permaculture

["Ava Devenport" <essenheal@iname.com>]

On 08/25/00, "Judith Hanna <jehanna@gn.apc.org>" wrote:
> I've found myself shocked at times by people on this list blithely
> discussing introducing plants from here, there and yonder -- some of them
> already labelled as invasive weeds -- without discussing appropriateness to
> context, effect on existing local ecology, or exploring potential local
> plants with the relevant characteristics. Someone even dissed those who
> raised such 'context' concerns as 'eco-fascists'. 

Dear Judith:
I can understand your points regarding the introduction of some plants, but 
what are your views regarding plants that have been labelled as invasive 
weeds, are native to their locality, have been observed for centuries as 
medicinal and are 'ethnobotanically' considered endangered or at risk?

How would you go about saving a culturally significant plant and your right 
to cultivate such?

There seems to be a problem in many localities regarding the ethics of 
destroying an entire plant population within it's native habitat.  We have 
such a problem existing in our state in regards to Mullien.  It's 
culturally significant, abundant in CO, but scarce in some other regions, 
it's also on our states list of noxious/invasive weeds and considered 
illegal to propogate.  We have spoken to many officials regarding the 
Sanctuaries plight in saving native medicinals, but still come head to head 
regarding the noxious weed laws.  I've written letters, held conferences, 
etc. on the values of such plants, cash crop vs. noxious weed, a new 
agricultural source for small farmers as mullien is used extensively in 
healing salves, cold remedies, etc.

Also, it is apparent in the US that many of our food crops are not native 
to this country at all, so within permaculture design principles and 
*intelligent application of the broad principles*, how would you define 
which plants to cultivate when the natives are/may be NOT native at all, if 
you trace the history of the plant back to it's origin?

If the principles ever become 'set in stone', it seems to me that we may be 
setting up another version of third world starvation and the 'essence of 
permaculture' would then have an entirely new and devastating meaning.

I'm not trying to be picky nor controversial, I'm trying to understand 
when/how/why the 'principles and design' of permaculture may/may not have 
gone too far beyond what is 'necessary' for survival(humans, plants and 
wildlife).  Is it possible to take the principles to this limit?  Has it 
BEEN done anywhere that anyone knows of?

Blessings,
Ava