permaculture

[A Sampson-Kelly <april@permaculturevisions.com>]

Everyone, (whether they are rich or poor) has to go home, and many have 
family. at some point they start to question their lifestyle.
It is this questioning that gives permaculture a foot in the door.
I'm up to my 1000th student now. I've taught lecturers and doctors, poor 
people and excessive rich.
I treat them all the same and work under the assumption that when they 
are ready they will act.
10 years later sometimes, they write and say thankyou.
BTW if I didn't have a standard to teach to I would have been out of 
business years ago.

April S-Kelly

http://www.permaculturevisions.com


On 26/10/2010 12:51 PM, permaculture-request@lists.ibiblio.org wrote:
> Send permaculture mailing list submissions to
>         permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         permaculture-request@lists.ibiblio.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         permaculture-owner@lists.ibiblio.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of permaculture digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>     1. Re: official certification (Robert Waldrop)
>     2. Re: official certification (Killian O'Brien)
>     3. Re: official certification (Killian O'Brien)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 19:59:41 -0500
> From: Robert Waldrop<bwaldrop@cox.net>
> To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [permaculture] official certification
> Message-ID:<4CC627FD.6020904@cox.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Fortunately, this isn't an either-or situation.  We don't have to focus
> on the elite, or the grassroots.  Each in the
> movement/tradition/community/discipline/whatever-it-is-we-are should
> reach out to their natural constituency.  I will never teach a ceo or
> any elite person. They would never come to someone like me, i am too
> non-traditional.  but i fit in fine with the grassroots, the poor, the
> marginalized, the rest of us living out here on the edge with our new
> neighbors who are being pushed this way.  i am not qualified to do a pdc
> on my own yet, but give me another couple of years and that ought to be
> a reality.
>
> Bob Waldrop
> Barking Frogs and Prairie Rose Permaculture, Oklahoma City
> http://www.energyconservationinfo.org
>
>
> > "I don't think that an effective way to spread permaculture is to target the poor 
> > or the radicals (although I won't discourage someone from doing that). You only change 
> > one person at a time that way. I think it is far more effective to offer it to policy 
> > makers, universities, planners, CEOs, developers--the elite, if you will."
> >
> > You are correct that we will disagree, but that is exactly what I was saying 
> > about old and new paradigms. Your approach simply doesn't seem to have much 
> > chance of working because we are so close to large bifurcations in all 
> > domains. Virtually all those you are speaking of, and to, have no sense at 
> > all that collapse is a possibility, so they *cannot* come up with the 
> > solutions except by accident. They don't understand sustainability because 
> > they don't understand 2nd Law implications.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:44:26 -0400
> From: Killian O'Brien<admin@pri-de.org>
> To: permaculture<permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: Re: [permaculture] official certification
> Message-ID:
>         
> <7E471FF35774474AA10A2EEEF1CAB26A014A02640E6D@P1EC1EVS03.HMC1.COMCAST.NET>
>         
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hello cory,
>
> "Why talk about who is going in the wrong direction, any more than who people are 
> teaching?  Who could possibly adjudicate that for someone else?"
>
> When one makes clear they are stating an opinion, that should be enough. I was careful 
> to use terms like "I think," etc. Who is adjudicating anything for anybody? 
> Not at all what I said.
>
> "Dont' we desire diversity in the system?"
>
> I said very clearly that both approaches should be followed, but that the 
> milieu, particularly going forward, argues against complex structures.
>
> I'm glad you see some merit in my suggestions; I realize I am suggesting 
> nothing new. I do hope that if such a system were established it would be 
> separate from any institutional process, though institutions certainly could 
> also use it for assessment.
>
> I sort of instinctively shy away from areas of concentration, for real world experience 
> so often doesn't lend itself to that. Perhaps we either leave it to the adjudicators to 
> determine if a critical mass of knowledge and experience exists, or set up some 
> percentage of the "grade" as minimal knowledge and leave the rest to be 
> defended by the person sitting their boards?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Killian O'Brien
> PRI-De
> admin@pri-de.org
> (313) 647-4015
>
> killiankob@yahoo.com
> (760) 617-4693
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: permaculture-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org 
> [mailto:permaculture-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Cory Brennan
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 6:52 PM
> To: permaculture
> Subject: Re: [permaculture] official certification
>
> Why talk about who is going in the wrong direction, any more than who people 
> are teaching?  Who could possibly adjudicate that for someone else?  Dont' we 
> desire diversity in the system? Maybe we are just blowing off steam here; 
> perhaps we shouldn't be arguing about any of this but instead focused on 
> creating beneficial connection with one another so we are more powerful and 
> effective as a group.
>
> Killian, I've spoken to policy makers who are scared sh*tless by what is going on. They 
> have been briefed by scientists and are seriously freaked out. Some of them, so much 
> so, that they are paralyzed - they aren't doing anything about it or even talking about 
> it because "people will panic."  They are like drowning people in a lake. 
> Throw them a floatie and they will grab on reflexively. We have the floaties.  Don't 
> assume these guys cannot be reached - they can be and have been. I was invited to join 
> my city's sustainability committee because I'm a permaculturist. Things are changing at 
> all levels. I've also worked at grass roots community level as a social activist and 
> social permaculturist and it is powerful. I think they work hand in hand and I'm really 
> glad Killian, that you are doing what you're doing (as you know), and I'm also really 
> glad Toby is doing what he is doing. And all the rest of ya'll too! :-)  I am seriously 
> grateful to everybody out
>   there who is doing something, anything, to provide alternatives to the 
> insane way we do things now.
>
> Killian, I like your ideas for certification, etc. As a home schooler that never uses 
> "grade systems", I find portfolios tremendously useful - many colleges are 
> weighting those more heavily than transcripts at this point. As a note, when PRI was 
> doing the certification, they did require a presentation of competent design and work.
>
> Another point I was thinking of is the areas of expertise. Permaculture is 
> such a broad subject - I specialize in food systems, especially food 
> forestry, social justice and social permaculture, financial permaculture, 
> urban design. I've had experience in other areas and can implement them in a 
> design, but I will bring specialists in for the execution aspect of natural 
> building, energy, keyline, etc. There are many like me out there - how do we 
> clarify sub-areas of expertise?
>
> Cory
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 10/25/10, Killian O'Brien<admin@pri-de.org>  wrote:
>
> > From: Killian O'Brien<admin@pri-de.org>
> > Subject: Re: [permaculture] official certification
> > To: "permaculture"<permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
> > Date: Monday, October 25, 2010, 12:01 PM
> > To All:
> >
> > I want to refocus this on the topic it started with. The
> > issue is not *whom* to teach, nor how, though those points
> > have come up. (Please, everyone, let's **stop** worrying
> > about who other people are teaching! It's none ya! Git yer
> > nose out other people's biz!)
> >
> > The subject also is not whether to certificate or not. Not
> > only do such processes give us a way to at least attempt to
> > create a common sense of what a given level of knowledge or
> > expertise is, but many people simply want or need formalized
> > settings to educate themselves in. Institutionalized
> > solutions meet that need. They do not meet the needs of
> > non-traditional learners or those without the means to
> > participate in the institutional structures.
> >
> > So, the issue is how to go about it. On to my reply...
> >
> > Hey Toby,
> >
> > Let me start with this, " This is written fairly quickly; I
> > hope that instead of nit-picking over the parts that aren't
> > well developed you'll try to follow my intent. "
> >
> > No problem there. Intent is big for me, and perhaps makes
> > me a little too sloppy with my language as I expect too much
> > of context and people *not* reading the worst into what I
> > say/write.
> >
> > Relatively, Toby, in parentheses, which was intended to
> > convey, given context, a modified sense of "elite." The
> > issue was affordability. Context was clear *to me*, but I
> > will concede I perhaps should not have used the word.
> > Negative? Sorry, that's on you to own. Emotionally charged?
> > Ditto. They weren't for me. They still aren't. Reality: you
> > are a (relatively) affluent American. We are speaking
> > globally. In that regard, you are quite definitely elite on
> > the financial scale. I don't see why that is either
> > emotionally charged or negative.
> >
> > "I don't think that an effective way to spread permaculture
> > is to target the poor or the radicals (although I won't
> > discourage someone from doing that). You only change one
> > person at a time that way. I think it is far more effective
> > to offer it to policy makers, universities, planners, CEOs,
> > developers--the elite, if you will."
> >
> > You are correct that we will disagree, but that is exactly
> > what I was saying about old and new paradigms. Your approach
> > simply doesn't seem to have much chance of working because
> > we are so close to large bifurcations in all domains.
> > Virtually all those you are speaking of, and to, have no
> > sense at all that collapse is a possibility, so they
> > *cannot* come up with the solutions except by accident. They
> > don't understand sustainability because they don't
> > understand 2nd Law implications.
> >
> > Being aware of or knowledgeable about permaculture doesn't
> > automatically make one open to the idea that complexity *is*
> > the problem or that growth cannot go on forever. This does
> > not mean don't reach out to those people. Obviously it's not
> > really an elite/poor issue, but will be a matter of a
> > combination. However, community-generated solutions are far
> > more likely to deal with the scales we need to work at by
> > default: they're not necessarily trying to save the world
> > and work within the constraints they have on-site. The
> > "elites" have vested interests that conflict with community
> > solutions. No way around that. Thus, my faith goes to those
> > who must live with their solutions.
> >
> > Besides, Diamond, Tainter, Catton... all say simplify,
> > simplify, simplify. That combined with common sense and past
> > history all say you're likely going in the wrong direction.
> > But again let me stress I think some of us need to be
> > working it the way you suggest, just not most of us.
> >
> > "Okay, this next is triggered by, but not a direct reply
> > to, the above... I doubt that the future will be so radical
> > that certificates, degrees, committees, voting, listening to
> > leaders, and other familiar ways of getting things done are
> > going to disappear."
> >
> > No, they won't. But as things get sufficiently off-kilter,
> > their effectiveness will diminish. I know of no organization
> > here in Detroit that is self-supporting (though they may
> > exist). When the funding goes, they go. Unless we do things
> > differently from the start. We didn't pursue our own
> > 501(c)(3) status because we had an umbrella. We didn't
> > pursue outside funding because we had a partner with global
> > reach that was going to advertise for us. But, for reasons
> > having absolutely nothing to do with programming or
> > permaculture, and everything to do with money and CYA, they
> > backed out just weeks before our first PDC. It's the
> > difference between solvency and being destitute for us, but
> > not them. My point is, structures fall for reasons that have
> > often - usually? - nothing to do with the idea being
> > promoted/supported, and they are typically very human
> > reasons. Our current situation isn't because we had a bad
> > business concept or that permaculture is a bad idea, it is
> > because people a
> >   re people and, at the end of the day, particularly in this
> > day and age, are going to do for themselves before others,
> > and that applies to ANY structure you care to create. As
> > things get tougher, this will only increase in frequency and
> > magnitude. Look at the Tea Party. Look at health care, the
> > immigration debate, climate denial. Setting up a system that
> > is not resilient to such shocks strikes me as risk
> > assessment that is not robust.
> >
> > The point above does get into the issue of what the future
> > holds, and our assessments are clearly quite different,
> > which may not be resolvable except with time's own special
> > way of exerting reality. However, we can choose to set up a
> > system that is resilient in either case. I don't think the
> > systems being suggested do that. They are squarely based in
> > the old paradigm and thus are sensitive to the same shocks.
> >
> > "Having survived the sixties, I watched over and over as
> > communities and groups would form, unhappy with the old
> > ways... a fraction of 1% survive today. ...there are formal
> > processes such as consensus that show promise. But hardly
> > anyone really understands those new tools. They are
> > counter-intuitive, and I would argue that in many cases,
> > egalitarian methods like consensus go against our essential
> > tribal nature as social pack animals who inherently look to
> > strong, competent leaders...
> >
> > And I see us in a similar position to where we were in
> > 1970.  I hang around a lot of communities, and the
> > complaint I hear over and over is that they love the
> > community but consensus and related tools suck--"Nothing
> > ever gets done, so why can't we just appoint committees and
> > managers and move forward? I trust my peers to make good
> > decisions without me.""
> >
> > Hunter-gatherers almost exclusively are non-hierarchical,
> > thus our "nature" is to cooperate. But this is all
> > off-topic. I've not suggested anything like what these
> > issues raise. Have others?
> >
> > "If we wait until everyone is empowered and is a leader, we
> > won't get there in time, and we will suffer from the "too
> > many cooks" problem"
> >
> > Also not an issue raised.
> >
> > "The process of reinvigorating the national permaculture
> > institute right now is hamstrung by exactly this defect in
> > consensus: no one is allowed to move until we all feel
> > equally empowered. So we are stalled."
> >
> > I don't see this as an issue or even a topic of
> > conversation. Are people talking about this? This question,
> > for me, is solely about access and affordability, not
> > empowerment. As a nominal permaculturist, I'm quite
> > comfortable telling the rest of you to go straight to hell
> > if you don't like what I'm doing within the constraints I
> > must deal with, and expect the same in return should I
> > choose to comment on your work. More so, due to how events
> > have played out, I've had zero choice in moving forward
> > regardless of circumstances, so were anyone to complain
> > about that they'd be very much in the wrong. Let's not get
> > sidetracked here. This isn't what needs to be discussed;
> > it's a moot point.
> >
> > "What's lacking is accountability, not decent tools."
> >
> > No, both. To wit:
> >
> > "many of the current methods, applied at the right scale,
> > work very well, are comprehended by the mainstream and thus
> > are more likely to be followed, and will get us there
> > faster."
> >
> > The current methods, or suggested methods, may build
> > accountability, poorly, but very much limit access. Any
> > certificate for design that is a diploma/cert alone is
> > basically worthless. Knowledge does not equal ability. This
> > is reflected in the current PDC process where there is
> > virtually no practicum in most programs and, as you have
> > said, very little in terms of rigorous design requirements
> > or standards. Worse, passing the trainee assessment consists
> > of nothing more than a two year time period. It has no
> > definition of what to do in that period or assessment of
> > that work or how much work needs be done. Adding a diploma
> > on top of this achieves nothing, particularly since a
> > diploma course will be no more able to get past these issues
> > than the current system. Knowledge does not equal skill.
> >
> > "once they are on board, we can move them yet farther. We
> > need to meet people where they are, start with what they are
> > familiar with. Few can make a giant paradigm shift as the
> > first step, and it's a pipe dream to expect it as
> > prerequisite for a solution."
> >
> > Off-topic, really.
> >
> > "We know that the big parts of the system are broken:
> > national government, big corporations and banks, etc. But
> > the same tools that work so badly at huge scale, when they
> > are applied at small scale--local government, small
> > non-profits and business, independent schools, committees,
> > charismatic leaders--still work very well. I think we need
> > to work with what we have at the same time we work on the
> > replacements. If we insist on everyone learning new tools
> > before we start, we will not get there in time. You cannot
> > get anywhere if you don't start from where you are."
> >
> > I have not meant to state categorically, that we just not
> > have these other systems. I *don't* think you have time to
> > create these courses, get thousands of people trained in
> > them and reach legitimacy in the eyes of the wider world.
> > This can be seen as supporting your contention that the
> > focus should be on educating power structures, but the
> > nature and history of power structures in periods of decline
> > suggest otherwise (Diamond). Thus, I think this route will,
> > in a sense, waste resources. Should we not try to change
> > from within? No. Give it a shot, but...
> >
> > I have tried to offer an alternative. Just as I find it a
> > pointless conversation to discuss who is teaching whom, I
> > find it pointless to debate whether there should be a
> > traditionally institutional approach to certification(s)
> > because 1. they already exist and 2. some people just
> > need/want that sort of environment, etc.
> >
> > Let me be clearer: A possible approach that can co-exist
> > with the diploma course approach is a portfolio and
> > oral/written exams process. This can, and should, be much
> > less expensive because it involves no physical plant, no
> > infrastructure. It will meet the needs of non-traditional
> > learners, those of limited means, those of limited physical
> > access (cost of transportation), those that are self-taught,
> > etc. It does require organization and identification of
> > people qualified to sit such boards. That process can be as
> > complicated or as simple as people want to make it (but
> > things always look infinitely simpler to me than to most).
> > It will also be more legitimate in that it is based in
> > people's work and ability to communicate that work. We are
> > talking about design, right? I believe the core of licensing
> > for architects is a portfolio and exam approach, is it not?
> >
> > Identification of those qualified to sit such boards might
> > well be a matter of acclaim in the initial phase, but
> > should, in my opinion, be done by wide acclaim, not by a
> > committee, for we are essentially in the process of
> > codifying what a diploma might actually mean in terms of
> > content. Content might well be determined by committee, but
> > also should be held up for general vote, imo. Let's
> > determine as a community, eh? (Look at the mess we already
> > have with diploma level certs being offered by different
> > entities, each apparently with its own criteria for the
> > course and the teachers. Such a state will have zero
> > legitimacy in the eyes of the public at large. This is
> > already seen in the EFL/ESL field where a basic cert is a
> > joke to everyone, but everyone needs one. It's just a money
> > mill for the providers.)
> >
> > Once this process is done, we can trust the power
> > structures to work as designed. Should we not, since we have
> > the opportunity, go ahead and be inclusive at this stage,
> > and define these things as a community?
> >
> > Perhaps the various convergences should consider a design
> > charrette methodology and start sketching out how we use
> > permaculture principles to remake society...? IPC10 is
> > coming up next summer, no? Or given work already done and
> > programs already existing, these open dialogues can be used
> > to narrow things done and IPC10 used as a final design
> > charrette and determination of a list of people qualified to
> > sit boards.
> >
> > My last concern: if this process were to become a reality,
> > also for existing programs, an issue of fairness will arise.
> > Those required to go through these programs are being asked
> > to reach a bar those now setting the bar did not have to
> > reach. This is unavoidable. We must, however, keep in mind
> > those that end up setting the bar will tend to forget how
> > they got where they are, how they built their knowledge
> > base, etc, and will be inclined to set the bar higher than
> > is fair or necessary. This is simply how our brains work.
> > Our brains forget experiences, they reframe difficulty, they
> > allow us to work on assumptions that were, at earlier times
> > in our learning process, as clear as mud, and allow us to
> > ask too much because we have forgotten to account for the
> > fact we've accumulated what we know over long time frames
> > and via myriad experiences we are attempting to codify and
> > compress into weeks, months, or years.
> >
> > That is, be realistic, be gentle.
> >
> > Please be aware in all this I am speaking as someone with
> > 14 years of classroom and training experience. That is not
> > to claim I am a world-class educator, nor that I am assuming
> > what I suggest here is How Things Are and Should Be, only
> > that I speak from a fairly well-founded perspective on how
> > to educate, i.e. not talking out of my ass.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Killian O'Brien
> > PRI-De
> > admin@pri-de.org
> > (313) 647-4015
> >
> > killiankob@yahoo.com
> > (760) 617-4693
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: permaculture-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org
> > [mailto:permaculture-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org]
> > On Behalf Of Toby Hemenway
> > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 5:39 PM
> > To: permaculture
> > Subject: Re: [permaculture] official certification
> >
> > Okay, this is one of my lengthy screeds. The more meaty
> > stuff is toward the end.
> >
> > On Oct 23, 2010, at 4:23 PM, Killian O'Brien wrote:
> >
> > > Oh, Toby, do be careful when putting words in other's
> > mouths.  . . . Read again, more carefully, or ask for
> > clarification, please.
> >
> > Well, here's what you wrote-
> >
> > > By making permaculture about money and formal
> > certificates, you are preventing/slowing its spread . . .
> > >   . . . makes it the playground of the
> > (relatively) elite. And I guess the assessors are chosen by
> > acclaim or are self-appointed...? . . .  engage in
> > cannibalistic behaviors . . . Unless this more rigorous
> > certification process is going to be offered essentially for
> > free, and that seems unlikely, it will do more harm than
> > good.
> >
> > It's impossible for me to take this in any other way than
> > as condemnation of the Gaia U program and certification; if
> > you meant it as support for multiple options, those words
> > don't convey that. I don't think I've failed to read
> > carefully. Whatever you were meaning, when we lead off with
> > negative, emotionally loaded language, it gets people's
> > hackles up from the start, and makes it likely that any
> > calmer, constructive points made later--as you did
> > make--will be lost. It's the same thing that happened with
> > Kevin's original post about the Army PDC; he started with
> > condemnations and complaints, and then wondered why the
> > thoughtful questions he asked later were ignored.
> >
> > >   Money is just a proxy for all the various
> > reasons people can't make it to courses. Got course fees
> > covered? What about air fare? Lost work hours? Child care?
> > And on and on. Your point is moot, imo.
> >
> > No, it's not moot; it's at the heart of what you wrote: How
> > do we spread this stuff? What I see from you is a list of
> > perceived impediments that have been easily overcome.
> > People offer courses on the weekends, on a string of
> > Saturdays, we offer child-care done by spouses (teachers or
> > participants) who trade off, we offer local courses so
> > there's no airfare, we offer parallel courses for their
> > kids. There are people out there getting 30, 40, 70
> > students, because they are creating those solutions. And
> > those who hold cheap PDCs in crowded living rooms and
> > advertise on the co-op bulletin board--maybe not you, but
> > lots of teachers--complain that they can't fill their
> > courses. They ignore useful tools that work, see only
> > impediments, and then complain.
> >
> >   Certification, far from being an impediment, is what
> > attracts people to these courses. You have to give people a
> > tangible take home. The certificate is exactly that for most
> > people, much more so than making a compost pile or a general
> > grasp of systems thinking. Non-certificate courses tend not
> > to attract as many people, and I hear that from all the
> > teachers I talk to--which is quite a few. The answer is not
> > to give it away and lower standards, not in this culture.
> >
> > See, here's where I think we differ, and I'm going to say
> > something very politically incorrect: I don't think that an
> > effective way to spread permaculture is to target the poor
> > or the radicals (although I won't discourage someone from
> > doing that). You only change one person at a time that way.
> > I think it is far more effective to offer it to policy
> > makers, universities, planners, CEOs, developers--the elite,
> > if you will. One CEO who pushes permaculture through to all
> > employees, one Hollywood star who gets on Oprah, will make
> > far more difference than a blockfull of anarchists or
> > impoverished. It is still a top-down world; I don't like it
> > but I will use it to my advantage. I know I will be
> > pilloried for that, but I'm looking for leverage points, and
> > that's where I see them. I've done the other--I've done PDCs
> > for $40, and almost nothing came of them, maybe a keyhole
> > bed in a backyard. My PDCs to professionals result in
> > amazing projects that go on to be implemented in schools,
> > go
> >   vernments, neighborhoods, and businesses.
> >
> > >   I said the solution proposed maintains
> > structures of the past that are unlikely to apply in the
> > future, as well as limiting access, so why not do it
> > differently?
> >
> > Okay, this next is triggered by, but not a direct reply to,
> > the above. On one hand, the way many current management and
> > decision-making processes are used is indeed dysfunctional,
> > overly hierarchical, based on continual growth, and all
> > those other points. On the other hand, most of the
> > replacements for them, like consensus, NVC, etc., are either
> > little-tried, not well understood or understood in
> > conflicting ways, easily mis-applied or stonewalled, and
> > have other serious problems. There is, indeed, huge urgency
> > in moving forward. But if we wait for these new tools to

> > come on line, for everyone to agree how to use them, it will
> > be too late. So it's a mistake to throw out the old tools
> > right now, and that's why I think certification, clear
> > rules, and common decision-making processes still have
> > plenty of value. I doubt that the future will be so radical
> > that certificates, degrees, committees, voting, listening to
> > leaders, and other familiar ways of getting things done are
> > going t
> >   o disappear. There's the short version of the problem.
> > Here's the long version, if that's not clear or you want
> > more:
> >
> > Having survived the sixties, I watched over and over as
> > communities and groups would form, unhappy with the old
> > ways, and they'd throw the rules out completely, and try to
> > design a new way to be together.  Almost none of them
> > lasted more than months; a fraction of 1% survive today. The
> > impetus was honorable: end the patriarchy, etc, etc, but
> > they had no functional tools to replace what they threw out,
> > and in most cases, their efforts devolved into the ancient
> > pattern of a few people under a charismatic leader, and
> > everyone who disagreed with the boss left. We've learned a
> > lot since then, and there are formal processes such as
> > consensus that show promise. But hardly anyone really
> > understands those new tools. They are counter-intuitive, and
> > I would argue that in many cases, egalitarian methods like
> > consensus go against our essential tribal nature as social
> > pack animals who inherently look to strong, competent
> > leaders. And I see us in a similar position to where we were
> > in 1970.
> >    I hang around a lot of communities, and the
> > complaint I hear over and over is that they love the
> > community but consensus and related tools suck--"Nothing
> > ever gets done, so why can't we just appoint committees and
> > managers and move forward? I trust my peers to make good
> > decisions without me."
> >
> > Years ago, I ran a business, and had a crew of really
> > gifted employees. I went to them with a profit-sharing,
> > co-management plan where they would have equal power in the
> > business, and they said, "We just want to come to work, then
> > go home and forget about the job. We see all the work you
> > do, and we don't want to share it." If we wait until
> > everyone is empowered and is a leader, we won't get there in
> > time, and we will suffer from the "too many cooks" problem,
> > which I see constantly in new endeavors. The process of
> > reinvigorating the national permaculture institute right now
> > is hamstrung by exactly this defect in consensus: no one is
> > allowed to move until we all feel equally empowered. So we
> > are stalled. I think the idea that we will evolve to
> > "decentralized leadership structures" flies in the face of
> > our human and animal nature; we respond to and need clear,
> > focused leadership. What's lacking is accountability, not
> > decent tools. God, the last thing I want is to have to
> > partici
> >   pate in every decision that affects me. I trust other
> > people to be competent. So while we continue to hone newer
> > and more equitable ways of sharing power and responsibility,
> > many of the current methods, applied at the right scale,
> > work very well, are comprehended by the mainstream and thus
> > are more likely to be followed, and will get us there
> > faster.
> >
> > Another example: there are tours in many cities of
> > "sustainable living examples" or the like. The ones that
> > look like hippie houses are scoffed at by most of those on
> > the tours. The ones that look like familiar houses get
> > people excited. They aren't as "sustainable" as the hippie
> > houses, but they get far more people on board. And then,
> > once they are on board, we can move them yet farther. We
> > need to meet people where they are, start with what they are
> > familiar with. Few can make a giant paradigm shift as the
> > first step, and it's a pipe dream to expect it as
> > prerequisite for a solution.
> >
> > We know that the big parts of the system are broken:
> > national government, big corporations and banks, etc. But
> > the same tools that work so badly at huge scale, when they
> > are applied at small scale--local government, small
> > non-profits and business, independent schools, committees,
> > charismatic leaders--still work very well. I think we need
> > to work with what we have at the same time we work on the
> > replacements. If we insist on everyone learning new tools
> > before we start, we will not get there in time. You cannot
> > get anywhere if you don't start from where you are.
> >
> > This is written fairly quickly; I hope that instead of
> > nit-picking over the parts that aren't well developed you'll
> > try to follow my intent.
> >
> > Toby
> > http://patternliteracy.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > permaculture mailing list
> > permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> > Subscribe, unsubscribe, change your user configuration
> > here:
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> > Read the public message archives here:
> > https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture
> > Command to put in your browser's Google search box to
> > search these archives:
> > site:lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture [search
> > string (omit the brackets)]
> > List Usage&  Guidelines:
> > http://ibiblio.org/permaculture/documents/permaculturelistguide.faq
> > Permaculture http://www.ibiblio.org/permaculture
> > Permaculture Mailing List Blog
> > http://permaculturelist.blogspot.com
> > permaculture forums http://www.permies.com/permaculture-forums
> > List contact: permacultureforum@gmail.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > permaculture mailing list
> > permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> > Subscribe, unsubscribe, change your user configuration
> > here:
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> > Read the public message archives here:
> > https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture
> > Command to put in your browser's Google search box to
> > search these archives:
> > site:lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture [search
> > string (omit the brackets)]
> > List Usage&  Guidelines:
> > http://ibiblio.org/permaculture/documents/permaculturelistguide.faq
> > Permaculture http://www.ibiblio.org/permaculture
> > Permaculture Mailing List Blog
> > http://permaculturelist.blogspot.com
> > permaculture forums http://www.permies.com/permaculture-forums
> > List contact: permacultureforum@gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> Subscribe, unsubscribe, change your user configuration here:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> Read the public message archives here:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture
> Command to put in your browser's Google search box to search these archives:
> site:lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture [search string (omit the 
> brackets)]
> List Usage&  Guidelines:
> http://ibiblio.org/permaculture/documents/permaculturelistguide.faq
> Permaculture http://www.ibiblio.org/permaculture
> Permaculture Mailing List Blog
> http://permaculturelist.blogspot.com
> permaculture forums http://www.permies.com/permaculture-forums
> List contact: permacultureforum@gmail.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:51:37 -0400
> From: Killian O'Brien<admin@pri-de.org>
> To: permaculture<permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: Re: [permaculture] official certification
> Message-ID:
>         
> <7E471FF35774474AA10A2EEEF1CAB26A014A02640E6E@P1EC1EVS03.HMC1.COMCAST.NET>
>         
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I failed to address the gov/institutions comments. I understand and agree 
> with everything you and Toby are saying. My point is more systemic. I just 
> think things are moving faster than existing structures can, or will, be able 
> to handle, even if they want to. If Republicans get control, there will be 
> virtually no movement on any of this for at least two years, and likely six, 
> at the federal level. That's six years too late on top of the already 20 
> years too late.
>
> I think there *is* time for communities to start the transition and force the 
> gov/institutions to come along for the ride... which is pretty much what is 
> already happening.
>
> By all means, if you, Toby, Alan Drake, et al., can turn the ship of state, 
> please do! I've got a great idea for modeling solutions if you know someone 
> in gov or industry who'd be interested in looking at MMRPG married to climate 
> models and scenario generating software...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Killian O'Brien
> PRI-De
> admin@pri-de.org
> (313) 647-4015
>
> killiankob@yahoo.com
> (760) 617-4693
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: permaculture-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org 
> [mailto:permaculture-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Cory Brennan
> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 6:52 PM
> To: permaculture
> Subject: Re: [permaculture] official certification
>
> Why talk about who is going in the wrong direction, any more than who people 
> are teaching?  Who could possibly adjudicate that for someone else?  Dont' we 
> desire diversity in the system? Maybe we are just blowing off steam here; 
> perhaps we shouldn't be arguing about any of this but instead focused on 
> creating beneficial connection with one another so we are more powerful and 
> effective as a group.
>
> Killian, I've spoken to policy makers who are scared sh*tless by what is going on. They 
> have been briefed by scientists and are seriously freaked out. Some of them, so much 
> so, that they are paralyzed - they aren't doing anything about it or even talking about 
> it because "people will panic."  They are like drowning people in a lake. 
> Throw them a floatie and they will grab on reflexively. We have the floaties.  Don't 
> assume these guys cannot be reached - they can be and have been. I was invited to join 
> my city's sustainability committee because I'm a permaculturist. Things are changing at 
> all levels. I've also worked at grass roots community level as a social activist and 
> social permaculturist and it is powerful. I think they work hand in hand and I'm really 
> glad Killian, that you are doing what you're doing (as you know), and I'm also really 
> glad Toby is doing what he is doing. And all the rest of ya'll too! :-)  I am seriously 
> grateful to everybody out
>   there who is doing something, anything, to provide alternatives to the 
> insane way we do things now.
>
> Killian, I like your ideas for certification, etc. As a home schooler that never uses 
> "grade systems", I find portfolios tremendously useful - many colleges are 
> weighting those more heavily than transcripts at this point. As a note, when PRI was 
> doing the certification, they did require a presentation of competent design and work.
>
> Another point I was thinking of is the areas of expertise. Permaculture is 
> such a broad subject - I specialize in food systems, especially food 
> forestry, social justice and social permaculture, financial permaculture, 
> urban design. I've had experience in other areas and can implement them in a 
> design, but I will bring specialists in for the execution aspect of natural 
> building, energy, keyline, etc. There are many like me out there - how do we 
> clarify sub-areas of expertise?
>
> Cory
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 10/25/10, Killian O'Brien<admin@pri-de.org>  wrote:
>
> > From: Killian O'Brien<admin@pri-de.org>
> > Subject: Re: [permaculture] official certification
> > To: "permaculture"<permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
> > Date: Monday, October 25, 2010, 12:01 PM
> > To All:
> >
> > I want to refocus this on the topic it started with. The
> > issue is not *whom* to teach, nor how, though those points
> > have come up. (Please, everyone, let's **stop** worrying
> > about who other people are teaching! It's none ya! Git yer
> > nose out other people's biz!)
> >
> > The subject also is not whether to certificate or not. Not
> > only do such processes give us a way to at least attempt to
> > create a common sense of what a given level of knowledge or
> > expertise is, but many people simply want or need formalized
> > settings to educate themselves in. Institutionalized
> > solutions meet that need. They do not meet the needs of
> > non-traditional learners or those without the means to
> > participate in the institutional structures.
> >
> > So, the issue is how to go about it. On to my reply...
> >
> > Hey Toby,
> >
> > Let me start with this, " This is written fairly quickly; I
> > hope that instead of nit-picking over the parts that aren't
> > well developed you'll try to follow my intent. "
> >
> > No problem there. Intent is big for me, and perhaps makes
> > me a little too sloppy with my language as I expect too much
> > of context and people *not* reading the worst into what I
> > say/write.
> >
> > Relatively, Toby, in parentheses, which was intended to
> > convey, given context, a modified sense of "elite." The
> > issue was affordability. Context was clear *to me*, but I
> > will concede I perhaps should not have used the word.
> > Negative? Sorry, that's on you to own. Emotionally charged?
> > Ditto. They weren't for me. They still aren't. Reality: you
> > are a (relatively) affluent American. We are speaking
> > globally. In that regard, you are quite definitely elite on
> > the financial scale. I don't see why that is either
> > emotionally charged or negative.
> >
> > "I don't think that an effective way to spread permaculture
> > is to target the poor or the radicals (although I won't
> > discourage someone from doing that). You only change one
> > person at a time that way. I think it is far more effective
> > to offer it to policy makers, universities, planners, CEOs,
> > developers--the elite, if you will."
> >
> > You are correct that we will disagree, but that is exactly
> > what I was saying about old and new paradigms. Your approach
> > simply doesn't seem to have much chance of working because
> > we are so close to large bifurcations in all domains.
> > Virtually all those you are speaking of, and to, have no
> > sense at all that collapse is a possibility, so they
> > *cannot* come up with the solutions except by accident. They
> > don't understand sustainability because they don't
> > understand 2nd Law implications.
> >
> > Being aware of or knowledgeable about permaculture doesn't
> > automatically make one open to the idea that complexity *is*
> > the problem or that growth cannot go on forever. This does
> > not mean don't reach out to those people. Obviously it's not
> > really an elite/poor issue, but will be a matter of a
> > combination. However, community-generated solutions are far
> > more likely to deal with the scales we need to work at by
> > default: they're not necessarily trying to save the world
> > and work within the constraints they have on-site. The
> > "elites" have vested interests that conflict with community
> > solutions. No way around that. Thus, my faith goes to those
> > who must live with their solutions.
> >
> > Besides, Diamond, Tainter, Catton... all say simplify,
> > simplify, simplify. That combined with common sense and past
> > history all say you're likely going in the wrong direction.
> > But again let me stress I think some of us need to be
> > working it the way you suggest, just not most of us.
> >
> > "Okay, this next is triggered by, but not a direct reply
> > to, the above... I doubt that the future will be so radical
> > that certificates, degrees, committees, voting, listening to
> > leaders, and other familiar ways of getting things done are
> > going to disappear."
> >
> > No, they won't. But as things get sufficiently off-kilter,
> > their effectiveness will diminish. I know of no organization
> > here in Detroit that is self-supporting (though they may
> > exist). When the funding goes, they go. Unless we do things
> > differently from the start. We didn't pursue our own
> > 501(c)(3) status because we had an umbrella. We didn't
> > pursue outside funding because we had a partner with global
> > reach that was going to advertise for us. But, for reasons
> > having absolutely nothing to do with programming or
> > permaculture, and everything to do with money and CYA, they
> > backed out just weeks before our first PDC. It's the
> > difference between solvency and being destitute for us, but
> > not them. My point is, structures fall for reasons that have
> > often - usually? - nothing to do with the idea being
> > promoted/supported, and they are typically very human
> > reasons. Our current situation isn't because we had a bad
> > business concept or that permaculture is a bad idea, it is
> > because people a
> >   re people and, at the end of the day, particularly in this
> > day and age, are going to do for themselves before others,
> > and that applies to ANY structure you care to create. As
> > things get tougher, this will only increase in frequency and
> > magnitude. Look at the Tea Party. Look at health care, the
> > immigration debate, climate denial. Setting up a system that
> > is not resilient to such shocks strikes me as risk
> > assessment that is not robust.
> >
> > The point above does get into the issue of what the future
> > holds, and our assessments are clearly quite different,
> > which may not be resolvable except with time's own special
> > way of exerting reality. However, we can choose to set up a
> > system that is resilient in either case. I don't think the
> > systems being suggested do that. They are squarely based in
> > the old paradigm and thus are sensitive to the same shocks.
> >
> > "Having survived the sixties, I watched over and over as
> > communities and groups would form, unhappy with the old
> > ways... a fraction of 1% survive today. ...there are formal
> > processes such as consensus that show promise. But hardly
> > anyone really understands those new tools. They are
> > counter-intuitive, and I would argue that in many cases,
> > egalitarian methods like consensus go against our essential
> > tribal nature as social pack animals who inherently look to
> > strong, competent leaders...
> >
> > And I see us in a similar position to where we were in
> > 1970.  I hang around a lot of communities, and the
> > complaint I hear over and over is that they love the
> > community but consensus and related tools suck--"Nothing
> > ever gets done, so why can't we just appoint committees and
> > managers and move forward? I trust my peers to make good
> > decisions without me.""
> >
> > Hunter-gatherers almost exclusively are non-hierarchical,
> > thus our "nature" is to cooperate. But this is all
> > off-topic. I've not suggested anything like what these
> > issues raise. Have others?
> >
> > "If we wait until everyone is empowered and is a leader, we
> > won't get there in time, and we will suffer from the "too
> > many cooks" problem"
> >
> > Also not an issue raised.
> >
> > "The process of reinvigorating the national permaculture
> > institute right now is hamstrung by exactly this defect in
> > consensus: no one is allowed to move until we all feel
> > equally empowered. So we are stalled."
> >
> > I don't see this as an issue or even a topic of
> > conversation. Are people talking about this? This question,
> > for me, is solely about access and affordability, not
> > empowerment. As a nominal permaculturist, I'm quite
> > comfortable telling the rest of you to go straight to hell
> > if you don't like what I'm doing within the constraints I
> > must deal with, and expect the same in return should I
> > choose to comment on your work. More so, due to how events
> > have played out, I've had zero choice in moving forward
> > regardless of circumstances, so were anyone to complain
> > about that they'd be very much in the wrong. Let's not get
> > sidetracked here. This isn't what needs to be discussed;
> > it's a moot point.
> >
> > "What's lacking is accountability, not decent tools."
> >
> > No, both. To wit:
> >
> > "many of the current methods, applied at the right scale,
> > work very well, are comprehended by the mainstream and thus
> > are more likely to be followed, and will get us there
> > faster."
> >
> > The current methods, or suggested methods, may build
> > accountability, poorly, but very much limit access. Any
> > certificate for design that is a diploma/cert alone is
> > basically worthless. Knowledge does not equal ability. This
> > is reflected in the current PDC process where there is
> > virtually no practicum in most programs and, as you have
> > said, very little in terms of rigorous design requirements
> > or standards. Worse, passing the trainee assessment consists
> > of nothing more than a two year time period. It has no
> > definition of what to do in that period or assessment of
> > that work or how much work needs be done. Adding a diploma
> > on top of this achieves nothing, particularly since a
> > diploma course will be no more able to get past these issues
> > than the current system. Knowledge does not equal skill.
> >
> > "once they are on board, we can move them yet farther. We
> > need to meet people where they are, start with what they are
> > familiar with. Few can make a giant paradigm shift as the
> > first step, and it's a pipe dream to expect it as
> > prerequisite for a solution."
> >
> > Off-topic, really.
> >
> > "We know that the big parts of the system are broken:
> > national government, big corporations and banks, etc. But
> > the same tools that work so badly at huge scale, when they
> > are applied at small scale--local government, small
> > non-profits and business, independent schools, committees,
> > charismatic leaders--still work very well. I think we need
> > to work with what we have at the same time we work on the
> > replacements. If we insist on everyone learning new tools
> > before we start, we will not get there in time. You cannot
> > get anywhere if you don't start from where you are."
> >
> > I have not meant to state categorically, that we just not
> > have these other systems. I *don't* think you have time to
> > create these courses, get thousands of people trained in
> > them and reach legitimacy in the eyes of the wider world.
> > This can be seen as supporting your contention that the
> > focus should be on educating power structures, but the
> > nature and history of power structures in periods of decline
> > suggest otherwise (Diamond). Thus, I think this route will,
> > in a sense, waste resources. Should we not try to change
> > from within? No. Give it a shot, but...
> >
> > I have tried to offer an alternative. Just as I find it a
> > pointless conversation to discuss who is teaching whom, I
> > find it pointless to debate whether there should be a
> > traditionally institutional approach to certification(s)
> > because 1. they already exist and 2. some people just
> > need/want that sort of environment, etc.
> >
> > Let me be clearer: A possible approach that can co-exist
> > with the diploma course approach is a portfolio and
> > oral/written exams process. This can, and should, be much
> > less expensive because it involves no physical plant, no
> > infrastructure. It will meet the needs of non-traditional
> > learners, those of limited means, those of limited physical
> > access (cost of transportation), those that are self-taught,
> > etc. It does require organization and identification of
> > people qualified to sit such boards. That process can be as
> > complicated or as simple as people want to make it (but
> > things always look infinitely simpler to me than to most).
> > It will also be more legitimate in that it is based in
> > people's work and ability to communicate that work. We are
> > talking about design, right? I believe the core of licensing
> > for architects is a portfolio and exam approach, is it not?
> >
> > Identification of those qualified to sit such boards might
> > well be a matter of acclaim in the initial phase, but
> > should, in my opinion, be done by wide acclaim, not by a
> > committee, for we are essentially in the process of
> > codifying what a diploma might actually mean in terms of
> > content. Content might well be determined by committee, but
> > also should be held up for general vote, imo. Let's
> > determine as a community, eh? (Look at the mess we already
> > have with diploma level certs being offered by different
> > entities, each apparently with its own criteria for the
> > course and the teachers. Such a state will have zero
> > legitimacy in the eyes of the public at large. This is
> > already seen in the EFL/ESL field where a basic cert is a
> > joke to everyone, but everyone needs one. It's just a money
> > mill for the providers.)
> >
> > Once this process is done, we can trust the power
> > structures to work as designed. Should we not, since we have
> > the opportunity, go ahead and be inclusive at this stage,
> > and define these things as a community?
> >
> > Perhaps the various convergences should consider a design
> > charrette methodology and start sketching out how we use
> > permaculture principles to remake society...? IPC10 is
> > coming up next summer, no? Or given work already done and
> > programs already existing, these open dialogues can be used
> > to narrow things done and IPC10 used as a final design
> > charrette and determination of a list of people qualified to
> > sit boards.
> >
> > My last concern: if this process were to become a reality,
> > also for existing programs, an issue of fairness will arise.
> > Those required to go through these programs are being asked
> > to reach a bar those now setting the bar did not have to
> > reach. This is unavoidable. We must, however, keep in mind
> > those that end up setting the bar will tend to forget how
> > they got where they are, how they built their knowledge
> > base, etc, and will be inclined to set the bar higher than
> > is fair or necessary. This is simply how our brains work.
> > Our brains forget experiences, they reframe difficulty, they
> > allow us to work on assumptions that were, at earlier times
> > in our learning process, as clear as mud, and allow us to
> > ask too much because we have forgotten to account for the
> > fact we've accumulated what we know over long time frames
> > and via myriad experiences we are attempting to codify and
> > compress into weeks, months, or years.
> >
> > That is, be realistic, be gentle.
> >
> > Please be aware in all this I am speaking as someone with
> > 14 years of classroom and training experience. That is not
> > to claim I am a world-class educator, nor that I am assuming
> > what I suggest here is How Things Are and Should Be, only
> > that I speak from a fairly well-founded perspective on how
> > to educate, i.e. not talking out of my ass.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Killian O'Brien
> > PRI-De
> > admin@pri-de.org
> > (313) 647-4015
> >
> > killiankob@yahoo.com
> > (760) 617-4693
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: permaculture-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org
> > [mailto:permaculture-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org]
> > On Behalf Of Toby Hemenway
> > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 5:39 PM
> > To: permaculture
> > Subject: Re: [permaculture] official certification
> >
> > Okay, this is one of my lengthy screeds. The more meaty
> > stuff is toward the end.
> >
> > On Oct 23, 2010, at 4:23 PM, Killian O'Brien wrote:
> >
> > > Oh, Toby, do be careful when putting words in other's
> > mouths.  . . . Read again, more carefully, or ask for
> > clarification, please.
> >
> > Well, here's what you wrote-
> >
> > > By making permaculture about money and formal
> > certificates, you are preventing/slowing its spread . . .
> > >   . . . makes it the playground of the
> > (relatively) elite. And I guess the assessors are chosen by
> > acclaim or are self-appointed...? . . .  engage in
> > cannibalistic behaviors . . . Unless this more rigorous
> > certification process is going to be offered essentially for
> > free, and that seems unlikely, it will do more harm than
> > good.
> >
> > It's impossible for me to take this in any other way than
> > as condemnation of the Gaia U program and certification; if
> > you meant it as support for multiple options, those words
> > don't convey that. I don't think I've failed to read
> > carefully. Whatever you were meaning, when we lead off with
> > negative, emotionally loaded language, it gets people's
> > hackles up from the start, and makes it likely that any
> > calmer, constructive points made later--as you did
> > make--will be lost. It's the same thing that happened with
> > Kevin's original post about the Army PDC; he started with
> > condemnations and complaints, and then wondered why the
> > thoughtful questions he asked later were ignored.
> >
> > >   Money is just a proxy for all the various
> > reasons people can't make it to courses. Got course fees
> > covered? What about air fare? Lost work hours? Child care?
> > And on and on. Your point is moot, imo.
> >
> > No, it's not moot; it's at the heart of what you wrote: How
> > do we spread this stuff? What I see from you is a list of
> > perceived impediments that have been easily overcome.
> > People offer courses on the weekends, on a string of
> > Saturdays, we offer child-care done by spouses (teachers or
> > participants) who trade off, we offer local courses so
> > there's no airfare, we offer parallel courses for their
> > kids. There are people out there getting 30, 40, 70
> > students, because they are creating those solutions. And
> > those who hold cheap PDCs in crowded living rooms and
> > advertise on the co-op bulletin board--maybe not you, but
> > lots of teachers--complain that they can't fill their
> > courses. They ignore useful tools that work, see only
> > impediments, and then complain.
> >
> >   Certification, far from being an impediment, is what
> > attracts people to these courses. You have to give people a
> > tangible take home. The certificate is exactly that for most
> > people, much more so than making a compost pile or a general
> > grasp of systems thinking. Non-certificate courses tend not
> > to attract as many people, and I hear that from all the
> > teachers I talk to--which is quite a few. The answer is not
> > to give it away and lower standards, not in this culture.
> >
> > See, here's where I think we differ, and I'm going to say
> > something very politically incorrect: I don't think that an
> > effective way to spread permaculture is to target the poor
> > or the radicals (although I won't discourage someone from
> > doing that). You only change one person at a time that way.
> > I think it is far more effective to offer it to policy
> > makers, universities, planners, CEOs, developers--the elite,
> > if you will. One CEO who pushes permaculture through to all
> > employees, one Hollywood star who gets on Oprah, will make
> > far more difference than a blockfull of anarchists or
> > impoverished. It is still a top-down world; I don't like it
> > but I will use it to my advantage. I know I will be
> > pilloried for that, but I'm looking for leverage points, and
> > that's where I see them. I've done the other--I've done PDCs
> > for $40, and almost nothing came of them, maybe a keyhole
> > bed in a backyard. My PDCs to professionals result in
> > amazing projects that go on to be implemented in schools,
> > go
> >   vernments, neighborhoods, and businesses.
> >
> > >   I said the solution proposed maintains
> > structures of the past that are unlikely to apply in the
> > future, as well as limiting access, so why not do it
> > differently?
> >
> > Okay, this next is triggered by, but not a direct reply to,
> > the above. On one hand, the way many current management and
> > decision-making processes are used is indeed dysfunctional,
> > overly hierarchical, based on continual growth, and all
> > those other points. On the other hand, most of the
> > replacements for them, like consensus, NVC, etc., are either
> > little-tried, not well understood or understood in
> > conflicting ways, easily mis-applied or stonewalled, and
> > have other serious problems. There is, indeed, huge urgency
> > in moving forward. But if we wait for these new tools to
> > come on line, for everyone to agree how to use them, it will
> > be too late. So it's a mistake to throw out the old tools
> > right now, and that's why I think certification, clear
> > rules, and common decision-making processes still have
> > plenty of value. I doubt that the future will be so radical
> > that certificates, degrees, committees, voting, listening to
> > leaders, and other familiar ways of getting things done are
> > going t
> >   o disappear. There's the short version of the problem.
> > Here's the long version, if that's not clear or you want
> > more:
> >
> > Having survived the sixties, I watched over and over as
> > communities and groups would form, unhappy with the old
> > ways, and they'd throw the rules out completely, and try to
> > design a new way to be together.  Almost none of them
> > lasted more than months; a fraction of 1% survive today. The
> > impetus was honorable: end the patriarchy, etc, etc, but
> > they had no functional tools to replace what they threw out,
> > and in most cases, their efforts devolved into the ancient
> > pattern of a few people under a charismatic leader, and
> > everyone who disagreed with the boss left. We've learned a
> > lot since then, and there are formal processes such as
> > consensus that show promise. But hardly anyone really
> > understands those new tools. They are counter-intuitive, and
> > I would argue that in many cases, egalitarian methods like
> > consensus go against our essential tribal nature as social
> > pack animals who inherently look to strong, competent
> > leaders. And I see us in a similar position to where we were
> > in 1970.
> >    I hang around a lot of communities, and the
> > complaint I hear over and over is that they love the
> > community but consensus and related tools suck--"Nothing
> > ever gets done, so why can't we just appoint committees and
> > managers and move forward? I trust my peers to make good
> > decisions without me."
> >
> > Years ago, I ran a business, and had a crew of really
> > gifted employees. I went to them with a profit-sharing,
> > co-management plan where they would have equal power in the
> > business, and they said, "We just want to come to work, then
> > go home and forget about the job. We see all the work you
> > do, and we don't want to share it." If we wait until
> > everyone is empowered and is a leader, we won't get there in
> > time, and we will suffer from the "too many cooks" problem,
> > which I see constantly in new endeavors. The process of
> > reinvigorating the national permaculture institute right now
> > is hamstrung by exactly this defect in consensus: no one is
> > allowed to move until we all feel equally empowered. So we
> > are stalled. I think the idea that we will evolve to
> > "decentralized leadership structures" flies in the face of
> > our human and animal nature; we respond to and need clear,
> > focused leadership. What's lacking is accountability, not
> > decent tools. God, the last thing I want is to have to
> > partici
> >   pate in every decision that affects me. I trust other
> > people to be competent. So while we continue to hone newer
> > and more equitable ways of sharing power and responsibility,
> > many of the current methods, applied at the right scale,
> > work very well, are comprehended by the mainstream and thus
> > are more likely to be followed, and will get us there
> > faster.
> >
> > Another example: there are tours in many cities of
> > "sustainable living examples" or the like. The ones that
> > look like hippie houses are scoffed at by most of those on
> > the tours. The ones that look like familiar houses get
> > people excited. They aren't as "sustainable" as the hippie
> > houses, but they get far more people on board. And then,
> > once they are on board, we can move them yet farther. We
> > need to meet people where they are, start with what they are
> > familiar with. Few can make a giant paradigm shift as the
> > first step, and it's a pipe dream to expect it as
> > prerequisite for a solution.
> >
> > We know that the big parts of the system are broken:
> > national government, big corporations and banks, etc. But
> > the same tools that work so badly at huge scale, when they
> > are applied at small scale--local government, small
> > non-profits and business, independent schools, committees,
> > charismatic leaders--still work very well. I think we need
> > to work with what we have at the same time we work on the
> > replacements. If we insist on everyone learning new tools
> > before we start, we will not get there in time. You cannot
> > get anywhere if you don't start from where you are.
> >
> > This is written fairly quickly; I hope that instead of
> > nit-picking over the parts that aren't well developed you'll
> > try to follow my intent.
> >
> > Toby
> > http://patternliteracy.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > permaculture mailing list
> > permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> > Subscribe, unsubscribe, change your user configuration
> > here:
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> > Read the public message archives here:
> > https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture
> > Command to put in your browser's Google search box to
> > search these archives:
> > site:lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture [search
> > string (omit the brackets)]
> > List Usage&  Guidelines:
> > http://ibiblio.org/permaculture/documents/permaculturelistguide.faq
> > Permaculture http://www.ibiblio.org/permaculture
> > Permaculture Mailing List Blog
> > http://permaculturelist.blogspot.com
> > permaculture forums http://www.permies.com/permaculture-forums
> > List contact: permacultureforum@gmail.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > permaculture mailing list
> > permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> > Subscribe, unsubscribe, change your user configuration
> > here:
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> > Read the public message archives here:
> > https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture
> > Command to put in your browser's Google search box to
> > search these archives:
> > site:lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture [search
> > string (omit the brackets)]
> > List Usage&  Guidelines:
> > http://ibiblio.org/permaculture/documents/permaculturelistguide.faq
> > Permaculture http://www.ibiblio.org/permaculture
> > Permaculture Mailing List Blog
> > http://permaculturelist.blogspot.com
> > permaculture forums http://www.permies.com/permaculture-forums
> > List contact: permacultureforum@gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> Subscribe, unsubscribe, change your user configuration here:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> Read the public message archives here:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture
> Command to put in your browser's Google search box to search these archives:
> site:lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture [search string (omit the 
> brackets)]
> List Usage&  Guidelines:
> http://ibiblio.org/permaculture/documents/permaculturelistguide.faq
> Permaculture http://www.ibiblio.org/permaculture
> Permaculture Mailing List Blog
> http://permaculturelist.blogspot.com
> permaculture forums http://www.permies.com/permaculture-forums
> List contact: permacultureforum@gmail.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> Subscribe, unsubscribe, change your user configuration here:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> Read the public message archives here:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture
> Command to put in your browser's Google search box to search these archives:
> site:lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture [search string (omit the 
> brackets)]
> List Usage&  Guidelines:
> http://ibiblio.org/permaculture/documents/permaculturelistguide.faq
> Permaculture http://www.ibiblio.org/permaculture
> Permaculture Mailing List Blog
> http://permaculturelist.blogspot.com
> permaculture forums http://www.permies.com/permaculture-forums
> List contact: permacultureforum@gmail.com
>
>
> End of permaculture Digest, Vol 93, Issue 33
> ********************************************