is permaculture scalable?

As I buzz about and bombard people with my obnoxious opinions about permaculture, there is a point where I think they get it!  They see the beauty.  And, inevitably, this question always comes up:

"Well, you need more people to do permaculture.  If everybody did permaculture, where would you get that many people?"

My response right now is:

My answer is a two parts:

part 1)  I don't care.  Can't a fella do a little permaculture without having to solve the world's problems first?  I just need a few people for my projects.  Surely you don't expect one farm to be responsible for all of humanity before they can so a little smart ag?

part 2)  It turns out I really do care.  If everybody did it, then wouldn't there be a lot of people that were previously tied up in the chem fertilizer business, and the combine manafacturing business, and the oil business that are now looking for work?  Plus, how many people used to work for monsanto that are now unemployed? 

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.  Do you mean that unless everyone in the world is practicing permaculture, it wouldn't make a difference?  Or do you mean that one person planting one tree one time can make an important difference?  I tend to side with the former, since the latter might be too large of a goal, and therefore crush the motivation to continue doing anything at all. 

I guess I'm attempting to express a frustration for which I have come up with a pithy response.

It seems that question is presented in a frame of light of "it'll never work."    They see how it can work for one farm, or for a thousand farms, but they think that if everybody did it, it could cause some sort of economic collapse (or something).

A story I get to tell on occasion.. this is the paraphrased version, lots of room for color and embellishment.

Girl lived in village, she was very smart.  Every year the elders gathered, and village people asked their hard questions.  She was jealous.  She figured out how she'd trick the elders and show them how smart she was.  She caught a baby bird in her hand.  She'd hide it in her hand, and go to the elders, and ask "is the bird in my hand alive or dead".  If they said "dead", she'd show them the live bird.  If they said "alive", she'd crush the bird, and show them its dead body.  When the moment finally came, the elders looked at her long and hard, and finally one told her, "the life of the bird is in your hands"

Seemed like it fit.
PRC

Oh I see.  Huh.  I haven't personally heard that sentiment expressed.  But I'm sure you've spoken with way more people about the topic during your life than I have.  Of course I'm of the opinion that the only way we're going to save ourselves from ourselves is if everyone becomes a permie....but I'm slightly biased.  Normies tend to have a hard time with our ideas in general.  I am familiar with those sentiments. 

Great parable, Paul. 

"I am responsible for myself."

I have used this answer in many situations.  From my work ethic to my gardening to my household.

This comments cuts both ways in my mind.

First, it means I should still do the right things even if the rest of the world is going off all irresponsible.

Finally, it means, even if the rest of the world is all irresponsible, I should still do the right things.


I can lead by example, but to do this, I must take the first step to doing the right things and not wait for the rest of the world to do it first.

Yes, permaculture is scalable.  (You must check your definition to make this a reality.  No, you are not going to be "self sufficient" in a one gallon flower pot.  But you can make a start at permaculture by growing something useful in that flower pot.)  Just imagine if everyone grew just a few things to eat, they don't need to grow everything they need to make a huge difference.

And even if not everyone is doing it, does that mean we shouldn't?  NO

paul wheaton wrote:
I guess I'm attempting to express a frustration for which I have come up with a pithy response.

It seems that question is presented in a frame of light of "it'll never work."    They see how it can work for one farm, or for a thousand farms, but they think that if everybody did it, it could cause some sort of economic collapse (or something).

well, I think that if everybody did it, it might cause some sort of economic collapse.  I don't think a widespread shift toward permaculture could occur without a widespread shift in folks' attitudes and habits regarding consumption and production.  such a shift could possibly cause a collapse.  I don't think that necessarily means folks' quality of life would decrease, though, so it might not be such a big deal.

the objection that there wouldn't be enough people seems to miss the mark.  if there are jobs to be had, there will be folks to fill them.  especially such pleasant jobs.

Sure there'd be an economic collapse, but would it matter? If every single person practiced permaculture, it would be heaven on Earth, a heaven beyond imagining.

I like to think I'm guided by personal ethical considerations and moral considerations. I try to do what is right, and I hope I am.

I have a feeling that things will be rather the other way around.  An economic collapse is more likely to predate a large scale shift to Permaculture (for simple survival.)  I seriously doubt we will get a large scale shift over to permaculture that would be large enough to cause any real sudden economic upset.  Permaculture is just not that fast!

Even with a large shift to Permaculture, there is gonna be a time lag as systems come online and people learn how to use their produce.  Huge learning curve here and during that time, the wise parts of the free market will scramble to fill newly opening market opportunities.

I've noticed in the last two years around here that canning supplies are suddenly available where as two years ago, few stores carried much, now suddenly lowes and tractor supply are selling home canning kits and jar supplies.  The market reacts to demands, the parts of it that react quickly, will get a share, other parts go the way of so many businesses.

The big trick is to get sustainable practices and home gardening into the public minds and media because we have huge portions of the population that don't know a thing exists unless they see it on TV, Twitter, or at the Mall.

Swomp has illustrated transitional towns in another thread, I hope to see that type of scalable change, prior to economic collapse.
  But until my little berg transitions, and there are those locally that are interested.
I'll continue with my little personal efforts and hopefully create an interest from others to do the same.
An interesting aside the local grange has attracted many new members many of them with a permie mindset and a vibrant younger crowd.

there are some realities like that if you back up failing industries you creat more long term problems maybe the answer is a got support system for workers when thigns crash. LIfe and death is the reality our options try to lessen the pain or not increase it.
    Pesticides and herbicides give cancer . i was cleaning tmy bedside table yesterday and it stank of pesticides, my husband choice between the evils of wood wrm an dcancer is that it is preferable to have cancer my father was a lawyer working for shell chemicals the preson who had to answer complaints when their products caused an illness he woud not have pesticides in the house.
  When i pass the skips th wood they pull out of houses smalls of pesticides. cancer is on the increase no suprise considerign th e poisons we use, it is crazy.
    In the case of will it hurt for those iemployed in chemical factories the answer is well there will be more hurt if we don't shut them. Centuries of cancer cases. there is no doubt in this case which is the lesser evil.
  we are a rich society put our minds to it and we can resolve looss of jobs problems. there is enough land concrete wood etc for everyone to have houses why haven't they got them if they have houses its only food that is a basic necessity and then for extras well earn a bit of money on the side. rose macskie.

Rose, your reactions to things confuse me sometimes. 

Anyhow: 

I don't see it as economic "collapse," because we're always going to have some kind of method to shift wealth between parties.  What we're going to have is an economic sea change, with the global economy gradually replaced by regional, and finally truly localized and personalized ones. 

It's happening now!  I feel that as fossil fuels make the trasportation of stuff impossibly expensive, the dis-incentive to buy formerly cheap international goods will pressure people to change their buying habits.  When that happens the global economy will simply wither from lack of support.  Right now it's an option to opt in or out of supporting a more local economy.  More people are seeing that the benefits of buying local go way beyond price, but I think ultimately, price is going to be the deciding factor for many Americans. 

Maybe this is naive or simplistic of me to say this but I think that for the most part permaculture would only grow to the proportion that it could be supported by humans. For instance, I'm planning to plant a pear dominated forest garden to be a major source of income but I'm only going to plant as many as can be worked by those involved in the farm.

So to ask  "If everybody did permaculture, where would you get that many people?" is just not realistic and warrants no defensive response.

But to indulge the question...

The vaccuum could be filled either by the unemployed, underemployed, students on summer break, or any of the ever-growing number of us simply sick of our cookie-cutter jobs and lives.

I remember talking to my brother about food production in 2006 or so, and mentioned how many options would open up with the coming labor surplus.

"But the economy is good," he said. "People are spending."

I turned my head sideways.

A greater share of labor going toward permaculture might make for a real jobless recovery from our current economic predicament: fewer people would have jobs, but they could support themselves nonetheless.

You go on about labor but, permaculture can get along without us, it doesn't need much labor.  What doesn't get picked just becomes more mulch and fertilizer.  I'm kinda thinking in terms of food forest here.  Once it has gotten established, the presence of people doing labor for it only makes minimal difference.  With more labor to do extra tending, it will supply more food for those extra people.  With less labor, I guess one will just have to be content with eating only as much as they can harvest themselves and leave the rest for the critters.

I suppose if there is enough of an economy left that one needs a money income to pay for taxes, electricity, etc, etc..........  Well then there will probably still be some surplus people to be employed to harvest extra for sale and probably still enough people not already living off the land to buy the surplus and so on.

It's my impression that on a large scale it can take a lot of labour to establish a food forest, and less and less over time. So if we're talking about a sudden shift to a permaculture world then we'd need a significant labour force to at least help get land prepped and plants in the ground.

One thing I forgot about til just now is the buildings side of permaculture. I'm talking about everything from houses, cold cellars, greenhouses, barns, furniture...Yes, these buildings tend to be made on the cheap in terms of materials but there's still great possibility for hiring of labour.

And not every permaculturist is going to have a friend or fellow land-mate to do things like make new clothes, pottery, rugs, baskets, etc. So there are some trade jobs right there.

I would also see jobs in alternative power sectors boom beyond even now = jobs.

Luckily, planting a food forest doesn't need to be sudden and it can be done little by little without needing a huge amount of labor.

As to building, at least many of those things can be build like a party or "barn raising" where the whole community gets together and does the big push.  Then next week we can do the barn of another neighbor sort of thing.

It sounds like this discussion is happening mostly in terms of a dichotomy between labor and management, but I really wasn't using the term "labor" that way. The skill set is more white-collar, but permaculture needs quite a few person-hours, even if those hours are spent managing the land more often than laboring against it, my previous statements used "labor" to mean "labor plus management."

Before that barn raising TCLynx proposed, who is going to spend the time getting to know the site (I've heard a year is often not enough), and preparing to communicate that knowledge to the large group of people who need to know?

Masanobu Fukuoka had a full-time carreer of observation and contemplation, unless I'm mistaken. A person doing that job might not require advanced degrees in plant pathology, but the training needed to do "nothing" as effectively as he did would be significant, and the time commitment required to actually be effective should not be ignored.

Joel Hollingsworth wrote:
It sounds like this discussion is happening mostly in terms of a dichotomy between labor and management, but I really wasn't using the term "labor" that way. The skill set is more white-collar, but permaculture needs quite a few person-hours, even if those hours are spent managing the land more often than laboring against it, my previous statements used "labor" to mean "labor plus management."

Before that barn raising TCLynx proposed, who is going to spend the time getting to know the site (I've heard a year is often not enough), and preparing to communicate that knowledge to the large group of people who need to know?

Masanobu Fukuoka had a full-time carreer of observation and contemplation, unless I'm mistaken. A person doing that job might not require advanced degrees in plant pathology, but the training needed to do "nothing" as effectively as he did would be significant, and the time commitment required to actually be effective should not be ignored.

I expect that the people who want the permaculture project done, are gonna have to be the people to decide what they want done (or hire a consultant to tell them what they want I guess.)  Since every site is different, I expect to a large extent people will need to figure it out largely by trial and error where they can't find old/traditional wisdom to guide them along the way. 

paul, i believe permaculture is scalable, as a large farm operation and on small plot gardens. my goal has been to grow as much food with as little work as possible and teach others how to do the same. I plowed my garden last year, planted only half of it, watered it in, and picked bags and bags of fresh produce. always end up giving away lots of produce and still have a bunch that rots on the vine.

given that many people already spend a lot of time maintaining their yard, you just have to nudge them over to convert a bit of space and a bit of time to a different cause.

have a bunch of ideas on the subject, but don't want to bore you with too much in one post.  it comes down to approach. like most people do not set out to be drug addicts or slaves to debt, you can get them started on the path to permaculture, which is addictive and freeing in many ways.

If people were to spend even half the resources (space, money, time, energy, water, fertilizer, etc) on useful or food crops that they do spend of "ornamental" plantings, I expect there would be huge surplus of local foods in many spread out cities (at least in the south.)

Ah sigh, but apparently it is illegal to "harvest" anything from non-agricultural land in many counties at least here in Florida

TCLynx wrote:
If people were to spend even half the resources (space, money, time, energy, water, fertilizer, etc) on useful or food crops that they do spend of "ornamental" plantings, I expect there would be huge surplus of local foods in many spread out cities (at least in the south.)

Ah sigh, but apparently it is illegal to "harvest" anything from non-agricultural land in many counties at least here in Florida

agree with you 100% on resources etc.

does that mean you can not have your own garden and eat from it ? guess it's time to plant those ornamentals that serve dual purposes. 

never thought the day would come when people have to grow their crops inside like they were drug crops.

guess if you can outlaw hemp and other natural nutritional beneficial plants, why not outlaw them all. 

I know in most of those horrible Home Owners Association suburban developments, they try to tell people what they are allowed to have in their back yards and god forbid anyone other than the landscaping company should ever be seen in the front yard.

Heaven forbid a person might eat something from their yard.  I mean a bug or a bird might have pooped outdoors!!!  We wouldn't want to endanger the neighborhood by eating something that might have seen sunshine in the past 30 days!!!
-----sarcasm off-------

Please some one tell my how my growing a tomato or eating an orange from my back yard endangers anyone else in the neighborhood? 

Saddly some where along the line, some one must have tried to run a truck farm (or something) from an inappropriate place and caused zoning to decide that harvesting food is an inappropriate use of a residential property.

TCLynx wrote:
...Heaven forbid a person...

... an inappropriate place and caused zoning...

True, heaven forbid eating from that tree 

Inappropriate as in not fitting into their 5 year and 25 year plans (they have them)? And then there's the property tax thing.

I understand some potential issues of not allowing everyone to farm their back yard. However crazy they may seem, shipping produce from around the world has to be worse. Heck, in this area you can buy sewage compost. They call it Nutrigreen. Funny thing, bet it contains loads of crapped out pharmaceuticals.

I'd have to say the big reason for most zoning laws is taxes. You segregate everything. Make people drive, ship, haul things distances. They pay taxes on their time, cars, gas, profits, products... It's my pseudo argument for why global warming is a lie. If it truly existed, traffic lights would be synchronized and all roads would be white. Ever notice how old towns have businesses on the first floor and living quarters above. Only places I see that approved anymore are for developers with deep pockets 

TCLynx wrote:
If people were to spend even half the resources (space, money, time, energy, water, fertilizer, etc) on useful or food crops that they do spend of "ornamental" plantings, I expect there would be huge surplus of local foods

I worked in a urban garden center for 3+ years.  A major challange is legibility.  While Pc is resource efficient, it is thought intensive.  Mowing a lawn is 'easy'.  Many people have not learned how to distinguish plant species, don't have the most rudimentary understanding of ecology, and feel overwhelmed by their existing lives.  The wonder of creation so precious to us, can be a burden to others.  Pc attracts people who a ready for it.  "Scaling up" involves either more people becoming ready for it, or attracting people that are not ready for it.

PS -- I think there was a study out there recently that looked at how when groups of like-minded people hang out together they get more aggressively like-minded.  If I can hunt it down I'll post it.

PRC
PRC

True, if we were simply talking about lawns vs Permaculture here.  I guess I'm focusing a lot on all these semi public areas of developments that are ornamentally landscaped and maintained by a professional landscaping company.  People working for a landscaping company can certainly learn to recognize different types of plants and how to care for them (they already do it.)  However, I fear too many people are scared of the liability that some one might eat something and sue them so therefore they wouldn't want to tempt fate by providing edible landscaping.

But you are right, the average person now days doesn't know how to prepare plants as food let alone recognize different edible plants or how to deal with a landscape that you don't simply mow and drench in chemicals and water.

TCLynx wrote:
People working for a landscaping company can certainly learn to recognize different types of plants and how to care for them

That's very true--but they lack the opportunity for prolonged relationship.  I think that to maintain someone elses permaculture would be relatively expensive from a business perspective.  And then it would be a pretty small population that would hire you and so much of what we do is experimental.  Professional ornamental gardening is bulletproof.  There is an element of risk in what we do that is difficult to sell for cash.  And perception of failure is so easy when social norms and industries are working so hard against nature.  (I am trying to choose my words carefully... I personally believe that if most people just stopped doing anything to their land that would be success).

Really when you get it down to a set of power tools and chemicals, modern landscaping is pretty damn "inexpensive".  And it is a very small percentage of the population that is willing to pay for more than "mowing and blowing".  I think the scale up is not "supply-side" and has to be "demand-side".

I brainstormed seven ingredients that make a sustainable "social permaculture guild".

1. stable land ownership
2. people with free time
3. desire for relationship with nature
4. good social networks
5. experienced natural gardeners
6. consistent stewardship
7. modest surplus cash flow

I bet that scale-up will take the form of a social permaculture design.  Create beneficial relationships between social institutions that have two to five of the ingredients with other social institutions that have two to five ingredients, and build opportunities for mutual benefit.  A social polyculture if you will.

Economic collapse will help with 2 and 3, but will hurt 1 and 7.  I think the design barrier to break is that within family units, 1 often comes at the expense of 2 and 7.  Two, 5 and 6 are relatively hard to find.  I suspect that if we want to design in the context of our society we'd analyze and design just as you would a plant community.

I suspect high schools are a underutilized permaculture tool (US school year pretty well follows the PNW plant propagation and out planting cycle, young adults have free time, they have stable land ownership, and are part of strong social networks).

What social models have people seen that reflect social design for permaculture (other than the PDC thing)?

my favorite is GRUB
I like Terra Commons but don't know if they are sustainable
Always the Oly Food Coop

I sometmes feel Pauls frustration too. Its like we carry the weight of the world on our shoulders and we have to come up with the plans that work and save the world . We have to be the example to follow and the world isn't embracing permaculture as fast as we think it should and through it all it's still experimental on some level, as the ramifications of large scale perrmaculture really will become evident in maybe a hundred years after we are all dead.So why even try?  I keep going because when I learn someting new about the way thing can work together its like miracles happening around me and I can get lost in all the spendor of nature,feeling a bit like a wizard helping nature tweak herself.Sam

I guess that by posting this I was fishing for a less pithy way to express myself on this.  But .... perhaps this pithy response is as good as it gets?

I can make it more pithy, if you'd like:

Trying to scale the way an expanding empire does is what got us into this mess in the first place. Of course any antidote to it will scale differently.

Almost everyone in the mainstream would benefit from paying more constructive attention to their food. If everybody did permaculture, then to most people it would be less a full-time job, and more an aspect of keeping house. It would look a little like the US did in the 1930s.

What is this gibberish?

dirtworks wrote:
What is this gibberish?

Okay, I guess I failed to express myself.

I apologize for any inconvenience.

I mostly meant that we shouldn't be distressed if permaculture scales in a different manner than the market economy, because many of the problems permaculture is intended to address are direct consecquences of the scaling requirements imposed by the market. But I'm not certain I've made myself any clearer.

[quote author=Paul Cereghino]I brainstormed seven ingredients that make a sustainable "social permaculture guild".

1. stable land ownership
2. people with free time
3. desire for relationship with nature
4. good social networks
5. experienced natural gardeners
6. consistent stewardship
7. modest surplus cash flow

I would change "stable land ownership" to "stable land tenure" or "stable relationships with land".  barring meaningful land reform, long-term leasing seems like a much more reasonable option for most folks and doesn't come at quite the expense to free time and cash flow.  the New England Small Farm Institute put out an interesting report about alternative land tenure.  I don't know that public libraries could get a copy, but university libraries certainly could.


as far as how to respond to the scale question, I think pithy might be all you can do, because it's the wrong question.  I suppose you could tell a person they're asking the wrong question, but that might not go over so well.  do you want to blow their mind all at once or take your time?

well it is only Permaculture...not Perfectculture....everyone doing their little part..that is what is important.

at our home my husband will NOT allow domesticated edible animals..HIS LOSS...so our permaculture is different..but nevertheless it is permaculture..

instead of making a chickencoop/greenhouse combo..my birds take care of themselves outside..but the still eat the bugs, provide manure and do what birdies do..we don't eat them but we sure could if we have to (as we have doves, turkey and pheasants regularly)..

our "cattle" are whitetail deer, we don't really have to feed them..but in a hard winter we do give them a little extra "corn"..just cause they look so sad and haggard..but if we need the food we can put them in our freezer or can them..but we don't right now..we can if we have to...but they provide lovely manure all year long..we don't have to shovel it..they spread it themselves..

we also do rabbits..or should we say the rabbits do rabbits..we don't provide them any special food but they do prune a few things around our property..and they also spread their own lovely manure all over..Son was talking about putting a few in our freezer..we'll see if he ever gets around to it..but if not..well we still have plenty of them..

each to his own..ours is very small scale..i'm a little more into fruit, vegetable, [pond and reforestation...and less injto cattle, goats, chickens and stuff like that..but everyone does everything different.....small permaculture is nevertheless good permaculture

Joel Hollingsworth wrote:
Okay, I guess I failed to express myself.

I apologize for any inconvenience.

I mostly meant that we shouldn't be distressed if permaculture scales in a different manner than the market economy, because many of the problems permaculture is intended to address are direct consecquences of the scaling requirements imposed by the market. But I'm not certain I've made myself any clearer.

i am under the opinion that many issues today are the direct result, intended or not, of poor education and mass propaganda. many come across as brainwashed. others come across as only being able to handle a single variable at a time. there are also groups of emotionally bound people.

i have never been a 'environmentalist', i do not believe the global warming craze. i am not anti government nor anti business. i have always looked for better ways of doing things, optimal ways, elegant solutions, the oh wow, that was easy way. to me, permaculture is a technology, a way of thinking, a way of approaching things, a life style. i think longterm, you get people thinking that way. so many analogies and examples can be inserted in here.

maybe a thread should be started for things permaculture people would never come up with/do. things like: a permaculture person would never purify water for drinking, pump it miles and miles, only to have most of it flushed down the toilet.

a permaculture person would never dump alcohol into an engine that was set up to run gasoline. it's a waste of fuel.

could go on and on, but i'm new here. mostly just want to send a bit of encouragement that the way you teach is the way you sell, and the way you sell well, is to listen and ask good questions, and then listen. if you know what someone wants and needs, it's much easier to find a solution for them. just like it will be easier when my kid starts talking.

one other thing that gets me lots of times. the why is not always needed. most just want to know the what. what do i plant with my tomatoes. what do i do to solve this problem. they why can be expressed to those who care and others over a cup of tea or beer or wine or a meal.

now, where are all of those industrial chemicals? i need to get an early start on getting my garden up and ready for the plants i have genetically modified. this year, brussels sprout trout, beef tomatoes, sage fowl chicken and cow milk weed. going to need some good support for those plants.

Dr_Temp wrote:
i am under the opinion that many issues today are the direct result, intended or not, of poor education and mass propaganda.

...

i am not...anti business.

Did I sound anti-business? I really am not! Especially small businesses and privately-held firms.

In the post you quoted, I didn't mean "The Market" with a capital M, I only meant to address the way public trading of stock seems to limit decision making in three important ways:

a) externalized costs and non-monetary benefits are ignored

b) events more than two quarters in the future are drastically less important than ones which directly affect this quarter's revenue

c) resources should only be allocated to activities which result in exponential growth, preferably an above-average rate of growth.

Point c) was the one I was especially referring to. Requiring any collection of resources to grow by a certain percentage each year will eventually mean crashing into some hard external limits. The "perma" aspect of permaculture is usually taken to include a rejection of this requirement, and often also means violating point b).

tel wrote:
the New England Small Farm Institute put out an interesting report about alternative land tenure. 

Good suggestion... is this the one?

Holding Ground: A Guide to Northeast Farmland Tenure and Stewardship.

Kathy Ruhf, Annette Higby, Andrea Woloschuk and others. 2004. Belchertown, MA.

The New England Small Farm Institute and Intervale Foundation. This publication addresses farmland access, transfer, affordability and stewardship. It focuses on "non-ownership" tenure options and contains sample lease provisions with explanations, sample stewardship standards, worksheets, and case studies.

$25.00; 162 pages, paperback.

that's the one, Paul.  not exactly a page turner, and it doesn't contain anything exactly revolutionary, but pretty much everything in it was entirely new to me and all potentially helpful for folks looking to gain access to farmland.

It seems like developing mechanisms to protect and make consistent best use of soils near population centers at less than market rate is a fundamental challenge of our situation.