Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] Maintaining the standards of permaculture - important issues

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Toby Hemenway <toby@patternliteracy.com>
  • To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] Maintaining the standards of permaculture - important issues
  • Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 12:03:59 -0700

Daniel-- I wanted to address a few of your points specifically.
>
>
> It is kind of depressing to see the laden responses; not based on a
> discussion of the facts provided in the links by Oystein.

I did discuss some facts from those really awful websites (god, if I ever
hear of the evils of the "hockey stick" graph again, I will throw up), but
like I said, anyone can come up with selective facts, and they don't change
people's minds. It's too low a level to be worth discussing at; we're big
picture people here, right? Let's think permaculturally: what are the
important factors that influence our decisions? The quality of the reasoning
and the motivations are far more telling and persuasive That's why I focus
on that level. Facts can be manufactured by money; as they say, if you
torture the data long enough, it will confess.
>
> 1 - Climate scientists are dependent on their funding from grant
> foundations, etc. Who controls that money? Rotary, Rockefeller, CFR, etc,
> etc... aka The elite.

So, why would the elites, who are dependent on a fossil-fuel industrial
economy, be biased toward anthropogenic global warming (AGW) that undermines
the basis of their wealth? They aren't dumb. This makes no sense. I believe
it is not an explanation.

> Now, during my PhD, I saw how easily my own professor was writing grant
> proposals in which he HAD TO put SOMETHING about climate change, because
> the funding agencies wanted to hear it.

Of course there is bias in the handing out of grants; we're human. But you
know how funding agencies work: grant proposals are reviewed and awarded by
scientist peers of the applicant, not by the industrialist board members (who
would vote against them!). It tends to boost an existing consensus, but the
consensus comes into existence because, usually, some good science originally
supported it or aat least raised the question (I've studied this, because I
worked with many scientist grant reviewers. They try hard to be objective).
Your anecdotes about funding don't support the argument that AGW doesn't
exist; they support the argument that there is a lot of funding to support
AGW research. Again, why would that be if it undermines the money economy of
the major donors? Occam's razor, rather than supporting the idea that there
is some convoluted conspiracy in which the elite funds their own destruction
for some Byzantine purpose, suggests that it's because there are good data,
or interesting questions, to support further AGW research.

On your peat research: Any reviewer would assume that they are carbon sinks,
so they know what they are funding. You got at least two good grant cycles
out of it, which is more than most researchers, so I don't think there is a
conspiracy against peat research. I suspect that someone decided that knowing
peat is a carbon sink doesn't require more than 6 years to learn. Lots of
grants run out.
>
> Only 1 argument for me on this one. The population PLUS modern
> technological living standards = disaster. Yet 7 billion people in 7
> million eco-villages around the globe plus a change in diet (no grain, no
> meat)? I foresee no problem!


So: the existing situation is a disaster doing vast harm right now, but
overpopulation poses "no problem" because of a fantasy scenario that may
take centuries to enact. I don't follow that. Also, some terrible ecological
damage is being done by people living well below Western standards, so
eliminating high tech is not an answer. Sheer numbers is the problem--slash
and burn is excellent at low population levels, and disastrous under high
ones. So are many low-tech methods.

Again, the only reason we have 7 billion is oil-based food. Run the numbers:
the amount of arable land needed to feed 7 billion, when, without oil and
gas, 4 acres of fertility crops are required to sustainably produce 1 acre of
food, means we must cut down all the forests to grow compost, and that still
isn't enough (John Jeavons, World Watch, and many others have done the
numbers). Incidentally, animals are essential to efficiently feed humans;
it's how we can turn grass, bugs, and garbage into food. They pose no
ecological burden and in fact are helpful when done right. I think I learned
that in a permaculture course somewhere.

Okay, really, fun as this is, this is enough. I have tried to argue that we
need to look at the level of thinking required, rather than the highly
selective use of "facts" and anecdotes, if we want to address these issues
productively, but I don't think it's getting across very well since what I'm
getting back is more "facts," and accusations that I'm not arguing the facts.
So unless we can discuss the reasoning rather than conspiracies or the
"facts," I'll try to stop myself from further attempts.

To other folks--I know this doe not seem related to permaculture, but the
nature of reasoning and argument fascinates me, and this gives me a chance to
discuss it a bit with people. I ask your indulgence or at least a friendly
"delete."

Toby
http://patternliteracy.com






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page