Permaculture is notoriously hard to define. A recent survey shows that people simultaneously believe it is a design approach, a philosophy, a movement, and a set of practices. This broad and contradiction-laden brush doesn’t just make permaculture hard to describe. It can be off-putting, too. Let’s say you first encounter permaculture as a potent method of food production and are just starting to grasp that it is more than that, when someone tells you that it also includes goddess spirituality, and anti-GMO activism, and barefoot living. What would you make of that? And how many people think they’ve finally got the politics of permaculturists all figured out, and assume that we would logically also be vegetarians, only to find militant meat-eaters in the ranks? What kind of philosophy could possibly umbrella all those divergent views? Or is it a philosophy at all? I’m going to argue here that the most accurate and least muddled way to think of permaculture is as a design approach, and that we are often misdirected by the fact that it fits into a larger philosophy and movement which it supports. But it is not that philosophy or movement. It is a design approach for realizing a new paradigm. And we’ll find that this way of defining it is also a balm to those in other ecological design fields and technologies who get annoyed, understandably, when permaculturists tell them, “Oh, yes, your work is part of permaculture, too.” Humans are a problem-solving species. We uncover challenges—How do we get food? How do we make shelter? How do we stay healthy?—and then we develop tools to solve those problems. Permaculture is one of those tools. For the last 10,000 years, agriculture and the civilization it built have been the way humans attacked the problems of meeting basic needs. Because we live on a planet that for millennia was large compared to the human population and its needs and impact, our species could focus on expanding and improving agriculture’s immense power to convert wild ecosystems into food and habitat for people, and we could ignore ecosystem health. But our industrial civilization of seven billion is chewing up ecosystems relentlessly. We are learning that without healthy ecosystems, humans—and everything else—suffer. So we cannot focus solely on the problem, “How do we meet human needs?” but must now add the words, “while preserving ecosystem health.” Rafter Ferguson has offered that question as a definition of permaculture. I think he’s onto something, though I think that “meeting human needs while preserving and increasing ecosystem health” is the goal of permaculture, and not its definition. But it gives some clues toward defining it, and helps untangle the knots wrapped around “What is permaculture?” It names and clarifies the problem that permaculture is trying to solve. Continued at https://www.patternliteracy.com/668-what-permaculture-isnt-and-is
how to get ones shit together! We just had massive storm 2 days ago 58mm in30 mins with hail and wind like i havnt seen for 30 years limbs and trees over evrywhere ( anyone want eucaliptus Blakleii seed/firewood) THinking i should drag the limbs onto contour as waitawhile? My 75 yo dad wants to help me burn em ,ill try to resist the urge pretty sure the bamboo saved the house only lost a chimney and the insurance people seem sweet with that spose ive only got my self to blame making ekman spirals and all it brewed up south of here for hours over the mariubini feedlot then unleashed just before dark today reached an unheard of 34 * my new 900m swale filled and i can adjust up some sills
You'll have to go out and remeasure your Eckman spirals to make sure they don't hit your chimney next time! Glad to hear you didn't get too badly knocked about though.
I enjoyed some of the misconception in most outsider's perception of the term Permaculture quotes like - "when someone tells you that it also includes goddess spirituality, and anti-GMO activism, and barefoot living. What would you make of that? And how many people think they’ve finally got the politics of permaculturists all figured out, and assume that we would logically also be vegetarians, only to find militant meat-eaters in the ranks?" -------------- I think of Permaculture more in terms of Biomimicry, or replicating the way things are done out in Nature. Of course I feel that way about most sciences, they mimic or replicate already existing mechanisms as opposed to actually creating something on their own. In some cases, even many of the bad technologies that are destroying our planet are merely an undisciplined irresponsible greatly enhanced version of something already found in nature, but it is being misused or abused for selfish reason. Much of this world's weapons technology is a good example. GMO technoloy is yet another. Weather modification is still further another. I would say that Permaculture attempt to work with nature as opposed to against it or rather use nature's own instincts against itself. Hope that makes sense. Enjoyed the read BTW! Kevin -
I think of it as permanently sustainable agriculture and community. The bio-mimicry, ecological design and barefoot living are the tools for achieving it. Permaculture can be as individual as the person practicing it, provided it is environmentally, socially etc.,sustainable.
permaculture occupies the right wing of the green movement because we are concerned with obtaining a yield! im banned from the nefa website for making such an outrageous sugestion:rofl: wwwwwwwe have to forest our farms and farm our forests (Rowen Ried)
Hi Matto, I have just started a thread titled "Respected permaculture folk who think David Holmgren co-founded permaculture" which is awaiting approval from the moderator. It was sparked by Geoff's response to your question for Q&A#1. My opening messages in that thread just set the seen but we will inevitably turn to the opinion Geoff expressed in his Q&A answer i.e., that the permaculture movement is more significant than the actual design system. I had half a mind to post all my stuff as responses in your thread here but I think it would have been too much of a hijack. My view is that the permaculture design system is surely no small thing. The fact that it really does work, technically, on the ground, is the fundamental thing upon which everything else is based. So it is a design system first and foremost; if it didn't really work, didn't succeed in sustainably providing for human needs while healing the earth, there would be no movement.
seen???!!! Regarding my previous post: In my occasional lucid moments I do know the difference between "seen" and "scene".=(
It seems that permaculture is an excellent attempt at re-establishing the proper niche of humans in their respective ecosystems. Our current niche is all to evident; one of degradation, simplification and biocide. So what else would be the proper niche for a sentient clever species like us be beyond consciously supporting and strengthening biodiversity, soil health and geochemical cycles? What else do we have to give back to the community of life?
put man first where he should be, take away the influences of the wealthy and powerful and the eco' system would/could be a whole lot healthier, we did not ask for the unsustainabilty given by the wealthy profit takers. man i supposed be a custodian so let us do it without any mythology involved. too much habitat destruction and in the hands of the investors it continues. in 2012 we still see inane farmers ploughing along dragging a dust storm of erosion, do they realise how inept they look. plant trees/forest of biodiversity not wind mills or solar farms. len
G'day wynot Welcome to the PRI Forum. Not a great deal. Most other life will continue to evolve sans our (humanity's) existence. See, for example: Weisman (2007) The World Without Us. What could we give to each other if we were ever able to achieve equilibrium with the non-human world? A great deal. The advancement of art, culture, philosophy... just for starters. Oh, how I dream of living in that world. Cheerio, Markos