Now I have not researched the numbers, but I'm guessing that there is not enough arable land in a compact city for it to completely feed itself.
I don't see how "industrial scale" is in concert with the ideals of permaculture. Maybe someone can explain this to me.
Brenda Groth wrote:
yes I believe that you are correct about the yield..i was only stating that my only concern about large scale, would be making sure you aren't taking too much off the land, say, not leaving enough to maintain soil building, of course in order to have a yield to sell, you will be removing your saleable items..
why else would a commercial permaculture venture be undergone?
I hope I wasn't misunderstood, i was only saying that i do feel that it is important to make sure that you are being sure to keep the soil growing, as large commercial endeavors nearly always deplete the soils in some fashion, unless real care is taken in preventing that.
You were talking about pulp..and i see this every day in our area as I live in a county where there are dozens of wood forest product trucking companies, 3 on our road alone.
these wood forest product companies have removed thousands of mixed deciduous forest trees in the areas behind our home, and in areas nearby, and when they "replant" the forests after clear cutting, they do NOT reploant the same types of trees that they remove..nor do they consider the loss of oxygen production, the absorption of water, and the other benefits that the original forests were providing nor do they remember that there were animals living in those forest that are now relegated to OUR property to scavange for berries and nuts, that they previousy were able to glean from the forest, as well as cover, protection, den material, etc.
our property was pulped off about 40 years ago, and it was nearly destroyed, no trees were planted to regrow in the area..but fortuantely my husabnd and I bought the property and immediately began to plant trees, as well as some of the roots of the trees (mostly aspen and alder) regenerated into baby trees which did provide some deer browse and some protection for the naimals the following years..but clear cutting is never an answer for a forest..i see it every single day in our county and i hate it.
so if you are talking about some type of permaculture where pulping is done in a manner that doesn't destroy the wildlife habitat and the forests, than more power to you, but when tons and tons of materials are taken off of the acres and a few bales of seedlings are put back, that is not resposible permacultuer
Anyway, enough said, what do you think?
Campy in Nashville, Tennessee, USA wrote:
What works well on a small scale works even better on a large scale.
Having an MBA and thinking a great deal about businesses and their viability I would say that you are on the right track.
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!
Emile Spore wrote:
Sorry, I'm slightly ticked off, so I am going to go ahead and break the rules of this website and say that a massive pulp farm isn't and never can be permaculture.
A better technique I believe would be to make pulp production illegal.
To me this is a gigantic joke, probably the biggest problem in the world is desire. Humans have a huge desire to get pulp. Do you really need pulp? No, of course not.
My farm has evolved with me to utilize aspects of the location to my advantage.The secret to my sucess has been my personal relationship with my land and observation.A white collar class making decisions from afar and not having daily observations of the land is the same stratagy that got us here so unsustainable.So No I sorta think industrial permaculture is an oxymoron and using it in the quest of commody production a gross co-option of its original intent.
Joop Corbin - swomp wrote:
hmmm yeah lets build castle's in the sky.
and dream about permaculture as far as the eye can see, and beyond.
but in this discussion there is a difference between, a large surface converted with permaculture or 'large scale permaculture' if i understand right.
were talking about over 2000 km2..... to be farmed by one person? family? company?
I think if designing permaculture systems we should design humans into them, because humans are part of nature and its cycles...
And yes, it would be a corporation with lots of employees.
Joop Corbin - swomp wrote:
i also really think that for one person (even if through a company) owning and taking the yield & profits for such a big piece of land wouldnt stay within the limits of everybody's fair earth share. (if everybody wanted to farm and profit from 500,000 acres, how many earth's would we need). and thus not staying within the permaculture ethics. but that has been said before in this thread...
People working on the land but not living there, not having a permanent stake in the well-being of the land is not, in my opinion, in concert with the ethics of permaculture.
Have you learned about the ethics of permaculture, or are you only familiar with the techniques?
Why will the people working the land not be co-owners of the land? Wouldn't that be more in concert with the idea of people living with the land and caring for it?
Personally, I find the idea of such a large-scale operation with "lots of employees" to be repulsive.
There are no "corporate needs". Humans have needs, but corporations do not, as they are artificial constructs.
Have you even read the book?
Actually no. Corporations are not part of human nature, and we managed to live on the planet for some 100,000 years without greed and capitalism. Greed and capitalism are part of our culture, an aspect of civilization. Civilization has been the minority of human culture until just the last few hundred years. Before then, other forms of culture, including horticulture (similar to permaculture) were the majority. To claim that recent inventions such as capitalism are part of human nature is simply false from the perspective of anthropology.
Then stop claiming what you plan to do is permaculture.
As a lawyer, you should know that words matter.
Please read: http://tobyspeople.com/anthropik/2007/06/agriculture-or-permaculture-why-words-matter/index.html
But getting caught in the semantics of what it is called
So, please people, I don't want a discussion of why we shouldn't do it. Your objections are duly noted. Presuming these objections are going to be disregarded, how could it practically be implicated?
I just don't believe that the world, as it is currently arranged, is going to return to producing its own food on an individual level. And that is the benefit of the division of labour: I don't need to spend all my time growing my own food, so I have time to pursue other things. That aspect of human behaviour is not going to change anytime soon, so we're going to need to find better ways of feeding the world.
Old hammy wrote:
Creating IPods from a permaculture yield is not sustainable because the energy withdrawl is too great. Consumer goods are sink-holes for energy. Entropic bodies we throw in the trash when they no longer suit our "needs". Until this practice of making things so that their embodied energies are thrown into a landfill is changed, then nothing will change.
The energy withdrawls from the natural world by modern society are so great and so unsustainable we are on the verge of a global energy crisis. In your "real world" most people may not want to change or debase themselves to the level of growing their own food (let alone use their own poop to grow it) but soon there may be no other option. We're running out of time. There is a convergence of sustainability issues taking place all around us that threaten to topple our existing way of life and more. I'll repeat, there is no possible way that our present excessively consumeristic way of life can be salvaged within the context of permaculture. Your best hope for salvaging this way of life is in the stars. Hope that technology will give us the means to drain the natural resources of the asteroid belt, other planets and the sun. I, however am doubtful this will ever come to pass.
Old hammy wrote:
The energy withdrawls from the natural world by modern society are so great and so unsustainable we are on the verge of a global energy crisis. In your "real world" most people may not want to change or debase themselves to the level of growing their own food (let alone use their own poop to grow it) but soon there may be no other option.
One other thing I would add is that you're absolutely correct about humans overconsuming.