Given the difficulty and some danger in traversing the wetlands come mashes, due more so now the bund is deteriorating with consequential gaps and holes etc. I am considering getting a remote controlled aircraft to carry a camera. This will allow me to search the area without blindly traipsing through all the undergrowth which is some 18 acres.
I have spoken to Mike Inwood of Buildyourowndrone.co.uk the best part of an hour and have been sent a list of parts he recommends. A copy of the email is the text of comment 1.
To read the ongoing query and analysis on how best to build see the new blog rcav (radio controlled aerial vehicle)
Generally the parts I can think of are:
- Frame: to hold motors, batteries, flight controller receiver, camera(s), gimbal
- Motors: Four motors powerful enough to carry the weight of the above
- Propellers: Suited to motors, lift and speed
- Batteries: Consider weight to motors power to lift and hence range of flight
- Flight camera: Small front facing for navigation
- Photgraphic / Video scanning camera
- Gimbal for scanning camera, especially if there is no navigation camera
- Battery charger
- Hand held Transmitter for controller
- Viewing screen for cameras
- Motor/Flight controller
- Onboard Receiver for controller
- Software for flight controller
- Software for cameras
The two major concerns are a) trying to find non-Chinese parts and b) if I don't use recommended parts: compatibility of the parts.
The two principals, at least to me, are addressing different issues and as such are not really comparable.
The veganic principal is that cultivation of plants does so without exploiting animals, and whether a bee hive is acceptable for instance is up to the person who cultivates. Arguably there is transition from one variety of consumption to another. In the most extreme veganic would not use bees, yet as cultivation requires control of the environment it is hard to see how even if the smallest of creature are not used they have an essential role to play. The fencing of land, the screening by netting and other actions taken to protect plants are in themselves a front to animal exclusion and an interference in their ability to roam.
Biodynamics are not concerned with avoiding animal exploitation as the main focus but the larger environment as the source of all consumption, much like permaculture, except that in permaculture there in no order to cowtow to the moon, nor a strict avoidance of synthesis aids.
Today many people are vegetarian or vegan and they are so for a variety of reasons. For most, the reason is a striving to live by the highest principles and wanting to live in harmony with nature and the environment. Aware that animal manure as well as some animal parts, such as cow horns, are used in making the biodynamic preparations, they are keen to find out more to ensure that eating biodynamic produce doesn’t compromise their principles.
To look at this question brings one to the very essence of what nature and biodynamics is all about. We will only be able to scratch the surface here, but we believe it is very important that each individual is free to make up their own mind for themselves as to what diet is right for them and the world., and we are grateful that the question has been raised and the opportunity to discuss it. To do so, requires we first place biodynamics in context of modern agriculture:
The difference is that the vegan notion is focused on animal consumption, most often with a view to compassion, whilst biodynamics consider the larger environment. Both address exoterically the same issue, that of unacceptable exploitation, differing only in what is deemed acceptable.
The vegan principal, not the diet, can be esoteric; in that it is a personal mediation not to exploit, starting with the obvious ~ animals. The larger environment including people are not the primary concern. The concern is not how I treat the whole or how I treat humans but how I treat the vulnerable and all animals are dumb and vulnerable to human intelligence.
The environment is vulnerable to human consumption with near global recognition of global warming, genetic mutations and all out nuclear degeneration.
Yet as long as consciousness is not seen as a product of the brain then there is something more valuable that humans, cows and the environment to consider, and if so then the individual has options to consider the benefits of further consumption in a fashion that suits them, not some order defined by the massive intellect and ego but by acknowledging that no matter how powerful a consumer ultimately in consumption is the demise.
Should consciousness be dependent on consumption it is not an exoteric argument but of essential feeding of some finite amount. Otherwise if it be an esoteric argument it will be eternal and the consumption will have at some point to end by choice.
Whatever the variety of consumption esoterically it is the individual that chooses and is no one else's concern, yet whilst dead is a fear and consumption delays it foe the individual then methods and arguments shall prevails in the attempt to secure a well stocked kitchen, and what better kitchen than the dynamic larder of the Earth.
For the individual this can well equate to an organic worlds rich in animals, that they are bred and eaten is of no consequence, for the veganic such an organic world would not breed animals. For the common consumer including vegetarians,vegan and fruitarians etc., the organic environment is not the issue but a world for as many humans as possible, with washing machines and mobile phones and all manner of conveniences. Order is the main course and politics and pressure groups ensure acquisition and division of assets.
Four worlds and each with multiples universes to reside in. (On or Off?)
Living on the Land
The simple understanding may be the notion of having a home with more than just a garden and having space to be free to have bonfires with more outdoor activities and options.
Living off the Land
This is a different idea and does not denote freedom. It is a vision of some degree of self sufficiency in terms of food consumption. Where that is directly from the land as in vegetation or pseudo in raising animals on the land and consuming them is quite an issue. In the second option of using animals then people can also be used to do the growing and the land owner can just take what they have worked to grow, even if it is not their flesh.
Making a Living from the Land
A more serious view is that a person with either consume products from the land, produce animals from the land, and inevitably sell produce to earn a living. How much of a living they want to make will relate to the size, location and use of land. Arguably it doesn't have to be agriculturally based, although that would seem to be the inference.
Living: The common word.
The word living, although commonly understood to mean the continuing existence of an animal or plant from the day of independent consumption until death, from whence a newborn takes it's first breath, or a seed gets it's first taste of rain, what is clear is that it is the beginning of new consumer. A new consumer that competes for resources, and those resources, more especially in the case of animals, means the death of other plants and animals. So much so that calling it living is to put an unworthy and deceptive tone on the consumer, killing is a better word - the term often used in the stock markets when someone has make a healthy profit (I'll not go into the use of the word healthy - but you can see the trend to make consumerism a positive notion)
Although the words on and the each have a world of their own, in this context they refer jointly to the subjugation (on) of all(the) property, except that the mass of consumers and competition limits the notion to an area of the land that can be controlled, maintained and managed by the intent consumer. The word land is equally contextual and so the next page will develop the notion of 'Living' as 'Killing' and the more common false promotion of benign 'living'.
Pages: 1· 2