is wrong.
The Mycoplex idea is based on false assumptions. People also need land area for grains, trees, wetlands, and pastures. Even Biosphere 2 failed.
The problem with both ideas, the Earthship villages and Mycoplexes, is global warming to where outside crops won't always make it, and the global mercury pollution getting into the catchment systems and outside soil. Drought would also ruin the rainwater catchment idea. There has to be several backup systems for everything, including defenses.
Even the most advanced reinforced concrete is not impervious to Richter 9 earthquakes, especially with tall buildings. Tall buildings are especially vulnerable to heatwaves and very high winds of climate change beyond historic. The Earthship village concept can have the multitude of continuing talents and manufacturing ability for sustainability, with oversize and backup systems for making it through times of drought and outside crop failures. Systems for dealing with mercury and other toxics from the atmosphere are a problem of slow filtration and chemical treatment. The activated charcoal, 1 micron filtration, and UV treatment aren't enough. I also wonder about nuclear contamination, just in case.

[founder]

So this question is sensless, because it tells something like the stoneage would have been sustainable.

We have now the chance to reach an sustainable age with solar energy and wind energy.

[Corey]

The question isn't pointless founder in that the concern is that we don't know entirely the total consequences of using technology.

example: We genetically modify crops with very little understanding of the implications of how genetics works or how those genetic changes affect other things in our ecosystem. We are so "mad dash happy" for results we refuse to take the time to actually study new tech and how it interacts in the real world.

Saying a question such as this subject hints is pointless shows ignorance.

It also shows your not willing to question your surroundings and willing to follow anyone blindly so long as they give you conveniences of an easy way out even if the easy way out is not sustainable in the long run.

The gist of this topic is about long term in terms of many generations NOT just one or two. Many of our leaders are only focused on one or two the part they will see they seem to care not of the future so long as they get what they want.(greed):peace:

[founder]

Originally Posted by Corey

The question isn't pointless founder in that the concern is that we don't know entirely the total consequences of using technology.

The consequences of not using technology are very clear:

Inefficient area usage leads to wars.

65 million years ago, a meteorit hit eartch with the energy of 50 billion Hieroshima bombs.

So only a high tech civilization can survive for a long time.

[isenhand]

A hi-tech society certainly could survive but not one in the form we have in the West. To maintain a sustainable hi-tech society, we would need to redesign our culture.

[founder]

Originally Posted by isenhand

A hi-tech society certainly could survive but not one in the form we have in the West. To maintain a sustainable hi-tech society, we would need to redesign our culture.

We do not have to redesign our culture.

We have only to redesign 3 things

1.) Tax system

Humans are - special by social security duty - very high taxed
Energy is extrem cheap.

So change the tax system to have cheaper human work and more expensive fossile energy

2.) Houses

It should be only allowed to built plus-energy-houses

3.) Cars

Plug-in-Hybrid cars are the future

[Corey]

Originally Posted by founder

We do not have to redesign our culture.

We have only to redesign 3 things

1.) Tax system

Humans are - special by social security duty - very high taxed
Energy is extrem cheap.

So change the tax system to have cheaper human work and more expensive fossile energy

2.) Houses

It should be only allowed to built plus-energy-houses

3.) Cars

Plug-in-Hybrid cars are the future

If it was this simple it would have happened in the 80-90's. It is not simple due to diversified way of thinking. This is kind of what Isenhand was trying to point out. It is changing the way we think which will impact culture, population, education, way we do business transaction etc.

Example: if we were to change for the better we need to rethinking what profit really means in terms of sustainability. Is it really money or is it how well it benefits society and money together. profit needs to be looked at beyond the all mighty dollar which is the current practice. Subsidizing a company that provides a great benefit to the human race and environment, which works at a dollar loss could be considered profitable in that it contributing positively but at a dollar loss.

[daybrown]

Yes, but you havta blow off the nuclear family model and monogamy. The Vikings lived in areas that had been abandoned by Christians, who'd completely clearcut the island to get the fuel to heat each of their hovels. They built a single Longhouse, and heated it with driftwood and body heat from the dozens who lived in it.

Course, with that many pheremones, monogamy was impossible. But, they were not Christian, so that wasnt a problem. Crunch the numbers. You only need one kitchen. Only need one bathhouse. Any group will have niteowls to keep the fire going with the minimum of wood needed. And today, they could man a 24/7 tech support hotline business.

The whole group can afford a tractor to get a whole lot more done than a buncha garden tillers. "Life in a Medieval Village" shows how they had a team of oxen that plowed all their gardens, each person getting so many rows to try whatever, with the rest going into grain.

The village had a waterpowered mill to grind the grain and a blacksmith. A weaver brought his treadle mill there from time to time to run out all the fabric gonzo faster than the hand loom any woman might have... etc.

[isenhand]

Originally Posted by founder

We do not have to redesign our culture.

We have only to redesign 3 things

1.) Tax system

Humans are - special by social security duty - very high taxed
Energy is extrem cheap.

So change the tax system to have cheaper human work and more expensive fossile energy

2.) Houses

It should be only allowed to built plus-energy-houses

3.) Cars

Plug-in-Hybrid cars are the future

That really fails to get at the core of the problem as tax, housing and cars are not a problem.

We have a situation where were have tried to maintain infinite exponential growth with finite resources on a finite world. There in lies the core of the problem. To tackle that we need to look at how we do things and rethink what we are doing. That leads to a need to change our culture.

I came across a good website that really shows well what’s wrong and why we need a new culture.

The Story of Stuff with Annie Leonard


.ui