Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - Re: [permaculture] ZOO ?

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Robyn Francis <robyn@permaculture.com.au>
  • To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [permaculture] ZOO ?
  • Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 12:26:58 +1000

Been following this thread and thought I may as well throw in a few of my own
thoughts, and honestly I'm not comfortable at all with the term Zone-00 and
squirm when I hear it used. Likewise, I cringe when folk start proposing a
4th 'ethic' of 'spirit-care'

I do occasionally use the term Zone-0 to refer to the people in design/in the
system or one's self, but don't formally teach it as a 'zone' in a PDC. I
will explain to students that they may come across permies who'll use the
terms Zone-zero and Zone-zero-zero and the various contexts of use, but make
it clear that it is not part of the original pc concept.

This discussion is the first time I've come across the concept of Z0/Z00 as
'the designer' and that simply doesn't compute unless one is designing one's
own life and systems, but how can the designer be the zone 0 of someone
else's system they're designing - makes no sense at all.

For me, Zone I has always been the home and immediate domestic landscape as
an integrated, interacting, inter-dependent system, the indoor and outdoor
living environment, and I have not seen the need to adopt a separate zone (0)
for the home or core structures of a design.

Permaculture is people-centric by it's nature - it's designing human
ecologies to meet human needs

Pc design begins with the people, and I teach that pc design is as
people-specific as it is site-specific. In this context I am comfortable with
Zone-0 as a term for the human factor, with the people (individually and
collectively) being the core 'elements' with their specific needs, functions,
yields, resources, abilities and limitations driving the design.

Bills definition of permaculture in the PDM states "It is the harmonious
integration of the landscape and people providing their food, energy,
shelter, and other material and non-material needs in a sustainable way"
NON-MATERIAL is a key word here which can easily get overlooked, and
inadequately addressed in design and permaculture practice, which i think is
what many Z0/Z00 proponents are attempting to redress.

What is 'non-material'? For me this speaks to the attitudinal,
philosophical, psychological, intellectual, spiritual, emotional, social and
community needs not adequately addressed by classic pc design methodologies
(zones and sectors) or even by the 'invisible structures'. The term 'social
permaculture' is perhaps the best term we have so far for addressing and
engaging the human factor in design.

I think all this essentially falls under the second ethic "Care of People",
it's just that we lack an agreed terminology or tool in classic pc design
methodology to address the non-material -- we've great tools for the material.

We find the 'self' at the heart, the core, the beginning, the 'zero', of many
different philosophies around the world. As a designer I seek to understand
the needs and aspirations of the people in the design first, which then
drives the design of the system that will support them, and that they in turn
will support, sustain and maintain. Within this context I can accept the
concept of a 'Zone 0'.

Could rave on, but other more urgent matters require my energy.

Robyn





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page