Liam Ethridge

Thanks everyone for all the responses. I have been grappling with this one for a little while. Quite a few good points have been made but I feel compelled to rephrase one of my original questions because It got lost in the shuffle. Kari spoke on something close to that unanswered portion:

Kari Gunnlaugsson wrote:
As a transition strategy, higher 'boutique' prices for permaculture agriculture products can enable farmers to develop their farms and techniques...to preserve old ways of farming and to develop new syntheses. Yes, it is exclusive, and does not serve the needs of those less privileged. Those with the means and the personal values are subsidizing the development of a necessary new agriculture for the future.

Ultimately farmers will need to learn to live with less income. Consumers will also learn to live with less, and food will take up a greater proportion of their budget.

I have a problem with the chain of events here. If permaculture is pumped up to a niche market serving the wealthy and informed what incentive is there to then change our profit structure to "live with less income"? also what incentive is there for consumers to " live with less, and food will take up a greater proportion of their budget"? Kari, you have two great points here. This common perception where permaculture creates a low economic utopia seems at odds with creating a high profit permaculture system and you sound quite aware of that. Perhaps the "utopian" crowd and the "high profit" crowd are not actively working to synergize their ideas/designs.

(to all) I just don't know how to transition from big $ to less $. Would it not be wiser to just go straight for the "enough money" setup rather than the "high dollar" set up? No doubt using permaculture methods (eventually) produces food/commodities with less cost and greater yields (which leads to more profit even with the high labor involved). What I am also interested in is how the marketing of permaculture effects the prevalence of it's methods.

Kari Gunnlaugsson wrote:
Ultimately, the dream of 'big buck' personal aggrandizement is fundamentally irreconcilable with living within our ecological means.

I don't know what this means.

In my OP when I talked about feeding the world I meant to sustain the life (not just humans) on this planet through widespread use of permaculutre (and other) practices.

I am going to look for more responses but I will probably leave any further comments of mine off this thread. I am new to permies and I seems like I have questions which venture a little too far into the realms of politics and philosophy. I would rather learn about plant guilds that work in my local micoclimate, etc, than get into idealogical debates. (not that this thread would end up there, I just wanted to limit my own self because I am new and don't quite know the lay of the land yet)

Liam

I am new here so forgive me if this question was answered already. If it was could someone link me to the thread - nothing turned up in my search.

This is related to the "big bucks from permaculture" topic.

Here goes: How does the high-profit permaculture farming concept connect with the feed the world permaculture concept?

My further thoughts if you all want to read them before you respond: If I understand it correctly the idea that Paul and others have put out there is something along the lines of making a name for permaculture prodcution with very good marketing and a high quality/well established system can result in a very high net $ amount per acre. This high profit, as shown in example by S.H. and others, in turn perpetuates the idea of using a permaculture model and results in the adoption of these systems by Big Ag and conventional small scale farmers alike. Do I understand correctly? If so, what systems are in place to prevent eventual large scale food inflation? Here in the USA there is already a perception about food labeled as organic - it is only for the wealthy / not for people of little means - therefore those groups shut the door on food that is made without synthetic inputs. A permaculture system priced for the consumer at a (worthy) value far above organic produce / meat / dairy would, by the same logic, be even less accessible to those who do not wish to or cannot farm / produce food for themselves and don't have an income high enough to commit a larger percentage to food. There are many other examples I could think of that illustrate how a high value prevents access. I would like to believe that a high profit system and a community food sharing system and a backyard urban permie garden and... (diversity of systems) can cooperate and coexist but I am having a difficult time figuring out the "how" of it all. Is the common answer just to encourage people to use the permaculture design ideas in the scale and structure of their choosing? Any thoughts?

Thanks
Liam Etheridge