General discussion on Ethics, Political Structures and understanding others views

Discussion in 'The big picture' started by gardenlen, Aug 11, 2013.

  1. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    yes grahame,

    you too have no idea who i really am and my hopes and aspirations for the humans of the world to come together, you also have no idea what moral ethics we adhere to, but in short me and mine will never cause you harm or take what is yours. but people here don't want to know about what will really work, as they fear ridicule. lots of that in forums this one no less.

    i pick out important points the rest can be dealt with some other time, dissecting is like dictating and answer to every word spoken, means no room for movement, a stall mate.

    i don't dissect generally as i have no desire to try and convert others from where they are comfortable.

    i feel i address the whole post, get a dream for something that stands a chance it may yet be too late, see places like bangladesh(they imagined they were hindi's), the middle east, literally brother against brother, and they too would have thought they had good moral ethics.

    mm dunno about the same place apart from in the ground, but leave that with you, not my concern, i'm only concerned with life and the living of it humbly and simply

    len
     
  2. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Len, I realise none of the above was addressed to me, personally. However, in practically every point you raise you refer to me, or 'my' ideas. So I trust that you will not mind too much if I now take this opportunity to respond.

    The trouble with not 'thinking' is that nothing will ever happen! Thought precedes action. Interestingly, it only takes 10% of a population before a critical mass of thought is achieved and subsequent action occurs. At present, I reckon we have about 5% of the population thinking along the lines of LM. It's only a matter of time (5, 10, 50-years?) before we get another 5%.

    You are mostly right about schools, especially the mainstream ones - public, private and religious. They mostly teach young people how to be 'good' corporate citizens. However, there are some schools that are radically different from the norm. Steiner schools are on this spectrum. But the schools that I think are the most radical of them all, are the one that allow children to be liberated individuals and at the same time (yes, the two are not mutually exclusive) teach them how to be 'good' socio-ecological citizens. Candlebark School is an example of the latter.

    Science is pure objectivism. It is amoral, in the sense that just like a stone, a table or the rain, each is without or unaffected by morals, or human values. Science cannot hurt us or any other thing on the planet. It is what people do with scientific discovery, that is the issue.

    Concerning the 'high' morals, and 'community' morals of the 40s-60s, I suspect you are referring to the Decathlon (Ten Commandments), yes? If this is the case, then all I can say is we no longer live in that time. The days of 'obeying' and being 'commanded', either by one's parent or one's god through 'fear' of 'eternal damnation' have, for the most part, long gone (at least in this part of the world). The reason why is, quite simply, reason. People now understand that it is unreasonable to hold onto beliefs that have no basis in a rational world. Do you know of anyone that has been to 'hell'? I certainly don't (although I've been told to go their a few times, haha). People today (mostly) live in an evidenced-based society. It is for this reason why we need to have this very discussion we are having. It is not 'dreaming' it is formulating ideas so that we can put them into action.

    Thanks for reading, Markos
     
  3. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Once again, by referencing my self, Len, I suggest it is only fair that I have the right of reply:

    The 'ethics' I mentioned, are (along with the 12 Principles) the very foundation of permaculture. If you are not familiar with them, I suggest the following is an excellent introduction:

    Holmgren & Telford (2013) Essence of Permaculture

    Please refer to LM as LM, I don't 'own' it. The same as you do not own the 'high' or 'community' moral ground, LM is an idea. Ideas cannot be owned.

    The same with 'my' world. As crazy as this sounds, my world is your world. We, all 7.1-billion of us, share this human construct we call 'the world'. No one person own's it (although I reckon Gina R has her eye on buying it, haha).

    The 'truth of our roots' is purely a subjective statement. I could just as simply say, the 'truth of our roots' is that we climbed out of the trees about 3.2-billion years ago.

    I'm glad you were cheered and clapped in the line while waiting to give blood, Len. All I ever get at the blood bank is a biscuit and a cup of tea.

    I also once ran into a bloke who 'worships' geology but 'detests climate science' - I even shared a couple of bottles of wine with him! He also owns (a lot of) shares in coal mining companies, which probably accounts for why he disputes the latter. But, that's a whole 'nother story, and for some other time...

    Thanks for reading, Markos
     
  4. annette

    annette Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    When Len talks about moral ethics and community ethics I didn't think it was religious at all. In those times and even in the sixties things were very different and I don't think it has anything to do with religion. Mostly people did the right thing, you could go to sleep at night and not lock the door, you helped people out when they needed it, you could take most people at their word, we had leaders that had the countries interests at heart, not so much their own careers (real civil servants). You could believe mostly what they said. Now after so many lies told by governments everywhere, I take everything they say with a grain of salt. Maybe that's why a lot of people (and yes even very well educated ones) question climate change.

    All you get now is spin and 20 second grabs that last in no ones mind. We weren't so desensitised to violence, weren't pushed into mainstream thought because of drivelling tv and mindlessness.

    There are good people everywhere, but drugs and poverty have meant that life is less precious for, there is less respect for the elderly and a me me generation in some circles. Doing the right or good thing has in lots of ways given over to the pursuit of money at all costs.

    Anyway that's what I get out of what Len says, but I may be wrong.
     
  5. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Could be, Annette. However, Len has led us down this path many times, and once we even ended our then journey, here, with a full admission of the 'mission', so to speak. Which kind of makes me think that this is how Len sees a 'moral' world. But hey, like you, I'm open to be proven wrong. Only one person can set us straight on this subject...

    I think your view of the past, as credible as it is to your good self, is a rather myopic (Australian-centric) one. I can't think of a better example of being 'desensitised to violence' than the tens-of-thousands of mostly young men marching off to war (of the 'First World' variety) merrily singing a tune and looking forward to the 'great lark' that lay ahead. Of course, the reality turned out a lot differently. Then there was WWII, then Korea, then Vietnam ... All happened either preceding to or around the time that Len and now yourself remember so fondly. I don't include these examples to be dismissive of what either of you have to say re: the mainstream Australian experience of that time. It's true, in the place I grew up in the front door was permanently unlocked. Whereas today, (in another time and place) it is only the back door that remains so. However, I do include them because today we live in an ever-shrinking global village. That was then, this is now. If we want to live in a better place tomorrow, then we need to concentrate on making that place today. History is fine, it can teach us a lot. Much of our current PhD is historical in content. It's true, if we fail to learn from our history, then we are bound to repeat the mistakes of the past. It's just that when we think about history, often it's a version that been written by the victors, and as such it fails to take account of those who were silenced - often by the sabre or the rifle, and later (today) by unmanned drone strikes ... but I digress.

    I do agree with much of what you say, re: respect for life. However, I guess where we might differ is our understanding of the 'morals' of the elite, both today and in the past. My understanding is that social hierarchy perpetuated by the 'elite' is and always has (at least for the last 10,000-years-or-so) been the precursor to ecological and then sociological oppression and destruction. Nothing much has changed in that respect. However, what I see as a way of changing means that we have to turn all that we have ever come to accept as 'just the way it is' needs to be turned on its head, and then 'flattened'. Glaeser (2011) devotes the last chapter of his book to this very concept. It (the whole book) is an excellent, though-proking read, and I thoroughly recommend it.

    Thanks for reading, Markos.
     
  6. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Len, LM is 100% transparent. If you do not like it, simple, do not practice it. But please, at least try to understand (learn about) it before you dismiss it. Otherwise, you run the very real risk of being considered ignorant when you speak of it.

    Yes, of course LM is a political system, but one unlike what we have mostly come to accept (e.g. the Westminster). It is system based on respect for the individual (i.e. libertarian), and respect for the community (i.e. municipalism). In a LM framework, the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

    Some people, yourself included, may feel the need to be 'lead' by others. However others, myself included, feel very able in our ability to lead ourselves, in concert with the wider community. This is obviously a fundamental difference in our world views. I respect your right in your wish to be governed, dictated to, 'lead' (the all mean the same thing according to any standard dictionary), all I ask in response is that you respect my right to reject the same.

    Thanks for reading, Mark
     
  7. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    thanks annette you show wisdom and understanding,

    alas mark and grahame will never agree that in our not to distant past we were a better community something others disregard so they can promote their own ends, was easy being a child in a family home no molesters on our walk to school, the only molesting was from those who preach goodness with unfortunate kids in their charge, i lead no one down paths mark and in a way resent you putting your lack of wider wisdom onto me. now mark clouds the issue by talking of the morals of the elite, the elite have no morals, and now that we have over intelligent people castigating what we believed and followed in a time where yes the only gore was world wars, but those pictures were never seen on the radio.

    poverty was far less back in those days as was drug related issues, can you imagine all we had to worry about was james dean look alike bikies called bodgies and widgies, i mean how bad could they really have been might have relieved some kid of a penny or six pence, but they sat in milk bars all day drinking double malteds and bogy and widgy blood(red or green) coca cola + icecream drinks, nowadays in this world that mark says is a cartoon, much much worse.

    mark i can in my way say you do not offer us or those of the future a moral world like we had 50 short years ago.

    ww2 before i was born, too young to remember korea and vietnam what a waste of young people, i was in the navy then and all the time i spent in kings cross never was threatened, nowadays it is probably unsafe in daylight and out of bounds at night. you need to authenticate your picture i think mark. for the first years of my life i spent in an army village outside of brisbane proper, people where happy enough to put up with and wait for a suburb to be built for us, which as i recall had no violence late 40's early 50's.

    anyhow better put this one behind teh firewall for a bit

    len
     
  8. Unmutual

    Unmutual Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I'm going to have to put this bluntly, because there's really no other way I can say this. Please take this with a grain of salt, and some sugar might not be amiss. I was born in 1972 in the U.K. I didn't even know about racism until the tender age of 10, when my family moved to Louisiana, so all I hear about the "good old days" is from people who lived back then. Being a white male, I get to listen to a lot of stories about race. A lot of stories. I get along better with non-white folk than I do with southern white folk, but that's mostly because of the stories that I heard and the disgust that I felt. The 1960's was a great time for white people. If you weren't white, your life sucked. There were anomalies to this, but on the whole, the 1950s-1960' was the time when people "knew their place" and weren't uppity. Granted, the southern US is not indicative of the globe, but I'm sure you can find examples of this all across the Northern European sphere of influence.

    Things are getting better, but they're still woefully unequal when it comes to gender, race, religion, etc. It's this inequality that's causing a fair amount of the social strife we see(maybe even most of it). We're still reeling from the social revolutions and we didn't do a good job of integrating people who weren't white males in to the school system or in to the job markets. We're still paying for our father's sins.
     
  9. annette

    annette Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Sorry I can't cut and paste (mouse has had the Richard) so will just make a few comments.

    Yes my experience is Australian centric as this is where I grew up. I would dare not make assumptions for others that lived elsewhere. My comments relate to my experience and those of people I knew at the time. I should have made this clear.

    Yes racism, sexism and religious bigotry is and has been a problem in the past as it is now. Some things have improved but nearly not enough. No argument there.

    Yes all those poor men went off to war and were traumatised by what they saw and experienced. However, the vast of the populace didn't. The amount of violence people see and experience now in civvy street is far greater than years ago. Is it television, violent video games, or personal experience? Probably all three, but we are all subject to much more than in the past. It probably started in Vietnam war when we first saw the effects of agent orange and photos of poor little kids burnt and hurting. But desensitivity to it is increasing. Even scientific studies show this. There are far more wars now, more killing of innocent people than ever. And we see it in full colour every day and every night. Do you think 40 years ago drone strikes would have been tolerated, all in the name of fighting terror? People have been made so frightened of so called terrorists that it is tolerated. The scale of killing in all those countries is a terror unknown in the past. Modern warfare has made it all so easy to push a button.

    The elite (and I refer to those with incredible wealth and power) have always operated outside the "normal" spheres of society. From the pharaohs to the current royals and political leaders. They still do.

    Gotta go. Will give it some more thought when I have time.
     
  10. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting story, Len, thanks for sharing. However, and as I have continually suggested, hardly representative of the wider community. And certainly not representative, I would suggest, of women in general, people of backgrounds other than Anglo-Celtic/Saxon, people who identify as GLBTIQ, etc.

    The 'good old days', for some, may very well have been filled with happy snap images of nuclear families, living behind white picket fences, and indulging in a once-a-week treat of a Coke spider down at the local milk bar. However for many others living in those same suburbs, and at around the same time, their lives were filled with drudgery, oppression and as was often the case, all manner of violence going on 'behind closed doors', never to be talked about save for the once-a-month confessional.

    One does not have to have lived through an experience, any experience in order to have an understanding of the same. Libraries are filled with the autobiographies of people who have experienced truly horrible lives, and it is by reading their stories that we too can begin to understand that no one person, no one society, across any one era can take the moral high ground when it comes to ethics.

    Cheerio, Markos
     
  11. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    there again your bias shines through mark, your intolerance to the fact that until driven by covetous and crying poor our suburb with all races and creeds lived in harmony, i think you and even grahame would hate o even think that there is something much better than your new so called transparent governance, transparent like the emporer's new clothes, you should read it a good morale in it to help one not get ripped off.

    and since grahame split the thread my posts have gone missing but no real concern here hey?

    there was no drudgery in our suburb all fathers went to work even if it was to street sweep, they all paid teh same rent, and bought the same clothes and like me went to school, and like me i would rather have wanted to go fishing, or not sit in a class room that failed me. but after school i remained fully employed, never left one job until i had another, i pulled my socks up so to speak and took up a challenge a CEO of a paint shop threw at me and ended working life in middle management, seen all races and creeds do the same, none like me were waiting for a handout.

    it was the bodgies who sat at the milk bar, get it right, your wisdom is limited to a shallow modern day wisdom, you are somewhat intolerant(sad for a person of intelligence), you demonstrate that you know absolutely nothing about me or where i am coming from.

    sadly mark in our suburb of modest people earning low wages, there was none of what you say no discrimination, and discriminate is what you have admitted to doing, no mate your see through new governance i hope won't get off the ground. need to be careful when does fact just become a good story? the only behind doors stuff was when a kid misbehaved we got a strapping. one or 6 horrid story books in a library does not make a horrid society. books can make money for the authors.

    you haven't as yet addressed those elite you mentioned mark? hope you don't allude to me being elite, you would again be wrong. white picket fences what next, they belong to those middle class yuppie types we had 3' chain wire fences we could climb over and play with other kids, we could look over all fences all the way along and see neighbours in their back and front yards, not like the modern segregate neighbourhoods now with 6' palling fence and you never see the neighbour let alone the people of the neighbourhood once they close their garage door. so lets move forward back to the past, have you ever heard that said. what is currently happening, we need to make sure people can afford, housing, food, power and water at least lots out there now in this lucky country who can't afford that. our gates were never closed and our doors and windows never locked. and no such thing as a lawn just grass mowed by a pope or qualcast push mower.

    about time bill moved on isn't it?

    len
     
  12. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    thanks annette,

    well put now if we can just move back to the past to go forward things would be far better. i've never really been the elite, have been a middle earner self opinionated yuppie in mark's sort of world that was while i turned my back on my belief, due to eh misguided untruthfull churches, but now back and trying my bit to keep the fate of the poor in mind, not as slaves in the mythology of new day worship, so much goods and chattels for the high and mighty to tread on. simple fact is to try and get ahead one needs to play by their rules to get ahead.

    len
     
  13. Grahame

    Grahame Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Thanks again for your contributions Len. Do you think it would be possible for you to keep your comments more about the discussion and I will do my best too.

    I would actually love to think there is something even better than the possibilities that a new form of local governance based on real democracy could exist. I hope such a thing arises in my life-time. It baffles me to think that something that has been around in one form or another since before Christianity has suddenly become Mark's and mine!

    and
    I don't know Len, I wasn't around in your golden years so it is difficult for me to say either way. It may well have been better times, the anecdotal evidence certainly seems to say that many Australians were at their happiest in the 60's. But that is irrelevant really, that was over 50 years ago - the world has moved on. One of the issues with that happiness is that much of it was coming at the cost of the happiness of future generations. I know that the people were largely unaware of the costs we were passing onto our children in those days but now we know better. We know that those excesses are no longer available to us. You say yourself that people can no longer even afford to pay their electricity bills etc. What we sew we reap.

    In truth I think people were probably a lot happier in any of the pre-industrial, pre-colonial and pre-missionary societies of the world. I often think I would have felt quite happy in the dream-time world of the Australian Aboriginals. They were certainly a lot happier back then! Or perhaps the buffalo hunting Indigenous tribes of the Americas. But alas those days are long gone. The world has moved on. We need solutions for today, not yesteryear. Sure, lets borrow from all of those times gone by but lets not delude ourselves that we can flick a magic switch and everyone will go back to wearing their Sunday best. The human society is organic, it evolves, it changes. The thoughts of all of us here are being thrown into the pot to see if we can find a way to make life better for more people and creatures on this Earth. I'm with you Len. I believe humans will need a very solid foundation in morals and ethics to get through this time of great change. I think People Care and Earth Care as guiding principles are a great foundation.

    If there are people or organisations out there that don't want to care for People and the Earth, then a pox on them I say.
     
  14. Grasshopper

    Grasshopper Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,016
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The delusional paradise of the 50 and 60's was based on the blissful ignorance of cheap resources and cheap polluting and there wast the population pressures either.
    About a 2/3rds less people in the world than today in the 50s, half in the 60s.
    https://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762181.html
    Increased population more people competing for services and resources and producing heaps more polution,bound to have negative effects.
     
  15. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G'day Len, they were examples. Not necessarily indicative of you, or of your previous life, or the entire suburb you lived in. How could they be? I have never met you, nor do I know where you lived, and as to what your life was like 50-years ago, all I have to go on is what you tell us. If you care to read my post again you will see not once did I refer to 'you' or 'Len'. Rather, I precluded my comments with 'for some', and with 'while for others'. I'm sorry if you felt I was directly referring to you, Len. I was not. Indeed, I hardly ever do. Historians use generalisations across populations so as to not show bias. It's what we do.

    Now let's return to your suburb, the one where 'all races and creeds lived in harmony'. How do you know this to be so? How do you know there were no cases of discrimination? Did you survey each and every inhabitant? And what happened to turn the place from a picture of pure harmony, to on that was 'driven by covetous and crying poor'? What happened, in your opinion, to bring about this turn of events and cause some (how many?) in your suburb to break the Tenth Commandment? Please don't feel that you have to answers these questions, Len, they are rhetorical. I ask them merely as way of showing when someone is directly addressing someone else, as opposed to making a general statement.

    Seriously, and as interesting as your story is, Len, I'm afraid it's not about you, or for that matter me, or Grahame, or Bill, or Annette... it's about what our current population (remembering we can't alter the past) is doing right now, and the effect this will have on future populations. Grahame is most correct when he suggests: "...lets not delude ourselves that we can flick a magic switch and everyone will go back to wearing their Sunday best". Those times are gone, Len. Now is the time to work with what we have, hence permaculture. As such let's look at bit closer at the latter:

    Permaculture - 3 ethics, and 12 principles

    I wonder, Len, given that you have spent so much time contributing to a website that is devoted to permaculture, have you ever studied the above? If not, there really is nothing further we can discuss in relation to this topic. If so, however, and if you would care to share your views on the same, I'd be more than happy to continue. Better still, I wonder if it might be possible for you to actually read Holmgren's book? If this were to occur, then we could really have some interesting discussions. It's just a suggestion.

    Cheerio, and thanks again, Markos
     
  16. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Currently I am (actually, just finished) reading:

    Regional Planning in Australia: A History of Progress and Review of Regional Planning Activities through the Commonwealth - Issued by the Commonwealth Department of Post-War Reconstruction, in conjunction with State Departments responsible for Regional Planning in each State. Canberra, 1949

    Fascinating read! Allow me to share just a sliver:

    Although Australia has not the unlimited potentialities that some uninformed people have claimed for it, nevertheless Australia is still a continent which is far from fully developed. We believe that Australia can support a population very much greater than we have at present [approx. 8-million, 1949 Census], and, at the same time, that the high standard of living which we have now can be raised. In adopting Regional Planning as a method of development, the Governments of the Commonwealth and States firmly believe that it is only by the scientific study of resources and the careful working out of long-range plans for development that the best use can be made of our resources. ~ John J. Dedmen, Minister for Pot-War Reconstruction. Canberra, 1949
     
  17. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    my comments are in reply to your comments grahame so must be within the discussion parameters, so we all do it wrong but not being a favourite i get pinged others just go merrily on. and yes we have moved on in time to a much harsher dangerous time, that some for their won interests want to keep getting worse and worse, you say we can't go back to anything that was better in teh near past but then you want to dwell in dreamtimes, further back in the past. all born since at least 1900 in australia are australian's until we grasp that there will be no harmony.

    wisdom comes from the older ones, i got my wisdom in those times, and if you want so did the aboriginals of any country.

    like i ahve said before what was around before christianity as you say was mythology, and the sacrafice of people for the favour of god's. it becomes mark's and yours because you promote it to a very few the masses have no idea about it, they suffer in silence with nothing to look forward to.

    it wasn't until real christians emerged that people where not treated as sacrificial lambs, hunted like criminals yes because the pagan mythologists feared anything that opposed their blood lust orgy life.(keep in mind grahame you bought this up just so bill does not extend my endless punishment.

    not anecdotal! we lived it my aging grandparents had not a single fear of being robbed and mugged. us kids could run around the streets(no parks in those days)and in the nearby bush and around the swampy water hole, no massive injuries no one molested us, the mum's could go shopping and tell one of the other mum's who naturally took of keeping an eye on all kids, you and mark can't offer that, and don't try and belittle it to fit your politics by calling it anecdotal. that's what we want along with buying our produce off the local farmer, all those in our suburb bought from the same 3 shops on the corner; the grocer; the green grocer and the butcher, all this and milk shake drinking smoking bikies, that is the life people want. me and many others speak for the masses, that's where we live.

    you say we need a strong i say very strong foundation in ethics and morals, well ok! lets hear how you and mark and others plan that, when you support and undemocratic forum.

    we simply can't go back to 1770 even in our minds, needs reality in the thinking, we our our nation to work together as a community and ensure all get looked after.

    just be sure humans do come at the top of the list. the modern precepts are to invert the ethics for look good feel good.

    anyhow maybe just maybe when sense and sensibility returns we may just move on in unison, imagine living in communities where others simply don't want to rob from you.

    len
     
  18. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    always looking for teh blackest and worse hey mark,

    but blame it on my ignorance as you might have it, don't know how you could honestly support something new and good while you live in the depths of darkness. don't know how there could be any discrimination all people got same modest home and paid the same rent, all fathers worked each day earning between 5 and 7 pound a week out of this they paid their rents or mortgages(banks didn't rip off then), they all bought the same food from the same shops. it is your option to close your mind but this will then mean no peaceful future for any of us let alone all of us. so now does your word carry more impact around here than mine? i would say yes, hence no democracy.

    and all you said was in response to my post which was a response to your earlier post etc.,. etc.,. of course it is not about me what our current population is doing is going down the gurgler helped by negative imputs, i don't instead to study the above as you have suggested i already follow very good moral and ethical ethics and principals. and i would also suggest that what is in that click through is a copy of what we follow, after all anything that anyone introduces from the heart they have experienced earlier though now in denial.

    i had a look at the Holmgren link his first 2 paragraphs mention the introduction of permaculture principals back in the 70's and that permaculture moved forward along those lines no ever mention of worship. they lost the plot with the worship let in, by not appealing to the grassroots level, and by trying to sell permaculture, now i've said that all along.

    why can't our chats be interesting, i've got Mollison's intro' to perma' paper back collecting dust. what stops our chatting is pure bias and discrimination not on my part, over the decade i have never complained to a moderator about another.

    i go by the simple morale "where there is light there is hope - and where here is hope is light", i have never discriminated, worked with all races at all levels, they are all there because they believe saying a country owes them won't give them a car or home and the life that comes with it, one made it to my supervisor level. so anyone can achieve if i did.

    no doubt you will plug your thing until it all turns turtle or whatever.

    len
     
  19. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The word permaculture was coined by Bill Mollison and myself in the
    mid-1970’s to describe an
    integrated, evolving system of perennial or
    self-perpetuating plant and animal species useful to man
    1
    .
    A more current definition of permaculture, which reflects the
    expansion of focus implicit in
    Permaculture One
    , is
    ‘Consciously
    designed landscapes which mimic the patterns and relationships
    found in nature, while yielding an abundance of food, fibre and
    energy for provision of local needs.’
    People, their buildings and the
    ways in which they organise themselves are central to permaculture.
    Thus the permaculture vision of permanent or sustainable agriculture
    has evolved to one of permanent or sustainable culture

    the above from your click through mark

    len
     
  20. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's all very interesting, Len, but what about the ethics of permaculture? Would you care to share with us how they might be in alignment or misalignment with those of your own? Kind regards, Mark.

    PS: You'll find them on pp. 7-8
     

Share This Page

-->