when a climax species loses its niche,,,it is displaced, or worse.

I think she's got you there kimbo. Not your finest work this thread.

 

No marks on my body either helen. No stickers on my vehicle, but when I find an interesting painting at the thrift ship, they do end up on my wall. Until I find another one...

Been thinking songbird, a place for one's body might be in a hot compost pile: "Hey, Grandpa's dead"! "Hurry, throw him in the compost before his gut bacteria dies"! Now that would be a shocker to most!

You make some interesting points kimbo, in a survival of the fittest environment, this makes sense.

 

Someone likes my idea from the euthanasia thread.

 

who doesnt?

 

I'm going back to the original post "Frith - you can not buy it." to re-read the whole lot, & try & formulate an intelligent & intelligible comment.

 

Rick, do you mean survival of the strongest? Because the term survival of the fittest is a term from Darwin and it actually means survival of those that best fit in their environment. Nothing to do with strongest. It would be good to know which you meant, given the context.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

 

That is what I meant. However, I am waiting for a better idea to come along!

 

the compost pile will likely take care of any gut bacteria anyways, and if not age it for a year or two and it's good to go.

to me that would imply that somehow i've been taken to a different place, there's no compost pile around here big enough. there are plenty of turkey vultures soaring around on any given day. i've enjoyed their company and would be happy to let them feast if they wanted. no skin off my back. oh, well, perhaps, heehee.

 

the quality of my 'work' can not be measured by the lack of resultant epiphanies,,,," friendly eyes would never see such fault ".....

besides; permaculture is only for the marginalised,,,,,could be that there is a fair bit of the popular culture making up the audience......

in which case....i remain the respectably marginalised,...getting 'huhs'? all round.

 

And I appreciate all your work. It's honest, raw, confronting & ahead of its time. It rips through my camouflage & my comfort zones with deathly precision. There is nowhere to hide from the responses it generates in my brain. I may not agree with everything you write, but it sure as hell makes me think, & I will continue to support your right to write it. You're an artist & this is your art. This is what art is supposed to do. (Unless it's Ken Done.)

 

Here is my latest epiphany; Kimbo is relating to niches, with the resulting successions and the fight for place. Mouse is relating to herb eaters, peacefully grazing together, yet each contributing to the whole, yet each eating something unique to fit.

I, on the other hand, like to refer to the meat eaters. The apex species. The wolf kills the coyote, the coyote kills the fox, the fox kills the raccoon (that could be a stretch), the raccoon kills the possum, the possum, well, the possum does kill something. They all have territories, and will defend it from other of the same species, and always from different species.

 

* however; mark the point that i call the concept of Guilds as the culture of the niche winning, niche maintaining culture.

the guild - a sum of species and their cultural elements that come together as the supra culture of the climax species of that niche.

you can be a butterfly selfishly doing no more than your butterfly business,,,,,which if it is good for us, other species in this collective claiming and holding niche, is going to give you guild status.

or you can be a butterfly which for one reason or another costs us in this niche. ...the positive relationships you may have, ,may not be enough,,too few such that you're a bit of a burden to the collective -

small future in the guild for this fellow lest it has butterfly dreams of taking over, and the capacity.



it matters not how many nibbles

what matters is - I take 'Guilds' to human settlement scenarios and ask you - why are we designing for place and forgetting the basics, of what a guild is , what it isn't, and why it matters.

k

 

tedious???

i make a post, it runs to a thread, you feature, peppered throughout it - and you've progressed to tedium.

oh dear, dear oh dear, shit - shelve talk of guilds, and the merits of a designed homogeneously cultural human settlement.

these humans and the way they demand and consume novelty.

____________________

do i have something 'novel' i can offer the players.???.......ofcourse,,, as a permaculture designer, i can draw upon a world of novelty.

will i - of course not.
learn to ride and then i'll show you a wheelie.

k

 

For me perhaps the most convincing argument that kimbo is right is the fact that we're all referring to "Australian Culture" as if Australian Culture & "Australia Post Invasion Culture" are the same thing. Is no one else even slightly taken aback that after 200 years - a mere blip on the radar of time - we feel entitled to act & speak as if there never was anything else?

 

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publ...-acting-race-discrimination-commissioner-2007

Tom Calma provides an excellent piece here albeit a few years old now. For me this piece really sums up all I feel on the subject and says it much better than I ever could. Thanks for the discussion - done now.

 

Sorry Rick, didn't follow. Which did you mean?

 

I'm not

There is no doubt to kimbo's brilliance, and as I said, I can see he's trying to make some good theories here. But there is also no doubt that there is racism alongside this as well. I'm not even going to go into the whole ecological rationale for his argument unless that can be acknowledged or explored. Saying "I'm not racist" doesn't count.

 

I like you well enough kimbo. I just disagree with some of what you are saying here. Disagreement doesn't mean that you get to write off my points as being too mainstream. I'm also from the margins of society, and permaculture for that matter, so pull the other one on that eh?

 

From:
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/public...missioner-2007

[h=3]Multiculturalism and Indigenous Australians[/h]The relationship of Indigenous Australians to multiculturalism warrants special consideration. As both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and the Acting Race Discrimination Commissioner I have had to think about the relationship between these roles; how the rights of Indigenous peoples and other minority groups in Australia relate and how they are differentiated.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, like other minority groups, risk being excluded from sharing the economic, social and cultural benefits of being a citizen of Australia. Multiculturalism, as a policy of recognition and equity, can assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in gaining access to these benefits.
The 1989 National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia clearly states that multiculturalism is ‘applicable not just to immigrants but to all Australians, including the Indigenous Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population.’
Also, the National Agenda for a Multicultural Australia assumes that both groups share the quest for the recognition of their right to cultural identity, the right to social justice and the need for economic efficiency.
Despite these parallels, multiculturalism is an inadequate response to the history of dispossession and exclusion that Indigenous people have faced in Australia. Firstly, the devastation caused by policies aimed at colonising Australia, including the policy of assimilation to ‘breed out’ Aboriginal Australians, were far worse in their severity and scale than the systemic and individual discriminatory practices used against migrants and their families seeking to settle in Australia.
Secondly, the claims for social justice and human rights by Indigenous peoples originate from a different source, both historically and in international law, than claims by other minority groups in Australia.
Indigenous peoples claim not only recognition of their rights as citizens of Australia but also as Australia’s first peoples. This claim has a specific history and relationship to land and territory which in turn gives rise to distinct cultural, social, economic and political rights. These rights are best articulated through the articles contained in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, especially Article 3 which asserts the right of Indigenous people to self determination. While this Declaration remains to be adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) have sought to give their respective instruments relevance to the unique struggle of Indigenous peoples.
For example in relation to the right to enjoy one’s culture under Article 27 of the ICCPR, the Human Rights Committee has made it clear that for Indigenous people, the right to enjoy culture may consist in a way of life which is closely associated with territory and the use of resources.[SUP][35][/SUP]
The CERD has also highlighted the connection between ensuring compliance with non-discrimination principles and ensuring the survival of the cultural identity of Indigenous peoples. The Committee, in General Recommendation 23 has called on State Parties to take all appropriate means to combat and eliminate discrimination against Indigenous peoples, including by recognising and respecting their distinct culture, history, language and way of life as an enrichment of the State’s cultural identity and to promote its preservation.[SUP][36][/SUP]
It can be seen from international human rights jurisprudence that while the recognition of culture is a measure of equality in the case of ethnic communities, the claim of culture in the case of Indigenous peoples is more fundamental. For Aboriginal Australians the claim is for recognition as a people, with all the concomitant political and economic rights. For Aboriginal Australians social justice implies restorative justice through a proper reconciliation treaty that acknowledges the historical wrongs done to Aboriginal peoples. For Aboriginal Australians the question of economic and political justice is about ensuring that future Aboriginal generations have control over their land, their lives and their destiny with sufficient resources to actualize their potentials as the first people of this country.

Read the above & weep tears of blood.
Now ...
Let me call a spade a bloody shovel here for a moment. I am a card carrying fully paid up bleeding heart hippy. I would offer my own roof & my own bed to anyone of any nationality, culture or creed that needed shelter. I would offer it to my worst enemy if they were in need. I don't point the finger at other cultures when looking for examples of people not getting on with people - I can't stand even my own kids visiting more than briefly! However, given the historical facts, I think it's wise to acknowledge that survival belongs to the fittest & those most prepared to pursue survival. Cultures who are less aggressive in nature are simply run under. Fancy having to beg to be acknowledged as a citizen in your own country! Shame. I have no problem with Muslims, nor any other race or religion of people. My future son-in-law is Lebanese & a strict practicing Muslim. So long as he doesn't start nagging me about eating my pigs or sleeping with my dog he can stay. Any shit from him in that direction & he's out My daughter-in-law is Italian. No problem. My other son doesn't have a partner - he's too war like for anyone to want to put up with him