permaculture

[rafter sass <liberationecology@gmail.com>]

Thanks again to everyone for the impassioned and well-reasoned responses and 
proposals...
especially those that were both! 

Thanks, especially, to Scott for the wonderfully illuminating response to my 
initial email (below),
and to Kevin for sparking off and staying with this incredibly useful debate.

Scott, it was great to hear more about your thinking and teaching for the 
National Guard project,
as well as one various aspects of the PDC canon curriculum. Makes me wish I 
could (re)take a PDC
with you! Your argument for keeping the global perspective in PDCs, rather 
than moving toward 
bioregional perspectives, is compelling.

Kevin, it was great to see deeper into your argument over the course of 
several iterations. I admire 
the determination with which you advance your arguments, while resisting the 
urge (or at least, I would 
have had the urge) to respond in kind to all the name-calling, self-righteous 
dismissals, and ad hominem attacks.
Way to stay the course! 

Glad to be sharing a movement with you both.
Hoping we can collaborate on building a culture that is allergic to neither 
leadership nor critique.
I suspect that shedding these allergies might be required of us in the coming 
years.

Best,
rafter

P.S. Thanks, Scott, for the reference to Extreme Inequality Working Group! 
I'll definitely be
using their materials in the future.


rafter sass
liberationecology.org

On Aug 16, 2010, at 2:11 PM, rafter sass wrote:

> 
> rafter sass
> liberationecology.org
> 
> On Aug 16, 2010, at 2:02 PM, rafter sass wrote:
> 
> Scott--
> The pc ethics are circular in their interconnectedness each one encompassing
> the other in a different aspect.  When I teach I spend a couple of days just
> covering the ethics and their implications.  
> 
> How on Earth does one begin to "Care for the Earth" with our overwhelming
> ignorance of how the Earth really functions?  So the beginning is to become
> a student of the Earth; therefore zone 5 is a first step.  I insist on a
> zone 5 even in a small back yard; If nothing else to curtail our innate
> tendency to "fix" or "beautify" natures' process. This zone provides our
> first interaction or conversation subject (as described by Ben above)
>> 
>> Rafter:
>> I have often thought that Pc ethics are taught in a watered-down and
>> feel-good style that does more to create good vibes and excitement than it
>> does to challenge students, or help designers navigate the sometimes-murky
>> waters of choosing clients and partners.
>> 
>> The way I think about the ethics, and the way I train future designers,
>> revolves around the idea of putting some meat - and maybe even teeth -
>> behind the ethics.
>> 
> Scott:
> 
> I couldn't agree more!  Unfortunately ethics aren't the only thing watered
> down; "Invisible structures" are becoming more and more invisible in the
> curriculum.  Mollison taught that "visible structures" was what to do, and
> "invisible structures" was how to do.
> 
> Unfortunately choosing clients and partners is a crap shoot; one can only
> ask so many questions and do so much research into the intentions of a
> prospective client.  I have yet to have a client that was 100% on board with
> all of the ethics and principals when it really got down to decision making,
> particularly if there were costs involved in being ethical.
>> 
>> Rafter:
>> 
>> That "care" is a tricky term, after all - because it can refer to emotion
>> alone. I like to think that, as used in the ethics, it actually refers to
>> the action of caring - of taking care of. So the question becomes, how do 
>> we
>> know when we are taking care of the earth, of people?
>> 
>> We can and should choose indicators and benchmarks, to help us know when we
>> are following the ethics, and when we are coming up short. Specific 
>> measures
>> are up to the designer, but there a few questions that I think the ethics
>> demand that we ask:
> Scott:
> 
> Funny, it has never occurred to me that the full definition of "care" would
> ever be reduced to the emotional only!  I have always thought of the word as
> both an emotional concern and attachment as well as stewardship or
> caretaking.  Without the heart care what would be the motivation for the
> taking care of??
> 
>> Rafter:
>> 
>> Care for the Earth: What, really, is our measure of ecosystem health? The
>> most popular in the Pc movement seem to be biodiversity and energy capture,
>> but I would easily accept topsoil depth, presence of top predators,
>> decreases in nutrient or contaminant runoff in surface waters,
>> structural/functional diversity, etc. etc. 
>>      What matters to me is not which indicator, but that there IS one -
>> that we have ways to measure our results - and see if we measuring up.
>> 
> Scott:
> 
> One of the reasons I am loath to let go of any sections of the pc curriculum
> is because regional perspectives leave out so much of the total system, what
> and what first enamored me of permaculture was that it was a whole system
> approach.  The Earth is a whole system, and one must know much more than
> temperate mountain ecosystems to understand the water cycle, for example.
> Soil pH makes much more sense if one understands the difference between
> tropical and dryland soil types. 
> 
>> Rafter:
>> 
>> Care for People: What is our measure for social health? Trickier, even, 
>> than
>> measuring ecosystem health, but we still have to *actually think about it*
>> if we want to accomplish it. The way that I interpret this ethic is 
>>              How is this project helping this community USE AND CONTROL
>> its own resources sustainably - or regeneratively? 
>>              How is this project helping a community take control of its
>> own destiny - to self-determine?
>> 
>> Maybe not as easy to come up with a number or a measure for this, but I 
>> want
>> to hear you (and me) at least make an honest case for how your work is 
>> doing
>> this.
> Scott:
> 
> I would add:
>       How is this project creating non-threatening connections between
> members of the community. 
> 
>> Rafter:
>> 
>> Redistribute Surplus: Trickier still, most often neglected, and exactly as
>> crucial as the other two. This one merits a little digression.
>> 
>>       Most into to Pc presentations start with an "Evidence" section.
>> That's classic Pc, as many folks are aware - to spend just a few minutes on
>> doom and gloom, and then focus on solutions for the rest of the time. I
>> present the usual littany of bummers for my evidence section -
>> deforestation, soil loss,climate, peak, etc. etc., and then as the last
>> item, I put up a slide on "Inequality." I use this graphic for the slide: 
>> 
>>      
>> http://contexts.org/graphicsociology/files/2009/05/conley_champagne_distribu
>> tion.png
>> 
>>      Then I have a little discussion on "Why is inequality an ecological
>> problem?"
>> 
>>      These are generally very productive. 
>> 
>>      My own answers are - 
>>      (1) Because of the environmental EFFECTS of inequality: poor
>> communities are unable to defend themselves against toxic discharges, and 
>> have no buffer against instability in the eco-eco systems, so bear
>> disproportionate effects - ESPECIALLY disproportionate compared to their
>> impact.
>> 
>>      (2) Because inequality is an environmental DRIVER: as long as their
>> are people who are calling the shots about production and extraction who 
>> are
>> 
>> making a killing, and can buffer themselves from the effects indefinitely,
>> AND those who do the work and bear the effects don't have any decision
>> making power about production and extraction, THERE WILL BE NO
>> SUSTAINABILITY. Research supports this statistically: in counties, states,
>> and nations (3 different studies) the more inequality, the worse
>> environmental outcomes.
>> 
>>      (3) And finally, because it's just freaking ecological, isn't it?
>> The movement of energy and matter through complex living systems is the
>> stuff of ecology, and we can use that lens and those tools to understand 
>> it,
>> and to change it.
>> 
>>      SO, back to the 3rd Ethic. The way I see it, the question that the
>> 3rd Ethic "Redistribute Surplus" demands of us is: 
>>              How is my work helping, in some way, to begin to flatten the
>> terrible mountain of inequality that lies between us and true
>> sustainability?
>>              Or, to reverse the metaphor, how is my work helping to fill
>> the chasm that separates the 20% world from the 80% world that MUST be
>> filled to
>> regenerate our culture and biosphere?
>> 
> Scott:
> 
> I can't tell you how happy I was to see that your iteration of the third
> ethic is "Redistribute Surplus" rather than "Fair Share".  I personally use
> the Mollisonian "Return of all Excess" but your form serves me as well.  
> Fair share implies a judgment of what is "Fair", to my mind this is a gaping
> hole in the third ethic.  There is no ambiguity in Redistribute Surplus or
> in Return of all Excess, unless one gets into the discussion of what is
> Surplus or Excess.  
> 
> My discussion of the third ethic begins with "if you can't return excess to
> care of the Earth and people then it must be toxic and shouldn't be produced
> in the first place. This means that feedlots break the third ethic by
> producing manure that is loaded with salts, antibiotics, and hormones which
> can't be returned to the system.  So all of our outputs have to be useful to
> the system at large.
> 
> I also believe that excess wealth or income is toxic to the system and a
> disincentive to the democratic process.
> 
> I spent a lot of time with the National Guard just trying to drum into their
> heads that whatever they do had to first conform to the pc ethics filter.
> What I have found in tribal situations is that they apply the same ethics to
> their living situation but that one needn't apply them to other tribes, and
> this is certainly true of the Afghanistan situation. 
> 
> I also like the graphic you included, I use a series of graphics from
> "Working Group of Extreme Inequality"
> 
>> Rafter:
>> 
>> As for Scott's flirtation with the military-industrial complex, I'm 
>> actually
>> not all that interested in having an opinion. 
>> I'd rather hear more, and ask some questions, than figure out if it was OK
>> or NOT OK. ;)
> 
> Scott:
> 
> Except for you choice of the word "flirtation" I appreciate you giving me
> the benefit of the doubt; having not received this benefit from Kevin.  
> 
>> Rafter:
>> 
>> Thanks again, Kevin, for spurring discussion of crucial topics.
>> 
> Scott:
> 
> In a very round about way I guess you are right!
> 
> 
>> 
>> Best,
>> Rafter
>> 
>