permaculture

[Toby Hemenway <toby@patternliteracy.com>]

I get that Steve believes that aquaponics can't be permaculture because it is 
artificial. But that's not an argument, that's asserting an opinion. This is 
important because it gets to what permaculture is and isn't. What makes 
something part of permaculture?

Yes, to me, too, "natural" is more desirable than "artificial" (tho I usually 
prefer drinking from a cup to lapping from a puddle). But the comparison of 
McDonalds to aquaponics is specious. McDonalds uses highly processed, 
chemically synthesized additives, non-organic, refined GMO grains, and 
hormone and antibiotic-laced, CAFO beef fed on poisonous, stripped distillers 
grain by-products, whose detrimental effect on health is well documented. 
Aquaponics provides whole plants grown organically, in natural rock, water, 
and manure, with no processing or additives. Why would those plants be less 
nutritious than the cattails and watercress from my neighbor's pond? I need 
to see data. We'll always disagree on that one.

But natural and artificial are completely subjective terms—is a designed 
guild natural or artificial?--and that makes the artificial/natural divide 
useless as a permaculture criteria. What determines inclusion in permaculture 
is not where a process falls on some subjective natural/artificial opinion 
scale, but whether it follows the ethics and principles, and is arrived at by 
the design methods of permaculture. Otherwise, permaculture is nothing but 
opinions. 

When David Holmgren stayed in my house about 10 years ago, we had a long talk 
about the natural vs artificial distinction, and David didn't think it was a 
meaningful one. And from Bill's writings and the PDC I took from him, he 
doesn't use it as a criteria to define permaculture, but rather uses metrics 
like "does it damage or preserve ecosystems? and "does it mimic natural 
cycles?" I'm going to side with the masters here.

All agriculture is artificial. To me, "natural" means without technological 
intervention, and humans went "synthetic" as soon as we starting watering 
plants and selecting fat seeds 10,000 years ago. Some people argue that all 
farming is natural, others that only certain farming is natural, others that 
no farming is natural, and they are all correct, because "natural" is not a 
definable word. It's a soothing but sloppy term subject to opinion, not 
definition. 

When used as a basis for deciding if something is permaculture or not, 
opinions like "artificial" take us into cultism and the worst of hippie 
permaculture, where we believe our assumptions must be true because we call 
something "natural," so we don't need to test, prove, or demonstrate their 
accuracy. We can just say, it's natural, so it's clearly more nutritious and 
earth-friendly and astrally aligned than some "artificial" and therefore bad 
thing, a priori in a circular argument, without bothering with data. This is 
why permaculture has such a low regard in the academic, scientific, and 
policy communities. Assertions about "artificial" aquaponics are a perfect 
example: opinion with no argument, criteria, or proof. When I argue that 
aquaponics is a closed-loop system that mimics an estuary, Steve just 
counters with, you don't get it, it's artificial and permaculture is natural. 
That's a noble sentiment, but it's not an argument. Water from a metal rain 
tank is permaculture and natural, but a plant grown in a metal tank is not? 
Come on.

Instead of vague opinions like "natural," we need clear, measurable criteria 
for describing permaculture, and we have them: Does it mimic ecosystem 
processes, fill important needs, and improve ecosystem health? We have 
excellent tools for measuring all of those. We have no metric for "natural," 
which is why corporate capitalists have seized happily on the word, just as 
they like "no artificial ingredients," which allows MSG and preservatives. 
Those words can mean anything. Saying that permaculture excludes "artificial" 
things (and only certain artificial things; cisterns and keyline plows are 
okay) takes us into muddiness and away from a useful description.

We need working, definable terms backed by data, not shiftable opinions that 
just have to be right because they seem more "natural" than others.

Toby
http://patternliteracy.com


On Jan 2, 2014, at 2:52 PM, Steve Hart wrote:

> Hi Toby et al...a point of clarification... you suggest
> 
> "First, I'd avoid arguing that people who disagree with you don't "get
> it."
> 
> It is not a matter of agreeing with me at all. After all many do not in
> many arguments I offer to many forums. I am presenting an argument to agree
> with or not. It is not about agreeing with me or not, it is the argument,
> or the point I'm raising. . Clearly you don't get it either and still want
> to argue that imitation systems like A&H are great models of Permaculture
> Design. I argue that they are clearly synthetic and imitation and an
> example of the weakening of Permaculture.
> 
> I am also more than aware that through Permaculture we learn a lot from
> nature and do mimic many elements viz worm farms, hot composting, swales
> etc etc etc. I am also very much aware of the myriad of foods and plants
> that live naturally in water. I have also become aware of the values of
> micro-nutrients and different energy fields to our own personal health.
> Many which can not mimic or be imitated.
> 
> Our impoverished communities do have great challenges. But I do not see
> offering them artificial systems as their solutions to the crap they have
> available in their stores. MacDonalds probably uses this argument to. We
> need to go beyond that. CSA is one fine example.
> 
> As for weak PDCs this probably is the root cause to an unenlightened
> collective global family we have. Probably through a result of too great a
> demand and not enough supply. So untrained uneducated inexperienced
> teachers have stood up. So our challenge for the years ahead is to consider
> ways of strengthening the whole dynamic of Permaculture teaching.  But
> suggesting artificial systems are organic and great design models I'm
> afraid is not the avenue to address such. We need to strive for greater
> solutions and seek greater models while constantly challenging all systems
> especially the weaknesses and discarding them.
> Steve Hart
> 
> 
> On 2 January 2014 13:00, <permaculture-request@lists.ibiblio.org> wrote:
> 
>> Send permaculture mailing list submissions to
>>        permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
>> 
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>        http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>        permaculture-request@lists.ibiblio.org
>> 
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>        permaculture-owner@lists.ibiblio.org
>> 
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of permaculture digest..."
>> 
>> 
>> Today's Topics:
>> 
>>   1. Re: The weakening of Permaculture. (Toby Hemenway)
>>   2. Watch Vanishing of the Bees online | Free | Hulu (Lawrence London)
>>   3. Re: Aquaponics: artificial? (georg parlow)
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2014 21:33:30 -0800
>> From: Toby Hemenway <toby@patternliteracy.com>
>> Subject: Re: [permaculture] The weakening of Permaculture.
>> To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
>> Message-ID: <B3E5259C-0F21-4714-8719-E5D97085D5B3@patternliteracy.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset=us-ascii
>> 
>> First, I'd avoid arguing that people who disagree with you don't "get it."
>> It's tempting to retort that someone who dogmatically says that aquaponics
>> isn't permaculture needs a remedial PDC, too, but that's too rude for me to
>> ever say!  The points Steve is making are elementary permaculture: mimic
>> nature and don't work against it, avoid "artificial" systems, grow healthy
>> food. I think we here are all smart enough to get them. And I agree with
>> all of them. We just see their application differently.
>> 
>> 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).
>> 
>> I've seen several great examples of this. One is the aquaponics systems in
>> Will Allen's Growing Power site in Milwaukee, another the GrowHaus in
>> Denver. Both of these are in impoverished areas; the GrowHaus is in a food
>> desert, a polluted industrial area of low-income people of color. Their
>> large aquaponics systems provide not just fresh organic food in place of
>> the poisonous crap in local stores, but income opportunities for the
>> locals, a social nexus, business experience, farm training, and education
>> around food, agricultural traditions, social justice, whole systems, and
>> community activism.
>> 
>> If that's a "weakening" of permaculture rather than one of the best
>> examples in the world of deep permaculture, I'm a monkey's uncle. And that
>> is why I would never be dogmatic about whether an object is or is not
>> permaculture. It is about where it fits in the system, and very little
>> about what it is made of.
>> 
>> And I love what Steve Waldron wrote:
>> 
>>> The great strength of the aquaponics system is that it really grabs
>>> people's attention and gets them interested in feedback loops and
>>> plant/animal synergies.  It's subversive eco-pedagogy at its best.
>> 
>> That is great permaculture design.
>> 
>> Happy New Year to all,
>> 
>> Toby
>> http://patternliteracy.com
>> 
>>