Subject: Growth of Pc

From: [email-masked] (David de Vries)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 22:20:29 +1100

*******************************

Anecdotaly, I understand Bill Mollison designed the geometric growth of Pc
worldwide based on the itinerant teacher in front of small groups.  After
21 years, the growth is not to be sneezed at e.g. 120,000 PDC graduates.
However, is the growth fast enough?  How long before 0.1% of the world's
pop are permies?

In several continents there are say 50 teachers training 30+ people each
per year. If each teacher generates one teacher p.a. we have simple
geometric growth and 1 mil of each continent can get trained in the next 10
years (50 x 30, 100 x 30, 200 x 30,....25,600 x 30).

Geometric growth is a beautiful thing - paticularly if it is the species
you wish to encourage.  Note, it is not the number of students p.a. per
teacher which is fostering the growth so much as the number of new teachers
generated.

Pc  teachers have been at work in Australia, North America etc for 15+ yrs
but those identifying as permies only number in the thousands.  What
happened to the geometric growth rate?  Arithmetic growth just won't get us
there.

Possibilities:
1)  Energies were diverted into growth into other continents.  This has
happened, but I suggest most teachers have kept up their teaching
activities at home.
2)  Teachers are not bringing on new teachers succesfully.
3)  New trainees with an interest in teaching cannot find a
niche/livelihood and move on to other pursuits.

I would like to collate information to answer the question. Why is Pc not
growing at a rate of doubling or greater per year?

>From experienced teachers:
What is your success rate in bringing on new teachers expressed in active
teachers/PDC graduates? e.g. 0/50, 10/300.
Do you think there is sufficient demand?
Do you know of examples where many teachers working in proximity has worked
or failed?

>From new trainees:
Do you feel encouraged to teach?
What are the barriers? expertise/livelihood/support

_An Interesting Case_

Last year, Bill Mollison taught a PDC in California with several hundred
participants.

>From Bill's perspective:
It was one of the best courses he ever taught with dynamic group
discussions between his presentations.

>From some NA teacher's perspective:
It was a drastic siphoning off of potential students from their bread and
butter market.

>From a growth perspective:
IF the students were inspired, Pc has gained several hundred active members
including 5-10 potential teachers.  The snowball effect gains momentum and
everyone benefits.

>From the participants perspective:
?????

Is large group teaching a productive way forward?

I would like to hear from others (on the list or personally) on the above
questions so I can accumulate some ideas and evidence to report back to the
list.

David

---

From: Geoff King <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 06:35:25 -0600

David,

	Geometric growth is an inpressive goal and result, and lofty concepts
and principles are fine, but if the growth is to be sustained, and the
principles and concepts validated by that growth, the resulting critical
mass, with it's physical, as well as spiritual needs must be satisified
by the underlying concepts and principles, and the energies which have
been vested in the "geometric growth" must be renewed.  Sustainability,
an interesting concept, one espoused by pc, no doubt, but one by which
pc will also be judged.  We have all seen the lack of sustainability of
the typical pyramid scheme, in one or another of its many forms, and
mother nature herself is the ultimate judge of the value, and validity
of any species, or the concepts or methods it uses to survive, compete,
and grow.  So, not only must the underlying principles, theories, and
practices be considered, and the rule of mother nature, but also the
competiting species, systems or theories.  Might I suggest then, that
the growth rate of pc cannot be evaluated only on the basis of some
mathmatical formula or principle, but also is affected, and effected by
competing "species" or systems.  And the mainstream systems these days,
well imbedded and fuled  by their own growth, are not yet answering to
mother nature fully, and when that time comes, alternative "species" or
systems, will restore balance.

---

From: Geoff King <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 06:35:25 -0600

David,