permaculture

[Paul Osmond <P.Osmond@unsw.edu.au>]

>

>Robyn's statement about people in the industry having no interest in solving
>problems reminds me of something I was told just last night by a local
>government worker. She said that she found it interesting now, in the years
>since the environment became the centre of an industry, environmental
>trainers and managers treat it like any other job - after doing their day's
>work, they continue to throw away packaging, continue to buy their coffee in
>throw-away cups an so on.
>
>Drawing an analogy with Robyn's allegation, is it the training these people
>undergo in tertiary institutions or is it just that once something is
>mainstreamed and becomes an industry it it just another way to make a living
>that accounts for this behaviour?
>
>...Russ Grayson
>

In my experience working in a tertiary institution I suggest that the great
majority of students enrolled in education and training aimed at entry into
the environment "industry" (yes, it has become an industry over the past
decade or so) are enthusiastic, committed and idealistic. If environmental
management/engineering/science is perceived as just another way to make a
living, then from a purely pragmatic and self-interested perspective a
student would be far better off studying commerce, accountancy, law or
computing. Graduate employment statistics for 2000 (in Australia at least,
it would be interesting to know the situation elsewhere) demonstrate that
not only are pay levels for environmental graduates very much on the low
end of the scale, but the unemployment rate a year after graduation is only
exceeded by that of fine arts graduates. 

That is not to suggest that every student - or graduate - of tertiary-level
environmental programs is some kind of green angel. As with any cohort of
students there are the motivated and the lazy, the altruistic and the
self-centred. With the increase in numbers of graduates, both the good and
the not-so-good are certainly more "visible" in the workforce and in the
general community.  

Rather than the tertiary training these people receive being the "cause" of
the perceived (and real) environmentally irresponsible behaviour of some, I
would offer two comments:

1) Environmental engineers/managers etc are part of, not apart from,
society as a whole. This society is predicated on overconsumption, waste,
pollution.... and it is quite unrealistic to expect that environmentalists
will remain entirely uninfluenced by this, much as we might like to believe
in human perfection. 

2) Perhaps where there is a gap - both in terms of training and social
practice - is in the area of environmental ethics.... or to be more
precise, permaculture ethics? I've been following the recent "what is
permaculture" thread on this list, and it seems to me that what most
differentiates PC from the "technical fix" approach common in environmental
management practice is the focus on the human and ethical dimensions as the
overarching _framework_ for the whole PC design system.

Perhaps it isn't what environmental practitioners ARE being trained in,
it's what they're NOT being trained in? So perhaps an issue we ought to be
thinking about is how best to integrate PC principles into tertiary
environmental education, and also into professional development training
for environmental practitioners? 


Paul Osmond, University of New South Wales   
    


>
>> Assumptions are dangerous things and lead to ill-informed opinions and
>> unfair judgements.
>> I could give a massive rave on this issue but don't have time right now -
>> just please don't fall into the trap of the mindless racism of our 'one
>> nation' of fools and bigotted idiots that have absolutely no idea of
>> what's really going on in their own backyard when it comes to Aboriginal
>> Australia
>> Robyn
>>