permaculture

[Daniel Jager <dfjager@yahoo.com>]

> From: KAKerby@aol.com
> Subject: Re: [permaculture] pc aquaponics
> 
> And in all your examples, not once did you mention that any
> of it was  
> aquaponics as we've been discussing here.  Hydroponics
> with peat moss as a  
> growing medium is most definitely not aquaponics.  Even
> if we were to  expand 
> our conversation to include hydroponics, peat moss is
> considered one of  the 
> flimsier media, not a good candidate for long-term plantings
> because it's so  
> short lived.  It also has serious acidity issues, so
> plants which cannot do 
>  well in acidic conditions need to stay well clear of
> it.  On the other  
> hand, it is inexpensive, and does exceedingly well for
> short-lived plants 
> which  don't mind the acidity, or where the water is
> naturally  alkaline.  Which 
> is the blend of pro's and con's which I mentioned in 
> one of my first 
> posts.  

The peat-moss hydroponics system for the growing medium of Cloudberry was 
actually the only choice, since the Cloudberry's natural habitat is the 
acidic and nutrient poor peat swamps of Finland.

True enough, I did mention only hydroponics, and I know very well what 
aquaponics is. Even though it is a mayor improvement over hydroponics, it 
still is an artificial system, and I was trying to raise the issue of the 
purpose and reason of going ever more artificial to solve our food problems. 
It is an indictment to our way of life, more so than a solution to it.

>  
> And in all of your examples, not once did you give an
> example of how a  
> family with access to NO soil, or soil which has already
> been demonstrated to 
> be  barren of sufficient nutrients to grow even
> light-feeding veggies, could  
> possibly magically summon food from somewhere else, where
> the water is 
> clean and  the soils are fertile and the sun shines on
> schedule, at a price they 
> can  afford.  I also wonder how "true" hydroponic
> products would be shipped 
> to  all the inland cities and communities that don't
> have access to the 
> coast.   Most folks would call that
> extractive, non-renewable fishing or  
> farming, and petroleum-intensive long-distance commodities
> marketing.   Which is 
> what I thought we were trying to move away from.

Problem 1: I have a fundamental problem with going ever more artificial to 
feed oneself and yet to continue living in an artificial environment. I for 
one won't do it. I understand the dilemma for many people out there. But I 
think part of the wake-up call is to try and move somewhere more natural. 
Become more natural in habit, and not trying to tolerate, reform or 'improve' 
a sickly way of living together (aka the big city).
Until one can actually do this, an aquaponics system may be useful. For sure.

Problem 2: As an example, dried seaweed is very light and very nutrient 
dense. It can be stored for months, be shipped at very low energy cost, and 
eaten fresh after soaking for a few minutes.
Then add humanure systems to capture every last nutrient that we excrete and 
get it in some form back into the soil, and slowly, over time, your soil 
nutrient deficiency problems will greatly diminish. But I am not confident 
this will happen on any large scale though.

> 
> Like I have said in every post so far, if you don't like it,
> don't use  it. 
>  Very simple.  What I saw in those first posts which
> upset me  most, was 
> that folks didn't know much about it but had already decided
> it wasn't  going 
> to work, never had worked, never could work, and if it ever
> did work,  would 
> never be as good as natural soil.  I have been working
> diligently to  lay 
> all those claims to rest, at least all the claims but that
> last.  And  that 
> last claim is merely an opinion.  There was a time when
> all of  humanity had 
> access to rich soil.  By a variety of practices and
> accidents  and 
> socio/political/economic policies, only a minority of us do
> now.  So  what of the 
> rest of the world?  Do we leave them out in the cold,
> or tell  them to go 
> improve their soils slowly and steadily over time, and darn
> if they  starve in 
> the process?  If we were scrapping for our meals, I
> don't  think we'd insist 
> quite so hard on "natural".

I think I understand your motivation. And it is a noble idea, for sure. And 
aquaponics will be able to help feed some people, yes. But you are right; I 
don't worry about the rest of the world. Not because I don't care... it is 
because I do care.
The only way back is *the way back*. More artificiality won't cut it even 
though it looks promising, and even though working with the idea pays for our 
bills at present.
What if your nutrient supply line is cut? What if you can't get plastic tubs 
anymore? Soil, however bad, will stick around. So does the ocean. Plastic 
manufacturing and nutrient mining... I am not so sure about those in the long 
run.

>  
> I'm trying to raise a voice for all those who don't have
> good soil, don't  
> have access to the coast, don't have access to all the
> wonderful natural  
> planting alternatives that some of us enjoy, yet
> inconveniently still want to  
> eat.  There are quite a few folks like that out in the
> world; some  
> estimates now are that 3/5 of humanity doesn't enjoy a
> regular, well-balanced  
> diet.  Can the 2/5 of us who are more fortunate, deny
> them the chance to  grow 
> their own?  Aquaponics offers a well-tested way to
> bring food  reliably to 
> communities around the world, who don't have access to
> sufficient  volumes of 
> locally grown food now.  And it can do so without all
> the GMOs  and 
> herbicides and pesticides that so much of conventional ag is
> trying to  insist is 
> necessary to feed the world.  Most folks look to
> conventional ag  to solve the 
> problems of world hunger.  Are we comfortable with
> that?   Some very few 
> look to places like permaculture instead, to answer
> those  questions.  Will 
> the permaculture community insist on what only a few of
> us  have, and everyone 
> else can just muddle along without permaculture's
> help?   To turn away from 
> such a promising approach for feeding so many, and in such
> a  self-reliant 
> way, because it's not 'natural', seemed amazingly elitist
> to  me.   Natural 
> in this context is hardly appropriate, since none of
> us  are 
> hunters/gatherers anymore.  Everything we eat has been
> cultured away  from what was once 
> found in the wild.  

And to our great detriment; both in health and in freedom. It is not elitist, 
it is just seeing and stating the obvious. Trying to 'help the world' is just 
as much an elitist concept! Most people out there do not have the opportunity 
to think that way are have the means to do so. And the people who do have the 
means, usually have ulterior motives to 'help' others.
Why not go into guerilla gardening in our communities and oppose the PTB land 
ownership ideas. People can do that too, and it works. I have done this in 
Thailand and after 2 years the community is catching on. We're planting fruit 
trees everywhere.

>  
> That's why I keep hammering on this topic.  Who is
> permaculture really  
> serving, if it's just a club for those who own rich soil,
> and can use it as 
> they  see fit?  If that's the population you're
> serving, you're destined to 
> only  reach roughly 1% of the entire human
> population.  In which case I guess 
> you  can shout your objections about aquaponics as
> loudly as you want, 
> because no one  will be listening.  The other 99%
> of humanity will be trying to 
> figure out  how to feed themselves.  Without your
> guidance, because you've 
> already  voluntarily excluded yourself from their
> conversations.  The choice is 
>  yours.
> Kathryn Kerby
> frogchorusfarm.com
> Snohomish, WA
>  

Your ideas of helping the 99% exclude you from seeing things in a different 
light as well. If you work with young college graduates or relatively high 
educated middle class Americans, you are working only with a tiny fraction of 
humanity as well. This is not the 99%.
I thought like you before. Until the reality of living with the poor in Asia 
dawned on me. I now work here as a teacher and educational manager. And I see 
how absolutely difficult it is for anyone, rich or poor, 1% of 99%, students 
or fellow teachers and administrative staff, to learn anything radically new.
We can learn a new trick, but we do not learn to teach ourselves. We do not 
gain independence from our habits. So we tinker with new techniques and 
methods, while our entire foundation of society is crumbling.

Daniel