permaculture

[loren luyendyk <loren@sborganics.com>]

I agree with Chris.  Not all capitalism is created equal.  I personally 
believe that money is not inherently evil, except that which is supported by 
debt... which I guess is most currency.  But anyways money is energy and we 
are all about abundance right?  I know if many of us had millions of dollars 
we would do some pretty awesome stuff.  So why not have that resource to 
utilize for the benefit of all?

IMO it is how you go about being a capitalist.  There are examples of 
righteous capitalists much like righteous monarchies, just like there are 
abusive examples.  I believe that sometimes the power needs to be 
concentrated in the hands of one or a few for the sake of getting things 
done.  Cooperatives could get bulky- though I am not opposed to the idea.  
Chris brought up a great cultural challenge- ie its all about context.

A bloke I heard talk from NZ who puts together what is akin in their country 
to Community Land Trusts is totally against consensus.  He said it blocks the 
process.  So at first he develops the projects as a capitalist model (top 
down) to get it set up correctly (as he has the experience and knowledge of 
the big picture) and then turns it over to the "commons" once it is up and 
running (bottom up).  But he is relatively righteous about it.  

In the end I think it boils down to character and ethics.  What kind of 
behaviors are we rewarding in our children?  What values and ethics will they 
learn to promote in their later life that will lead to creating regenerative 
systems, economic and otherwise?  Unfortunately, the majority of the world in 
under the spell of money, so we need to acknowledge this and work within this 
awareness.

I am working on a model that addresses an issue that Rafter pointed out very 
succinctly- that: "We need new strategies for scaling up from gardens."  I 
wholeheartedly agree.  There really is an opportunity to retrofit commercial 
commodity based agriculture to be more diversified, and make money doing it.  
I am focusing specifically on a strategy to diversify monocrop orchards and I 
call it "Integrated Orchard Systems".  Others call it "layered ag" or the 
like, but it is different from food forestry.  

The strategy works the capitalist angle to "convince" conventional farmers to 
diversify crops and interplant (or add in animals) in order to maximize 
profit and reduce costs (after all we exist in a capitalist system and 
farmers are often slaves to it).  The bonus is that the rest of us benefit 
from this increase in diversity through ecological resiliency, plus resources 
are used more efficiently as water and fertilizer is distributed to all of 
the crops.

Here is a little excerpt from an article I am writing on the subject:





















"[An Integrated Orchard System] differs from a “food forest” in that it is 
designed to
facilitate ease of management and harvest, while increasing diversity of 
income and species. 
A food forest may have a “random” or “chaotic” design, which, while
mimicking nature, is less efficient to manage than commercial agriculture
systems.  It is no doubt that
industrialized agriculture has perfected efficiency, with 1 farmer managing
hundreds or thousands of acres through petroleum powered machines, with its 
inherent environmental, economic, and social issues.  

One goal of IOS’s is to maximize the return
on energy invested in a system, by designing the systems so that it is ordered
(in rows or groupings) for ease of harvest and management, thereby making 
more of each
pass.  The result is increased resilience both ecologically and economically 
of the farm, and also increased ecosystem health." 

Of course this concept is nothing new to most of you, being 
permaculturalists.  But my goal is to present this concept to commodity 
farmers by at least speaking (a little known dialect of) their language- so 
they can understand and hopefully convert.  Then we will work on getting them 
to go organic/regenerative.  Baby steps.  This is how I hope to initiate 
change on the large scale, by retrofitting existing systems as opposed to 
starting over.

We will get nowhere by holding stances that create divides, "-ism schisms".  
Our skill as designers is to work with what we have and "Create the LEAST 
change for greatest overall effect".  Completely starting over is not the 
least change.


 





Thanks for the "food for thought", Rafter.  Great topic that needs to be 
addressed in our community.