An Answer to the Meaning of Life

I love George Monbiot. Well… his incisive thinking and eloquent writing anyway. Well… most of his thinking (I disagree with his position on nuclear power for instance).

My comment on this article is that he is absolutely correct in his assessment. No government, anywhere, has ever, on any issue (even if individuals within that government may have pursued high ideals), acted out of purely altruistic intent. When it comes to thinking about business motives and interests I do not need even one second of thought time to come to exactly the same conclusion as to the reasons driving their actions.

And yet, it is these two power nodes, government & business, that we continue collectively to allow to have joint control (and there is no doubt in my mind that it is a partnership) over the direction of our future destiny and wellbeing. This includes those of us, because we are still part of the whole, who to a greater or lesser extent are working towards a level of independent self-sustainability.

Strong statements Harry. I’ve seen the Democracy Now discussion between Monbiot and Caldicott, and I don’t see anything but logical reasoning from George.

But, I’ve been over this before. See the following post and its comment thread if you have time:

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2011/03/24/what-to-do-with-nuclear-boy/

and this comment:

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2011/04/29/the-nuclear-race-to-the-bottom/#comment-85629

While I haven’t owned a tv or watched an old-mainstream news channel in a long time, one beef I’ve had when I did about some, often news-show-based, television panel/roundtable/etc.-arguments/discussions/etc. was that they were often only between the journalists themselves. There were no specialists, such as scientists, physicians, philosophers, or engineers, etc., in there along with them to lend an added/special level of quality/detail to the viewing/information.
It was almost as if the word of the journalist was the only one that mattered.

So while I do appreciate George Mondbiot’s, and everyone else’s, writings/etc., here and elsewhere, I nevertheless also appreciate some additional insight injected into them once and while, such as that which can often only come from those especially qualified and/or with a special insight in the subject.

Also, if there is an argument/debate about a particular subject between a journalist and, someone with a little more, say, “seniority” and/or “ostensible relatedness” to the subject, guess whose side I’m more likely to lend more weight to?

With respect to Helen Caldicott, physician, born 7 August 1938, George Monbiot, writer, born 27 January 1963 (source for both, Wikipedia), still seems a little wet behind the ears.
(And he may yet come around against nuclear too.)

To embellish my point a little, I’ll cite this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZzwRwFDXw0

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I will now read Mr. Monbiot’s article.

Well said Charlie, my thoughts precisely, it could even be suggested that those who support Monbiot, are helping to propagate his deluded ideas on nuclear and as you mentioned this includes war by default. Depleted uranium is now a daily part of the modern war machine, just do a search for DU in Fallujah to see the results of that.

As for you Craig, it would seem that you’ve been pushing Monbiot for so long now, logical reasoning has gone out of the window. We all get suckered sometimes my friend, it takes guts to own up to that. Monbiot is no permaculturalist, has he taken a PDC? There are plenty of genuine permaculture people writing interesting articles for this site, my advice to you is; get out of bed with George for the sake of your own credibility.

Echo that Harry
We shouldn’t be deluded in thinking that nuclear war is just about dropping the bomb. In fact nuclear war is what happens every single time the UN (and anyone who has bought DU weapons directly or indirectly from them or their associates) gets involved in armed conflict. Depleted uranium armour is standard on tanks and many other heavy war machines, and most heavy-fire rounds contain depleted uranium ‘penetrator rods’ (sound nice dont they?). They used to use tungsten, but tungsten ‘mushrooms’ on impact, whereas uranium ‘self-sharpens’. Let’s just say that when they discovered what uranium could do all the military’s christmases and halloweens came together!
George reminds me of British satirists before him such as Ian Hislop and Will Self. Full of sharp witticisms and extravagant language, but rarely if ever offering any kind of solution. They thrive off the chaos and confusion of it all, it adds venom to their pens. They can be brilliant at pulling pants down, but have no idea how to create a new pair. As entertainment their fine, and occasionally worthy of discussion, but I believe we are at crisis point here! We need to come up with solutions, and fast!
So I plead with this dedicated permaculture site to publish more from the true solutionaries of our world, and less from those trying to riddle and confuse us. More from Dave and Bill please, and less George and Bull.
Charlie

Once again Charlie, you’re spot on the money, it’s of the utmost importance that everyone wakes up to the fact that nuclear power is actually just a cover story for nuclear weapons.

I’m not sure what Monbiot’s game is, he’s certainly a shrewd player, the climate change card seems like the ace up his sleeve, but climate change is a term, much like sustainability, that has been so completely hijacked by the military industrial complex, to have become virtually meaningless nowadays.

I took a look at the other posts mentioned above and from what I can gather Craig is saying that Monbiot deserves a platform on the PRI site because despite what he says about nuclear, he has good stuff to say about other things. But where do you draw the line with that? What if Monbiot decided Craig’s old mates at Monsanto weren’t such a bad bunch after all, and started selling their line? Because lets face it, the world needs food just as much as power, right? Would he still get a soap box to peddle his green painted propaganda at PRI?

It’s worth remembering the only thing that nuclear power plants really do, is to boil water, to produce steam, to power turbines, hardly rocket science. On the other hand, the military applications of DU is big business and their are plenty of countries around the world, lining up for a slice of that radioactive pie!

For those interested in solutions for alternative energy production check out Karl Schaeffer’s steam generator, it’s been around since the early seventies – https://www.rexresearch.com/schaeffe/schaeffer.htm

People and situations aren’t always as they might seem, Monbiot and his pro-nuclear stance is case in point, don’t believe the hype!

Bernie Edwards
Bile, killing ourselves, come on mate it that the best you can come up with, take your hand off of it!

For myself I have spent many years studying and practising meditation as well as permaculture. Inward contemplation is something I am intimately familiar with. Knowledge of oneself often brings a great clarity in comprehending the motives of others, for good or bad.

I am opposed to the nuclear industry and therefore the likes of Monbiot because of love, love for the planet and all of her inhabitants and love for future generations who will inherit a legacy of a world poisoned by radioactive waste for the next 500,000 + years .

IMHO Bernie your comment had a distinct aroma, one that is increasingly familiar on the Internet, eau de troll! Comments such as yours amount to nothing more than a personal attack with the aim of ‘getting a rise’ and throwing the topic off course, sorry Bernie, we’re not buying the brotherhood tactics!

Γνώθι σαυτόν

Harry,
Rudeness, lewdness, hate and yes bile, do not sit naturally with the lovey-dovey claims that you make for yourself.

As for trolling and throwing the topic off course, where in the original article, or my comments, did nuclear war get mentioned?

Craig
1/ Where myself or others live has nothing to do with you, George Monbiot or this topic.
2/ Where we get our electricity comes from has nothing to do with you, George Monbiot or this topic.
3/ The speed of my communities transition to post fossil blah blah blah has nothing to do with you, George Monbiot or this topic.

To be frank, I don’t see why I should bother to answer your questions whilst you continue to ignore mine.

The point we’re trying to make here, in case you’ve missed it Craig is about you and George Monbiot and your decision to promote this character here on the PRI site, despite the views of your visitors and despite the fact that Monbiot is pro-nuclear, which as Charlie rightly pointed out isn’t about energy, it’s about war and death!

Bernie
Rudeness & lewdness (sexually unchaste or licentious), you really should check on the actual meaning of words before bandying them around.
The only comment you made Bernie, wasn’t up to much, but if you’d bothered to read the other comments, besides your own, you would have noticed that the objection we share with regards to Monbiot is in relation to his pro-nuclear stance, depleted uranium weapons amigo, shall I spell it out for you again?

I’m not buying into it, now you’re both at it, trying to twist the conversation around.

The bottom line is Monbiot = Nuclear = Uranium = Plutonium = Fukushima = Hiroshima = Death = Pain = Suffering & possible extinction for all life on earth for an inconceivable time into the future.

Why on earth would anyone ever consider promoting such a person on a permaculture site, the mind boggles!

Harry/Charlie

The reason I ask those questions is not to pry or be personal. I’m simply trying to get an idea what is happening where you are to avoid the need for increasing energy supplies. Yes, you’re against nuclear. So am I. But, you and I are both sitting at a computer as we argue this. It’s easy to say ‘no nuclear’, or ‘no coal’, but how many of us are free from the guilt of using the power they provide? Are you pedalling to create the power you’re using to be able to make these comments? You say the answers to those questions have nothing to do with me, but they do. Where each of us gets our energy from, and what we do with that energy, impacts on everyone, everywhere. There is no cause without effect, no action without a reaction. No man is an island.

The world needs to dramatically backtrack on its energy usage, yet every year our consumption rates are on the incline instead. Even as our appliances are getting more efficient (sometimes), we’re plugging more and more of them into the wall!

If we don’t make a rapid reduction in demand, then what we have are only arguments over which source is a little less bad while we persevere with business as usual.

So, we’re against nuclear. But remove all nuclear from the equation, and what do we have? Where I live, for example, 55% of the nation’s power is from nuclear. I’d be happy to see them shut down, but at the moment that also translates to either:

1) a dramatic reduction in supply – we all suddenly live much simpler lives
2) a dramatic increase in production (or import) of other forms of energy

Now, if option #1 is the result, great – except it requires significant thought into transition to avoid social meltdown (with arguably more serious consequences than a nuclear meltdown).

If option #2 is what transpires instead, then what sources of power will get the lion’s share in filling the nuclear void? Well, chances are good it’s coal, or tar sands or gas or shale oil or gas fracking, etc.

So you can come down hard on George for his stand on nuclear, but whilst I don’t agree with his nuclear stand, I do understand and appreciate the objective logic that lead him to that conclusion. Whilst I would prefer to continue to hope people might see reason and begin to take permaculture seriously and commit to a broadscale re-evaluation about what is important in life (and that they might discover that a simpler, more gadget-free life can be not only more sustainable but is also expedient, and more meaningful), I can’t blame George for deciding that people just won’t change, and that given our present trajectory, and the accelerating speed of that trajectory, it is important to consider the lesser of the power evils before us.

To be frank, I don’t see why I should bother to answer your questions whilst you continue to ignore mine. – Harry

Please advise the questions you directed at me that I haven’t answered. I’ve had another look through, and I don’t see the questions. I only see statements. Apologies if I’m missing them.

George’s article above is not pro-nuclear. I haven’t put his pro-nuclear posts up. I will continue to put articles of his up which are in alignment with permaculture principles.

We need to see the interconnectness here. Just as you’re asking me to not put up any posts by George, regardless of topic, when you cry ‘no nuclear’ but without giving me a game plan and describing what you’re doing and achieving to bring that nuclear free world to fruition, then you are effectively saying, in the very same breath – “more coal, more gas, more fracking, more biofuels, more tar sands.” etc. Should I block your comments from the site, as you’re asking me to block George? Again, just saying ‘no nuclear’, but without givng a game plan on how to do that, just means you’re pro-coal, pro-shale oil, etc. etc. Comments and articles promoting coal on this site are not welcome either….

It reminds me of various protest movements I’m seeing now, as revolutions are on the rise. There’s a lot of unrest, a lot of dissatisfaction, a lot of placard waving and bottle throwing – but too few are putting forward constructive ideas on how to move forward. Instead, they’re just pulling down. I appreciate at least that George is trying to compare apples with apples and is seeking to look at all the angles without the interference of hype and emotion.

Please, instead of just saying “I don’t like what George is telling me”, please come up with viable answers to the very relevant and now historically critical questions that led George to those conclusions in the first place.

Craig
FYI – I live off grid, 30kms from the nearest mains electricity, sewage and water supplies. This property has a photo voltaic system that not only powers the computer that I am currently writing this comment from but also powers the pump that pumps water from the bore to the header tank. On cloudy days we run the generator to supplement the system, which runs on re-cycled vegetable oil, which is collected and processed locally. We have a compost toilet which provides nutrient to our numerous fruit trees. We have approximately 120 edible species in a 4 acre area that is constantly expanding. We have a 1.5 million litre dam, 3 swales, a food forest and an extensive vegetable garden. As for where I am Craig, being the web master of this site, you already have my IP address, if you’re that keen to know, look it up.

All of the solutions and all of the knowledge is already there and has been for many years, so perhaps the real question is, what’s your excuse?

The question I previously directed at you (sorry if it wasn’t clear) was; where do you draw the line? If Monbiot (hypothetically) decided to support Monsanto, would you still publish his other articles?

I do appreciate your patience with all of this Craig, you’re a good man, I have no doubt of that. I also appreciate not being censored, but we’re not talking about censoring Monbiot’s comments, I would never suggest that, (not that he’s ever likely to make any here). What we’re suggesting is not publishing his articles because of his open affiliation with an industry that is immeasurably harmful to all living things.

The point we’ve made over and over here, which you’re still skirting around, is that the nuclear industry is actually about weapons and not energy. Which means that when Monbiot offers his support to the nuclear industry, he is, whether he knows it or not, affiliating himself by default with nuclear weapons, which surely must be anti-permaculture.

I also find it interesting, between your prying questions about my personal life and aggressive verbal attacks from your mate Bernie, you both decided to also ignore my other offer of a solution mentioned above, once again – Karl Schaeffer’s steam generator, it’s been around since the early seventies – https://www.rexresearch.com/schaeffe/schaeffer.htm

We do not need uranium, coal, gas or oil to to boil water. I would like to suggest that there are a multitude of renewable, low or non-carbon producing alternatives, if you’re actually interested enough to do the research that is. For example, try doing a search for the ‘Lutec 1000’, invented by some smart blokes down under, they’re from Caines not Croydon.

Bernie
I’m not going to drop down to your level and take your bait my friend, you’re not worth the effort!

Yes, it’s true, we have the truth among us, it is the timeless way, but the world has rejected it, denied it:

“Christopher Alexander gave the Pattern Language to the world, and if people had read it, it would have liberated every individual from the tyrranical dictates of an architectural and urban machine (in the sense of an oppressive system). The patterns in that book are a true liberation, establishing people’s own deep feelings about the built environment as sound and valid. The reason this is so important is that architecture schools, the media, and most architects have been implementing the very opposite for close to a century. And they have been justifying their inhuman product by a massive advertising campaign, exactly like soft drinks and junk food replacing genuinely nutritious food, because some people make a lot of money promoting them, and those same persons would make a lot less money selling and distributing wholesome foodstuff. We now have a significant percentage of the world’s economy driven by the soft drinks and junk food industry, just as we have another major percentage of it driven by the construction of glass and steel skyscrapers and dehumanizing concrete buildings. The architectural/urban situation is “soft” oppression, where a vast power system geared to promoting an unhealthy and dehumanizing built environment is driven by subconscious suggestion. In only a few instances is brute power used, as in monofunctional zoning, and bulldozing owner-built houses so that someone can make a profit by building concrete high-rise blocks.” – Nikos A. Salingaros

See: https://p2pfoundation.net/Nikos_Salingaros_on_Peer_to_Peer_Urbanism

Please be patient guys, I’m tied up with techical problems. Will respond as soon as I can.

Craig, I’m afraid this will be an extensive answer. I hope you can first keep up with your incoming articles. This because I’m given the task to establish a network for Gruppo Salingaros in Norway, and when contacting actual candidates I want to use my book review of Nikos last book: https://permaliv.blogspot.com/2011/05/new-permatecture-toolbox-from-nikos.html

I’m afraid that if I can’t get up a network soon Nikos will get tired and forget about Norway.

Bernie Edwards: Quotes

(I love George Monbiot. – June 9, 2011 @ 12:25 pm)

(You guys seriously need to take a long hard look inside yourselves. That kind of bile is killing you. – June 12, 2011 @ 9:47 pm)

(Ah Harry, dear Harry, anonymous Harry, Harry who? Harry the Troll. For me, the conversation ends here and I hope our paths never cross again. – June 14, 2011 @ 11:02 am)

(OK, I will make just one more comment as this has gone a stage further. – June 16, 2011 @ 11:42 am)

I’m surprised ‘the man’ would ever let your retire Bernie (perhaps he didn’t?), you are such a prize corporate asset.

If I have a red neck, that’s because I’m actually out in the garden planting food!

Should the power systems go down tomorrow, the supermarkets close, the water stop coming through the pipes and the toilet not flush, life for us would go on pretty much as usual, if you honestly can’t claim that is true in your situation, you’re not in a position to preach my friend.

:>)

Yes, a PA would be very useful!

Okay, where to start (and yet keep this brief).

Harry, your place sounds great. No question. Kudos to you. I’m envious, and not nearly in such circumstances by any means or measure.

In regards to the steam engine you mentioned. It sounds great. Can I request you make up a post on it so we can share it with our readers and get people looking at this potential solution? I don’t know anything about it, but will be happy to be the medium for others to learn more, if there’s someone out there with experience building and using such a machine. The article you linked to is from 1977…. Is there a working example of this anywhere? Same with the ‘Lutec 1000’. It seems both of these are either wonderful solutions, or distractions – depending on whether or not they’re real and readily available, or vapourware.

But Harry, not wanting to find points of contention, I must comment on this statement:

All of the solutions and all of the knowledge is already there and has been for many years, so perhaps the real question is, what’s your excuse? — Harry

This is one area where I think too many permaculturists have a problem. When you begin to gain some degree of self-sufficiency, then you somehow forget (if you ever knew, depending on your past circumstances), that life for most people on this planet is not shaped by their intentions and determination only, but also by chance and circumstances. Many people have the best of intentions, but will never see them fulfilled, as circumstances outside of their control have them trapped in positions they can never escape from. Many would love to have the degree of self-sufficiency you do, but it’s just a dream for them. This is why I see the great need (that many commenters on other posts on this site seem to fail to grasp) that we must, as well as change our lifestyles, also change the system itself. The present system most of us live in makes it impossible on many levels to live true to conscience and sustainably. Indeed, increasingly it’s making it hard to survive at all.

To illustrate – let’s say person X is stuck in an apartment in a big city. He wants to be a permaculturist, and to tend a diverse garden, and even use his compost to heat his shower water, etc. etc. Now, person X works the ‘graveyard shift’ at a local warehouse, and has some more hours on the weekend working at McDonalds. If he’s ever, in this present system, to get out of the rat race to get himself into anything like a similar position as Harry, what should he do? Well, he could rob a bank, or otherwise determine to become seriously ambitious and work harder than any of his peers so he can excel into promotions and earn more money. This can effectively mean he, instead of cooperating with the people around him, is competing with them instead – clambering over others in a bid to rise to the top. In order to arrive at his dreams, principle gets thrown out the window. In other words – living ethically, simply and sustainably is a goal that can only be reached after a hard slog at supporting the present, destructive economic system he’s trapped in. Support the system hard enough for long enough, and you might in the process, perhaps, find a secret trap-door out of it.

I have no idea what trap door you managed to sneak through Harry. Perhaps you inherited your land. Perhaps you’re still working in the system while living outside of it. Perhaps you’re an older follow who has worked the system until accumulating enough to manage to somewhat step out of it. I don’t know. But this is the reality for many. We can’t just walk into the Aussie outback and claim a piece of land as our own any more. We’re part of a money economy, and it’s not by any means an equitable one!

And these are just the financial limitations. There are others, like gaining the necessary knowhow, family commitments/responsibilities, and many more. Think of the millions and ever-growing millions getting jam packed into shanty towns surrounding growing cities worldwide.

More than half the world’s people live in cities now. Most of these live in abject poverty. Land is flowing rapidly into ever-fewer hands (consolidating), and every year it becomes less and less likely that the young people we see around us, even in so-called ‘richer’ countries will ever be able to purchase land, let alone build a house on it, or slap a solar panel on top of that.

When you ask “what’s your excuse?”, speaking for myself and many of world’s inhabitants collectively, I’d have to answer “many”. Please don’t take your present position for granted. And whatever you do, definitely don’t allow yourself to feel any superiority about it.

Charlie: I would take your song analogy and turn it around. The difference between the two analogies in my mind is the difference between division and nurturing.

But first, please recognise that I don’t and have never regarded George’s articles as being part of the ‘toe tapping, earthy, inspirational’ band. Rather, his articles have squarely fallen into our ‘Why Permaculture’ categories (see category section of our sidebar). His articles, rather than being pro-permaculture (the carrot), have instead been more showing how much of a failure the present non-permaculture systems are, and showing why we need to change our present trajectory (the stick). I believe we need to utilise both the carrot and the stick to encourage people to face present realities and to set them on the right path, towards holistic solutions.

Now, given George has never really been in the toe-tapping, permaculture inspirational band, but he is, as you have expressed, obviously an enquiring type with (I believe at least) a genuine interest in being objective and sustainable, then our manner (as permaculturists) of dealing with him is, I believe, significant. Where you are repeatedly asking me to drop him like a hot potato, and ensure he knows we don’t appreciate his nuclear stance, I’m more of the mind of instead of creating division, to instead nurture.

Instead of aggressively pulling out that plant you don’t yet appreciate, how about finding a use for it?

To use your band anology, if a particular group regularly played songs that annoyed the hell out of you, but one day they played one that really hit the spot, then I’m sure you’d encourage more of those by rewarding them with applause for that particular song.

I get this all the time as editor. There are so many very quick to criticise. I can, in a relaxed moment on a Sunday afternoon, find a short video and throw it up for interest without too much thought, and then suddenly be met with a flurry of angry comments because I didn’t take enough time to ensure it was complaint-proof, yet another article I’ve spent days on, researching and writing, can be met with absolutely no comments whatsoever, despite site stats showing it to be one of the most popular and most circulated posts on this site. The issue here is that people are very quick to criticise and pull people down (divide) and very slow to encourage what they really want (nurture).

A few weeks before the conversation thread above started, I was corresponding to George about my thoughts on possible alternatives to a nuclear/coal/gas, etc. and sharing how permaculture can be a really systemic and lasting solution, and this is the answer I got:

Dear Craig,

What you say here really resonates with me. It sounds like a workable, inspiring and meaningful agenda, and reinforces my feeling that a book along these lines would be a good use of my time, as well as fascinating adventure. It also strongly suggests the issues which a revived green movement might rally around. I’ll start reading and thinking and talking about it – any further references gratefully received. This is the first message I’ve received in a long time that suggests a way forward to me. So thank you.

With my best wishes, George

Again, we’re dealing with serious realities. Most of the ‘developed’ world are extremely vulnerably dependent on terrible energy sources – nuclear, coal, gas, etc., and it’s getting more and more precarious as each year passes. We need to fast-track the takeup of permaculture concepts, but more, we need to change the system to incentivise this necessarily rapid transition. The more people helping us to get this message out the better.

So far all I’ve heard from you is, ‘no nuclear’, but I’ve heard no real tangible, realistic solutions for a world swimming in problems. We need much more than vapourware to get through this, and we need solutions that all can implement, not just a wealthy few in very lucky circumstances. I’m grappling with these realities, as is George. Again, please don’t come down hard on George for coming to the conclusions he has, unless you first go through all the variables he’s been working with that brought him to those conclusions, and unless you come out with better answers to deal with them.

Again, I say nurture, don’t divide.

Hi Harry

the nuclear industry is actually about weapons and not energy. The fact the you’ve continued to ignore this information presented to you, has at his stage made me very curious as to why you seem unable or unwilling to comment on this? – Harry

Sorry for not responding to this. I’ve just been pushed for time so haven’t been able to cross every t and dot every i for you. But, in this area I cannot agree. There are many countries with nuclear who are clearly not interested in warmongering. I live in one of these countries. Nuclear may end up feeding the war machine in many places, but I don’t agree that this is the primary motivation behind the creation of nuclear power plants. Just because you present information doesn’t necessarily mean it’s correct.

In regards to the steam generator and the Lutec 1000. Believe me, I don’t write them off. I clearly said they are either wonderful solutions, or distractions. Don’t just focus on the latter statement. As I said, I don’t know anything about them, so can’t decide either way. Thanks for the article on the Lutec. I’ll be keen to see what comes of this. I sounds like it’s been rather under wraps. And it sounds like we still have a reasonable wait to see what becomes of this. Meanwhile, let’s not forget there are new coal fired power plants going up every week. If there’s any cynicism, it’s because we are really behind the 8-ball, and FAR behind schedule in the desperate need for earth restoration. When people place their hopes on technical breakthroughs, as the media tends to encourage, then people tend to get relaxed about our trajectory – trusting that the scientists will get us out of this mess. The urgently needed transition thus keeps getting postponed.

You must also appreciate that it’s hard to take something really, really seriously when the website for it has been ‘under construction’ for a whole year already: https://www.lutec.com.au

My questioning of your reasons for not ‘walking the talk’ yourself, obviously was, for you a point of contention. However I would like to make it clear that I had not wished to bring my own or your personal circumstances into this discourse but due to your insinuations of hypocrisy with regards to my lifestyle and energy issues, I felt I had no choice. I am not writing from a computer and sitting under a light bulb that is powered by 55% nuclear energy Craig, that is you my friend. – Harry

No, it was not a point of contention at all. I have no hangups about my present situation. I am doing the best I can in the situation I’m in. I also was not, when I initially asked questions about where your energy, etc. comes from, insinuating anything about you, hypocrisy or otherwise. I was purely trying to get a frame of reference to converse with you on. As I said, what you’re doing is great. I’m very pleased for you. I’d love if you could send pics and reports so that you can inspire and help our readers do likewise. And yes, where I live, 55% of the power comes from nuclear. I don’t like it at all, but that’s how it is. I could shut the computer down and turn the lights off, but then I’d never have made http://www.permacultureglobal.com or massively increased traffic to this site, with its corresponding impact in raising permaculture-awareness.

Now whilst I actually disagree with your assertion that our lives are not shaped by our intentions and determination, in fact my current situation was forged by those very things, coupled with more hard work than most are willing to commit, I very much doubt that you could claim that for yourself. Can you honestly say that your daily consumption of nuclear power is down to chance and circumstance? As a relatively rich, white, Western man, you chose your lifestyle and location and if you had the will you could change it for a different one in no time at all. – Harry

I didn’t say that “people’s lives are not shaped by their intentions and determination”, I said that “people’s lives are not shaped by their intentions and determination only“. (Note the ‘only’ at the end.) I just said what is patently obvious, that a great many people can and never will acheive all or even any of what they would like, for reasons outside of their control (and often because the game of life is rigged by corporate interests).

I could move to another country, but how does that help the people here? Should everyone in this country move away? Where would they go? I’ve seen permaculturists who, for example, were living in cold regions where they couldn’t grow the wide variety of food they would like, so instead of finding ways to make do with what they have, they’ve up and moved to a warmer climate, so they can be ‘better permaculturists’. It doesn’t make sense to me. The outcome of that kind of thinking would see half the world’s population up and move somewhere else, destroying the destination in the process. I’d prefer permaculturists in colder climes to, as men have done for thousands of years, find ways to live right where they are, and to help change things for the better where they are.

This is something to think about when you are sitting in a warm part of the world, running off solar. What about all the people living in places where there’s snow cover for half the year or more, and where the sun rarely shines. Should these people all pick up and move next door to you? Let’s appreciate each person’s circumstances.

Have you actually read Permaculture A Designers’ Manual, by Bill Mollison, in particular chapter 14, The Strategies of an Alternative Global Nation. It’s all there Craig, do you people bother to teach this section in any depth to your PDC students? Bill laid it all out for us long ago, we don’t need magic trap doors or to rob banks, we just need to work together and be smart about it, that’s all. – Harry

Yes, indeed, I’ve read it. It’s actually the first chapter I read! No, I don’t teach it in PDCs – because I don’t teach PDCs myself. I don’t argue with you on the need to work together. Not at all. I’m not really sure of your point here. My reference to trap doors is due to the reality that a large proportion of the world’s population are unable to get themselves into a position where they can begin to provide for their own needs. This is just plain fact, and one we should all be conscious and appreciative of. I think you’ll have to agree with my point that for most people to have a bit of land and the time to work it, they end up having to first help build this disaster of a system we call modern capitalism. Yes, we should work together to free ourselves from this system, but many don’t have anybody to work together with, or if they do, they still don’t have a dollar between them to make it happen. I’m sorry Harry, but I’ve seen a great many try and try to do things they wanted, but consistently fail due to circumstances outside of their control. I’ve seen people commit suicide because of it. I do believe that life is what you make it as far as your attitude to it (i.e. we can choose to be happy and content, regardless of outside cirucmstances), but I don’t agree that intentions and determination alone will always get you what you want in life.

There are such a multitude of examples of people who have pulled themselves out of unimaginably horrendous and difficult situations to create a better, healthier more sustainable life for themselves. – Harry

I’m sure there are. But, again, for everyone that has with great effort got where they wanted to go, there are others who tried as hard or harder and got nowhere, or who in their taking risks ended up worse off than before. Life is not simple! And for those who ‘made it’, I would ask, how did they do it? Usually they’ve had to work at a day job that in itself is supporting the system. Most day jobs are inherently destructive. I won’t bother asking you what your day job is, as I fear you’ll take it personally, but statistically speaking most employed people are paid to do things that negatively impact the world around them.

Interestingly when your own source of power was revealed, the tables turned and your whole previous argument fell apart, which in all likelihood was the true source of that contention you mentioned. – harry

I volunteered the information. Again, I don’t have any hangups about it. There are permies all over the world sitting at computers where the light bulb above them is powered by nuclear, coal, gas, tar sands, etc. Let’s not pretend otherwise. Even solar and wind are destructive (fossil fuels and chemicals used in their production, distribution, installation, maintenance, etc.). I don’t understand how you can say my argument fell apart. How so? Actually, perhaps don’t bother answering the question, as I feel this conversation will start to go in pointless circles.

Sorry Craig but I don’t buy your excuses, you have the whole of the permaculture world literally at your finger tips, you need to lead by example, if you cannot or will not do that, what hope is there for those in far less fortunate situations than yourself? – Harry

As I say, I’m doing the best I can in the circumstances I’m in. Again, what would you have me do? Should I move to the Congo and build a tree house? What about the people I leave behind? Additionally, in my bid to help promote permaculture and help drive it into mainstream consciousness, I’ve also somewhat compromised my own ability to do all I’d like (i.e. lost income potential, doing what I’m doing now).

I was never judging you Harry, as you seem to think. I know nothing about you. I was only trying to make the point that if we do gain some degree of self-sufficiency, we should consider ourselves very lucky, and I don’t think our work is at all done. There is a whole world of people who need help — help to know what they need to do, and how to do it, and assistance to do it — and the only real way to help them is to help change the system so that it incentivises a shift to small scale relocalised, interdependent communities that feature holistic education as standard. Getting everyone off nuclear and coal and oil is more than an immense task.

Thanks for your links on George. I’ll take a look.

I have submitted articles on this site, one of which comments on the insanity of nuclear power, and I have to say I agree with Harry and Charlie. I don’t know George Monbiot, but I also wouldn’t call Monbiot a friend of permaculture. It’s not a stretch to say that his support of nuclear power would be akin to support of a company like Monsanto, as Harry has suggested.

The facts show that nuclear energy is at least as destructive as anything Monsanto has put out there- and that’s saying a lot! Besides, his arguments in favor of nuclear power have so many holes that it’s hard to know where to start. It boggles my mind that he would make the argument that coal is much more of a killer than nuclear, while ignoring the fact that deaths from nuclear are neither reliably measured nor accurately reported, for instance. Or that he would ignore that the negative effects of Chernobyl are still ongoing, and that we have no idea when they will cease. And that’s just for starters. I would be surprised if Monbiot has not come under the pay of the nuclear industry. I regard him with great suspicion and will be very skeptical of anything he says. I, too, feel that his writing does not belong on this site.

And not that his word is the be-all and end-all, but remember that Bill Mollison groups the earth’s resources into five categories, and places nuclear in the category of resources that should be banned (never used) because they pollute or destroy other resources if used.

Nuclear IS worse than Monsanto! No doubt about that Anton. What do you think Craig?

Hi Harry and others.

In regards to Monsanto – this, as you know, is the complete antithesis of permaculture, and the complete antithesis of sustainability, health and, indeed, survival.

Anton said that “the facts show that nuclear energy is at least as destructive as anything Monsanto has put out there”. I’d really like to see those facts. I personally don’t believe they exist. Again, just to be clear, for those who’ve just joined the discussion, I am wholly against nuclear, but I think it’s important we don’t let emotion enter the discussion. It’s true that nuclear’s damage is hard to quantify. Someone can be ill, and then die, and we don’t know the exact reason, and what part was caused by lifestyle and hereditary conditions, and what was caused by outside influences like nuclear radiation. But, the same can be said for GMOs. Monsanto and their ilk keep assuring everyone that they’re safe as anything, yet more and more reports show this to be untrue. As such, how can we quantify the damage of GMOs? These are influencing the world at a biological level. Horizontal gene transfer effects non-target species, and they end up in, potentially, ALL food chains. And the damage doesn’t stop with the plant only – GMOs are designed around proprietory chemicals (the plants aren’t worth anything without their accompanying toxic dose), and these are more dangerous than first believed as well. GMOs are a bid to continue with an impossibility — that being centralised agriculture, or the mis-named ‘Green Revolution’. This is potentially signing millions, or billions of us, to death. At least with nuclear there is equipment you can use to detect radiation. Go on an enjoyable romp through a field, breathing in pollen as you go, and eat animals raised on GMOs, etc., and the consequences are much harder to pinpoint.

I wouldn’t be so quick to make such a comparison myself. Industrialised agriculture has shaped modern society in such systemically destructive ways. It is because of this we have 1 man in a tractor feeding hundreds more, whilst destroying soil and watersheds, and whilst those hundreds move into cities and take up wholly destructive employment (or no employment) and spend their leisure hours normally doing something destructive also. If we didn’t have chemical-based agriculture, these people would be stewards on the land, and the word ‘permaculture’ would never have had to be invented. Chemical agriculture doesn’t work, but, again, GMOs are a dangerous, solution-delaying attempt to continue to cash in on the very fact that it doesn’t work.

So to answer your question – if George was pro-GMO, no, he wouldn’t be found on this site. The reason would be his entire outlook on the world would be skewed from what this site is promoting. He would never have made articles such as these:

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2008/09/05/strange-fruit/

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2009/05/13/feeding-frenzy/

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2009/06/02/blue-desert/

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2010/01/05/consumer-hell/

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2009/11/17/if-nothing-else-save-farming/

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2010/08/10/turning-estates-into-villages/

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2009/10/14/are-you-paying-to-burn-the-rainforest/

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2010/08/17/towering-lunacy/

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2009/10/02/the-population-myth/

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2009/08/09/the-busybody-state/

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2009/08/11/tesco-opted/

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2010/06/02/an-agricultural-crime-against-humanity/

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2010/05/24/out-of-sight-out-of-trouble/

And anti-war articles, the first anti-nuclear…:

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2010/03/25/war-with-the-ghosts/

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2009/06/23/stop-building-tanks/

I think this site would be the poorer without the above articles.

When it comes to nuclear, I see George is trying to be objective. He sees mankind heading to the precipice like a runaway train, and knows that people are loathe to give up their energy-rich lifestyles. He’s weighing solar for example, and finds it wanting for the cloudy UK context (see also). He’s promoting wind power, but grapples with a public who don’t want them in their back yards. He sees coal fired power plants popping up like mushrooms, etc. etc. I don’t see George’s nuclear stance as being diametrically opposed to permaculture in the way GMOs are. I don’t believe George sees nuclear in an ideal world, but rather he’s trying to weigh the lesser of several evils, some of which just are not viable alternatives for the UK context. I also think too many are wholly underestimating the damage caused by our continued building of coal-fired (and now liquid coal) plants. Again, just saying ‘no nuclear’, without a serious rework of present economic systems, essentially means ‘more coal.’

In regards to your white supremicist fellow. I guess it depends on whether it’s hearsay (gossip about him) or if he’s openly, verifiably racist. Again, I don’t think we can put George into such a category. He seems from my experience to be grappling as objectively as he can with more variables than most try to consider. If he’s made a mistake, I still see it as well-intentioned and an honest mistake, not the deep-rooted diametrically opposed type of systemic fault such as racism.

In regards to the weapons industry – my point is that I don’t believe the primary motivation for nuclear power plants is getting its by-products for making projectiles, etc. Regardless, this argument is a non-argument. Imagine a big cliff near your house. You could use that cliff in different ways. You could have a little business teaching people how to abseil off it, or you could have a little business throwing unwanted spouses off it instead. Almost anything can be used inappropriately. Wind power can feed into the grid and in turn supply electric chairs carrying out the death penalty. Water can quench your thirst, or be used for water-boarding. Depleted uranium is also used for the medical industry – X-ray equipment, etc.

Harry, please take the time to go through George’s articles above. You’ll see most readers appreciate what he has to say, and I think for good reason.

I think it does us all some good to think about and appreciate the complexity of the situation people are in. The UK has a far greater population density than where you reside (Australia), it has a hell of a lot less sunshine, and it is heading into economic oblivion if it doesn’t quickly address multiple issues. There are no more Mayflowers to climb aboard. These people can’t just pick up and move into your neighbourhood and slap on some solar panels. There are hard decisions to be made, and a hell of a lot of education (reskilling) that needs to occur.

I also want to reimpress upon you that I don’t agree with all points in all articles I put up from various contributors to this site. I’m sure I could enter discussion with almost all contributors and find a point of difference to pull us apart if I had a mind to. There are almost as many opinions as their are people on this planet. As an editor, I must find a balance between being a literary puritan, and giving a voice to dissenting views to get people thinking and discussing.

For myself, I’m looking forward to the book on small scale agro-ecological agriculture and permaculture that I’ve encouraged George to write.

Harry, I would again solicit articles about your own transitionary evolution. I think people having some degree of success in becoming more sustainably self-sufficient have some responsiblity to help others who are on, or would like to be on, the same path. If you could send articles sharing the why and how of what you’re doing, you’ll not only inspire and instruct our readers, but you may even keep me so busy I won’t have time to put George’s articles up!

Craig, here are some facts:

Relating to Chernobyl (from Wikipedia):
-UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008. The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests it could reach 4,000.[10] A 2006 report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout.[11] A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more.[12] A Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 excess deaths occurred between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination.

Compare this to zero confirmed deaths directly caused by GMOS (even though there are probably many deaths directly related to Monsanto, e.g. the farmer suicides in India).

-There is a 30 km exclusion zone around Chernobyl, which will be off limits to humans for thousands of years. Fukushima is most likely looking at the same, or a larger area.

-Twenty plus years after Chernobyl, wild boar in Germany are still unable to be consumed due to radiation.

-The radiation being released by Fukushima is already at or above Chernobyl levels, and may exceed it by up to 20 times. Nuclear radiation is bad for your health.

In addition to the facts, there’s a lot that can be extrapolated based on the known effects of radiation.

I personally do not buy that we have to wait for science to unequivocally confirm whether or not deaths were definitely caused by nuclear, in the same way that I won’t willingly consume GMOs even though science hasn’t confirmed that I shouldn’t. If permaculture were based on the accepted findings of the mainstream, we would all be buying and growing GMOs.

I get the point that Monbiot has written helpful articles, but saying that he’s just trying to be objective about nuclear power seems to be too kind. I just don’t see how he can ignore the very serious downsides of nuclear. His sudden switch to a pro-nuclear stance and the way he defends it while glossing over the serious and real costs of nuclear makes him lose credibility in my eyes. I would feel uncomfortable publishing his stuff after a move like this. Why support someone who is untrustworthy?

I don’t even believe in his so-called “objectivity”. Monbiot plays the “we need power, what else can we do but rely on nuclear/coal/etc.?” Sounds a bit like the “GMOs use a lot of pesticides, sure, but how else can we feed the world?” argument. Sure, we feel the need to power our lives somehow, and nuclear is one of the options. But isn’t permaculture about doing things differently so we can give up these energy sources? If we have the option between no power or nuclear power, wouldn’t it still be insane to choose the nuclear option?

Hi Craig, once again thank you for you detailed reply.

In regards to nuclear – this, as you know, is the complete antithesis of permaculture, and the complete antithesis of sustainability, health and, indeed, survival. (ironic how the shoe seems to fit so well on the other foot eh!)

Anton said; “the facts show that nuclear energy is at least as destructive as anything Monsanto has put out there”. And you replied; “I’d really like to see those facts. I personally don’t believe they exist.”

I would personally like you to tell the survivors of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima et all that the facts don’t exist!

https://www.thehypertexts.com/images/hiroshima_charonboat_dot_com_hiroshima_victim.jpg

I chose to use the Monsanto analogy, because I know very well how passionate you are about informing your readers with regards to their destructive activities. You can rest assured that I myself am no supporter of Monsanto and GM, however with well documented evidence of nuclear power plant accidents with multiple fatalities from 1952-2011, I would have to counter that there is currently a far greater body of evidence in relation to the destructive nature of the nuclear industry than that of GM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Assured_Destruction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

I do appreciate that you are in theory opposed to nuclear but as Charlie pointed out earlier in this discussion by promoting the writings of Monbiot, who has actually said he loves nuclear, you are indirectly promoting the industry, through him to your readers. I would also like to make reference to another point Anton made which is; Bill Mollison groups the earth’s resources into five categories, and places nuclear in the category of resources that should be banned (never used) because they pollute or destroy other resources if used. I must say it seems strange to me that you would show favour to a mainstream UK journalist, when his ideas with regards to nuclear are diametrically opposed to those of the founding father of permaculture?

Craig and George, the boys who cried coal! It’s a weak argument against the use of nuclear, that the only alternative is building more coal fuelled power stations, very weak indeed! For the record I do not promote the burning of coal as any kind of solution to our current situation and I also do not believe that cloudy countries such as the UK are not able to benefit from solar power, particularly with recent advances in photo voltaic technology. In fact the only time that solar cells do not generate electricity is at night. https://www.solar-energy.co.uk/news/solar-cells-cloudy-weather.php

Or maybe the Brits could even turn their love of fish and chips into power, that’s what we do when it’s cloudy; https://www.bbc.co.uk/bloom/actions/cookingoil.shtml

Of course it’s also worth remembering that the UK is a small island surrounded by choppy seas – https://www.therenewableenergycentre.co.uk/wave-and-tidal-power/ but hey that would be another non-nuclear solution wouldn’t it, doesn’t quite tally with the Mackintosh & Monbiot nuclear or coal, black or white subterfuge does it?

“In regards to the weapons industry – my point is that I don’t believe the primary motivation for nuclear power plants is getting its by-products for making projectiles, etc.”

To quote your earlier comment; “There are many countries with nuclear who are clearly not interested in warmongering.”

And I asked you . . . could you please provide the names of the (many) countries you alluded to, with nuclear who do not have an armed force? As I previously mentioned; no one knows just how much depleted uranium is required by the arms industry each year, those numbers are secret, however what’s not secret is that all modern military arsenals contain DU.

Wouldn’t it just be the biggest ruse of all time, if we did have those figures and it actually turned out the nuclear industry makes more cash from depleted uranium sales than it does from power generation? Sure you can say you don’t believe it Craig, but the fact is you have no more hard evidence to back up your theory than for the contrary, it’s all supposition. But even without the actual audit, lets say they make a million, billion or a trillion dollars a year from DU, those sales amount to the immense suffering of our fellow humans, other life forms and the planet herself. Once again by promoting Monbiot, you are indirectly promoting the ideas of a person who contradicts all of our permaculture ethics, it’s a farce!

As for the book project you suggested to Monbiot about small scale agro-ecological agriculture and permaculture. What on earth makes you think that the permaculture community needs a book about permaculture and ecological agriculture from a pro-nuclear, mainstream UK journalist who doesn’t actually practice any of those things and once again, whose views on the nuclear industry contradict our ethics.

Perhaps instead of crawling to Monbiot asking for a book about subjects he knows little or nothing about, you could have kept your integrity intact by suggesting that you would no longer promote his articles on your site, because the nuclear industry is ‘equally’ as anti-permaculture as GM, Monsanto or any other activities that go against, earth care, people care and fair share.

As for writing articles for you site, I’m sorry Craig but my ethical integrity would not allow me to write articles for a site that promotes the career of a brazenly pro-nuclear propagandist, whether that be directly or indirectly. Anyway in truth we’re not doing anything special, it’s all in the manual.

If PRI and other permaculture educators focussed more attention on equipping their new PDC graduates with the information they need to achieve a genuine permaculture lifestyle, rather than beguiling them into believing they can all be well paid permaculture consultants, you wouldn’t need to solicit anything from me!

Please don’t feel obliged to reply, we’ve clearly been wasting our time here, obviously short of coming out in favour of Monsanto or the KKK, no amount of logical reasoning will convince you to get out of bed with your friend and associate George Monbiot.

*
Thomas – Clearly you are an intellectual, but I wonder how practical you are, do you have any experience as an engineer? I think there is definitely a flaw in relation to the physics of the Lutec 1000. However I believe that flaw is in the physics not the mechanics, it’s in the ‘old science’ theory of over unity.

Once again thanks for taking the time to engage with us on this one Craig, sorry if I got a little hot headed and my words seemed insulting, it wasn’t my intention to offend you.

Ultimately we really are on the same team, in time those who aren’t, will be revealed for what they really are, the game is speeding up as we rapidly approach the proverbial edge!

See you at the bottom my friend :>)

Thanks Harry. No problem. Yes, that’s exactly what we seem to be in unfortunately, a race to the bottom.

Harry, Louis’ comment here unwittingly proves my point. In his disgust with nuclear, he embraces coal instead. Too many don’t understand the environmental impacts of coal. Smog kills, as do those ‘groovy sunsets’. Mercury, arsenic, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, etc. end up in the air, the water and our bodies.

https://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/energy_technologies/how-coal-works.html

https://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/02/devastating-cost-coal-interview-paul-epstein.php

And the coal energy process emits huge amounts of radiation itself:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Throw complete climate destabilisation on top of all the above, and you’ve got the energy source from hell.

But that’s right Louis – just stay fixated on nuclear. It’s much simpler.

Thanks Thomas – yes, it would be far more appropriate to be discussing the topic of the post above – the absurdity of privatising nature and its priceless services.

Anton,

there is more then one Green Party in Germany — the known one and a smaller one that gets about 1% of the vote which was initiated by perhaps the most important founding members of the Green Party, Herbert Gruhl. Gruhl originally was a member of parliament for the Conservatives, but saw how badly wrong they were concerning resources — in the end, he could not reform the party, so he split off. The Green Party, however, turned out to become a brew not at all to his taste either, consisting back then mostly of Hippies and also some Communists. So, he founded the “ecological democratic party” (OeDP). For quite a while, the head of the OeDP (2003-2010) was a physics professor from Munich who had joined the party in 1983. Looking at what he did in those seven years, the party could consider itself glad to have him.

However, when he joined in 1983, he still was pro-nuclear. This changed about two years later or so. Should they have condemned him straightaway due to his views on nuclear energy?

We have a phrase in Germany, “He who sits in the glass house should not throw stones”. It is almost comical to see such attacks to George Monbiot — on an issue not at all related to the article — coming from poponents of the “let’s instead all fall for the ‘over-unity’ scam” idea. Proposing “solutions” such as the marvellous Lutec 1000 does not really indicate that much better judgement abilities than Monbiot’s, I’d say.

Dave the Dog,

I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year, think about it.

Ah — how easy it is to post lies to a web forum, right?

Good evening gentlemen,
“Thanks for your comment contributions guys, but unfortunately I just can’t respond any more on this thread. I just don’t have that much time.”

Hmm, well it would seem it’s not over until the fat lady sings and it would also seem there’s a fair bit of competition amongst the cooperatives for the last word, lets see who ends up with that accolade shall we?

Something I considered earlier in this discussion was the issue of censorship. To Craigs great credit as an editor, to the best of my knowledge posters are rarely if ever censored on this site, even if they have opposing views to those of PRI et al. Ironically one of the few people whose articles have been been censored on this site is your very own Mr Monbiot. What, I hear you cry (grumbles of derision and disbelief come hurtling from the cheap seats), well, it’s a fact that Craig only chooses to publish Monbiot’s non-nuclear articles and censors those advocating his pro-nuclear views.

Some might think that it’s just a little unfair on poor Mr Monbiot and perhaps on the many dedicated followers and readers of this site. Surely it’s only right to allow the readers of this site to make up their own minds about Monbiot’s true affiliations by publishing all of his writing’s, rather than just the ones he’ll obviously gain support for? In fact as a start, why not post up the video interview I mentioned at the very beginning of this discourse and see what your readers think about that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNmTLxecfR4

All the way through this discussion we’ve constantly heard, we need solutions, we need options and at every twist and turn, when solutions have been proffered, they have been dismissed by the coal or nuclear two option non-sense of the pro-Monbiot brigade. From the simple but little known mechanics of energy amplifiers and steam generators to the well know technologies of wind, solar and wave power, all have been dismissed with the wave of a hand by those who claim to represent the cutting edge of systemic solution based science.

This is an excerpt from an article and link from today’s Japan Times;

Suicides upping casualties from Tohoku catastrophe

Yamada, Iwate Pref. — On June 11, a dairy farmer in Soma, Fukushima Prefecture, chalked a note on the wall of his cattle shed. “If only there wasn’t a nuclear power plant,” the message read, in reference to the damaged Fukushima No. 1 plant just 45 km away, which had effectively ended his livelihood.

The man already had culled his livestock after raw milk shipments from the area where he lived had been stopped. Now, he chose to end his own life, too. “I have lost the energy to carry on working,” he added in what would be his final words.

https://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110623f1.html

Just to first put the above article in perspective in relation to our issues with Monbiot, here’s a link I posted up earlier in this thread;

Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power
By George Monbiot

https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima

Thomas – I’m so happy that you think I’m a poponent, sounds cute ja? FYI Hindus don’t eat schwein but we all know who does like a bit of thüringer eh? For those with such an internationally infamous history of national socialism, it might be considered prudent to avoid racial and religious analogies that could be misconstrued by our Hindu and Muslim brothers and sisters as offensive. Many of the visitors to this site may not be as gifted in the artfulness of English language rhetoric as your good self.

Craig – where are we know 54 comments, perhaps we’ll hit a century before the months out, no such thing as bad publicity eh! :>)

Anton – Good on you brother for standing up for the truth, it’s a hard commodity to find in a world full of lies, when the greenies go nuclear, you can know for sure it’s time to head for the hills!

Not to labour the point Harry, but this might help you understand a little of the pressure that’s on us:

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2008/11/15/the-dangerous-threshold-a-destination-or-a-milestone/

https://www.permaculturenews.org/2009/07/11/our-moral-dilemma-because-we-dont-live-on-an-inflatable-earth/

Hope you get something out of them.

Maybe we can take some of the bitterness out of this discussion, guys?

Thomas- I don’t know about that situation in Germany. It’s nice that it worked out. If George were to look at the evidence he seems to be ignoring and cease to be a nuclear cheerleader, that would be good, too. And please be careful- your comment directed as me implies that I am encouraging the Lutec technology when I have not mentioned it and this is the first I’ve heard of it.

BTW, what is the ‘over-unity’ scam you accuse me of falling for?

You quoted from the PDM: “it matters not that one group eats beef, and another regards cows as holy, providing they agree to cooperate in areas which are of concern to them both, and to respect the origins of their differences as a chance of history and evolution, not assessing such differences as due to personal perversity.”

I hope you realize that no one is calling Monbiot perverse (or at least I’m not), it’s that we feel he lacks integrity. I suspect he is under the pay of the nuclear industry. Do I have proof? No. It’s a feeling based on the information I’ve come across. For instance, the true EROEI of nuclear energy is much lower than what the industry presents. Nuclear power plants don’t last that long, and waste needs to be stored for thousands- yes, THOUSANDS of years. How many generations of people is that? This waste storage in itself requires energy to maintain. And in the end, what do you get from this? A little temporary energy at a tremendous environmental and human cost. It is unsustainable, to say the least.

It was also shocking to hear Monbiot state that he was embracing nuclear because no one had died from the Fukushima nuclear accident. How can you make that statement when the effects of radiation take time to manifest? When most people are in agreement that the rescue workers at the plant are almost certain to die from radiation? When Chernobyl has shown that the casualties are heavy, but covered up?

His speech supporting nuclear stunk to high heaven and, for me, placed him firmly in the “shun” category. I’m mystified why his supporters here don’t share my suspicion, despite his previous (laudable) work on this site and elsewhere. His arguments are just so superficial and smack of the mainstream media’s tendency to lump people into black/white either/or categories. I know that alternative energy cannot replace the energy we get from oil, and likely never will. That doesn’t mean I am going to pick coal or nuclear, one or the other. Again, I don’t pretend to have the answer to the energy issue. I say we ban the technology and deal with it then. The reality is that we will most likely have to deal with it one way or another, and embracing nuclear or coal, or alternative energy as THE answer is unlikely to work. Isn’t a large part of permaculture about dealing with this issue? I thought it was clear that we would have to cut back- shouldn’t our efforts be focused there as opposed to the silly argument of “which is the worse necessary evil, coal or nuclear”?

“It is almost comical to see such attacks to George Monbiot — on an issue not at all related to the article…”

Brother, feel free to stay out of it if it’s below you. Yes, we are definitely not discussing the article, we are discussing the writer.

It seems that some people feel us “little guys” are out of line for criticizing someone of Monbiot’s stature. Certainly he has more fame (and probably fortune) than me. Doesn’t mean I’m not going to speak out against him when I see the need to do so, especially when an organization I have a lot of respect for is involved.

Just want to say that I plan to continuing visiting the PRI website even if Monbiot’s articles continue showing up here. It will change my feeling towards PRI, as it probably will for others, but there’s such a wealth of good info here and Craig is a very capable editor- thank you for the work you do, Craig. It would indeed be throwing the baby out with the bathwater to stop visiting this site just because you disagree with publishing one writer’s pieces here. But I don’t think the same can be said about dumping Monbiot’s. It’s important to draw certain lines, to have limits. GMOs and nuclear energy are lines that I don’t think can be crossed by those who are committed to permaculture.

Harry,

Thank you for speaking out.
“When the greenies go nuclear, you can know for sure it’s time to head for the hills!”
My thoughts exactly…

Oh man, I just couldn’t resist writing something here after having a read of this thread. It really is a most enthralling read and I first want to offer my congratulations for launching and sustaining this discussion.
It could almost be reaching the grand scale of the famous Hemenway copyright turnaround thread to be found elsewhere on the internet. If you have not had the pleasure of reading it, and have an hour to spare, I totally recommend it to all willing researchers. It is a classic demonstration of a permaculture teacher accepting feedback, responding and adapting.
This thread reminds me of that one, but here there is no change. Deflection of feedback is not best practice.

Craig you strike me as a young man, and yet you’ve “heard it before” and “seen it so many times” haven’t you?
I can understand you wanting to assist George Monbiot if he is your friend, but really man, for Earth’s sake, you are the editor of a site which calls itself THE permaculture research institute.
So when your responding researchers observe a behavioral trait or pattern in another thing (case in point the author of the article above) and identify it as being inappropriate then you should pay great attention, especially as your own observation is likely to be affected by your friendship. These researchers are looking at it more objectively than you and see a different picture. Like it or not, you need to accept that feedback, because there’s more than just a little truth in what some of these guys here are saying.
If this sort of discussion makes you bored or it’s too much for your busy schedule then you’re in the wrong job man!

So tell me is this how it works?
You’re helping your friend write a book about permaculture, and hey what’s with the peculiar title of that book? It sounds a bit muddled already. What exactly is agroecological agriculture? By all means enlighten me, or should I wait for the book?
Anyhow what better way to prepare the ground and get him known among the permaculture community than by publishing a few individually selected permaculture-friendly articles on this site to soften people up right?
I can imagine that it’s a cyclycal promotion venture. How very pc!
And odds on when this George Monbiot has written his book it will be front page news right here at Research HQ.
Man I’d even lay 50 bucks on it right now!

Oh man, I’m sorry I got sidetracked, you don’t need to answer any of that. You’re doing a great job as you are most certainly bringing more attention to permaculture.
I’m not a young man anymore. I have seen friends I used to march with become bankers and lawyers.
I remember Bill as a younger man and thankfully he has stayed true.
He realized something truly important. He used the word permaculture for want of a better word.
It’s about freedom unto Nature. We are locked into and dependent upon the Anti-Nature system. That lock is guarded by evermore sophisticated security measures.
Permaculture is a freedom tool which can release people to reconnect with our native natural life support systems.
If you want to jimmy the lock then understanding the mechanics of the lock is important.
Just what is your friend struggling with that we don’t all struggle with?
Didn’t Bill struggle with the same issues?
He came up with a quite different plan. His attitude is important right there, and is still permaculture’s invisible fuel. It is positive creative attitude.
George Monbiot does not have that attitude is my impression. He may even be lock mechanics department. What’s that old saying? “If you can’t beat them, join them”.

I want to ask something about Monsanto.
No Monbiot if he was pro-Monsanto right?
Because it would mean that his whole philosophy must be seriously skewed away from permaculture.
OK so that’s great! It’s a start anyhow.
Now, what about Dupont? Heard of them?
Perhaps they’re more famous over here. They were founded in 1802, and back then they were a premier dynamite manufacturer. They went on to invent Nylon and so forth and so on, you can look it up if you don’t already know. Once a bomber always a bomber and they certainly stayed true to their roots by developing plutonium (nuclear) bombs.
Now, here’s what they have to say about themselves : “Dupont puts science to work by creating sustainable solutions essential to a better, safer, healthier life for people everywhere”.
Well mulch my cucumbers that sounds like permaculture!
Does TP Research HQ support that? Or do you see through the greenwash?

I don’t know anything about George Monbiot or what else he writes, but I’ve read this article above. I feel totally indifferent about it to be honest.
Hey man of course governments are putting a price on Nature, and making major profit from Nature. They’ve been doing that for like forever. They are the strongest taking from the weak. That’s all. We’re not surprised are we? I mean we all observe Nature right?
One thing I hope we can all observe is how EVERYTHING is connected.
What does connect this article and you guys talking nuclear is again exploitation and marketing of natural resources in the name of a resource and climatic challenge. In the case of nuclear to assist the war on weather and replace black gold. Both are hot topics right about now.

You do realize that going for nuclear totally INCREASES the use of the same dirty old fossil fuels, because they are required to build and power all the machinery every step of the way from the mine to the reactor chamber.
Just because nuclear says it’s this and says it’s that doesn’t mean that it is.

I’ve been around long enough to see a few changes.
It was just before the war when scientists split the atom. Nobody much knew it at the time, but the race was on to produce something devastating.
My government got there first with Trinity and then dropped 2 more on Japan.
The original and primary use of nuclear power was military.
There was a bit of a lull in the aftermath of the war, but the propaganda machine kicked into gear in the 50s. Uranium prospecting became big business back then. Like the gold rush and the railroad expansion, nothing stood in it’s way.
To this day Native American people are removed to make way for mining enterprise. But none of that is ever up there on their billboards.
I’ve seen radio-modification treatment become a major part of the global food plan. X-rays are commonplace from hospitals to airports. I observe widespread coverage of nuclear reactor buildings across the planet, many of them near fault lines. All the time Earth’s crust is repeatedly violated with atomic bomb tests.
The explosive potential of nuclear power is one thing, radiation is another, but nuclear’s raw material uranium is also truly the best heavy metal armour that money can buy. Add to that the fact that it’s penetrative quality as a missile is first class, and you’ve got yourself some real metal gear solid for the stormtroopers.
This is why depleted uranium (which does NOT mean it is no longer radioactive) weapons and armour are standard military HARDWARE. Any army without D. U. equipment doesn’t stand a chance in modern warfare.

Do the research Craig man.
I credit you for your positive energy, but recognize what governments are really up to while you’re hoping that they’re busy coming up with a new way to save us all.

We know one thing for sure right? George Monbiot’s article illustrates it. Governments are into financial profit.
In the form of electricity, nuclear power makes absolutely no financial profit. That sounds strange. Governments subsidize it. Stranger still. Those same governments have armies to equip. Ah. Equipping armies makes a hell of alot of money, for someone. Aha!
It’s ALL connected. The market price of nuclear’s raw material increases with every climate change and decreases with every 3 Mile Island.

As researchers, OBSERVE the nature of the element. Uranium exists in minute fragments among other rocks beneath the crust of this planet. To disturb it for whatever reason is to question the wisdom of Nature right here on Earth. To declare that we NEED it so we can power on into the future is outrageous.
Before calling for more dynamite, did anyone stop to consider that maybe Nature needs that element there, right where it is, scattered far and wide, fragmented and ever so slowly transforming into something else?
It could be a very long-established and vitally located nutrient essential for the planet’s health. I can’t prove that it is, but nobody can prove that it isn’t.
This planet has lived and will live alot longer than all of us combined, and I am concerned that such behavior will not see us welcome for very much longer.

There is a war. It’s a war on Nature. A war to sterilize and neutralize Nature. We are unfortunate freaks who seem incapable of fitting in with all the other lifeforms of Earth. Our only real chance is to tune in, and yet we continue to jam Nature’s rhythm with all manner of stolen mineral technology.
The question is what frequency are you tuned to?
Hey man I’m just trying to make it loud and clear, and it’s nothing personal. There are good vibrations about your frequency Craig, but your book-writing friend’s frequency is not clear and even sounds distorted.

So as I said I don’t yet know George Monbiot’s other material. I’m going to read something more in just a minute. If he really is pro-nuclear then it’s a no-brainer, but anyhow the important thing is to look at more than just his green letters on any one particular topic.
So as responsable researchers we are delving deeper, looking at other words he employs, his underlying philosophy, and feeding our observations back to you.

Keith Rimmard

I fully understand normal editorial process, just like it’s normal editorial process for the mainstream media to completely drop the Fukushima story despite an ever worsening scenario on the ground, the power of the pen eh!

Craig, you said; “The article at top of this thread is in alignment with permaculture principles. His pro-nuclear articles are not.” Surely it’s not just me that sees a contradiction in these words? You know if Monbiot was just pro-ploughs or pro- tractors, it would be one thing, but he’s pro-nuclear and that my friend is a completely different cup of toxic tea.

I do appreciate you attempting to labour you points Craig, but you’re really preaching to the converted. I am all too aware of our true current global situation and the limitations and potential perils we face. I’ve been involved with permaculture for many years, in fact it was the knowledge of of precarious future that inspired me to search out permaculture in the first place. I know exactly how bad things are, in fact I would even hesitate to say that I’ve know about it longer than you may have, which might go some way as to explaining why I’m writing on a computer powered by solar whilst you write on one powered by nuclear.

Thomas – As for point (a) I stand by my words, Monbiot creeps me out, ooze, slime, slither and worm tail spring to mind, no regrets on my part there. As for part (b) that is completely not true, I did not accuse you, insult you and effectively suggest that you were anything.

However as you were obviously upset by words, I will attempt to explain them to you in plainer English. You are a German, you seem happy for everyone to know that, by making references to the German political system (as above) etc. For better or for worse Germany is known around the world, more than anything else for one very charismatic leader and we all know who that is. Therefore all I suggested was that someone like yourself who shares that heritage, would be wise to choose their analogies carefully, in particular in relation to race and religion. As I said not all readers of this site are necessarily fluent in English and some might take your words the wrong way, especially when you lump wicked, Hindus, Muslims, pigs and cows all in the same sentence.

With regards to Hinduism, I’m fairly sure that you’ve never been to India, arrp janta Hindi mara dost? Janta neigh. Hindus do not eat cow because it’s forbidden, they don’t eat it because it’s holy. As for them getting ideas from Islam, the Hindus were vegetarian thousands of years before Mohamed ever walked the earth. The only places that pork is consumed in India is in the Christian communities, no surprise there really. You really should get your facts straight Thomas, it’s so easy to tell lies on the Internet ja?

I have read the manual Thomas, in fact I’d be fairly sure that I read it before you even knew what Permaculture was. As I mentioned above the reason I suggested not using those racial and religious analogies here, was in order to be sensitive to those who might miss-understand and take offence. I love Bill’s work, he is without doubt a cantankerous old genius, however in matters of sensitivity, I probably wouldn’t go looking for quotes from him, sensitivity never was his big point.

Thomas you said; “you personally insult George Monbiot not even for his views, but essentially for being George Monbiot (as you do not believe he ever could change his views) and would want to forbid him to have a say on a matter that is not at all about society and energy.”

I never once said I didn’t believe Monbiot could change his views, in fact history shows that he’s done just that by changing from anti-nuclear to nuclear neutral to pro-nuclear. If there is one thing Monbiot is great at doing it’s changing his views! I also don’t want to forbid him from anything, if he chose to join this discussion, he would be as free as we are to express his points. The issue is this site posting supposedly pro-permaculture articles from someone who also writes anti-permaculture articles, see the contradiction?

As has been the theme through this discussion, whenever genuine points are made they are either washed over or ignored. Just as well I’m the persistent type.

Yamada, Iwate Pref. — On June 11, a dairy farmer in Soma, Fukushima Prefecture, chalked a note on the wall of his cattle shed. “If only there wasn’t a nuclear power plant,” the message read, in reference to the damaged Fukushima No. 1 plant just 45 km away, which had effectively ended his livelihood.
The man already had culled his livestock after raw milk shipments from the area where he lived had been stopped. Now, he chose to end his own life, too. “I have lost the energy to carry on working,” he added in what would be his final words.
https://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110623f1.html

Just to first put the above article in perspective in relation to our issues with Monbiot, here’s a link I posted up earlier in this thread;
Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power
By George Monbiot
https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima

Surely it’s not just me that sees a contradiction in these words? You know if Monbiot was just pro-ploughs or pro- tractors, it would be one thing, but he’s pro-nuclear and that my friend is a completely different cup of toxic tea. — Harry

It is a different cup of tea, to be sure, but I think that the plough and the tractor (together) are arguably worse. If it was not for the plough and, in particular, the tractor, we’d all be on the land, continuing with the learning curve we’d been on for centuries – learning to balance our populations and our activities with localised environmental realities and constraints. We’d be in small communities, where the impact of our lifestyles would be quickly observable (as opposed to buying goods from the other side of the world where the costs to people and place are wholly out of sight and out of mind).

If there were no tractors, instead of one man feeding hundreds from the seat of his soil- and watershed-destroyer, those hundreds would have to do it themselves, and would not have lost that connection with nature that is the cause of our present woes.

I would say that nuclear power stations are a symptom of a greater disease – with that disease caused by such things as tractors. You could say that the tractor gave birth to the nuclear power station. If there were no tractors, people wouldn’t have been ‘freed’ to move off the land to make way for BigAgri. They wouldn’t have been ‘freed’ to spend all day in front of an X-Box, or computer screen. They wouldn’t have been ‘freed’ to live their energy-rich city life that calls for nuclear stations to get built.

Sorry Harry, I will not impose just your standard on the world, and I will not give in to the temptation to judge peoples’ motivations, as you are so quick to do with George.

Again, I will post articles based on their own merits, on an article by article basis. If George Bush writes an excellent pro-permaculture post, I would run that also. Get over it, or vote with your feet.

I think what Craig is trying to say with this “George Bush” remark above is that, to him as the editor, what counts is the article, not the author.

And that’s the only reasonable way to do an editor’s job, if you think about it. Try to see yourself in the editor’s role.

What would you say about a scientific journal that would reject certain submissions straightaway because they come from a certain author? Evidently, that would speak strongly against the editor – and the journal.

Now, there are situations where this issue becomes somewhat tricky. Evidently, scientific journals get swamped with submissions from crackpots, and one needs to have ways to make sure these do not take undue time (some such authors are very prolific writers). What this means is that there is no simple and generally-agreed-on recipe-like “optimal solution” how to do an editor’s job. Like a teacher’s job, by the way.

Craig makes editorial decisions not ad libitum, but by adhering to a set of principles. I would say he does quite a good job at this. Some might disagree on some decisions, but I’d at least urge those to try to understand according to which principles Craig decides.

“If George Bush writes an excellent pro-permaculture post, I would run that also. Get over it, or vote with your feet.” – Comment by Craig Mackintosh PRI Editor — June 27, 2011 @ 2:19 am

Whoa, I don’t even know if I can comment on that, if you wanted to have the last word Craig, that should have been it, I’m dumbfounded, you got me there brother!

Craig I do vote with my feet, as I explained my living situation in detail to you earlier, I, unlike some, am actually living it. It’s not complex, it’s the problems of the world that seem complex, whilst the solutions remain embarrassingly simple.

Keith mentioned earlier the Hemenway copyright turnaround (no link though Keith), anyway I didn’t know about it and couldn’t help doing a little search, this is what I found;

https://uniteddiversity.com/email-to-toby-hemenway-re-piracy/

“It is a classic demonstration of a permaculture teacher accepting feedback, responding and adapting.
This thread reminds me of that one, but here there is no change. Deflection of feedback is not best practice.” – Comment by Keith Rimmard — June 25, 2011 @ 8:20 am

Once again Craig, thanks for letting this run, despite the fact it’s obviously winding you up, you’ve kept true by letting us vent our spleens. If it ever gets to be too much of a headache, you can always hop off the speeding train and let us fizzle away or talk amongst ourselves, it doesn’t really matter who gets the last word eh!

“That’s why I focussed on the tractor/plough analogy you brought up (which you didn’t respond to). To me, the tractor/plough combo, and all that it means as far transforming society from our being, as was Thomas Jefferson’s dream, nations of farmers into being nations of consumers, is a central cause of our problems, and its consequences far exceed that of nuclear to date. Not only do they far exceed nuclear, but more, they’ve actually given rise for the percieved need for nuclear. I think as any kind of permaculturist, (ie. you must surely understand, through observation, something of the interconnectedness between such inventions like the tractor/plough and society and nature as far as ripple effects go) you must understand this logic.”

I could, for example, start rejecting even comments where people insinuate that tractors and ploughs are better than nuclear. I’d be rejecting those comments because of my own personal opinions and observations. Once you start down that track, where does it end? – Comment by Craig Mackintosh PRI Editor — June 28, 2011 @ 12:38 am

Someone earlier mentioned glass houses, I do believe it was your friend Thomas, tractors eh!

Zaytuna Farm’s new arrival

Posted by Danial Lawton 3 months ago

Zaytuna Farm has a new arrival a historic day for Zaytuna Farm.

Yesterday I was happy to accept the arrival of our new tractor, it may not sound like much but it was a historic day for Zaytuna Farm as we have never had such a piece of equipment that could alter so much before. Though the tractor itself is reason enough to be excited, but the tractor came with plenty of goodies, a 2100 flail mower, a 4 in 1 bucket, a 6″ mulcher chipper, and still on its way is a forage harvester and trailer to suit. The farm will never look so good.

https://permacultureglobal.com/posts/558

PS for those who don’t know, Danial Lawton is Geoff Lawton’s son, Craig’s, err, boss!

Let’s see if you publish this?

Craig, I am not fixated on nuclear. I am fixated on defense and stewardship of planet Earth. That fixation is something that unifies people from every human race and religion. Would you agree with that?

I happen to agree with you about the intensely destructive process of industrial agriculture. Maybe you will even agree with me that it is more the WAY in which the tractor and plough have been ABused that has caused such damaging consequences.
Don’t just blame the tools, you still need a willing operative. So it’s the operating procedure which is at issue right there. In that case industrial agricultural operating procedure.

Man we could argue forever about which is worse, coal or nuclear, tractors or reactors, genetically modified organisms or radioactively modified organisms. They are all part of the same process to neutralize and sterilize Earth. A process which was designed and implemented hundreds of years ago. Arch food-fiddlers Monsanto and eco-bombers Dupont are just 2 of many active components of that same design process.
We are dealing with some major effects of that process right about now, and it’s got us all arguing with each other, just as it was designed to do. Divide and Rule. Look what’s happened here already!

I put to you that the writer George Monbiot is a modern part of that ancient design process. His nuclear turnaround is just a prime example man. It’s a NO-brainer like I said already. Monbiot’s LOVE affair with nuclear power casts major suspicion over anything else that he writes. That is why nuclear is being fixated upon to some degree in this thread.

What I suggest is that we focus on implementing a better design system than the industrial agricultural plan. I think that’s something we’re all working on. Permaculture is such a design system. We need a clear vision of the world we want to realize.

Now, with that in mind, let’s leave conflict aside, and if you would be so courteous as to answer my other questions?

Keith Rimmard

Oh excuse me while I vomit. ‘Keeping it real’? ‘remember the Spirit’? What sort of pseudo religious crap is that.

You guys, who are so hot under the collar and spend so much effort lambasting the editorial standards of this site, appear to have become self-appointed High Priests of a new, all singing, all dancing permaculture religion with all that that implies in terms of hardcore dogma and exclusivity.

You are way too much into yourselves and your achievements and I think that has clouded your objectivity. There is no grace in you, no forgiveness, no sense of being part of the human fraternity. In fact you revel in being separate from the rest of humanity.

OK, you all appear to have been around this field for a long time but if you are examples of what becomes of folk who get too far into permaculture, with all your negativity and nasty outlook about anything that doesn’t sit within your narrow view of things, then that is too much for me. Count me out. I don’t want to risk becoming like you. However, I also don’t believe that you accurately represent, in any positive way, what it means to be a permie.

Man we could argue forever about which is worse, coal or nuclear, tractors or reactors, genetically modified organisms or radioactively modified organisms. They are all part of the same process to neutralize and sterilize Earth. — Keith

That’s the whole point Keith, we could argue forever about which is worse. That’s the whole point! As such, as editor, I measure posts on a post-by-post basis, not based on the author’s other opinions in other areas, as we could, again, argue those things forever. Why is this so hard to understand?

… and if you would be so courteous as to answer my other questions? — Keith

Keith, would you please be so courteous as to take any outstanding questions and put them into a comment in a numbered list? I don’t have the time to read all of your very long comments to try to find them. Thank you.

Anton, I wasn’t discounting peoples’ opinions because they don’t use their real names. I was saying that if people don’t use their real names, they are more willing to wriggle around in their arguments and waste my time by not conceding anything in the discussion when they should – because they don’t have to stand by their word, as I do since my name is on my comments.

Anton, you are going way off topic. You don’t need to convince me that nuclear is bad. You’re talking about tractors and nuclear, and that the damage done by tractors is reversible, etc. etc. This angle started because Harry wrote that Monbiot was supporting nuclear, not ‘only’ a tractor. I was making the point, from an editor’s viewpoint, that it’s not so simple, and that, in point of fact, it can actually be argued that tractors are worse than nuclear in regards to the damage they’ve done. Yes, it can be reversible (theoretically at least, as tipping points may soon make reversing climate change impossible, if we have not already passed those tipping points…). Yes, all the tractors in the world could be used for earth repair work, instead of destroying soils, but they are not, are they – and at the present rate they won’t be anytime soon. Quit with the hypotheticals and deal with reality, and deal with the topic at hand, which is by what criteria do you allow a post to go up, or not.

Again, I’m wholly against nuclear. Let’s quit talking about this as if I’m pro-nuclear. You don’t need to continue a discussion about which is worse.

You’re telling people here to “connect the dots”? That’s a slap in the face to readers who are already doing just that, who are passionate about doing that, and who are persevering despite living in a world that you yourself have acknowledged is often hostile to permaculture. — Anton

Anton – please read my comments, and their meaning. You’re taking the whole ‘dot’ thing out of context…. I wrote to Harry “It’d be great if you could think a little (join the dots) before you post comments”. Why did I say that? Because Harry brought up the Zaytuna tractor which is out of context with the whole tractor/plough combo argument I had been sharing. When I make a comment, do I have to dot every single i and cross every single t to ensure I’ve covered every base? For practical reasons (time taken to comment) I must assume that people understand what I’m trying to say – so I assumed that Harry understood that tractors and ploughs do the damage I described above by turning, churning the soil and removing its protective skin, encouraging/ensuring only monocrops are grown, etc. By then commenting about a tractor that does none of those things in the way he did, Harry has failed to ‘connect the dots before he posted that comment’. In failing to do this, he’s wasting his, your and my time. I’m just asking people to think before they comment. His comment served no purpose in the context of this discussion.

Your next comment about promoting people – I’m not promoting people, I’m promoting permaculture, and if someone gets excited about permaculture and starts writing about it, I’ll put it up. And I’ll likewise put up articles that stimulate thought on how to reinvent this world. I will not and can not judge authors because of other beliefs they may have, let alone their motivations (who can know people’s motivations?). People are subject to change, and, again, if I must judge people, instead of only their articles, by absolutely everything they think and believe, then I would publish no articles at all. People here even go so far as to say Monbiot is taking money from the nuclear industry. These are wholly unethical statements when you have absolutely no evidence. Where is the people care in that? Stick to facts and don’t make such statements. Without facts, this is just pure gossip.

Again, do you see any pro-nuclear articles on this site? You don’t, and you won’t.

Thanks Bernie – that’s the thing, people are setting a rigid framework that people must fit within, and then aggressively trying to force that dogmatic approach on me and this site. It is arbitrary and it really is like religious zeal.

Yes, thank Geoff. Guys, we’ve run several posts on keyline design and also promote Darren Doherty’s keyline design courses. Oh boy, how can we do that? We’re promoting a system whose hardware is sold by a staunch nuclear advocate (Yeomans). Indeed, because of us people will be buying more of his equipment!! As such, we’re actually helping to finance the spread of nuclear propaganda, aren’t we?

Can’t you guys understand this? Again, if I were to judge articles by the people who send them in, instead of by the articles themselves, then I’m putting myself up as a pope. Unless I just shut the website down, where does this end? You’ll all have to confess your permaculture sins to me and I’ll have to study your lives and then only publish articles by those who fit my subjective view of what a perfect permaculturist should look like.

Given the reactions, I wonder if people even understand what it means to ‘vote with your feet’. It simply means if you don’t like it, you can walk off. You don’t need to read this site, or waste my and other readers’ time. I will continue to put articles up on an article by article basis. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to read them.

Hi Craig, I have already offered my thanks to you on several occasions with regards to your non-censorship of our views, which are obviously winding you up. However at the end of the day, you are the one with the admin and super mod rights for this site and you are the one who could potentially cut us off at any time, leaving your own last comment as the last word, that is your choice. However if you were to do that, everyone would know wouldn’t they?

No-one is forcing you to continue defending an indefensible point of view, again that is your choice, you could just drop it and as I previously suggested, leave us to fizzle out without you.

I have to tell you that I have found your attitude increasingly condescending from the outset, sometimes it has seemed from your tone that you are attempting to berate a misinformed teenager rather than dealing with well informed peers, some of whom, no doubt, are far more experienced and knowledgeable in regards to permaculture systems than yourself.

Over and over you’ve laboured with certain points attempting to convince us of whole hordes of information, which most of us already know and accept as given, whilst washing over some very relevant information in this rather interesting debate. Clearly we don’t, as you’ve suggested, you do, think this conversation is a waste of time, in fact many of us seem to share a deep and rational mistrust of Monbiot due to his “I Love Nuclear” views.

Really who do you think you are talking to, a bunch of idiots? Right to the bitter end you side with your big player friend from the mainstream media, over genuine fellow permaculture practitioners, do you realise how disturbing that is for us , considering your position?

Geoff, where did you find that link? Hahaha, absolutely hilarious, surely you actually posted it for a laugh right? Firstly the site itself, so resembles one of the Internet marketing ‘get rich quick’ sites, as not to be funny! Suffering from doubt? Here’s another one with a different URL that looks just like it; https://www.yeomansplow.com.au The alarm bells often ring when you find multiple copies of a website with different URLs, marketing scam, marketing scam!

So lets take a look at who we’ve got shall we?

Yeomans Plow Co Pty Limited is a private company categorized under Farm Equipment Manufacturers and located in Arundel, QLD, Australia.

As for PA Yeomans; Percival Alfred Yeomans (1904 – 1984) was an Australian inventor known for the Keyline system for the development of land and increasing the fertility of that land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._A._Yeomans

Where exactly does PA Yeomans , of keyline fame say he was pro-nuclear?

It would seem the person pushing the pro-nuclear stance, lets all use bio-diesal instead line is actually Allen Yeomans, here’s some of Allen’s wisdom;

Nuclear energy power stations lead to nuclear weapons. Never happened. It’s always the other way round.

Plutonium is the most dangerous substance known to man. Absolutely stupid. Radiation from plutonium won’t go through a toilet tissue. Botox is about 5,000 times more poisonous than plutonium.

Plutonium is around about as poisonous as lead. It’s okay for sinkers when fishing but don’t eat it.

Waste disposal is a huge problem. Nuts. All the world’s even slightly dangerous nuclear waste wouldn’t fill the Titanic, wouldn’t fill the Great Pyramid of Giza.

Chernobyl killed thousands. Rubbish. It was 48. Every day in our world, more people die from coal mining than ever did at Chernobyl.

To quote the words of an earlier comment; “it’s so easy to tell lies on the Internet.”

Thankfully it wasn’t Allen Yeomans who conceived the Keyline system but it was in fact PA Yeomans, so you don’t have to worry about not posting his articles and writings, Allen on the other hand would be worth avoiding I reckon.

So what are we to think? Scam sites from Geoff and articles from pro-nuclear mainstream journalists from Craig, head for the hills people!

Hi Pete

How much can one learn about Permaculture without practising it anyway? certainly not enough to write a [good, fair, accurate, unbiased, useful] book about it. – Pete

A few more posts to read if you missed them.

https://www.monbiot.com/2008/04/07/a-cunning-plot/

https://www.monbiot.com/2005/10/01/growing-my-own/

https://www.monbiot.com/2008/09/02/strange-fruit/

I’m not going to repeat my questions Craig. Why waste time and space in such a way? If you don’t have the inclination to read them then let it be. It would be doing twice the work for a very unlikely yield. Not very permaculture hey man. Minimal effort, maximum yield you know how it goes.

Word up Anton! I feel you brother. Thankyou and Respect to you for voicing your heart.

Bernie you need to loosen up man. Or yeah sure, why not? just GO vomit if it makes you feel better.
Yes, EVEN permaculture people get real pissed with each other sometimes and argue about this and that. We don’t suddenly all hate each other. The blows are NOT fatal. You have not just stepped out of your office and onto the “retiring with fluff” channel. This is the REAL world Bernie, where serious shit goes down. Shit gets rough sometimes. Man up.

Craig you will make an outstanding politician some day is my guess. You certainly are skipping nicely along the stepping stones thus far. You see the way you patronize, sidestep, and regurgitate, replacing direct questions with your own pre-packaged pattern responses. Answering your OWN questions instead of those put to you by your co-operative RESEARCHERS. Just like a politician. Next stop right? I’ll even put another 50 on it to go with my wager on Monbiot’s book.
In fact, let’s have a go on which happens first. You’ve probably been earmarked already. It’s a mighty fine audition right here!

What I’ve garnered from reading through this thread is that you’re way OFF beat man. Your intellect is engaged with this planet, but your heart is not. I pray you bring the 2 together some day, hopefully before you hit the political stage.
It’s not even the Monbiot thing right now, nor the nuclear and tractor thing, or even the Bush thing. Oh man you got some classics in this thread right here! No, it’s the WAY you handle FEEDBACK.
We’re all learning man. That’s one reason I visit this site. All I ask from you is a little humility and compassion when communicating with all the fine fiery friendly folk that are out here in the wild and wonderful world. Your readers are for the most part actively engaged in permacultural life, so you can put your soapbox away (it’ll double as a nice ballot box one day). Just relax man, we’re all trying to learn and figure stuff out here, people just have different ways of pushing and pulling each other is all.

As editor you ARE in a JUDGEMENT role. You must decide. So thankyou for sharing with us the mechanics of your own editorial process. That’s how YOU decide. On an article-by-article basis. Ok fine that’s your method. You can take it further than that though if you choose to. You can delve deeper, explore some of the branches and roots. It’s permaculture man, ethics first. The more you discover about permaculture, the more I think you will find that it is just as much about relationships as it is about soil biology. Connections. You know about connecting dots, you mention it quite often. You’ve managed to observe countless times just how frequently too few people FAIL to connect the dots that draw YOUR picture.

I think some people, like Bernie right here, are confusing dogma with ethics. There is no religious zeal here. It IS a question of ethics, such are the pillars of permaculture design. When passing editorial judgement over one article or another, it is your duty not just to consider the content of that particular article, but to make a broader ethical judgement aswell. That includes the overall impact that you estimate the article will have. This is permaculture, you are an editor but you are still a designer. So is the act of publishing a particular article designed to entertain? to provoke debate? as a practical how-to? What are the potential consequences of your design decision? Which way does it spin the spiral?
Above all consider the ethics because they are the roots. Like a plant, an article itself is just a flower, even a juicy fruit. It is connected to a root system, let’s say a philosophy, a WAY of being in structure and form. Now to make sure that plant is truly healthy and isn’t going to bring disease into the garden you really should check it’s roots at least before you plant it. That is YOUR role. This is PERMACULTURE research HQ remember?

In summary, there are 2 major questionable issues right here.
1 is your ethical judgement with regards to the work of George Monbiot.
2 is your stubborn deflection of good honest heartfelt feedback.

Both of these are important permaculture issues.

PRI is a big boat man. We don’t want a mutiny, we’re just here to make sure you keep your eyes on the wheel and sail true. Many of the crew are quiet. A few, like Bernie, are feeling sick. I’m just one of the noisy ones yelling at you because you’re steering a bit close to those rocks right there and I’m not sure that you’ve spotted them such is your fixation on Land AHOY! Craig man don’t risk drowning your crew.

Keith Rimmard

Harry,
Anyone would have to agree with you about it being Allan Yeomans who pushes a pro-nuclear stance but there is nothing in Geoff’s post that would contradict that fact. He was talking about being accepting of the Yeoman’s plough as a good thing, not who was actually pushing these contentious ideas. This is just another example of the way that you twist things around (obviously without putting much thought into the process) to try to make it appear that you and your amigos are the only ones who know what you are talking about. Anyone with an analytical mind or who is not blinkered into pursuing one particular line of argument can surely see through that kind of deception.

Not that we, or I (I should just speak for myself), disagree with your views on the nuclear issue. I made it clear in my first post in this stream (comment 1) that I am not in favour of nuclear. I think that most permaculture people would agree with that.

Where we (sorry, I) do disagree with you, and will push back just as strongly as you are pushing your viewpoint, is that these people, George Monbiot, Allan Yeomans and anyone else that you care to bring up, have a perfect right to their own views, many of which would be accepted by most permaculturists and that it is not ethical to exclude their contributions to world debate on very important issues just because they hold one or two ideas that don’t fit in with our own.

The point that you all are dogmatically making (and Keith, it is dogma, nothing to do with ethics) is that permaculture discussion should be confined (censored) to include only ideas from people who perfectly fit the mould. A mould of your own defining. How boring, how narrow-minded, how exclusivist, how uncaring, how inhuman do you want us to be. Permaculture should be open to all people and have a scope that is broad enough to encompass open discussion of all ideas. I believe that is the kind of openness that Craig brings to control of the content of this site.

After all, he has put up with your one-sided views, your antagonistic attitude, deceit and thinly veiled insults for long enough in this forum without too much complaint.

Spot the difference :>)

https://www.yeomansconcepts.com.au/

https://www.yeomansplow.com.au/

https://www.makeyourownchickencoop.com

https://makeyourownchickencoop.net/

PS – Should humour be allowed in serious permaculture debate? Some of the comments are hysterical!

Well known fact Harry about Yeomans but not very funny just the way he sees it, but the real point here is that nobody is perfect and we at PRI at least have a good intention to help the world as best we can and the real results are proven on the ground.
Permaculture is strengthened by its interconnected diversity, and you can never it seems please all the people all of the time.
If I did not care about you all I would not bother typing this reply.

Craig the research i was referring to (quite clearly so i think when taken in context) was of course in relation to the origin of nuclear power. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear enough, my bad, I’ll try to connect dots better next time.

I admitted that on reading this article above it was the first I’d read of George Monbiot. I wrote something because I found the thread such an enthralling read and I wanted to contribute a comment, on an article-by-article basis. I’m sorry shouldn’t I have? Is that bad readership?
It really doesn’t sound like my feedback is very welcome by you here. And yet I’m here because of you. You manifested my presence here. I am a mirror to you as you are to me.
Hey man all I did was give my FIRST impression of Monbiot right there and you know that. Why are you trying to twist it? To make me look foolish? Just like a politician. Same tactics. Same design approach.
My first impression from reading that one article was that the writer lacked positive creative attitute.
In direct response to his article and the ensuing thread, I offered my thoughts on FEEDBACK and your PATTERN of dealing with it.
I then read ALOT more Monbiot. I came back with my opinion on the writer having done that research.

Is that really the depth of debate we can have with you right here oh VOICE of permaculture?
Your editorial process is robotic and heartless. Computer says yes, computer says no.
Oh you DO have time man, you have LOTS of time.
Time enough to spend picking through posts, seeking a hair to split, just one little one will do, pluck it and waggle it about so obsessively that pretty soon “oh sorry people I appear to have run out of time, sorry no time to answer all of your questions. Anyway, What too few people realize is .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. et cetera ad infinitum”.
Man you’ve had that approach since your Celsias days. Time for a change?

Once again you swat my heartfelt opinions and observations with a swish of your political spin wizard’s wand.
Do you have political ambitions Craig Mackintosh?
That’s a straight up question, you can answer yes or no.

People have commented how much they enjoy Monbiot’s insights on other articles right? Maybe so, but those articles were written BEFORE the author turned his coat inside out and declared his LOVE for nuclear. Where are they now? Not here defending Monbiot. Except for Bernie who LOVES George Monbiot, or at least the way he waggles it.
Why has George Monbiot himself stayed out of this? I know he reads and occasionally leaves comments on PRI. Perhaps he hasn’t spotted this thread yet.

If Geoff’s link to that Yeomans site is an accurate indicator of your global outlook, then I suppose it should come as no surprise to me that you jump on anyone disregarding nuclear as being necessarily pro-oil or coal or whatever. Ooh the big bad oil companies. Yeah well guess what? They’re exactly the SAME people as the nuclear fuel companies. With the SAME design approach. Muppet Show.

It even looks to me like you are preparing the ground for a permaculture compromise on nuclear already.
Can you Craig or Geoff assure me that it’s never going to happen right here?
After reading all this I have a feeling that in the not too distant future PRI is going to come out in support of nuclear power in some form or other. Just a hunch. Hey there’s another 50.

Are you really against using nuclear power Craig?
You can robotically drag and drop more links right here in place of a genuine heartfelt human response if you’re too busy.
But things can change right? Your friend Monbiot changed, so why not you too?
Is it an unshakeable FEELING against nuclear that you have?
Or is it an INTELLECTUAL opinion subject to change in light of further scientific information?

Craig maybe you really SHOULD switch OFF. You talk the talk, now walk it yourself why don’t you?. Shut down your nuclear-powered media robot. Or do you really FEEL in your HEART that the benefits of the way you choose to use that nuclear power outweigh the harm caused by increased demand for nuclear power coming from your workstation?

I think that’s why you don’t want to look at the whole nuclear picture. It’s ugly. Hey man I really AM with you on industrial agriculture. No doubt. I’m just trying to get you to see that there’s MORE than just that. I’m NOT saying use coal or whatever, I’m saying switch OFF. You turn me right off man.

You have already answered just about all of my questions in passing with the comments you DO make and by that which you choose to IGNORE.

Political greenwash careerist at the helm of a once much admired permaculture vessel is all i see right now. You don’t fool me buddy, and I’m not the only one, just a vocal one.
Maybe I shouldn’t say such awful things, but it is what I FEEL in my heart right about now, thanks to you Mr Permaculture research expert. I came here because I’m a reader and a learner. I’m not claiming to be an expert at anything. I’m just a human being.

Bill Mollison got me into permaculture, I have always been a defender of Gaia. Permaculture is a good tool for defense and care of life on Earth. But now i see how permaculture is being contorted by the media and used for promotion of individuals and political wagging.
You are beginning to attract the attention of the big fish, you know those same sort of guys who used to make dynamite (still no word on Dupont man?). Like i said before but which you chose to ignore, those fish are going to use our ENERGY (and I don’t mean the “all effective energy has side-effects” type of energy that Monbiot talks about) to destroy us. This vessel is headed for the rocks, and the sharks are going to pick up the pieces they want and leave the rest to sink, unless we pull ourselves TOGETHER and get REAL.

I’ve got a possible SOLUTION for you right here. How about get George Monbiot to write an article specifically for this site detailing the relationship as he sees it between his 2 new loves permaculture and nucleaculture?
Craig’s probably given up reading this already, another one of my lengthy responses (sorry folks), so George I’m calling you out. Would you do that? I think it would help.

I can see why permaculture interests political people.
These people have ambition, but you also need a plan.
You need policies. A change people can believe in.
Permaculture provides quite a list of useful policies doesn’t it? Especially when appropriated OUT of ethical context on a 1-by-1 basis.
Are we not ALL as permaculturists asking ourselves “is this permaculture?” when we make a design decision?
When I ask that of myself I’m considering the ethics. Is what I’m about to do in line with the ethics of permaculture?
I put it to you that an editorial decision on a permaculture site is also a permaculture design decision.
Would you agree? Real easy, yes or no.

Again, it is not dogma Bernie, it is not religious zeal (why do people keep bringing up religious zeal? Is PRI is a religious institution?).
There IS a code of ethical conduct. I can still DO anything I want even if it’s not in line with the ethics, but I can’t honestly call it PERMACULTURE.
I personally LOVE that about permaculture. That beyond whatever you choose to DO, there is a fundamental code of HONOR. By being loose with that code you dishonor your true MOTHER and ALL Her generations.
It does not surprise me that politicians do not honor that code. After all, they are politicians, not permaculturists.

Keith Rimmard

Now now guys, surely we can find some compromise here, this tit for tat groove that we’re caught in is getting us nowhere and nowhere fast. Craig you’re as guilty of that as Keith.

Support of Monbiot does not withstand any real scrutiny, as has been evidenced over and over in this thread. Arguments in defence of pro-nuclear people such as George Monbiot and Allen Yeomans, have consistently been dismantled in the process of this debate and on every occasion that has happened, defence tactics have been cleverly switched. Keith is right about one thing, Craig sure would make a good politician, let’s hope it never happens eh!

I thought it best that I should own up to something, in the past I was pro-Monbiot and have previously read many of his articles that have been linked in this discussion, I perhaps should have mentioned it before, to have saved the trouble of re-posting old news, unlike Keith, I’ve been a keen follower of Monbiot’s writing for a number of years.

I’ve decided to come clean now and share my pain, shame, disappointment and disgust with you all. There really is nothing more saddening than betrayal from someone who was once a figure of hope and change, someone we once trusted who becomes a turncoat. The hardest part, for me at least, is the personal shame involved in having previously heralded the words of this person as wisdom, as a voice of the people. I think it’s because we’re all so desperate and then suddenly there’s a person in the mainstream media, saying what we say, thinking like us, it’s such a relief, finally people are waking up, there’s a chance.

First staunch anti-nuclear, then nuclear neutral, then pro-nuclear, what a great tactic to create even more confusion, division and doubt amongst genuine earth carers like us. Craig you’ve said over and again nurture don’t divide while refusing to see that it’s not the likes of you, me or any other posters here who are creating division, it’s Monbiot. In fact he’s so successful at dividing us, he doesn’t even need to bother joining the conversation, we do all of the hard work for him.

Being what I would consider reasonably well informed with regards to the nuclear industry, when I first came across the Monbiot/Caldicott pro/anti–nuclear debate, I was dumbfounded, how could it be, our champion had changed sides, Monbiot the sole tabloid voice for sense has gone radioactive? Craig’s view was that he heard nothing but logical reasoning from George. How can one honestly claim to be anti-nuclear whilst finding nothing but logical reasoning from someone else’s pro-nuclear arguments?

When I first found out about Monbiot’s love of nuclear, it made me feel sick to the stomach; duped, stooged, stitched up, blagged, taken for a ride, conned, cheated, hoodwinked, it really is the most horrible thing. It’s like the bloke who used to be a good mate, who turned out to be in bed with your wife, some acts and affiliations must one day be accounted for, the auditors are on their way folks.

There have been numerous false dilemmas offered up here as valid points; if not nuclear then it must be coal, if no Monbiot then no Yeomans, if no Monbiot then no-one else either, for we cannot know the mind of another. It is true we can never know for sure if a person is really ethical or not, but if their thoughts, actions and musings reflect sound ethics and people aren’t yelling at you otherwise, it’s logical reasoning to take it on merit.

So what’s it to be, compromise, cooperation and solutions or more turning away?

On the turning away
From the pale and downtrodden
And the words they say
Which we won’t understand
“Don’t accept that what’s happening
Is just a case of others’ suffering
Or you’ll find that you’re joining in
The turning away”
It’s a sin that somehow
Light is changing to shadow
And casting it’s shroud
Over all we have known
Unaware how the ranks have grown
Driven on by a heart of stone
We could find that we’re all alone
In the dream of the proud
On the wings of the night
As the daytime is stirring
Where the speechless unite
In a silent accord
Using words you will find are strange
And mesmerised as they light the flame
Feel the new wind of change
On the wings of the night
No more turning away
From the weak and the weary
No more turning away
From the coldness inside
Just a world that we all must share
It’s not enough just to stand and stare
Is it only a dream that there’ll be
No more turning away?

This will be brief, no rambling this time.

“You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.”
George Monbiot
guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 March 2011 19.43 GMT

Not 2 years ago, just over 3 MONTHS ago. I know that’s a long time in politics but it’s really only 3 full moons.

That aside, I apologise for insulting you Craig.
And I AM relieved to hear you say there will be no pro-nuclear on this site.
As for my rambling, well I totally take your point, maybe when you get to my age your mind may ramble a little from time to time also.
I blow off a little steam once in a while when something gets me pissed. Hopefully nobody gets hurt.
Respect to you also for maintaining such lively uncensored flow on the comment threads. Yes that’s right, I am praising your editorial process right there Craig!
Ok so maybe you could just answer this one question :
Is an editorial decision on a permaculture site also a permaculture design decision?

Oh one more thing man, I’d like to say thankyou for bringing Mr George Monbiot to my attention. He’s another one that goes on my special list.

Got some good old Floyd on there hey Harry man. Some peace to calm us all down. Thankyou brother. I had a momentary lapse of reason, but we should never turn away.

Keith Rimmard

Keith, do you not see the irony in being a “wholehearted defender of Gaia”, in the context of this thread?

;)

Thank you for your more measured response Keith.

And sorry for the delay – it was a public holiday here, and I decided to take it for once.

In regards to George becoming pro-nuclear a few months ago, what I had said was that George had switched his nuclear views in 2009. This was when he declared himself ‘nuclear neutral’. For me, if you’re nuclear neutral, you are already pro-nuclear. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

Is an editorial decision a permaculture design decision. Yes.

I agree Caelan, soon enough such discussions as these will fade and/or become far more practical as the basic need to survive becomes the main focus.

Lovelock, Monbiot and Yeomans
知己知彼，百戰不殆。

I agree Keith, I would find it extremely difficult to extend the love to any of them.

I think they are lost causes, not worth the love, but I don’t think it’s fair to berate Craig for trying either.