Basing my
answer on the original meaning of the term as ‘permanent agriculture,’ and then incorporating its evolution into meaning ‘permanent culture,’ my philosophy of ‘permaculture’ is a culture that has achieved a measure of stability and growth by rooting itself in agrarianism while still allowing for technology that is practical, and serves human needs, not
greed and ambition. Technological development, be it computer/internet or engineering and so forth, will not be done primarily for the
profit motive which often states that ‘just because we can do something, we will,’ and disregards any moral considerations.
Given human history and the human condition, I disbelieve that there can ever be a true ‘permanent culture,’ but a pervasive ‘permaculture ethic’ will enable the rank-and-file of humanity (the ‘little people,’ the ‘grunts,’ the ‘flyovers’) to survive when the human political and economic system suffers collapse or serious pain. The permaculture ethic of a systemic, holistic ‘design’ approach to managing systems from a simple house with a backyard, up to a farm; or towns and small cities with easy walkable/public transit access to the commercial center from residential areas, provides a more stable and resilient means for societies and individuals to survive the ebb and flow of history given that it rejects the unjust ‘domination’ of other people, of nature and the environment by humanity in favor of a more cooperative approach.
In short, we work with nature, and we develop a practical design ethic for human communities and we reject the idea of the unjust exercising of power and domination over others.
I hope this didn’t sound like I ingested a textbook, but sometimes I do get all jargony. Oh, yeah, and Paul Wheaton’s plans for
World Domination is the logical exception to my criticism of ‘dominating’ philosophies up above.