Joop Corbin - swomp wrote:
forgive me for building castles in the sky, but i would like to think that working towards a society where earth care, people care ánd taking notice of our fair share are more important then profits...
It it isn't profitable, it isn't sustainable.
Joop, that family still profited from their gardening endeavors. Profit doesn't have to be measured in dollars. Spending an hour planting carrots to get a yield of carrots that will sustain you for more than an hour is a "profit" as well.
The ethics and principles of permaculture can not be discarded and the process continue to be called "permaculture." To do so is a perversion of the concept of permaculture.
paul wheaton wrote:
...These forums are dedicated to the nuts and bolts of permaculture. Many of the other aspects of permaculture are left to other parts of the internet.
Very wise indeed. We don't need to turn this into another version of the political re-education camp that permaculture.org.au has turned into.
Third - one can be interested and committed to the notion of permanent agriculture, but derive their ethics and moral guidance from a differnt philosophical, religious, or spiritual tradition. Personally I don't believe a moral monoculture helps us anymore than agricultural monoculture.
paul wheaton wrote:
I hope Bill Mollison sells enough books to become a millionaire. I hope that demand for his time becomes so high that he can earn $10,000 a day for consulting. I like the idea that big corporations want to make more money, and to do that, they hire bill to help them find the way to bigger profits by eliminating chemicals. And then the smaller companies jump on the bandwagon. Their own drive for money turns out to be what drives them to permaculture.
tel jetson wrote:
and what if it turns out that permaculture ends up hurting corporate profits? what if, though it's an ecological and social success, permaculture fails to be an economic success?
paul wheaton wrote:
What if it rains?
What if there is an earthquake?
What if aliens come from another planet and take over the world?
What if the terrorists win?
Starting to play the "what if" game is usually, in my experience, less than productive.
I would like to think that if somebody had a million dollars and they invested in permaculture, then in a few years they would have two million dollars. Therefore, a better investment than in conventional ag.
Seems like you'd have to be doing something wrong not to get a profit from such a productive system.
My primary concern would be if you'd be able to successfully maintain fertility when you're exporting so much material to sell. But if you were growing high-value products, maybe the quantity needn't be huge.
consider that mechanization is, at present, very much more economically efficient than human labor, though it causes all manner of negative impacts. consider that ridiculous practices are encouraged through agricultural, infrastructural, and other subsidies.
But are those things permaculture? I'm talking about profit from a permaculture operation, not profit from some other kind of operation.
Joop Corbin - swomp wrote:
i think a millionaire investing in a project would not mean pc principles can not be taken care of.
I agree. Investors want a reliable return. Permaculture gives a relaible return over time.
Chelle Lewis wrote:Investors want a reliable return. Permaculture gives a relaible return over time.
When China is already looking to be tentatively pulling away from the dollar, and there is already global talk of looking to change the dollar as the reserve currency I think no sane investors will be taking the risk. Permaculture raised commodities look better than blue-chip in comparison..... low cost and high yield over time. China is already voicing concerns that the US might monetize her debt... deflate the dollar to decrease this enormous debt load. Obama has directly promised China that this will not happen.... but it is easily seen that the man is a political chameleon.
Joel Hollingsworth wrote:
In these times, a significant number of investors are willing to settle for a reliable loss. For example, government bonds are selling at auction with a negative rate of return. That is to say, investors are willing to take significant losses, so long as the rate of loss is reliably small. However, these investments are still only as reliable as the current US government-plus-financial system: if the bonds go into default, or some new currency becomes the reserve currency, losses might be greater than anticipated.
I am convinced of it. There is so much redundancy and back-up built into a well designed Permaculture system to ensure stability against any trauma to the system. The ultimate Permaculture system for me is the Food Forest. It takes some time and a little finance to establish but has proven to be a truly self-sustaining system on maturity. Does it not seem strange to speak with such certainty in these times? We have been so conditioned against it by the mainstream media. Politicians love a crisis.... a good [??] crisis is never to be wasted ..... the resultant insecurity brings increased control. Sustainable methods are not welcomed although they are hard pressed to hide this agenda. Mollison has avoided governments most places he has gone for a reason. Real answers are not really popular. Sustainability is productive and wealth creating. Poliitcal agendas cannot fight that unless controls tighten quickly. I am seeing controls tighten very quickly......Joel Salatin has declared that everything he wants to do is illegal.... go figure. There really is no time to waste and no time to be silent. The message of Permaculture must go out in every way possible. It can feed the nations.
For people with a certain amount of wealth, permaculture might be the ultimate hedge investment. Not just recession-proof: collapse-proof.
The premium on such an enterprise would be high. It would catch on too. Golf and equestrian estates are already popular.... why not Permaculture Estates? Unlike the regular green movement, Permaculture is people friendly.... in fact family friendly...... and it would not take 5 years before the multiple sustainable benefits of such a village would be clearly seen. Direct involvement in sowing for and reaping the benefits could bring meaningful socialization in community. Children would be occupied productively in following the example of their elders. Aristotle or Gamin the uncouth locksmith..... across the board ...... from the most wise to the most foolish of this world ...... all would still better hope to best resemble Jesus Christ. That is a standard most worth aspiring to. Another strangely unpopular opinion in the world today I have noticed.
Setting up an eco-village, recruiting a core group with the appropriate skills and attitudes, and bringing in whatever outside help is necessary to stabilize its operations, would not cost very much more than the increase in market value of the real-estate used minus the property offered to residents. Wise investors in this sort of activity would also find a way to integrate their families into the eco-villages. This would have the added benefit of guarding against most of the worst hazards of raising children in wealth and privilege: one design consideration would be a group of adults that more-closely resembles Aristotle, than Gamin the locksmith.
Chelle Lewis wrote:
Last I heard the agenda was to aim for only 1 in 11 to survive and have rights to live on this Earth.