permaculture

[kevin skvorak <k.skvorak@gmail.com>]

I gotta chime in one more time!

i have much appreciated all the wise input. thanks everyone. (except the
abusers who are a problem for us all)

for clarity, self-defense, and perhaps useful addition to the conversation
(tho i doubt i can do that)

i want to say i resonate alot with chris' post below.

this is essentially my position as well. i didn't create permaculture. i
didn't design it around an ethical foundation.  i am simply asking the
question; "what does actually taking PC principles seriously look like in
practice?"

i ask in the first post i ask; "is two out of three enough to be considered
permaculture?"

i do NOT want to be a PC cop.  i DO want to understand how we actually,
practically, embody our ethics or not.  obviously (to me anyway)
exclusionary capitalist, or facist, or racist groups are NOT following PC
principles/ethics, so can we not simply articulate that? say it out loud?

and how do we offer accountability to each other on these issues?  and i
want accountability, or something like it NOT to judge or decide who is good
or who is bad  but because i believe "bad" PC  - ("bad" in this context
being PC designs, identifcation, "brand" usage etc that does not (even try
to) embody the central ethics) - is a negative reflection on all of us using
the brand.  it IS all of our business.

the reality is non-pc people will clearly judge whether a particular PC
identified project in their community is ethical or not, is hypocritical or
not, is only serving elite interests etc, so it would behoove us to in some
way make some of the same judgements, critical analysis, public peer review
etc etc

i wish i was as eloquent as so many others have been on this! i hope this
pint is coming across tho.

kevin



Message: 8
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:50:40 -0500
From: Christophe McKeon <polypus74@gmail.com>
To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [permaculture] Design / Ethics / Movement / etc.
Message-ID:
       <AANLkTik2VZRdKSQVyjmqzNHf_57wgtZqtQu3cAePG9Og@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

> These conversations have been extremely engaging and proactive.

indeed.

they've also gone on for quite a bit longer than i thought,
and perhaps longer than some would have wanted, but
that's what these lists are for aren't they. anyway, the
threads tenacity has given some time to chew on it a bit.

toby's conceptual division of permaculture into both a movement
and a design science is certainly a clarifying one which i've been
thinking about a bit.

i do think that permaculture whether we want it to be or not is a
movement, or might better be described as a multiplicity of movements.
the kind of hydra you get when you have no leader, and the kind that
resonates with me for that very reason.

but i think that the question as to whether it is a movement or not is not
really relevant here. fundamentally the problem some people have with
institutions such as the u.s. military is an ethical one. if permaculture
were
just a design science we wouldn't really have much to talk about here. what
does a design science ultimately have to say about the comportment of
some group or institution?

but it isn't just a design science, it is also a philosophical framework
with an ethical basis. in fact, i'd call the ethical component the root of
permaculture. ethics, if they are to have any teeth, must be able to make
value judgements both in the negative and in the positive. else why even
engage in them?

the u.s. military as an organization, is the largest consumer of energy
resources on the planet -- care of earth?

the aim of the military is to kill people in the name of such and such a
policy or such and such an idea. you may or may not agree with those
ideas, but the aim is clear -- care of people?

and finally, let's not be naive, throughout history one of the primary uses
of military force has been the acquisition of resources, and their
reallocation
to the vanquishing force, and the society driving that force -- fair share?

another way to say that, is that an institution such as the u.s. military
is the embodied antithesis of permaculture. that is why i think that the
points brought up by those with concerns about engagement with such
an institution are highly relevant enquiries into the very nature of what
it means to actually have a functional, relevant, and living ethics.

i happen to think that if there is somebody in the military who is willing
to listen even for a moment to anything having to do with permaculture,
there should not be an instant of hesitation in indulging them. that is
the positive inclusive nature of permaculture which i think has made
it as successful as it has been.

i also think that to dismiss concerns & analysis about the true nature
of the institutions that some of us may be dealing with, as politically
correct, or somehow overly radical, is to willfully ignore the antithetical
nature of those institutions to the very ethical roots of permaculture
itself.

so to recapitulate; i think that we should be able to honestly make
hard assessments in accordance with the most basic of permacultural
ethics without then having to take a counter-productive stance of purity
or exclusivity, vis a vis those groups or institutions assessed. ultimately
what this requires of us is flexibility of mind, and a certain degree
of tolerance
and humility.

_c