Greenster, I always enjoy reading your notes, whether they are responses to my own or not. And is it true that you support Ron Paul? Maybe there is hope for you yet. Then again, maybe not. :)

In your response to my extremely reductionist argument about Greenland and its grain-growing Norse, I begin to see that we're really talking about different (if overlapping) things.

I'm thinking more about the destructive effects of rowing to another shore (literally), and treating the soils found there as though they were exactly the same as those found at home. Wiping out native vegetation, replacing it with stuff to suit the herbivores brought from home, using resources for nonessentials, refusing/failing to make nice with other peoples who happen to share the environment . . . all of these are foundational problems for the Norse settlements in Greenland as I see it.

You seem to be thinking more in terms of some political theorist that I have not read, and perhaps misinterpreting my missives as being allied with that person/movement/ideology. So, when I mention the term "sustainability," you seem (by your postings) to interpret this as my use of a buzzword that is used in some particular campaign or other. To wit:

"Sustainability is a political movement, not a positive response to changing conditions"

My sense of "sustainability" is not drawn from any political theorist or movement. What I mean by the term "sustainability" is, "the ability to continue doing what one has been doing." Like with sex, or farming, or feeding alligators. If you don't do it in a way that keeps things going well . . . then you don't get to keep doing it!

On another hand, I do not see the dichotomy that you apparantly do, between "political movement" and "positive response to changing conditions."

Isn't the ability to positively respond inherent in the idea of "movement"?

Herring405

(New baby resting well; mother very tired)