Part 1[edit source]

I think that the sandpile analogy is a good one, and a nice central theme for the piece. Overall though, I think Part One would benefit from a redraft to improve the way it scans - I think it could read a lot better with a little streamlining. --BlueChris 12 Sept 2010

Ok, thanks --Sam Rose 23:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Part 2[edit source]

To me, this part doesn't seem to be specific enough to be a good fit for the book yet. The general statement of the problem is probably not news to anyone who will be reading this. I'd suggest that you consider refocusing on one of the three ideas you suggest, and doing the full 500 words on that. --BlueChris 12 Sept 2010

I will do some more work to this over the weekend. I'll find a reference for perma-culture output vs monoculture output. Removed the specific number for now.

I disagree that the general statement is not news to anyone who will be reading this. In fact, I have found several people in many circles who precisely believe that there is still time before action needs to be taken. The point of this section is to make an assertion that the time for action actually is now (that we don't have 10, 20, 30 years as I am hearing people who you might think would know otherwise estimating).

I can try to make this clearer, but I think it is the most important point made in everything that I wrote. Everything else supports this point, or suggests what to do about it.

working on the edit and agreeing with Blue Chris that you have three 'stubs' of interesting ideas here but each one could be developed in its own right. I don't *get* from this how the case for sharing resources follows on from the implications of the sandpile experiment - Catlupton 16.8.11