Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - [permaculture] Viridian Principles Response Part Two

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Gaden@ziplip.com" <Gaden@ziplip.com>
  • To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [permaculture] Viridian Principles Response Part Two
  • Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 21:23:52 -0700 (PDT)

Viridian Principles Response Part Two

Re: John Schinnerer - ">Don't mistake mystic wish-fulfilment and the
promptings of your unconscious for objective evidence. So they don't want
absolute reality (or at least not someone else's...;-)but they do want
objective evidence. Good luck! John Schinnerer"

I think what they were getting at here was that it is not enough to simply
'vision' solutions. Solutions have to be doable. Wishing it so is not enough.
This has always been the biggest weakness in Utopian idealism. Nice idea, but
how do you get there from here? The 'objective evidence' part comes in
demonstrating that not only is it a great idea, but that we can also achieve
it. Here's the 'roadmap'....

Arguable, that was one of the weaknesses of the early implementation of
Permaculture (Garden of Eden) ideals. Having five acres of mature, well
balanced working Permaculture systems complete with reedbed filtration and
composting toilets is magnificent. But getting there from the badly degraded
dairy farm pasture you started with, is just bloody hard graft, sore backs
and callused hands. Visioning it (which is a vital part of the process) isn't
quite the same as doing it.

A different example of this is a statement that appeared in a post a little
while back. Something along the lines of "The earth cannot sustain its
current population. We have to significantly reduce the world population."
Wonderful piece of pseudo-science reductionist Cartesian logic (dumb
doggeral). (I'm critiquing the statement, not whoever wrote it:)

It's arguable correct. It's a nice 'power' statement as it gives the speaker
the solid (stolid) backing of scientific research. It's a 'feel good'
statement as it makes the speaker sound strong, decisive, knowledgable. It's
a piece of crap.

Picture this. You are walking around your allotment with a piece of paper. On
the paper, you have this statement written on it ("We have to significantly
reduce the world's population.") Just how to you plan on implementing that at
a personal level? Join a death cult and encourage broadscale euthanasia?

Toss out a few neutron bombs (destroys people but not infrastructure) into
population hotspots (Third world centres, obviously)? Withhold vaccines and
medications which may treat/prevent epidemics such as HIV AIDs, malaria, or
amoebic dysentery? Perhaps re-popularise the charming concept of Eugenics to
make sure only the 'right' people breed and survive?

I'm not questioning whether the statement on world population is correct.
(though Paul Ehrlich's original predictions are way behind schedule.) It is
just that it is an unworkable piece of doggerel. How do you get there from
here? To be viable and valuable a concept has to not only include a statement
of the problem, not just paint the pretty colours of the vision. It has to
also have a roadmap. It has to demonstrate doability, starting at the level
of the individual, the family, the community, the bioregion etc.

There are many great ideas in the world. Getting them to actually work, can
be a bit of a challenge

Gaiden

P.S. I'm not necessarily personally committed to the principles of the
Viridian movement. They just make an interesting starting point for dialogue.
(Viridian Principles
http://www.viridiandesign.org/notes/1-25/Note%2000003.txt )




  • [permaculture] Viridian Principles Response Part Two, Gaden@ziplip.com, 06/30/2003

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page