permaculture

["souscayrous" <souscayrous@wanadoo.fr>]

I hadn't meant to re-ignite the 'science' argument and would rather drop the
offending word in the interests of discussion.
Methodological reduction, rather, the highly successful technique of the
physical sciences, where explanation has been 'reduced' to ever more minute
entities, is the underlying thrust of my initial post.  The holism of
permaculture does not fit well into the atomism of pure yield.  Too much is
lost.

Honestly Toby I do not think we are so very far apart.  I read and generally
respond positively to the common sense of your posts.  Perhaps it boils down
to your more pragmatic outlook...and yet; pragmatism requires an unmoving
world on which we can get a secure grasp.  I am not so sanguine, every time
I think I understand and reach out to grasp the solidity of the world, the
more it flows through my hand like water.
It is for that reason that I wrote in my original post:


>Scientific research is the paradigm of evaluation in our society and indeed
>we are vulnerable to its conclusions, *but*, we must not forget that
>scientific practices are also culturally constructed and our efforts must
be
>channelled into changing the parameters by which success is calibrated.


This is not the dichotomy of "science and spirit" as you write, I am all too
aware of the prevailing dualism in western thought.  These words were meant
to address the ever-changing nature of the world; the means of scientific
enquiry included, and offers another form of gauging yield that is not
reduced to poundage of produce.  Put simply, I meant to suggest that
permaculture should be at the forefront of changing opinion at all levels so
that when yield was discussed it was not confined to the limiting
conceptions of Greg Williams (and what I see as our knee-jerk reaction in
responding within that conceptual framework where our holistic goals will
eventually be extinguished), but would grow to include a farming systems
technique of improving biodiversity, soil health, the socio-economic
situation of the local community, personal pleasure and the myriad of other
benefits that flow from a well designed project.

It is not that they get you asking the wrong questions but giving the wrong
answers (after Thomas Pynchon).

Toby, I have not responded to your first and last paragraphs because I think
they unfairly caricature my initial post.



Souscayrous





-----Original Message-----
From: Toby Hemenway [mailto:hemenway@jeffnet.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 10:44 PM
To: permaculture
Subject: Re: The meagre harvest of yield

souscayrous at souscayrous@wanadoo.fr wrote:

> Why do we rush to adopt the reductive numerism of scientific agriculture?
[snip]
> Must we really counter every accusation levelled at us?

Some accusations can be safely ignored. But only rich people can afford not
to bother seeing whether their own labor and methods can feed them; I can
always go to the store if my little garden experiment doesn't yield enough.
But it's inexcusable for me to prescribe permaculture to a Ghanaian
farmer--or my orchardist neighbor--unless I can offer some evidence that it
will yield enough for their family. Guesswork, enthusiasm, and theory won't
do it. Here, numbers offer more hope.

I hate to see permaculture reduced to the false dichotomy between science
and spirit. I see no battle. Some people will describe a garden as a place
of tranquility and inspiration, others as a place offering 120 pounds of
peppers using only 2 pounds of fertilizer. And some will see both. I think
we're broad-based enough to speak several languages, included the numerical
one spoken by schools, NGOs, local and national governments, and the farmer
across the way, who won't adopt permaculture unless it's described in terms
they comprehend. With 4000 Pc sites in 120 countries (so I hear), there's
room for more than one way of describing what we do. We've been doing lots
of dreaming and making the dreams real. It will only broaden our reach if,
in addition to all else we've done, a few of us begin measuring what we've
created. If we know another's language, while they don't know ours, we are
more powerful.

> I look at our newly discovered desire to quantify yield as a
> failure of nerve.

I can understand being too busy to bother getting any numbers. But outright
refusing to quantify yield strikes me as a rebelliously adolescent "I won't
do what you want me to" attitude that hands authority to others, a reactive
and fearful stance. Getting numbers doesn't mean we've abandoned the search
for sustainability; it projects permaculture's power into other domains.
There's enough diversity among us for multiple approaches, and one approach
that we lack is the numerical one.

Toby


____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________




Why do we rush to adopt the reductive numerism of scientific agriculture?
Corporate 'Profit and Loss' were the unkind parents to the Green Revolution,
their sickly child.  Wasn't this the spur to permaculture, the creation of a
ledger so diverse that yield could never again be the absolute accounting?
If permaculture now seeks legitimacy from that which it sought to counter,
in the words of another attempted revolution, 'It is no longer part of the
solution, but part of the problem'.

I had always assumed that permaculture was a force for change, its
sustainability, ultimately, changing public policy, land use, and social
values.  I look at our newly discovered desire to quantify yield as a
failure of nerve.  Twenty years is too short, we have hardly begun.  Must we
really counter every accusation levelled at us?  There is a gravity so
profound in the simplicity of sustainability that I am confused by the
succession of threads on this list that seek other justifications, yield
being just the latest incarnation of this insecurity.  Cultural change is a
complex process for agriculture and for society, we must remember that time
is the arbiter of our success and western scientific agriculture's failure.
We must be patient for the relationships between farmers, researchers,
suppliers, workers, unions, processors, retailers, consultants, consumers,
and policymakers to eventually shift and bring about the changes in policy,
economics, and society towards which we are all working.

Scientific research is the paradigm of evaluation in our society and indeed
we are vulnerable to its conclusions, *but*, we must not forget that
scientific practices are also culturally constructed and our efforts must be
channelled into changing the parameters by which success is calibrated.  If
permaculture responds to the charge of yield, it tallies its own failure.
In sustainable agriculture, in permanent agriculture, to concentrate on
yield is to capitulate, to cede and not seed the economics of change.



Souscayrous

---
You are currently subscribed to permaculture as: souscayrous@wanadoo.fr
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-permaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu
Get the list FAQ at:
http://www.ibiblio.org/ecolandtech/documents/permaculture.faq