permaculture

["SEED PEACE" <seedpeace@hotmail.com>]

> using permaculture principles i.e. an ecologically sustainable productive
> ecosystem. Ecological because consideration has been given to both the
> biotic and abiotic components and their interelationship, sustainable
> because of a reduction of external inputs and energy required to maintain
> them and productive in that they provide for the needs of the inhabitants.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing other peoples views on sustainability with
> regards to permaculture.
>
> Myk

Hello,
I also have tended to employ the term "ecologically sustainable."  I do 
believe it makes sense to most people; however, it get's tricky when others 
with hidden intentions can use the same term for much different ends. I've 
come across a full-paged advertisement by Monsanto in the Los Angeles Times 
promoting genetic engineering as the only
"ecologically sustainable" solution.  They have also coopted the term 
"socially responsible" in their description of g.e., because "there's no 
other way we're going to feed billions of people unless we engineer faster 
growing, more nutritious, pest-resistant, etc. rice, wheat, corn . . ." 
(paraphrased).
My conclusion: Permaculture teachers must cultivate diverse explanations & 
descriptions with multiple functional inter-relationships in order to create 
a resilient conceptual system that can not be wiped out by mono-meaning 
pestilence and concept-coopting predators.  Thank goodness Permaculture is a 
copy-righted term, otherwise it could be going down the same route as 
"sustainable" and "organic" agriculture...  All in all, I believe we should 
design our concepts in similar ways we would ideally design the land... then 
we would never depend on any one crop (term).  If we ONLY use "sustainable" 
then we're as weak as mono-agriculture!
Diversify the mind...

Marco
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com