“We just have 175-200 years more on this planet, after that we’ll be done with. I have no doubt that we’ll figure out a plan to survive but is that really necessary? Why not just work with the People have been and dependably will be social animals. Where our food comes from and how we get it, to a great extent decides how we interact with each other.
As animals, the way we interact with each other is established in the way we live. When we are encompassed by nature we will act differently in contrast to when we are encompassed by machines and concrete. When we are surrounded by domestication we act, think and feel in an unexpected way. The secluded, calmed, strained, and overpowering reality that we've made now is as one from the material world our elders have constructed and that we keep up. It gets increasingly hard to envision a world not quite the same as the one we are brought up into.
So we give in. We accept this reality as our lone reality. We accept that humans have a characteristic slant to make a move to the detriment of each other and to the detriment of the world on the loose. We attempt to make the best of our time and that will be that. A few of us swing to god, some swing to politics, some swing to sedatives (chemicals or electronics); we turn anyplace that we can discover some break from the dry, inhuman condition that suffocates us.
The
I believe in human nature. It's a lot to ask, but rather there's a lot about human society and conduct that must be offered an explanation to, in any case. Put in specific circumstances as for socialization, we tend to act in comparable ways. In like manner, the progressing domestication process has dependably worked in the same ways, controlling and diverting human need into reliance. Our comparable responses are a piece of our legacy as social creatures. Furthermore, that is the way millions of years of advancement and social living have made us.
There's a natural nature to developmental change. Yet, transformative change is something big that spreads out over thousands and millions of years. It is a reaction to long haul conditions regarding transient changes. We survive in light of the fact that, as a species, we are versatile. Furthermore, that has been a sort of blended gift. While it helps our body store fat and water so we can cover long distances or that we are fit for taking in such a variety of sorts of nourishment, it has likewise made it workable for us to get by in urban areas and maintain ourselves of the excessively processed food. What we've been equipped for making due for a brief period has been seen by some as a transformative change in itself. It has permitted some to surmise that humans were proposed for city and mechanical life or that thusly of survival and destructive development can keep on existing, either by the Hand of God/s or the Knowledge of Science.
Development has been consolidated into a social reality. That is the reason we have racism, sexism, class or caste societies, and their substances of slavery, war, colonization, government, and so forth. As we ventured into the tamed countryside, the requested city, the modern air pocket, the worldwide framework and the virtual reality, we've seen change as far as eras as opposed to a great many years. The individuals who shape and profit by the society can just do as such with an armed force, producers and reproducers. They take their fleeting advantage as reality and transformed history into advancement. They made God and afterwards got to be them.'Appropriate'
We live in a society that could sensibly be portrayed as fixated on technology. Technological arrangements are generally promoted as the route forward (paying little heed to what the issue is!) In such a 'techno-fix' society, it is vital to stretch different courses forward - changes in conduct, cultural changes, new thinking and values. Be that as it may, technology has a considerable measure to offer, and it would be stupid not to make utilization of the best of science and technology.
So where does the "appropriate" in 'Appropriate Technology' originate from? To me, it is technology that "fits" well into a spot or setting. For the "technology" part, I like W. Brian Arthur's definition, whereby technology is the catch or utilization of a phenomenon for a particular reason. So this could be everything from development of a manure heap to an arrangement of group administration. The "appropriate" comes in when you perceive that some methods for creating sustainable societies resound better with human conduct over others — say, group land trusts instead of landowner/occupant arrangements.
Permaculture is demonstrated on the connections found in nature. The term was coined by
Permaculture, is not simply organic farming, the ideology in practice means agreeable mix of environment and individuals — providing them food, shelter, and energy in a very sustainable way.
One part of permaculture that emerges straight off the bat for analysis is the means by which it shows in urban milieu. Permaculture, as found in urban areas can incorporate group gardens, city ranches, lawn plants, and is an endeavour to make urban spaces more independent and reduce our carbon footprint. An anti-civilisation critique of urban areas is that their presence is predicated on the importation of assets (e.g. food) from rural regions. Permaculture, particularly of the urban variety, attempts to mediate this.
As it may be, with such a convergence of humans in a restricted space, there isn't room in their quick range to deliver the method for their subsistence. The importation of assets, above all food, then makes a bigger carbon footprint. The further the separation required to import these things, the more the framework depends on of the presence of mechanical base to move (e.g. a truck moves food from a ranch to a supermarket in the city, which is fuelled by petroleum, which is transported by boat from some other country, which is mined by gear which is additionally fuelled by petroleum... etc).
So then, permaculture takes a gander at a given circumstance and tries to utilize plan standards so as to utilize the prior elements on a land parcel (whether provincial or urban) to progress further freedom, with a lower ecological effect (i.e. carbon footprint), and for the most part to make a property more green. This in fact goes past food, as it is an all encompassing way to deal with investigating a given place, and can likewise incorporate such things putting away water, utilizing regular light, composting, and so on.
“The kind of future I view, is one in which via simple methodological and technological changes on local level, coupled with macro level shifts towards what the macro/mainstream considers "sustainable" creates a future in which the human race is given the privilege of surviving another 200 to 300 years. My view is of us reaching a star trek level socialistic/transhumanist level civilization but via the backbone being that of a new ecological perspective in regards to human habitat and or settlement.”
*We interviewed Dylan Hanson, a man who lives in nature and for the nature, and a few others with in-depth knowledge of agri-tech and permaculture. They gave us some very interesting insights on technology and how it can help in sustaining the environment. A few quotes have been used in this article, the rest will be continued in part 2 of the article where we’ll talk about primitivism, its history and why is that these people (Primitivists) want us to go back to the hunting and gathering stage.