>>>> We already know a highly productive person who lives by intellectual
>>>> property can have a green lifestyle -- no motor vehicle, a tiny amount
>>>> of land occupied by a high rise apt.
>
>>> Since every high rise apartment that I have ever seen stands in an
>>> ocean of concrete surrounded by what is essentially a very non-green
>>> environment I question how green a life style this actually is (not
>>> that I give a hoot owl's hind quarters for whether you are trying to
>>> live green or not).
>
>> The Sierra Club has been fighting suburban sprawl for decades,
>> advocating the "Manhattenization" of America.
>
> That does not surprise me,
Well what is your definition of green? Each person displacing fifty
acres of wildlife habitat with his green lawn?
. . .
>>>> A workaholic, however, might have the only sustainable lifestyle --
>>>> plowing his fields with oxen, etc.
>
>>> This is what I was referring to. �Farming methods that require oxen
>>> doom a significant portion of the population to starvation. �
>> How so?
>> He adds no net CO2 to the atmosphere.
> Bushels of grain harvested per acer of arable land using "primitive"
> methods are much less then when is produced using modern methods.
The "modern methods" responsible for high yields aren't due to
tractors. All tractors do is reduce labor costs.
> Keeping in mind that back when oxen were used in the production of
> food a much higher percentage of people and land was required to feed
> the population
Because of the higher labor demands, not per/acre crop yields.
If the crops were managed by hand every last square foot could be
devoted to cultivation increasing yields.
Bret Cahill
