permaculture

[YankeePerm@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/15/97 12:33:30 AM, you wrote:

>Dan,
>
>>> The fact is that the first step for the group was to promote an
>Australian permaculturist <<
>
>Did the Permaculture Institute promote those design courses last summer?  I
>honestly can't remember what was on the flyers.
>
>However, I don't believe you mentioned what was wrong with promoting
>Australian permaculture teachers.  It would certainly be nice if they
>promoted north American teachers.  Or are you implying that travelling to
>another continent to teach is unethical?
>
>I, on the other hand, might say that using the planet's resources to send a
>good teacher accross the sea would be the MOST ethical thing we could do
>with those resources.


I have gone over this in previous posts.  Historically, such institutes have
only promoted Australian teachers.  Australian teachers already have an edge,
according to Bill, in that their transport and some expenses are subsidized
by the Australian government, so long as they siphon money back to Australia.

An institute that claims to represent North America and manages to commandeer
quasi-exclusive use of the mailing list to which many of us have given major
input and dozens of teachers have helped build ought to be involved in
promoting North American permaculture teachers as their first priority.  As I
mentioned earlier, Bill might well be a good person to bring in from time to
time for advanced teaching to teachers.  Frankly, we have a number of
teachers in North America who are at least as effetive at teaching
permaculture as Bill. Clearcutting the market drives them into other
activities.  

Nobody is going to tell Bill what to do regardless of what happens or is
said.  If anything, he is apt to show up more if asked to stay away.  I don't
think that Scott is much different, though I don't know him and have only
spotty contact.  I could be wrong there--it would be a surprise, but
surprises can be nice.

I guess I want to know why you feel it is useful to extend this discussion.
 You seem to support this institute and I'm happy to let my concerns stand.
 I'd rather not be going over and over the same ground.  It can't help the
institute to have these issues raised over and over again.  What is your
angle.  Clearly you want to argue and not to listen, but do you want to argue
badly enough to harm your cause?

I agree that it is often a good idea to cause pollution to send a teacher to
places where a teacher is needed.  Obviouisly, if good, well established,
Mollison-blessed teachers are screaming in pain when he comes and clear-cuts
the market from under them, this is not a case of needed teachers.  This is a
case of income--whether it is to be used for one purpose or another.  It
seems rather close to the permaculture ethic about competition to be
comfortable.  The US is rich and diverting money from our permaculture
movement, which is NOT rich, can do good works elsewhere.  Have we
volunteered for this transfusion.  I think not.

Indeed there is a dire shortage of funds to meet requests for teaching in
India, Africa, South America Asia, and other places where I have had to put
people on endless hold because we cannot subsidize their needs.  It is sad to
have to tell these people that they need to learn fundraising as we can't
just hop in a plane and fly over.  Mostly, they think all Americans are rich
in ways that we are mostly not, particularly the dozens who have given up
regular income to teach permaculture.  North America is hardly short of
teachers.  

Your point is exactly why I feel that there is a problem with the jet-set
international convergences.  We could have permaculture on a strong footing
just about everywhere there is a life-or-death need for it with the funds
expended in transport, etc., for these events.   When I get on board a jet, I
always question whether the destruction to the ozone and general hydrocarbon
pollution from the jet engines is justified by what I might help to happen as
a teacher.  Being a spiritual person, I also pray to the Earth Mother and
sundry associates that I have chosen wisely and that the cost to the planet
will be repaid many times.  I would have to have a very powerful reason to go
to Australia and teach where there are plenty of permaculture teachers and
where any impidement to the faster spread of permaculture is hardly the need
for more teachers.

While Bill is a special case, HOW special he is might be worth his
consideration in these matters.  Discussing this between you and me isn't
going to change what Bill does.  Give it a rest.

>>That's not exactly true.  I know Bill expects the students to receive 72
hours of class room time to obtain their certificate.  I would call that a
standard.<<

So after 72 hours of hearing someone talk, a person has a license to tinker
with nature and call it permaculture?  That is a standard for teachers,
maybe, but not for their students.  The certificate becomes an attendance
affadivit and nothing more.  There is no competency or comprehension
evaluation required.  These would be standards as far as I am concerned.

>> Nature uses anarchistic designs, not hierarchical designs.  The very
structure of a 501(c)3 violates permaculture. <<

>>Am I supposed to
logically conclude that registering a group with the government is
completely counter productive?<<