Modern industrial agriculture has one outstanding advantage: productivity. Hundreds of acres of land can be cultivated with the labor of three or four persons.
Permaculture on the other hand doesn’t allow for such productivity. Most people will need to grow their own food to some degree. That’s actually great in the sense that food production becomes increasingly local, produced where it is consumed, in such a way that all nutrients make their way back to the soil in a cycle which has been broken by modern agriculture.
As another commenter pointed out, permaculture can seem unscientific at times. And it’s perfectly fine. We all have different sites, climates, soils and experience, no size fits it all and it’s often difficult in such circumstances to find the best solutions. Some will employ more unconventional ideas, as long as it works for them.
In the end, it will always make a lot more sense than planting a few hundred acres with a genetically engineering crop monoculture that can only survive with a constant supply of pesticides and fertilizer, while depleting the soil.
More reading: https://leanlogic.online/glossary/lean-food/
I’m the one calling it unscientific. I would like to clarify, that I’m only making that statement RE: weird techniques (like electroculture) that have no backing, or, in the case of electroculture, are just flat incorrect.
Another poster in my local perm group was promoting his method of soil homeopathy…a method that inherently does not work in soil systems, as they often require large inputs to change things.
I would also like to point out that while I agree with you re: monoculture = bad, I disagree that GMOs are inherently bad. all of the crops we grow for the most part have had their genetics modified through selective breeding. Wheat came from a rice-grass like species, and was domestic centuries ago. I think what you are opposed to, however, are large inputs of petrochemical like pesticides, and Fertilizers.
Again, fertilizers aren’t inherently bad themselves, but like any soil amendment (including those used in permaculture) need to be used carefully and their application rates calculated based on site specific soil test values. mass application of any amendment is going to place you in a bad situation.
Finally, I want to say I’m not trying to pick your perspective apart, but to point out that there is a LOT to consider in fixing agriculture, and that both systems have their merits. I think the right management of ag systems lies somewhere in the middle of conventional vs perm ag.
The biggest problem with gmos rn is that companies can patent them. But that isn’t really a gmo problem as much as a capitalism problem. What I’m saying is we need pirates for genetics.
That conventional agriculture is especially productive is a myth. It is mostly just the cheapest way producing (that also externalizes a lot of the costs).
Yes, romantic views of Permaculture as mixed agroforestry with mostly human labour are an easy strawman to point out that we “need” conventional agriculture.
But actually, modern greenhouse agriculture incorporates a lot of the ideas of Permaculture while being orders of magnitude more productive than conventional agriculture on open fields.
I meant productivity as output/labor not as output/land. You’re right in saying permacultural production exceeds industrial agriculture in output/land productivity, however it does require more labor.
This is a problem because nowadays a tiny proportion of the population works in agriculture. 200 years ago the vast majority of the population were farmers, and it couldn’t have been otherwise. Until industrial agriculture allowed us. The vast majority of the population now dedicate themselves to other tasks, in the intermediate economy, which ultimately provides no value: transport, bureaucracy, etc. Let us call this “intensification”.
Despite ultimately providing no value, these tasks are still required for our society to function, and thus we can’t decide to do without them. Intensification is a one way process. If we want to keep the current society intact, we are stuck with industrial agriculture.
Perhaps as you say modern greenhouse is more productive in output/land, but this doesn’t matter if we don’t have the labor force to do it.
Now it may seem like I’m destroying my own point by saying permaculture is not globally viable. It’s not, really. For it to become so, we’ll need some sort of societal collapse at one point or the other. Deintensification.
There is another important metric: output/energy.
Today in the US we need around 7-10 calories of energy to produce 1 calories of food. It’s possible thanks to fossil fuel bit it’s not substainable in the long term.
Before 1950 the ratio was around 0.5 calories of energy for 1 calories of food.
Do you have any sources for this?
Here is an article where they discuss about this topic (in french unfortunately): https://resiliencealimentaire.org/lempreinte-energetique-du-systeme-alimentaire/#post-12761-endnote-6
The side of the article is this publication https://sci-hub.st/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(02)00027-6
You mean to tell me you think no job other than agriculture has value? I think the exact opposite: that agriculture is a task fit for machines and a waste of human potential.
I think you misunderstood slightly. “Providing value” = primary producers, not “no value” as you understood.
The previous comment literally said “no value”.
Sure, but the context matters.
I only said jobs in the intermediate economy provide no value. I invite you to read more about it at https://leanlogic.online/glossary/intermediate-economy/
What value is the transport that brings me food produced thousands of kilometers from where I live, when it could’ve been produced locally, requiring no transport?
What value is the bureaucracy that keeps this exceedingly complex system working, when a smaller, easily manageable community would provide the same amount of well being?
I don’t think any task is fit only for machines. That line of thinking, especially when applied to agriculture, leads to loss of skills, authenticity, and connection to our ecosystems
What value is the transport that brings me food produced thousands of kilometers from where I live, when it could’ve been produced locally, requiring no transport?
Then you’d starve to death the first time a localized crop failure happened in your area.
Even before that, your diet would be limited to whatever can be grown in your area. Areas unsuitable for agriculture would be rendered completely uninhabitable, which is the last thing we need in this age of severe housing scarcity and climate migration.
The global food distribution system has its inefficiencies, but it exists for a reason.
What value is the bureaucracy that keeps this exceedingly complex system working, when a smaller, easily manageable community would provide the same amount of well being?
It wouldn’t, and you need only open a history book to learn why. Life before global civilization was violent, painful, hungry, toilsome, and short.
I don’t think any task is fit only for machines.
Then you are in favor of wasting human potential. I can only hope that the majority disagrees with you on this point, or we’ll never explore the stars.
That line of thinking, especially when applied to agriculture, leads to loss of skills, authenticity, and connection to our ecosystems
That’s rosy retrospection. History is not full of people leading full, idyllic, one-with-nature lives and passing away with a smile on a bed of flowers.
It’s full of malnourished peasants forced to do unpaid back-breaking labor for their local warlord, only to be unceremoniously killed by the henchmen of some other local warlord.
Modern civilization, for all its faults, has done much to improve the standard of human life.
Modern greenhouse agriculture is easy to automate and the manual labor that is still required is not very heavy (and relatively enjoyable) so it can be done by many people that are currently underemployed.
I wonder how easy it would be to transform pre-existing buildings into greenhouses. I hear a lot about using things like unused office space and malls for housing already. I’m not very architecturally savvy though so it might be more trouble than it’s worth idk.
Even this drawing makes permaculture look horrifyingly inefficient.
there are hungry people even with agriculture. there may be more with permaculture (if that’s what you’re implying). However, the thing to note is that with our current system we could EASILY feed everyone until they looked like Mr. Cresote, but we don’t. we actively choose not to.
ya capitalism
I like permaculture but there is some absolutely quackery I’m the field. I saw a guy promoting elctoculture stuff in a local perm group.
I like permaculture but there is some absolutely quackery I’m the field. I saw a guy promoting elctoculture stuff in a local perm group.
What isn’t pictured is the billions of hungry people
there are hungry people even with agriculture. there may be more with permaculture (if that’s what you’re implying). However, the thing to note is that with our current system we could EASILY feed everyone until they looked like Mr. Cresote, but we don’t. we actively choose not to.
ya capitalism
Organic farming is 25% less efficent then conventional farming. We have enough for everybody in the world today, have a lot of food waste and grow a lot of feed stock for animals to eat later. There is no reason we can not go fully organic, while feeding the world. Obviously permaculture is more radical then farming, but it includes some gardening systems. Gardening is massivly more productive then farming. The fact of the matter is that we have more knowledge then ever before, being able to use systems developed in other parts of the world for local use, while also having more different crop varaities available to us. This increases yields by a lot. The issue with providing enough food to everybody is a political one.
My issue with organic gardening is that it identifies the issue; conventional agriculture uses pesticides to the detriment of the environment, but then borks it at the last second by subscribing to an appeal to nature fallacy where synthetic chemical pesticides are inherently bad, while naturally derived pesticides are inherently good.
This leads to the nonsense which is large scale organic farms using just as much if not greater quantities of pesticides in the same monoculture systems instead of designing farms in such a way that less pesticide use is necessary. At the end of the day they still get to slap an organic label on their produce and benefit from the green-washing.
Organic farming does not allow for artifical fertilizers, which is made from natural gas. That is a huge advantage and proably the biggest difference in yields.
Yeah that’s definitely a huge plus. I don’t want to appear as though i dislike everything about organic farming. There is a lot to like about it, I just feel as though it can be held back by arbitrary standards.
I’d love to read more about this :o
got any blue links? :3
Nah bro, just everyone will be a farmer like 2200 years ago
