permaculture

[<neotern-1@yahoo.com>]

A lot of mindbreaking here about difficult concepts
(the value of money, of "intellectual property",
etc.), for which the answer lies in practice rather
than in theory from my point of view.

I went to the monthly course of Mr. Cardon in Mouscron
last Sunday, and would like to describe how things are
organised there. I already mentioned Mr. Cardon, but I
notice that it is important to describe in detail how
he organizes things - I think 3/4 of the problems and
knots in this discussion will seem somewhat absurd
afterwards.

Two Sundays per month, Mr. Cardon and an old friend of
his put a lot of chairs in the backroom of his house,
next to Mr. Cardons permaculture garden, and talk
during two hours about gardening. In fact it resembles
more a discussion group, as anyone can and will
intervene at any time. Sometimes the room is
completely crowded to burst, sometimes there are
"only" 15-20 people. The talks are about things
relevant for the time of the year, and go from detail
to the underlying principles and back in a natural
flow. At times there are demonstrations and hands-on
experience, at times it's two hours of discussion. I
came back a lot wiser than when I arrived - and none
the poorer.

These courses take place in Mr. Cardons house, so
there is no extra cost for him. Maybe some people will
see this as a cost (he could live smaller without the
courses, he could do something more economically
rewarding in the same room, whatever...), Mr. Cardon
does not. Neither does he see this as giving away
something which has cost him energy and/or money
before, or a special skill for which he should be
rewarded, and I should think that the concept of
intellectual property is completely alien and somewhat
 absurd to him. 
Everyone can take notes as he pleases or not, and one
photocopied page with some basic information is handed
out after the course.
Does Mr. Cardon loose energy for which he should be
rewarded? He doesn't look like it. It seems to me he
even gains in energy, being rewarded with the
knowledge that permaculture is spreading through him -
and there goes the burnout-problem.

So he doesn't loose energy, nor is he deprived of
reward for his skills, as far as he's concerned.
And what about the money?
Mr. Cardon and his wife, apart from the courses, also
organise a food-sharing group (where people put their
money together to buy large quantities much cheaper
than everyone for himself), and to be legal, he had to
start a cooperative. Membership of this cooperative
costs 2US$ a year, and this gives free access to the
courses (including the photocopies), free access to
the garden (including "browsing" the abundant fruit) -
as any passer-by has, for that matter -, free access
to the extensive library, and the possibility to share
in the food-group and to buy seeds (about 10 cents per
package).
This cooperative is self-sufficient, the gains are
just sufficient to cover the (very small) costs, and
there are no losses.

Before his retirement, he worked as an independent -
another skill, a contributing to society for which
society was willing to pay money without problems.
Society wants nice floors in their houses (Mr.
Cardon's paid job), and apparently doesn't want
permaculture all that much. That's how things are, we
shouldn't complain about it, I think, but rather
adapt.

And who puts his energy, time and money in supervising
the library, checking membership payments, collecting
money from the seed sales, etc. etc.? The answer is:
nobody. All this happens in complete confidence: you
just grab a book from the library-shelf, jot it down
in a booklet, and bring it back afterwards; you take
the seeds from the shelf yourself and pay to Mr.
Cardon or his wife what you owe them, without them
counting or checking up. When you become member, you
put your name, address and telephone number on a piece
of paper, and deposit it together with 1.5 euros in a
cardboard box. As Mr. Cardon says, those who cheat or
steal will have to come to terms with their conscience
and/or with God, not with him.

And what did it cost me? The train fare, that's it.
(And two hours of energy :-) )

So I wonder why not everyone who has a permaculture
garden can do this one or two days per month, during
two hours? 4 hours per month! It seems nothing, but I
can assure you that for those who have the opportunity
to follow the courses, it means a great deal.

Giving PDC courses for a 1000$ the fortnight is fine,
no problem, but for me it's a kind of "extra", a
supplemental service. It's a completely fair means of
income for permaculture activists, but it is not and
can never be the primary vector for the spread of
permaculture.
For me the "Cardon-style" courses are the foundation
of such a spread, the basis, AND the least anyone with
a permaculture garden and -knowledge should do for
permaculture, the planet, and for everybody -
including himself.

Cheers,
Bart

 --- Chad Knepp <pyg@galatea.org> escribió: 
> Toby Hemenway writes:
>  > On 9/10/04 4:50 AM, "neotern-1@yahoo.com"
> <neotern-1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>  > 
>  > > I agree that one should not loose money passing
> the
>  > > information (costs must be shared by everyone),
> but
>  > > can't see why one should gain money either in
> this
>  > > way.
>  > 
>  > How can you pass information without there being
> some cost? And why is it so
>  > bad if some of that cost is money, or if the
> information passer decides they
>  > would like to be paid in money? If the "passer"
> sets too high a price, no
>  > one will buy, and they'll learn to be reasonable.
> If they're just
>  > photocopying easily available work, they can't
> charge much, although even
>  > the work involved in copying and posting on a web
> site is worth something,
>  > yes? It's not free.
>  >  
>  > Stewart Brand says he regrets ever having said
> "information wants to be
>  > free," since it's become the justification for
> piracy and theft. Basic
>  > physics (information theory) says information is
> not free: there is an
>  > energetic cost for assembling a coherent message,
> a cost for preserving it
>  > from corruption, plus transmission and equipment
> costs. Cost decline with
>  > more users, but they never go away.
>  > 
>  > To put that in human terms: Writing and posting
> an article on my web site,
>  > even if I'm just rehashing someone else's ideas,
> takes my time and energy,
>  > the cost of my years of experience, plus a bit of
> cash to my web host, some
>  > of my computer's cost, ISP, phone co., etc. So
> it's not free. I do it
>  > because I want the information to be out there,
> but also because I hope
>  > someone might notice my book or go to one of my
> workshops, which in turn
>  > will give me the cash to pay my mortgage so I can
> then write more articles
>  > in my home office. I could, I realize, live
> further down the food
>  > chain--live in a squat and do my writing at the
> library, etc, but who's
>  > funding the library? Why should the other
> taxpayers support me? I'd rather
>  > live in a way that allows me to see and pay for
> as much of the true cost of
>  > my own lifestyle, rather than sucking resources
> out others as though they
>  > owed me; they don't. A resource is like
> right-of-way: it is offered, not
>  > forced out of someone. That would be called
> theft, yes?
>  > 
>  > If someone wants to Xerox part of my book, it's
> illegal but it's fine with
>  > me. I want the info out there (but please credit
> me; that's how you can pay
>  > me back). If someone can't afford the book, go
> ahead and Xerox the whole
>  > thing (though if you are stealing your employer's
> photocopier, where are the
>  > ethics in that?). But if wholesale piracy meant
> that I didn't receive much
>  > compensation for the 6 months of research, year
> of writing, months of
>  > editing and design, and weeks of book tours, I
> would never write another
>  > book again--I couldn't afford to. So there'd be a
> lot less information out
>  > there if too many people regarded it as "free,"
> meaning they just take it
>  > without offering a quid pro quo. Most creators
> can't afford to create
>  > without some sort of return. (Copyright law was
> enacted to give creators a
>  > monopoly on their work so they would be rewarded
> and go on creating; read
>  > the legal decisions.)
>  >
>  > Why would anyone ever think they don't need to
> pay for something they
>  > receive? What entitles them to freeload? Where is
> the possible logic or
>  > social justice in "I think X should be free"?
> Will someone explain that one
>  > to me?
> 
> Determining the value of intellectual property is
> difficult in that
> there are many interelated and overlapping issues
> here.  One of the
> primary ones is the cost of creating intellectual
> property and the
> cost of distributing it; the confusion occurring
> when as a cost they
> are grouped together.
> 
> The cost of creating intellectual property is a real
> cost and is
> certainly worth rewarding if our society expects to
> support the
> continuation of such an endeavor.  Objective
> valuation of of IP has
> become somewhat distorted in western culture with a
> highly variable
> reward system valuing entertainment above most other
> intellectual
> pursuits (if they can be grouped together).  Even in
> art/entertainment
> some work of value goes comparatively under-rewarded
> simply because it
> doesn't catch the eye of mainstream.
> 
> The cost of the dissemination of information can
> vary, but is almost
> always a fraction of the cost of creation.  In some
> cases the cost of
> distribution is very close to zero, especially in
> the distribution of
> electronic media where creating a digital copy of
> something is mere
> keystrokes of effort.  I think many arguments
> necessitating the
> freedom of infomation are based on this and ignore
> (to great expense)
> the cost of creation.
> 
> For me the problem is that the current system
> rewards the creation of
> intellectual property by overcharging for the
> packaging and
> distribution.  A music CD at the store in quantity
> costs less than $1
> to make but sells for $12-$18, with only a small
> portion of the
> over-manufacturing costs going to the artist. 
> Obviously something is
> seriously wrong here, but I don't think the solution
> is piracy.  I
> have some ideas on how to change this but they are
> not fully formed
> and the my intitial stammering would only take up a
> lot of
> space... blah, blah, blah, something about 'fair
> trade' coffee,
> wikipedia.org, etc. ;-)
> 
> In summary, I think part of the direction of this
> thread has been a
> question of whether or not PCD courses accurately
> reflect the cost of
> the dissemination of the information with a subtext
> that the high
> costs may be exclusionary.  There has not been as
> much discussion that
> cost of creation of the IP in question plays a
> significant role in the
> cost of the courses.  Personally I think that high
> costs are
> exclusionary whether or not they reflect actual
> costs, but I
> acknowledge that there is only so much any one
> person can do.
> 
> The way I self-typify my attitude toward the sharing
> of information is
> highly similar to that of a religious
> advocate/zealot.  I want people
> to know about permaculture for the exact same reason
> that those two
> young, clean shaven men in suits where knocking on
> your door last
> month.  We both believe that we have something to
> tell you that will
> make your life better and the world a better place. 
> I think most
> permaculturalists feel similarly and are into PC for
> moral/ecological/quality of life reasons, not
> monetary gain.
> 
> Toby: I really appreciate the informal statement of
> copyleft of your
> book.  I realize that merely attributing the work to
> you doesn't
> compensate for your exertion monetarily and I'm
> sorry I don't have a
> good solution to this but I really appreciate that
> you 
=== message truncated === 

=====
"There is not much to be done against them, but everything without them."

Registered Linux User #314712 (http://counter.li.org/)

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
La mejor conexión a internet y 25MB extra a tu correo por $100 al mes. 
http://net.yahoo.com.mx