Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] 3rd ethic

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Lee Flier <leeflier@comcast.net>
  • To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] 3rd ethic
  • Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:47:37 -0500

Hi folks,

I haven't had a lot of time or inclination to participate in this list of late, although I still lurk when I can. I really enjoy reading all the different points of view and usually, someone else says something like what I'd have been likely to say, so I don't feel inclined to jump in. :)

But this discussion brought up something interesting. I did my PDC in 1997 with Bill Mollison and Scott Pittman (hi Scott!), and I wrote down the 3 ethics as they were presented in the class, in my class notes which I still have. And it's interesting to me that Bill apparently has expressed the 3rd ethic differently at different times, because I thought the way it was presented in my class was perfectly stated. The 3 ethics were:

1) Care of the earth.
2) Care of people.
3) The return of surplus to care of the earth and its people.

This is how I have always taught it to others, and I think it's a perfect way of stating it for several reasons:

1) It underscores the patterns of care, surplus and abundance as being *cyclical*, as Toby described eloquently in his article. The third ethic feeds into the first two and vice versa, and there are cyclical patterns of scarcity and abundance. It's not a linear progression.

2) There's not such a need to define "how much is too much?" or "what is surplus?" in hard terms because by following the ethics as stated, giving and receiving are basically the same thing. If you follow the third ethic, you are naturally following the first two, and if you follow the first two, you will naturally follow the third. Anything you invest in care of the earth (in which you live) and of people (of which you are one) is something you will also personally benefit from. This concept seems to have been discussed in this thread, but I think the way it's worded above is a great way to express the concept.

So I was surprised to hear there's been so much restating of this ethic. It seemed clear to me from the beginning. :D




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page