Summary: In today's episode I explore the meaning of permaculture. Not just the definition but why the definition probably doesn't really scratch the surface. (http://theselfsufficientgardener.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/permaculture-751102-264x300.jpg) Thought to be the combination of two words. First word being - permanent 1. existing perpetually; everlasting, especially without significant change. 2. intended to exist or function for a long, indefinite period without regard to unforeseeable conditions. * And Culture: a particular form or stage of civilization (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilization), as that of a certain nation or period: Greek culture. * Or Agriculture – the growing of crops for human uses. But I submit that we actually need a new word to describe what permaculture does. * For one – nothing is permanent. * The first definition of culture - reflects something that resists change but permaculture doesn’t resist change it rolls with it. * The second definition – implies that its permanent but may not be permanent if conditions change. Nothing is permanent – books, people, plants, animals even ideas fade in time. Even cultures come and go. The thing about permaculture is that it transcends a specific idea or thought or project. Its purpose is to replicate nature in the best possible outcome to make positive things happen. It doesn’t matter if the culture is on Earth or Pandora or Tattoine or in the twilight zone. It doesn’t matter if the lifeform is trees or giant sandworms. Lets take a look at culture. The form of civilization. To a point this is applicable. We want a civilization that values nature and works not to harm the earth, to help its people and takes only what it needs. But we’ll get to that in a minute. Civilizations come and go though. Agriculture is also not wrong but also not right. Growing useful things is part of permaculture but its only a part. Many people have a bad view of agriculture but growing things is agriculture to a limit. So what’s with the defining and categorization. It probably doesn’t help but its to show people that even permaculture has to rise above its definitions. Its natural forces at work in the nth degree. * Earthcare – any organism that destroys its environment perishes. * Peoplecare – We are as a whole, greedy and selfish and thoughtless. If it doesn’t benefit us we don’t do it. So the system has to benefit people or else what’s the point? * Fairshare- not even distribution and not wealth sharing. Take only what is needed. So what IS permaculture? A process of system design that attempts to replicate nature or utilize it to the purpose of bettering people without hurting the environment and ecosystem. No one can tell you what you are doing is or is not permaculture. Using the ethics as a guide is wise. Using it to judge others is foolish.
