permaculture

[Daniel Jager <dfjager@yahoo.com>]

A few points...

1) Anything we do, have ever done, or will ever be able to do, is 
already existing in Nature. The only problem is that we think ourselves 
clever and smart and wish to apply a 'natural' process at our whim. 
Using natural processes in a different field of space and/or time than 
Nature intended, aka technology, is ultimately a recipe for disaster.

* The heat and radiation of nuclear decay is natural... Deep inside the 
planet. where it should stay.
* A geyser like Old Faithful is natural... But a planet covered with 
steam engines???
* A stream-lake-forest system is natural...  A few plastic tanks, trying 
to mimic this on a small and very  dense scale...aka aquaponics ???

The process used by any 'technology', is natural. Application of 
technology, however, is too focused, too strong, too out of place.

Everything already is! We tend to forget that we evolved on this planet 
with all conditions right for our further evolution. Or if you will, we 
were created on this planet with everything in place for our proper 
living. Technology was not needed then, it is not needed now. Though it 
is there for us to use, if we so wish. But how often do we use 
technology wisely?!

'Permaculture' is just a word. There is no movement, no direction, no 
goal needed. There is just our natural place on the planet. We are 
arguing about an -ism, instead of trying to be more natural again.


2)
* Contour cropping: The only difference is scale! Go up a mountain, and 
you will see slowly the vegetation change, based on elevation.

* Frequency of use zoning? Look at the micro flora and fauna around an 
old decidious tree. Very clear zoning based on light and mulch 
availability. Any individual's (plant or animal) influence decreases  
exponentially with the distance from the individual. (This is the famous 
inverse square distance law: y = 1/x^2). High intensity is close around 
the individual unit, low intensity, low input farther away.

* Nature does NOT design?!? The only process that can gather the coins 
you scattered on the floor back in your purse, is conscious action of 
your hand. The only process that can create a painting or a piece of 
music, is the conscious action of an artist, directed by his or her mind.

The only thing that can bring the order of form out of the chaos of 
formless possibilities, is conscious thought.
As it is for your coins in your purse, so it is for building a house.
As it is for a house, so it is for a tree.
As it is for a tree, so it is for a mountain
As it is for a mountain, so it is for a planet.
As it is for a planet, so it is for a sun.
As it is for a sun, so it is for a galaxy.
That's why it is written that we are created in the image of God, for we 
have received the ability to apply conscious thought and create. All of 
Nature is designed, as are you and I. Our sorrow is that we cannot see this.


Daniel

> Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2014 21:33:30 -0800
> From: Toby Hemenway <toby@patternliteracy.com>
> Subject: Re: [permaculture] The weakening of Permaculture.
>
> ...
>
> This is why I am continuing with this thread. Steve seems to be saying that it's only 
> permaculture if it's made in the same form nature uses, and I think we are better guided by the 
> processes, principles, and systems of nature rather than by whether a plant grows in dirt or not, 
>  and that's a critical distinction (how amended can soil be before it's not "natural," 
> anyway? 2% peat moss? 50%?). I don't think of permaculture as a thing, as something you can point 
> to and say "This is (or is not) permaculture." If a permaculture design process was 
> used to arrive at a decision, then that is a permacultural application. And I have seen excellent 
> design processes that arrive at aquaponics as part of a permaculture system.
>
> I need to see data showing that aquaponics food is less nutritious than 
> soil-grown. I see no basis. Nature grows many plants in water. In fact, the 
> controlled conditions of aquaponics should give superb nutrient uptake. 
> Plants stressed by the vagaries of soil and weather usually have fewer 
> nutrients than crops that grow evenly and quickly via ample access to food, 
> water, and warmth.
>
> If permaculture is about mimicking nature in the way Steve suggests, we are 
> doing it all wrong. Nature does not do keyline plowing, or planting on 
> contour, or zoning by frequency of use, or grafting, or hot composting, or 
> worm bins, nor does it build earthworks in rational ways. Few of our methods 
> mimic the form of nature.
>
> That's because we're designing, which is something nature does not do. 
> Permaculture mimics nature's processes and systems, not the form or objects, 
> so we will often arrive at forms (like aquaponics or a swale) that don't look 
> like nature's form, but the processes are. Aquaponics is a superb mimic of an 
> estuarine ecosystem, using the same natural processes and nutrients.
>
> A basic tenet is that permaculturists design for specific sites and 
> conditions. Do I want to see aquaponics supplant soil-based systems? Of 
> course not; I'm not an idiot. In most cases, soil-based growing is more 
> appropriate than aquaponics. Do I see specific conditions when aquaponics 
> fits all the criteria of permaculture design as the best method to fill 
> important needs? Absolutely.
>
> A perfect role for aquaponics in permaculture design is an urban setting where soil is 
> toxic or absent, land is too dear for food growing, where animals can't be raised for 
> food, in "food deserts" where all food sold in a region is junk (it is a 
> privilege to be able to choose, or afford, or grow healthy food, one denied to many 
> urbanites).