Comments on: Letters from Chile – a Little Historical Context

By: Øyvind Holmstad

Øyvind Holmstad — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:28:28 +0000

Yes Ed, it’s a pity. I read here in my newspapaer that in Sweden the number of farms was in 1927 427000. In 2007 this number had shrinked to only 72600 farms. A reduction of 354400 farms in just 80 years. A frightening number.

By: Ed Straker

Ed Straker — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 03:35:44 +0000

The fact that this article veers off in so many directions should be an indicator that there is no good solution.

Remember also HOW the megafarms were created. Small farms voluntarily sold out. Just recently the oldest farm in america was just sold. Money talks! Humanity is continuing to urbanizing right now. People in the 3rd world are leaving the farm and don’t want to go back. So we’re moving in the complete opposite direction. You can try to demonize it all you want, but people are voting with their feet and you’d be hard pressed to stop them.

Why is that? It’s because from a market perspective, this is how people are able to swing the best deal for themselves.

Sure, maybe if they knew the doom that awaits things would change, but we’ve been down the road of being Cassandras already haven’t we?

In the meantime, how do you bring about reruralization that doesn’t involve forcing people into austerity? As long as people think there is a better life for them, they will gravitate towards that. When the grass is no longer greener, then they will stop.

When you look at things from an economic perspective, all adaptations become just-in-time, unfortunately. A small number of us will try to get ahead of the curve, but everyone else will cling to the traditional economy.

By: Grifen

Grifen — Thu, 27 May 2010 14:43:52 +0000

Right now in Chile we are witnessing the construction of new government approved shanty towns. In emergency it seems we have the right to impose the worst of urban planning on people. However as we can see in places like El Manzano and Chanco, with a more informed population, and the presence of permaculture trained professionals, we can change the direction of development and engage people in their own design process.

By: Roxana

Roxana — Sun, 23 May 2010 23:12:17 +0000

I echo the comment about conceiving the concept of land as something that shouldn´t be owned, just like air, land (and water) should be shared and not converted into property. And of course it would be great that comunities took steps to “return” private land to nature, say, in practical terms, to create a nature reserve for communal use which allows for the uninterrupted flourishing of biodiversity. I think Craig paints a picture of how conscientious members of a community are trying to create changes to make this happen. I know first hand how difficult it is to influence the minds of many CHileans, which for a host of reasons are in state of apathy like many others around the globe.
Another interesting development in Chile and many other poor countries around the world is the establishign of shanty towns. Which is usually entials whole communities takind land, usually neglected and marginal areas that are private or public-owned. I have witness intersting development when these communities organise themselves in order to build their homes, establish infrastructure, educate themselves and defend themselves when threatened with homelessness. I don´t suggest that all shanty towns have positive experiences, but some do

By: Øyvind Holmstad

Øyvind Holmstad — Wed, 19 May 2010 05:43:16 +0000

Thank you Marcin, I totally agree! “Must” is a hard word that make people withdraw from you and what you trie to say. I must trie to avoid the word must, and I think this is a good advise when we promote permaculture.

By: Marcin Gerwin

Marcin Gerwin — Tue, 18 May 2010 14:00:54 +0000

P.S. Perhaps “must” is not the best choice of words – “highly recommended” is better

By: Øyvind Holmstad

Øyvind Holmstad — Tue, 18 May 2010 06:51:47 +0000

See this link:

http://www.squidoo.com/crystalwaters

I love the whole idea with ecovillages, because in an ecovillage you don’t own the land, but you SHARE the land. How can anyone own the land, because we all share Mother Earth?

Imagine a world filled up with permaculture ecovillages! Then we could give back a lot of land to the wilderness, because with permaculture you can grow 20 times more food at the same amount of land, than with industrial agriculture.

Anyway, for the ecovillage to work, I think at least one person in every family should have the Permaculture Design Course. So I suggest that for every family joining the ecovillage, at least one person have the PDC-diploma.

But we must keep in mind that we NEVER use more land than what we need; the primary goal must ALWAYS be to give back land to nature, to the wilderness.

The current situation of our civilization worldwide is completely insane. Where people are squeezed together in artificial dwelling areas, while the land is owned by the few and abused in industrialized agriculture, while the wilderness is constantly shrinking. The ecovillage movement offers a solution to all these three lethal structures of our mechanistically organized structure of order. Read more about the ecovillage movement here: http://www.ecovillage.org

By: Marcin Gerwin

Marcin Gerwin — Tue, 18 May 2010 06:39:57 +0000

Craig, my point is that the case of El Manzano is exceptional. It is not often that you find a land owner which has the understanding of permaculture, transition initiatives and welcomes participatory decision making. It’s a positive example and no doubt it would be great if large land owners from Paraguay or Bolivia could follow their steps. Possibly they would need some permaculture training first

With regards to personal development I agree that it is essential. Sarvodaya Sramadana from Sri Lanka is a good example of this.

And with regards to the masses of consumers, here’s an interesting quote I found recently: “Voter turnout [in UK] at the last two General Elections in 2001 and 2005 was at a historic low of around 60%. The Power Inquiry, which carried out the largest ever investigation into people’s attitudes to British democracy several years ago, concluded that this disengagement doesn’t arise from apathy or satisfaction with the status quo. Instead, disengagement arises from feelings of powerlessness and a sense that the political system is too remote and unresponsive to people’s needs and interests.” Source: http://citinq.3cdn.net/114ff346931f337110_kkm6i41qv.pdf

Participatory democracy is a must for Transition

By: Ed

Ed — Tue, 18 May 2010 03:52:19 +0000

What are the criteria for small-scale, say for Southern California? Does permaculture support private
land ownership? And at what level? One of my concerns is foriegn investment, where the local population sees only front companies; in other words, if Che attacked Batista, when it might have really been
the Dole Corporation’ s ownership and workings that caused the problems. The real estate problems in America right now seem to be effective cover for foriegn real estate investment trusts; we however, see our government and the failed dreams of ” free trade” from past administrations. So clue me in…where do you all think that we stand here in the U. S., especially Southern California?

By: JBob

JBob — Mon, 17 May 2010 21:40:59 +0000

Craig,

After I calmed down from my Che-frenzy I read the rest of the article.

I’ve never heard of Vinoba Bhave, but that sounds like a great story.

I can’t help but keep an eye open towards the works of thinkers like you, but I personally am much more interested in learning how to provide concrete, profitable examples of regenerative land management. When these forward-looking investors and land-owners ask me what they should do with their land I want to be ready with answers. Now, back to the leucaena seed scarification…