Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [fukuoka_farming] "What if the problem is us"

Expand Messages
  • Larry Haftl
    ... to ... section....or somewhere else on the group s homepage........or the website? I know I would be really interested to see them myself. I d gladly post
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 8 6:19 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      > Bob Monie wrote: A Berkeley architect, Richard Register, has made
      > detailed drawings showing how a city might look if vegetation were allowed
      > predominate, instead of big buildings and cars.
      > Bob.....would it be possible to obtain his drawings to put in the files
      section....or somewhere else on the group's homepage........or the website?
      I know I would be really interested to see them myself.

      I'd gladly post them on the website if they are available and it would not
      be a copyright violation. I'm curious to see them also.

      > I have been thinking back to as far as I can to see how it must have once
      been on the Earth. Using the Bible as not a religious tool, but instead as
      an oral history handed down through the ages I began thinking this way. If
      the Garden of Eden was such a place that Adam and Eve..or whatever you wish
      to call the first people....could wear no clothes, then it must have been
      covered by a rather large tree canopy. An apple tree is mentioned as
      growing there in what must have been a shaded area.......thus proof fruit
      trees will thrive in the shade....cuz once they did.

      I don't know why, but I have often had a peculiar thought about the Garden
      of Eden eviction. As I recall, the humans got the eviction notice because
      the ate from the tree of wisdom. What if eviction was not an immediate
      thing? What if we are still on the way out, but if we acquire enough wisdom
      we might be able to stay/return? In part it's that old thing about a little
      knowledge being dangerous (until you get enough knowledge to wisely use it).
      In part, since creation might have operated on a geologic timeline a million
      years (of human development) would be "immediate". So the trick would be to
      get smart/aware enough to be able to live in peace with the other critters
      in the garden and therefore get to "stay". Sorry to digress. Sometimes my
      mind wanders into very strange places.

      >They could eat of the garden whenever they wished which means that veggies
      also grew there in the shade. I am imagining paths they walked rather than
      wide walkways that were planned.

      Since deciduous trees and plants are the natural successors of the
      evergreens it would seem reasonable for them to grow in less than full sun.
      I think the amount of sun any given plant receives each day determines its
      form and ability to function, so some plants would function better in full
      sun and others would function poorer. I also think plants have a tremendous
      ability to adapt to changing conditions (those that don't, aren't).

      >They didn't seem to be bothered by insects and the diseases provided by
      being bitten by insects.....so there must have been a balance of Nature back
      then to keep such things in check. Perhaps such things as mosquitoes had a
      different reason for living back then..

      I don't think nature is very balanced or in check except in a very, very
      broad way. It's really kind of messy and "inefficient" and always changing.
      Species expand when the living is good and contract when it is not. And in
      the interim some adapt to the changing conditions and some don't. Seen any
      dinosaurs lately? From what I've read, most plants we have around us today
      are not the plants that were around back then (whatever "then" you choose).
      Back to that "only constant in the universe is change" thing.

      > Then I began to ponder something else. Some of the trees must have been
      deciduous. If things that like cooler weather existed then.....and if there
      were to some extent seasons no matter how mild, then things like peas could
      have come up just before the leaves were shed and then gained their heighth
      and blossomed when the trees were bare.....remembering that this would most
      likely still have been dappled shade because not all trees were deciduous.
      Then as the trees began getting new leaves (a rather short period of time
      exists in my mind when the trees were bare as in temperate climates I am
      thinking here), the pods would develop and ripen to be eaten.....or to fall
      to the ground as seed to be spread by the critters around there at the time.
      I am imagining also that these crops grew hither and yon as the seeds were
      spread not by people, but by birds and animals. According to this history
      book agronimy wasn't practiced until these folks had to leave this place, so
      it must have all been done naturally....

      This reminds me of the discussion we had about apples. Most of the edible
      apples we have today are less than 200 years old and highly selected from
      thousands, perhaps millions of apple trees because they produced edible
      apples (as opposed to something so sour it was only suitable for making into
      cider). I know that there are some species that prefer shade over full sun.
      And that some individual specimens will survive, perhaps even thrive, being
      planted in the "wrong" place and seriously neglected (part of my "orchard"
      is testament to that). So anything seems to be possible. Just need to find
      the specimens that do well in the given microclimate you plant them in.

      The really interesting thing about this, and the thing I think you are
      chewing on, is that it may be possible to "break all the rules" in planting
      and still end up with fruitful, edible plants simply because of the
      unexplored or ignored power of individual plants to cope with whatever comes
      their way.

      > I suspect when most folks think of a Garden of Eden they think of a
      formal garden. I don't think that is a correct assumption at all.

      I agree with you. Nature is "messy" in its productivity. And the idea of a
      wild forager garden like Judy Phillips once mentioned is very appealing to
      me as well. Natural processes rarely work in straight lines, so why should
      we? Why not a mini-hunter/gatherer garden instead of an agricultural one?
      Undoubtedly much less "efficient", but a whole lot more interesting and

      > All of these thoughts have been rolling around in my brain of late as I
      watch my garden areas trying to figure the right answers. You all started
      this process with discussions here in the last two weeks. I don't know if
      the process will be stopping any time soon.

      One of the most interesting aspects of the great seedball experiement came
      from seeing all the stuff that came up in the yard. Much like what you are
      experiencing on your unmowed ground, all sorts of interesting things popped
      up. There were "clumps" of stuff, but no area had a wide expanse of only one
      kind of plant. And in an area of about 100'x100' I counted more than 100
      different plants (none of which I planted). Leave a reasonably fertile area
      alone long enough and all sorts of wonderous things seem to pop up. Be nice
      if at least some of it was edible for humans though.

      >My two year old cabbages are still in fine shape with their multiple heads
      forming well. I checked them last night to see if they were being bothered.
      I never stripped the leaves from last season. The insects and time did it
      for me. I just left them alone in the garden. With no interference from me
      they seem to be doing well.

      So how did they taste compared to the "first generation"?

      Larry Haftl
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.