Is Permaculture Retrogressive?

Discussion in 'Designing, building, making and powering your life' started by barquee, Aug 12, 2007.

  1. RichardA

    RichardA Guest

    Sorry to come in late on this thread.

    Darren Doherty has several large-scale permaculture installations up and running profitably. Some examples on his site:
    https://www.permaculture.biz/

    I do think it's unfortunate that this is the only bloke I can think of with a number of successful broadacre permaculture installations under his belt. The world needs a lot more permaculture in agriculture.

    ...Richard.
     
  2. christopher

    christopher Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,536
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Hahahahaha!

    Okay, there are many, many, successful permaculture farms, often by farmers who have never even heard of permaculture. I have neighbors who live almost entirely from their farms, and sell their produce for cash, or barter, for everything they do not create. I have seen farms in Nicaragua, Guatemala, panama, Costa Rica and Venezuela that are profitable in every definition of the word. The problem is, "profits" are small because food is systematically devalued, and ecological services are only rewarded through kilo per hectar market based models, like premium prices on commodities for certified organic, or "bird friendly".

    Most of these farmers are currency poor, with little cash, and their farms are small, typically less than 12 acres, with some of that devoted to shifting cultivation. People who visit them consider them "poor" when, in fact, they have abundance of good food, clean air, good water and live a low cash but relatively stress free life.

    To be involved in the cash economy, many farmers, like myself, take jobs off farm, to make the money to pay for internet, keep a truck, maintain a life with some creature comforts, a trip to somewhere every two or three years. I could, quite easily, live off of the farm, but I have expensive tastes! Travel costs a lot!

    Lighthouse, yes, permie people do cherry pick their data to support their theories, but so do most scientists. Look at the definition of "profitable agriculture". Its only profitable in the narrowest of definitions, as long as the "externalities" are ignored, the dead zones from nitrogen rich run off, damage to estuaries and riparian communities from pesticides, the personal and financial cost of Mad Cow Disease, Cruetzfeldt-Jakob Disease, the damaged and depleted aquifers, displaced indigenous agricultural knowledge (globally, including traditional knowledge of agriculture in EU/US/Au/Canada, etc), lost heirloom cultivars lost to hybrids and GMOs, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

    A farm that leaks chemicals and fertilizer, which damages fisheries hurts the economy of the fisheries and communities dependent on the health of the estuary. Yet the farm is "profitable", albeit subsidized by the health of the fisheries.

    This has been discussed in this forum before, but: at what point do we begin to value the ecological services provided by organic farms, the soil and water retention of forests, the benefits of healthy aquatic communities, the carbon sequestered in agroforestry systems, and when we DO start valuing those services and benefits, how do we define a monetary value to them, and who pays those farmers for those services? How do we tax the polluters, to make them pay the true cost of their allegedly profitable agriculture?

    Until we look at true cost economics, too broad and inclusive for most simplistic models economists use, we will never know how truly expensive chemical based broad acre farming is, nor how profitable small scale, decentralized organic/permie farms are.
     
  3. Jim Bob

    Jim Bob Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    258
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's actually trivially simple to do so. We do it on the same basis that people sue on.

    If someone carelessly spills 1,000 tonnes of salt on my hectare of fruit orchards, I can sue the guy on the basis of "lost future income." We look at what I would expect to make from that bit of land if I cared for it over my working life, and what I'm now going to make after its damage. The difference between the two is the monetary value of its "ecological services."

    Compensation for lost future income is given all the time when people and their property suffer damage or injury.

    The other thing to consider is that many of these ecologically-harmful agricultural practices actually aren't profitable at all. 80% of our agricultural profits come from 0.8% of our agricultural land. 99.2% of the land is barely profitable, requiring second jobs for the farmers, government subsidies and bailouts, and so on. Those farms in land they've turned to salt through too much irrigation, the areas struck by drought because they cut all the trees down - those guys wouldn't be in business at all without bailouts and subsidies from public funds. They get subsidised fuel, water, fertiliser, pesticides, herbicides, vehicles, and so on.

    If we want unsustainable agriculture in Australia to die off, all we have to do is stop supporting it. Let them pay the market price for all that stuff. Just let their businesses succeed or fail, like we let other businesses succeed or fail. Someone more competent can then take over, and do it sustainably.

    Food will then become more expensive, but honestly 90% of Australia can afford it, and they can help the lowest 10% in the usual way, by taxation and welfare money.

    Unsustainable agriculture actually isn't very profitable at all. The government had to pay farmers to cut down their trees and turn their land to salt, left to themselves they wouldn't have done it. And now we pay them - through tax breaks and lowered prices for stuff, as well as drought fun bailouts - to keep farming extremely marginal land.
     
  4. stevieray

    stevieray Junior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    x2 :lol:
     
  5. SueinWA

    SueinWA Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,251
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Great post, Jim Bob!

    Except I'm not too sure about your statement that "It's actually trivially simple to do so. We do it on the same basis that people sue on. "

    I believe a lot of those decisions are fairly arbitrary. Especially when insurance companies are involved. As Christopher pointed out, the CASH value of the property or crop(s) is often not the TRUE value of the property or crop(s). If you asked a hundred people the true value of something, you'd probably get a hundred different answers.

    I don't know what the real answer is, but I suspect that that isn't it.

    Sue
     
  6. Guest

    Hm, reading this thread it seems Permaculture does not have a common definition. It seems the word "Permaculture" means different things to different people.

    What does Permaculture mean to you?

    I think this would be a subject for a new thread ...

    I think this would be a subject for a new thread ...
     
  7. Permibeginner

    Permibeginner Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2008
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    interesting discussion.
    Being new to the practise of permaculture it might be useful to look at my previous life.

    100% of my food was grown elsewhere in who's soil with what chemicals added? definately there would be poisons in the foods being imported from overseas that arrive on the supermarket shelf several days if not weeks or months after picking. Some of hte chemicals are really nasty.

    Food is picked green, stored and then gassed to be conveniently ripe when for sale.

    Often the food bought is tasteless, or inedible but I didn't have to grow it.

    Instead I used my money to buy it.

    Given the current hourly rate is between $15 and $20 an hour the $200 that I spend of my groceries per week for my family (being gluten/wheat free)costs me 10 or more hours a week.

    In that life I spend hours every week in my garden watering non productive land, mowing lawns or paying for them to be mown, and weeding those pesky weeds that do nothing but look bad and give me a bad reputation with my neighbours so probably I spend another several hours over the week in lost time with no food for my body to eat.

    Total cost in time and labour would I would have to assume be more then 15 hours per week.

    Compare that to my beginning permaculture garden. (Or perhaps one that is thricing already would be more appropriate as we are really only just starting and are yet to harvest.

    Cost factor. much much less then $200 a week, initial set up costs for sure but once it is established the cost of running this system is far reduced. Lets estimate $20 a week to be generous

    - Time needed negligable. people donate the scraps for the chooks and are happy for you to collect them or will even deliver them themselves to avoid having piles of lawn clippings or scraps at their house. Lets be generous and say the same amount of time gardening(although this is probably going to be reduced as I dont need to weed or mow just plant and get the chooks to do the hard yakka)

    I am thinking that for a third of the time I have had to devote to earning the money to buy my food I will be able to produce enough food for my family that I can sell or swap for most of my needs. Yes I have no doubt that there will be times I need to buy in something, a new line of lettuce seed or some sort of mulch etc.

    I guess you need to look at what it is you are judging when you look at permaculture and deciding if you are being retrogressive.

    Is it retrogressive-
    - to eat food freshly picked?
    -to eat food that has little or no chemicals added
    -to be fit and healthy because of the time you have spent gardening thus reduced illnesses, increased vigour, improved mental health, and longer life span
    -to have a reduced amount of your waking hours devoted to getting the resources to feed your family

    I guess if you were a doctor, lawyer or similarly high waged person then permaculture may be regressive but for the majority of us permaculture is an investment that pays off in time, money and quality of food.

    Why not take the same time and money we devote anyway to our gardens and use it to benefit us economically, physically and gastronomically.

    I cant see permaculture as a backward step but as nothing but beneficial. I would rather have a crop planted in my backyard and be able to pick a fresh tomato for my tea then be waiting for the food that is rotting in the transport as it makes it's make at huge expense to the environment (use of petrochemicals to power the transport, feed the agriculture machines and fertilizers and the potential for accidental spills of chemicals and pollutants) from some place half a world away
     
  8. Loris

    Loris Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Being an architecture thing, instead of emphasizing the food production aspect, you should tie it in with things like self processing of grey water with ponds - with plants in the ponds - and then what do you do with the grey water that is not going down the sewer well, you have to design a garden system that allows the use of the water with no outflow etc etc.

    Which is more structural but just sneaking the garden design issue in as an aside.

    You could also use this process to sneak in rain water tanks and other achitectural features which we all know lead onto the logical conclusion but at least you don't sound like you are espousing the hippie minority.
     
  9. CRTreeDude

    CRTreeDude Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think if you were to merely adapt techniques that have been in use for centuries - well, perhaps retrogressive - though there is nothing wrong with that if you accept that perhaps over the last 100 years we might have gone down a wrong road.

    But, if you were to apply the science that we have learned over the years to make more complete systems that are more efficient use of resources - how would that be retrogressive?

    For example, we have large reforestation projects (200+ hectares and growing) which use princibles of permaculture - and I can promise you I glean as much as I can from forestry science - it is the application that makes it permaculture.

    Being an engineer by trade orginally, I can tell you I get a real kick out of seeing a "waste" product being utilized. It means I go one more step toward a complete system.

    just my dos colones (worth 1/5 as much as 2 cents...)
     
  10. TropicalRose

    TropicalRose Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    138
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't have anything to add, but wow! great thread. I learnt so much.
     
  11. M a x

    M a x Junior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    truly design-minded people never argue over semantics, connotation, style or aesthetics, those things are for the language/art academics.

    if it were my thesis under fire, i would quote Le Corbusier (Vers une architecture, 1923):
    "The house is a machine for living in... The 'Styles' are a lie."

    i would argue that my 'perma-tecture' is a modern extension of this, and that 'art-chitecture' is functionally retrogressive.
     
  12. sophie

    sophie Guest

    barquee,

    thought you might like to look at this website https://www.lammas.org.uk


    lighthouse,

    there's a book called the omnivore's dilemma (sorry i can't remember the author) which contains a chapter about a working permaculture farm (the term is not actually used to describe it, but in essence that's what it is). It's a great book.
     

Share This Page

-->