Can You Afford To Be A Permaculturist - Dont be a Permaculture Pauper

Discussion in 'The big picture' started by Tezza, Mar 14, 2004.

  1. Tezza

    Tezza Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,585
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hello to Everyone here in Permie land.How are you all today?
    Been a Permie since 1989 met Bill twice during his visits to Perth,Been Hooked ever since. Have been doing all the fruit growing vegies etc etc etc.The only thing i never found out was how to be self sufficient in the money department.Bill
    has offered a few in his books,It basicly boils down to people helping people.Ive been serching for the ultimate self financing system to help me do what i want...Im 50 suffer from back injuries, shoulder injuries, No one wants to employ me,I live in a small country town a few permies here and Farmers I live on a suburban block 1/4 acre lots fruit trees and chooks etc etc.But im desperate for more land as its so cheep here $1000 @ acre
    IF there are any others out there who may be interested in finding out more details, re my ideas....You dont have to live near me ,,you dont even have to live in my state or country. This is a genuine offer Legal as well Ha Ha Ha.No obligation.
    This is Permaculture at its best
    For more Info please email me
    Permaculture is my life.This is Genuine :D
     
  2. vix

    vix Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hi,
    As soon as I ever heard about permaculture I knew I would never have very much money, at least not by being a permie...I think part of being one is accepting that we are trying to create less of a pollution footprint on the planet and that means not having or using lots of resources.
    It would be great to be able to make a decent living, but it does rely on people helping each other- unfortunatley home business goes under all the time as not enough like minded folk support the small business-given the onslaught of chain stores selling cheap junk. I'm sure we altry to buyorganic, Aussie made etc, but it's harder and usually more expensive to support the people that need it most. If you are on a low income it's kind of harder to be an ethical consumer.
    I'm interested in your idea though.
    Just a few thoughts.
    Good luck.
     
  3. muttabuttasaurus

    muttabuttasaurus Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeh, Vix I echo your statement about the difficulties of low income earners being ethical consumers... for example, it is often cheaper for me to buy organic vegetables from the local national chain supermarket than it is to buy them from my own co-op, which is just ridiculous, but that's how it is. of course, it is even cheaper to buy non-organic food from the supermarket.
    so much more incentive to grow my own...
    I go through waves where I'll get really motivated to examine my consumption and make sacrifices in some areas and spend more than I really want to on stuff that seems worth being organic about. then I realise how broke this has made me and I generally say, "bugger it" and end up back at the supermarket for a few weeks.
    recently my co-op introduced a scheme where you can volunteer for so many hours and you get a certificate for a bigger discount for a week, which is helpful. still, hardly anything at even the co-op is locally or permaculturally produced so its all pretty unsustainable...
    but yeah, I'm intrigued to hear Tezza's idea. I probably don't have any spare money right now though.
    :D :D :D
     
  4. d_donahoo

    d_donahoo Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    no offence is meant by this post Tezza...but it is more to try and encouarge a broader thought process about permaculture...

    i always struggle with ideas present as 'solutions to financial hardship' when the detail is sparse, but the promisies are big - i think permaculture teaches us there is no quick fix, and that perhaps the greatest challenge is not too grow - but too shrink.

    i recall David Holmgren telling me that current permacultralists would find a truely permacultural world very boring indeed, because they would not be leading any great change or be creatinng innovative systems, but by the time a permacultural world will evolve the focus will solely on food production and preparation using limited energy supplies and living a life based on family, generational land change over and small communities who know everything about you (i guess think pre-inductrial revolution)...

    the question that you need to perhaps ask is:

    considering your physical well being and the time of your life - why do you need more acres? wouldn't it be better to work out ways to better utlise the 1/4 that you have to best efficiency - is bigger better? what are the advantages/disadvantages of where you currently are vs the advantages/disadvantages of where you want to be?

    as permaculturalists we need to continually challange why we are doing what we are doing using the ethics and principles of that to which we ascribe.
     
  5. muttabuttasaurus

    muttabuttasaurus Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wow Dan, in this respect I would differ from D. Holmgrens vision of a Permacultural world... I think that once we have our productive land scapes at their peak life we will finally have time to devote to pursuits higher than simply feeding ousrslves, (not that that won't be worthwhile). Like reading and writing great literature. Inventing new dances and mastering new instruments and languages. Recycling the mountain of dead PC's and running them on our surplus energy from our biogas digesters and hooking them up to speak with aliens! etc etc. (I think that to contemplate going back to a pre-industrial era is a bit silly in that it will be extremely difficult to take the billions of people worldwide who are only just entering an industrial one with you. not to mention the people in the west who are thouroughly addicted to their machines and like it that way perfectly well - I think making machines more sustainable is a more realistic goal)
    And well, a complex Permaculture should be an incredibly exciting place to wake up to everyday, at least from the perspective of someone like me who still can't help but get excited every time a seed germinates or I get to see a bird or an insect poke its nose into a flower, etc etc etc.
    As for Tezza's idea, you haven't even heard the details yet have ya? he might be up to more than plumping for a few acres... Come on Tezza, what are you on about?
     
  6. Tezza

    Tezza Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,585
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good Morning Fellow Permies...In responce to the posts in here and the emails ive received asking for more infomation id like to Quote Bill from his "Preface" in his "Introduction to Permaculture" (soft cover)...........As I saw permaculture in the 1970s,It was a benificial assembly of plants and animals in relation to human settlements,mostly aimed towards houshold and community self relience,and prehaps as a "commercial endeaver" only arising from a surplus from that system..
    However,Permaculture has come to mean more than just food -sufficiency in the household.Self relience in food is meaningless unless people have access to land,information,and finacial resources.So in recent years it has come to encompass appropiate legal and finacial stategies,including strategies for land access,business structures,and regional self financing.This way it is a whole human system......
    This has stuck in my mind for for 15 yrs and is just as strong in my thoughts now as it was when i first read and highlighted it in my copy.
    I have two strategies in place One is up and running.
    A small one to cover mainly the small time back yarder(no offence) he he..
    A larger one to cover the larger scale communities on large parcels of land.( thats where the cheep land bit comes into effect).This one is still on the drawing board but works exactly as the other.Id be happy to explain in more details to either or both concepts via email.
    Gee this is scarey ...Im not very good at this kinda stuff.Just an average bloke who Lives permaculture24/7 who,like Bill wants to get his message accross.and to do my bit to make this old world of ours a better place to live.(Boy does it need some help) AND also help my fellow EARTHLINGS (humans)
    If you wish to know more send me an Email ok!!
    Take care ,Be good
    Tezza
    :cool:
     
  7. d_donahoo

    d_donahoo Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    cheers all.

    i don't under estimate the excitedness of a seed germinating, but would encourage all permaculturalists to look into documentation on the energy crisis and the impact of global oil peak.

    i am not saying that a society would wish to return to a pre-induistrial age, but Holmgren argues that our output is linked to our available energy (basic physics) and that despite the dreams of alternative energy fans, no proposed source biogas, solar, wind or otherwise appears to be anywhere near the capacity allowed by fossil fuels.

    inevitably, we will return to a time where we will not be able to travel with ease, where many will be restricted to living their lives in a 100km radius - this is not a bad thing, but for many permacultralists tripoping around the world, supporting struggling communities and 'selling' the wonders of sustainable human systems...the future low-energy existence will not be as riviting as these current chaotic times...disputes will be between local land holders over who is responsible for the fence that brokes and let the milking goats into the vege patch...

    permaculture is not necesserily innovative - indigenous cultures have lived permaculture lifestyles forever, even medieval europe had many permacultural elements. society will inevitably forced back to a more simpler and sustainable life due to lack of energy.

    I do not aim to appear negative, or anti-enthusiastic...I am passionate about a permacultural future - I just think we have to begin preparing for the change and that requires radical rethinking that few people beyond - david holmgren, tim low, ted trainer - have done.

    Tezza, your ideas sound like such a restructre of social operation..I commend you on your passion and wish you luck.

    cheers

    dan d
     
  8. muttabuttasaurus

    muttabuttasaurus Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dan, I see where you are coming from and I have never felt that you are negative or unenthusiastic. I agree that it would be desirable if as a species we learnt to live more simply (to a point) and to be more engaged within our local communities.
    However, I must disagree with you on a number of points... You say, or quote Holmgren that "despite the dreams of alternative energy fans no proposed source appears anywhere near the capacity of fossil fuels".
    I would contend that if in the best Permaculture way we incorporated all of the available technologies where they are most appropriate, AND thoughtfully reduced our consumption we would undoubtedly have enough resources to lead very sustainable, fullfilling and "industrialised" lifestyles. The argument about basic physics that you cite I feel doesn't give enough credit to the fact that by our own designs we can greatly inhibit entropy by continually finding ways to recycle energy. Its like that thing about where does the energy of wind go when it is dissipated by trees. It has to go somewhere, right? We have finite resources but the possibilites for how we utilise them are only limited by our creativity.
    The fact is that our collective energy has thus far gone into exploiting fossil fuels and most resources generally very wastefully. Once the paradigm shifts and we value "alternative" energy sources for being nonpolluting and renewable we will learn how to exploit them efficiently. This is almost inevitable and it gives me hope, because you can sure as shit bet that the billions of emerging middle class Indians and Chinese are going to want to enjoy the benefits of the industrial era that we have grown up with...
    I've said it before and I'll say it again, with careful recycling of vegetable oils used for cooking and leftover from the rendering process, and a reduction in private transport, we have enough biofuel for an excellent interbioregional transport system. This will be worthwhile and desirable even in an era when Permaculture gurus aren't necessary to save the world from itself. I believe in a future permacultural world there will be interbioregional travel for the purposes of cultural and ecotourism and even trade. I do think that we should spend most of our lives living locally and forming connections with the people, plants, animals and elements where we live, but sometimes seeing another part of the world can give a new and useful perspective on the part that you are initimately connected to. Maybe a lot of this communication will only take place via technologies like the one we are using right now... Or will our civilisation devolve to the point where all those optic fibres will fall into disuse and computers will be crushed up (manually) for use in rammed wall construction?
    I would also disagree that any human culture has ever combined agriculture and longterm sustainability. Perhaps it has been done where populations are small and /or nomadic, but this I think has been more of an accident than by design. What is innovative about Permaculture is precisely that it seeks to design for sustainability by maximising our use of available energy so that our output or consumption can be perenially sustained.
    (of course we can learn a lot by studying traditional cultures which often had a lot of good ideas, but we shouldn't
    over-romanticise them either - we need to embrace new technologies that wisely harness our resources as well!)
    Sorry to go on but I do find the subject very compelling. I might easily change my mind about most things I've said next week too (but I doubt it).
     
  9. d_donahoo

    d_donahoo Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ah. happy to engage.
    i think these are the types of discussions that the 'sustainability' movement need to have. if not, how will we get to the place we are going in a co-ordinated way if we all think that place is somewhere different?
    i think our ideas are not dissimilar. perhaps just either side of a general centre. our point of difference is perhaps around the degree of energy descent that takes place. and the amount of energy ultimately informs what a future society can do and hence 'look-like'. i suppose the key discussion is, how are we going to deal with the demise of fossil fuels? that is soemthing we need to be starting to plan for, before energy is too precious to manufacture appropriate alternatives to fossil fuel.

    i would urge you to look up howard odum on any search engine and read a bit about 'embodied energy'. i have thought a lot about that and how it links to an energy decent.
    i think there is value in maintaining our infrastructure - but more on a local level. i see rural centres becoming hubs for more rurally based communities. i think that fits well with your idea of bio-regional travel (for the likes of trade etc.) these centres may also in the medium term be a place for regional energy generation that is distributed on a local, rather than statewide network.

    i agree with your point on agriculture and long-term sustainability...however, i don't think even permaculture will meet the needs of the world's current population. i think we have to be careful to claim permaculture as the world's cureall. Permaculture is a great tool, but it requires a whole lot more to make it work - and there are many good examples, even within the permaculture community where a lack of commitment to maintaining relationships and community can have a negative impact.

    i would appreciate any reading material that might give me some futher optimisim regarding the possibilities for alternative energy sources...i disagree with your optimistic outlook after reading david holmgren and howarde odum's interpretations of energy consumption, production and value in our society. i'd recommend reading
    dieoff.org or Golbal Oil Peak sites your trust that once society values alternative energy sources that we will be able to exploit them efficiently is placing an enormous amount of trust in a world that despite all evidence continues to consume and procreate regardless. also, statistically i don't agree with your bio-fuel arguement. i'd like to see some detailed analysis of exactly how much oil would be needed, and some consideration that currently the amount of oil we produce is created using machines driven by fossil fuel, could that same output of oil be maintained using biofuel, or wood, or solar energy as the origin energy source?

    we must not underestimate our reliance on fossil fuels and assume that we can create an energy source that is as effective. we are a very, very long way off at the moment. and the current reliance on fossil fuels to create alternative energy sources is also large - will we be able to maintain a society using alternative energy sources that are created by alternative energy sources?

    i think the energy of the future is wood...it is relatively renewable, gives pretty good energy output for cooking, heating, creating steam...and it just requires good management...not millions of hours of scientific time trying to make solar cells 5% more efficient.

    let the discussion continue.....

    :)
     
  10. Jemes

    Jemes Junior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Co-evolution. Not really a comment on the energy aspects of the discussion. I studied as an environmental biologist many many years ago. It wasn't too long after the original 'Limits to Growth' work came out. My feeling then and now was that that part of the equation was too big for me to effectively work with. I chose to look at the other part of the equation. That of usage. Followed through on ideas about voluntary simplicity, frugality, sustainability etc. Hence the interest in permaculture, biodynamics, design systems etc.

    Systemic crashes may or may not happen. At least reducing consumption though can certainly create longer timeframes for resculpturing solutions.

    A silly example I have used is toothpaste. Instead of an inch of toothpaste on your brush, use half an inch. It will clean your teeth just as well. You have reduced your consumption by half with no loss of function. Or get really keen and use a neem twig instead. Extend that to other areas and you can easily greatly reduce consumption without significant loss of function.

    Regardless though, there will always be people who need info and techniques about doing more with less. We are creating new forms of poverty each day. Even in a country like Australia with its rising level of personal debt among the very young. Then when the baby boomers translate onto superannuation payments, current industry figures indicate 15% or less will be able to maintain current lifestyles. So yet another class of older generation poverty will come about.

    All these present opportunities for application of the things we talk about on forums like this. Much like the shortages during the world wars greatly increased the use of household gardening etc.

    Co-evolution? Technical aspects of sustainability have to be matched against systemic social permaculture. Sustainability has to be not only technically possible but also socially sustainable and acceptable. Some of the great ideas of Ted Trainer deal with the social aspects of sustainability.

    More work perhaps needs to be done on the marketing and packaging of sustainability ideas into the general public mindset. Otherwise people will continue to associate sustainability with descent into Neanderthal primitivism. Just as permaculture is not all 'bare feet and dreadlocks' as some people mistakenly perceive it. That is one of the reasons why I greatly admire the work of Darren Doherty in bringing sustainable design work into mainstream agriculture.

    People who redesign the planet often seem to leave out the social component, accepting that people will go willingly along with sustainable practices because they won’t have a choice. Surely both are achievable. Just takes a little more pizzazz in design and marketing such ideas.
     
  11. d_donahoo

    d_donahoo Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    jemes.

    couldn't agree more. maybe it helps that you express it all so eloquently as well.

    your toothpaste example is a fine one - and i guess i discovered permaculture through the movement tagged 'anti-globalisation; anti-consumption'...but how do you grapple with the fact despite a growing body of evidence the world's consumption levels are still rapidly increasing?

    despite the commitment by many, i still sense that consumption will probably be reduced less by personal ethics and more by a lack of product to consume...surely your war example demonstrates that people tend to act more out of necessity, than free will?...but definitely got me thinking...i do believe in people's capacity to make the world a better place...the current systems do lock people in to feeling helpless and maybe the work by many to demonstrate the small ways to re-dress the inbalance is the start of an exciting chain of events.

    for those interested, ted trainer has a lot of material aT:

    Ted Trainer Site
     
  12. muttabuttasaurus

    muttabuttasaurus Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Dan, thanks for providing links to those sites, I will read them when I get some time... Without having read them, and without any solid evidence to back up my perhaps naieve optimism, I suppose I just think that if you consider the technological innovations that humanity has developed in the last 300 years of fossil fuel powered science it isn't such a stretch of the imagination that we might get really good and harnessing the unlimited energy that comes to us from the sun. Remember that fossil fuels themselves are stored solar energy.
    Also, please forgive me if the answer to my question is in the reading you suggested, but please correct me if I am wrong in believing that current photovoltaic solar panels already produce much more energy over their lifetime than is needed in their production. I believe that some fossil fuels are used in their manufacture, but surely there is a net gain there. Surely the 5% increase in eficiency you cite would increase if they were taken up en masse? From there further innovations would surely reduce pollution and increase our efficiency of energy production or gathering?
    Ok, I'll make sure I read some of your sources before I go on an on.
    I guess I am pessimistic that globally people will not embrace a simpler way of life without first destroying most life on by warring over whatever is left. So I hope that along with a gradual shift in how we value the earth that we will invent our way out of the hole we are digging.
    I also think that some of the good things about modern society such as access to education and information might be difficult to sustain in a less technolological world. And of course, a Permacultural society needs to be a just and equitable one to be truly sustainable, right?
     
  13. Jemes

    Jemes Junior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As one of the Thai guys I work with tells his students, “If it is hard work, you are probably doing it wrong.” In other words, don’t force systems to go where they don’t want to go, just because you think they should be there. That’s how all this excessive energy consumption thing got going in the first place.

    The IC engine probably wasn’t such a bad idea. We just got a bit too carried away with the allure of cheap power and went a bit silly, doing things that don’t really need doing. Like building energy hungry houses which are not all that great to live in any way. Or buying three cars, a 4WD, and boat. Then have to work so hard to keep up with the loan repayments that you never get to play with the dam toys anyway. (Hey, what's with this **** stuff. I'm not writing rude, I'm writing australian. Let's see how well mister censor can spell. hah)

    Personal ethics are great for those who can afford the indulgence. (eg. Market prices for certified organic foods. Recycling systems that cost far more (energy & $s) that they will ever save etc.) For too long environmentalism has been marketed through guilt and negativity. Be like one of Jeff’s opportunistic plants that he speaks so eloquently and passionately about. Let the system find its own level and take advantage of the opportunities it presents.

    Decreased personal spending power will lead to increased interest in ways of extending the value of those scarce dollars. Consider this scenario. Increasing numbers of older aged folks with ever decreasing spending capital and significantly reduced income opportunities. In many cases these people own their own property by now. Often the older style residential block with a large back yard. But declining health and fitness makes it difficult for them to be able to make use of the space. And more often than not, they are also becoming more and more socially isolated from the rest of the community. (for a variety of reasons)

    Increased numbers of young people with high levels of personal debts through non-capital expenditure like credit cards, mobile phones, and student loans. (non-capital in the sense that you have relatively nothing to show for the expenditure as opposed to say a house mortgage. But a qualification counts doesn’t it?! Have a look at the cost of student loans against the shelf-life of the qualification, the probability of employment and the associated potential income. Then see if you think it counts or not.)

    Relatively young, fit, and healthy bodies. High level of personal awareness about the value of good food. (organic, non-GM etc.) Environmentally aware etc. Often also isolated from the traditional extended family/village elders.

    Match the two together. Older person ‘leases’ out excess space in the backyard. May also supply existing stock of tools and some garden know-how. Younger persons, single mums etc. do the planting etc. Chat with the oldies while they are at it. They share the produce (‘lease repayments’), maybe get into some communal value-adding like canning, bottling, preserving, cooking etc. Get half a dozen such yards going in a neighbourhood and you have enough to get a small scale (think small not big like Schumacher says.) trading food co-op going. While you are at it, use the co-op to bulk purchase some common products and sell through the co-op.

    Maybe add on a home shopping service for the house-bound. Swap a few services in payment like a natural ‘lets’ system without the complication of ‘lets’ dollars. And so on. Sure, there are lots of obstacles why something like this might not work. But hey, get the right timing and situation, village-like environment and it might just work.

    I am continually impressed by the village economics of the small rural community I live in, here in Thailand. There are several small ‘front of the house’ kinda shops which open up each day. Probably about 80% of what is sold is made or prepared if not by the shop owner, then by someone within 5 kms.

    A couple of ‘shops’ open up real early to catch the field and forestry workers on their way out in the morning. They prepare a kinda of smorgasbord of lunch offerings (fresh food). The workers make up a selection (noodles/rice/sprouts/fresh salads/ curries & pastes/smoked fish/coconut sweets etc.) It gets bagged up and off they go to work.

    When they come home, they often bring produce from the fields, hunters and fishermen drop off meat & fish which is cooked/smoked/dried for meals the next day. Everybody has a bit of a natter about the day’s events and find something to chuckle about. Then after dinner, a few might come back to the tables outside the shop and share a rice whisky or two while helping to prepare the tucker for tomorrow. Everybody wins. No fancy co-op rules, no barter/lets dollars, no complicated discounting system. They make it all seem so simple and straightforward. Social permaculture in action.

    One of my favorite breakfast snacks is a kind of ham garlic omelet mixed and stuffed inside a banana leaf roll. (watch out for the hidden fresh chilli inside! Don’t be fooled by its small size. Dam straight, it will kill ya!) The whole lot is charred over a charcoal grill, cooking the omelet. You can eat it fresh and hot or keep it until lunch and have it cold. When you are done, you just toss the banana leaf away to become mulch for the plants you are working beside. Another favorite is a sticky rice sweet. Again made up in a banana leaf which this time is folded into a pyramid shape which looks quite cool. Eat and chuck. Food and mulch in the one package. How good is that!?

    It is so dam simple, and costs maybe about two cents Australian. That is what I mean by elegant simplicity of design. Now with all our fancy bloody autocad computers, technology, marketing blah blah. Why the helll can’t we do that?

    Problem getting others to accept it? Nah, just let a few people enjoy the extra benefits of an improved lifestyle on a smaller budget. Common garden variety greed will do the rest. Nothing makes someone more interested that thinking they are missing out on a good thing. Go to any flea market and watch. Some dudes will have all their stock neatly laid out on shelves and priced. Others will have theirs jumbled up in big cardboard boxes. Once a couple of people start digging through the boxes, it doesn’t take long for a whole crowd to begin franticly shoving through the goods, afraid someone else may get to that ‘bargain’ before they do. Works every time.

    As the good book says, honour the edges of chaos, be opportunistic and keep it simple.
     
  14. d_donahoo

    d_donahoo Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    and why not?

    i feel refreshed enough to quit this government desk job!

    well, at least enough that i have organised to go part-time...thanks for the insights and reflections jemes. your commentry on the impact of income and consumption patterns on systems is very interesting.

    the impact of a predominantly part-time workforce in industrialised countries would be revolutionary as far as changing systems and levels of affluence.

    i guess the challenge is working specifically on your own local relationships to encourage localised, sustainable models (which Tezza who prompted this valuable exchange, i think is promoting and attempting to engage with). that challenges a whole range of social functions and ideas and perhaps the greatest test for adoption of such models is how people manage community relationships - many an intentional community has found things can fall apart quickly when relationships lose their flexibility.

    i think there are models. my young family chose to move to a small central victorian town specifically because we felt the community gave us the best long term possibiltiies of being part of a local, sustainable system. there is talk of utlising existing country rail networks (no longer in use) for a local light rail network, we have a couple of CSA farms, two different styles of co-ops based on organic and permaculture principles, a dynamic mix of younger and older residents and a local counil who are planning quite intelligently for future needs (if still somewhat governed by liberal economic ideals)...Darren Doherty has also talked to me with praise for the Malaney Region where he spent a year and the south west of Australia (my favourite part of this country) also has some evolving set ups.

    i suppose there are examples and watching how they evolve and work will be an important part of supporting the energy decsent (in whatever form it takes or size it happens to be).

    thanks for sharing your thoughts...i know they'll contribute to many a communal meal we share down here in Castlemaine.

    cheers

    dan
     
  15. Guest

    Sorry i find this quite bleak.

    I believe globalisation is sustainable. We just need another type of globalisation instead of the investor rights type globalisation. What is with people that stand for a human globalisation pronouncing themselfs "anti-globalisation"?. Everyone wants to ring their freinds round the world, communicate on the internet etc. We just dont want investor rights globalisation, we wnat globalisation without boarders. Infact if you look at our world today we are actually less globalised than we believe. Boarders have been militarised and less people cross boarders in this latter half of this century than did in the first half.

    The west lives of the back of the third world. And the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. The problem is not with the third world, but the west. We need to change ourselfs instead of thinking "oh those poor people in the 3rd world". We need to undermine the power structures which allow for this trend. Self Sufficient Permaculture is one way to do this. If we decrease demand on the capitalist system, supply will drop, companies will have less capital and become less powerful. The whole idea is to eliminate the need to go down to coles.

    and as for no decent replacement for fossil fuels any one that has done electrolysis of water knows how to get hydrogen. Hydrogen has the same heat produced as petrol per mole. And the products of combustion? Since is burns with oxygen, produces H20.

    I think gloabalisation is the elimination of boarders. Militarising boarders means poor people cannot go to a rich country, just rich companies go to poor people for slave wages. Globalisation also includes the eliminations of fences on the microscale. The concept of ownership, as the world gets more and more populated, will start to look more and more ridiculous i think.

    The word globalisation is problematic. Maybe we should call it, the making of the global community or something like that.


    Dan i like your name and i hope you realise how we can act to have a globalised world, through practices like permaculture.

    Thanks

    Dan (the 2nd)
     
  16. Guest

    sorry i didnt realise how old this post was.

    if you want to email me, send me one at

    [email protected]

    thanks

    Dan (the 2nd)
     
  17. Guest

    hmmm. i really am not negative - promise.

    Thanks for your thoughts Dan.

    I do not claim to be 'anti-globalisation'. I think the last 100 years of industrial development have brought overwhleming benefits to our society, and also some overwhelming problems.

    My argument is purely a practical one - it may happen in 50 or 500 years, but at sometime our energy sources will dry up. I am not convinced by the hydrogen power arguement. Currently, I can see no system that produces enough hydrogen without an inital significant input of energy from a fossil fuel source. Solkar power and wind power are not efficient enough, and even then, I have issues with whether or not they can produce enough energy to supply our current demands and meet their own maintenance requirments.

    I'd suggest reading about embodied energy developed by Howard Odum, a source all permies should look at.

    I know it appears bleak. I don't actually think my view is. It only is if you value many aspects of the world as they stand. I believe local community is far more important than the global community. I think much of our technology is a distraction. I think many of the problems our world faces environmentally can be solved by a reduction in the use of fossil fuel, but I doubt this will happen...human kind will use it until the stocks run dry.

    Really, I like the world I live in. I'd hate to live a truely self-sufficient lifestyle, but the generations to come may have to.

    I think too often we get our arguments about equality for all on a global level confused with our concern for the enviornment and permaculture principles.

    You have to establish what you want first. If you are a permaculturalist then you most strongly value system design. You would argue energy is valuable and be intrested in developing closed waste treatment systems. A localised world suits the permaculture design principlesd far better than a globalised one. And, this is not to say we don't need biregional trade and information exchange, but to think we can bring the African nations up to the same standard of living as we enjoy is unrealistic. It is logistically impossible. West knows this. The more we bring others to our stand of living - the less time we have to enjoy it.

    Permaculture can help plan the energy descent. We all need to start that planning - and stop suffering from an overabundance of enthusiasm...

    cheers

    dan
     
  18. caldera

    caldera Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    *bump*

    :wink:
     
  19. Jim Bob

    Jim Bob Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We're well on our way, due to casualisation of the workforce and economic liberalism. A couple of years back, we had 9.9 million people working "full-time" at an average of 42.2 hours a week, and 2.8 million people doing 17.7 hours a week. That comes to 36.75 hours a worker (if you factor in the unemployed, it works out to 33.25 hours per person). Over the past 25 years, what's basically happened is that full-time jobs haven't been created, only part-time ones. With a growing population, the net effect is that hours of paid work per person have dropped.

    When people work and earn less, they tend not to reduce their actual consumption much. They just buy cheaper stuff, made in China instead of made in Australia. But they still buy more than they can afford. So the person on $1,000 a week may spend $750 a week, and the person on $500 a week spends $600 a week. So income dropping drops their spending, but it becomes above their income instead of below it.

    That's why the government debt we had in 1990 has all gone, but been replaced by a larger private debt.

    People don't reduce their consumption proportionally to their income dropping because they don't expect their low income to last forever. The system promises them "things are bad for a bit now, but they'll get better." So they say, "okay, maybe I have had my hours cut, but I can still buy that plasma telly with my credit card because something better'll come along soon."

    So the growing casualisation of the workforce isn't going to lead to some sort of permacultural revolution. We might hope that if people have less money, they'll reduce, reuse and recycle, and that if they work less hours for money, they'll work more hours growing food and loving their families, but...

    Also you have an awesome book shop in Cast. (My old man lives in Newstead.) Pity about all the yuppie cafes, though :p
     
  20. Douglas J.E. Barnes

    Douglas J.E. Barnes Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Way off topic here...

    Caldera, I'm working on your signature. Is it a translated haiku?

    I came up with (assuming you or someone here speaks Japanese)

    Furui ike

    Kaeru ha hairu

    Gacchan!


    But I think that's so wrong I can't stop laughing at myself.
     

Share This Page

-->