permaculture

[Judith Hanna <jehanna@gn.apc.org>]

At 12:02 02/07/00 -0600, you wrote:
> Robert Jensen  wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the philosophy of Permaculture needs to be treated more as a
>> "social" issue, whereas the science/theory and in practice variations need
>> to be treated organically.

I'm afraid this statement just doesn't mean anything to me. Surely the
philosophy of permaculture is, ipso facto, a philosophical issue -- or
meta-theory (ie, theorising about theory). What does 'organic' mean in this
context?
1) Chemistry of carbon-based compounds?
2) To do with living/growing organisms? Patterns of natural growth?
3) Grown without resort to artificial fertilisers, pesticides, etc?
4) Some other meaning of organic?


Toby wrote:

>Judith did a nice job of breaking out this ³hodgepodge² of ethics,
>principles, etc. into a more rational order. I¹m content to call the 3
>ethics ³ethical principles.² All the rest, the rules about design, may
>conform better to Webster¹s second definition of principle, ³a governing law
>of conduct.² So I¹d make a distinction. Judith does this, calling them
>³design principles² although I have a gnawing sense that there¹s a better
>word than ³principle². They are guidelines for successful design, derived
>from observation of natural systems. By analogy, I would distinguish the 2nd
>law of thermodynamics--a scientific principle--from a guideline for properly
>designing an experiment, like ³always use a control in your experiments.²
>That¹s what bothers me.

Thanks Toby. It's interesting to have a forum for taking apart the varying
ways we all 'see' permaculture's theoretical side. It will be useful if we
come out with some consensus that simplifies a stable set of terms -- so
that people encountering different permaculture sources get pretty much the
same picture. I've no problem with the term 'design guidelines' -- provided
that is what most others are calling them. Equally, I've no problem with
'design prinicples'. I agree that we're definitely not talking about 'laws'.

>Part of the difficulty is that we¹re taking observations of natural systems
>and not just using them to describe those systems, but turning them into
>rules to guide the creation of human-designed systems. 

Are we? I thought we we saying that 'if you want your design to result in a
nature-friendly system, these are ways to achieve this sustainability'.
That is, the principles can also be seen as tests to apply to alternative
options or elements of the system. What are the local resources? How many
uses for this element? What are the outputs from each element at each
stage, and what can we do with them? etc... So Yes, I guess that is what
your statement amounts to...

Nature doesn¹t make
>up a set of rules and then follow them. The rules are a human construct and
>emerge from our observations of the interactions of organisms. 

Fair statement: nature evolves; we humans abstract observations and put
them into words. What's the alternative: acting without thinking? 

So we¹re
>assuming that what we call ³principles² are important elements of how nature
>works. We have been wrong in the past (as in ³diversity creates stability,"
>which isn¹t true) and so I¹m hesitant to use the word "principles" for our
>meager and largely anecdotal understanding of the natural properties that we
>use to guide design. But I¹ll continue work on this; lots of good material
>here.

I think you're making heavy weather of it, Toby. One of the features of
English as a language is that words are clusters of connotations, with
dictionary definitions based on previous usage. They aren't limited to
precise definitions -- and people don't use them with precision. I think
you are trying to do brain surgery with a feather duster.

>as in ³diversity creates stability,"
>which isn¹t true)

Depends -- I don't think that is proven. Compared with artifically
maintained monocultures, diverse ecosystems are more stable -- ie, able to
recover a thriving population after being hit with disaster. True,
ecosystems, however diverse, evolve and change -- stability does not mean
staying the same. Then there is the suggestion that, eventually,
undisturbed evolution would lead to stable peatlands of limited
biodiversity. But how often is evolution undisturbed?


Judith Hanna
jehanna@gn.apc.org
15 Jansons Rd, Tottenham, London N15 4JU