Comments on: A Better Way of Making a Living

By: Øyvind Holmstad

Øyvind Holmstad — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:18:20 +0000

This article seems a little socialistic and anti-Christian. Permaculture is a culture for living, and in our societies no believes should be supressed or be imposed on other, in NO ways. Then our Permaculture societies will become sects, and being excluding. Therefore there shall NEVER be a cultural vision in a permaculture society, except for permaculture itself. Escpecially I’m afraid for powers within New Age, which trie to occupy Permaculture as a part of an alternative life style. Permaculture must be the natural choice for everyone, from ateists to muslims. It shal not be excluding, but including. We shal only be joined together in Permaculture, not in any other kind of cultures and believes. Simply, Permaculture is for EVERY KIND of culture, worldwide. Permaculture is not an alternative, it’s the only alternative!

Everybody knows that not everybody will share everything with everybody else. This is nonsense, and has nothing to do with Permaculture. An alternative can be local currencies. I think there are many ways to solve this problem. Anyway, communism has failed. If we make Permaculture to look like socialism, Permaculture will fail as well.

By: Temali

Temali — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 22:47:39 +0000

Permaculture hasn’t ‘taken off yet’ because ’selling’ the concept is not what we are interested in. The choice to live ethically and in harmony with natural cycles cannot be made purely by exposure to the sensible ‘clear steps’ you speak of. Under the current individualistic, disconnected paradigm of Western culture, Permaculture as an instruction booklet is doomed to failure like any other imposed system. There are no clear steps that apply to all people, Permaculture gives the basis for ethical decisions, and the rest comes from observation, dedication, good intention, and strengthening connection with natural systems.

By: mos6507

mos6507 — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:43:35 +0000

Hmm. Doing what you love, walk before you can run, etc… I’m sorry but these vague aphorisms don’t cut it. We need clear steps that can be executed at the individual level and properly scale out. The only thing close to that I’ve seen is the transition town movement. I find it disheartening that after 30+ years permaculture hasn’t really been able to break out of the fringes. Even in its birthplace of australia where water woes are building to the point of catastrophe, permaculture has yet to reach critical mass. Old habits persist. I don’t know whether this reflects a flaw in the permaculture concept or just a lack of skill at selling the concept. But it’s worth asking why it hasn’t taken off yet and what can be done to change that.

By: Francis

Francis — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 00:31:09 +0000

Simply, “progress”, so-called, is destroying the earth(land, air, water, vegetation, creatures) and perverting that which is Spirit(Light, Life, Truth, Love, Peace, Hope, Grace, Miracles, Faith, etc.) ;-(

Postings have been made at TheDestructionOfTheEarth.Wordpress.com concerning such destruction and perversion and also concerning The Creator’s(G-D, Father) promise that HE will “destroy those who destroy the earth(HIS Creation)!” (Rev11:18c)

Yet there is a Living, Lively Hope!

However, such Hope is not for that which is of the earth, earthly and fleshly, but there is a Living, Lively Hope for that which is Spirit, Heavenly and Spiritual.

Hope for that which is Spirit is Alive because “progress”, which is the product of mankind’s “imag”ination, can pervert, yet not destroy that which is Spirit! For that which is Spirit is Real, and that which is Real is Forever!

So no matter how perverse this world’s systems of religion become, that which is Spirit can only be abused and perverted, not destroyed!

That which is Spirit is Eternal…….

As for that which is called “religion”.

“Pure religion and undefiled before G-D The Father(Creator) is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself uncontaminated by the world.” (James 1:27)

Simply, every other religion is impure and defiled!

As stated previously, “that which is called “”progress” is of mankind’s “imag”ination and can pervert, yet not destroy, that which is Spirit”, and so it is that this world, and it’s systems of religion, have their version of “Light”, which can be turned on and off;

Their version of “Truth”, which is of the “imag”ination;

Their version of “Love”, which should be called lust;

Their version of “Peace”, which needs be enforced;

Their version of “Hope”, which is but a desire for temporal “things”;

Their version of “Faith”, which is powerless;

Their version of “Grace”, which is the liberty to “do your own thing”;

And sadly, the favorite color of this world’s religion is gray ;-(

So come out of the shadows! And as is said by many, “Get Real”!

Once again, “only that which is Spirit is Real, and only that which is Real is Forever”!

Hope is there would be those who “see” that The Life is in and of The Spirit. Those who “see” will no longer have their portion with the multitudes who are destroying the earth(and, air, water, creatures, vegetation) and perverting that which is Spirit(Light, Life, Truth, Love, Peace, Hope, Faith, Grace, etc.) ;-(

Simply, each breath(Spirit) you take is a revelation of The Source of Life.

And “A Simple and Spiritual Life is the only Life that will survive!”

Forever…….

So “set your affections on Heavenly things” and be not of those “whose god is their bellies because they mind earthly things”. Be not of those who “love this world and it’s things” and who are “progress”ively destroying the earth(land, air, water, vegetation, creatures) and perverting that which is Spirit(Light, Life, Truth, Love, Peace, Hope, Faith, Grace, etc.)…….

Peace, in spite of the dis-ease(no-peace) that is of this world and it’s systems of religion, for “The WHOLE world is under the control of the evil one” (1John5:19) indeed and Truth…….

Truth is never ending……. TheDestructionOfTheEarth.Wordpress.Com

By: Diane

Diane — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 19:07:39 +0000

My bad. Obviously I skimmed over the part about sinners and such. It would have been better to refer strictly to civilsation since it isn’t only Christian-centric civilsation that is the problem.

By: Diane

Diane — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:47:22 +0000

I read the article twice and don’t see where it is Christian-centric at all. He’s talking about civilisation being unsustainable. Yes he references 2,000 years ago, so I would disagree with that conclusion. Civilisation has been around a lot longer than that. And wherever civilisation has been, we’ve torn down the forests and left deserts in our footsteps. Whether Eastern or Western.

Having read “Ishmael” and “The Story of B” many years ago, I’ve spent many years struggling with how to implement these ideas. With tribalism looking so much like communism, though not being it (not even communism is actually communism anyway), it’s easy for many to misunderstand the intent behind these ideas. At the same time, as Bill Mollison says, “It’s a matter of scale.”

We need to return to a more human scale and leave the civilsation-scale behind (whether it’s a democratic, plutocratic, communist, or dictatorship, etc. approach). That is going to mean reducing our population, not through genocide but through the intelligent decision to have only enough children to sustain our “tribes”.

I thoroughly agree with many of the ideas presented here and will read some of the books and websites mentioned. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

By: Darren

Darren — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 06:41:43 +0000

Good article Chuck. All the evidence I have seen and read suggests simplifying and sourcing our needs locally is the only answer for sustainability. As you have mentioned social, cultural and environmental aspects seem to be well balanced in smaller communities. I dont know much about the Amish but I think their experience in existing with little outside influence might be much sought after in the not too distant future.

By: Teuila

Teuila — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:14:20 +0000

Would you, by any chance, like to rephrase that to make slightly more sense, Jacob? If you must accuse Chuck Burr of being ignorant, perhaps you would like to give some evidence that you, yourself, are not?

By: Shayne

Shayne — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:44:21 +0000

Agree with the post above. Although that Christian view is shared by a well organized group of evangelical Christians, it’s not the only one. Just look at all the talk now about “Creation Care”. The thing that people seem to forget is that permaculture is all about diversity–well diversity amongst people is part of that. You can’t have unity with it. We need to be tolerant of other people’s views, not just right them off, because then we are no better than they are. I understand what you’re saying, it frustrates me deeply to see people like Bush that seem to just follow this blind faith, but really is that the best way to explain Christianity? It’s so much deeper than that. We don’t know everything, if we say we do, it’s our own super ego convincing us of that, and if we are really part of this new consciousness, we’re never to get where we need to be, if we are intolerant of other people’s views. Seriously.
Would recommend reading Van Jones book the Green Collar Economy as well as Eckart Tolle’s A New Earth.

By: Jacob Luetkemeyer

Jacob Luetkemeyer — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:43:06 +0000

I agree with some issues in this article; however, there are statements made of which are completely false. The world view if far from a Christian view which is what appears to be the allegation here, not to mention the allegation made is completely false. Who ever wrote that statement is completely ignorant on the subject.

Another point is accepting limits to population. I agree we over consume and need to limit that; however, this notion we need to limit population is a eugenics idea. The earth takes care of populations with no need for help.

Outside of these two points I agree with most of the article. We have become a self-centered, materialistic society who wants everything we don’t need and ignores that of which we do need.