My whole point in the comments before was that permaculture would be far more spread and accepted if we can talk the “mainstream” language. People need to be picked up where they are and eased into this.
Basically you seem to be saying that permaculturists shouldn't be hippies, because hippies give permaculture a bad name.
Throwing this in the mix since a CTRL+F search didn't bring up the word "indigenous".
I have heard a lot of push back against the permaculture movement because of many prominent permaculture people advertising techniques without citing their origins in Traditional Ecological Knowledge.
From the beginning permaculture is bad at properly citing things, I think by design, which is why it's gotten flack from academics who otherwise appreciate its ideas. The 'last straw' for many I know is the fact that ideas are advertised as permaculture ideas when really they are repackaged indigenous techniques. This is not true across the board, many permaculture people do acknowledge indigenous sources and stewards but too few.
Thing is, permaculture is a bit of anarchy, it's whatever someone decides to call it and it sounds most like whoever speaks loudest about it. Good to stay flexible about opinions I think.
Tyler Ludens wrote:In my opinion 10 acres is far more than one person can manage. I should think a couple acres (one hectare) would be sufficient to keep a person occupied full-time, especially in the initial stages. One the board I see people biting off far more than I think they can chew when they acquire many acres and "animal up" and purchase tractors, etc. all apparently without a design. It's difficult for me to see this kind of thing being able to break even, let alone make a profit. They seem intent on having the least efficient thing possible, just exactly the kind of farm that Mollison was trying to get people to change to permaculture.
See pages 40 and 41 in the Designers Manual
A profitable farm tends to be 12 year round workers on 20,000 acres, plus a few dozen helpers during the warm season. All of this is augmented by a LOT of big equipment burning a lot of diesel.
One person with one massive garden can probably do great with three to five acres.
I prefer the model of 20 workers, working symbiotically with 200 acres. So it works out to about 1 person for each 10 acres. But I think it would be even better with 40 people. And that's 40 people "gerting it" - not 4 gerts and 36 people eating out the 4 gert gardens.
I am trained as an engineer. Logic and critical thinking are extremely important to me. To me, permaculture is the only logical solution to our problems. To many of the people I talk to, the feeling they get is that permaculture is some weird hippy thing that must be crazy. And maybe it doesn't help that besides the engineer thing, I fit quite a few hippy stereotypes - my long hair being a commonly cited example. And yet I don't feel like I would ever be accepted by hippies.
I visited a commune once and was invited to consider being a part of the community. They had some cool permaculture stuff going on. And they were a bunch of lovely people. And I'm really happy that they have been one of the few communities that has lasted for many years. I hope they continue to last for many years. But I knew very clearly that if I tried living there, I would probably get myself kicked out within the year. Because many of my ideas are quite different from theirs.
I’m trying to have conversations where I share that I think that over the next few years, permaculture will become the only really profitable way to grow food. Even if you ignore the triple bottom line and think only of moneys. That often gets them thinking. They respect someone "thinking like a businessman" and not just dreaming of a gert-style life that they think is unattainable. Of course, I still have the gerthood dreams... but don't always start conversations with that unless I know the person is ready for it.
When I talk to people who are new to the word “permaculture”, I like to start by explaining that it is a regenerative design science. The word "science" gets them going, because isn't "science" saying that we need the GMOs and the monocrops and the sprays? So then I explain that this particular branch of science does not (generally) follow reductionist thinking that makes all other science seem so much easier for the average person to grasp. And when I start to paint a picture of the intricate complexities of nature that we are trying to work with, people sometimes start to think that maybe it's not just all woo-woo after all.