A Place In Fabland?

Several months ago, I wrote a series of posts discussing small-scale manufacturing as part of a strategy of adaptation to economic collapse due to Peak Oil. My position then was that small-scale manufacturing would primarily be employed to make the simple low-tech tools needed for a much simpler life. In this role, it would enable us to continue to have reasonable access to things such as hand tools and bicycles. I had not seriously considered small-scale manufacturing as a means of maintaining widespread access to the gadgets that define modern life in advanced industrial society. But that was before I knew much about the global community of “fabbers.” As I wrote my earlier series, I devoted a small amount of space to the fabber phenomenon, but I didn't have time to do it justice. A couple of news articles over the last month have caused me to turn back again for a more complete exploration of this subject.

According to Wikipedia, a digital fabricator (also known as a “fabber” or “fab”) is basically a “small, self-contained factory that can make objects described by digital data.” According to many enthusiasts, fabbers have great potential for democratization of the means of production in industrial society. This is because of the following advances:

• The invention of small, inexpensive machines capable of producing three-dimensional parts

• The digital definition of three-dimensional part manufacture as an act of three-dimensional printing

• Increases in computational power of consumer electronics, including PC's and printers

• And lastly, the invention and widespread availability of new materials that can be easily formed, machined and “printed” into parts, in ordinary, non-clean room environments.

All of these things are now being combined into machines that promise to do for manufacturing what cheap and powerful consumer electronics have done for media. As powerful and inexpensive consumer electronics have combined with the Internet to turn everyone into a potential creator of entertainment or news or art, so the digital fabber revolution promises to turn everyone into a potential creator of useful manufactured goods. Just as the consumer electronics revolution has weakened the power of traditional producers of media, so the fabber revolution has the power to displace traditional, capital-intensive, large-scale manufacture of goods.

Thus some fabber enthusiasts tout these machines as technological miracles that will enable every garage to be a high-tech small-scale manufacturer of high-tech products. These devices are put forward as the definitive answer to our present economic collapse, and the key to continued prosperity over the long haul. But are they all these things after all? Are they any of these things? If fabbers are the miracle that their enthusiasts claim, this leads to a near-term future that potentially looks quite different from the darker future of enforced simplicity and technological retreat envisioned by many collapse-watchers.

What role will the fabber revolution play in the near-term future of industrial society, particularly in the First World? How will the fulfillment of that role affect our society farther on, over the next several centuries? Do fabbers have the potential to preserve widespread access to highly advanced manufactured goods? Or are there limits on all advanced industrial activity that ensure a collapse of industrial society? I'm sure that everyone has their own, instinctive, gut-level answer to these questions. Yet such gut-level responses must be examined to determine whether they are fact-based or merely faith (or sometimes, wish) based.

I don't know that I will be able to offer a definitive answer to these questions. But I thought a good starting point would be to lay out what we already know about fabbers, and to put forth pertinent questions that would have to be answered in order to accurately define the true potential of fabbers in dealing with our present collapse. My observations and pertinent questions are listed below, in outline form:

1. What can fabbers make now? (These are things whose manufacture has been reliably and repeatedly demonstrated.)

• Gross machine parts made of plastic and some metals

• Rudimentary control components, such as “printed circuits”

• Objects d'art

2. What things can fabbers not make now?

• Ultrapure microelectronic substrates (that is, substrates made from inorganic materials like silicon)

• Inorganic microelectronic circuits (maybe a fabber will be developed that can do this, but it requires creating ultrapure “clean room” conditions inside the average Joe's garage)

• Other fabbers. (They can make most of the machine tool parts, but they can't yet make the microelectronics used in control of fabbers.)

• Note: if fabbers are only practically useful when they have great computing power (needed for rapidly fabricating complex parts in 3D), then one won't be able to use a fabber to build another fabber until a fabber can also produce all of its own control circuitry and microprocessors.

3. What will fabbers will need in order to be self-replicating (or build their own replacements), with present-generation computational abilities?

• Feedstocks of ultrapure materials

• A source of electric energy

4. Ultrapure inorganic materials as a restricting condition

• Energy, Silicon and the Siemens process (and other processes). (All processes now used for purifying silicon and associated dopants, and combining these materials into appropriate semiconductors, require large amounts of energy. As access to fossil-fuel energy declines, these processes will become increasingly expensive.)

• Other microelectronic ingredients, like dopants, are increasingly scarce

• Less-pure forms of these materials are less and less remarkable, until in the limit, they are no more remarkable than the natural states of these materials. Useless for high-speed electronics below a certain level of purity. (Example: a galena crystal, commonly found in nature, can be used to build a crude AM radio receiver. But it takes much purer materials to build high-speed, high-performance microelectronics.)

• If energy is the limiting factor in producing these materials, energy is a limiting factor in a “fabber” revolution.

• Has any work been done in recycling microelectronics, beyond simply reclaiming the metals used in them? What is the energy cost in extracting and re-purifying the silicon, metals, dopants contained in an IC or larger chip?

5. Question: In a resource-constrained future, can suitably fast microelectronics be printed using less exotic materials? Can these be easily programmed to provide the sort of production control currently exercised by the electronics in today's fabbers?

• Answer: polymeric organic semiconductor materials are being developed for use in possible thin-film, printable microelectronics.

• Transistors and integrated circuits have been made with these organic semiconductors. How fast can they be made to operate? Current silicon-based MOSFET's can be switched at speeds well over 1 GHz (one billion cycles per second). Can organic transistors and microcircuits be made as fast? At present, they are not. (Circuit speed is a factor in processor speed, and thus in the speed with which a fabber controlled by such a circuit can turn out complex parts.)

• Are there impending resource limits on organic semiconductors?

6. In the spirit of the Precautionary Principle, are there any moral or ethical or other downsides to the fabber revolution? Are there potential negative outcomes or uses of this technology that haven't been widely forseen?

Anyway, those are the points for consideration that I was able to think of in a short time. Over the next several weeks, I may try to take a stab at a few of them, as time allows. Unfortunately, time doesn't allow this weekend, as I worked a bit extra on Friday and I have to go in again tomorrow for a few hours. If anyone else wants to take a stab at tackling these questions, feel free.

For further reading, check out these links:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very-large-scale_integration

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_fabrication

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopants

• http://seekingalpha.com/article/55959-the-tellurium-supernova

• http://www.coolcomputing.com/article.php?sid=3334

• http://www.laserfocusworld.com/display_article/206960/12/none/none/Feat/Semiconductor-ink-advances-flexible-displays

• http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/hardware/homemade/0

• THALLIUM (a PDF from the USGS)

• “http://reprap.org/pub/Main/HintsForUsingTheStratasysDimensionRPMachine/DesignforRPmanufactureStratasysDimension.doc”

• “Wood's metal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia”

A Room Full Of Liars

It's been the talk of the blogosphere lately that there's been a lot of lyin' coming from the US Federal government. Of course, that's nothing new, and should surprise no one. Some very reputable have cited errors and outright fabrications regarding “official” unemployment figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as well as lies surrounding the true effect of the various stimulus packages.

I want to focus on the unearthing of another set of lies, regarding world oil reserves and production. Yesterday, the Guardian, a British newspaper, ran an article titled, Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower. According to two anonymous senior officials at the International Energy Agency, it seems that recent IEA World Energy Outlook reports have been distorted in order to present a more optimistic picture of remaining oil reserves and production figures than is warranted by the facts. This distortion is alleged to be due to pressure from the United States government, which wanted to suppress information that might damage financial markets. The pressuring of the IEA came from the Bush administration.

I'm not going to launch into a long denunciation of the IEA or of the US government in this post, although they certainly deserve it. I simply want to point out a pertinent suspicion: namely, that if the IEA has fudged remaining reserve figures, they have also probably been fudging monthly production numbers as well.

This is a suspicion which several Peak Oil watchers voiced in 2008, as oil spiked to $147 a barrel, even though IEA monthly figures seemed to indicate that global oil production was still increasing. I never was able to swallow that story. My reasoning is as follows: in 2007, global “petroleum liquids” production was around 85 million barrels a day. In the summer of 2007 the IEA announced that the world would need an extra 1.5 million barrels a day in order to avoid shortages and price spikes.

Now basic economics tells us that the price of a commodity is determined by the balance between supply and demand. When demand goes up, creating scarcity, the price also goes up until demand is limited by the higher price and supply and demand are again in balance at the higher price. Now, the global economy required a growth rate of around 2 to 3 percent per year in order for debt-based arrangements to hold together. Since energy is a foundational component of this economy, that means that energy supply needed to grow at the same rate in order to support the global economy. Oil is one of the main sources of energy for modern society, meaning that the oil supply also had to grow at a certain rate in order to support the economy without disruption.

The funny thing is that, according to the IEA, global “liquids” supply grew from 85 million barrels a day in the summer of 2007 to 88 million barrels a day in July 2008, which was the high point of the oil price spike. Yet if global supply had actually grown in step with global demand, the price should probably not have spiked at all, and certainly should not have spiked as much as it did. Something's fishy about the 88 million barrel per day number.

And that (along with the other lies we've been hearing about over the last few days) illustrates a further point. As our economic and energy situations continue to deteriorate, the masters of our present systems will present an increasingly distorted picture of our situation, a story that is increasingly disconnected from reality. They will do this so that they can maintain as much control and guard as much of their revenue streams as possible. Those who want to find out the truth about our situation will have to be good detectives. Those who don't care, who prefer to live disconnected from reality, will increasingly be surprised by the nasty intrusion of reality into their daily lives.

As for me, I'm a lot more inclined to believe the Oil report of the German Energy Watch Group, which says that global oil production has already peaked.

A Scripture Lesson for Goldman Sachs (and their fat-cat brethren)

I'm working on upcoming blog posts on small-scale manufacturing and other technical subjects. This involves a bit of research, and nothing is ready yet, as I've been a bit tied up lately. I am also lining up more interviews with people who will hopefully be able to offer valuable insights into adapting to a post-Peak world.

But in the meantime, I'd like to comment on a story that caught my eye this week. It seems that some of the rich heads of some of the richest investment banks have recently been to church (maybe for the first time in years). Case in point: last month, the Anglican Church held a panel discussion at St. Paul's Cathedral in London. The panel discussed “the place of morality in the marketplace.” Goldman Sachs International advisor Brian Griffiths was a prominent speaker at the event. (Source: “Goldman Sachs's Griffiths Says Inequality Helps All,” Bloomberg, 21 October 2009)

At that conference, Mr. Griffiths defended the bonuses planned for Goldman employees for 2009, bonuses so large that they average over $500,000 per capita. (This is at a time when the official unemployment rate in Britain is well over seven percent, and British income inequality is skyrocketing.) Here are some of his outstanding quotes: “The injunction of Jesus to love others as ourselves is an endorsement of self-interest...We have to tolerate...inequality as a way to achieving greater prosperity and opportunity for all.” In the days following, bankers from Barclays Plc and Lazard International visited several London churches, delivering messages such as “Profit is not satanic,” and “Is Christianity and banking compatible? Yes. And is Christianity and fair reward compatible? Yes.” (Source: “Profit `Not Satanic,' Barclays Says, After Goldman Invokes Jesus,” Bloomberg, 4 November 2009)

Now I don't claim to be an expert on theology, but I am an evangelical Christian, and I have read the Bible a few times, and I think these banksters are in error on a few points. First, the system of usury (lending at interest) on which modern First World banking is based, was prohibited among Jews in Old Testament Israel (although I believe they were allowed to lend at interest to the Gentiles). In the New Testament, indebtedness is generally discouraged. But there is also the curious defense of inequality by the rich bankster class, at a time when unemployment among the working classes is skyrocketing and fifty percent of all American children (ninety percent of all black American children, according to one source) will require food stamps during their childhood. (Source: “High number of US kids get food stamps,” WiredPR News, 4 November 2009)

The Bible actually has some very negative things to say about inequality, especially that inequality that comes from cheating one's fellows. Yet from the remarks by the banksters, it seems they didn't read those things. So in order to save the banksters from making one Hell of a mistake (this is not frivolous swearing; I mean it literally), I have decided to post a pertinent passage from the Good Book (not that I expect them to read it):

Now there was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, living in luxury every day. A certain beggar, named Lazarus, was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table. Yes, even the dogs came and licked his sores.

It happened that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried. In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far off, and Lazarus at his bosom. He cried and said, “Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue! For I am in anguish in this flame.”

But Abraham said, “Son, remember that you, in your lifetime, received your good things, and Lazarus, in the same way, bad things. But now here he is comforted and you are in anguish. Besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, that those who want to pass from here to you are not able, and that none may cross over from there to us.”

He said, “I ask you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house; for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, so they won’t also come into this place of torment.” But Abraham said to him, “They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them.” He said, “No, father Abraham, but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent. He said to him, “If they don’t listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rises from the dead.” – Luke 16:19-31.

Note: this Scripture is taken from the World English Bible, a public domain translation. No royalties are owed to anyone for its use, and it may be freely quoted and read in all settings, public and private.

Preparedness Angst

At work, we have been having a series of “Neighborhood Resilience Brown Bag Lunch Discussions” over the last several months. Our discussions have covered things like bicycle commuting, peak oil, establishing neighborhood connections, and gardening. Now we have switched gears, and we are starting to discuss the book, Where There Is No Doctor. Our next discussion will be on chapter 11, titled, “Nutrition: What To Eat To Be Healthy.”

I picked up a used copy of the book a few weeks ago, and have been thumbing through it, and I have been struck with the realization of just how fragile human life can be, and how horribly things can go wrong at times. It has been a sobering realization, and I have to confess that sometimes it's hard for me to read certain parts of this book. This is the deeply unsettling part of confronting the possibility of the loss of some of the “complex systems we Americans depend on for everyday life” (to borrow a phrase from another blogger), and of confronting the need to learn real self-reliance. As I read some of the things that can go wrong with a human body, and the actions that an aid worker would have to perform to fix these things, I find myself asking, “Am I really up to this?”

At such times, I am reminded of an article I read about an interview with the captain of United Flight 232, who was able to land his plane in a (somewhat) controlled crash after he lost all of his airplane's hydraulic systems. He noted that, “...we were too busy [to be scared]. You must maintain your composure in the airplane or you will die. You learn that from your first day flying.” (Source: United Airlines Flight 232, Wikipedia) It also occurs to me that our high-tech society has made most of us into wimps. We have become so risk-averse that our idea of “safety” has evolved into dependence on experts with fancy equipment who dispense instant cures for everything.

We ordinary people are going to have to develop a new idea of safety and security: not the removal of all risks from life, but the possession of the competence and skills needed to successfully cope with unsafe and insecure situations. As time passes, it will become increasingly apparent that no one else is going to do it for us. I think we will also have to learn to tolerate uncomfortable situations for the long haul, instead of expecting an instant fix. All of this will take practice, just like the thousands of hours of practice and flight time that prepared the captain of United Flight 232 for that flight.

A Sign Called Desperation

The Next Phugoid Cycle

Over the last couple of weeks, the price of oil rose from the low $70's to over $81 a barrel before settling to $80.50 a barrel today. For those like me who have begun to follow the present energy predicament of our society, this is an interesting development. A few questions arise – are we on the cusp of another oil price superspike like the one we experienced last year? What factors are behind the present rise in oil price? Is it due simply to “speculation”? Or to expectations of economic “recovery”? Or to rising consumption in the developing world? Or is it due to flat or falling supply? Or is it due to a combination of these?

For my money, I'll go with constrained supply as the predominant factor. Some Web writers have talked of huge inventories of oil in storage, and have stated their view that petroleum prices can't stay this high for much longer, and must soon collapse. There is some reason for such a belief; U.S. commercial crude inventories have remained consistently above the average range for the last several months. However, it is also true that U.S. commercial inventories have remained relatively flat when averaged over the last several months, and that for most of this time, EIA Weekly Reports have shown drawdowns in inventory. I still believe that the German Energy Watch Group's Oil Report is the best picture we have of our oil situation – namely, that we are past peak, and that from here on, oil will become more expensive and less available.

So what does this mean for us? Our last price spike was the event that pushed the global official economy undeniably into crash mode. According to most of the mainstream figures in the media and in government, the official economy is beginning to “recover” from its crash. But as economic activity recovers, and oil demand with it, the price of oil will again rise to economy-threatening levels. There is one important difference between this time and the last spike: that spike caused a lot of damage to an economy that seemed on the surface to be healthy. This next spike will add further damage to an economy that is very obviously damaged. What will the new damage look like? I think we'll all find out shortly. But I think that the standard of living of many of us is about to take another major hit. Our official economy is like an airliner that has lost all its hydraulic systems and has entered into a cycle of oscillations up and down, trending generally downward. The end won't be pretty.

* * *

On a (very) loosely related note, I am in Los Angeles this week on a business trip. I have noticed a few curious things. First, there seems to be an emerging bicycle culture here. I remember how risky things were when I worked downtown in 2005 and commuted by bike. I tried riding like a motorist, just like many bike commuter experts recommended, and was met with very obvious hostility. Now it seems that Angelinos are more accommodating toward bikers. Maybe last year's gas price spike has something to do with it. L.A. has even painted some bike lanes in the downtown district.

“Fixies” (single-speed bikes) seem to be especially popular here, and there are groups of people who get together to ride late at night. But there are more than a few fools here as well: I saw at least three people riding the wrong way on one-way streets, sometimes at night with no lights, and all without helmets. I have also seen downtown “public safety officers” riding Smith and Wesson bicycles. (I'll bet you didn't know that Smith and Wesson made bikes. Neither did I until this week.)

One other thing I've seen is the unhealthy pervasiveness of television in So. Cal. I was still living here when supermarkets like Albertson's started installing flat screen TV's at the checkout counters. But someone convinced gas station owners to install TV's at their pumps. You go up to one of these pumps to get gas, and the TV starts talking to you, saying something like, “Research has determined that advertising in public places can generate big bucks for your business...” The last time I encountered one of these talking gas pumps, I felt like yelling, “Shut up! Shut up! SHUT UP!” I saw the most egregious example of invasive TV this week: the Los Angeles MTA has installed TV's on their buses. So hungry are advertisers to brainwash us that they can't leave us alone anywhere. (L.A. isn't the only city to be afflicted thus; see this: http://www.commercialalert.org/issues/culture/public-spaces, and Demise of Contemplative Space)

I've got just one thing to say to TriMet: you'd better not. If you ever install a TV on any of your buses or MAX trains, I will find out who is responsible for this and have you tarred and feathered.

Community-Managed Safety Nets, Food Security and Zenger Farm

It should be fairly obvious by now that the last few decades have seen the tearing apart of government-backed social safety nets in much of the world, and especially in the United States. While it is true that America now has a Democratic president and a Congress controlled by Democrats, their actions to date have not inspired overwhelming confidence that these safety nets might be repaired. (Just look at the present health-care “reform” debate and how our politicians and mainstream media define this in terms of health “insurance” reform. Forcing all Americans to buy private health insurance is not the same as providing universal health care at a cost that our rapidly expanding poor class can afford.)

It is therefore necessary for communities to create their own safety nets. Volunteers must arise to begin building community connections for meeting community needs, often without expecting much help from large government or corporate institutions (though there are cases where communities are pleasantly surprised by offers of government help). A key safety net is the provision of community food security, defined by the World Health Organization as “existing when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life.” (Source: WHO | Food Security)

In the United States, as the standard of living of many people has been eroded over the years, community-based volunteer organizations have arisen to address the growing lack of access to adequate food, and to build systems of community food security. There are the usual food pantries and canned-goods collection drives. But in recent years there have also arisen many urban farming/gardening organizations that promote and teach the growing of food and raising of suitable livestock within urban communities.

I knew nothing about such organizations when I was living in Southern California. But over the last couple of years I have enjoyed getting to know a few of the several community-based, nonprofit urban agriculture organizations here in Portland, and watching some of their extraordinary staff. Many of these people are young, either college students or recent college graduates who have chosen to spend two or more years of their lives as full-time volunteers in these organizations. There is a touch of the otherworldly about them – their education and career paths clearly show that they didn't go to school to get big bucks and a BMW, but they are concerned about larger issues and social justice.

I've interviewed some of these staffers in the past. You can read the interviews here: A Safety Net Of Alternative Systems - Places To Live, in which the Portland Fruit Tree Project was mentioned; and Volunteer Groups And Community Food Security, which featured Growing Gardens. This week's post is another interview, this time featuring Zenger Farm in outer southeast Portland.

Zenger Farm (www.zengerfarm.org) is a century-old working farm that was once owned by Ulrich Zenger, a Swiss dairy farmer, and later by his son, Ulrich Zenger Jr, who protected the farmland from commercial development. In 1994, after the death of Ulrich Jr., the City of Portland's Bureau of Environmental Services purchased the farm. In the years since then, the farm has been leased by concerned citizens who incorporated as Friends of Zenger Farm, a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving the farm as a public space and community resource for sustainable urban food production. Friends of Zenger Farm also works in partnership with the City to oversee a 10-acre wetland adjoining the farm.

On a pleasant, sunny October morning, I had the opportunity to meet with Prairie Hale, Community Involvement Coordinator for Zenger Farm. I was primarily interested in trying to quantify the impact of the farm in building local safety nets and contributing to a resilient community, although there were other things that I wanted to explore. Below are my questions (in bold type), and Prairie's answers.

Has anyone tried to measure or quantify the impact of Zenger Farm on the surrounding community? There has not been a lot of measurement. However, there are general observable impacts. Zenger Farm serves as a place for field trips and educational and volunteer opportunities to learn about the natural world and develop a connection to that world; and to learn about growing, cooking and preserving food, thus fostering self-sufficiency.

The farm is known as a positive place and a good neighbor in the community. The farm staff are aware of what is happening in the neighborhood and are contributing to neighborhood goals. Not only does the farm grow food for the neighborhood, but it forms partnerships with neighbors to run egg co-operatives and farmers markets with the goal of providing culturally appropriate, fresh affordable food for the community. (However, the egg co-op has not yet attracted many members from the surrounding neighborhoods.)

The farmers market is a joint venture with the Lents Food Group, and the market has an “international” flavor. The market has provisions for accepting WIC (Women, Infants and Children) coupons, food stamps and senior coupons, and has a food-stamp matching program.

Field trips to the farm are conducted by local schools and teachers from public, private and alternative schools in the Lents and Powellhurst-Gilbert neighborhoods. The farm also serves as a gathering place to build a sense of community among residents.

The farm is part of a larger urban agriculture “community of knowledge,” both in the Portland metro area and worldwide.

On a related note, what contribution does Zenger Farm make toward building a “resilient community”? (A resilient community is able to survive economic shocks without its members being dislocated by those shocks.) The farm contributes toward increasing food security – that is, a stable supply of affordable healthy food in the neighborhood, as well as generating increasing numbers of people with skills to grow, cook and eat on a tight budget. The farm has offered a very popular class in local schools, named “How to Buy Food On A Budget.” This class has been taught in both English and Spanish, and has attracted both children and their parents.

What are the demographics of the neighborhoods surrounding Zenger Farm? The farm is adjoined by the Lents and Powellhurst-Gilbert neighborhoods. Much of this area is poor, yet many of the residents are actively trying to better their neighborhoods. Twenty-five percent of the population can be classified as “food-insecure.” The area was ranked “last in livability” according to a recent survey. The poor population is also being squeezed by gentrification (the encroachment of wealthy buyers of real estate into the neighborhoods), resulting in rising rents and real estate prices.

For the majority of schoolchildren, English is a second language. Only 30 percent are native English speakers. Spanish is the first language for another thirty percent; then the remainder are from Russian, Vietnamese or Laotian backgrounds. Zenger Farm is actively seeking translators for its classes and workshops.

How would you rate the ability of non-profit groups to make up for the dismantling of social safety nets formerly provided by local governments? There is some uncertainty regarding that question. For residents under stress in a disadvantaged urban neighborhood, worries about personal and family needs might take away energy from community organizing. Also, there is a lot of anonymity in cities, whereas small rural communities tend to be much more tightly-knit, and much more willing to pull together in times of crisis.

However, there are good examples of urban and neighborhood groups meeting neighborhood needs. One example is “Generous Ventures” on southeast 111^th Street, a group that salvages food that might otherwise go to waste, and distributes it to the poor.

What sort of lifestyle adjustments are required of a member of a non-profit organization? (In other words, most of the people I've met from groups like Growing Gardens or the Portland Fruit Tree Project did not go to school in order to get rich!) If someone is going to commit himself or herself to this kind of service, what should their expectations be? Not surprisingly, don't expect to get rich. Seek to gain satisfaction from developing a strong social network so we can take care of one another and provide for our needs.

(At this point, Prairie told me more of the personal events that had led her down this path. She related her family's Quaker background and how she spent most of her life in a small rural Oregon farm community. But as a result of an injury of a family member and loss of income, she and her family found themselves in Ecuador for a year when she was around eleven. That experience, and seeing the drastic difference between American life and the standard of living of the Ecuadoran population, was the catalyst of her interest in social justice.

As a result of that experience, she went to Earlham College, a Quaker institution of higher learning, and obtained a degree in Peace and Global Studies, a field of study which teaches nonviolent ways of bringing peace and social justice where it is lacking. One lesson she remembers is summed up in this saying: “Create the change that the community is ready for.”)

Regarding “closing the loop”: farming tends to deplete soils unless all organic wastes are properly composted and returned to the soil. Zenger Farm does not do humanure composting at this time, but have you ever thought about it? If you tried it, would you do so as part of a larger study of the feasibilty of this sort of composting in an urban environment? Humanure composting is feasible, but it requires a level of expertise and management that Zenger Farm does not yet possess. It seems to be more feasible on the scale of individual homes. As far as composting in general, Zenger buys compost now, but is looking to cut expenses by recycling more of its own plant matter into compost.

Are there any other general research projects being undertaken by Zenger Farm? The farm has not traditionally been involved in research, although a new focus is starting this year, with two farmers who want to try experimental organic techniques. The farm would like to explore other areas of research, such as adding more rainwater catchment and measuring the decrease in use of City water for irrigation when stored rainwater is used. They also want to do more water testing and measurement of sedimentation in the adjacent wetland, and want to explore various furrow and plowing arrangements to limit sediment runoff and erosion.

Do you have any thoughts on remediating urban sites that have been contaminated by industrial pollutants, in order to prepare these sites for urban agriculture? Research has been done on the use of fungi and mushrooms to rehabilitate sites. One prominent worker in this field is Paul Stamitz, a mycologist.

That concluded my interview with Prairie. As I was leaving, I remarked that it was refreshing to see younger people looking for more than a life of materialism and creature comfort (as opposed to my generation, who went to school solely to acquire big houses and BMW's), and that maybe we were witnessing a revival of something that had not been seen in the U.S. since the 1960's. She agreed, and said that it's not just young people who are waking up. Many older people are seeing that the American dream doesn't work, and are starting to want something more meaningful. Maybe there's hope for us after all.