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: Daniel Jager <dfjager@yahoo.com>
  • To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] Maintaining the standards of permaculture - important issues
  • Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 03:37:09 -0700 (PDT)

Dear Toby,


> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 12:03:59 -0700
> From: Toby Hemenway <toby@patternliteracy.com>
> Subject: Re: [permaculture] Maintaining the standards of
> permaculture
>     -    important issues
> To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <87BD2B12-1AD5-4B28-9070-DAF5DE6F73C8@patternliteracy.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;   
> charset=us-ascii
>
> Daniel-- I wanted to address a few of your points
> specifically.
OK

> > 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.

Excuse me for saying this, but who made YOU the expert? Who gave you the
Truth about the hockey stick graph. What about the tone you set? "I have to
throw up????"!!!!
This is what I mean with making the arguments LADEN with emotional overtones;
because it implies a ridicule of the other's point of view, or the validity
of their facts.
The big picture is that we are still beset with lies within and without
ourselves, you and I not being an exception! How can we make a 'permculture
world' or solve the problems of sustainable living, when we continue to
communicate in this manner.

I my opnion, getting a clearer personal understanding of the true causes of
health and disease, ecological destruction and restoration, the problem
between numbers of people and the quality of their thinking, is EXACTLY what
permaculture is about. Not just planting guilds or making a food forest and
then sticking our heads in the sand about the rest. These issues are very
important, and will become very very real for us on a daily basis within the
next few years, whether we like it or not. Better to be ready, is what I
think.

Also I feel you do not appreciate the extremely low level of willpower and
morality that most of our "experts" exhibit; and actually the whole
population on the planet as well. Mammon rules nearly everything! I mean
nothing has changed since Diogenes was looking for an honest man with a torch
in the light of day. A truly honest man is nearly impossible to find.
You are aware of the climate-gate scandal; the release of the private emails
of Dr. Mann, and his colleagues, right? You are aware of their contents and
the implication for the entire IPCC?


> > 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.

Just because you cann't see the relationship, doesn't mean it is not there.

> > 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, o
> r interesting questions, to support further AGW research.

If they know the system must crash, they can select and guide it in the way
that will keep them in power. Very simple, really! Happened in Russia during
the revolution. Just one example, there are many more.
Besides, spread the false notion of climate change, and offer the solution:
Cap and Trade. Says enough, doesn't it. Global carbon tax on every human
being, being sent straight to the UN? Oh, all of this is in the works; look
it up. The documents are accessible online. And how could elitists NOT like
such schemes? It is right up their alley. More control, more tax and debt
peonage and more bureaucracy.

> > 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.

True, and not true. The number of people are a problem. The level of
awareness is also a problem, a BIG problem. But the real problem is actually
this: Population reduction!
Who will be reduced? Will you sacrifice yourself, of should some poor
ignorant Thai farmer go first? What do you think the captains of Industry
would like to see happen? Who will make the choice? Don't you think that
governments around the world are thinking about this? Because one thing is
for sure; history has shown it many times. If the elite don't act to preserve
themselves, society will collapse chaotically and they will likely be first
upon the chopping block! They will then surely lose their power.

> 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.

I agree. We have overpopulation, and since perhaps only 1% of the world will
want to live in an ecovillage, the 'fantasy' will not happen. I know this.
But I prefer NATURAL stagnation and decline of the population, instead of a
'controlled' reduction! The reasons, as pointed out above, should be fairly
obvious (to me at least). I think such is more in line with Fukuoka's ideas,
since it is still 'natural'.

> 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.

Agreed. However, you dominate and over-shout the discussion and then call it
quits for all of us? Implying my thinking and that of others is not of a
'high enough level'.
I'll keep this logged under: miscommunication due to the nature of the topic
and the awkward communication medium of email. But just to make it clear; I
am not pleased with the tone you use in your communications or the 'level' of
your thinking.

Daniel




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page