I find that entirely plausible, Tony.   These are old, old fights.

Do you believe ideas like Permaculture(tm) and ecosystem restoration could change the face of our conflicts? I really liked that video that was posted about Bill Mollison and his perculture in Jordan. I jsut wanted to yell through the YouTube -- "IT'S THE FUNGI, MORAN!" But I'm sure some mycologist is studying it now, and I hope they can replicate such oasis creation.

I do, I believe. 

So many conflicts are about resources; any practices which enable people to realise resources where they live will, I think, help resolve these conflicts.   Bill Mollison sez that only real security will come when everyone feels secure in their own lives, able to provide for themselves, and that we should be endeavoring to help people gain this security in order to secure ourselves.   Security is found in encouraging the growing things.

Are there groups already incorporating food ecosystems in an approach to foster peace?

It looks like the Peace Corp itself is beginning to incorporate permaculture in their program.

http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=resources.media.medstories.vie...

That's not your tax dollars at work, is it? Quick, someone call the president, these hippies must be stopped!

Now, seriously though, aren't there needy people in THIS country who could benefit from such programs?

Oh my goodness, yes, Tony!   Of course there are.   Most of the permaculture outreach one hears about in the US seems aimed at folks who can afford expensive courses.   I think there's definitely room for improvement in this area.

I have come across a few land opportunities myself. One would be the land rich Habitat for Humanity affiliate who is looking to get more community involvement between their home ownership partner families. 

With plants, it's hard to get the instant gratification of a check, but it is sure worth the rewards.  What if people who got good at feeding themselves suddenly found they had a surplus, and decided to simply share the food rather than lock it up?

I definitely think Habitat for Humanity could use a food gardening aspect to go along with the new homes - that installing a food landscape/ecosystem could be a practical adjunct to building the home.   You know, some fruit trees in lieu of shade trees, a couple of circle gardens for basic vegies, some herbs, flowers for beauty and beneficial insect habitat, mulch and compost for soil improvement, and any sort of mushroom habitat that would be practical. 

So say someone points the finger and says 'hey, that's a program'; rather than shrugging them off and not engaging that person like I usually do, do you have any suggestions as to what an intelligent response would be to that crowd?

Also, I'm very concerned about protecting the investment of my time on a project like this, but I don't want to lock up the food, any thoughts? 

In general, for everyone, are there moral issues with locking up the food at all? We're not squirrels hiding nuts, we're people hiding whole forests under oil fields. (wood homes coated in petroleum).

What are our human morals? This can't be relative, we're talking about the way we interract with other species, there must be guidelines, ways to know the guidelines aren't being followed, and ways to bring behavior back within the guidelines.

What do you all think? how do we have a moral relationship with our food and still have it there, ready for us to eat when we want it in world of shipping, refridgeration, dumb kids pulling plants, and governments trying to prevent outbreaks of rats and malaria (by killing your whole crop)?

I think maybe some of the answers would surprise us, it could be an interesting exercise in deconstructing the whole idea of morals to begin with!

But that would be to grandiose. How do I get where I want as soon as possible when it comes to the food thing? 

If you can sneak in aspects of a different way of life (rewilding, unlocking the food) under cover of a program, more power to you, I say.   I'm not much worried about what the "that's a program" folks might say.   Anybody can label any action a "program."   Just about any incremental change is going to look like a "program" if its engaged in by more than one person, especially under the auspices of an organization.

I agree. I have a tendency to want to engage people even if they think they don't want to be engaged. FOr the sake of arguement, how could you change a person's mind so that they DO see that everything COULD be seen as a program, all the while being made aware that action is necessary? What strategies to employ, what parables to spin when it comes to the purity-test crowd?

I'm not good at telling parables or convincing people of things, so I'll have to answer "I don't know," Tony, and hope someone else will join this conversation....