Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - [permaculture] Permaculture is not anthropocentric

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rain Tenaqiya <raincascadia@yahoo.com>
  • To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org, permaculture@openpermaculture.org
  • Subject: [permaculture] Permaculture is not anthropocentric
  • Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:49:20 -0700 (PDT)

When I first starting studying permaculture in 1992, I was wary of the
possible tendency to see the whole world as an anthropogenic garden, a garden
put here for us (as in the Bible), repeating a kind of New Age "spaceship
Earth" megalomania.  However, in all the main permaculture texts that I've
seen, there has always been a respect for the value of other species and for
wilderness which is left largely free to evolve on its own.  Bill Mollison
lays it out very clearly in the Designer's Manual that we are not to infringe
on the last remaining wild areas on the planet and that the second ethic of
Care for the Earth includes caring for the right of other species to continue
to exist.  (I am aware of all the problems inherent in the idea of
wilderness, and I am not talking about a black and white reality with clear
lines separating the wild from the domesticated, but rather of degrees of
humun influence [as in the Zones] and of intent.)
 
In the debate on how much emphasis to place on limiting humun reproduction,
there has been no mention of the need to limit our numbers so that other
species can continue to live on this planet with us.  Many of the estimates
of the carrying capacity of people on Earth would result in the extinction of
most of the world's megafauna.  Obviously, if all we want to end up with is a
bunch of grass with cows grazing, maybe we could maintain the current
population, as long as we cut back our consumption.  But if we want to give
all of our other animal (and plant) siblings a future, then we need to cut
our numbers back severely to something between half a billion to a billion,
as best as I can tell.
 
As I and others have stated recently, acknowledging limits is the basis for
any ecological ethic.  This is one of the main points that we need to drive
home (and I was very disappointed that Toby, champion of questioning
assumptions and stirring things up, would opt to eliminate the mentioning of
limiting population in the third ethic), and the use of restraint is one of
the key features of any permaculture design.  The "non-negotiable" way of
life in the US (according to Cheney) started with the use of slaves (with a
similar defense of the institution when it was being questioned) and has been
able to continue through the use of cheap fossil fuels and labor.  Denying
oneself the benefits of this exploitative culture and economy can be very
difficult, hence the need for clear ethics and peer pressure/support.
 
We need to limit humun population not just for our own survival, but for the
survival of all species.  If we are to establish a scientifically-based
number for the future humun population, then we need to be clear about how
much space to leave for other species.  This is a long-term plan that will
take hundreds of years to implement.  From what I can tell, many of our
megafauna cousins will only survive the current crises through captive
breeding programs and highly artificial conditions until they can be released
back into the wild.  This will require a religious commitment and huge
institutional support, something that will only be possible with a strong and
clear ethical basis.  Refusing to talk about the truth because it is
unpopular is not the way to create the kinds of changes that need to be made
given the mess that we have created.
 
Rain



>From jordan@riseup.net Sun Jul 19 20:24:07 2009
Return-Path: <jordan@riseup.net>
X-Original-To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
Received: by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix, from userid 3002)
id 465074C02A; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:24:07 -0400 (EDT)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on malecky
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=disabled version=3.2.3
Received: from mx1.riseup.net (mx1.riseup.net [204.13.164.18])
by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E88774C018
for <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>;
Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:24:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from swift.riseup.net (unknown [10.0.1.46])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "Gandi Standard SSL CA" (verified
OK))
by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D104C18D0E2
for <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>;
Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from swift.riseup.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by swift.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D214AFE02
for <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>;
Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:24:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) (SquirrelMail authenticated user jordan)
by swift.riseup.net with HTTP; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <b12baf4f599b05cebf69b1532513db3a.squirrel@swift.riseup.net>
In-Reply-To: <541902.41059.qm@web38108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <541902.41059.qm@web38108.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jordan Fink" <jordan@riseup.net>
To: "permaculture" <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Subject: [permaculture] on the Ethics
X-BeenThere: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Id: permaculture <permaculture.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture>,
<mailto:permaculture-request@lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture>
List-Post: <mailto:permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa@lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture>,
<mailto:permaculture-request@lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:24:07 -0000

I think i may have a different sense of the ethics than some folks.

I see them as a clear set of instructions on how to behavior rather than
separate rules.

I go to a piece of land. First i:
1. care for the earth: make the system flourish
this includes all the other species.

once the system is established, then you use it's abundance to:
2. care for people

one the people have been cared for you:
3. redistribute the surplus.
which means that you reinvest back in the land, to improve it even more,
to improve the care of people, etc. etc.

whenever i am working on any system: an organization, a community, a
garden, etc i look to the system first and care for it before i try to
take care of the people. Then i care for the people involved (including
myself) and then i take everything that's left and all surplus not
consummed and all available extra labor, and i reinvest that back into the
system.

seems pretty straightforward to me.

-jordan fink





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page