the third ethic

There are lots of folks that are really mad at me because I choose to not have discussions about the third ethic on these forums.  I would like to suggest that these angry folks head on over to the PRI forums.  Lots of great folks over there - and they are cool with talking about the third ethic.

Frankly I'm just tired of people doing things that I find unethical in the name of the third ethic.  Usually this involves stealing somebody else's stuff and giving it away or selling it for less.  All in the name of the third ethic.  And then those people want to say that I'm unethical because I don't support their wickedness and call it "ethical". 

Well, I put a lot of time and money into this site and I can make up any crazy path I want.  Freedom of the press belongs to those that own one.  I don't wanna be told by some nitwit that my philosophies about permaculture are wrong because I won't be their personal bitch. 

I don't wanna get bludgeoned with the words of mollison any more by people saying "sing the ethics song or you can't call it permaculture!"  I'm not your fucking puppet, so get your hand out of my ass!

The bottom line is that once you take a PDC, you get to use the word permaculture on your stuff.  I took a PDC.  I have visited a lot of farms that say that they are doing permaculture and I really don't see it.  But they took a PDC so they get to call it permaculture.  That's the system.  People that have taken a PDC can put bubble gum on the end of a stick and call it permaculture if they want.  It is unfortunate, but that's the way it is.

I have had thousands of people tell me that I have to run this site their way "or else".  And I've told each of those people to piss off.  It turns out that "or else" is super awesome.

This site is primarily for me.  Me, me, me, me, me (Yes, I really am that selfish, arrogant and obnoxious).  It turns out that there are a few people that like me and my way of managing this site - and this site is for them too.  And for every one of them, I think there are about 10,000 people who are not a match for this site.  So for anybody reading this, you are more likely to be part of the 10,000 rather than the one.  So piss off. 

It is not my intention to appeal to the masses.  So stop trying to tell me what to do or how to run my site to build a bigger audience.

I'm all for ethics.  And I like what mollison has to say about ethics.  He's a damn smart fella.  And after hearing people talk about ethics over and over and over I'm beginning to think that the most ethical folks are the folks that never talk about ethics - they have more important things to talk about.  And the people that are up to no good want to justify their shenanigans with a lot of crazy spin on ethics stuff.  And then they demand that other people have to validate their shenanigans in the name of ethics. 

While it is true that good people can have a conversation about ethics, my experience is that it is the rare exception, not the rule.  And even if there are good, decent people having a good, decent conversation about ethics, it just seems to be bait for the icky people.  And besides, I would rather talk about something else.

So!  If you are one of the few that is a fit for this site, and you see somebody getting started in talking about permaculture ethics, I hope your reply will include a link to this thread.

Thanks.

Well Paul, I like you even more now. 

Props to you, dude.

Heavy is the head...   

I sorta feel like I walked into the middle of an argument but I'm gonna wade in anyway.  On this site and several others I have noticed a certain mindset among new members who see their lifestyle choices as some sort of political statement or religious belief, and they become offended when people who they thought had a similar view actually have different motivations.  When others do not walk in lockstep with them on veganism, organics, permaculture, whatever, they pitch a hissy and take their balls and go home.

Me for instance, I was attracted to this site for the RMH knowledge.  There is a wealth of information here on this subject.  Now some people want to go RMH because they want to save the earth, lower their carbon footprint, save the forests, or what not.  I want to install a RMH and build it myself because I am broke, cheap and lazy.  No politics, no religious fervor,  just common sense practicality. 

EVERYONE;  do what you want to do, become a vegan, raise organics, save a whale......  but keep your nose out of my damn business and don't expect me to share all of your beliefs.  This is a big ol' world and there is room for all of us.

Yea Paul!
Brilliant,brilliant ........
Nicola

Paul, excellent piece!  Your site, your rules.  Not a hard concept to grasp.

Tinknal, ditto.

paul wheaton wrote:
I'm all for ethics.  And I like what mollison has to say about ethics.  He's a damn smart fella.  And after hearing people talk about ethics over and over and over I'm beginning to think that the most ethical folks are the folks that never talk about ethics - they have more important things to talk about.  And the people that are up to no good want to justify their shenanigans with a lot of crazy spin on ethics stuff.  And then they demand that other people have to validate their shenanigans in the name of ethics. 

This is so true. My favorite thing about this site is its hardcore focus on practicalities, which are what I want to learn. I agree with most of the stewardship-type ethics already and get bored quickly reading about these things again. And I have no patience for baloney excuses.

Thanks for posting this, Paul.  Your "selfishness" in running this site means that this site exists and helps people like me get involved. Cheers to your selfishness!

Thanks for the pointer to the PRI forums.

I am concerned, Paul, that you are quick to moderate people who take a position that differs from yours, but you let people you agree with engage in behavior that I would not support in an ally of mine. It's your right—it's your board, and you put in a lot of work. I appreciate that work, because it makes this a good place to exchange resources, and to discuss things with people you agree with or who don't feel constrained by the necessity of avoiding certain topics and letting certain unsupported statements stand without question. I'm glad that so many people get so much from this board, and I'm grateful for what I have gotten while I've been here. And I would still prefer to use my time to participate somewhere that works differently—perhaps on a site where there are multiple moderators who can work together despite differences of opinion on contentious issues.

I will at least be taking a step back for awhile. If anyone from this board wishes to find me, feel free to send me an email or a comment through Kerrplunk.org.

I think that there are a lot of posts that are aligned with some of my philosophies that are presented poorly and I let it go because I'm too busy to fool with it. 

And I see a lot of posts that are NOT aligned with my philosophies that are presented poorly and I let it go because I'm too busy to fool with it. 

And once in a while I see stuff is just too extreme, so I really need to do something.  And this includes stuff that is too extreme AND aligned with my philosophies. 

But, of course, nobody likes to have their stuff deleted.  So I will always be the bad guy. 

When creating these forums, I was stacking functions.  I want a place where the way people communicate is a style that I like and on topics that I like.  And there are some topics I don't care about that I don't mind if folks talk about on my site, and there are some topics I don't care about that I don't want to see discussed on my site. 

I find that when I try to accommodate everybody, I don't like the site.  When I try to accommodate me I like the site, and it seems there are plenty of others that like it to. 

So - I make the best of it.  I make no promises and I get heavy handed on the delete button when it suits me.  Those that are upset would be happier if they left. 

There are about 150,000 people coming to this site each month.  I am okay if 99.99% of them leave and 0.01% become good friends that are very compatible with my stuff.

Tinknal wrote:
EVERYONE;  do what you want to do, become a vegan, raise organics, save a whale......  but keep your nose out of my damn business and don't expect me to share all of your beliefs.  This is a big ol' world and there is room for all of us.

thanks for that permission.  what consenting vegans do behind closed doors is nobody's business.

not sure why this would be a problem if threads dont go off topic.  people do have a habit of typing stuff they think.  me, i never have an expectation that anyone will agree with me.  forums are for discussion, right?

it'd be nice to think that people who are into permaculture would 1) have an appreciation for pluralism 2) be willing to entertain ideas that might seem wrong or upsidedown at first glance.  i have seen some evidence of that here.

Kerrick wrote:
Thanks for the pointer to the PRI forums.

I am concerned, Paul, that you are quick to moderate people who take a position that differs from yours, but you let people you agree with engage in behavior that I would not support in an ally of mine.

i'd guess most people would tend to be quicker to moderate those they disagree with. 

the pri forums are boring and about australia.  i didnt see any good discussions of ethics there.

as for keeping ethics out of a forum or out of anything i don't know how you do it.  i think people start calling each other nazis when the focus moves away from the specific to the general and assumptions are made rather than being charitable.

christhamrin wrote:
as for keeping ethics out of a forum or out of anything i don't know how you do it. 

As I understand it - and I might be wrong! - the idea is to keep discussion of ethics out of our discussions of practicalities here.  As far as I can tell there's no requirement to keep ethics themselves out of our discussions.  In fact, the rule "be nice" is an ethic we are required to apply when we post here!   

sounds good - i was kinda trying to get at that re: specific vs general

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ethics

The Urban Dictionary defines ethics as "morality with loopholes"

My understanding of the third ethic is that it is "to share the surplus."  The difference between one person freely giving away extra goods and services and another person forcibly taking them seems generally cut-and-dry. 

Will P wrote:
My understanding of the third ethic is that it is "to share the surplus."  The difference between one person freely giving away extra goods and services and another person forcibly taking them seems generally cut-and-dry. 

Exactly.  Each person believes their position is obvious - therefore, the contrary opinions are clearly coming from crazy people that would benefit from the baseball bat of truth.  So then you end up with a mob of people smacking each other with baseball bats all in the name of the greater good.

after my life forced hiatus I'm glad to see the nature of this site hasn't changed

and Paul you've deleted a few of my posts and didn't get me worked up a bit, cause I was being rude to someone, but I know that as moderator you suffer from the lawmakers delima that is to say that everyone wants other folks obnoxious habits to be against the rules while their obnoxious habits are protected.

I checked out that other forum you recommended...but apparently it won't let me post

so I'm not sure what benefit it is.

Matthew wrote:
I checked out that other forum you recommended...but apparently it won't let me post

so I'm not sure what benefit it is.

I think they've had a few issues with spam and now have a backlog of posts from new members that they are moderating before posting.  Give them a bit of time! 

Paul well put!  I too have had countless assclowns (yes that is what I refer to them as  ) give me the bigger tent lecture.   I have been asked to not say shit or bullshit because a child may hear it, well the show is for adults and adults that decide their kids can hear it too.  Besides using the occasional 4 letter word seems less damaging to a child than what they might see on shows like Friends or Two and a Half Men.

On the third ethic my view is the people you mention don't even understand it.  The third ethic isn't giving things away, ESPECIALLY things you don't own like copyrighted material.  Mollison often writes about and speaks about making a profit from production.  Permaculture is profitable and it was designed to be so.  Geoff Lawton's work in the 3rd world always includes the goal of making the operation profitable because he knows it must be profitable or it will fail.  In simple terms TO BE SUSTAINABLE A SYSTEM MUST BE PROFITABLE.  If not you can't hold onto even inexpensive land for very long.  How people fail to grasp this I will never know.  Greening the Desert was a perfect example.   Though not Lawton's fault the locals never used the results to create profit and the entire project crumbled, though thankfully not before showing us what was possible.

I just purchased a 15 DVD set of a course provided by the Permaculture Institute of Australia (the price is high but the shipping was really an OUCH http://www.tagari.com/store/18 ).  Lawton and Mollison spend plenty of time during the course discussing making design yes sustainable and yes functional but also profitable. 

In short the people giving you shit don't even understand the principle they are basing their complaints on.  Might I suggest this little nugget from my sites disclaimer, please feel free to alter it and use it as you see fit,

This site aspires to the ideals of “free speech”, however via use of this show and this website it is our speech that is protected as “free speech”, not yours. This show is owned by a private person and is used to express that private individuals views, (hence the disclaimer of, “one man’s opinion”). Any belief that your personal right to “free speech” exists on this site, which is my personal property, is only an illusion.

ModernSurvival wrote:

This site aspires to the ideals of “free speech”, however via use of this show and this website it is our speech that is protected as “free speech”, not yours. This show is owned by a private person and is used to express that private individuals views, (hence the disclaimer of, “one man’s opinion”). Any belief that your personal right to “free speech” exists on this site, which is my personal property, is only an illusion.

I love that I love it a lot and may need to reference it later

Modernsurvival you are talking about the third ethic.  That's not allowed here.  I politely disagree with a lot of what you said, but I won't bother responding.  I may write up a blog post on this topic when I am more familiar w/permacultural texts dealing with the subject.

Chris, I will allow Paul to decide what is allowed.  On your blog post, let me know when you publish it and I will be happy to professionally respond to it outside of Paul's forum.

ModernSurvival wrote:
ESPECIALLY things you don't own like copyrighted material.

Must... resist... urge to post...

I think it is! 

My cyber stalker has been hard at work.  i think he now has a dozen sock puppets.  So I'm in a really foul mood and looking for people to ban.  I already banned one person today.

I think that if anybody has a problem with my policy in this space, and they choose to express it, they need to be especially respectful of my position.

paul wheaton wrote:
My cyber stalker has been hard at work.  i think he now has a dozen sock puppets.  So I'm in a really foul mood and looking for people to ban.  I already banned one person today.

I think that if anybody has a problem with my policy in this space, and they choose to express it, they need to be especially respectful of my position.

Paul since this guy clearly has you on his watch list have you considered a new handle on reddit.  Also I would take that new handle and submit at least 50% of stuff that isn't yours.  Some of the pimple faced self appointed social media watch dogs (especially on digg and reddit) feel anyone submitting their own content is spamming.  Idiots of course but it could be that this stalker doesn't even have a personal axe he may just believe you only self submit and therefore must be an evil spammer. 

His sock puppets may also be other real pimple faces with nothing better to do, these types form idiot cliches that see it as their job to defend reddit or digg or their personal social media site they apply fanboy worship to.  So when someone they are after pops up out go the personal and instant messages with a link.  The other fanboys rally to the cry and vote down the offender with out even reading the submission. 

Just a thought, if you are going to self submit to social media some main stream news, other peoples blogs etc and a new handle may help you out a lot.  Not that you should have to mind you this is just how the game is played.  I voted your stuff up yesterday with two accounts and saw it voted right back down.  Your name is on the list dude, get a new name.

Might be a good idea actually. Seems like so many of our upvotes are totally wasted just trying to keep things at zero. It would be great if those votes were working to actually bump stuff up.

Let us post stuff for you too like links to your youtube videos that you haven't posted there. Just let us know when stuff is ready and we'll spread it around. If more than one of us cross posts things they stand a better chance of being seen and getting upvoted instead of one person posting it multiple places.

craftylittlemonkey wrote:
Let us post stuff for you too like links to your youtube videos that you haven't posted there. Just let us know when stuff is ready and we'll spread it around. If more than one of us cross posts things they stand a better chance of being seen and getting upvoted instead of one person posting it multiple places.

That would be best but any submitter needs to be submitting form other sources or you just get branded a spammer by the posse of pimple faces too.  Some stuff from like MSNBC, FOX News, etc is good cover.  Fanboys may hate the submission but they see it as valid and not from a rival fanboy. 

I did web marketing as a profession for a long time, even consulted to Donald Trump (yes really) these amateur games are why I wrote off sites like digg, reddit and newsvine in favor or places that respect content creators like youtube and facebook and twitter.

Well, I already post and comment on other things so this would just be occasional links to Paul's videos etc. I cross post interesting things from facecrack etc, people are always sending me neat info.

I think we have a solution for this:  https://permies.com/bb/index.php?topic=6910.msg63161#msg63161

Paul and Toby Hemenway discuss the 3rd ethic in this podcast: http://www.richsoil.com/permaculture/362-podcast-051-toby-hemenway-permaculture-ethics/

Something I just thought of: As Bill Mollison defines it, the third ethic is not "sharing of the surplus", but rather fairshare. If we think about this, I think it gets rid of a lot of the trouble about the third ethic. Example: In the podcast, Mr. Hemenway remarks that it bothers him when people say it is "sharing of the surplus" to give away his book for free. My response would be, "Yes, but is it fairshare for you to demand the product of Mr. Hemenway's knowledge and time for free?" To me this would mean helping people according to their needs, and things like taxing the absurdly rich. Paul, try throwing this in the face of people who try to bother you about the third ethic.

from the designers manual page 2 the third ethic is "setting limits to population and consumption: Mr Mollison goes on to explain "by governing our own needs we can set resources aside to further the above principles"

I can see how this is translated to "share fair" but not where you would get the notion that one should not pay another for his efforts when you benefit by them be those efforts physical of intellectual.

I am a little confused by people quoting Mollison to say, basically, that you shouldn't make money off your stuff.

I still really new to this and am currently reading all of the suggested reading from the permaculture institute which is pretty heavy on Mollisons pamphlets.

  He talks A LOT about finding ways to show the client how to make money off of thier land.

He also puts a lot of emphasis on teaching communities how to use thier resources so that they can make a profit - sustainably.

A friend emailed to say he was watching the Mollison/Lawton PDC DVD and Mollison says "I think the eco fascists should be forced to eat nothing but native plants because it will kill them all quicker than anything else"

Here is an excerpt:

A yield, profit, or income functions as a reward that encourages, maintains and /or replicates the system that generated the yield.  In this way, successful systems spread.  In systems language these rewards are called ‘positive feedback loops’ that amplify the original process or signal.  If we are serious about sustainable design solutions, then we must be aiming for rewards that encourage success, growth and replication of those solutions. (Permaculture Principles & Pathways Beyond Sustainability’ by David Holmgren).

The key words, as I see it, are "the system that generated the yield" and "rewards that encourage success".

If someone is standing around with thier freebie hand out they did not generate anything and there is nothing to reward them for.

Jeanine Gurley wrote:
I am a little confused by people quoting Mollison to say, basically, that you shouldn't make money off your stuff.

Yeah, I have not run across him saying anything like that....

To be sustainable, a farm must be profitable.  Otherwise, eventually either the mortgage lender, or the tax man will take it over.