Gilbert Fritz wrote:And that, to my mind, is the big question. Are the values of permaculture best served by a less efficient use of human labor; i.e., by using less machinery and more hand work? Of course, all else being equal, we'd rather have more efficiency. Adding more technology to agriculture will definitely increase the efficiency of the humans running the machines; they will be able to do more with less time. But are the losses worth the gains? Do these machines damage local communities, deplete resources, or impose undesirable paradigms?
Would a return to hand-work (not maybe a complete return) solve some of our problems?
Of course, we will never convince everyone that this is a good idea. We haven't been able to convince most people that permaculture is a good idea. Just because something is unlikely to convince others does not mean it is not true.
David Livingston wrote:I wonder if talking about things in terms of money is a red herring . After all Tax and the price of "stuff " are human constructs , subject to human change and politics For example the price of Petrol is about 1.30€ a litre thats about 10$ a gallon I think .
The only price I pay for wood for my stove is about 10€ a year for enough wood to heat my house thats the cost of electric for the saw . If I had to buy the wood its about 350€ thats what I earn in two weeks in my part time job . So to me its worth two weeks. I wonder if looking at our time cost is a better way of looking at this :-)