Daily Permaculture News

Are you a news junkie? Looking for your daily dose of up-to-date news on permaculture? Goggle News started to allow the creation of private news channels recently. These channels are published just like any other Google News channel. To date there are 5 Google news channels on permaculture. This number as well as the number of readers is sure to grow over time. Currently the most popular permaculture channel is this one: Permaculture News Channel.

Simplicity and Buddhist Economics

Once you start reading on Voluntary Simplicity each article keeps pulling you in even further. Following E.F. Schumacher's "Buddhist Economics" article a much more detailed work was published by P.A. Payutto (Ven. Phra Dhammapitaka) entitled "Buddhist Economics - A Middle Way for the Market Place". It was first published in 1981 and an improved version followed in 1984. This book goes a lot deeper into Buddhism and one can argue that it focuses more on Buddhism than on economics. If you don't mind reading a philosophy book that touches on economics (rather than an economics book that touches on ethics) this might be a book for your reading list.

BP, Trust, Transparency

Nowadays it is common knowledge to about everyone that one should not trust to words of a politician, a business man or a car sales man. It is also pretty common knowledge that one should not trust statistics from just any source. What we still have to learn is that we should not trust what we see in the media or photos released by corporations.

In just a single week BP had to admit 3 times that photos released to the public and related to the oil spill catastrophe have been doctored and manipulated. The Washington Post published this article "More doctored BP photos come to light". Similar article from PCWorld.

And if you have been to the movies in the recent years it should also be clear, that one should not trust video footage either. Welcome to the virtual world or the world of Orwell's 1984 where words, images and video can be altered after the fact to suit any political or corporate message desired.

Eliminating National Debt

Very creative and imaginative, or maybe not so, anyway it is just a joke: "U.S. Government Stages Fake Coup To Wipe Out National Debt".

Environmental Damage

According to an unreleased report by the United Nations Environment Programme that took 8 years to produce, the world's 3,000 biggest public companies created $2.2 trillion in environmental damages in 2008 alone! Here are two articles by The Guardian and the American Society of Landscape Architects about this report. The study was conducted by Trucost. A final version will be made public.

It would seem only normal and fair if these large corporations were to pay to undo these damages. If they were to pay these $2.2 trillion in environmental repair, they would still take an incredible $4 trillion home in profits. However, today's politicians are far away from putting regulations in place or enforcing existing laws to hold corporations responsible for their environmental damage. Sad. Even more sad if you consider that the cost of the environmental repair for their pollution would only be a third of their profits.

The report also states that the $2.2 trillion is only a lower boundary of the cost, as it does not take into account long term effects and the cost of toxic waste, the cost of social impact, etc. The final version of the report will include some of these costs.

We clearly live in a world with no appreciation or understanding of the value of nature, which lead to the  creation of two sets of rules: Rules for you and me: You do damage, you will be forced to fix it. Rules for the large corporations: Profit is everything without regard to environmental damage.

Simplicity and Non-Violence

Four quotes from E.F. Schumacher's "Buddhist Economics" 8-page article.

"Simplicity and non-violence are obviously closely related. The optimal pattern of consumption, producing a high degree of human satisfaction by means of a relatively low rate of consumption, allows people to live without great pressure and strain and to fulfill the primary injunction of Buddhist teaching: “Cease to do evil; try to do good.” As physical resources are everywhere limited, people satisfying their needs by means of a modest use of resources are obviously less likely to be at each other’s throats than people depending upon a high rate of use. Equally, people who live in highly self-sufficient local communities are less likely to get involved in large-scale violence than people whose existence depends on world-wide systems of trade."

"Just as the modern economist would admit that a high rate of consumption of transport services between a man’s home and his place of work signifies a misfortune and not a high standard of life, so the Buddhist would hold that to satisfy human wants from faraway sources rather than from sources nearby signifies failure rather than success. The former tends to take statistics showing an increase in the number of ton/miles per head of the population carried by a country’s transport system as proof of economic progress, while to the latter — the Buddhist economist — the same statistics would indicate a highly undesirable deterioration in the pattern of consumption."

"As the world’s resources of non-renewable fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—are exceedingly unevenly distributed over the globe and undoubtedly limited in quantity, it is clear that their exploitation at an ever-increasing rate is an act of violence against nature which must almost inevitably lead to violence between men."

"The Buddhist point of view takes the function of work to be at least threefold: to give man a chance to utilise and develop his faculties; to enable him to overcome his ego-centredness by joining with other people in a common task; and to bring forth the goods and services needed for a becoming existence. Again, the consequences that flow from this view are endless. To organise work in such a manner that it becomes meaningless, boring, stultifying, or nerve-racking for the worker would be little short of criminal; it would indicate a greater concern with goods than with people."

There is no need to add any comments. These words (from 1966) speak for themselves.

Voluntary Simplicity, Yet Again

This theme of Voluntary Simplicity is turning into a trilogy. After "The Value of Voluntary Simplicity" and "Voluntary Simplicity" I am onto "Small is Beautiful" a 300-page book by E.F. Schumacher. It was published in 1973. The author, an economist, takes an economic view on voluntary simplicity. The subtitle reveals a lot about the book: Economics As If People Mattered. His thoughts put people and wellbeing of people in the center, and not economic growth and profits. He recognizes that GNP is an ill measure of the economy. He emphasizing that "the aim ought to be to obtain the maximum amount of well being with the minimum amount of consumption." Under his definition our society today is extremely inefficient and wasteful. Modern industry seems to be inefficient to a degree that surpasses one's ordinary powers of imagination.

He also coined the term Buddhist Economics which is an economic concept founded on ethics and in which people's wellbeing are the essence. The PDF is here.

The E.F. Schumacher Society appropriately has its homepage under www.smallisbeautiful.org.

Voluntary Simplicity, Again

As follow-on to the article "The Value of Voluntary Simplicity" I started reading the 40-page article from 1977 by Duane Elgin entitled Voluntary Simplicity.

According to Duane these 5 values are at the heart of Voluntary Simplicity:

• Material Simplicity
• Human Scale
• Self-Determination
• Ecological Awareness
• Personal Growth

As maximum future growth, in 1977 Duane predicted the following figures for the US.

• Millions of US adults fully embracing Voluntary Simplicity: 5 in 1977, 25 in 1987, 60 in 2000.
• Millions of US adults partially embracing Voluntary Simplicity: 10 in 1977, 35 in 1987, 60 in 2000.

I have no statistical data for current years, but it seems that the maximum growth has not been reached. He explains that these maximum projected figures can only be reached if both pull and push forces are at work. Here, it seems that while pull force can be seen throughout the society, few pull forces have been created by the economy, media, corporate or political leaders. In other words, individuals seem to continue to have an inner desire for voluntary simplicity, but corporations and political parties are hell-bound on growth and material consumption.

I concur that developed nations seem to be in a period of social drift. They appear to be losing both momentum and a sense of direction. People seem to be waiting for some leader or chain of events to make clear the nature of an alternative social vision.

Duane foresees 4 principal social evolutions (again, remember he did this in 1977) for the US:

1. technological salvation
2. descent into social chaos
3. benign authoritarianism
4. humanistic transformation

In your opinion, which one most closely matches current reality 33 years later? I would say that the mainstream has evolved along 1 and 3. We live in a near-authoritarian state and pin our hopes on technology to resolve our problems. Example: Laws prevent us from filming and approaching the BP oil catastrophe while at the same time we hope that through technology we can clean up the immeasurable mess. Voluntary simplicity could play a part in the humanistic transformation of choice 4, but only a small minority of individuals have gone that path.

Duane points out that voluntary simplicity not only plays a role in 4, but also in options 1, 2 and 3. Regarding 1, voluntary simplicity can positively amplify technological solutions by tackling the inherent resource scarcity issues. Regarding 2, social unrest and wars can more easily be defused in a society with voluntary simplicity in place. Chaos is likely to stem from imbalances of rich and poor and wars over resources. Voluntary simplicity helps in reducing both risks or the size of the conflicts. Regarding 3, voluntary simplicity with one of its essences being in self-determination can be counterbalancing grass-roots force to compete with authoritarianism and to help keep it in check. Hence, Duane argues that voluntary simplicity will be a positive and desired movement in all sorts of social evolutions (with the 4 mentioned possibilities just being examples).

What kind of society would emerge if voluntary simplicity were to become the predominant way of life? On page 28 he compares the two world views.

Emphasis in Industrial World View	Emphasis in Voluntary Simplicity World View
Value Premises Material growth Man over nature Competitive self-interest Rugged individualism Rationalism	Value Premises Material sufficiency coupled with psycho-spiritual growth People within nature Enlightened self-interest Cooperative individualism Rational and intuitive
Social Characteristics Large, complex living and working environments Growth of material complexity Space-age technology Identity defined by patterns of consumption Centralization of regulation and control at nation/state level Specialized work roles—through division of labor Secular Mass produced, quickly obsolete, standardized products Lifeboat ethic in foreign relations Cultural homogeneity, partial acceptance of diversity High pressure, rat race existence	Social Characteristics Smaller, less complex living and working environments Reduction of material complexity Appropriate technology Identity found through inner and interpersonal discovery Greater local self-determination coupled with emerging global institutions More integrated work roles (e.g., team assembly, multiple roles) Balance of secular and spiritual Hand crafted, durable, unique products Spaceship earth ethic Cultural heterogeneity, eager acceptance of diversity Laid back, relaxed existence

In which world would you rather live?

Voluntary Simplicity

I have blogged about Voluntary Simplicity before. Today I realized that the term "Voluntary Simplicity" dates back to 1936 when it was coined by Richard Gregg in his article "The Value of Voluntary Simplicity". When I saw that the article is only 16 pages long I started reading. Considering it was written in 1936 it is far ahead of its times.

The most impressive thoughts of the article follow. The quotes are adapted liberally.

• In Volume III of Arnold J. Toynbee's great Study of History he discusses the growth of civilizations. For some sixty pages he considers what constitutes growth of civilization, including in that term growth in wisdom as well as in stature. With immense learning he traces the developments of many civilizations—Egyptian, Sumeric, Minoan, Hellenic, Syriac, Indic, Iranian, Chinese, Babylonic, Mayan, Japanese, etc. After spreading out the evidence, he comes to the conclusion that real growth of a civilization does not consist of increasing command over the physical environment, nor of increasing command over the human environment (i.e., over other nations or civilizations), but that it lies in what he calls "etherealization": a development of intangible relationships. He points out that this process involves both a simplification of the apparatus of life and also a transfer of interest and energy from material things to a higher sphere. He follows Bergson in equating complexity with Matter and simplicity with Life.
• The great advances in science and technology have not solved the moral problems of civilization.
• ... science, technology, and money are on the quantitative rather than the qualitative side of life. The essence of man's social life lies in qualitative rather than quantitative relationships.
• There can be beauty in complexity but complexity is not the essence of beauty.
• I commented to Mahatma Gandhi that it was easy for me to give up most things but that I had a greedy mind and wanted to keep my many books. He said, “Then don’t give them up. As long as you derive inner help and comfort from anything, you should keep it. If you were to give it up in a mood of self-sacrifice or out of a stern sense of duty, you would continue to want it back, and that unsatisfied want would make trouble for you. Only give up a thing when you want some other condition so much that the thing no longer has any attraction for you, or when it seems to interfere with that which is more greatly desired.”
• Simplicity can also be applied to our eating habits. Knowledge will help us select food wisely so that we may be healthy while maintaining simplicity.
• We need examples of people who, leaving to Heaven to decide whether they are to rise in the world, decide for themselves that they will be happy in it, and have resolved to seek—not greater wealth, but simpler pleasure, not higher fortune, but deeper felicity; making the first of possessions, self-possession.

He also argues that world is crumbling because morality is the base for everything. We have overdeveloped our technology and finance but we have not nurtured our morality. As a result our world is like a massive engine but it is supported only by two flimsy legs of morality. We are vastly out of balance and we should focus and strengthen our morality before we do anything else to once again create a sound foundation.

His article weighs pros and cons of individual voluntary simplicity, and then applies it at the level of a nation viewing nations just like a conscious being consisting of many individuals. He finds most arguments against simplicity as flawed and finds real benefits of simplicity at all levels, the individual as well as the national. In his opinion, a simple nation will be more satisfied and more moral nation.

He summarizes that voluntary simplicity is not enough. He says, In addition to the changes in consumption which widespread simplicity would bring about, it will be necessary also to develop great changes in the present modes of production. Decentralization of production would be one of these changes. The social effects of that would be far-reaching and profound. Many other great changes will be necessary, including a different control of large-scale production and of land, and changes in distribution and in money as an instrument and as a symbol.

Later, Duane Elgin built upon the thoughts of Richard Gregg. Duane wrote articles and several books on Voluntary Simplicity. Here is his home page, also the home of Voluntary Simplicity. A 40 page article from 1977 is entitled Voluntary Simplicity. This article looks at the goals and values of people embracing voluntary simplicity. It discusses who the people are, their living patterns, and plausible trends out to the year 2000. The paper then discusses the social and business implications of voluntary simplicity. It sounds promising. I will make it reading material for another day.

Reducing Oil Consumption

Greenpeace just published this simple list of how everyday people can reduce oil consumption in their every day lives.

1. Carpool, cycle or use public transport to go to work.
2. Choose when possible products packaged without plastic and recycle or re-use containers.
3. Buy organic fruits and vegetables (fertilisers and pesticides are based on oil more often than not).
4. Buy beauty products (shampoo, soap, make-up) based on natural ingredients, not oil.
5. Choose when possible locally produced products (less transport involved).
6. Buy clothes made out of organic cotton or hemp - not from oil derivatives.
7. Use non-disposable items in picnics and summer festivals.
8. Quit bottled water.
9. Fly less.
10. Demand that your government encourage renewable energy instead of oil.

Welfare versus Charity

We as a society don't want anyone to go hungry. It is a shame that there are homeless without a roof over their head. Looking at all members of society combined, we have enough resources (material goods, food, knowledge, mental wit, time and labor) to provide all with the privilege of food, shelter and healthcare. Nobody will doubt that it is a worthy and ethical aspiration to provide these privileges to all. Yet, how do we do it?

Through welfare or through charity? Through statism or through private empathy? Or a mix thereof? Here is an article entitled "Replacing Welfare" arguing against statist welfare. Here is an article with similar arguments in Spanish entitled "What would happen to the poor?".

Several mixed modes come to my mind: Mixed mode 1: How about an environment with alternatives? In short, competing solutions. Have statist welfare coexist with private charity and let the poor chose one or the other. According to the published articles private charity promises a higher probability for the poor to leave poverty, find a job and be treated in a dignified manner. Statist welfare is wasteful with some 70% of the money not going to the poor but to the apparatus (paper shufflers and paper work). If offered the choice between statist welfare or private charity, which poor would chose the possibly lower but more or less guaranteed welfare check? Which poor would chose the probably better and more individualized service of the private charity with the drawback of it being less guaranteed?

Mixed mode 2: How about a set-up where the state/government hands over all welfare money to private non-profit charity organizations? This would eliminate the bureaucracy (or shall I spell it bureaucrazy?), the overhead, and the government waste. It would probably create or elevate other risks and temptations of misuse of funding, etc. However, it would be an attempt to get the best of both sides: efficient private charity services to the poor and guaranteed funding of these private organizations.

So, besides the pure modes exist some mixed modes. One first articles asks in the summary: "If you had $10,000 available that you wanted to use to help the poor, would you give it to the government to help fund welfare or would you donate it to the private charity of your choice?" I would give some to the homeless I see every day in the park, i.e. act locally. The rest I would distribute over a handful of private charities to reduce risk.

There are 2 sides to the coin of poverty. What are we as the donors willing to do? Which solution would the donors prefer? For the other side of the coin, I would also raise the question: What do the poor want? Which solution would the poor chose? Would the poor chose the right to an arguably fair (equal to all, but customized/individualized to none) system of state-guaranteed low welfare or the privilege of individualized assistance of well-meaning private beings with a human touch driven by empathy without any guarantees and without any waste?

Made in China

An artist designed a dollar note featuring Mao Zedong on it and a "Made in China" label as part of an eye catching advertising campaign for the news magazine Trend. The billboard ad asks "Is this the future?" and adds "The Trend magazine predicts what is to come". Here is the Dollar note made in China. Thought provoking! As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Globalisierungslied

The lyrics of this song are astonishing. They hit the nail right on the head. I can't image a better and shorter explanation of the problems surrounding and created by globalization. Unfortunately the song and its lyrics are in German. The musicians are Christoph and Lollo, a Viennese singer-songerwriter duet. If you understand some German listen to this: Globalisierungslied.

The song starts with these lines:
In our complicated world there are jobs,
which nearly nobody can understand.
For example, there are men whose main purpose
is to invest the billions of their clients
for five minutes, then take the money back
to turn one percent of profit.
This make millions of people jobless,
and poor and sick and dead,
has no purpose for mankind,
and rots the world's economy.
Only a few rich can profit
in a tax exempted way,
They turn richer ....

The Windowfarms Project

The ways and forms of gardening and farming are abundant. Vertical gardening (link, link, link, link, link, video, video), 3-D barrel gardening (video), old-tire gardening (video, video), roof-top gardening (link, link), square-foot gardening (link, link, link, book), indoor gardening (link, link), ... and now window gardening. Conceptually, window farming is not new, it is just a specific application of vertical farming. It uses indoor gardening technology, combines it with vertical gardening ideas and geographically moves it to the window to take advantage of sun light. The way of communicating and spreading the idea of window farming is open source at its best. It is a grass root movement, and instead of just spreading the idea, people got together, tried various designs, and put together a design kit of the best known reliable solution. In other words, they went one step up in the food chain (pun intended). The second step up is that the the idea was taken commercial and pre-packaged parts kits are now on sale for do-it-yourself home assembly. It has received a lot of public exposure lately. It was on national public radio. The key idea is outlined in this brief video. The official Windowfarms Project site is less than 1 year old, but already people around the globe are imitating, copying and reusing the idea, applying it and and feeding improvements back. A tiny window farming community and ecosystem has been created. People blog about it. And the easiest way of telling that it is becoming a success is that the term "Windowfarms" has now been trademarked.

Urine

Urine was used by the Romans as laundry detergent and in the tanning process. Roman emperors had a urine tax. Apart from that urine can be an excellent fertilizer. I found urine as fertilizer fascinating. Simple, effective, reducing waste, keeping rivers and oceans nutrient-free, reduced flushing of toilet, no transportation cost, freely available, ... What I wondered about were the basic rules of use. This short reading list (Humanure book, Liquid Gold book, article, article, article, article, article, article, article, video, video, data on growth benefits of urine The Nitrogen Fix: The use of Urine in Agriculture Eco Sanitation) helped boiled down the rules of engagement to this summary:

• As a rule of thumb dilute urine with 5 to 15 parts of water for plants in growth.
• As a rule of thumb dilute urine with 30 to 50 parts of water for pot plants.
• Trees or lawns should be able to handle urine in undiluted fashion.
• Don't put it on the leaves of the plants (unless you want to use it as a pesticide on trees), but put it on the soil.
• Don't apply urine during the last 2 weeks before harvest.
• Don't use urine older than 24 hours on your plants, instead put it into the compost.
• Using urine in the compost is safe and beneficial as it increases compost activity and nutrients.
• Don't put it on your skin over prolonged periods to avoid dermatitis.

Bulk Food Storage using Nitrogen

PeakMoment has put together an excellent, dare I say, must-see video on food packaging using food-grade plastic bags and nitrogen for food storage of 3 to 10 years. The video explains the full set-up in detail. A great step towards food preparedness and disaster food storage.