PERMACULTURE ON A SUSTAINABLE PLANET

Permaculture should be an indispensable part of a sustainable green Planet. As a theory, however, it is merely a set of ideas about food production; it is not a comprehensive philosophy of life nor a philosophy of the Earth. As a consequence there is a danger that the irresponsible spread of permaculture could not merely damage ecological habitats, it could increase the exploitation and extermination of Wildlife, and even, over the long term, change the Earth’s climate. It is imperative, therefore, that permaculture is integrated into a philosophy which protects both the Earth and the Animals which created the Earth’s habitability. Permaculture should not be given free-reign to become another green source of exploitation and ecological devastation.

i) The Advantages of Permaculture.

Permaculture has three advantages over other types of agricultural practice. Firstly, it works with local ecological conditions not against them. According to hannah arendt, the ancient greeks regarded the tilling of the soil as, “a daring, violent enterprise in which, year in year out, the earth, inexhaustible and indefatigable, is disturbed and violated.”[1] Permaculture is also totally different from modern monocultural pharming which has become so reliant on the petro-pharmacological industries it is a novel type of farming without nature.[2]

Secondly, permaculture is free from the back-breaking, soul-destroying, life-crippling, toil entailed by traditional agriculture whether the pre-modern forms once found in the west or the many practices still used in disintegrating/industrializing countries. After the initial toil to prepare the site and lay out the system, permaculture involves no ploughing, digging, weeding, fertilizing, or spraying, and is almost like a sedentary form of gathering. People’s lives are no longer totally dominated by the need to grow food for survival but leaves them plenty of free time for a wider range of activities and a more fulfilling life.

Thirdly, permaculture is one of the most decentralized forms of agriculture. It is not dependent upon any of the machinery or products manufactured by the world’s multi-national petro-chemical corporations. It is much more local and independent than growing food in back-gardens/allotments which is totally dependent upon multi-national corporations for seeds, fertilisers, and chemicals, etc. The decentralized nature of permaculture is beneficial for three main reasons:-

* environmentally, it reduces the need for the production and transportation of fertilisers and pesticides and the need to transport food to global markets. Permaculture thus reduces the consumption of fossil fuels and reusable, but scarce, mineral resources;

* politically, it helps to reinforce private property[3] which is a vital bulwark against tyranny; and, most importantly,

* geophysiologically, it could help to protect the Planet’s life support system during the transition to a sustainable Planet. Although one day in the green future the majority of humans might want to return to a more rural way of life, at the moment it would be utter folly to promote ruralization when the global population is nearing 6 billion. Any movement back into the countryside by vast numbers of city dwellers would be a disaster for the Planet’s multitudinous ecological habitats and for the Earth’s geophysiology. Only when a sustainable Planet has been created and human numbers reduced dramatically, would it be ecologically sensible for people to create a more rural way of life.[4] Permaculture is vital because it could help to meet the nutritional needs of urban dwellers and thus ensure the viability of cities whilst the Earth’s life support system was being restored.[5]

ii) The Dangers of Permaculture.

Permaculture is a specific set of ideas about producing food in harmony with nature[6]. It is not a philosophy of the Earth.[7] It has nothing to say about over-population, the Earth’s geophysiological needs, the stabilization of the climate, the importance of biodiversity,[8] nor, rather surprisingly Reforestation.[9] As a consequence, there are a number of dangers inherent in the spread of permaculture.

Firstly, permaculture missionaries could invade Wilderness areas and dismantle, or even destroy, natural ecological habitats.[10]

Secondly, if permaculture missionaries succeeded in converting more and more of the Planet’s land surface into permacultural plots this would increase food production. This, in turn, would boost overpopulation and cause more ecological damage.[11]

Thirdly, over the very long term, if permaculture became so popular that whole continents were converted to permacultural plots, this would change the Planet’s Vegetation cover and have a considerable impact on the climate. The Earth’s climate could be destabilized as much by covering the Earth’s terrestrial surface in Vegetation as by total deforestation. There is nothing in the theory of permaculture which warns about the dangers of climate change; outlines its role in preventing a climatic disaster; or shows how it could be used to stabilize the climate.

It is essential, then, that permaculture is encompassed within a philosophy which not merely highlights permaculture’s vital contribution to a sustainable Planet but warns against the unconstrained spread of permaculture. It is difficult enough confronting hundreds of millions of Earth rapists around the world without a green movement swollen by permacultural imperialists trying to ‘civilize’ the Planet thereby boosting the damage inflicted on the Earth.[12] Permaculture needs to be part of a philosophy of the Earth in which priority is given to Biodiversity and the stabilization of the climate. If permaculture is to flourish, it must play a part in stabilizing the Earth's climate and in protecting the Planet’s Biodiversity. The following sections will explore the relationships between firstly, permaculture and climate and, then, permaculture and Biodiversity.

iii) Permaculture and the Climate.

Permaculture is an ecological theory concerned with producing food in harmony with nature; it is not a geophysiological theory concerned with the stabilization of the climate. Producing food in harmony with local ecological conditions will not stabilize the Earth’s climate. There is no point in humans living in harmony with their local surroundings if vast ice sheets threaten to inundate whole continents or if deserts begin creeping over the tropical horizon. Humans have got to look beyond their immediate ecological surroundings to consider the global, unitary, nature of the Planet’s life support system if they are to survive in perpetuity on Earth.

It is imperative for humans to stabilize the Earth’s climate to avoid the climatic disasters which would be caused by either global warming or global cooling. The Earth's climate can be regulated by varying both the concentration of atmospheric Carbon and the scale of the Earth’s Forest cover. At a guess, one-third of the Earth’s land surface should be allocated to Forests solely to vary the scale of the Earth’s Forest cover and control global average temperatures.

The primary political unit of a climate-regulated, sustainable green Planet would be regions.[13] Each region would be based on a regional Wood economy in which humans would obtain all the food, clothes, commodities, and energy they needed from the Forests cultivated in their region. The role of permaculture would be to maximize food production within regional Wood economies.[14]

If the growth in the number of cars, kids, cattle, capital, and carnage, continues at an exponential rate then it is inevitable there will be a geophysiological collapse within three or four decades. The only way to prevent a such a collapse is to prevent humans from expropriating the Earth. The civilization of the Earth would mean the destruction of the Earth’s life support system. Humans should be allowed to establish regional Wood economies only on approximately one-third of the Earth's land surface. As has just been pointed out, another one-third of the land might have to be used to regulate the scale of the Earth’s Forest cover to stablize the climate - but humans would not be allowed to live in these areas nor use any of the Forests’ resources except where it was necessary for climate regulation[15]. The other one-third of the Earth’s land surface would be designated as Wilderness and reserved exclusively for the use of Wildlife.

iv) Permaculture and Animals.

Permaculture has the potential to be of enormous benefit to Wildlife in two significant ways. Firstly, as has been noted above, in the transition to a sustainable Planet, permaculture in urban areas could provide enough food for the vast numbers of urban dwellers around the world and thus prevent any rwandian type mass movement back to the countryside. This would significantly increase Wildlife’s survival prospects. Secondly, once a sustainable Planet had been created, permaculture could provide sufficient food for people to live comfortably within regional Wood economies thereby reducing the temptation (or justification) for humans to invade and reoccupy the remaining two-thirds of the Planet.

However, permaculture also poses a considerable threat to Animals both indirectly and directly. As has been suggested above, the unconstrained spread of permaculture would damage unique ecological habitats, trigger off a population explosion, and change the Earth’s climate. These would all have devastating effects on the Earth’s Biodiversity. Once again, despite permaculturalists’ claims to live in harmony with nature this would clearly not be green. Permaculture must help to protect Biodiversity not usurp it. Why is it that permaculture organization do not have any policies for promoting Wilderness areas and protecting Wildlife?

Permaculture also poses a considerable direct threat to Animals. Firstly, because of the exploitation of Wildlife; secondly, the exploitation of domesticated Animals; thirdly, the killing of ‘Pests’; and, finally, the killing of ‘livestock’ Animals for food.

When it is argued that permaculture works in harmony with local ecological conditions what is meant, and this is to put the best possible interpretation on it, is that permaculturalists co-operate with Wildlife to maximize food production for both. For example, Ants and Worms compost the Soil enabling Plants to grow more healthily so that humans obtain more food whilst Ants and Worms have more waste material to digest. One definition of permaculture which seems to sum up this co-operation is, “Plants, animals, buildings and water reserves are co-ordinated to make the best use of a site’s terrain, to establish beneficial interactions, and to make the most efficient use of time and resources in an environmentally benign way.”[16]

There is a fine line, however, between co-operating with Wildlife and exploiting Wildlife and many permaculturalists tend to believe that permaculture is about exploiting Wildlife to maximize human food production. A good example of this is the permaculturalists at brickhurst farm. The south-east london permaculture community based at brockley bean, brockley, in south-east london has a 25 acre permaculture plot at brickhurst farm, near pembury, kent, “They plan to grow all the green goods for the community at Brickhurst Farm as well as providing free-range eggs, honey and organic wine from the nearby vineyard. The project will be mainly funded by the annual membership fee .. The members will have free access to the farm’s woodland and “wilderness area”.”[17] When permaculture is used to acquire honey and eggs this is a case of humans exploiting, rather than co-operating with, Wildlife.

Much more serious, however, is the exploitation of ‘livestock’ Animals. Virtually all permaculture plots seem to use ‘livestock’ Animals to consume Phytomass wastes and to provide Manure.[18] The following example shows how integral a part of permaculture ‘livestock’ are, “Zones in Permaculture Design: Zone 1 is the zone surrounding the house. Zone 2 is intensively cultivate, chickens and other small animals. Zone 3 is field culture, pastures and self-foraging livestock systems. Zone 4 has minmal management, some anmal forage. Zone 5 is the wildlands, the wilderness.”[19] It seems as if permaculture is just another Animal exploitation system.

The killing of Animals regarded as ‘Pests’ is a perennial problem. Throughout history, all food producers, whether on the micro or the macro scale, whether employing high-tech or low-tech practices, are faced with the reality that Wildlife is constantly trying to consume oomans’ crops. For food producers it is annoying, to say the least, to see their hard work, and hopes, being ruined or stolen by Wildlife - whether this is by Aphids, Slugs, Snails, Rabbits, Elephants, etc. Almost invariably food producers suffer from a deformation professionale - the tendency to hate animals.[20] They tend to see Wildlife as ‘Pests” to be disposed of as quickly as possible before they do too much damage to crops. Despite their grand and revolutionary pronouncements about working in harmony with the local ecology, permaculturalists are just as likely to succumb to this enmity towards Animals as any other food producer.[21]

It is vital therefore to elevate the stature of Animals to stem this potential green source of Wildlife extermination. Wildlife created the Earth’s habitability - which humans seem to be intent on crucifying. Wildlife also created humans. It is transparent therefore that humans owe a geophysiological and an existential debt to Wildlife which they ought to repay firstly, by not killing Animals and, secondly, by granting Animals exclusive rights to at least one-third of the Planet’s land surface. Instead of regarding Wildlife as ‘Pests’ stealing humans’ crops, they should be seen as creatures trying to enjoy some of the benefits of the land which once belonged to them before it was expropriated ands poisoned by humans. The objective of permaculture ought to be to feed both Wildlife and humans.

In one way, permaculturalists ought to be at the forefront of the recognition of human indebtedness to Animals. Whilst all other forms of agricultural practice ignore the role played by Wildlife in food production, permaculture seeks to foster Wildlife’s manifold roles in food production e.g. aerating, Manuring, and composting, the Soil; pollinating Plants, etc. Permaculturalists should therefore express their gratitude to Animals by refusing to kill ‘Pests’; by refusing to kill domesticated Animals for meat, and by refusing to exploit Animals to consume Phytomass wastes and fertilise crops.

It has been pointed out above that there is a need to divide the world into Wilderness zones for the exclusive use of Wildlife; Forest zones to regulate the climate for the benefit of Biodiversity; and human zones in which humans live in regional Wood economies. It seems reasonable to argue that if Wildlife have sovereignty over their own part of the Earth then humans should have greater rights than Animals in their part of the Earth. Although humans should not be allowed to kill Animals they should be permitted to encourage predators to control ‘Pests’ - as long as this did not involve artificial breeding nor temporary incarceration.

v) The Violence of Non-Violent Permaculturalists.

Permaculturalists are free, unfortunately, to do what they want. They can, like bill mollinson, the founder of permaculture, continue to exploit and murder domesticated Animals. Mollinson defends his murder of Animals by arguing that vegans who eat exotic foods are cause more Animal deaths because of the international transportation of food. This is undoubtedly true; permaculturalists who grow their own food and only kill the occasional Pig or Chicken are probably responsible for far less Animal deaths than a vegan who buys products from around the world  - although such an argument is a rather self-defeating coming from a green globe trotter who visits large numbers of exotic permaculture plots around the world. However, vegans do not intentionally kill Animals whereas mollinson promotes a system which not merely systematically exploits Animals but condones, and even enthuses over, the deliberate killing of Animals. It is to be hoped that permacultural organizations will decide to outlaw the killing and exploitation of Animals. Until they do so, it is difficult not to regard permaculture, just like tribalism, despite their supposedly green credentials, as being the latest way of exploiting and murdering Animals. Permaculture is not a radical departure from ancient or conventional pharming practices. It is just as violent and barbaric - perhaps even more so given that it is practiced by so-called non violent greens.