permaculture

["Lawrence F. London, Jr." <venaurafarm@bellsouth.net>]

On 8/8/2010 10:22 AM, kevin skvorak wrote:

> i want to respond with a little bit of detail about the military question,
> as i think the current thinking on it remains a bit muddled, in my opinion.
>
> my main observations on this would be:

Thanks for this amazing post, Kevin. My eyes have been opened. We have 
missed a lot from you during your absence. I won't respond to each 
paragraph or I would be at the computer for a good bit of time (like 
hours) and I have work to do outside, but I will do that in bits and pieces.

You did open quite a can of worms referring to the "plant quarantine" 
the US-Israeli group demanded, ostensibly to have access to plant 
germplasm they might use (steal) to create patented GMO material with 
drought resistant qualities for sale throughout the mideast and 
elsewhere where drought is a problem. Maybe some of these gmo plant 
varieties would be of great benefit to people and maybe they could be 
donated or sold at an affordable price to them or maybe with huge profit 
margin or withheld from some people. It does sound like the major 
players in this scenario were not being completely up front
with everyone. Then again the Arab/Jordanian people could just share
the plant germplasm with everyone according to the open source 
principle, for the good of all, with no profit motive, only cost 
recovery, i.e. any gmo varieties developed from that germplasm would be 
fully tested for safety on all fronts and could not be patented (partly 
so others could use the genetic material of the gmo to develop enhanced 
varieties). Maybe Toby can comment on whether this is a sound plan.

It does seem sometimes that implementing permaculture strategies, much 
less permaculture ethics, in Iraq, Afganistan and Pakistan as well as in 
other Middle East countries might be akin to David and Goliath, the tail 
wagging the dog and at worst Don Quixote revisited, because of the 
economic and military issues presently at work. I think there's hope. I 
say this partly from inspiration I derive from President Obama and his 
insistence that we try harder, do more, keep the faith and continue to 
hope and work for positive change, i.e. keep on keeping on and never 
give up, ever.

Factors complicating matters in Afganistan and neighboring regions where 
related conflicts have spread could include:
1) the assertion that the Pakistan ISI is aiding the Taliban and using 
them to keep Indian interests out of Afganistan, and there is the issue 
of Kashmir. In yesterday's news was the announcement of the murder by 
the Taliban of eight doctors who had volunteered for humanitarian 
assistance in an area of Afganistan (northwest) known to be dangerous.
This also happened years ago to members of the Medecin Sans Frontiere
in a similarly dangerous area. So, who is siding with whom? Is this just 
another case of corporate and big money interests using military 
resources available to them to get what they want without any regard for 
the people of Afgaistan, indigenous folks from varying ethnic, tribal 
and religious backgrounds?
2) opium and heroin and who controls production and trade
3) vast untapped mineral reserves in Afganistan (and possibly also Pakistan)
4) oil pipelines from oil-rich former soviet countries needing to be 
installed through Afganistan to connect with:
5) a huge new port and trade corridor going inland on the coast of 
Pakistan serving eastern countries (i.e. China) and the western world.
6) the current flooding in Pakistan
7) the issue of the Baluchis in Iran and Pakistan and their contention 
that they are not getting their fair share of profits from 
oil/gas/mineral resources in their region (they were in the news recently)
8) this list could probably go on for several more pages
9) maybe all of the above should be ignored and disregarded and instead 
focus 100% and only on the spread of permaculture in practice and 
permaculture wisdom and knowledge for the benefit of the people of 
Afganistan and in other middle eastern and eastern countries in 
desperate need of this technology and means of survival.

> i want to offer another short example, and i know people will see this as a
> personal attack, but be that as it may here goes.
>
> a few yrs ago Geoff Lawton was working on another effort in Jordan.  In this
> case a USAID funded effort that required, in order to get the funding, that
> it be an effort that included israeli participation.  (the project as i
> understood it was something to do with "plant quarantine"  and i suspect the
> Israeli and US interest was in access to genetic material from arab
> countries traditional drought resistant varieties for israeli GMO
> programs) it turned out that Geoff at al were not able to persuade very many
> Jordanian NGO's to partner in the effort, something that  should have been
> obvious to him as first glance at the proposal, yet it was something he
> didn't seem to want to think about.  he just seemed to want to remain blind
> to the social ecology involved, much less  the potential consequences to the
> PC movement for being identified in the minds of jordanian and arab folks on
> the ground as being aligned with a project like this.

> so, for me, this question of "ethics" it is about effectiveness in the
> movement. if an average arab, afghan, US, any person anywhere has their very
> first exposure to PC being a press release from the Pentagon about their new
> green PC intiative to 'help' the people of afghanistan, (or whatever the
> latest military effort is)  do you believe this is going to advance, or
> setback the movement of PC ideas into these communities?

There's no need for preconceived notions or paranoia about the Pentagon, 
influencing people's interest in and acceptance of any new, 
human-oriented, effective, permaculture-based long term survival 
strategies that they propose, offer or implement in the field.

> That's enough for now.  I realize this is somewhat challenging stuff.

Which is good for all of us.

> I don't believe tho that any of what i have written should be characterized
> as personal attack.  i do not want to engage in personal attacks, flame
> wars, or online abuse., nor do i want to suffer it myself.  i do believe
> these are legitimate and needed conversations for everyone involved in PC if
> we are to grow in our effectiveness.

And that is an understatement.