[glow=red,2,300][/glow]Hello, what I have been thinking about and working at would be a new kind of “city” made out of living trees and living root mass walls. With underground construction and space systems that allow unbounded movement through an environment. Food forests can produce more food with less work than field crops. If we use a forage system that makes all inhabitants take only for use, we can see the density that is possible. One of the problems with the way we build is dead building material, it takes space but adds nothing to fecundity. a ten acre space with woven trees to one hundred ft. will have more than one half million ft of habitat. Omega diversity! anyone like to play? We can pay for the land and improvements just by exporting media to the civilized, from such a wonderful place.http://www.re-fuse.org
Hi rexgorilla! Honestly, it’s interesting to see this debate played out. I myself, back in my adolescent phase, engaged in a similar debate with some people on this thread that got nowhere. I meet people who are just as adamantly convinced about the inherent unsustainability of cities, and people who make proposals about their feasibility. I’m not an expert, so I can’t know either way, and I fought some people regarding the debate with research that wasn’t really perfectly accurate, so after getting emotionally involved in it, I finally realized it wasn’t worth my time to debate it.
Personally, I’ve seen so many different people with different debates regarding what constitutes a “town” and “city” that I have concluded that at this point, “the jury is still out” regarding what permaculture can support, given that it is a new term defining many techniques that are found not just by indigenous people, but also by small-scare farmers in agricultural societies as well.