Norway to do doomsday seed bank

[tashak]

Today's BBC News Science/Nature states Norway plans building a world seedbank backup next year, to be doomsday seedbank safe against nukes etc.

[tabitha]

wow. a noble undertaking.

too scary for me to think about. you know? the mind recoils in horror.

i want to believe that what i am building for my children will be here for their children. it is sad that it might not be so.

tabitha

[HillsideDigger]

Good for Norway because there are many threats to sustaining civilization in addition to largescale nuclear war.

The members of this board seem to shy away from discussion of the likes of:

overpopulation,
runaway climate change (warming or cooling, wet or dry),
catastrophic resource depletion (soil, water, fuel)
a possible breakdown in natural systems due to the extinction of to many life forms, etc..

The list is long with many of the threats very real and conceivably likely before to long.

Individuals, families, communities, nations and a world of nations could well be advised to be planning and preparing for the inevitable.

[tabitha]

hillside digger-

please, do tell- in what way do members shy away from these concepts?

[JereGettle]

HillsideDigger,

I personally don't remember many of those topics discussed, but they sure are welcome.
Jere

[HillsideDigger]

Widespread seedbanks would be a good start.

But were some sort of doomsday event to occur, would there be sufficient knowledge and ability of the survivors in the cultivation and utilization of the saved seeds (and of course storing enough for the following year, historically, distressed people have eaten next year's seed) without the technological network (namely seed bought from others, machinery, fuel and fertilizers) with which much agricultural production now results?

As individuals, we can plan, learn and practice for the worst

and hope for the best.

Who knows for certain what will happen in our lifetimes?

Note - Even with an expected 'Glorious Reappearing of the Lord', I feel we are not removed from our daily responsibilities of developing a permaculture within the physical world.

[tabitha]

personally, and without judgement, i can say that i do not expect a glorious reappearing of any lord just in time to save us all etc.

i do what i can in my lifetime, i teach my children to do the same.

we are part of no massive activism, we are just people. we are organic and green, but these things are just a way of life for us- what other options do you have once you know the truth?

i am learning: i am 25. i wish i knew more by now, and i will know more day by day. i learn sustainability because i love life, not to meet some scary doomsday deadline. i can't live that way. a woman cannot birth and raise children and live with that in the forefront of her mind.


tabitha

[flowerpower]

HillsideDigger, I will gladly discuss any of those subjects with you. But only if they are not all about religion. I am positive that not every member of this forum is a God-fearing Christian. Heathens have gardens too.

[HillsideDigger]

I generally do not discuss religion and in fact feel the half of the world who profess monotheism are the ones primarily responsible for many of the world's ills

and have felt since I was about 12 years old (about 40 years ago) that at some point in the future, left to our own devices,

the survivors will be living in a world of much reduced human numbers.

It would be nice to think that this reduced number will be achieved as a result of individual choices (other than widespread abortion) but I expect the reduced numbers will be the result of the forces of nature, most notably famine (I hope really big wars are avoided).

I for one feel the optimum number of people for this world (existing in a long term sustainable permaculture) is much less than one tenth the current number (not to metion the world's human numbers are expected to top out at about 50% greater than now about 50 years from now. The optimists feel by that time, a sufficient portion of the world will be prosperous enough and educated to the point of not choosing large families). Look at the numbers of any other large animal population (particularly top predators) that has ever existed.

Humans as herbivores could sustain themselves in larger numbers than humans as omnivores, its all about the 'ecological footprint'.

[kabuti]

Permaculture- an idealists pipedream. Get real-istic. when I read ' How to Grow More Vegetables' I could immediatly see this was a fanatics fantasy world of utopian suburban transformation. Sure you can achieve good results,( I've built 6 3x20ft beds this way-(NeverAgain) however most people I see are transfixed by the T.**** V. & hollywood & could give a **** about god-forbid planting a seed! No one around here landscapes their own yard or for that matter who even aspires to mow their own grass, but they're all 'environmentalists'? I don't condemn our system of capitalism or the fact I prosper in what I believe is the best Country since 1776 but all of us or our progeny WILL be living very differently from the way we have been able to get by since the industrial revolution (I keep a set of team harness in the barn). This is a time bubble & when the supports for it collapse, wich they will, there will be a rude awakening. Nothing is free in this universe there always is a price whether we pay now or in the distant future. I may be wrong but I think the way our culture has developed it is very difficult to live in a permaculture se-up there is not really any support for it & the worse thing is to shove this down our throats legislatively. Have a happy day

[flowerpower]

I generally do not discuss religion and in fact feel the half of the world who profess monotheism are the ones primarily responsible for many of the world's ills.

HillsideDigger, one of your posts mentioned the "Glorious Reappearance of the Lord" , so I was hoping this thread would not turn into a religious debate.


Many survival skills were "lost" in the industrial revolution. How many urbanites are going to be able to survive a completely rural lifestyle? I have seen people stop to take pics of dairy cows because they have never seen a cow before. I can't imagine them trying to milk one. lol

[luckylad]

I don't think our government is taking global warming seriously enough. If I lived back home in New Orleans I would really be worried about rebuilding there. The Gulf of Mexico really has been heating up in September more than I ever remember and that's not good when a hurricane enters it.
The nuclear threat I guess is something that will be with us forever, maybe worse for future generations. It's horrible to have that kind of thing hanging over your children's heads, isn't it?
I really believe what Pogo said is true about meeting the enemy and the enemy is man.

[arianna]

I didn't get to read the headline but I think ANYTHING that is done to help preserve seeds and bring awareness of this issue to the gereral population is a positive step in the right direction. Way to go Norway!

[MitchF]

I will agree with everyone else on here - our great culture is soon going to be unable to support itself. This is history - look at Egypt, Rome, Maya... cultures that do not take care of the earth around them may build up strength and last for years but in time they fall and what is left behind them? The Dark Ages came at the end of Rome, events close to this came over huge areas of the world from time to time... I love America, I really wish her no ill but if we dont start to take care of our world there will be a harsh end to our way of life... I do think that there will be less humans on the earth in the future, but I pray it does not come at the hands of nucular bombs, I just cannot see our world being able to keep many more humans alive .. .. .. just my two cents...

[TennOC]

Mitchf: It's the greatest problem we have, overpopulation. Yet people hardly discuss it, I suppose hoping it will go away. In nature, plant or animal population build and build- but they always crash. After the crash in numbers, they could go extinct, or start to build again.

[HillsideDigger]

During a discussion on another message board, someone responded this to me:

"...still I say we are no where near to overpopulation....there is a great difference between responsible use of the environment and the blithering Sheenaistic ravings of the Socialists running most environmental groups.”

Another responder (whose profile states he is a college-educated professional and that he and his wife proudly have 8 children of their own making) stated that his preacher quoted some 'secular research' which claims the world can easily and comfortably support 50 billion people.

What is it going to take for enough people to realize the nature and extent of this problem?

The unsustainable use of massive quantities of poisonous fertilizer, pesticides and fuel for the operation of farm machinery and large transport vessels is the only reason large scale, really large scale, famine has not already struck,

which I imagine most readers of this board are well aware of.

[flowerpower]

50 billion? Sounds very high. In the past century, life expectancy has just about doubled. Infant mortality is down. Probably the biggest medical advancement was the discovery of antibiotics. All sorts of ailments that would have killed you, are cured by a simple trip to the doctor.

Mother Nature has plenty of ways to curb overpopulation. Some animals will kill or just leave a weak baby. There is predator and prey. There is starvation. There is disease.

[HillsideDigger]

Even though I have studied this matter of world population for years, I still do not claim to be an expert on the subject

but am willing to state that the optimum number of people for this world is no more than 10% of the current number, imo.

There is something less than 40 billion acres of land on Earth, 3/4 or so of which are not really conducive to dense human habitation, you know there are ice-caps, deserts, taiga, tundra, scrub, swamps, exposed rocky areas, mountainsides, canyons, flood zones, etc. which can support few people.

So at 6 billion people, there is little more than an acre and a half of good land per person now, even though much good land should be reserved for watershed protection, wildlife habitat, etc.

Another way of looking at this matter, there is now about 400 people per square mile of good-land in the world, already very crowded. 40 people per square mile of good land is still very dense compared to any population of large animal that has ever existed on Earth.

Consider another large omnivore, grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area where it is figured the optimum density for them is about one bear per 6 square miles, not really a fair comparison but still illustrates what I am talking about.

[tabitha]

i appreciate discussion, and am genuinely not trying to be critical, but how are these guestimates productive? the only way this could ever be enforced would be through brute government- and it may come to that.

but as others have posted, a population increases, and falls. it will happen to us. our problem is our power of invention, creation, creativity- it is our thinking mind that has us here, in this polluted overpopulated world. will our thinking mind 'get us out' of this mess?

again, no harm intended here, but just saying "the world is overcrowded, like, 90% of us dont belong here" - what does that mean? how can we move from that to something productive, to The Answer?

i try (and have not refined this) to do *what i can*, to focus on the things i can have effect on. i share my way of life with as many as i feel comfortable. something about making blanket statements, tossing loose info, about and at the rest of the world, just doesnt sit right with me. there is too much i can change, to judge those things that i cannot. and i (naively? who knows) believe that this personal change is the only real change.

i read back through this and realize i have not come close to saying what i mean. i will admit i struggle with communication.

tabitha

[HillsideDigger]

A world where the couples choose to have an average of no more than 1.5 children, which would still allow large families for a few, would achieve large population reductions in just a few decades. I do not feel any brute force government program would work and I am not in favor of large scale abortion for population control.

I doubt it will happen by voluntary choices, though, but likely will by natural forces.

There have been volumes of studies published on this matter of optimum population levels and they offer various numbers for optimum levels, many far less than 10% the current level. Many empirical, scientific technigues can be used to calculate such a number based on this, that or the other assumption regarding such matters as the quantity of sunlight striking the world, the propensity for biological gain, etc.

Secularly speaking, merely defining optimum is a problem. Are people to live like bees in a honeycomb with cells on, above and below the surface or on widely scattered farmsteads?

But, you know, discussion of people numbers has often been considered 'racist' and therefore not politically correct and so avoided, same thing with immigration.

[flowerpower]

Future population estimates are not guesses. There are plenty of mathmatical formulae used to calculate these numbers.

The US govt gives no tax breaks to those who do not have children. There are all sorts of deductions and programs if you do have kids. I do not have any kids, nor do I plan on it. I do have to pay school taxes though- about 2 grand this year. A total of 30 dollars goes to the public library system and the rest to the school system.

[tabitha]

just because there is math behind them does not make them anything but guesses. the world is not a vaccum. there are many numbers come up with by mathematical means- are they all solid fact? or are they educated guesses?

my point, which i see was missed, is that throwing statements like "there are too many of us" "90% of us dont belong here", etc, is not productive, it doesnt lead us toward an answer. math cannot contain this issue. it is contrary to human nature to curb population.

what can we do? become bitter, angry, upset with those who have children? the personal choice not to reproduce is just that, personal. i respect it (and am thankful for it in some ways). because we are animals, despite our 'thinking mind', we will never stop reproducing as a race. as long as there is a way, animals continue to enact the meaning of their lives. those who do not have children might know know the truth in this as well as i do. i have felt how led we are by our hormones, the strange dichotomy between animal and soul.

what can we do? we can change ourselves. our own lifestyles. we can choose to use less, to live simply, and in the case of those who have children, raise little humans who think of the earth as limited, precious. so many of the grown adults in our world think of themselves as masters of the world. some groups even believe that God will give us a new earth as soon as we use this one up!

in my opinion, the anger and energy spent blaming the rest of the population for our doom is better spent improving our own impact on the earth. there is always something you could do differently, better. and that is real change, without anger.

[HillsideDigger]

Who said anything about curbing reproduction? The issue is, 'reproduction beyond replacement (which by an increasing number is now considered arrogance and selfishness in the extreme, a sort of machismo attitude or put another way "the rest be ****ed, I will have mine")' which is resulting in unprecedented 'population growth' which could lead to the unfolding of a number of different sorts of Doomsday.

This is a difficult subject, and I have been flamed for even mentioning it since my days in high-school, 35 years ago, and I do not feel angry that the world is like it is, I am concerned that very difficult times for many people lay just a few years ahead.

When the waters rushed out from the shore just minutes before the Indian Ocean tsunami about a year ago, countless people, not knowing the meaning of such a sudden receding of the water, rushed seaward to witness this unusual event only to have towering waves sweep over them in minutes with little chance of survival. Some, who conjectured what would likely soon happen, may have tried to warn others to seek high ground swiftly. Were these people, attempting to warn the naive, guilty of 'Fighting Human Nature?'

For one thing because as far as we know, this 'limits of growth' issue, has not been encountered before on a worldwide scale

we have nothing for comparison other than mathematical models of those who care to conjecture, and I expect some of the researchers into this issue publish conclusions partially for the 'shock value' to get people's attention. As well, such models must be scientific in nature without even considering why we are here, such models are based upon people merely as animals (animals with a tremendous appetite for resource consumption), not people as spirit-beings. As well, many other animal species have the instinctual ability to control their own numbers, people even if they ever possessed this instinctual ability have lost that ability.

An optimum number of people for a longterm sustainable culture is by its very definition smaller than the maximum number of people that might be able to eke out some sort of minimal level of existence for the longterm.

[flowerpower]

because we are animals, despite our 'thinking mind', we will never stop reproducing as a race.

You're right, humans will not stop reproducing-whether by choice or by chance. We might be influenced by our hormones, but we should not be ruled by them.


as long as there is a way, animals continue to enact the meaning of their lives. those who do not have children might know know the truth in this as well as i do.

I am not sure what you mean.


The Tsunami disaster was just horrible. But it didn't surprise me that people ran towards the water. Isn't it sad that the 'smartest" animal ran towards danger and the majority of the wild animals moved to higher ground. Most of the animals that perished were domesticated.

[tabitha]

why shouldnt we be influenced by our hormonal processes? when we use the word 'hormones', in modern conversation, many people think of testosterone. it is a small player in the human body. very small.

our entire being is based on hormonal process. our capacity to love- to feel anguish- to empathize. our spirit is tied up in these bodily functions.

we are no less animals than we are spirit beings. the attitude that we should shrug off our animal selves, that that side of us is lesser or wrong, is part of the problem with our world. humans have been striving to reach above something that cannot be below them. we are animals. earth creatures. we are not better than that, we dont need to be.

i have given birth to two children without modern intervention. many women have done this- countless millions. in birth, a human comes face to face with her animal and hormonal, even instinctual self. that part of us society tells us is lesser, wrong. the part the world tells us we should numb away, replace with cool logic and books. this is what i mean by those who have borne children (and perhaps fathers, too, if the process were undisturbed- often in our culture fathers are supposed to feel detatched from birth).

being born, growing to sexual maturity, reproduction and birth is the meaning of the lives of all creatures, even plants. i don't expect our race to turn its back on that. individuals may, believing it is the answer, but an entire population will not.

denying our animal selves, our instincts and undeniable ties to the earth and its creatures, is wrong. it creates monsters like Monsanto. it is the reason our earth is so raped. the people doing these things feel no kinship or responsibility to nature. and it isnt their fault. hundreds of years of socialization has done it, and i dont even pretend to say i have risen above it. but i hope to, in some small way, before i die.

tabitha

[HillsideDigger]

Consider the numbers of any large top-predator/omnivore in the world other than people.

Predator/omnivores number only in the thousands, not millions, certainly not billions.

Larger numbers of people as herbivores as opposed to omnivores could be sustained.

Very few types of wild large herbivores number in the millions either.

Demographers figure with current trends (assuming no major catastrophes) the world's number of people will top out at about 9 billion about 50 years from now, by which time possibly enough people will realize there just is not enough room in the world for large families.

This has been realized already in many of the developed countries of the world, most notably Japan, Russia and several European countries and is nearly the case in the US. China, as well, is no longer increasing its numbers, except by government mandate and not by individual choice.

Unfortunately, many western politicians view this as a problem and are encouraging increasing birthrates. Bill Bennett and Patrick Buchanan are Americans with this view.

[flowerpower]

I do not believe that procreation is the meaning of life. It is only a small part of the cycle of life.

[HillsideDigger]

http://www.mnforsustain.org/grant_l_new_american_century.htm#How Few Is Too Few