I'm trying

Ryan Boyd wrote:[

But I think this is a moot point because human beings tend to oversimplify solutions to complex problems.  We crave answers.  It isn't going to be one concept that properly addresses the infinite complexity of the global issues we face.  And you're right, not worrying about going big is important and spheres of influence shouldn't be overlooked.  The way I see it, permaculture is one piece of the puzzle in our solution to global issues--least of which is climate-related.  It has it's sphere of influence, as does renewable energy, or nuclear power, or sustainable living, or recycling/upcycling, or tiny home living, etc. but permaculture does encompass multiple issues at once, which is part of its appeal.  However elegant a solution it is, the "one size fits all" model tends to be an oversimplification as history has taught.

Aren't the teachings of permaculture just the opposite? Humans overcomplicate simple solutions. Humans want to throw tech at problems,  to use tech to solve problems that were created by tech, which in turn create more problems.
I thought the teachings of permaculture said that we find solutions to problems by looking at the cause of those problems and thinking about when would this problem actually be the solution. For example, got ticks? rather than spray for ticks, bring in guinea fowl who love to eat ticks, If I had guinea fowl then I'd want to have a lot of ticks to feed them--the problem becomes the solution.  Is that not the very core teaching of permaculutre, that along with seeing ourselves as a part of the whole. When we see everything as one, or at the very least interconnected, we will no longer use solutions that create more problems.

Paul, I know you and I have not always agreed on things in the past...but I do admire your willingness to be there in the trenches, everyday, fighting the good fight against impossible odds.  I have tried to think of ways help improve those odds, but that is obviously not what I am good at.  There is just too much money in the system you are fighting against.  As they have found in the illegal drug war or tv money in collage sports (and now the Name Image and Likeness (NIL) monies) with all that money is impossible to stop and do the right thing.  And you Paul are up against the king pin of it all...oil and gas monies.  That is such a third rail that they won't even to touch it to stop a bad war (like any war is good, right?).  

I got the wind knocked out of me last Monday when I watched the movie "Planet of Humans".  I had my suspicions of what really is "Green" and how can it really be decoupled from "oil and gas" energy, but that movie made me ill.  And the scenes of them pulling the dying orangutans out of the clear cuts, uggh.  I remember 40 years ago in engineering school as we discussed nuclear power plants construction our professor, even then, questioned with so much oil and gas energy going into the construction and maintenance of the plants, fuels and spent fuel, would a nuclear power plant ever reach the break even point, much less on the positive side for energy produced.   And this morning on the CBS Morning show for Earth Day they touched on the fallacy of the wood pellet green renewable energy, much of which is being shipped to Europe from our clear cut forests anyway.  Maybe that can help get the ball rolling better for a better planet.   But I doubt it, as the oil and gas money is everywhere and it is perverting the system and people don't realize it.  And despite what you saw on the tv show "Yellowstone"  you can't really fight a hedge fund (or the oil and gas industry) with those really, really deep pockets.  I wish there were better answers.

Melissa Ferrin wrote:

Ryan Boyd wrote:[

But I think this is a moot point because human beings tend to oversimplify solutions to complex problems.  We crave answers.  It isn't going to be one concept that properly addresses the infinite complexity of the global issues we face.  And you're right, not worrying about going big is important and spheres of influence shouldn't be overlooked.  The way I see it, permaculture is one piece of the puzzle in our solution to global issues--least of which is climate-related.  It has it's sphere of influence, as does renewable energy, or nuclear power, or sustainable living, or recycling/upcycling, or tiny home living, etc. but permaculture does encompass multiple issues at once, which is part of its appeal.  However elegant a solution it is, the "one size fits all" model tends to be an oversimplification as history has taught.

Aren't the teachings of permaculture just the opposite? Humans overcomplicate simple solutions. Humans want to throw tech at problems,  to use tech to solve problems that were created by tech, which in turn create more problems.
I thought the teachings of permaculture said that we find solutions to problems by looking at the cause of those problems and thinking about when would this problem actually be the solution. For example, got ticks? rather than spray for ticks, bring in guinea fowl who love to eat ticks, If I had guinea fowl then I'd want to have a lot of ticks to feed them--the problem becomes the solution.  Is that not the very core teaching of permaculutre, that along with seeing ourselves as a part of the whole. When we see everything as one, or at the very least interconnected, we will no longer use solutions that create more problems.

We are in agreement here; humans over complicate solutions to simple problems.  This usually happens in the name of convenience--for example, car manufacturers put these sensors for tire pressure now...they almost always end up failing and need to be repaired.  The simpler solution is to just manually check your tire pressure from time to time.  But now we have to get the sensor fixed when it fails, lol.
My point is that the opposite also tends to be true; humans over simplify solutions to complex problems like climate change, or issues of global environmental scale.  We simply can't fathom the scale properly in this case.  We also cannot accurately grasp the near infinite number of connections between organisms and environments, and therefore trying to predict the consequence of action is very difficult.
A fascinating example of our inability to understand scale is seen in an exponential growth thought experiment.  And this can actually be calculated--if you could fold a piece of paper 100 times, how thick would it be?  Something like 90 billion light years thick, the size of the known universe!  

Rob,

We each do our best to move forward.  You have philosophies, plans, resources and priorities that are different than mine.  We each pursue what we think is best, and after ten years we find that we are each a little further ahead because of the efforts of the other.  We have both tried.  And, most importantly, we each have not attempted to impede the other.  

I think the core function of this thread is about those that try vs. those that impede.  Compounded with something public on the internet where I stand up and say "rocket mass heaters heat your home with one tenth the wood" and an anonymous troll says "no they don't."  To the casual observer of this exchange, it appears to be an impasse.  I hope to link to this thread and the subtext becomes "I have tried; has the other person tried?"

As for planet of the humans ...  I have a lot of very strong opinions.  And, at the same time, I choose to focus my energy on building permaculture and homesteading things rather than getting tied up in all the awful going on in political circles.  The moment I utter any opinion on that stuff, then the trolls tell the world that all rocket mass heater stuff is bullshit because of my opinion on something political.

Finally:  taking on the bigs ...   ...   ...   the better world book ....   I think ....  if the contents of that book ends up in 100 million brains, the bigs will be deeply crippled and many global problems will be solved.  What would happen if you bought four cases of my book and managed to get each copy of the book into one brain.  And then your act led to others doing some similar, and so on.  And if there were a hundred other people that did the same thing as you ...   ... ... ...   It can happen.  We have the book.  There is a path to affect change. Positive change.    Of course, if nobody tries then we get a different kind of change ...

paul wheaton wrote:I'm trying to figure out a way to solve global problems.  

Underneath that problem, I see a different one.

We are trained to want a monoculture solution.  A single thing that applies universally across every aspect of human existence.  Lightbulbs, recycling, solar, or something that is a universal truth.

If monoculture social solutions worked, the environment would be fixed by now.  

What permaculture offers is a toolkit.  An "it depends" solution where people look around their situation and apply what works.  So even if one person proves that permaculture works, it's only proving that it works in that situation.  If someone takes that success and trys to extract a monoculture solution, we are back to the problem that caused the problems in the first place.

r ranson wrote:

paul wheaton wrote:I'm trying to figure out a way to solve global problems.  

Underneath that problem, I see a different one.

We are trained to want a monoculture solution.  A single thing that applies universally across every aspect of human existence.  Lightbulbs, recycling, solar, or something that is a universal truth.

If monoculture social solutions worked, the environment would be fixed by now.  

What permaculture offers is a toolkit.  An "it depends" solution where people look around their situation and apply what works.  So even if one person proves that permaculture works, it's only proving that it works in that situation.  If someone takes that success and trys to extract a monoculture solution, we are back to the problem that caused the problems in the first place.

Exactly. Out here a commonly heard phrase is ‘try it and find out’.  And it isn’t ‘old dad’ suggesting you will get hurt, it’s homesteaders and ranchers and women who are mountain guides acknowledging that one size doesn’t fit all. It’s our common recognition that your solution, or next step on your path, won’t look exactly like mine.

My partner is one of those troll types (although he doesn't go to the effort of posting anything; he just speaks it to me) who insists rocket mass heaters don't work.  I've asked how he knows, did he ever build one?  He would not go to that effort because he just "knows" that they cannot work and be that much more efficient that a woodstove.  It is counterintuitive to him, so until he actually experiences one working at high efficiency, he will not believe it.  Which means I will have to build one my own self without his help before he will try it.  (And put up with his semi-good natured harassment for believing in unicorns and fairy dust, LOL!)

I know there are lots of trolls who just troll to troll, but there are also folks whose life experiences (or small brains?) just won't let them wrap their heads around alternative more efficient ways of doing things.  They feel they are providing a public service by countering what they believe is misinformation.  (And now I sound like I'm talking about something else altogether...)

So, maybe a way to promote things like RMHs would be to do a volunteer build for some public entity and let them endorse it after using it for a season?  Would need some financial donors as well as volunteer builders, but judiciously placed, volunteer builds could bring some proof into the pudding in places where public could see and feel and hear first-hand experiences of folks they either know or at least know of.

Donna Lynn wrote:My partner is one of those troll types (although he doesn't go to the effort of posting anything; he just speaks it to me) who insists rocket mass heaters don't work.  I've asked how he knows, did he ever build one?  He would not go to that effort because he just "knows" that they cannot work and be that much more efficient that a woodstove.  It is counterintuitive to him, so until he actually experiences one working at high efficiency, he will not believe it.  Which means I will have to build one my own self without his help before he will try it.  (And put up with his semi-good natured harassment for believing in unicorns and fairy dust, LOL!)

I know there are lots of trolls who just troll to troll, but there are also folks whose life experiences (or small brains?) just won't let them wrap their heads around alternative more efficient ways of doing things.  They feel they are providing a public service by countering what they believe is misinformation.  (And now I sound like I'm talking about something else altogether...)

So, maybe a way to promote things like RMHs would be to do a volunteer build for some public entity and let them endorse it after using it for a season?  Would need some financial donors as well as volunteer builders, but judiciously placed, volunteer builds could bring some proof into the pudding in places where public could see and feel and hear first-hand experiences of folks they either know or at least know of.

Unfortunately, some people will have been "mentally mutilated" to the point that even if they see it, they will deny it. Obviously I hope it's not the case for your partner. And on the case of trolls... some do it for the lulz. You post something on a forum, some people think you're serious, the thread become a dumpster fire, it's free, and better than a movie. Some people will be trolling for political reasons, some will do it as a way to discharge emotionally. It sound like a stereotype, but this can be a way to unleash frustration. It's important to be socially lucid. Is someone asking question to understand, or to waste time ? Is the person linked to a particular ideology that will prevent him to have a real debate ? Does that person upbringing even allows him to change his mind ?  In my country, we have people who will know a lot about the Scientific Method, about logical fallacies. Yet, when they are arguing, they will use every logical fallacies available, they will harass those that do not share their viewpoint, and believe that their point is True, and that anyone who disagree is a lunatic low IQ idiot serving some guru. It tends to get worse, with some people not even allowing you to have a nuanced viewpoint. It's either 0 or 1. Some people struggled in their childhood to be accepted. And now they will defend to the death a dogma, because for once they feel like they are accepted, and they just can't imagine living the rejection once again. Is that a good strategy, for me it's a recipe for disaster.



Like in my last post in this thread, I didn't read everything in there (lack of time, but I believe what I'm saying here can help), so I hope I'm still on topic. The problem is, why even try to persuade the unpersuadable ? Why try to change the unchangeable ? Some people will genuinely seek out the truth. Some might be interested in some circumstances. And some will have to be literally brainwashed. There is probably some who will not "break" (in case it's not obvious, I don't condemn those methods).

Some people will just not change. And for a lot of reason. I mentioned brainwashing, unfortunately it's not an exaggeration. Traumatizing people make it very hard for them to change aspects related to their trauma, even if they want to. Some will not be able to imagine a reality different from their own, because they depend too much on it. Like in the Matrix, some people will fight to defend the system that kills them, because they just can't imagine their live without it. We can enter into a lot of philosophical consideration, of discussion about psychology on that subject.

Now, I am myself trying to change the unchangeable. And it pays to ask oneself: why ? Why am I trying to convince those that will never be convinced ? Notice I am not talking about convincing people being a problem. But obsessing on what will not work. In my case it's probably a reflection of personal psychological problems, as it's rationally illogical to do something like that, but it can be emotionally logical. In some case, it's loved ones we're talking about, not some statistics, not some people on a screen.

So, to change people, it's a wide range of options. The most ethical, as far as I can tell, is rational discussion. You bring arguments, convince people. But it's also the hardest, the longest, the costlier in term of energy. And way less people will be convinced, because they have to be ready. Then, you have influence. Showing things, leading by example. It's still ethical to me. You do amazing things, some people want to imitate you, you guide them. They at first don't believe you, you do things, they notice, and gradually they open up. Then, you gradually slide down the ethical scale, with manipulation. Psychological tricks, that gets in the grey area of ethics. Reciprocity, Social proof, Scarcity, Authority, Consistency, etc. And at the bottom, what is the worst ethically speaking, would be literal brainwashing. In that case, you just fry someone brain.

To some people, the end justify the means. But if you take the unethical path, if you are leading to failure, you won't have people telling you. If you take the most ethical path, you will be able to use people counter argument and feedback to improve the end goal, and correct any failure you had in the initial idea. Some people will take that unethical path, because what they want is in their interest, not in the interest of those being targeted.

The mind boggles - 1,000 scientists chained themselves to banks supporting petro-chemical companies.  How many tonnes of fuel was used to get to the venues and how many tonnes of fuel was used for the authorities to get there to cut them off and cart them away to be questioned+/- getting to courts for appearances?  Beggars belief that such smart people may not actually be that smart.

I posted the following to LinkedIn to get a crowd swell (maybe) but to put Building a Better World in the spotlight and the same people not wasting money by crowd sourcing environmental activism - why am I not surprised that someone would be out to cash in?

Thanks Paul!  

That seems right on the money.  

I kinda feel like what you wrote is what I push all day, every day.  But, of course, it seems rather self serving coming from me.  :)