Subject: Re: reprise: guilds

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 10:09:32 -0400 (EDT)

In a message dated 10/5/97 12:27:05 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

>Im not content to see this "discussion" about guilds laid to rest yet. 
>Dan H mentioned that he thot it was one of Mollison's weaker ideas, that
>there are no ready made answers when it comes to species selection.  &
>while I agree that nothing replaces knowing the plants & what will work
>& what wont work, I also think that there are ways of thinking of design
>that build upon nature & evolutionary affinities that some plants have
>with other plants.  Companion planting has been mentioned tho in my book
>I think of garden annuals.  I am also quite interested in designs that
>further the ideas of Alan Kapuler & Olaf Brentmar & co-evolutionary
>gardening, which I see as a taxonomical guild system.  
>
>Also for the record I wonder if the notion of guilds actually originates
>from Mollison, I believe that indigenous agriculture has been enlarging
>upon these notions forever, for instance the 3 sisters & medicine
>gardens are 2 that come to mind.  But then what is a guild?
>
>
>Miekal And

It is sad to read of Miekal's discontentment.  Alas.

I have two objections to the use of the term "guilds" as a speaker of
English.  First, it is pretentious.  Second, it departs significantly from
the meaning of the word guild, which is a group of artisans who DO THE SAME
WORK who enforce standards, and perform certain other functions that, in
today's legal parlance, would be called "constraint of trade."  

Plants work well in permaculture designs because they do different things.
 While spontaneous associations do occur and should be noted and emulated
where appropriate, that phrase (spontaneous associations) works better.

The fact is that most guilds and companion planting associations, where
valid, and there is untold amounts of bullshit circulated in these matters,
have nothing to do with evolutionary associations.  Do you plant tagetes with
cabbages?  Aside from the fact that this is one of the bogus companion
associations, as tagetes (marigolds) attract feeding cabbage butterflies
which then lay more eggs on the cabbages than they would otherwise, one genus
(Tagetes) originated in Mesoamerica and the brassica was probably cultivated
originally in Persia, though that is less clear.  In any case, they did not
coevolve in the field or out.  The three sisters is an interesting example
because unless one uses properly adapted cultivars of these three species,
they will fail as a "guild."  And the suitability of this association (which
is a simpler and more explanitory word) varies to climate and soil
conditions.  Moreover, alleged benefits conferred to each crop are
questionable--we are simply able to make them grow together to trap more
sunlight and get more totoal food.  While the beans enjoy the support
provided by corn, a pole would provide a better support that did not compete
for light, water an nutrients.  The corn gets a trace of nitrogen from the
beans, maybe, but more likely the beans take more N from the soil than they
contribute in the growing season.  The pumpkins do not benefit either plant,
though they benefit the soil as a ground cover and benefit us, again, with
more yield, as racoons do not like to go into heavy pumpkin vine territory
because of what may be lurking there (one assumes).   So we can force these
plants to grow together for our benefit, but hardly because they are great
for each other.  There are long term soil benefits but since these are
domesticated plants that do not freely self-sow, this is immaterial.
 Succeeding generations will not benefit unless we specifically force them to
grow there again.

Apios and blueberry or cranberry (which is just another blueberry that
happens not to be blue or taste as good) is an example of a natural
association of co-evolved plants, one might think.  Except that most of the
species of blueberry that associate with apios are not from the warmer areas
where apios evolved.  No the Native Americans brought apios into the picture
and the assocation, while spontaneous, is not an example of coevolution.
 Likewise with black raspberry and cultivated varieties of apples.  I have
never seen spontaneous associations of native crabapples and R occidentalis
in the wild, so I'm guessing that at best it is rare, not the kind of
dependable thing one would like for comfortable intellectual shortcuts like
the term guild.  Comfortable, but inappropriate, I contend.

Finally (I hope), thinking in terms of guilds is a way to avoid thinking like
the Earth, thinking as a permaculturist.  A paramount consideration in
permaculture is that we understand the properties and requirements of
elements.  Intellectually (or intuitively when we are advanced enough) we
combine species X and species Y because IT SUITS OUR PURPOSES.  A guild, as
the term is used in its original meanint, suits the purposes of the members
of the guild which are agreed upon, the same therefore.  It is the opposite.
 The artisan guild is not for the benefit of others but to their detriment to
the exent that the craft is controlled and its accessiblity more costly than
otherwise necessary.  It is to the benefit of the society to the extent that
a standard of excellence is maintained.  These are absolutely immaterial
considerations to the issue of useful plant associates, which we want mainly
for our purposes and which we control by compelling species to associate.

It is indeed a great idea to look at spontaneous associatons of useful plants
that have co-evolved and see if we can fit in.  However this is a far
narrower selection of associations than ever was intended by the Mollisonian
use of the term guild, which is just sloppy language, sloppy thinking, and
very, very bad permaculture.  Or rather it isn't permaculture at all, in my
opinion.

For Mother Earth, Dan Hemenway, Yankee Permaculture Publications (since
1982), Elfin Permaculture workshops, lectures, Permaculture Design Courses,
consulting and permaculture designs (since 1981), and now correspondence
courses via email.  Next starts in Oct. 1997. Internships available.
Copyright, 1997, Dan & Cynthia Hemenway, P.O. Box 52, Sparr FL 32192 USA
 [email-masked]  

We don't have time to rush.

---

From: "Eugene F. Monaco" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:00:41 -0400

Message text written by INTERNET:[email-masked]
that have co-evolved and see if we can fit in.  However this is a far
narrower selection of associations than ever was intended by the
Mollisonian
use of the term guild, which is just sloppy language, sloppy thinking, and
very, very bad permaculture.  Or rather it isn't permaculture at all, in my
opinion.<

Wow Dan, you're really opening up a can of worms here.  Seems like you're
out to prove that Mollison doesn't know anything about permaculture.  I've
been told that one can overcome this condition with psychotherapy :)

You know we humans can't exist in a parking lot.  Permaculture is a design
system to create abundance on what was a parking lot.  First attempts might
be to plant one plant on the parking lot, fertilize it....    More evolved
attempts might include companion planting and organic gardening.  But what
permaculture thinking does is make us look at highly evolved ecosystems for
clues as to how many species of plants, animals, bacteria, fungi, and devas
interact to produce a balanced system.  

The term 'guild' is a lot like the term 'bioregion'.  We have bioregions
within bioregions within bioregions.  The whole earth is one big bioregion
and the local universe is still one on a larger scale.  An N2-fixing plant
and its microrhizza  are a 2-part guild; the whole earth is likewise one
large guild.  Dissecting guilds into smaller ones for study is not
non-useful as you suggest, nor bad permaculture.  Rather, it serves to
stretch those monocropping minds from the one-plant-in-the-parkinglot
mentality to the next order of evolved thought.  Mollison bashing in this
context is counterproductive to the cause.

Within a guild, as in the case of the artisans, as in the case of ALL
nature: elements which benefit from each other's existance also
paradoxically compete with each other  for survival, often very brutally. 
Pioneer species don't just roll over and give up the teritory without a
fight.  And artisans' proliferation is limited by the society's willingness
to fund their efforts; they compete among themselves for existance.  And
they are not all the same, just similar on a crude level.  An artisans
guild may consist of a multitude of styles and varieties.

So guilds do in fact exist everywhere.  That they may seem to
'spontaneously associate' in nature is what the study is all about.  Can we
mimick these associations in cultivated systems for human benefit?  Perhaps
we can in the short term.  Who knows unless we try.  Whether or not nature
will accept our cultivated associations or not is also unknown until we
try.  So I say go for it and learn, learn learn. 

Having said that let me also say that, yes, we are trying to manipulate
nature for our benefit.  And certainly it is folly to think that we can
superpopulate the earth with humans by outsmarting nature with our
permaculture which is modelled after nature.  Ultimately, the whole earth
(if not the whole universe) will need to be brought into balance.  The
contention by some that the human population has exceeded the limits of the
earth's carrying capacity becomes the central question.  Permaculture
solutions may very well lead to reduced human population load on the
natural systems.  It is only by our delving into the study of guilds, and
ecology  that we will we see the light.  One of the great benefits of
permaculture study is that it forces us off of the parking lot and into the
woods where the real lessons are.  As we increase our knowledge of how
nature works, we increase the liklihood that we will stop destroying her in
our short-term attempt to increase human population.  In that quest we will
discover who we really are.

In the meantime, I would love to hear more from other folks experiences
with guilds in their bioregions.

"They ripped up the parking lots and paved them with paradise"

Gene Monaco
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
East Tennessee Permaculture  ([email-masked])
Herbs, consultations, & training for total health and environmental
sustainability
PO Box 11851, Knoxville, TN  37939      (423) 457-4354
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 07:49:03 -0400 (EDT)

>been told that one can overcome this condition with psychotherapy :)

Now that is a perfectly idiotic thing to put in a public post and I will not
dignify it with a public answer.  If you want a permaculture for a religion,
with Mollison as infallable godhead, fine.  I have a more critical eye.  Bill
makes mistakes too, and guild is one of them.  Another is his renunciation of
the bioregional movement which is about like guilds as turnips resemble a
writ of habeas corpus.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 12:42:46 -0400 (EDT)

In a message dated 10/7/97 5:43:06 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

>
>Dan: How do you define a "Standard Design"? Is this a "macro" approach
>that would, in reality, utilize the development of "plant guilds" within
>a permaculture design for a given area of land? 

Actually, this is Bill's concept and approach.  As others have pointed out in
this discussion, there are certain solutions that have a broader
applicability than just one design.  For example, in our special order list
we have species lists, energy value tables for North American tree species,
solutions to convection circulation that heat and cool homes in season, water
cisterns that automatically reserve the first flush of water full of bird
shit, etc., for irrigation, an "open siphon" design that can accept catchment
water from different levels for point by point gravity irrigation on very
porous soils, etc.  We do not have species assemblies as such, though we have
the raw materials to concoct them based on design need, compatibility, and sit
e requirements.  I can see a species assembly being useful where someone
requires a specific species in a specific climate and wants to know what goes
with it.  For example, despite their serious need for high maintenance for
must uses, apples are popular.  What works with apples?  Well we know that
there are spontanious, virtually symbiotic associations of black raspberry?
 What else.  Maybe there would be a package of species that would work, but
I've never seen one.  I'd fear that they would be more limiting than
enabling.  There are just too many factors.  Biological solutions are
generally far more complex and site specific than things like irrigation
systems, convection loops, etc.  I've seen apple associated in other places,
again spontaneously, with (Eastern NA) blackberries, red raspberries, and
black raspberries, all worked out nicely as to shade/sun/moisture factors.
 If I had a standard design for this, I'd want to know that a bonafide
permaculture designer were using it as other site factors could be very
different.  I have seen in Spain (Catalonia) apples coming through the
blackberries, just as Mollison describes.  I don't recall seeing it
elsewhere, but obviously it happens also in Australia.  In some places, the
brambles may suppress the trees.  I keep getting toughts to go on with this,
but that's my point.  There is no substitution for experience.  It takes an
experienced person to properly interpret and apply the experiences of others.
 The requirement for instant, vs earned, gratification is a problem in our
society, world wide now that TV has spread like cancer, and that is working
against us.  I think for this discussion we have to accept that there are
people who want to skip the preparation time and learn as they go and others
who feel that preparation is time well spent.  

That seems to be the only part of Larry's post that requires a reply from me.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 12:42:46 -0400 (EDT)

---

From: Lee Flier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 23:20:50 -0500

Dan wrote:

>Well in the 1940s, when I was a child, everyone had a poly culture garden if
>they had any land at all.
<... lots of great stuff snipped... >
>This is from my own personal experience as a man 10 years
>younger than Mollison.  

Yes.  Sad isn't it, how quickly people forget?  Until a few years ago most
people didn't even know that hemp used to be grown for industry in the US.
I think most RURAL folks who are your age and older are aware of these
things, although many of them jumped on the bandwagon of the
chemical/monocultural "revolution" and felt ashamed of their former
practices. Then again even a lot of the older farmers I know around this
area don't have a clue about any of the things you mention.  I don't really
think most people were aware of what they were giving up when they gave up
organics and polyculture and self-sufficiency - most of which they didn't
practice for environmental reasons but because it was the most efficient
thing at the time, and when chemical companies and social planners
convinced them that industrial methods were MORE efficient, they listened.

But anyway this is just a gentle reminder that although these things may be
taken for granted in your personal experience, for the average Joe it just
isn't.  People's eyes light up when I talk to them about using trees on
their farms and the like - it just sounds like the Garden of Eden to them.
Sad that we lost connection to such obvious things, but a joy to watch
people rediscover them.

>...I believed, and still do, that novice teachers
>can do more harm than good.  ... We really don't have time to
>fix yet more mistakes....  Good intentions are
>dangerous, sometimes, if not harnessed to a rigorous regard for quality and
>respect enough for Mother Nature to take time to learn, really understand
>well, what she is up to before intervening.  There are ways to accelerate
>this learning process, but a three-week design course is, by itself not
>enough.
<... more great stuff snipped... >
>The people we are teaching, when they really live on the land, are the best
>source of information.  Again, quoting Bill, we are looking for the "most
>benefit for the least change."

Your point is well taken and I agree.  Bill himself stressed this often
when he spoke of going to teach in impoverished countries.  And I fully
support and really appreciate your later (very thoughtful) comments about
the local people knowing much more than the teachers about local
conditions.  Listening and asking questions would be the highest priority
in these cases.

I'll say again because I guess it wasn't clear enough (and we apply
permaculture in so many different situations):  my earlier comments about
experimentation pertain mostly to industrialized areas, and to the zones
outside our front doors.  I don't see a problem with taking an acre or two
and using it as both a laboratory and a healing space.  It seems obvious
that you wouldn't do this to a fragile ecosystem or one that already
supports a knowledgable population - but in most of mainstream USA and
Europe that isn't the case.  And if anything it's mainstream USA that needs
the most education, because we are doing the most damage of the most
blatantly ignorant kind - thus Bill's comment that even after only two
weeks we could hardly do worse.

>I think everyone who has really gotten the point of a full permaculture
>design course (whatever that is nowadays) is competent to teach weekend
>workshops if they feel competent.  Beyond that, I think we should exercise
>restraint to learn how to do things right, because we don't have time to do
>them over.  Yes, I disagree with many in the permaculture movement on that
>point.  I also think that we should not prosletize until everyone who wants
>to learn permaculture of their own concern has their fill.  Then we might
>start to think about it.

Right.  As I said earlier I'm not interested in proselytizing - only in
setting examples that people will WANT to follow.  Enthusiasm is infectious.

>Well, we have gotten a ways from guilds.  I'm letting a number of Lee's
>points go unanswered because I think the discussion is getting to be of
>interest to only a few people.  I'd be happy to comment, if I have something
>to add, to people not yet involved in the discussion.  To me, the issue of
>preparation for teaching is far more important than whether or not we approve
>of the concept of guilds.  So I have made one statement on that.

And a good one.  I don't think it's of interest to only a few people,
because most of us at some point or another probably have taught or will
teach permaculture - on purpose or by accident.  And it is still really
important as you say how we pass on information, and how we prepare to
share it with others, even if not on a professional basis.

Thanks for bringing some further enlightenment to the discussion.

= Lee =

==================================
Lee A. Flier
[email-masked]
http://lflier.home.mindspring.com
Atlanta and Ellijay, Georgia, U.S.A.