Self-sufficient homes
A self-sufficient home is a take on autonomous buildings. A self-sufficient home is just that – its reliance on government or community infrastructure including electric power, heating, sewage, and transportation systems is minimal, often non-existent. Self-sufficient homes nearly always have a very low environmental impact. In addition, people choose to build and live in such homes in order to feel more responsible and connected to the land and seasons, or safer in times of a natural disasters, war or civil disorder.
A self-sufficient home is usually highly energy efficient, since it is built of materials that are efficient insulators and uses passive solar heating, In addition, a self-sufficient home might have a small power generation plant of its own based on solar cells, hydropower, wind energy, or biogas. Since they are usually away from public roads and infrastructure, self-sufficient homes have their own waste-disposal and sewage management system, usually built with an eye to not polluting their water source, for they are off civic water lines too. Water is carefully managed, both through rainwater harvesting and recycling of grey water from kitchen, washing, and bath use. Unlike in an autonomous building, which could house thousands of people in homes and offices, a self-sufficient home needs to manage all these issues on a very small scale, generally for a nuclear family.
The move to self-sufficient homes arises for some people when they believe that they are not secure, living within the matrix of civic infrastructure, because of mismanagement of already stretched natural and other resources, or because they feel that distribution is inequitable and prefer to drop out rather than propagate the accepted mode of living in 'society' or 'community'. Other people believe that human beings are meant to be in close proximity to the land, living off it, and stewarding its resources. Building movements and types such as the Earthship are examples of self-sufficient homes.
-
raves +1 posted Aug 13, 2008 02:49AM GMT
-
raves +3 posted Aug 12, 2008 03:38PM GMTIt is interesting that Humans are the only creatures on the planet that seems to be incapable of creating a symbiotic relationship with its environment. Every other creature that I can think of gives back to its surroundings in one form or another. We are the only ones that take more than we give back.
-
raves +2 Aug 12, 2008 05:28PM GMTWe are capable, but most of us are conditioned not to. I am trying to break out of that cycle
-
raves +2 Aug 12, 2008 05:43PM GMTUp until the last few centuries, humans were sustainable as well.
-
raves +2 Aug 12, 2008 05:51PM GMTdo you think every animal is symbiotic with the environment... I am thinking this is just a generalization but am trying to think of a good counter example
-
raves +2 Aug 12, 2008 06:08PM GMTOnly over the long term. I think there is a term called overshoot when a species is exceeding the carrying capacity of its environment.
-
raves +2 Aug 12, 2008 06:14PM GMTthis is why I like when you are around...
I wonder if parasites can be considered outside of symbiosis -
raves +1 Aug 12, 2008 06:26PM GMTParasites can be sustainable as long as they do not endanger the survival of their host species, no? All animals superficially behave as parasites because they do not make their own food but instead consume other plants or animals.
-
raves +2 Aug 12, 2008 06:38PM GMTtrue so I think we are all in agreement that there can be and probably are species which do not have a symbiotic relationship with the earth but we are probably the only one that could actually destroy the earth because of our imbalance
-
raves +2 Aug 12, 2008 06:43PM GMTYes, but I think the view that man is separate from nature is in itself "unnatural". In nature, imbalances usually work themselves out over time, usually by reduction in the population that is causing the imbalance. I don't think man will destroy the Earth. It is more likely man will destroy himself, or reduce his numbers considerably, and maybe take down a lot of biodiversity with him. In the end, the rest of "nature" will march on.
-
raves +2 Aug 12, 2008 06:51PM GMTin this we also agree.. this is what I always tell the greenpeace people to annoy them
nature will take care of itself over time -
raves +1 Aug 12, 2008 07:38PM GMTYes, but a "nature" composed of cockroaches and kudzu isn't very inspiring. But I suppose given a few more million of years, biodiversity would also return, just very different from what we have now.
-
raves +2 Aug 12, 2008 08:08PM GMTexactly evolution marches on
-
raves +2 Aug 12, 2008 07:06PM GMT (edited)I would concur there. We are incapable of destroying this planet. We are capable of making it unsuitable for human life, but we are not able to actually destroy it.
-
raves +2 Aug 12, 2008 05:50PM GMTgood point but now I wonder if that is actually true.
I will have to think about the fact that every species is symbiotic with nature
the rabits in australia might not be... -
raves +2 Aug 12, 2008 05:54PM GMTSome forms of aunts are not either. I think a species becomes a problem if it gets too overpopulated.
-
raves +1 Aug 12, 2008 05:55PM GMTor too intelligent ;)
-
raves +1 Aug 12, 2008 05:55PM GMTdo you have a good example with the ants?
-
raves +2 Aug 12, 2008 07:32PM GMT (edited)[edited to replace aunt with ant LMAO yeah, I know I am a retard]
I'll have to look it up. I remember it is a jungle ant (one of those huge aunt breeds) Their situation is kind of unusual, they live off of one type of tree (I'll look that up to, I am sure the tree will be listed once I find the right ant population) but any other plant in the area the aunts destroy. Same thing with animals. These ants have been known to kill humans. Kind of freaky. Thank goodness I don't live near them. -
raves +2 Aug 12, 2008 07:58PM GMTI remember seeing this on the PBS program "Nature". Not sure if this is what you mean. But in this case, I think it is an example of symbiosis.
http://www.eduplace.com/scien...
In the rain forests of Central America, some 50 animal species depend on the umbrella-shaped Cecropia tree—a tropical relative of the mulberry. Cecropias are “pioneer” species that quickly invade and colonize forest clearings or other disturbed areas and thrive in the rain forest's understory and lower canopy. Mammals (such as bats and monkeys) eat the trees' fruits; sloths munch on their leaves; and birds feed on insects scurrying across their broad leaves and branches. But a unique case of “evolutionary mutualism” exists between Cecropias and a seemingly unlikely ally—ants in the genus Azteca.
Cecropias have a hollow trunk and branches, which are divided into a series of chambers by partitions. The Azteca ants set up house in these chambers, and feed, in part, on nectar that the tree produces under its leaves. The tree produces this nectar for the ants, because it's a food source they're willing to die for!
You see, in return for food and shelter, the Azteca ants will defend the Cecropia's leaves against alien invaders. The ants will bite and sting anything that tries to eat Cecropia leaves and will attack and clip any vines trying to make use of their host tree. The ants further help the tree by providing a source of nutrients from frass (insect carcasses) and other insect debris that they leave behind in the stem.
The tree and ant have learned to work together for protection and survival.
I've often wondered whether high density, big city urban living is really more environmentally friendly. Having limited access to arable land or sunshine makes it difficult not to be dependent on food and energy produced elsewhere by somebody else. On the other hand, complete independence at the house or family level can be very inefficient.