On 9/18/2015 7:08 AM, David Braden wrote:

Thanks Larry.  I am familiar with the concept [Agroecology] and some of the practitioners.  They are still a market oriented approach.  That is the blind spot.  You cannot integrate humans into the system if you need to sell enough for the humans to buy what they need.  There is no need to produce for yourself everything that you consume . . .  the market has its place . . . but the more a community produces for its self the less cost and less waste there is in the system.

On 09/17/2015 12:12 PM, Larry Victor wrote: On Agroecology

David,  I been collecting MAHB items for years.  This one is in your domain.  Larry


On 09/18/2015 04:59 PM, Larry Victor wrote:

David, I’m not sure that Agroecology’s primary focus is market oriented. Some may view market approaches a valid, as you have admitted yourself.  I often gain insights from orgs and movements with whom I have significant disagreements. The food, nutrition, health, transportation, energy, etc. systems are interdependent, as well as the human and technological systems. I identify many domains that are very relevant to the “whole” but I’ve no time to attend to their details. All will benefit from uplifting, as all humans are limited.  How the relationships between domains emerge is as important as how each domain emerges internally. This will require each domain specifically designating effort to “foreign relations”, that is supported by others working (primarily, internally) in the domain. I believe a nu, separate domain, I call SEAFING, may be necessary – whose primary function/responsibility is supporting, enabling, augmenting, and facilitating the emergent synergy of different domains, working with their various “foreign relations” teams.

Back in 1975, in Mission_2000, I explored the local/regional/global issue. In real worlds efficiency is an important variable. I was contemplating a future with hightech robotic systems to minimize non-therapeutic routine labor. Eventually single large mother “factories” will design/produce smaller mostly automated daughter “factories” tailored for different localities, using what resources were available there and setting up a resource distribution system for what may be missing. This would be the outcome of cyclical exploratory engineering.  Localities would have input to the specifics of their “factories”, and could to make their own (so long as it didn’t negatively impact others).

This would include automated systems to produce a basic nutritional food system, primarily from single cell cultures or tissue growing system – processed to be attractive eating forms and taste. These systems could be tailored to local tastes. They would be totally immune from weather and climate and other disasters – and secure for emergencies. Each locality could also have their own “gourmet food system“, from personal “green grower spaces” to “community gardens”. There could be an informal trade of such gourmet products – but no commercial production.  The basic system could produce ingredients for gourmet meal preparation.  The basic system could be on reserve for emergencies, or providing a large percent of nutrition for the people – THEIR CHOICE.  This may be a necessity if weather is violently turbulent due to climate change for centuries.

“local/place/home” are metaphors with great personal and cultural diversity; now, in the past, and in the future.  Herders and farmers have long been in conflict. I shudder at the image of a world were we all are in “our wired box with full course simulated presence in virtual reality that feels really real”.  Yet, how close are we there today when networked by our mobiles? Humans chose to live in human created spaces!  In the next few centuries, how much climate change forced migrations will be needed? Modern meat production is a MAJOR contributor to global heating and MUST be radically changed.  Growing meat tissue in factories may not produce greenhouse gases, but our diets may be too heavy with meat today.  NONE OF THIS can be legislated or dictated from any reformed versions of contemporary societal systems. They can emerge ONLY from what emerges via an UPLIFT process – that prepares the global human population with the distribution of competencies to make such decisions.  In the future, the term “local” may be “strange” to persons who have many, changing “locals”. We also must keep distinct “local-in mind” and “local-in-place”; and where both can change their “nature”, in time.

Many people today live close to strangers. Others live among those they distrust or dislike. Those communities that are homogeneous and stable are probably limited in many ways.  JUST A QUERY: Would it be easier to evaluate persons and inter-migrate them to new geographical locations to emerge new communities that to attempt to change the minds of persons in dysfunctional communities.  Especially, when the PLACE is often not so attractive, safe, or productive.  What percent of humans today have a deep traditional attachment to their current “place”?

We must distinguish between temporary actions we must take immediately, such as for the refuges in the Middle East (and Africa), and longer term, more thought out strategies.  We need not include temporary systems as part of the future systems.

Just some thoughts,  Larry/nuet    I will post part of this in my blog.