Although I'm Dutch and living in Spain, I'm so pleased about this video about agenda 21.
Since a year now I think that Permaculture is a major solution for Humanity and I hope that we will evolve as one wherever we live to overcome the agenda 21 and the Codex Alimentarius Law (just to name some...).
Peace, love and light,
Results 1 to 9 of 9
08-02-2013, 09:09 PM
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
14-02-2013, 09:24 AM
welcome to the forum Jacqueline. Plots abound and they may all be true - though the way ahead for me is to work with what we can and ensure our own intent is right. The agenda may well be what we need to find the proper way and the evil that abounds wil be seen for what it is in due course. We must not spend our lives in fear and doubt but have as great a life as is possible.
You cannot solve a problem with the same level of consciousness that created it - Einstein
15-06-2014, 01:15 PM
- Join Date
- Jun 2014
I admit the first time I saw "Agenda 21 for Dummies" on youtube, I was in complete support of the movement, because it's SO congruent with the permaculture ethics... But then I thought wait... this is a little TOO parallel... and considering the whole "Invasive Species" debate... (permaculture promotes the irresponsible use of invasive species) and after seeing the government's recent move to grab up millions of acres to set aside as "National Monuments" (OFF LIMITS TO ALL HUMANS), and the attitudes of the "Ecological Preservation" community toward Permaculture, making us out too look too irresponsible to be trusted with land and exotic species.... I have become VERY CONCERNED!!! Where will we build??? Will The New World Order include plans for people to freely develop human habitats in the wild after all land is declared federal land?
I believe the permaculture community may actually be actually a government promoted program, to promote the irresponsible use of invasive species, so they can turn it around on us and use that against us! So they can intervene and say that the public is not responsible enough to develop sustainable human habitats... They are going to make ALL of the land OFF LIMITS to humans! Do you see!??? They want to depopulate the planet and put people in small communities and give them limited access to nature. They are going to teach people to believe that THEY are an invasive species, and that they cannot be trusted with free development of ecological human habitats.... The "human activity" argument...
The permaculture community needs to pull it's head out of its ass, see how they are planning to use US to fuck it up for EVERYONE, and start spreading the word! We can overcome if we unite and prove that we CAN practice responsible human habitat development, and the responsible use of imported species!!!!
please listen to my podcast, and if you think I am not being totally paranoid....SHARE THIS!!! SPREAD THE WORD!!!! THE "COLLAPSE" is coming! It's being orchestrated! We need to take action!
If you think I am WAY OFF here, please tell me! I've been wrong before... but this... I feel like I received a genuine revelation and I feel responsible to warn the community!
16-06-2014, 07:08 PM
I think that you are way off about Agenda 21. However, I can see that your concern regarding so-called invasive species and their relationship with permaculture is a good one to keep in mind. So I'd rather offer my opinion on that subject rather than the former (since it would only wind up in a pie fight).
If we are worried about having anyone regulate our activities because of so-called misuse of invasive species, then it behooves us to do as our training informs us to and exercise utmost caution when making species selection. Emphasizing locally adapted species (I avoid the use of "native" as well, because it is hard to really pin down what that means [the "native to when?" argument]) before choosing plants from outside of our ecoregion is part and parcel of how I choose to design- and how I was taught.
That said, the very idea of invasive species is one fraught with problems. I recently sat down with an interview with a researcher from Finland's governmental agriculture research agency and we talked a little bit about how troubling the idea is. I emphasized that I always evaluate a certain species on its merits, not on the pigeon hole society has chosen for it (be it a weed or invasive, etc). One of the most effective arguments about "invasive" species is to point out where our agricultural staples came from and how much of our landscapes have been "conquered" by these species that largely evolved in the Middle East. And then to think about the profound environmental impact that our cultivation of those continues to have. All she could do is nod.
So I think we should be careful to emphasize that we are first evaluating local species to fill a certain niche before looking beyond our bioregion. This way we have clear reasons why we choose to use a certain species. Fact based, non emotional, and reasoned. Choosing not to accept the "frame" of invasive and native species is pretty important, but I have to back up why I do not choose to argue on their territory.
Uniting the permaculture movement, a few million strong and stretching across the globe in all kinds of conditions, would be a monumental task. Not saying impossible, but perhaps it is easier to handle our own actions first and influence those around us when at all possible to take these considerations seriously.
17-06-2014, 01:04 AM
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
- New Orleans, LA, USA
I'll agree with Finchj about Agenda 21, and there is official documentation that you can read online. Granted, it's lengthy and mind-numbingly boring, just like the recent seed laws passed in Europe. So I'll give you my take on exotic and/or invasive species too. Natives grow easier, perform more ecological functions and keep the local populations of insects, fungi, critters and birds happier than exotics. Our job is to mimic nature, and nature is different from place to place. With plants being on the bottom trophic level, it is plants that we focus on mainly. A good bottom trophic level supports the next trophic level(fungi/insects) which supports the next trophic level(larger animals), which supports us and other apex predators. We can't, nor should, want to turn everything in to a European forested system of hardwoods. It's the same fundamental problem with using the same form of agriculture world-wide(plough culture or industrial agriculture for examples).
Local plants are often host plants, food sources and habitat for more than just one species. If we replace all the natives with exotics(invasive/noxious or not), then we lose the local populations of animals, fungi and soil bacteria if they can't adapt. For example: I'm looking at land in Northern Mississippi(USA) right now. Most of this region is pine savanna. Most of it has also been planted with faster growing pine species for pulp wood. For me to have a zone 5, I should be looking at a pine savanna system(preferably in a spot where fire won't be an issue for the rest of the system since pine savannas are fire dependent). If I'm smart, I'd really be looking for a spot that is naturally a hardwood(oak for example) forest since that's the type of forest that I prefer. Turning a pine savanna in to a hardwood forest will be okay in the short term, but if the animals have evolved to eat pine nuts and not acorns, then we may have nutrient issues for these critters. However, and luckily, I can still have some hardwoods of specific species because hardwoods are not out of place in pine savannas(think a few swales loaded with hardwoods). So off the top of my head, I can have several native species of pine mixed with blueberries and tea plants(Camellia sinensis) in the same system since they all like acidic soils. For nitrogen fixing, I should be able to use Elaeagnus multiflora, which also supplies bird/human food in the form of more berries and/or I could go with either honey or black locusts since I think they're both native to the region(I'll be researching this before I actually do it). I should be able to do all of this without messing up the ecosystem too badly, and probably improving the ecosystem after I rid myself of all the crap pine that does nothing for anything except make humans some money. I keep waffling on keeping honey bees since they're not native and out-compete the native species for valuable resources. When/if the honey bees completely collapse(and it will more likely happen in the US than Europe if they're right about the causes), then I will have very few pollinators because I didn't cultivate the natives. This would be a grave error of design.
If I couldn't use exotics for my food(ie: tomatoes, potatoes, onions, carrots, broccoli, etc), then I may have a problem with agenda 21. However, I'm also of the same mind that says we need to be very careful when we plant things willy-nilly without any forethought or research. I think(it's been a while since I perused the Agenda 21 document) they're more worried about things like kudzu, water hyacinth, salvinia, apple snails, nutria, etc from escaping in to the wild and almost destroying ecosystems. This is a problem, and it would be a great shame if Permaculturalists started causing these issues because they didn't feel like doing the research first. There are just so many resources available online to guide your species selection with a local view to find out if it's native, exotic, invasive or noxious. Planting comfrey without researching it's local status is not a good thing to do, even if Permaculturalists swear by this plant. There may easily be a local species that does a better job, though it is a pretty amazing plant all around. Permaculture, however, is not about keeping up with the neighbors.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|