I don't know? I'm a physicist, not a botanist or agronomist, so I'm really not the best person to ask. But based on what I know some permaculture practices could be beneficial in climate change scenarios by sinking carbon into the soil at enhanced rates or by producing food ecosystems with somewhat more resilience to climate change effects than conventional agriculture. These are not likely to be especially large, though.
These methods are not suited to fight climate change. You cant simply push down bio matter and hope for it to be fossilized soon. Its also the Geothermal power at play beneath the surface. Such fossilizations take millions or even at best thousands of years. Why not just use the Geothermal power directly, instead?How large would it specifically be though. I think we need a hybrid approach to climate change.
In my opinion, getting to the Age of Enlightenment is the biggest step here. From there to the Industrial revolution is very easy.
These methods are not suited to fight climate change. You cant simply push down bio matter and hope for it to be fossilized soon. Its also the Geothermal power at play beneath the surface. Such fossilizations take millions or even at best thousands of years. Why not just use the Geothermal power directly, instead?
Enlightenment doesn't necessarily mean religion getting weaker among the masses. This cannot happen as Science cannot by itself, claim a monopoly over Truth. Its a false equation. Science can be worked on irrespective of the religiousity of the masses. Enlightenment needs a good flow of information which can be availed through contact and expansion.Is Enlightenment needed in some of the slow burn scenarios suggested or if the dominant faith doesn't claim to have a monopoly on truth
Can you explain?I'm not talking about fossilization but reducing carbon emissions which permaculture seems like it can do.
Can you explain?
@Workable Goblin
This may not be the right thread for this but would permaculture mitigate climate change.
I don't know? I'm a physicist, not a botanist or agronomist, so I'm really not the best person to ask. But based on what I know some permaculture practices could be beneficial in climate change scenarios by sinking carbon into the soil at enhanced rates or by producing food ecosystems with somewhat more resilience to climate change effects than conventional agriculture. These are not likely to be especially large, though.
The problem is that there’s a lot of gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere already, so pulling “a few” out won’t actually do that much (especially if it’s not combined with emissions reductions, of course). Additionally, there are other techniques such as enhanced weathering, non-permaculture related afforestation, and biochar creation which offer similar potentials to remove some amount of CO2 from the atmosphere, with some seeming to be capable of removing a practically unlimited amount of CO2 with sufficient investment (specifically enhanced weathering and direct air capture and sequestration). Those seem more promising than widespread adoption of permaculture to me.Permaculture, if applied to all farm land currently under the plough, would pull a few gigatonnes of CO2 out of the atmosphere.
The problem is that there’s a lot of gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere already, so pulling “a few” out won’t actually do that much
Wealth inequality seems to be a hindrance to industrialisation. The mercantilist policy of deliberately keeping the masses in poverty was justified by claiming that they won't work as hard if they didn't need to do back breaking work from dawn to dusk just to get the bare essentials. Of course, if they did have the wealth to bargain for a higher return on their labour, then the wealthy would have to invest to make their labour more efficient, and having some wealth left over after they've covered living expenses would mean they could generate demand for products suitable for industrialisation. If you're a capitalist with a brickworks or a textile mill, who has the greater capacity for further demand for your products - one aristocrat with a full wardrobe and a manor house, or a hundred to a thousand peasants wearing stitched-up rags and living in wooden hovels?
Might a democracy which doesn't have the crutch of slave labour, or a powerful monarch with the policy of "a chicken in every pot" like Henry IV of France, enrich the peasantry enough to get the virtuous cycle of higher productivity and increased aggregate demand going?