I understand the benefits of having a pond on your property,... However, I do not understand the the fixation...
Angela Aragon wrote:My reason for making this post was to point out the overall lack of design principles that were applied in the example I gave - which, by the way, is not an isolated incident.
I understand that we all learn through experience and that failure is part of the process. All ideas carry both potential for success and inherent risk for failure. Our challenge is to tip the scales in the direction of success by managing the inherent risk. In Permaculture, we do this by observing nature, trying to mimic her, and by observing what others have done, their successes and failures.
Geoff Lawton, for example, still is doing earthworks projects on Zaytuna Farm. One might ask why he did not simply develop a grand design for the entire property, like students are required to do in his PDC courses (and many other PDC courses offered throughout the world), and implement it. The reason is obvious: new possibilities emerge through continued observation. Geoff takes an evening observational walk on his property each day (that he is not traveling).
The adage "look before you leap" would seem to apply here. It is great to have an overall vision, but I advocate that it be implemented in small steps, with time in between to confirm if nature agrees with it.
Too often I encounter people (and all of them want ponds) that take what I called a smorgasbord approach to Permaculture. What I mean by this is that the approach is superficial. A smorgasbord has something for everyone, but few if any connecting themes. You just take a little of this and a little of that until your plate is full. Thus, ponds in my post represent a symbol of a much more important problem that relates to approach.
The pond-fixated guy that I described in my original post did not "go deep". Instead, he took a superficial approach and consequently is playing a game of catch up to fix his mistakes. The problem is that nature is way ahead of him.
Angela Aragon wrote:Hans. Might you be able to develop a variation on the theme of chinampas? This approach would work with the water and could require less work overall.
I gave my example as permaculture thinking where I am not trying to impose a pond on the land but use the natural development on a wetland to create a usable water feature in my usual pattern of mowing and mulching.
Roberto pokachinni wrote:I think there is a primal connection that we have to ponds. They are the oasis in the prairie, savanah, desert, tundra, or forest from which we take refuge from heat and thirst, find game, gather food and medicine, clean ourselves and heal. I'm not saying that this is an excuse to go to all ends to make a pond happen, or that every property should have a pond, but that i think there is possibly a very deep intrinsically human need to have bodies of water nearby their place of permanence, that might not be easily explained, even by those who crave it.
Eric Bee wrote:"Permaculture mimics nature"
Any time there is significant effort or cost there's a good chance you are doing it wrong. And any time I see someone banging their head against a problem like this I know they've entirely missed the point. Oh, I'm plenty guilty of it too at times. But using the guiding principle of working with nature and not against it and measuring that by my effort, I have saved myself a heck of a lot of heartbreak.