Ecological Footprint
1 Definition from Wikipedia;
'...The ecological footprint is a measure of human demand on the Earth's ecosystems. It is a standardized measure of demand for natural capital that may be contrasted with the planet's ecological capacity to regenerate. It represents the amount of biologically productive land and sea area necessary to supply the resources a human population consumes, and to assimilate associated waste. Using this assessment, it is possible to estimate how much of the Earth (or how many planet Earths) it would take to support humanity if everybody followed a given lifestyle. For 2006, humanity's total ecological footprint was estimated at 1.4 planet Earths – in other words, humanity uses ecological services 1.4 times as fast as Earth can renew them.'
2 Ranchor Prime
An intriguing exercise in this connection is to model the concept elucidated by Ranchor Prime; of forest belts connecting and intervening between villages of approximately 5 miles diameter (the villages in the forest, rather than the forest in the village)
'...According to tradition it was not trees that should be in the village, but the village that should be among the trees.' (See the section 'The Forest and the Trees' for further discussion of his philosophy.)
3 John Howe
A similar model, somewhat different in scale, is suggested by John Howe. He proposes villages or centers of population no bigger than a20 mile radius
'...Transportation energy will become unavailable except for electric or muscle power. Therefore, the furthest distance to a community center would be a radius of about 20 miles. Present U.S. arable land of about 300 million acres will not be able to provide for 300 million inhabitants at today’s rate of 10 energy units of fossil fuel input for each single energy unity of food output. An ideal community would have about a 20 mile radius (800,000 acres) with one-half (400,000 acres) arable land to support 250,000 people (1.6 acres per capita) with approximately 200,000 in non-agricultural roles. This leaves 50,000 people to live on 10,000 farms, each with approximately 80 acres with one-half tillable. The other half of the land could be forest, green space, and recreation area. On this basis, a downsized U.S. population of 250 million people could live on 1,000 such community centers utilizing 800 million acres or about one third of the total U.S. land area.'
4 A smaller scale
On the scale of an individual farm (or ecosystem), the concept of ecological footprint is yet totally relevant. In my own operation, the economy of scale allows for totally different solutions than are required, for, say, a large-scale feed lot. One of the factors that has continually drawn me further in is to see how the ecosystem in fact benefits from the feedback and forward; the 'waste' from one system becoming the nutrients for another. This is, in fact, how our planet evolved, before we as humans became able to macro manage and, often, damage the systems that preceded us.
'...The ecological footprint is a measure of human demand on the Earth's ecosystems. It is a standardized measure of demand for natural capital that may be contrasted with the planet's ecological capacity to regenerate. It represents the amount of biologically productive land and sea area necessary to supply the resources a human population consumes, and to assimilate associated waste. Using this assessment, it is possible to estimate how much of the Earth (or how many planet Earths) it would take to support humanity if everybody followed a given lifestyle. For 2006, humanity's total ecological footprint was estimated at 1.4 planet Earths – in other words, humanity uses ecological services 1.4 times as fast as Earth can renew them.'
2 Ranchor Prime
An intriguing exercise in this connection is to model the concept elucidated by Ranchor Prime; of forest belts connecting and intervening between villages of approximately 5 miles diameter (the villages in the forest, rather than the forest in the village)
'...According to tradition it was not trees that should be in the village, but the village that should be among the trees.' (See the section 'The Forest and the Trees' for further discussion of his philosophy.)
3 John Howe
A similar model, somewhat different in scale, is suggested by John Howe. He proposes villages or centers of population no bigger than a20 mile radius
'...Transportation energy will become unavailable except for electric or muscle power. Therefore, the furthest distance to a community center would be a radius of about 20 miles. Present U.S. arable land of about 300 million acres will not be able to provide for 300 million inhabitants at today’s rate of 10 energy units of fossil fuel input for each single energy unity of food output. An ideal community would have about a 20 mile radius (800,000 acres) with one-half (400,000 acres) arable land to support 250,000 people (1.6 acres per capita) with approximately 200,000 in non-agricultural roles. This leaves 50,000 people to live on 10,000 farms, each with approximately 80 acres with one-half tillable. The other half of the land could be forest, green space, and recreation area. On this basis, a downsized U.S. population of 250 million people could live on 1,000 such community centers utilizing 800 million acres or about one third of the total U.S. land area.'
4 A smaller scale
On the scale of an individual farm (or ecosystem), the concept of ecological footprint is yet totally relevant. In my own operation, the economy of scale allows for totally different solutions than are required, for, say, a large-scale feed lot. One of the factors that has continually drawn me further in is to see how the ecosystem in fact benefits from the feedback and forward; the 'waste' from one system becoming the nutrients for another. This is, in fact, how our planet evolved, before we as humans became able to macro manage and, often, damage the systems that preceded us.