Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: all theory thread (long)

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Toby Hemenway <hemenway@jeffnet.org>
  • To: permaculture <permaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: all theory thread (long)
  • Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 12:02:00 -0600


Robert Jensen wrote:

> Perhaps the philosophy of Permaculture needs to be treated more as a
> "social" issue, whereas the science/theory and in practice variations need
> to be treated organically.

I agree. Again using science as an analogy, the people who do philosophy of
science--trying to figure out how science works and what it's doing--are
usually not the same people who are actually doing science. Or more
precisely, most scientists don't care one whit about the philosophy behind
it. I'd venture that the same it true here: the majority of practicing
permies want to get their hands dirty, and may be less interested in a
long-winded philosophical discussion (I happen to like both, since ideas
guide practice and practice shapes ideas).

Myk wrote:

> How do we define what a permaculture principle actually is or does?

Here¹s a start. A principle, Webster¹s 3rd unabridged says (definition 1a),
is ³a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption on which
others are based or from which others are derived.²

Mollison classes "earthcare, peoplecare, and fairshares" as ethics, but this
is really shorthand for "ethical principles." Because these 3 ideas are
doctrines and assumptions upon which the rest of permaculture is based, they
warrant being called principles. These principles are grounded in ethics
since they offer guidance about how we should live and are based on the
belief that some ways of living are "better" than others (caring for people
rather than, say, harming your competitors). In this way the ethical
principles of Pc differ from scientific principles, which are based on
empirical observation.

Mollison cites many different classes of observations, guidelines, laws,
etc. and calls most of them principles. This is what we¹re trying to
straighten out here. For example, DM p12 cites the ³Life Intervention
Principle,² which is an observation, and (p 15) quotes Birch¹s six
³principles² of natural systems, which are a blend of observations and
ethical suggestions. Then (p15) he lists 3 design ³considerations² (e.g.,the
systems we construct should last as long as possible) and 5 Œdesign
principles² (e.g. work with nature rather than against it). Why are
³considerations² different from ³principles²? Both are recommendations for
how to design. Also, in ³Introduction to Permaculture² he lists (p5) 8
³permaculture principles,² that are ³inherent in any permaculture design²
(e.g., each element performs many functions). These are completely different
from the 5 ³design principles²in the DM.

Judith did a nice job of breaking out this ³hodgepodge² of ethics,
principles, etc. into a more rational order. I¹m content to call the 3
ethics ³ethical principles.² All the rest, the rules about design, may
conform better to Webster¹s second definition of principle, ³a governing law
of conduct.² So I¹d make a distinction. Judith does this, calling them
³design principles² although I have a gnawing sense that there¹s a better
word than ³principle². They are guidelines for successful design, derived
from observation of natural systems. By analogy, I would distinguish the 2nd
law of thermodynamics--a scientific principle--from a guideline for properly
designing an experiment, like ³always use a control in your experiments.²
That¹s what bothers me.

Part of the difficulty is that we¹re taking observations of natural systems
and not just using them to describe those systems, but turning them into
rules to guide the creation of human-designed systems. Nature doesn¹t make
up a set of rules and then follow them. The rules are a human construct and
emerge from our observations of the interactions of organisms. So we¹re
assuming that what we call ³principles² are important elements of how nature
works. We have been wrong in the past (as in ³diversity creates stability,"
which isn¹t true) and so I¹m hesitant to use the word "principles" for our
meager and largely anecdotal understanding of the natural properties that we
use to guide design. But I¹ll continue work on this; lots of good material
here.

And a minor gripe: Some of the design guidelines are phrased as rules (³each
element performs many functions²) and others are phrased as observations of
a design (³energy recycling on site²). Fixing this in part is just cleaning
up inconsistent grammar, but they would be much easier to read and
understand if they all followed the same format, as by changing the second
example to ³energy is recycled on site whenever feasible.² As we come up
with new guidelines/principles, their discoverers would be doing readers a
service by putting them in a consistent format, plus it boosts acceptance by
critics.

Toby





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page