My answer is a two parts:
part 1) I don't care. Can't a fella do a little permaculture without having to solve the world's problems first? I just need a few people for my projects. Surely you don't expect one farm to be responsible for all of humanity before they can so a little smart ag?
part 2) It turns out I really do care. If everybody did it, then wouldn't there be a lot of people that were previously tied up in the chem fertilizer business, and the combine manafacturing business, and the oil business that are now looking for work? Plus, how many people used to work for monsanto that are now unemployed?
paul wheaton wrote:
I guess I'm attempting to express a frustration for which I have come up with a pithy response.
It seems that question is presented in a frame of light of "it'll never work." They see how it can work for one farm, or for a thousand farms, but they think that if everybody did it, it could cause some sort of economic collapse (or something).
Joel Hollingsworth wrote:
It sounds like this discussion is happening mostly in terms of a dichotomy between labor and management, but I really wasn't using the term "labor" that way. The skill set is more white-collar, but permaculture needs quite a few person-hours, even if those hours are spent managing the land more often than laboring against it, my previous statements used "labor" to mean "labor plus management."
Before that barn raising TCLynx proposed, who is going to spend the time getting to know the site (I've heard a year is often not enough), and preparing to communicate that knowledge to the large group of people who need to know?
Masanobu Fukuoka had a full-time carreer of observation and contemplation, unless I'm mistaken. A person doing that job might not require advanced degrees in plant pathology, but the training needed to do "nothing" as effectively as he did would be significant, and the time commitment required to actually be effective should not be ignored.
If people were to spend even half the resources (space, money, time, energy, water, fertilizer, etc) on useful or food crops that they do spend of "ornamental" plantings, I expect there would be huge surplus of local foods in many spread out cities (at least in the south.)
Ah sigh, but apparently it is illegal to "harvest" anything from non-agricultural land in many counties at least here in Florida
...Heaven forbid a person...
... an inappropriate place and caused zoning...
If people were to spend even half the resources (space, money, time, energy, water, fertilizer, etc) on useful or food crops that they do spend of "ornamental" plantings, I expect there would be huge surplus of local foods
People working for a landscaping company can certainly learn to recognize different types of plants and how to care for them
What is this gibberish?
Joel Hollingsworth wrote:
Okay, I guess I failed to express myself.
I apologize for any inconvenience.
I mostly meant that we shouldn't be distressed if permaculture scales in a different manner than the market economy, because many of the problems permaculture is intended to address are direct consecquences of the scaling requirements imposed by the market. But I'm not certain I've made myself any clearer.
i am under the opinion that many issues today are the direct result, intended or not, of poor education and mass propaganda.
i am not...anti business.
the New England Small Farm Institute put out an interesting report about alternative land tenure.