Response 1 (Joke): Thermodynamics assures me that the energy output will
be close to but slightly less than the energy input when the machine and
I are considered as a closed system. (Don't get any weird ideas.)
Response 2 (Almost serious): If the machine is considered to be the same
as tools, the human species has been using tools for over 50,000 years.
That is sustainable enough for me.
Response 3 (Serious): If the machines use solar power or the equivalent
in renewable energy for their use and full production cycle it would
require more than your _fiat_ to convince me that you are correct. I
would be interested in how you justify your statement. YOu may be able
to do so.
---Jay Woods
On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 YankeePerm@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 11/18/96 10:06:54 PM, jwoods@sr.radiks.net (Jay Woods)
> wrote:
>
> <<I have no trouble imagining low input agriculture sustaining populations
> in the US. The key concept that would need to be adopted is underground
> housing and commercial buildings. Then the farming via CSA would be
> literally overhead. That should cut down on travel time. As small scale
> and intelligent machinery is developed to handle raised beds the
> production per person will rise to match or exceed current agribusiness
> norms.
> ---Jay Woods>>
>
> Food production that depends on machinery is not sustainable. You will
> always get far less energy out that you put in.
>
> For Mother Earth, Dan Hemenway, Yankee Permaculture Publications (since
> 1982), Elfin Permaculture workshops, lectures, Permaculture Design Courses,
> consulting and permaculture designs (since 1981), and now permaculture
> training in an email classroom. Copyright, 1996, Dan & Cynthia Hemenway.
> YankeePerm@aol.com P.O. 2025, Ocala FL 3447-2025 USA.
>
> We don't have time to rush.
>