I both agree and disagree. After watching a video on youtube.. (Ancient Futures - Learning from Ladakh (permaculture) 1 of 4)
I found myself questioning the value of mechanization of everything, and the obvious destruction of communities for profit. Things are more enjoyable when you work with others, but mechanization removes that and focuses on improving how much 1 person can do in a give time. Thus doing the min / max thing.
For me this goes against Perma-culture ethics. Earth care, people care, surplus share...
If anyone were to build it, I think you are the one. .
Image a suburb with edible hedges, decentralized power (solar/wind/minihydro/woodgas/nuclear fusion/etc), community meeting places, and everyone with harvestable food right in their own backyard.
Loren Luyendyk wrote:
The corporate model can work as long as the employees are happy.
John Polk wrote:
A principle of permaculture is "no imports/no exports".
Rabid Chipmunk wrote:The diversity of permaculture is also it's achilles heel when it comes to competing with traditional commodity crops. I mean your harvesters would probably need a degree in botany to figure out what was a crop!
permieobserver Hatfield wrote:
I nearly laughed when you said we have lived 100,000 years without greed. I fear you may be suffering an idealized European version of what life is like for primitive peoples. From http://www.rogersandall.com/what-native-peoples-deserve/:
The main point that annoyed [Mead] was the concept, unstated by me, that primitive peoples were any better off as they were. She said she was “maddened by antibiotic-ridden idealists who wouldn’t stand three weeks in the jungle” . . . and the whole “noble savage” concept almost made her foam at the mouth. “All primitive peoples,” she said, “lead miserable, unhappy, cruel lives, most of which are spent trying to kill each other.” The reason they lived in the unpleasant places they did, like the middle of the Brazilian jungle, was that nobody else would.
So no, capitalism has not existed forever, but the vicious forces of greed and competition that drive humans has, and they haven't changed, nor are they likely to anytime soon. They've merely been beaten into submission by our "culture" (and thankfully so).
Regardless, we are in a world where capitalism is the ideology du jour, and where we actually have civilization. In order to preserve this civilization, I think it's important that we all have enough to eat, otherwise we quickly revert to our jungle ways and the killing begins. Going back to some idealized "pre-greed and capitalism" system just is not a reality, and wouldn't be until there had been a lot of war in the meantime.
Joshua Msika wrote:This is what I like doing; building castles in the air... I am simply not a practical person but I love having ideas and evaluating their feasibility.
I am reading through Bill Mollison's "Permaculture for Millionaires" available as chapter XV in this document: http://www.barkingfrogspermaculture.org/PDC_ALL.pdf
Chapter XIII "The Permaculture Community" is extremely useful as well. this is one of the best doccuments ive seen well done Joshua!Q
The main work in permaculture is firstly design and then harvest. Of those two, harvesting is the real issue.
Yields are limited firstly by the biomass being synthesised, as Brenda mentioned. They are then limited by the amount of people harvesting (assuming low availability of fossil fuels).
What one must do, according to Mollison, is figure out as many possible, non-conflicting ways of making a living off the same piece of land.
In the Eastern forest region those ways of making a living would include, in no particular order except the order in which they come to mind:
- raising animals
- raising fish
- on-site restaurants
- honey production
- maple syrup and similar products
- wooden handicrafts
- tanning hides
- spinning wool
- making other fabrics from plants or animals
- being a tailor
- being a cooper
- plant nursery
- research institute
- managing herds of semi-wild deer and other animals for meat and hides
- vegetable production
- flour production from acorns or chestnuts (I think blight resistance will spread through the genome and chestnuts will eventually make a comeback, they're just going through a "black death". Plagues are natural. But that's beside the point)
- nut oils
- biofuels (mainly for lighting but maybe also for machinery but I'm not sure if machinery has a place in this system)
- methane production
- making pipes and other conduits from elderberry stems or other hollow stems
- blacksmithing with recycled metals (many different tools to make, many livings to be made)
- charcoal production
- medical services
It goes on. Some of these jobs will not allow a person (or family) to make a complete living, some will require more than one person. Some will remove organic matter from the property, some will trap it from outside (think restaurants... ), some will circulate it inside the property. Circulation is what we as permaculturists are going for but any exports from the property will actually just be entering larger cycles in the economy.
One could guide the creation of such a system by simply inviting one person after another to come make a living off a part of the natural systems available on a piece of land. To work, it needs to appeal to people's self-interest. I am not a believer in the practicality of communism and nor is Bill Mollison. This means that a bee-keeper would be keeping bees because he wants to harvest honey or beeswax or beestings or whatever, not because he wants to pollinate other people's plants.
What the designer(s) need(s) to do is set up a legal and regulatory framework to make sure things stay on track. This is probably the most important thing that needs to be done. People living on the property will identify niches that are available much better than a designer who walks around the place once or twice.
Anyway, enough said, what do you think?