Leo writes:
Just re-read a couple of pages from Mollison’s PDM. He nails it in the first paragraph of the preface. Wonder why he wrote -and we read- the rest. 😉
The philosophy is clear enough, the pedagogy and didactics stink. No matter how often you read the PDM it’s not a textbook to learn permaculture design from. The idea that 140 hours of lectures will do the trick is also quite unlikely. The language used has mislead many people into thinking that permaculture is currently a science and others to conclude it is pseudo-science (probably a more accurate assessment). Bill’s prime directive of taking personal responsibility and taking no crap from anybody has clearly been wasted on Geoff Lawton. It’s easy to see where the ‘hippyfication’ of permaculture comes from. 😉
Still all this traditional wisdom of working with nature rather then against, doesn’t make permaculture a science. I’m also starting to wonder if taking traditional wisdom at face value and start applying it in a modern context is even appropriate. Just the other day Steve Piontek, the director of STENAPA, told of the experience in the Caribbean region of traditional interaction with the environment in the modern context, is only leading to massive pollution and depletion of natural resources. The simple reason is that in the time when the traditional wisdom was still wise, there were far fewer people, half, quarter, a tenth or even less then there are today. Easy money and easy energy has changed all of that dramatically. Any plan to apply traditional wisdom would necessarily include a drastic reduction in population. I hear an echo of Bill’s third ethic here to set limits to population and consumption – before it was transformed into the bland and much safer “fair share”.
Your thoughts and comments welcome!
Hi Leo thanks for your response very interesting! I have to say though that you seem to be continuing in the recent trend of permaculture advocates criticizing the failing of permaculture, and yet still somehow finding value in it. I have discussed a few of these attempts on my blog recently, eg here http://skepteco.wordpress.com/2013/10/12/the-cult-of-perma/ and here http://skepteco.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/the-trouble-with-transition/
So although I agree with your basic critique of PC that it is pseudo-science, I cannot see that you have rectified this or made it in any way more scientific yourself. I still dont see any definition of PC in your response. How do we know a system is PC as opposed to not PC? Take out the hippy-fication, what are we really left with?
“The line in the sand will always be a matter of reducing population – in an elegant way of course. We’ve long past the point of limiting population as a sufficient strategy. The only thing you will intensify is population & pollution. ”
This suggests you are firmly based within the classical misanthropic Cult of Doom/Malthussian Limits to Growth paradigm- as such, you seem to have far more in common with Mollison than you might have difference. You are however completely wrong: population growth rates are declining faster than any recent predictions, and the reason is the demographic transition that leads to lower birth-rates as people come out of poverty and leave peasant subsistence farming behind in search of a better life in the cities. Hans Rosling says it the best: http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-population/
In addition, pollution rates also decline as technology and wealth improve viz the London “pea-soupers” (dense fog caused by coal pollution) common in the 1950s are no more. It may be that Beijing is going through now what the UK went through a generation ago. But even if you are right, I see no evidence that “something-called-permaculture” is really offering any alternative or solutions.
As for racing towards a brick wall etc, naturally since no-one can test the future, “in an entropic universe, the doomers will always win in the end”. In fact, the data suggests that the world is getting better on many counts, and we have a long history of substituting scarce resources with alternatives, or developing new technologies to find and exploit more resources, long before they run out. Since I have devoted my blog to challenging the Cult of Doomerism (of which PC- however defined- is clearly a part) I offer another of my own posts:
http://skepteco.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/the-perils-of-prediction/
Hi Graham!
You don’t know me and I don’t know you. Are you sure you want to go down this path of tit-for-tat discourse? Where is the gain in this? What is your agenda? Where are you going with this?
Are you going to keep score or just have some fun learning?
I admire your capacity for cherry picking. Picking up on keywords and phrases that confirm you own agenda of the happy-go-lucky exponential growth addict. Ignorance is bliss, especially when confirmed by others.
Pretty much everything you question distracts from the point I was making in my post: that permaculture education needs improvement.
BTW the post was given its title by this blog’s editor, not I. It seems that this random title got you juices going though 😉
I’m engaging with you in this dialogue because you are not the only one with preconceptions and misconceptions about permaculture. I hope that in some way this may contribute to a better understanding and bring permaculture as a whole forward in both substance and practice.
recent trend of permaculture advocates criticizing the failing of permaculture, and yet still somehow finding value in it
I note a couple of mistakes here. Not saying you are wrong, as everybody is right within their own world perception.
One is you characterize me as a permaculture advocate. I speak for myself. I have no desire to convince you or anybody else. “I can only show you the door. You’re the one that has to go through it ” (to quote faux Matrix guru Morpheus ;-).
Two is “criticizing the failure of permaculture”: you seem to be making a mistake of scale or level in the system hierarchy here. You may need to distinguish between people presenting themselves as permaculturalist, permaculture as a ‘movement’ (a group of permaculturalists moving in an apparently similar direction) and permaculture as a concept. These are elements at three different scales. Basic Systems Theory shows that behavior at different levels is linked but in a non-linear way. Lumping everything together leads to misunderstanding, at best.
Putting words in someone else’s mouth is generally not a good idea. It seems to me that you are the one criticizing the permaculture movement and concept and are willing to recruit corroboration unsolicited.
Three: given your mistake of scale I see how you arrive at the pejorative “somehow” in my finding value in permaculture.
You have a brilliant way with words, but stringing words together in a grammatically and syntactically correct way doesn’t make it map in any relevant way to the real world. You may want to check up on Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem.
To correct you:
– the “trend” of people in permaculture criticizing itself is not new. It’s been around since Holmgren and Mollison first started thinking about it. Calling this “trend” recent just indicates that you’ve gotten wind of it only recently;
– you seem to be mistaken in exactly what the critique is about, again sweeping lots of disparate things onto the same heap. Holmgren refers to permaculture as a young design philosophy, that still needs to mature and be critically discussed – that’s what any philosophy is all about. Much of the critique is about what the purview, jurisdiction of permaculture is. This has lead to an evolution from alternate food production system design to anything concerning human settlement and community. There is lots of critique on the commercial practices of some permaculturalists -part envy, part concern about alleged breaches of professional and personal integrity. Then there’s the critique on the education system of permaculture, the infamous 72-hour PDC lecture formula developed by Mollison cs. The statement from Mollison that the PDC certificate gives its holders the right to use the word “permaculture” (unsuccessfully claimed as TM) in professional design and education practice.
What’s wrong with an “advocate” critically promoting a concept? Isn’t that exactly how a concept develops?
Where did you get the idea that “permaculture” is failing? And how is that worse then “industrial design”, “industrial technology” or “industrial capitalism”, “industrial society” failing? Keeping score again?
Why shouldn’t I find value in permaculture even though there is plenty of room for improvement?
The way you put it, you seem to consider this a bad thing. Why is that exactly?
I agree with your basic critique of PC that it is pseudo-science, I cannot see that you have rectified this or made it in any way more scientific yourself.
Considering I didn’t say that permaculture is pseudo-science, it’s rather curious that you would agree with me. If you agree with me then it can’t be that permaculture is pseudo-science, but that some permaculture teachers express themselves in ways that are a hallmark of pseudo-science, making sweeping rousing statements in scientific language that are obviously not very scientific at all.
I didn’t realise that I could not have an opinion without correcting the scientific underpinning of permaculture. What have you done so far in that regard? Do you have any idea of what I’ve done?
It seems that you are no stranger to making sweeping rousing statements.
I still dont see any definition of PC in your response.
Perhaps you missed that, being busy with picking your favorite cherries? You may not like or even reckognise my definition, that doesn’t mean I didn’t give you one.
How do we know a system is PC as opposed to not PC?
How is this a relevant question? Given that as design philosophy it is not the purpose of permaculture to create systems that can be classified as uniquely permaculture, this is not a very useful question.
What is the purpose of your question? Keeping score again? You seem to be rather attached to keeping score.
Take out the hippy-fication, what are we really left with?
Are you suggesting that originally permaculture was nothing of substance until hippy’s and their values and practices became involved in it?
What a curious concept. Your perception of course. Without hippy-fication, what you are left with is permaculture. That would be nice, thank you 😉 Can we focus on the science and design philosophy, please?
you are firmly based within the classical misanthropic Cult of Doom/Malthussian Limits to Growth paradigm
Right, well. Again you don’t know me at all do you, to make yet another sweeping and rousing statement. Again, your perception of course.
And again the pejorative use of a buzz word: cult. And judgmental language like misanthropic. Where do you get stuff like that?
Evolution Theory was embraced gratefully by capitalists and industrialists after Darwin’s publication of the Origin of Species. Considering that very few people actually read the book (or even: just any book) at that time, they cleverly came up with a sweeping and rousing phrase: “survival of the fittest” and attributed it to Darwin, by then perceived as the (controversial) authority on the scientific roots of human development. Check the text of OoS and see for yourself that this phrase doesn’t appear anywhere in it. In fact, when you do read the text you will find that Darwin marvels at the creativity and humor of Nature in producing such a plethora of species and individuals seemingly unfit for their environment but still surviving. Perhaps the human race is an excellent point in case.
Malthus just submitted his theory on the type of growth of organisms in their environment. So far this theory has not been refuted and still has scientific validity.
Identifying limits is essential in any design. Nature imposes limits. Nature is not a democracy. You either stay within your limits, however creatively, or you cease to exist. Simple as that. No doom & gloom required.
You are however completely wrong: population growth rates are declining faster than any recent predictions
Another sweeping and rousing statement. That should put me in my place 😉
You mean the recent data of shortening life expectancy in e.g. the US population due to the industrial diet or the decline in fertility due to the ubiquitous wetting agents in industrial products and packaging?
You are still talking about growth rates. Nothing about declining population, which is still growing. Nothing that contradicts Malthus, as environmental conditions are an explicit factor.
the reason is the demographic transition that leads to lower birth-rates as people come out of poverty and leave peasant subsistence farming behind in search of a better life in the cities.
Well, it’s getting to be a pattern now, Graham. Sweeping rousing statements based on what exactly? Define poverty. What’s wrong with subsistence farming? What’s good about the indentured life of urban wage slaves. You a city person, Graham? An understandable perception then 😉 Ever heard of Mexico City – one of the population growth hot-spots in the world and very urban? Why is it that anyone that is rich enough moves to a quiet place in the country? Where do you go for holidays, Graham? Being poor in the country makes for a much easier and healthier life then being poor in the city, which is how these rural people end up as. They may search for a better life, but most likely won’t find it in the city.
Hans Rosling says it the best: http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-population/
Hans Rosling! My favorite popular science presenter! Easily misunderstood when you don’t understand the scientific method though. But immensely popular with politicians – they like sweeping and rousing statements too. I don’t know about his latest exploits but I do remember that he once explained beautifully that the single most important factor in population (self-)control was the security of 0% infant mortality rate. He also mentioned that education of women plays a crucial role in this. Frankly, nothing to do with migration from rural to urban area’s or getting wealthy.
pollution rates also decline as technology and wealth improve
Define wealth. Do you mean: money in the bank, consumer goods, real-estate, slaves, debtors? Technology’s purpose is to amplify our natural abilities and separate us from what it takes to exercise them. From a stick to dig a hole to your iPhone. Money can be considered a technology in this sense. You are unlikely to perceive what the environmental consequences of your use of technology and wealth are. A couple of digits in your bank account represent perhaps 30 men working in a mine for a day. Flipping a switch may represent a tonne of carbondioxide emitted into the atmosphere. Eating a hamburger may represent several kilograms of inedible corn, processed into a steer, ground down to unrecognisable meat tissue, packed and transported to your table from halfway around the world. Do you really think this creates less pollution than walking out your back door and picking some fresh fruit and veggies – or a handful of hemp seeds – with better health and nutritional value?
Or perhaps you have a different idea about improving and I just misunderstand. Perhaps you mean that simpler technology and less money constitutes an improvement, that wealth lies in your happiness and wellbeing, not the state of your debt balance.
I see no evidence that “something-called-permaculture” is really offering any alternative or solutions.
Well, that’s your loss I’ afraid. Why do you bother engaging with permaculture if you are already convinced it’s no use. Perhaps you need continuous confirmation of your pre-conceptions? More pejorative expressions? Really 😉 Maybe you should just let go and enjoy your world while you can?
As for racing towards a brick wall etc, naturally since no-one can test the future, “in an entropic universe, the doomers will always win in the end”. In fact, the data suggests that the world is getting better on many counts, and we have a long history of substituting scarce resources with alternatives, or developing new technologies to find and exploit more resources, long before they run out.
Since I have devoted my blog to challenging the Cult of Doomerism (of which PC- however defined- is clearly a part) I offer another of my own posts:
http://skepteco.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/the-perils-of-prediction/
For a self-professed skeptic you aren’t very scientific about it, hey 😉 “test the future” is one of those perfectly good lingual expressions that don’t map onto the real world.
Do you really need a “test” of the future when releasing a brick from a great hight onto your toes, just to see if gravity is a sound concept?
Doomers (another pejorative) will be just as dead as anybody else at the end of the universe. The idea of winners is both irrelevant and inappropriate in this case. What world are you living in, that you believe is getting better? So you do see that we have been substituting one resource for another when it ran out; that resources run out through being exploited. And BTW this “long history” is about 200 years old, not really a big dent in the Earth’s 4.5 billion year history as a planet. And of course we are exploiting more resources, discarding more waste (also known as pollution), using more of our stored energy and emitting ever more heat into our environment.
Your devotion seems rather pointless. Perhaps you would like to put the way nature works to a democratic vote? Maybe you could petition the United Nations to police nature’s proper functioning? You seem rather set on equating a design philosophy with the subject of your greatest fear: that at some point you will reach a limit you cannot conquer. As sad state of affairs, Graham. I’m truly sorry to inform you that within the foreseeable future you will die as your biological systems reach the limit of their capacity to keep fixing the wear and tear of everyday life. I’m sure you can blame permaculture for its failure to provide you with an alternative solution.
Interesting comment! But you leave a lot of questions begging: if Mollison’s PCDM is not the place to learn PCD from, then where is? What is PCDesign if not in the pages of the PCDM or the 72-hour courses?
Isn’t Mollison’s first paragraph just another example of Mathussian doomerism that has been driving the environmental agenda the past few decades, but has persistently turned out to be false? And if it is false of course, then there is no reason for PC in the first place.
Why pick on Geoff Lawton? Is he really any more hippy-ish than anyone else promoting PC? Isn’t his Greening the Deserts’ Project in Jordan a real success, one of the few projects that actually demonstrates the principles in practice?
Your last paragraph is spot on: PC is another retro-romantic yearning for a mythical time in the past when life seemed simpler. In fact, far from being a solution to modern problems, any kind of of mass “return to Nature” would be a disaster for nature, because as you say populations are far higher. It would also be a disaster for us, and life expectancy would plummet. The real way forward is more intensive systems that produce more food and energy from less. Organic farming, woody polycultures and windmills would have a far greater impact per unit of food produced/Kwh because they are so diffuse and land hungry.
Hi Graham!
Martin told me you might be interested in a bit of permaculture controversy 😉
Trying to offer you some options to your questions.
1. Where to learn permaculture? Ingenio Patet Campus. The field lies open to the intellect., Mollison’s motto for his permaculture academy, comes to mind. Considering/perceiving permaculture as a multi-disciplenary integral design philosophy, drawing on earth, life and social sciences is another good starting point. I find lots of fascinating research in various branches of science that are relevant to designing a better way of life, that is resilient, permanent (within the time horizon of humanity), nurturing the environment we depend on and doesn’t lead to lifetime indenture to other people. It’s about common sense and nurturing your immediate environment, drawing on remote resources (other then the sun) as little as possible.
2. What is PC design if not what’s in PDC courses (with Bill’s PDM as its curriculum)? well… where to begin? For one I like to distinguish between knowing something, doing something and being something. Knowing is about the data, information. It’s the DNA of permaculture. Even though there is lots of stories in the PDM, it’s not always obvious what the stories are based on, what the mechanisms are, how specific forms lead to specific functions. Some of that is related to the fact that those stories are rarely backed up by scientific evidence. They remain the domain of pseudo science. And jumping ahead to your question on Geoff: as sweet as this guy is, he uses lots of scientific language to make quite unscientific claims like the yield of a system is unlimited in principle, which is one of the hallmarks of pseudo science – and very popular with hippy’s and politicians alike.
Permaculture Design is foremost a design philosophy. A rational and critical search for fundamental meaning in giving form to what makes a happy and resilient human community.
A PDC course, especially a 72-hour lecture course, can only be the tip of the ice berg. Then comes the doing. This is where most permaculture education fails. For one thing insisting on no other criterium then time spent in the presence of your favorite permaculture guru almost guarantees that you will not “get” it – that you need to go out into the wild and do your own research. Bill’s admonishment to take no crap from anyone is easily misunderstood. What I notice with many students of permaculture is the belief that having basked in the glory of their teacher they now understand the world and nobody is going to tell them different now. That’s not taking no crap from anyone, that’s believing the nearest authoritative sounding person (like our dear friend Geoff e.g.).
Permaculture design is everything that happens after you have survived a PDC and are still inquisitive and attentive to your environment.
To learn permaculture you need to spend quality time in a wide range of environments, working especially on designing new behaviours for the users of a site – in other words: designing education systems. There are no permaculture schools that I know of that take this long view. Most seem to be stuck in brief “intensive” courses. Even “year-long” courses are just the 72 hour course smeared out over a year. A PDC only teaches the bare minimum of basic design. It assumes you already have a full complement of knowledge on how the world works and the skills to do something useful with that. Advanced courses are limited to a masterclass or workshop on a specific detail of permaculture design practice, and strangely enough rarely about design or permaculture 😉
3. Malthusian doomerism false? Well, that would depend on your position and perspective. A train heading for the cliff, not over the edge yet: are you sure you want to be on it? Expecting it will go over and you will be destroyed is false because you haven’t crashed yet? That’s not a very rational argument. It doesn’t matter that your train is really well built, that it is very powerful and has been recently upgraded to go even faster, intensively using energy and onboard resources. Does it?
4. Geoff 🙂 I really love this man. He puts himself way out there, sticking his neck out, being as vocal as he can. You really have to give him that. Imagine Geoff being a real scientist, telling riveting stories that are also scientifically sound. It wouldn’t cost anything more but would have an even wider appeal. So I have to wonder why is he insisting on sloppy language?
Greening the Desert. He’s the first to admit that permaculture design of the landscape utterly fails without some serious behaviour adjustment of the people using it. And no, his first project in Jordania was not a success. As he himself explains in Greening the Desert II.
How hippy-ish can you get? Always looking and sounding like a feral bloke from down-under, devoted followers, winning smile, dramatic video’s.
Did he ever write a book or a peer-reviewed article on permaculture?
To address your solution to world hunger and peace for all: does a bigger and stronger balloon not burst? Or will it just burst later with greater and even more devastating force? If we need to draw a line in the sand at a point where life is easy, comfortable and satisfying, you need to first take oil and other cheap energy solutions out of the equation. The line in the sand will always be a matter of reducing population – in an elegant way of course. We’ve long past the point of limiting population as a sufficient strategy. The only thing you will intensify is population & pollution. The more resources you mobilise with intensifying production the more population will grow. To think and expect otherwise is naive at best – nothing personal of course Graham.