I don’t like permaculture. I can practically hear the gasps of shock. I can almost see the looks of both perplex and anger. How could I not like permaculture? Is that even allowed? Isn’t liking permaculture mandated by some great god of environmentalism?
I never quite liked permaculture. I wanted to like it. I did my best to like permaculture. I read the books. I listened to the groovy talk. I just couldn’t get excited about it. Something about permaculture just rubbed me the wrong way. I decided to puzzle out what it is that I don’t like about permaculture, and that is what this post is about.
Permaculture, for those who don’t know, is a field of study, a set of practices, a way of life, and very nearly a religion that promotes, among other things, perennial polyculture. Many descriptions of permaculture refer to it as sustainable agriculture, which is, to my way of seeing things, a contradiction in terms. In fact, the term permaculture itself means permanent agriculture, which, again, seems like an impossibility to me. There are many other aspects to permaculture beyond just the growing of food. However, growing food is at the foundation of permaculture, and it seems fair to talk about permaculture in those terms.
I ought to first state that I have no problem with perennial polyculture. What I do have a problem with is the attitude with which permaculture goes about growing perennial polyculture. What I have a problem with is the types of relationships that permaculture perpetuates. As far as I’m concerned permaculture does not challenge the fundamentally flawed and dangerous energetics of civilization. Even if permaculture is more harmonious than standard agricultural practices, it seems to me that it leads to the same eventual demise, at least in a spiritual sense.
The relationships of civilization, from what I can see, are relationships of domination. Within the framework of civilization our human relationships are relationships of domination. Even the healthiest of human relationships still has occasional grapples for power. Even our relationships with ourselves are ones in which we seek to control our minds and bodies through prayer, clothing, exercise, meditation, and millions of other practices. Our relationships with other animal species are ones in which we dominate. Just look at zoos, vivisection labs, factory farms, fur farms, dog breeders, work horses, race horses, and every other exhibit of our relationships with other species of animal to see evidence of that. Our relationships with plants are ones in which we dominate. We breed, genetically-modify, plant in rows, clearcut, plant in containers, and decide which are good and which are unwanted. We also seek to dominate rivers and mountains as is evidenced by dams and mountaintop removal mining. Civilization seems to know no limits on its desire to control. The U.S. space program recently announced that they would bomb the surface of the moon for scientific study.
We can see the results of this type of relationships. The results are devastating. The most egregious and horrific results are those that we can see all around us, the fact that our home and our loved ones are being killed. Many rivers no longer reach their deltas. Those that do reach their deltas manage to carry sediment and industrial and agricultural toxins to the oceans, creating dead zones where nothing can live. Fisheries are collapsing world-wide. Two thousand miles of waterways in the Appalachian region no longer even exist because they have been covered over by the rubble from mountaintop mining. African elephants may go extinct within fifteen years. Glaciers are melting at alarming rates. Oil spills are endemic. An area twice the size of Nebraska turns to desert every year. Landfills are leaching toxins into groundwater. I could go on for hours with examples.
The way I see it the way that civilization teaches and requires us to see relationships is completely wrong and not an accurate representation of the truth. Civilization teaches us that the world in which we live is a world in which the inherent qualities are scarcity and competitiveness. Civilization teaches us that we must dominate or be dominated, that our very survival depends on getting for ourselves at the expense of others. But that seems counter to what I observe in reality. When I look at what is actually going on I see a world that is abundant and nurturing. That is not to say that violence and danger don’t exist in the natural world. They do. But civilization seems to exaggerate the claims of violence and danger in order to manipulate people into an incorrect and distorted worldview.
We’re taught to fear the natural world. We’re taught that the only way humans can survive is through subduing the natural world. Unless we dominate, we’re told, we will live lives of terror, constantly battling against those who would kill us. But that seems incorrect to me. Consider the animals that we’re supposed to fear. Wolves, bears, lions, snakes, alligators, and panthers, to name a few. The solution to the fear according to civilization is to kill these animals. But isn’t the fear exaggerated? Will a wolf or a bear attack a human for no reason? I’m not an expert on wolves or bears. However, I’d have to say that it seems very unlikely to me that either would attack humans unprovoked. They might attack if they felt endangered by a human. Or they might attack if extraordinarily hungry. But under average circumstances I’m guessing that a wolf or bear would just as rather have nothing to do with a human. And the fact of the matter is that prior to the advent of civilization humans lived alongside these other animals for hundreds of thousands of years without having to dominate nor be dominated.
If civilized humans and their relationships have managed to bring the entire world to the edge of total collapse in just a few thousand years then it seems to me that we really need to re-examine the way in which civilization has taught us to relate at a very fundamental level. Comparatively, uncivilized humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years while contributing to the health of the world in which they lived. Perhaps we could look to the way in which the uncivilized relate in order to learn a better way to understand ourselves and the world in which we live.
Since I am not indigenous, nor do I have much first-hand knowledge of indigenous human cultural views, I may be mistaken in my understanding of how indigenous human cultures view themselves in relationship with others. However, it is my understanding that many indigenous humans see those they are in relationship with as allies, ancestors, and friends. I have read accounts in which indigenous people of North America talk about plants and animals as their ancestors. I have read accounts of indigenous people from all many different places around the world in which they describe their understanding of the world as being a place that gives and nourishes, and a place that they have a relationship with in which they desire to give and nourish in return.
What bothers me about permaculture is that in my experiences with permaculture and permaculturists there seems to be an unchallenged fundamental way of seeing relationships that is still entirely civilized. We’ve seen what the results are of that way of relationship.
I’ve been very involved with permaculture lately and have to say I’m quite fond of it.
I absolutely agree with you that one of the most dangerous things about civilization is the idea that this world is ours to dominate. However, I don’t agree that permaculture participates in this notion. From what I’ve seen permaculture envisions people in partnership with the rest of the planet, where each element within a system has an intrinsic value of it’s own.
I’m not sure that every person who proclaims themselves a permaculturist completely understands this yet or has completely revamped their life to reflect this. I think it’s a long process and we’re coming from a very disturbed place. I also think that it’s important to realize that every living thing must dominate over something to survive. Trees over the earth, predators over prey, and humans? I think the question is where do we stop. We’ve definitely gone too far, but who’s going to volunteer to live with less?
Milton,
Thank you for the comment. I have to respectfully disagree with the assertion the notion that “every living thing must dominate over something to survive.” Please understand that in no way am I attacking you for holding that belief. I simply disagree, and my disagreement is with the culture in which we live more than it is with you.
First off, I think that the language here says a lot about the attitudes we hold. We are taught to think of “things” instead of beings. What does it feel like if we instead say “every living being must dominate over someone to survive”? To me that is quite different in terms of how it feels.
Secondly, I don’t believe that it is a true statement. My entire point with this blog post is that there is an entirely different way of understanding relationship with others. It’s not a make-believe type of relationship. It’s an actual experience for many, for the indigenous, whether they are human or not. Trees do not seek to control and master anyone, nor do predators seek to control and master their prey. They are in relationship that requires mutual care and respect. They understand what all living beings understand unless they have been trained not to understand this basic truth, which is that survival depends on relationship that is founded in mutual care, respect, nourishment, and communication.
If we seek to control and master anyone then we separate ourselves and deny ourselves the possibility of real relationship. When we do that we cannot hear others expressing to us how we can nourish and care for them as they are nourishing and caring for us.
Permaculture does understand the importance of cycles and giving back. However, from my experience that knowledge is very mechanical. It is not founded in relationship. If it was founded in relationship then it would feel quite different to me, and I might not have a problem with it.
Those are my feelings about the issue. As I said, I’m not trying to make you or anyone else wrong for how you feel. I’m not judging you for liking permaculture. I see permaculture as an improvement over conventional agriculture. At the same time, I feel as though it is flawed because it is not founded in what I believe to be real relationship.
Joey,
I think this is a good conversation to have. I felt moved to respond not just in the defense of permaculture, which I believe is firmly grounded in ethical principals but also from the need to mentally process the idea of “dominance” in my head.
We’re obviously coming from different places but both caught up in a culture that is abusive to living things. It seems that you’re very much having a negative reaction to the idea of dominance while I’m able to accept it as part of my worldview. It’s almost like your hypersensitivity to chemicals has broadened to some of the other trappings of civilization. I have become more and more aware of such things but have not yet passed the threshold where my body violently reacts yet.
The idea of dominance is just that; it is a mental construct which we use to organize and describe the world. It is not a perfect representation of what is happening. I like your alternative characterization of how the world works. Using words like relationship, mutual care, respect, nourishment, and communication are not inaccurate and would beneficially shape our interactions with the rest of the world. I think I will make sure to use them in the future.
I’m curious what your exposure to permaculture has been. There are many, many people who do not understand what permaculture really is. The core of permaculture, it’s ethical basis, is care of the earth, care of people, and a fair share for all beings. If it doesn’t align with those values it isn’t really permaculture.
Milton,
I appreciate the discussion. Thank you for sharing your views on this topic. As you say, we seem to simply see differently on this issue. However, it does sound as though we both feel that the culture in which we live is in opposition to life. I know that a lot of permaculturists are doing good. My point was not to attack permaculturists nor the good that some permaculturists are doing. On this topic my point is simply to share my concerns about the attitudes and viewpoints that I have noticed from permaculture as a field and from some permaculturists. Also, it is an opportunity to share alternative types of relationships.
As I said, I’m far from an expert on permaculture. Also, I do know that not all permaculturists have the same views and attitudes, nor do all permaculturists engage in the same sorts of relationships. I have read many of the standard permaculture texts such as the Bill Mollison books. I have never attended a permaculture workshop. I do know a fair number of permaculturists. That may answer where my information about permaculture is from. I don’t disagree that I’ve noticed the emphasis on care that you’ve mentioned. However, that attitude still seems to place humans (permaculturists) in a role in which they are in control. Again, I’m not attacking permaculture or permaculturists.