permaculture

[Scott Pittman <pci@permaculture-inst.org>]

Toby Hemenway wrote:

> I agree that many who have taken a PDC don't understand what Pc is. Some of
> it is because lecture courses are not very effective relative to other
> formats. But I believe the reasons have much more to do with 1) a 72-hour
> PDC offers less time spent on the subject than a single college course (a
> tough college class is roughly 32 hours in class with 2-4 hours of
> homework/study for every hour in class--far more than a PDC and another
> reason I can't accept the 9- or 10-day format); and 2) Pc often is so wildly
> at variance with any other knowledge that the student has that there is no
> place for Pc knowledge to "sit." It doesn't fit, and takes more than one
> exposure for most people to grasp it. 
I couldn't agree more!  For most people to shift from a linear, 
specialist mindset to a pattern literate, right brained mode flies in 
the face of
their whole educational experience.  I have always thought that the 
Certification course presents a new matrix on which to build new information
and to reassemble knowledge already held into different relationships 
regarding visible and invisible structures.

Maybe everyone doesn't leave a permaculture designer but, with good 
teachers, they leave with a different mindset and way to look at the
world.  The course is life changeing for most who experience it, and 
that to me is the mark of its success.

> I've often wondered about this, both as to why that is, and also to what
> extent it is true. I'm not so familiar with eco-psychology, but ecological
> design has had some very powerful advocates in this country from the get-go:
> Whole Earth Review, Bill McDonough, and other vocal and charismatic voices;
> the Natural Step has Paul Hawken and a wide pool of scientists and
> financiers, and was specifically created at a high political level with
> their input and needs in mind.
I don't think that Green Capitalism, or Natural Step are contributing 
much to solving the problems of the world, and that they are successful for
that very reason, they don't challange the current social economic 
constructs, which are impoverishing the whole planet.  Capitalism is as
bankrupt as is communism but no one wants to rock the boat of a 
potential mass movement, another measure of success.  O f course they
get lots of money and get to redesign the Ford plant, they agree, 
basically, with the coporate/industrial model but would like for it to be a
little more green, to slow down the depletion of resourses so we have 
enough for seven generations instead of two.

They love Ford and Rockefeller money and would never challange the right 
of those families to own the wealth of whole nations while their
employees are likes rats in a wheel producing more wealth for the 
owners.  Any system of design that does not challenge the current 
distribution
of wealth, and the right of everyone to have meaningful, and 
appropriately compensated work is not worth discussing.


> Its (/permaculture)/ followers are often unwashed, angry,
> deliberately impoverished, and nearly as alienating as Mollison.
>
>  
I think that this is a little over stated and simplistic.  A lot of the 
people who come to pc for answers have rejected the current social/economic
model and are therefore a little shy of cash, but I find most of them 
very willing to create a new order, and searching for answers.  I am happy
that they find permaculture compelling, and I attempt to direct them, 
throught the course, to more positivistic ways to affect change rather than
curseing the dark. 

> There is no reason Pc couldn't have been used to redesign Ford's River Rouge
> plant instead of McDonough's approach. I suppose some would consider that a
> good thing, as if mainstream acceptance and financial prosperity somehow
> impugn our purity, but I think the ideas of Pc can coexist with prosperity.
> After all, nature is very materially abundant and constantly increases its
> own capital (biomass, energy capture, etc).
>
>  
I don't think that most in the pc movement have a problem with 
mainstream acceptance or financial prosperity, per se, but are unwilling to
sacrifice their ethics to accomplish such.  This doesn't necessarily 
mean that there is no acceptance or prosperity just that it takes a 
little longer.
Perhaps it is the  loss of ethical values that would impugn our purity.  
Nature is  very materially abundant but I have never seen a healthy
natural system in which one individual hogged all the available 
resources to the detriment, not only to other related individuals,  but 
to the whole
system.

> But also, I don't think Pc has "failed" to the extent Michael does. Pc is a
> grassroots approach; Eco-design and Natural Step are top-down approaches
> introduced with huge funding and big fanfare by famous people. One makes a
> big noise and get glitzy results; the other builds slowly. One could also
> say that the entire environmental movement is a failure: most Westerners
> still drive cars, eat fast food, buy non-organic, pollute grossly, and
> little significant legislation exists in the US to support it; yet its ideas
> have seeped into the culture. 
And there are thousands of individuals around the world providing good 
models for decent human behaviour.  The top-down
"glitzy" results are mostly smoke and mirrors, and when all is said and 
done have not changed much for the better.  After Anita
Roddick, and recycled carpet what else is there to point to that 
indicates a positive future??

> The same with Pc: I am seeing the word on the
> covers of magazines, in catalogs, in newspapers, and in schools in hugely
> greater numbers than ever before. Just as it will take a while to break our
> addiction to oil, it will take a while for Pc's radical notions to tunnel
> into the collective consciousness. They don't fit anywhere yet. But I'm
> willing to be patient.
>
>  
Amen brother!!, me too.

Scott