Industrial scale permaculture?

Ludi wrote:
Greed is not inherent in human nature.  Many cultures do not recognise personal property or personal space (privacy).  Without personal property there can be no greed.

I'm sure many of these ideas are hilarious to you.  But they are anthropologically accurate.

http://www.survivalinternational.org/stampitout

You should read the book Collapse by Jared Diamond. Although not all his work is truth, it does show that Indigenous and Aboriginal peoples weren't the Noble Savage one-with-nature sterotypes westerners try and put on them.

It took generations for many peoples to get to the earth-concious cultural practices Europeans saw when they started to travel and conquer the world.

Look at the many Indigenous Pacific Northwest peoples who owned slaves and owned land; the accumulation of wealth is in every society. Even the peoples on Survival International; for example many antropologists and historians now believe San and Khoikhoi were the same people and that it was a cyclical process of gaining and losing sheep or herd animals which correlated into a change of social and class status.

It wasn't/isn't necessarily the egalitarian gift economy people make claims too; it seemed to have been perpetuated solely by those in the non-herding Bushmen population on a large scale.

SouthEastFarmer wrote:

From an investor standpoint, it may not be necessary for them to stay involved long term.  There may be ways to appease the wealthy benefactor getting things off the ground and then transitioning them out of their role as venture capitalist within a period of years after recouping a return on their investment.  A transition to "ownership" of the company to the workers can be similar to other types of corporations that go public and the employees have large holdings of either stock options or preferred stock.  In this way a lot of the benefits of the corporate structure could be realized without a need to institute what commonly happens where a huge disparity of income and authority evolves between employees after the company gets off the ground.

This looks like a good idea. This is the way a lot of intentional communities seem to operate, in which an individual or small group invests in the land, sets goals and parameters for how it will be developed and then allow others to buy in to the project as co-owners.

Ahipa wrote:
You should read the book Collapse by Jared Diamond. Although not all his work is truth, it does show that Indigenous and Aboriginal peoples weren't the Noble Savage one-with-nature sterotypes westerners try and put on them.

The Noble Savage is a strawman.  I've noticed in any conversation mentioning anything negative about civilization and anything positive about non-civilized peoples, the Noble Savage gets dragged up, inevitably.

In mentioning the Tikopians, I am referencing Diamond's book. 

Ahipa wrote:
the accumulation of wealth is in every society.

Non-civilized cultures are quite diverse.  Some had accumulation of wealth, others did not.  This diversity indicates greed is not inherent in human nature, as some human cultures do not exhibit it.

Anyways, to the topic...

If you are using a large expanse of land, almost by definition you are going to have high transportation costs.  This will probably be your guiding constraint.

To me, high transportation costs imply that you'd have to create products that have a high value per unit weight - distilled products.

This means animal products.  The animals do the labor of gathering vegetation for you, and you don't have to pay them.  You manage their density to keep them living off the land, and cull a replaceable amount.

Vegetative products might be an occasional bonus, but cannot be viable as the main source of income simply because their unit value is low while labor and transportation costs are high.  You might overcome this to some degree if you are producing alcohol.  It would probably have to be wine because it takes a lot less labor to harvest grapes than to harvest grains.

So, what animal products could you get from a managed temperate forest?  Here's a few things that immediately come to mind:

honey & beeswax
duck & chicken eggs
fish
meat (goats?  managed deer?  rabbits?  pigs?)
value-added meat (cured sausages, bacons, etc)
pelts/furs

I'm sure there are more, but that's the basic idea.

In terms of the labor you would need, it would probably be a few families being full time managers of the land with added temporary help during harvest season.  You could even set it up such that each family has its own homestead that they can grow their own food in their personal gardens (if they want to).

I think it's totally doable so long as an eye is kept on the densities to make sure you aren't over-stressing the forest.

The downside to the whole thing in terms of economics is that the short term ROI is pretty low.  Whether you have "access" to the capital or not, everything has an opportunity cost.  In the short run, it'd be a pretty poor investment.  Over time, since this system should be designed in a way that it needs none or very little further input, it'd be a great return.  Most people don't think that way though.

I apologize for some of my stronger statements.  This is a topic and subjects about which I feel strongly, but I should remember strong expression of feelings about ideas is often seen as hostility toward persons.

I've edited out some of my blunt statements.

Ludi wrote:
I apologize for some of my stronger statements.  This is a topic and subjects about which I feel strongly, but I should remember strong expression of feelings about ideas is often seen as hostility toward persons.

I've edited out some of my blunt statements.

I as well should apologize if my tone and/or comments were harsh or rash. What I think that shows is just what makes this group of people (both here in this particular forum and permactulturalists in general) so wonderful: they are passionate and care deeply about these issues. And that's what we need to always remember - we both want a better way forward, even if we don't agree on how to get there.

Keep the great stuff coming everyone, please and thank you!

tamo42 wrote:

The downside to the whole thing in terms of economics is that the short term ROI is pretty low.  Whether you have "access" to the capital or not, everything has an opportunity cost.  In the short run, it'd be a pretty poor investment.  Over time, since this system should be designed in a way that it needs none or very little further input, it'd be a great return.  Most people don't think that way though.

20-50 year ROI plans aren't rare in the forestry sectors
the good news is if the land has recently been pulped:
1) the coprate has extracted most of the value it expects from the land for 10-40 years
2) there is an opportunity to guide the succession towards a productive landscape
3) the current value of the land will be low

I think the largest challenge facing us as things start to get more expensive is still transportation
one thing that reassures me where I live right now is the well maintianed rail line right down the hill from me
I imagine if things get bad enough that is gonna be a vital link to the rest of the world

tamo42 wrote:
Anyways, to the topic...

If you are using a large expanse of land, almost by definition you are going to have high transportation costs.  This will probably be your guiding constraint.

To me, high transportation costs imply that you'd have to create products that have a high value per unit weight - distilled products.

This means animal products.  The animals do the labor of gathering vegetation for you, and you don't have to pay them.  You manage their density to keep them living off the land, and cull a replaceable amount.

Vegetative products might be an occasional bonus, but cannot be viable as the main source of income simply because their unit value is low while labor and transportation costs are high.  You might overcome this to some degree if you are producing alcohol.  It would probably have to be wine because it takes a lot less labor to harvest grapes than to harvest grains.

So, what animal products could you get from a managed temperate forest?  Here's a few things that immediately come to mind:

honey & beeswax
duck & chicken eggs
fish
meat (goats?  managed deer?  rabbits?  pigs?)
value-added meat (cured sausages, bacons, etc)
pelts/furs

I'm sure there are more, but that's the basic idea.

In terms of the labor you would need, it would probably be a few families being full time managers of the land with added temporary help during harvest season.  You could even set it up such that each family has its own homestead that they can grow their own food in their personal gardens (if they want to).

I think it's totally doable so long as an eye is kept on the densities to make sure you aren't over-stressing the forest.

The downside to the whole thing in terms of economics is that the short term ROI is pretty low.  Whether you have "access" to the capital or not, everything has an opportunity cost.  In the short run, it'd be a pretty poor investment.  Over time, since this system should be designed in a way that it needs none or very little further input, it'd be a great return.  Most people don't think that way though.

Firstly, thanks for your suggestions, and I totally agree - eventually it will have to evolve to high-density unit value, and that means animal products. As I understand it, these are the last elements to be added to a design, and if they are added too soon can do significant damage to immature designs.  I also like the idea of full-time caretakers/homesteaders with additional help added when needed (i.e. harvest).

As far as the ROI, you are totally spot on - to truly appreciate the benefits of permaculture you need to have extremely longterm views of your business, and that is not how most MBA's, accountants and financiers think.  In my particular case, not only will this not be a problem, it is part of the reason I think this investor might be interested in it. He does not own publicly traded companies, and hence is not accountable to shareholders on a quarterly basis. Moreover, the company has been multi-generational and amazingly successful at least in part due to their ability to take a very, very longterm outlook at what the future might hold for their (literally hundreds) of businesses, and making investments accordingly. For instance, much of their industrial infrastructure began moving towards energy efficiency in the late 80's, early 90's, before it became "cool to be green", and this has provided them a disctinct business advantage as energy costs skyrocketed and his competitors sought to play catch-up. So, to make a short story long, I'm going to be "selling him" on a 40-50 year timeline, where the cost is payed now and the benefits reaped for his grandchildren (just as his grandfather did for him when he began replanting forests that had been cut down, even if it was done "improperly" or less-than perfectly).

As far as oil and transportation costs are concerned, such businesses already form part of the vertically integrated business empire, so while there is definitely costs associated with those issues, the money would still be kept "in-house".

brice Moss wrote:
20-50 year ROI plans aren't rare in the forestry sectors
the good news is if the land has recently been pulped:
1) the coprate has extracted most of the value it expects from the land for 10-40 years
2) there is an opportunity to guide the succession towards a productive landscape
3) the current value of the land will be low

This is definitely exactly what I'm thinking. You can buy just-harvested former "plantation" land for less than 200$ per acre. This is part of why I think it's a good business - as a result of misuse, there is an asset (land) that has been extremely undervalued. In the general perception, this land is "worthless", whereas with a little TLC it's only a matter of time until it's providing 300$/acre per year worth of food for pigs, a la Joel Salatin and his forest-finished pigs. In economic terms, there is an inefficiency in the marketplace, and permaculture can "exploit" that inefficiency.

quote from permiobserver: "Once again, I appreciate your comment. And what you are describing about clear cutting, horrible re-planting strategies, etc., are all the existing strategies that currently exist and that I would hope to replace. I have serious doubts that pulping would be a income stream pursued in this endeavour, as pulp is really the lowest common denominator in a forest - it's commodity production at its worst. Moreover, the forest industry where I am at has been decimated as lower-cost producers from South America who use quick-growing Eucalyptus pulp have undercut the production here. That is partly what is motivating me, the need to take the forests from being strictly commodity production to a multi-faceted income producing business which is not overly reliant on one particular item. The video that comes to mind is that of Sepp Holzer explaining what happened as a result of the government encouraging farmers to plant spruce trees. 40 years later, it wasn't even economical to bother cutting them down! That, in a nutshell, is the problem that needs to be solved.  "

In our area several "cogeneration" and "biofuel" plants have either gone in or have been proposed..and the state of Michigan owns a lot of the forest in the area..and they are broke.

so

they sell off the trees on the land around us for fuel for the cogen and biofuel plants, and they leave the land stripped totally bare of anything but a few wildflowers..and some waste baby aspen trees that popped back up after they went through..they transplant in totally different trees from what they removed, generally trees that produce zero to little food or cover for the wildlife

i live less than a mile in 3 directions from this type of state land that has been stripped bare and replanted with junk trees..

this was a beautiful land home to all kinda of animals including the whitetail deer, black bear, elk, wolf, coyote, bobcat, mountain lion..tec..plus all the little guys, skunks, porcupines, opossum racoon, etc.

we USED to walk in the woods around our area and pick wild berries, mushrooms etc and people used to spend tons of money coming here from the city to deerhunt.

well now..there are a few places like our property, where people have been busines planting food forests and allowing natural forests to grow up and fill in..so now the few bear, deer, cats, and wild dog and smaller animals..all try to feed on our small acerage..hiding in our woods from the huge heavy equipment that is taking down the forests..as well as the huge trucks going up and down our roads.

we have had deer sleeping under our hemlock trees during the day for the past 3 years, 40 feet from our kitchen window..we have bear hiding in our little woods, trying to escape all the crazyness where they used to live.

probably most of the larger animalshave run for the UP..crossing on the ice bridges in February..hope they find safe harbor there..

It is so hard for me to even want to see commercial or industrial anything, but if you do it wiht permaculture in mind, please remember the rest of the living out there, besides just the "starving people"..etc..

I go through our woods planting cuttings of berry bushes, grape and woodbine vines and fruit trees in every cleearing possible..and yes some of the food will be eaten by people..but a lot of the food will be eaten by those that wear their fur coats in the summertime

 

hi

I am not sure but I think myself and my partner might be responsible for the concept of Industrial Permaculture.

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=industrial+permaculture

we had in mind a nested network of self-governing worker-cooperatives practicing industrial symbiosis and super-recyclicity  (crade-to-cradle) or product as service.

We hosted a workshop at the USSF in Detroit called Pathways to Sustainable Self Governance to that effect

we have actively been research such a permaculture cooperative and have been at mondragon cooperative in Spain, and other worker cooperatives in Spain etc

you can hear Bill Mollison talk very favorably of the Mondragon cooperative
http://permaculture.tv/bill-mollison-on-mondragon-cooperative-part-1-of-mondragon-permaculture/
http://permaculture.tv/?s=mondragon
http://permaculture.tv/mondragon-official-oral-history-cooperative-arrasate/

http://gaiapermaculture.com/projects/permaculturecooperative/
http://gaiapermaculture.com/projects/permaculturecooperative/blog/category/mondragon/


I would also note that the Transition movement is considering a 13th ingredient, social enteprise i.e cooperatives etc

I met with Ben Brandywn, co-founder of Transition in Totnes and had a long chat about worker-cooperatives and I know a couple of key transition officers went to Mondragon/Arrasate this summer

http://www.transitionnetwork.org/support/12-ingredients

13.
There are groups currently looking at how the Transition Initiative might need to develop as it goes into the EDAP implementation phase. One crucial element looks like being "social enterprises". These could be community-owned enterprises primarily designed rebuild resilience in the local economy by delivering benefits to local people - as opposed to operations primarily focused on providing profit, often for absentee stockholders and typically with minimal concern about the environmental costs.

Something to get you thinking about this:

A post from Transition Culture on social enterprise
Another post on Transition Culture examining the potential jobs arising as we go through this transition




Nicholas Roberts & Kirstie Stramler

Permaculture Cooperative R&D project
skype permaculturecoop
email permaculturecoop@gmail.com
--
news http://news.permaculture.coop
groups http://permaculturegroups.org
plans http://gaiapermaculture.com
video http://www.Permaculture.TV
blogs http://blogs.permaculture.coop
--
http://twitter.com/permaculturetv
http://www.youtube.com/user/permaculturecoop
http://vimeo.com/permaculture

I should also add a presentation I gave to Permaculture Hunter Region in Australia

http://permaculture.tv/formal-and-informal-permaculture-cooperation-to-save-the-world/

I'd also add, I dont think you need a master "Permaculture Design", i think its a generative, process, organised around democratic cooperative project work, not a design by a big name

if you dont believe me, go and visit Mollisons Tagari or even Zaytuna ... very far from perfection... its an ongoing process of generative development, not a design science

permaculture is a regenerative craft movement, not a design science

cheers

-N

Interesting discussion.  You want to start a for profit business, based on ethical principals.  Noble enough, but is there be such thing as a for profit corporation based on ethical principals?  I guess in the short term, an ethical majority shareholder could govern the corporation in this manner, but is it sustainable?  Will it slowly compromise sustainability for profitability over time?

I think the corporate laws need reform, from shareholder corporations to multi-stakeholder hybrid worker cooperatives that do not privilidge shareholders

in the meantime, yes its possible...

permieobserver wrote:
Firstly, you evidently didn't read what I have written, because the last thing in the world I'm suggesting is pulp production. In fact, I"m suggesting the EXACT opposite - going from existing use as pulp production to something entirely different.

Your comment illustrates what I view as the main problem of the organic/permaculture/green advocates. What you are suggesting is that we fix human desire. Suffice to say, good luck with that. Basically what you're saying has parrallels to religion,"if only people would change and follow my god, and stop desiring puplp, everything would be great.". Well, guess what - people ain't changing anytime soon. For those of us still living in the real world, finding a better way of doing things is the only option.

uh DOH, I did read it, I just got my self confused...

Though, clearly, if we don't stop the rate at which we harvest pulp from living trees, the world as we know it is doomed

Anyways, herding animals on a grand scale is a very very good idea, according to some, the more cows you use in mob-intensive grazing, the better. I reckon that the best way to build up soil without loads of inputs is by utilizing MIG! So you are worried about the destruction they would cause to developing systems? Simple, divide up the land and don't try to develop most of the land through other means besides MIG, as the systems you construct develop and become old enough for the abuse of cows (around ten years) you can start to phase areas out of MIG and into food forest or whatever...

Utilizing temporary electric fencing, you can protect rows of green manure trees or any other kind of tree...

I think this could definitely work, but I feel like you said that the main crop would have to be animals and other useful things would have to be a bit more specific.

A larger percentage of the crops would have to be green manure or forage for animals.

I know this sort of thing is probably anathema to everyone here, but there is no denying the fact that our machines are getting smarter and cheaper at a rapid pace.  Thus at some point it will be cheaper/better to use smart machines for harvesting and other mundane tasks than to use humans.

Watch this video of the "Big Dog" robot:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww

It is not a big stretch to think of a robot that could harvest a food forest, picking fruit, berries, whatever. 

Of course they do require power (eventually electricity, though the "Big Dog" seems to use internal combustion), and are made of many complex parts.  And for many years they will be used for only the highest value/most dangerous jobs, or jobs that humans cannot do.  But eventually it will make sense to use them for food harvesting.

Like it or not, most of our technology is here to stay, we might as well plan to live with it.

On a related note, here is some people's idea of the future of "green" food production, using industrial-scale greenhouses. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPUOue1nPAk - A literal vegetable factory
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/kent/7844285.stm

<donning flame resistant suit>

adunca wrote:

Like it or not, most of our technology is here to stay, we might as well plan to live with it.

Permculture is technology which actually exists.  Harvesting robots are science fiction and do not actually exist.

Ludi wrote:
Permculture is technology which actually exists.  Harvesting robots are science fiction and do not actually exist.

I'm going to be "selling him" on a 40-50 year timeline

They will in 40-50 years.

adunca wrote:
They will in 40-50 years.

Where's my flying car? 

here is your flying car, apply named the Transition
http://www.terrafugia.com/

Taking advantage of new FAA regulations in the Light Sport Aircraft category, Terrafugia developed the Transition® to provide pilots the convenience of a dual-purpose vehicle. Its unique design allows the Transition® to fold its wings and drive on any surface road with a modern personal airplane platform. Once at the airport, the wings extend and the aircraft is ready for take-off. Both folding and extending the wings is done from inside the cockpit.

The thing that comes to my mind as I read through this is that semantics are very important indeed. To offer an industrial version of permaculture seems to me to waver towards the idea of organic being used to describe stuff grown with sewage sludge full of heavy metals, pesticide residue  and so forth.

Isn't the idea  that food should be grown close to the people it is intended to feed? Where are you going to find a million acres anywhere near the sort of population? The land I have seen used to grow pulp is all well away from urban areas.

Also, I have an immediate reaction about that much land being under one person's control..although he may  be the epitome of sainthood, what happens when a) it turns into a corporation with shareholders wanting a return on their money or b) he dies or retires?

I have known a few extremely wealthy individuals and without exception they were all very pragmatic about things.  If it was a hobbyhorse, then no expense was spared; but if they got bored or frustrated then it was out the window with THAT and on to the next thing. It might be different with "old" money; all the very wealthy I ever met had made their money themselves and I wouldn't trust any of them to hold to such a program for a second past it was convenient. But...they  would be happy to use a LABEL to make it LOOK as though they were the original  good guy. Maybe your guy is the exception. But even so see prevous paragraph.

Pam wrote:


Also, I have an immediate reaction about that much land being under one person's control..although he may  be the epitome of sainthood, what happens when a) it turns into a corporation with shareholders wanting a return on their money or b) he dies or retires?

Firstly, this person owns literally millions of acres of forest already. So, that much land is already under one persons control, and has been for multiple decades.

As far as (a), it's already held under a corporation, so this is land that is already seeking a financial return. I'm not going to sell it to him as a charitable endeavour. And that is my whole point - I think a time will come when this is going to be a fantastically profitable business, so the only sainthood he'll be looking for will be that handed out by the billionaire's club for an investment well-done.

It would make a lot more sense to me, if your guy is really serious, to find chunks of land in different areas so as to be able to do different things on the different chunks and then they would be less liable to slip and fall into industrial habits. It also would be more personal for the people who worked there if it was possibly two or three families per chunk rather than a horde. When you get a huge number of people on the same project, people tend to feel disconnected from anything other than their own concerns.

I think that commercial permaculture is certainly viable but industrial is most likely  not. seems a contradiction in terms to me.

So this guy owns millions of acres and has for multiple decades and you are going to talk him into abandoning  the techniques that made him incredibly wealthy  for a return which will happen after he is likely dead and gone? Good luck with that.  Seriously.

permaculturecoop wrote:
hi

I am not sure but I think myself and my partner might be responsible for the concept of Industrial Permaculture.

hahaha, absolutely correct, you beat me to it, as I found out about 5 minutes before I read this post by you when I googled "industrial permaculture" for the first time and saw your website. 

So, I guess when historians look back in 200 years at the brilliant minds that saved the world from starvation by starting industrial-scale permaculture farms, you'll have credit for thinking of the word first. Although I would add, for posterity's sake, that I came up with it independently!

Well, now that we've figured out the hard part (i.e. picking a name) we just have to get on with the wee business of saving the world (or, more accurately, and as George Carlin would say, get on with saving humans, as the Earth will be just fine with or without us).

Having a corporation run it would be the biggest inefficiency.If the people had relationships with their land and were able to meet thier needs via it,why would they want to pay tribute?Im also confused about how a top down organization would contribute anything to an observation based system that cant be outsourced.I relize that that is how the world is currently set up but it plays heavily into why its all so unsustainable.I laugh when people assume I will care about their food needs.Subsistance is far more sustainable eleminating most of the trasportation energy.As for industrial technology:those who bet on its being around and become dependent on it will suffer the greatest if it fails.

I am not advocating corporate perennial-polyculture factory farms, I am advocating nested, networks of worker-cooperatives pooling resources such as appropriate technology like tree planting ploughs...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJx3VKH0nZs

permaculturecoop wrote:
I should also add a presentation I gave to Permaculture Hunter Region in Australia

http://permaculture.tv/formal-and-informal-permaculture-cooperation-to-save-the-world/

I'd also add, I dont think you need a master "Permaculture Design", i think its a generative, process, organised around democratic cooperative project work, not a design by a big name

if you dont believe me, go and visit Mollisons Tagari or even Zaytuna ... very far from perfection... its an ongoing process of generative development, not a design science

permaculture is a regenerative craft movement, not a design science

cheers

-N

Once again, thank you so much for your links and info, I can't wait to get a chance to review them.

As far as the "big name" thoughts about bringing in all the "heavy hitters" of permacutlure to do the initial planning stage, I suppose my thinking was that it was the best way to speed up the learning curve and avoid as many of the costly early errors as possible. Also, this is is one of the advantages to being a multi-million dollar company - you can afford to put the 7 or 8 permie "superstars" into the same room for an extended period of time. Given carte blanche, I have no doubt that what would come out of that room would be amazing.

And, while I certainly agree that it will be an ever-evolving process (I think of the Toyota philoposhy of constant improvement), there is going to need to be an initial "master plan" groundwork laid, with all the details customized and filled in around that framework as time goes on. I would envision the company having a wiki so that the combined knowledge of the company employees could be stored and shared with the wider permaculture community, as well as other employees. Of course, you can't go from zero to a million acres overnight, and the business would need to begin on a smaller (although still relatively huge) level and build organically, figure out what works and what doesn't, allow the land to develop, develop brands for the value added products, etc.

I should also have added at the outset that all food products can be put directly onto the shelves of a regional multi-state/province grocery retailer due to existing business relationship, which is again one of the huge benefits of being this big. This should also help alleviate concerns over "food miles" - while it is much less perfect than growing food where you eat, the whole idea is that there is going to be a large surplus beyond what could be consumed in any one locality, so food miles are inevitable and unavoidable. Plus, in the future I envision, one of increased oil costs making foods with fewer food miles more competitive, there will still be exchange of products on a regional and global scale. Globalization isn't going anywhere, peak oil or no peak oil. Man has always traded with the "next village over", and that is not going to change. The village just became global, that's all. What will change is the dynamics of that trade, wherein "flying unripened strawberries from Chile half way around the world in the middle of winter so I can eat them whenever I please" is no longer financially viable. In fact, that to me is what cheap oil has done, and why local food will win in teh end: it has created distortions in the market by artificially decreasing the cost of food. And local will win not because people make a philosophical change and decide they need to change their naughty consumptive ways, but because they'll have no choice, as it will simply be too expensive to do otherwise. Why do you think the Cubans have such an amazing agricultural system? Although they are an amazing and unique people, the reality is that they did it at least in part because when Russia collapsed their access to cheap food imports vanished.

Alright, I'd love to stay and chat, have to go an help a buddy move into an apartment. Cheers to all, and as I've said, keep this feedback coming, it's amazing.

permieobserver wrote:

you can afford to put the 7 or 8 permie "superstars" into the same room for an extended period of time.

I would love to see the results of that meeting!

Mt.goat wrote:
Having a corporation run it would be the biggest inefficiency.If the people had relationships with their land and were able to meet thier needs via it,why would they want to pay tribute?Im also confused about how a top down organization would contribute anything to an observation based system that cant be outsourced.I relize that that is how the world is currently set up but it plays heavily into why its all so unsustainable.I laugh when people assume I will care about their food needs.Subsistance is far more sustainable eleminating most of the trasportation energy.As for industrial technology:those who bet on its being around and become dependent on it will suffer the greatest if it fails.

Again, I apologize, but I'm just not going to get distracted dealing with the philosophical aspects of corporatism, consumerism, etc. It's just too big of a philosophical topic and detracts from my little thought-experiment about one particular farm! That's not to say you don't raise excellent points, and it's duly noted that for many it's impossible to separate their beliefs about permaculture from those other beliefs about how to lead their lives. And for that, I say kudos to you, I have no doubt you've chosen an excellent philosophical framework in which to live your life and one that has brought you great happiness. But just don't assume that everyone will agree with you (and I am someone who does in some ways, as a large part of my initial interest in permaculture stems from the belief that we're headed seriously in teh wrong direction and one day I may need to feed myself and my family). Thanks for your contribution though.

Ludi wrote:
I would love to see the results of that meeting!

My thoughts exactly! And in many ways, that's what gave genesis to my thoughts: what would these guys come up with if they had an unlimited budget and a massive piece of land.

tell me thats not permaculture http://industrialpermaculture.org it explicitly has ethics embedded

because it includes technology and scale its more ethical than a luddite primitivism which will ensure megadeath

dont think a mondragon style permaculture worker cooperative is a good idea ?

Bill Mollison on Mondragon Cooperative, which is an industrial cooperative http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HmR6cg8mqk

our goal is to create a democratic industrial ecological worker cooperative

NOT a perennial polyculture corporate factory farm

permaculturecoop wrote:
I am not advocating corporate perennial-polyculture factory farms, I am advocating nested, networks of worker-cooperatives pooling resources such as appropriate technology like tree planting ploughs...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJx3VKH0nZs

Great video of an excellent tool by one of my favourites, Darren Doherty.

My question is this: what is the difference between doing what Doherty does on 100 acres vs. doing waht he does on 100000 acres? It's the same technology only on a larger scale. Does it cease to be good simply because it's too big?

Ludi wrote:
Permieobserver has stated he differs from Mollison on the issue of ethics.

There is no need for ad hominems such as "luddite primitivism" which nobody here is advocating.

I did state that I believe the ethics can be secondary to simply making use of the techniques for production of an ideal ecosystem. Again, it goes back to the issue of permaculture as philosophy or religion -  I can be a good person without adhering 100% to the bible. Perhaps what I'm talking about is not permaculture as you would have it defined, but I would disagree. If a piece of land is designed using keyline plows, keyline design, dams that doulbe as acquacuture, sustainable horticultural techniques, alley cropping, kugelkultur beds, etc., is it not at least somewhat permaculture? At which point does it go from being not permaculture to actual permaculture? How many techniques, tools and knowledge must I incorporate from your personal permaculture "canon" to qualify as being a true believer? Every post you make comes back to the same thing, it's as if you're saying "if you don't do it just this way, you can't do it at all". You've done very little to advance the conversation, and quite a bit to sidetrack it. And, before you redundantly post it again, I know, I don't get to decide the shape of the conversation. But, seeing as how I"m the one who started it, I do think I have the right to try to get it back on topic.

Through observation,I know what wildlife is on my land,where it lives ect..Its hard enough for me to keep track of 20ac let alone the whole 40.Anything larger and I would start to overlook stuff and thus make strategic mistakes and poorly implament techniques.All the managers and money and coops in the world wont change that.The natives here created a mixed mosaic in the landscape which implies different managment for different locations which wildlife enjoys and is similar to the present model.That said ,some managment,like burning large areas,was condoned by the larger community.Large scale changes create large scale changes like climate ect. however.How would you get people to agree to the basic model even?I manage for wild game but poach domesticates that stumble in.How would that work with pig production?

wow.  I haven't seen a thread here grow nearly so quickly as this one...

I think industrial scale permaculture is fine and dandy.  industrial permaculture, though, I would probably object to.  English is a clunker of a language and very ambiguous, so let's attempt precision and forgive imprecision in others.

I don't know that I've got anything completely new to add, but I'll have a go:

if this chap (I really want to guess who it is, as I've met a few scions of the pulp industry) is already familiar with forest products, then pitch excellent forest products to him.  there are quite a few groups harvesting high volumes of high quality timber from healthy and well-managed forests while eschewing the clear cut mode of operation.  add the tools included in permaculture to those methods, and more and better wood products will be produced on the land.

once you've established that the products this fellow is familiar with can still be had from the land under the new model you propose, you've got all sorts of room to add the products that joshthewhistler mentioned and more.  maybe those additional products will be sold under the auspices of THECORPORATION or maybe THECORPORATION will consider them incidental and allow individuals or other businesses to handle them.

other folks have objected to using labor that isn't intimately involved with the land.  solve that objection with one or several company towns.  that concept has a fairly sordid past, but it doesn't have to be negative.  basically: employees live on the land.  supposing they're treated well, they'll be more likely to stick with the company and they'll become very familiar with the land over time.  after an initial shakedown, you'll have a whole crowd of Mt.goats that are motivated by their deep connection to the land they live and work on.  by the time the second generation of employees grows up to take over, that land will be deep in their bones.

Mondragon has come up a couple of times now.  it seems that Bill Mollison is fond of the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation.  I've spoken to a couple of permaculturists from Spain (but don't tell them they're from Spain) who are not, um, overly fond of that corporation.  the principles it is founded on seem pretty solid to me, but it has become large enough to dominate markets and push small local proprietors out of business even where those proprietors' ethics are in line with MONDRAGON's.  I'm not terribly familiar with all the ins and outs, but I don't know that we should be holding MONDRAGON up as a shining beacon.  absolutely we should take inspiration from the good work MONDAGON has done, but I think we can do better.

finally, I'm likely as uncomfortable as any of the other folks here with large businesses and corporations.  I don't believe they need to or should exist.  but as long as they do, we may as well use them to our advantage.  in this instance, use one corporation to bring about a large-scale permaculture project.  if, somewhere along the way, this corporation or others transform into something really and actually beneficial, that will be great.  if not, we'll ditch them when we're ready and able.  the alternative doesn't appeal to me: leaving them to their own nasty devices could possibly bring about the wholesale demise of corporations and capitalists more quickly, but it would also bring about the wholesale demise of a lot of really great land and people in addition to the previous and current casualties.

you may all find this useful aggregation

http://news.permaculture.coop/search?search=industrial%20permaculture

also

US Social Forum Proposal: A new, industrial ecology synthesis, is generating from local grassroots actions globally http://grassrootsgaia.org/ . Real example products & projects, key concepts, design principles and patterns, and open-source toolkits.

Submitted by permaculturecoop on April 21st, 2010 at 6:13:52 AM

A new industrial homebrew revolution http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/contents/ is fermenting across America: the next generation's design-system synthesis for a democratic industrial ecology. Industrial Permaculture unites ecological & regenerative agriculture, industrial symbiosis, open-source business models, worker and hybrid cooperatives, participatory and peer production, social and commons economics, democratic industry and climate justice. We suggest updates to the permaculture designers manual for the context of 21st century Detroit. Real example projects, patterns/anti-patterns and open and accessible tools will frame an open-space session for citizens, grassroots sustainability activists, in-transition from-blue-to-green collar workers, social entrepreneurs, and cooperators.

a new paradigm of democratic, decentralised, open-source, cooperative, organic, peer-production


btw, in Australia permaculture is a mainstream, on national television, former heads of state etc
http://permaculture.tv/australian-permaculture-convergance-10-organisers-speak/

happy labor day

I think my concerns rest on a couple of things; first, it is well established that people claim to believe and act one way while actually doing something entirely different.  Secondly, the tendency is for people to do what they know and feel comfortable with. A million acres will likely cover a number of areas suited for a number of different possiblities. It's difficult to think that a hard core businessman would be amenable to taking an area which has been subject to one  profitable business plan and sorting it into several areas each with its own business plan, and all of them, to him experimental.

Much of the land producing pulpwood is marginal, and often 100's of miles away from urban centres. Often it is also used as a recreational area by urbanites. It sounds like your plan is going to take even more forest out of production of any sort of trees to build communities of workers (and processing facilities?) and justify that by using permaculture to deal with what's left.  It seems to me that it might well be much more productive and useful to encourage a healthy forest (with all the diversity that implies) and selective harvesting instead of trying to force it into being something that will provide, to quote you, "fantastic profits".

Aside from the significant carbon sink  benefits of a forest, the time is rapidly approaching when a bit of solitude in a healthy forest will be as revitalizing  to people's mental and spiritual health as a potato is to the physical, but MUCH  more difficult to access. Anyone can grow a potato, very few have access to a healthy forest.That would be a legacy worth working for.

for the record, I know nothing about this million acre pulp wood plantation

this thread seems to contain a number of sub-topics

I am talking about democratic industrial ecology and that would involve worker-owners pooling resources to work together on some levels and work in smaller teams on others

the people care and fair share ethics of permaculture will collapse when an employee in a pulp plantation factory farm (even if the earth care could be managed via radical re-organisation)

thanks. I am bowing out of this conversation for a while

-N