Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] permaculture Digest, Vol 93, Issue 33

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: A Sampson-Kelly <april@permaculturevisions.com>
  • To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] permaculture Digest, Vol 93, Issue 33
  • Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:00:38 +1100

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
********************************************




  • Re: [permaculture] permaculture Digest, Vol 93, Issue 33, A Sampson-Kelly, 10/26/2010

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page