But since Fukuoka is worshiped as one of the Gods of natural farming, no one is willing to say so.
Paul -- if you're reading this, it seems I remember you, yourself, being rather frustrated with Sepp Holzer for the same kind of thing when he was here. How many times did he contradict himself when asked the same question twice? How about all the ambiguities? The dodges? The put-downs? Do you really think it was always attributable to language difficulties?
These guys put their pants on one leg at a time like everyone else and we have to start holding them to the same standards as everyone else. Their names are not in The New Testament.
Hasn't Bonfils used a similar methodology as Fukuoka since the 70's?
paul wheaton wrote:
I'm trying to remember a time that sepp contradicted himself .... I cannot think of one.
As for their names not being in the new testament, I don't get it .... what does that have to do with anything? My name is in the new testament, does that mean that you are gonna trust my word over sepp's?
My question is if these techniques are so productive and labor saving why haven't they been adopted more widely? The argument that it's because farmers are trapped in a financial and technological web I don't think holds water, although I can understand why an industrial farmer wouldn't automatically adopt a new technique unless he sees it to be replicable and consistent.
Don't you mention somewhere that someone asked him a question one day and he gave one answer, then he gets the same question again another day and gives a different answer? I wish I could remember the question and also wish I had the time to go back and dig it out. I'll defer to you on it if you still can't think of it.
As for the new testament thing, it was not meant to be taken literally. it's merely a sarcastic expression used a lot around here in response to someone caught engaging in hero worship, as in if he were really so important his name would be in the new testament.
Gurus are inspiring, and I personally would read or listen to anything Fukuoka, Mollison, Holzer, or Salatin writes or says. It nourishes the imagination and can lead us to solutions as well as to interesting, valuable failures. But such "thought experiments," as philosophers call them, are not the same as scientific experiments which lead to cumulative knowledge.
rose macaskie wrote:
A video clip on him, in Spanish, going to South America to advise them on their problems with landslides and floods, talks of how the, "Sepp Holzer type ponds" stop landslides, i suppose they somehow take up the water stopping the land from getting so waterlogged but i did not understand how they stopped landslides. It also talks of how they stop too much mud getting in rivers, it seems that if you have his ponds the mud collects in the bottom of the ponds and it is the water that overflows not the mud so the rivers don't get stopped up with too much mud causing bad floods. Sepp correct me if I'm wrong, i am writting more than i am researching at the moment or checking and rechecking any information that comes my way, so i am just giving my understanding of the situation as it was after one quick viewing of the video. So, ponds to reduce landslides and flooding in rivers, to reduce disasters and i don't know if its true or not but before letting these ideas go or stamping them out i shall study them and and I feel enthusiasm for those who have made an effort in such Fields.