Back to ModelEarth Articles and Papers.


"Solar Village":
What is missing in this picture?

The following has been written as a reaction to an article by Gussie Fauntleroy - "Pushing against the tide - Hanne & Maurice Strong at Earth Summit 2012" Crestone Eagle June 2012, p20-21 - , which, among other things, says:

... Among the Manitou Foundation's current projects is the design and planning of a "solar village" aimed at providing self-sustaining housing, food production and energy for 50 to 60 families (with the number to be determined by a land-capacity feasibility study), as well as training and employment for local young people. The first proposal/design concept for the village, to be built near Willow Creek west of Atalanta in the Grants, will be completed by mid-June, Hanne relates. The next step will be to choose the best and most appropriate design, and to plan fundraising for the project. ...

If the "solar village" (mentioned in the article) is meant to present a picture of how people should live in the, presumably, sustainable future, then the "picture" is incomplete. It would then imply that in the sustainable future we all live in solar villages, in "self-sustaining housing", grow our own food. But it wouldn't say how the solar panels and all the things that those solar panels are supposed to power (what would those things, indeed, be?) are to be manufactured and maintained. It is obvious that all these could not be made in the village smithy! For all this a huge industrial complex would be needed, run by many people (unless sustainably made and sustainably maintained robots would be used) that by its hugeness and complexity would very unlikely be sustainable ecologically, nor socially, if run by people. If this industrial complex would be run by people--would all those be also living in solar villages? Would they also grow their own food? What would a sustainable health care look like? Would the economy, governance also be provably sustainable? Could those, indeed, be proven to be sustainable ever? By what means? How would all other, non-human species be accommodated? ... All of this would have to be plainly, credibly shown in the "picture".

It is important to present the whole picture of how things should be, because having such a "picture" available would prevent loss of time caused by sorting out our differences in real time/space, instead of sorting them out ahead in a "picture" of how things ideally should be; There is little time left, as the destruction of the planet is much faster than any meaningful improvements. Having such a "picture" would expedite things, because we often strive for different objectives, believing all the time that we want the same thing. We all want "sustainability", but it means a thousand different things to a thousand people! In a "picture" it could be seen what definitions are supposed to mean.

The whole picture should show what it would look like when everybody lives sustainably, into as small a detail as possible. The picture would then show that it is truly viable and realistic for humanity to want to live in sync with itself and the whole world. The picture should also show how all others, who would want to live simpler sustainable life-styles, would fit in, how all the possible (but truly so) sustainable sustainable life-styles would fit on one Earth successfully side-by-side, along with all other life.

More on this in Universal Platform for Developing Sustainable Earth Vision/Model Cooperatively - www.ModelEarth.Org/seed.html .

N. B.
The "picture" in this writing could exist in many forms--verbal, as gedankenexperiments, computer models, discussions around the hearth, ... ...

Thank you, Mr. Jan Hearthstone - ModelEarth.Org

Back to TOP

© Hearthstone - Creative Commons License

Things for an "indie" website maintainer.

"W3C" HTML 4.01 compliant