Subject: Re: [permaculture] on an ethics of Mr Pittman (and the US military)
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:03:32 -0400
I don't think that anyone's said either of those things. I think
rather that some of us feel permaculture is capable of reaching people
who are today incompatible with it, and/or at least minimizing some of
the damage they can do. I would prefer that we weren't there at all,
but since we are, I do think we can have a positive impact on what
actually happens there.
I certainly agree with you about the impact of western agriculture on
Afghanistan and other areas, but this is certainly not something that's
exclusive to places that have been occupied by our military. The
agribiz companies have a foothold in pretty much every developing
country whether the military is there or not, and often use those
countries' own military to enforce contracts. I actually have much more
faith in the idea of teaching permaculture to our military and other
members of our government than ever convincing an executive at Monsanto
to change their ways.
So... just because someone doesn't agree with your point of view on this
issue doesn't mean they're implying that permaculture is politically
neutral or compatible with imperialism.
On 8/18/2010 7:52 PM, Patrick wrote:
I’ll slander anyone who speaks as though permaculture is
politically neutral&/or compatible with imperialism. Honesty and
self-criticism in our communities is essential.
Re: [permaculture] on an ethics of Mr Pittman (and the US military)
, (continued)