Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - Re: [Livingontheland] Why Bother With Permaculture?

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Mike <mike.lists@mlxvi.org>
  • To: Healthy soil and sustainable growing <livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] Why Bother With Permaculture?
  • Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 12:26:04 +1200

I am surprised at the source of this article. From my understanding of permaculture it is INCLUSIVE of those things that the author of this article states are necessary. Permaculture is not only those natural systems that we call green (In fact to call 'green' things permaculture is not strictly correct - permaculture is a design system that goes beyond green and may, in fact, incorporate decidedly (some greenies would say) ungreen things. Take some large and not so large earthmoving projects, for example. ) Bill Mollison emphatically includes sustainable legal, financial, political and other invisible systems in his definition of permaculture.

After all, what use is a sustainable agriculture system without a sustainable culture to work it and benefit from it.

Permaculture is not only a contraction of the term 'permanent agriculture', but also 'permanent culture'.

Mike



Tradingpost wrote:
Why Bother With Permaculture?
http://ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D16WhyBotherWPermcul.html?
(From the International Permaculture Journal.)

Ted Trainer argues that although the planet cannot be saved without
Permaculture, not enough people in the movement realise where Permaculture
has to fit into the solution.

We are fast approaching a period of enormous and probably chaotic change.
Industrial-affluent-consumer society is unsustainable and is rapidly running
into serious difficulties

Permaculture is a crucial component of the solution to the global
predicament. However I want to argue that Permaculture is far from
sufficient, and indeed that it can be counter productive if it is not put in
the right context. That is, unless we are careful, promoting Permaculture can
actually help to reinforce our existing unsustainable society. We must do
much more than just contribute to the spread of Permaculture. We must locate
Permaculture within a wider campaign of radical social change.

Before I try to explain this I need to outline how I see the global
predicament we are in. Whether or not you will agree with my conclusions
about what needs to be done and where Permaculture fits in will depend
greatly on whether you agree with my view of the situation we are in.

There is an overwhelmingly strong case that industrial-affluent-consumer
society is grossly unsustainable. Australian per capita rates of resource use
and environmental impact are far higher than can be kept up for long, or than
could be had by all the world's people. We are in other words well beyond the
limits to growth. Following are a few of the points that support this
conclusion. (For detailed explanation see my The Conserver Society (Zed,
1995) or Towards a Sustainable Society , (Envirobooks, 1995.)

- It takes about 4 to 5 ha of productive land to provide the lifestyle people in
Sydney have (our "footprint). If 11 billion people (the expected population
of the world late next century) were to live in that fashion about 50 billion ha
of productive land would be needed; but that is 8 times all the productive land on
the planet.

- If all the world's present number of people each used energy at the
Australian per capita rate then estimated potentially recoverable resources
of coal, oil, gas, shale oil, tar sand oil, and uranium would be exhausted in
under 40 years.

- The climate scientists are saying that if we are to prevent the greenhouse
problem from getting any worse we must cut annual fossil fuel use by 60-80%
of its present volume. If we cut by 60% and shared the remaining energy
equally between the 11 billion people expected you would have to get by on
only 1/18 of the present Australian per capita consumption.

- The environment problem is basically due to all the resources our
affluent-consumer lifestyles are taking from the environment and then dumping
into it as waste. It takes 20 tonnes of new materials to provide for one
American every year. One species, humans, is taking 40% of the biological
productivity of the planet's entire land area, mostly to provide well for
only 1 billion people. If another 10 billion want to live as we in the rich
countries do how much habitat will be left for the other possibly 30 million
species? We cannot possibly expect to stop the extinction of species unless
we drastically reverse this demand for biological resources and the
consequent destruction of habitat. We cannot do that without huge reduction
in production and consumption.

These sorts of figures leave little doubt that the way of life taken for
granted in industrial-affluent-consumer society cannot possibly be kept up
for long or extended to all people. We can have it only because the one-fifth
who live in rich countries like Australia are grabbing four-fifths of world
resource production to provide per capita use rates that are 15-20 times
those averaged by the poorest half of the world's people.

The outlook becomes far worse when we add the implications of our manic
obsession with economic growth . If Australia averaged 4% growth from now to
2050 and by then the expected 11 billion people had risen to the living
standards we would then have, the total world economic output would be 220
times what it is today. The present levels of production and consumption are
unsustainable, yet we are committed to an economy and a culture which is
determined to increase living standards and the GNP, constantly and without
limit. It should be obvious that no plausible .assumptions about what
miraculous breakthroughs technology will achieve will enable continuation of
the living standards and the systems taken for granted today; the foregoing
multiples are far too big for that.

This blind obsession with raising living standards and the GNP is the basic
cause of all our major global problems, including resource depletion,
environmental destruction and the deprivation of the Third World. For example
the Third World has been developed into a form which enables its land, labour
and capital to produce mostly for the benefit of the rich countries and their
corporations. Most people in the Third World not only get little or nothing
from the development that is taking place, their productive capacity is put
into producing for export. Hence an increasingly critical literature argues
that development is plunder and that growth deprives.

Globalisation is making all these problems worse. We are seeing a rapid
restructuring of the world to give the transnational corporations and banks
even greater freedom and access to resources, markets and cheap labour.

This basic limits to growth analysis shows our predicament to be extremely
serious. We are far beyond sustainability. The problems cannot be solved
without radical change.

The solution?

If the limits analysis is valid then a sustainable society would have to involve much less
affluent lifestyles, highly self-sufficient local economies, little trade, little heavy industry,
cooperative and participatory systems and a steady-state economy. This means much more than
merely getting rid of a capitalist economy. It means developing an economy in which there is no
economic growth, the GNP per capita is a small fraction of what it is in Australia today, no
interest is earned on savings ( because if it is you have a growth economy), most economic
activity takes place outside the cash economy and there are many free goods from the local
commons, the "unemployment" rate might be 80% (because most work and production would
not be for money), and in which much "tax" is paid via contributions of time to local
working bees and committees. In addition a sustainable society requires fundamental changes in
world view and values. Cooperation must become the dominant concern, no
t competition. A strong collective orientation must replace today's rampant
individualism. Affluence and consumption must become distasteful; frugality
and self-sufficiency must become major sources of life satisfaction. Giving
must become a more important source of satisfaction than getting.

If the limits to growth analysis is valid then we have no choice about these
changes. Whether we like it or not we must make these sorts of changes if we
are to develop a sustainable society.

Many of us with some direct experience of alternative lifestyles and the
Ecovillage movement know how easy it would be to build a sustainable and just
and admirable society. Many who have lived simply and in cooperative
communities know it is possible to design and run settlements in which people
have a very high quality of life at a relaxed pace, in supportive
communities, secure from unemployment, poverty and violence, on very low
levels of per capita resource consumption. (This is not to assume that our
society will make the transition. I am increasingly pessimistic about this.)

The implications for Permaculture.

Permaculture design principles are obviously crucial for sustainability.
Viable settlements must be designed to provide most of their needs from the
local landscape without external inputs of resources, and in ways that are
ecologically sustainable. But given the nature and the magnitude of our
limits to growth problem much more than Permaculture is required. Fundamental
economic, political and cultural change is essential and without these
Permaculture will be of no significance even if it flourishes. Unfortunately
much Permaculture literature and many courses tend to leave the impression
that spreading knowledge about Permaculture techniques is sufficient to
achieve a sustainable world and that there is no need to question affluent
living standards or the present economy. In general far too little emphasis
is put on the fact that a sustainable society cannot be achieved without
radical a change in lifestyles, in the economy, in the geography of
settlements and in world view
s and values.

The important point here is that Permaculture can very easily be part of the
problem. It is part of the problem if does not increase the realisation that
affluent living standards and this economy are totally incompatible with
sustainability and with global economic justice. Much Permaculture literature
not only does not increase people's understanding of these crucial themes,
much of it reinforces the impression that fundamental change is not necessary
because all we have to do is adopt things like organic food, composting,
recycling and community supported agriculture. Permaculture is part of the
problem if it is essentially enabling people to do some ecologically correct
things in their gardens, such as growing some organic vegies, and then feel
that they are making a significant contribution to saving the planet.

Many people do such "light green" things without questioning affluent
lifestyles within a growth economy and without seeing these as the basic causes of the
global crisis. For too many Permaculture is little more than another toy to play with
on their hobby farms.

Similar criticisms can be made of the Ecovillage movement. This is an
extremely important development; we can now point to functioning examples of
more sustainable settlements. But the movement is not putting anywhere near
enough emphasis on the development of self-sufficient economies, living
simply and cooperatively and on the need to get rid of an economic system
based on market forces, growth and the profit motive. It tends to give the
impression that it will be sufficient to build Ecovillages that will function
within the present economy.

In other words Permaculture can easily be seen as another 'technical fix"
that can save industrial affluent-consumer society. I think most people see things
like solar energy, community supported agriculture, LETS, earth building, reed bed
sewage and Permaculture as new ecologically friendly techniques that will enable
us to solve resource and environment problems and therefore to go on living with
high living standards, growth and free market economies, jet-away holidays etc.
They see technical advance as capable of eliminating any need for fundamental
change in lifestyles or in the economy. I think that we are giving the impression
that Permaculture is another of the technologies that will help to save
industrial-affluent-consumer society, when the most important message to be given
now is that we have to largely scrap that society.

There is a seriously mistaken theory of change underlying much of the
Permaculture movement. Many seem to assume that that the more people we get
to take an interest in Permaculture and to practise it the closer we move to
the establishment of a just and sustainable society. This is not so. If all
we do is work at increasing the numbers who understand and like and practice
Permaculture this will probably have no more revolutionary significance than
if we increased the number of people who are interested in the RSPCA or golf.
This will just reach the point where all those potentially interestable in
Permaculture will have become interested, and will be out their reading the
books and growing things, while still living in and benefiting from and not
challenging affluent-consumer society and the growth economy.

Again, replacing that society is the crucial task, not getting more people to
like and practice Permaculture. Merely teaching Permaculture techniques will
not get them to see that affluent industrial consumer society is a terrible
mistake, that capitalism must be scrapped, that a growth economy must be
scrapped, that we must build small and highly self-sufficient economies based
on cooperation and participation, and that very different lifestyles and
values must be embraced. People can become very knowledgable and keen about
Permaculture without understanding any of this.

Why do you want people to take up Permaculture? Just to enjoy the idea and
the practice? Or to help us build a sustainable society. If your our answer
is the latter, then we will not get this outcome just by increasing people's
understanding of Permaculture techniques. We make sure that wherever possible
we connect Permaculture with the global scene and the need for radical social
change, so that people understand that Permaculture is necessary but only as
part of the bigger picture. We can't claim to be centrally concerned with
achieving sustainability if all we talk about is Permaculture. It is in fact
only a one element in the list of conditions and factors required for a
sustainable world order. But there can be no doubt that it is a crucially
important element.

_______________________________________________
Livingontheland mailing list
Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page