wayne stephen wrote:I think we need to be careful not to alienate people by bashing their personal lifestyles, religions, and philosophies.
paul wheaton wrote:I don't like the idea of excluding folks from permaculture.
Judith Browning wrote:I think that judging anyone by their clothes in a fashion sense especially seem off the mark for forwarding permacultures principles.
Judith Browning wrote:I think what was bothering me was that what I thought I was hearing said was... that many of those who are out there promoting permaculture 'should' change.
paul wheaton wrote:Today I learned of another major permaculture voice dropping the word "permaculture" because "it has too much fairy dust and I have some real farming to do.
kevin wheels wrote:Permaculture is a loaded term that means many different things to many people.
Danielle Venegas wrote:If we want the message to reach the people it needs to reach we really need to dress it up in a package they can accept. I try to get over my appearance bias but it can be hard.
Amedean Messan wrote:I think it's an uphill battle in the quest to communicate the idea of sustainability if we choose to present ourselves as the trendy counterculture instead of knowledgeable professionals.
Amedean Messan wrote:Making permaculture more mainstream using the credibility of science in the brand of permaculture is critical for their system, but for our discussion so is the mainstream appearance.
wayne stephen wrote:I don't understand why convincing a bunch of people who till and spray round-up on large acres is the most important focus for permaculture marketing . Having millions of individuals on small plots of land growing their own food and creating energy on site will alter the agricultural dynamics forever. A guy with a $450,000 John Deere and 1500 acres would be a little archaic at that point. Struck at the root , so to speak. But around here , if you wanted to dress up to preach at the farmers - a pair of overalls and a bill cap will go a long way. You could even wear a cap that says "Fuck Monsanto".
Peter Ellis wrote:...
Stuff that does not seem to have much base in science and facts as many of us know them. And I know, biodynamic practitioners can make arguments for a scientific basis to their methods - but they really are not accepted as such generally.
When I think about the nuts and bolts of permaculture; placing that pond at the highest key point and designing the entire system of water management from there; selecting plants for my climate, soil conditions, etcetera and laying out my guilds; determining what infrastructure for what livestock on what schedule - all these things that are all firmly rooted in scientific methods, that are solid and absolutely real with no question - that sure looks pretty brown.
jack spirko wrote:I see purple breathers everywhere, they don’t know they are breathing purple!
The term was coined by Larry Santayo and most people that don’t like it indeed don’t even know what it means, but most of the time it does mean them. Many of the comments here show that people in general don't know what the term means when some of us use it, in other words what we actually mean when we say it. So I will attempt to clarify.
Ironically most purple people are found of Larry Santayo and have no idea he is the source of the term!
I recently had one person upset with the term and they decided it meant anyone committed to the ethics or anyone that is “spiritual” and said that clearly that meant people like Masanobu Fukuoka and Bill Mollison.
Now the upset party was an absolute breather of purple but absolutely wrong in his definition of purple breather, likely because he was one. He also wants to identify with men like Fukuoka and Mollison but both are about as purple as I am!
The general characteristics of a purple breather
1. More concerned about what they think you do wrong in their opinion then doing what is right for themselves. Also often more concerned with how people think, rather than what they do.
2. Wants to make permaculture about social justice via politics and can’t comprehend that BOTH founders are anarchists.
3. Generally they are highly non productive, doing almost nothing but enamored with a twisted version of Permaculture ideology.
4. Every other sentence has something in it about Carbon Footprints and Global Warming, though they actually do the square root of fuck all for the bettering of the environment.
5. Full of excuses about why they can’t get land, get something done, etc.
6. Generally of the hippy like vibe yet actually I find it insulting to real hippies to say this. I call them drainbow hippies. Even the real hippies would rather not have them around.
7. Far more concerned about feeling than doing.
8. Considers profit wrong, hence has little to no grasp about the realities of economics, farming, agriculture, business, etc.
9. Carries massive emotional baggage, tosses around words like “white privilege” and wants you to acknowledge their baggage and carry some of your own out of some twisted sense of moral obligation.
10 . In general a person that likes the idea of permaculture but doesn’t want to do the work required to actually establish productive systems, wants to live in unsustainable cities while, lecturing others on sustainability, considers people like me “right wing”, etc.
Or the short answer, no real firm grasp on reality and they want to make permaculture about social politics vs. getting meaningful shit done.
One addition if you read the above it will become clear that often indeed a purple breather doesn't know what makes us consider them purple and likely many people we would not call purple think we mean them.
How do you know if you are purple? If you are getting shit done, and more concerned about what you can do rather than what other people should not do, you are not a purple breather!
jack spirko wrote:
Now Steve's insight is solid and accurate but not using the design (social and economic) and trouble shooting (fastest accurate route to a solution) that permacultue provides. It is a long slow solution, where none is needed. I can solve the problem with a few better selected words, vs. a scientific study.
"Farmer Paul, I can help you install USDA Code 600 Agricultural Terraces on your farm. This will reduce erosion and qualify you for both grants and loans for both the work and the trees we are going to plant in them. Once completed you can still farm corn and beans while the trees grow and you are only giving up tiny strips to the terraces. You will get higher yields with less irrigation after we do this, you will also qualify for soil conservation grants. Now these trees will take quite a while to come into production but when they do as you are looking to transition to a shorter work day we can move into leasing your land at a premium for high quality grazing land. The trees by then provide their own yields and support the grazers. This will require NO investment in new equipment, it can be done so all your harvesting and planting equipment just keeps doing what it always has. We can install the terraces in a week all we need is a bulldozer we can rent one time and a decent operator for it. "
( the purple) will wail and gnash teeth because Farmer Paul is still using a combine, a plow, fertilizer, etc. But I figure since we just planted say 180,000 trees, that goes in the damn win column. That land is now perfectly suited to transition and the icky inputs he needs just dropped, all by scratching some lines into the dirt.
You see friends not all USDA Code 600 Terraces are Keyline designed systems but all key line designed systems can be USDA Code 600 terraces. This is farmer Paul's world, his vocabulary and the system he not only earns money in but gets working capital from.
Steve Hitchen wrote:Now - lets say you DO have $100k in the bank you can sink into your books. You want to plant 180,000 trees. Actually you don't - if your planting whips, they have a 10% failure rate at best, so you actually need to buy 198,000 trees. Lets say you get a bulk deal and can get them for $125,000. When they've grown, you need to pick the fruit - which is either manual ( lots of operational expense ) or you have to sell your combine to buy new machinary - more cost. And lets say farmer Paul lives in Iowa and he now has perhaps 2000 tons of various fruits. Where does he TAKE them? Is there an infrastructure in place?" no.
Steve Hitchen wrote:
But... if you truely want to make world wide impacts, then then need concepts which work on a world wide level - a "paradigm shift" as you talk about only happens when you have a combination of a motivator ( 99% of the time either money, convenience or sex ) and an ability to scale. Some of the stuff within permaculture scales already, some of it WILL scale with some more work/time/thought/effort, and some of it wont.
. If the permaculture movement is primarily focused on large scale, world wide effects, then we need to put the effort in, dull as it may be. If we're focused on small scale stuff, then we're fine as we are, but we don't get to be annoyed that the world isn't changing.
Now - lets say you DO have $100k in the bank you can sink into your books. You want to plant 180,000 trees. Actually you don't - if your planting whips, they have a 10% failure rate at best, so you actually need to buy 198,000 trees. Lets say you get a bulk deal and can get them for $125,000. When they've grown, you need to pick the fruit - which is either manual ( lots of operational expense ) or you have to sell your combine to buy new machinary - more cost. And lets say farmer Paul lives in Iowa and he now has perhaps 2000 tons of various fruits. Where does he TAKE them? Is there an infrastructure in place?" no.
Ann Torrence wrote:
I will finish with the immortal words of that great philosopher, Sting. "People go crazy in congregations but they only get better one by one." We need a 100 million local solutions, not global ones, to feed and care for the billions on our planet. I don't see that worrying much about bankers and academicians is relevant in that paradigm.
jack spirko wrote:
Ann first on the right wing thing, apology accepted and don't worry about it. The LOL meant it was in good humor.
jack spirko wrote:Ann first it is okay to name the company and it is Alcoa. The prime contact does indeed have motivations of both PR and simply is a permaculturist himself. Doing it on his own much smaller farm.
That said, this had to be sold to corporate HQ thousands of miles away. The level of verifiable detail for the financial model was far in excess of what a farmer would need to see, a government official would want to see or what a loan officer would want to see. While the money was simply there, the bar to access it was far higher than it would be for a dedicated farmer.
Ann Torrence wrote:
True, grocery stores aren't going away any time soon, but that can still be the dream, can't it? Ok, we might need them for toilet paper, and junk food, but meat, dairy, veg? From a food resiliency standpoint, I want that grown and sold as close to the consumer as possible. In the same vein, I would be much happier with a biofuels plant co-op in every county in America than relying on the current oligarchy-owned gasoline infrastructure.
jack spirko wrote:Sometimes I dream that I can fly, it is a nice dream but it is a dream. It isn't that such flight could NEVER EVER happen but I can't plan for it.
jack spirko wrote:Oh and Dawn, can you do me a favor and not refer to me as right wing. You can honestly call me an asshole and I will shake your hand and thank you for it. But being called right wing is pretty insulting,