watta McCoy

Definitely agree. Push in that direction everything everywhere you can, think in that direction, make plans in that direction ... more people like you will be and more ideas like this will be realized. It is a progress, we can expect many changes, look at the ecology where it was two decades ago... Good suggestions anyway.

Inside the EU, there is no legislative command to grow or sell only some of existing seeds. You can grow your own seed and sell them freely again. If you want to buy registered seed, than it may be charged (I don´t know). There is a duty to mark GMO in EU (to be able to detect its history). But if you buy organic seeds, you don´t need to think about such things at all.

Courses are very useful also because they create communities. Participants will profit from co-operation with other permaculturists. Also from the same reason, not only because of acquired skills, it is good to spend some time working on permaculture projects etc. Unfortunately, as a wwoofer or similar you need also some "input" money (and to my knowledge it is even not easy to get such job, demand outstrips supply (but these are not up-to-date informations, it could change, or it can vary in various parts of the world, I don´t know). It is true that it is not for everyone, or rather it is only for few today. People with low money usually don´t plan holiday to spend it somewhere at sea etc., so PDC is not something "instead" of it. I think most of us would agree there are no better utilized money than for such courses - not only permaculture, herbal medicine etc. - very good example. The thing is  even this money is missing and as LasVegasLee pointed out, it is inaccesible to many. The problem is not in the permaculture itself, but that daily expenses can´t be cut more today, it is system problem. We should be patient and optimistic, because it will definitely change, it can´t last in existing form very long. It will concern soil (land) too. For the "transition" period we should always try to find alternative possibilities - paying by other commodities or by work is possible in my area.

I agree with jacque g that the price is worth it only with really experienced teachers. Valuable pedagogic personality who has something to offer and pass, could be also able to learn more in one single hour than good and experienced gardener in one day. People are shortly not all the same, not every permaculturist is "designed" to be teacher and has the same results even on garden. There will be always more talented people for specific skills. Sure, it requires some reasonable measure, Harward is really not good example regarding reasonable measure regarding price Exchange of tomorrow could really proceed in new way, possibly by change of such skills and works together.

Sepp Holzer is in fact not permaculture designer, he is an alternative agriculturist which uses methods applicable in permaculture gardens. So of course, he doesn´t have certificate.  Piece of paper is not important, but if you have to choose from something what you don´t know, you have to decide by something, until you´ll try it (it concerns lectors, seed, etc.)

H Ludi Tyler wrote:
Great, then we agree. 

Great. So we can start here in our practical efforts.

H Ludi Tyler wrote:
Speaking of relative:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/relativity-and-the-cosmos.html   

... you said and picked up the biggest dogma of 20st century physics, o-o,

H Ludi Tyler wrote:
If you don't want to practice science, don't practice it.  Personally I hope people don't give up on science as a way to try to understand the world.  It would be a sad thing to return to the Dark Ages at this point in our society. 

No, I haven't wrote anything like this - you can go through. I only systematically point out that science is not enough and that prejudices against biodynamic farming is hypocrisy because if they there are, they themselves evidence the same (enclosed) approach which they find on biodynamic and reproach for it. I find it very important for permaculture, that's why I emphasize it. It would be great if we all keep it in mind in our daily work and especially in our thinking, to prevent the world (us, nature) from similar errors we did in past by exactly the same approach. That's all.

I see this was Dark Ages what I know by my own experience and the consequences of it I see all around the world. I don't believe fairy tales about Dark Ages in our far past which where "Dark" only because man didn'n t know how to shave with an electric razor

The biodynamic year from Maria Thun is available on google books online:



http://books.google.cz/books?id=PR9zw4ukqv4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=biodynamic&hl=cs&ei=nkHaTd3JGInoOcrzlOIP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ6wEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

We have the dictionary, and we have the real world. I am absolutely convinced scientists don´t doubt they do exactly what dictionary describes here, even they don't. That's just the problem. Anyway, if you really do what is depictured on your garden, that's very good.

Random objections to real scientific practice
(the dictionary is wishful thinking or/and abbreviation - cp. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/love?show=0&t=1306151071 etc.):

1. in vitro and the real world are not the same
(many even scientific experiments showed many times we cannot apply what we
achieve in vitro in the real world, for instance bacteria colonies, viruses,
many others)

2. scientific work is based on axioms. it makes experiments because it wants
prove something (axioms, hypothesis, presumption), or because it needs to
discover something, usually something particular at the moment. not other way
round.

(in bd or on simple observation, first I see something and only second I can
notice regularity, connection or anything what could appear as useful). it is not like that I
see the moon and I´m going to say: "oh, wouldn´t it be poetic if moon
would had some connection with my beautiful pasqueflower? let´s see if I
find any!" the simple observation is not burdened. this article is expressed also in the word "systematic" of yours. the systems gives the direction. this is what I call rigid (some permaculturists it rigorous - not beeing native English speaker, admit there could be difference)

3. science uses more than often the most expensive way to discover new knowledge. expensive
means also requiring huge amount of energy. CERN is the top of it.
price/perfomance ratio from practical point of view is ridiculous. in
addition, in similar projects there is not minor possibility of danger. other
example is nuclear energy. the possibilities of sciences go always after the
real time. often it reminds more of a virtual game, enough far from reality.
of course, I am aware of that it is sometimes needed for the results. but I doubt
the price is appropriate.

4. as Bill Mollison already said, those who make science are not those, who
apply it. two worlds rise here and they are not usually connected.

(in other words - you cannot make the same experiment as the guy in the
laboratory who works on it for 3 years of his grant made for some company
which pays it (other experiments don´t exist but let´s say that´s another
problem). that´s what I find religious on science. somebody proposed here the
case with UV radiation and how it works in the body. he used the well-spoken
expression it was explained to me. that´s what I am speaking about. in simple
observation, for example on your garden, you can always see how things works,
you don´t have to believe. if you want to call scientific this observation,
you can, of course. but then, you can call scientific anything you like. it is
simple life.

5. world is relative environment. science set up absolute thruths.

6. moon positions don´t have side effects.

It could be (perhaps without the last sentence ) beautiful truth if it was real science, what you are talking about, and if there was one direction - linear. And if there would be one single science on this planet. In non-idealized science, many interpretations occur during experiments and discussions. In reality, one is than chosen and developped further (in addition, such experiment always runs it in artificial not complex and real - environment, which is for example big problems with many things what we "know" about bacterias). It happens always, even as for a believer or a tasker it is really easy to neglect it, as I can see sometimes.

Such choice doesn´t says all of mentioned others ways are ALL wrong. It says they are not chosen at the moment, or even haven´t been discovered at the moment. You should know it from detailed history of any discipline of science. You call it "dynamic". But the chosen direction is once set as a dogma, and as a dogma is applied to whatever science investigates in next time (usually decades, or even centuries).  It is best seen in field of biology, or physics, microbiology is beautiful example too, but it exists (perhaps suprisingly) even in chemistry, geology etc. Under such circumstances, it is very difficult for scientists (educated under the dogma, brought up in some culture) to develop different strategies and discover (or even put something through) interesting novelties aside the flow, it is even much more difficult from the beginning of 20st century (or rougly from times Pasteur vs. Bechamp), when independent science almost doesn´t exist. And, it costs really huge money.

I don´t say that science is worthless. I could repeat (I did it probably three-times in this topic and I do it now for the last time) that the real science has its great role in practical field - mechanics, eletronics, energetics etc., when no linear axis of artificially sketched linear progress is applied and when it focuses strongly on producing things, products. If you as a scientist work on one task for one thing, when the simple fact that the matter is whipped out from the context DOESN´T CHANGE THE NUB OF THE THING, you don´t create theories, but things. In these circumstances, science is irreplacable. This is gadgetry (or industry). Science is pre-eminently usable as gadgetry. If it is theory-maker, which is, in last century, or it says to you HOW TO SEE THINGS, it is then religion.

We even don´t need to know chemical compositions of thing to know what is useful to do with this thing. When we apply the view that we need it, we behave religiously. Similarly, as if we explain something by supranatural spirits (and perhaps can also call them by names). But we are able to manage this thing without both these views in the equally efficient way (and with much lower budget).  In addition, it is to be honest a bit hypocritical, because the world of variables is never definite (as you also pointed out), and our memory is selective and connected in let´s say the mirror-neuron web.

Like this, science has one significant problem: it is not sustainable. It layers theories over theories (which is exactly what you described) and from one theory to the other it produces so many mistakes that every next theory has to produce BIG ENERGY only to rebuild all thinking and repair faults. Also it could be (but only in my opinion, I am not the disciple of any) the reason, why this science, which I called rigid (and their followers) is so disturbed by other systems, not following its "truths" - it is religion against religion. Of course, people usually don´t notice these influences, which was the reason of conflicts already centuries and centuries ago. This conflict is not sustainable, too.

Me personally, I prefer epxerience. Biodynamic gardening and approach is full of shared experience, collecting for years and years. I would like to combine it, together with common practice, with scientific informations, but to be honest, when I think about it now, the vast majority of applied methods are common sense, SHARED EXPERIENCE OF COMMON SENSE, can´t remember need for any truly scientific facts for the garden right now... ? if I don´t call my (or shared) observations, or literal names given to some things (for example bicarbonate) as "scientific"... So me personally, I would prefer to use science possibly as an aid in places where my two hands are not sufficient to carry something, when I need ladder, or similar. Because to be in tune with the moon is more efficient, from the experience. Anybody esle can choose completely different approach.

gary gregory wrote:
Please define what you mean by "rigid science" and "same mistakes as industrial revolution"

I mean:

Rigid = deficient in or devoid of flexibility, inflexibly set in opinion

Mistakes of industrial revolution = fast short-sightednes, the inability of predictability, living in debt, lack of future vision, irreversible depletion of resources, lack of mechanisms accompanying consequences, lack of balance of speed of development, monocultures (and its broad consequences), unawareness of logical implications, need for the creation of "fictional" work places, then the entire imaginary branches, then entire virtual systems applied broadly all around the world, complex changes in the health conditions of the population not followed by appropriate measures (lifestyle diseases etc.), poisoning of natural conditions of Earth etc. - in short, all those processes with that we all are familiar