Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - [permaculture] Re: permaculture digest, Vol 1 #459 - 5 msgs

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Scott Pittman <pci@permaculture-inst.org>
  • To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [permaculture] Re: permaculture digest, Vol 1 #459 - 5 msgs
  • Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 13:23:20 -0700

At 12:00 PM 12/29/02 -0500, you wrote:
4) chemical intervention (by far least prefered- only to be considered in
the most extreme of cases)- Using chemical pesticides to control the aphids-
however in permaculture design thinking, if such a drastic step is deemed
necessary, something is fundementally out of balance. It would make sense to
think about major redesign of the system...

There are times when Permaculture designers might consider one-off
application of a non-persistant herbicide to clear a large area of ground in
a hurry in order to plant it up with edible crops to be acceptable- the
'hierarchy of interventions' is a pattern language which in a way says
"Never say never", if you see what I mean...

HTH, Graham
www.landandliberty.co.uk


I have to disagree with the above statement. I have never found that chemical intervention was a solution, it can provide temporary relief but in the long run the use of chemicals is a postponement of dealing with an imbalance. To my way of thinking using chemicals has more to do with pc ethics; does one sell chemically tainted food to another, or is this chemical going to persist in my soil, or is my laziness, or desperation adequate reason for abandoning principal?

I also don't know of any chemical herbicide that is non-persistant, while it may not persist in its original form, it persists in its constituent parts and those constituent parts may be more pernicious than the original compound.

While "never say never" is an appealing maxim I think that there are "absolutely never" situations, such as never use DDT. While one could argue that Malaria is much worse than the effects of DDT on the environment, this type of argument is almost always anthropocentric and in my mind not worthy of consideration. Most of the banned chemicals fall into the the "never, ever" category this applies both to agricultural chemicals as well as pharmaceuticals.

I know the temptation is great to bring in the chemical artillery when the greenhouse is full of spider mite, or aphid, but it is the same kind of desperation that brings out the artillery when one wants someone else's oil ie Bush and Iraq.

Scott







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page