Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] The Fed

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Martin Naylor <martinwnaylor@yahoo.com.au>
  • To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] The Fed
  • Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 03:16:22 +1000 (EST)

who was that clown Woodrow Wilson[and what did he say-i have just done the
biggest mistake in history by giving the fucking clowns control of the
financial assets of the world to the fucking Jews,just after they sent
senator F. H. King on a journey around the world to report on stuff [
Farmers of 40 centuries- although i drought that,and he reported back farmers
of forty centuries ] that if you get into oil deserts will increase and
depletion of soil will result

The reason PERMACULTURE IS NOT WIDE SPREAD IS BECAUSE MR BILL MOLLISON
DECLARED WE WILL NOT BE SCUMMED BY THE AUTHORITIES -LIKE IT OR NOT -

Paul Cereghino <paul.cereghino@comcast.net> wrote:
"why is it that permaculture [as an example of decentralized ecological
design] has such a small cult following in the US rather than having
broad attention and appeal?".

>I suspect because the educational system, does not support it

I learned about permaculture by going to college, and though the college
didn't teach permaculture, it did teach a range of skills that I have
retrofitted, and it gave me resources with which to make choices about
how I apply my life energy to affect the fabric of human ecologies.
There is a little of the chicken or the egg here, in that you need
people who think ecological design to teach ecological design... I
wonder if integration into primary and secondary education would be more
powerful? Over the last 20 years there are increasing academic programs
teaching 'holistic' stuff, and this is because they are competing for
students who demand 'holistic' stuff. The populice and the dominant
economic model doesn't support it, and the educational system is just a
service provider.

I want to redirect the character of this analysis -- this idea that Pc
doesn't thrive because of 'them' or 'the system'. That is just the easy
way out. If we are such good designers, then lets design! The problem
is the solution, right... so show me! Least action greatest response?
Show me! Why is it when we come to human systems we throw up our hands
and say 'the system' is flawed? Perhaps we are just ignorant of the
actual design context?!

>there are not vast economic dependancies associated with it, in the
minds of policy makers
>material returns of investors, rather than address the investments of
the natural world
> you might find yourself working as a carpenter.

I think these combine -- Pc doesnt produce revenue that can be
concentrated to produce a lobbying force or a political caucus.
Pc offers guilt free subsistance but the potential for emotionally
stressful isolation. It is land dependant, but land ownership is
concentrated, and it is difficult to own land outside the
investment-mortgage system without fleeing population centers -- so
again, isolation. Then there is also increasing insecurity in becoming old.

>The uncertainties of business are being minimized by causing the
customers to behave in a way to allow for a significant return beyond
expenditures.

The horrific irony is that 'causing the customers to behave' part is
very penetrating and pervasive. It is a economic landscape phenomena
that must be overcome. The Pc idea is that you invest the surplus in
the land -- not give it to a shareholder. So you limit you
'constituency'. Pc has a very limited 'constituency'. Economic
interest groups use their surplus to influence the economic landscape
for the benefit of their industry. Pc is busy working on soil fertility
on land they have barely secured, while the rest of the world is
creating the cultural infrastructure in support of their revenue
streams. The Pc answer is that the rest of the word will fall apart and
settle into Pc and so we focus on soil rather then 'the system' or 'the
man'. Is that a safe or accurate assumption?

I think land ownership is central to this thread. If I owned land
outright, I would have more options, but I trade work for land over a
lifetime, and to squirrel away capital for future security. Although I
deviate from norms quite substantially, some of my behaviors are quite
normal, because they are driven by economic insecurity context.

>If your not perceived by those pulling the strings in society as
acceptable your going to be swimming up stream a lot.

But only when you are dependant on string pulling, i.e. you are not
generating your own revenue, not generating your own power, rather you
are trying to appeal to a non-functioning populist ideal and you go
appealing to the string-pullers and find that they have no interest or
use for you. If you want to redirect the stream you learn the stream
dynamics and start looking for weakness in the bank where you can cause
an avulsion.

>Permaculture is a frontier and that is why you don't find lots of
people out there. It is not what
>has been going on the last 10,000 in agriculture.

Perhaps I am an unforgiving perfectionist, but I am not convinced that
our designs are so spankin' special at this point.

Paul Cereghino



_______________________________________________
permaculture mailing list
permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
-go to the above link to subscribe to or unsubscribe from this list-







---------------------------------
How would you spend $50,000 to create a more sustainable environment in
Australia? Go to Yahoo!7 Answers and share your idea.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page