In a sense Kermit's words are wrong these days. It's far too easy to buy the green CFL's in a thick layer of antishowlifting clam shell, or to import organic matter to make a garden that you use for one season and forget, and green is about consumption rather than production. That annoys me.
abject poverty helps. srsly. I have more appreciation for the bottle collecting homeless folks 'green by necessity' than I do drivers of the new electric Volt, or the owners of finest nifty strawbale homes. and Ive built a few of those homes. too bad poverty isn't inherently imbued with a set of ethics. then again, in anything other than the most literary sense, neither are many of us permies.
We have fads for good reason. We all jockey to pick up some popular new trend in order to show off how good we are at picking new trends. Someone who pays attention to what new shoes you are wearing will also be able to catch which way you are cracking those nuts, or how you are fishing grubs from a log. Fashion must be ever changing in order to accomplish this goal, and it is so it does .
Probably won't last long unless you work for Monsanto and were authorized to buy that domain name. You can expect a letter from their lawyer asking you to drop that domain, as they will certainly claim it infringes on their name, trademark, ability to business, etc. ... It would have been easier to hold on to something like Monsantosucks.com, as the courts have consistently ruled that obvious criticism and clear-cut parody are protected, but anything that might conceivably create confusion is usually ruled an infringement.
Not a lawyer - just my two cents.
Emerson White wrote: I won't create ripples by discussing it here, but I think that GMO's can and will be powerful tools for making agriculture sustainable.
Oh, you mean you wanted to make a controversial point in this thread, but don't want people to disagree with you? Why not put together your arguments and start another thread, or drop the controversial point? Seems unfair to make such a statement and then try to squelch the discussion.
Joined: Oct 23, 2011
they can send me a letter. sand in the cogs. cant get blood from a stone. This thread is full of tension. I like it. conflict is where growth is most likely to occur.
Deston Lee wrote: they can send me a letter. sand in the cogs. cant get blood from a stone. This thread is full of tension. I like it. conflict is where growth is most likely to occur.
When conflict arises, I try to keep my thoughts and comments to myself and walk away.
Joined: Oct 23, 2011
the chinese calligraphy for conflict is a stylization of germinating seed rising against soil- also a tree in strong wind. it intends a meaning of enduring in ones nature, to overcome difficulty, to become newly aware and to grow thereby. It means to resist being ungrounded while being supported by soild practices and energy.
regarding the website, I can hardly imagine monsanto spending enough time and energy to pay lawyers when they can simply offer me stupid cash money to take it down, or buy it.
this is so much meaningless drivel. Sorry Emerson. Its rainy and dark and im spending too much time alone... reading threads etc...
Joined: May 02, 2010
Deston Lee wrote: this is so much meaningless drivel. Sorry Emerson. Its rainy and dark and im spending too much time alone... reading threads etc...
First, I want to express that I really don't want to see any discussion on these forums about GMO stuff. I want to think that the people on these forums are well beyond talking about that, having come to the conclusion that GMO is icky.
I moved this thread because I don't think it is about nuts and bolts of permaculture, but more of a "what is wrong with the world" sort of discussion.
And now for my obnoxious opinions.
I am baffled by Emerson's opening post - I'm not sure what he is trying to say. But I do want to take this moment to express my positions on a few things:
Yes, there is too much greenwashing.
I think consumerism in general is nutty - but what bothers me is not general commerce, but the choices people make and why they make these choices. I have a massive rant on the roots of sexism being tied to glamour magazines and consumerism, but that rant is not a fit for these forums.
I think there are things out there that one can buy that is a wise purchase. A used cast iron pan is an excellent example. I'm a little worried about when folks fire up the anti-consumerism stuff that it should, perhaps, be a bit more focused on the problem. But that is my worry and I get the impression that I am in the minority on that one.
The CFL is something I, personally, do not like. However, I don't think it should be banned. And I don't think the incandescent should be banned either. At this moment, incandescent bulbs are my fave for lighting. It is my obnoxious opinion that the CFL is the current poster child for greenwashing. And it has been powerfully effective. I would guess that most people in the world think that buying a CFL is the most eco thing one could do. And I think the CFL does more eco harm than good (and, again, I respect that I am in the minority on this one).
Importing organic matter: many people think this is awesome green-ness. At one point I was in that camp. And now I am in the camp of rarely, if ever, importing organic matter. Nearly all commercial compost contains persistent herbicides. (and, yes, I am making a bold stand by not prefacing this with "I think"
Joined: Apr 21, 2010
Location: New York
Paul, I believe greenwashing is part of the new economy foisted upon us to allow for a continuation of consumerism. It makes us feel better to use green cleaners, CFLs, which btw, I've had burst into flames once. They are not even remotely green when you think about it. The only real benefit is lower electricity consumption. But ,I digress. Green and Eco are building a new economy of Wind Farms (think GE), electric and hybrid cars, and possibly clean coal, etc... Much of it fixated on lessening our dependence on foreign oil. As if that is the real problem.
Permaculture never seems to get woven into the conversation of green or eco friendly. As the current idioms of both have not allowed Permaculture to be inserted into the lexicon, it is up to those who practice it, believe in it, and are committed toward making it more widely practiced endeavor.
We are fighting economic forces, and it is not only corporations. Government leaders push it too, or at least they seem to promote it based on warm fuzzy feelings wrapped inside fear of global warming and foreign intrigue. In other words, they can have many of us dance to the tune of economic growth, security and a pollution free future.
Yes, the new economy is green, whether it really is or not. Too many have a stake in its success. Permaculture is not an economic force, but could be. I am pretty sure if Permaculture was profitable for the big guys, it would have already swept the world by storm. Permaculture is more of a personal responsibility, and creative ways have to be thought of and used to promote it. Only my opinion, of course.
Pemaculture, IMO, has to move from a politically perceived notion to a practical and well understood way of living. It has to be inclusive, not exclusive. By that, I mean it has to accept there will be variations and innovations (Sepp Holzers of the world) that will not adhere exclusively to the original texts. And that is good, I think. That is progress. Nothing is perfect, and certainly, nothing starts off that way.
Joined: May 02, 2010
I think CFL's are green on aggregate if you have really clean power and they last a long time. I think LED's are a much much better lighting technology.
I'm also pretty sure that the only parts of permaculture that will matter in more than an aesthetic sense in deep time are the ones that are profitable.