Subject: Permaculture definition (was Re: design courses)

From: "Mike Morris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 09:03:47 GMT+0200

> > 
> > 'Permaculture is a design system for creating sustainable human
> > environments' is one of Bill Mollison's definitions.
> > 
> > Carmela

...and one that I like less than most.
 
> How is it different from the sustainable agriculture movement?
> What elements make it permaculture, rather that sust. ag., bio dynamic, etc.?
> 
> Jeff Jacobsen

One of the things that I think distinguishes it (though it's a small
distinction) is that creating sustainable environments for /all/ the
life-forms on the planet is an explicit goal of permaculture -- which
is the reason I don't really like the definition Carmela quoted. 

This in turn implies an effort at remediation of damaged biomes, 
though not necessarily with species that were the original 
inhabitants, and with the recognition that we humans are part of 
nature too, and not separate from it.

Hmmmm...  this seems to be getting needlessly tangled.  What I'm 
trying to say is that (to me) permaculture includes the notions that
  .  Humans have caused grave environmental damage
  .  We can repair this damage, and still live well
  .  Repair/sustainable development does not necessarily imply that 
     we should attempt to return an area to some idealised, 
     "pristine" state
  .  Ecosystems evolve
  .  It's OK for us to evolve ecosystems to suit ourselves as long as 
     we recognise the rights of all other life-forms to continued 
     existence and well-being
...other threads going through my mind right now, but I think/hope you 
get the idea-web I'm trying to get across.  Of course it's only a 
small slice of a picture...

Why is permaculture so hung-up on trying to define permaculture?

Mike Morris                     We do not inherit land from our ancestors
[email-masked]         We borrow it from our children.

Ph: +27-21-788-4171        Cape Town, South Africa        34.40'S 18.30'E

---

From: Michael Totten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 11:38:34 -0500 (EST)

> What elements make it permaculture, rather that sust. ag., bio dynamic, 
etc.?

I've always thought one crucial difference of Permaculture from most 
discussions of sus ag has to do with Permaculture's emphasis on 
integrating agriculture, forestry and livestock systems so as to capture 
value-added synergisms.  The result, as in some traditional polyculture 
farms in Africa, Asia and Latin America demonstrate, may contain 50 to 
150 different species of trees, vines, shrubs, bushes, cover crops and 
root crops.  Sus ag, meanwhile, often focuses on ag, forestry and 
livestock systems separately (although the agro-ecosystem work by many 
sus ag experts moves more towards polyculture/permaculture designs).

Now, I admit i'm simplifying a complex field that really encompasses many 
fine gradations.

Michael Totten
Director, Center for Renewable Energy & Sustainable Technology (CREST)
777 N. Capitol Street N.E., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20002
Phone: (202) 289-5368  Fax: (202) 289-5354 EMAIL: [email-masked]
WEB: http://solstice.crest.org/
Gopher: gopher.crest.org    FTP: ftp.crest.org

---

From: Rachel Freifelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 18:14:16 -0800 (PST)

Mike Morris' definition of permaculture is a good one, and I appreciate 
the caveat that "many people practice this without knowing we are doing 
permaculture." However, I would amend this statement to "Many of us 
practice this but we do not call it permaculture because "permaculture" 
is a copyrighted term, and those of us who are unwilling to shell out 
$750 for a certification course would be violating the law if we claimed 
to be doing permaculture."

Also, "sustainable agriculture" is a very general term.  It is nearly 
meaningless these days, given that (as someone noted) many people who 
claim to be researching sustainable agriculture do not think in terms of 
whole agroecosystems, and therefore are unlikely to create anything very 
sustainable.  I would argue that polyculture, integration of 
human/animal/agricultural/natural systems, and practices advocated by 
permaculturists, are essential to a truly sustainable food/life system.
  
"Agroecology" originally meant something very 
similar to "permaculture", when Miguel Altieri first coined the term, but 
it too has been coopted by the mainstream.  Again it can mean the 
consideration of whole ecosystems, but I know several other students in 
my "agroecology" PhD program who are studying extremely reductionist 
questions in conventional high-input monocrop systems.  Many of them 
study rates of decomposition in rice straw.
(which I suppose is useful to confirm the durability of rice straw as a 
building material)

Just my 2c,

Rachel Read Freifelder             
Revolutionary Ecologist
"Two TV sets and two Cadillac cars ain't gonna help me at all."
--Lou Reed

---

From: [email-masked] (David Flanagan)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 11:00 EST

Rachel Freifelder writes:

> However, I would amend this statement to "Many of us 

As I understand it the only restriction on the use of the word is that
you can't claim to be *teaching* permaculture without having taken the
certification course.  You can still talk about it, believe in it,
practice it, and tell people you are practicing it.

> meaningless these days, 

> it too has been coopted by the mainstream.  Again it can mean the 

So perhaps restricting the use of the word "permaculture" is actually a
good idea, to prevent its meaning from being diluted down to zero, as
has happened with these other words.

	David Flanagan