permaculture

[Toby Hemenway <toby@patternliteracy.com>]

On 9/13/04 7:24 PM, "Chad Knepp" <pyg@galatea.org> wrote:

> Determining the value of intellectual property is difficult in that
> there are many interelated and overlapping issues here.
[snip]

Very useful thoughts, Chad. In total agreement here, with one place I want
to clarify.

> Personally I think that high costs [of the PDC] are
> exclusionary

There's no doubt that they exclude some low-income people who are unable to
do, or are unaware of, work-trades. But I don't agree with the idea posted
by others that Pc will not reach people unless courses are cheaper. Pc has
already done a great job of reaching low-income alternative people; I think
this is the largest constituency of learners and practitioners of Pc and
most of them are resourceful enough (as has been shown here) to find ways
other than the PDC to learn. As a percentage of the general population,
we're reaching more of these people than any other group. But they are a
small fraction of the population (unfortunately!)

The huge group we are not reaching is the middle and upper-middle classes,
responsible for most resource use. They have ample means to afford a PDC,
but no way are they going to go to a shoe-string budget, pit-toilet/outdoor
shower/tent-camping 2 week course! I've seen them leave. Even the Sierra
Clubbing/LL Bean wearing Green types want comfort and beauty. A cheaper
course won't entice them, and these are the people who administer our
society. Yet there are very few $300/weekend, $1000/week courses, the type
they would consider going to. If you want to change society, you have to
reach the people who are doing the most to affect it. So I'd somewhat
waggishly advance the idea that PDCs should be more expensive, not less, so
they can be in more attractive venues (which is 2/3 the cost in residential
courses). Pc is big enough for many, many ways to teach it.

Toby
www.patternliteracy.com