pcplantdb

[Stephanie Gerson <sgerson@stanfordalumni.org>]

I completly agree with your comments on the oxymoron of large-scale 
sustainable, Scott, and this is actually something I discussed a while 
back with the fellow I've been corresponding with from WSF.  

However.  I am not asking if large-scale and sustainable are compatible.  
I am asking how can we, representing PIW, make the pitch to WSF, a 
foundation interested in transforming the dominant agricultural paradigm.  
In essence, how will PIW assist commercial farmers *now* (vs. reach only 
the contingency already interested in sustainability).  This relates to 
my interest in a SARE grant and getting extension specialists involved.

So instead of arguing that large-scale is inherently unsustainable (yes, 
of course) let's try to brainstorm how we can present PIW to WSF and 
like-minded funders.  We know PIW is valuable.  How do we tell them, in 
consideration of their mission?

thanks,
*Stephanie

------ Original Message ------
Received: 10:40 AM PST, 12/05/2004
From: Scott Pittman <pci@permaculture-inst.org>
To: Permaculture Plant Database <pcplantdb@lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [pcplantdb] synthesis[29][12.04.04]

Stephanie Gerson wrote:

>hi again yalls,
>
>--snip--
>A few responses to synthesis[29] items:
>
>1.  'press release' - Johns says wait and Lawrence says go for it.  
Chad?  
>Rich?  others?  I agree that networking would help with grant proposals, 
>so I'm interested in announcing ourselves sooner rather than later.  We 
>don't need to solicit participation (yet), just announce the project.  
We 
>could even be explicit about the fact that we are looking for more 
>funding, and ask for responses of support.
>  
>
I agree with announcing as long as responses are not an interference 
with the work Chad is doing.  I would very much vote against 
participation - too many cooks ...etc.

>--snip--
>3.  feature creep, crop-rotation program, and WSF - yes, this may be 
>feature creep, but it's fun to dream ;)  
>  
>

>Lets keep our eye on the prize, for now.  Later we can incorporate farm 
implements, rotation schemes, ipm, and all the rest.  The guild task is 
way, way bigger than I think some of us imagines.
>  
>

>Also in response to Johns, maybe WSF needs a lesson in Pc, but we need $ 
>– so how do we tailor what we write to their mission/vision?
>  
>
-- snip --

>  They are not saying that large-scale in itself is 
>unsustainable, just that modern large-scale ag is.  How can we - Pc and 
>PIW - help render modern large-scale ag sustainable?
>  
>
IMHO this is an oxymoron and one that we shouldn't get near.  I have 
serious doubts that one can farm more than 40
acres sustainable let alone 4,000.   We I was a young sprout in West 
Texas a 200 acre farm was a big farm, any thing larger than that was 
grazing land for cattle.  The 1200 + farms are driven by the big 
tractors with dual tired four wheel drive and a 100 plus horse power.  
You have to have a lot of land just to turn them at the end of the row. 

To steward land you have to be able to walk it, smell it, and be 
involved in it, this can't be done in an air conditioned tractor cab 
with quad stereo headphones driven by an "operator" who get paid $6 .00 
per hour.

This is no different that plugging into the nonsense that Ford Motor 
Company can somehow be sustainable by using solar energy and pastel 
colors in the assembly line.  This is fostered by those of us who are 
unwilling to look at the idea of no "personal vehicles" in the eye and 
not flinch, or get nostalgic.

Scott 

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




+++++++++++++++
Stephanie Gerson
sgerson@stanfordalumni.org
(c) 415.871.5683


____________________________________________________________________