/hobby/ - Hobbies

Entertainment, Education, Games, etc.

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 80.00 MB

Max files: 5

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


(228.26 KB 1024x683 permaculture1.jpg)
(286.24 KB 1024x973 pclt-1024x973.jpg)
Permaculture Anonymous 12/15/2019 (Sun) 01:53:45 No. 12707
The practice and principles of Permaculture are one of the most important tools for not only creating a sustainable socialism, but also for repairing the damage done to the global ecosystem by capitalism, and lessening your individual reliance on the current capitalist system.
Permacultural practice and socialism are two very powerful allies, and learning about permaculture should be necessity for modern socialists and communists.
Give me an example of permaculture mass production as opposed to boutique estate expensive foods and I'll listen
(41.40 KB 400x266 Shane's-food-forest_2.jpg)
>>12708
The power of permaculture is not unsustainable mass production, but rather sustainable self production and decentralization of food production. It transforms food production from a highly centralized process that requires massive logistics lines, chemical fertilizers, and fossil fuels into a highly compact and sustainable system of local food production.

Permaculture has had success worldwide at both reversing desertification, and providing food to poor communities.

https://permaculturenews.org/2015/10/29/the-african-permaculture-movement/
>>12708
>boutique estate expensive foods
Cuba uses it to not rely on oil imports
>>12710
Tell us more about how they do this
From an article I found, gives a bit of an overview.

>Roberto Perez reviewed in Part I of this two part interview how Cuba’s import/export economy collapsed along with the Soviet Union and socialist block. With the disappearance of their largest trading partners, Cuba could no longer export sugar or other commodities in exchange for food, petro-chemical fertilizers and pesticides for the island. By 1993 food scarcity mounted into a crisis of widespread hunger that Cuba calls their “Special Period.” A new emphasis on self sufficiency in food production emerged, accelerated by the tightening of the US embargo during those years.

>In Part II, permaculture expert Roberto Perez discusses his activities, as a director of the Antonio Nuñez Jimenez Foundation for Nature and Humanity, to counter the food crisis that occurred in Cuba. Antonio Nuñez was a revolutionary guerrilla fighter under Che Guevara, and then the Minister of Agrarian Reform. He succeeded Guevara as president of the Cuban National Bank and later served as president of the Academy of Sciences and ambassador to Peru. The Nuñez Jimenez Foundation was founded in 1993 as an NGO upon Nuñez’s retirement from government service.

>Roberto Perez joined the team and with his colleagues began introducing permaculture ideas and techniques to produce food sustainably without pesticides or petro-chemical fertilizers in the cities and countryside. Australian experts initiated training and soon Cubans were training each other and the ideas spread. Today Cuba leads the world in sustainable agriculture. Sixteen Cuban cities keep themselves supplied in leaf vegetables. Small livestock and poultry are raised on roof gardens, balconies and vacant lots. Rural farms are restoring the traditional ways of using oxen, eliminating mechanization and its environmental polluting outcomes. Compost is now widely generated to fertilize the earth.
For those interested, I compiled a small archive of, IMO, some of the best books relating to permaculture. I highly recommend starting with Gaia's Garden, or possibly One Straw Revolution.

https://mega.nz/#!hdsADSaS!tyckxrh128rAh6lSXF3pMmnk2qUufiF_F0lzk9LWRY4
>>12712
>Rural farms are restoring the traditional ways of using oxen, eliminating mechanization
Wouldn't that significantly reduce surplus, making majority of people stuck in agriculture?
>>12714
It's a possibility, but the more individuals or communes with their own permaculture setup the more the workload can be spread. Yes, it does mean more people will have to do agricultural labor, but modern agriculture is not sustainable under capitalism or socialism. Fossil fuels can not continue to be used, and even so called sustainable energy sources like solar require massive exploitation of rare minerals to function.

Permaculture serves to maximize production and minimize work, it is the most efficient way to produce food without fossil fuels or massive amounts of other resources like lithium.
>>12715
>even so called sustainable energy sources like solar require massive exploitation of rare minerals to function.
Metal cooled fast neutron breeder reactors don't

Seoerately fwiw large parts of the soviet union's food production was done on tiny plots of land, have you permaculture types looked into how they did it?
>>12716
>Metal cooled fast neutron breeder reactors don't

You still need a massive amount of batteries to charge vehicles and anything else that would otherwise be reliant on fossil fuels, then. You're not fundamentally changing the problem.

Also, is it safe? Can it be sabotaged? Chernobyl nearly sterilized europe, and that was an accident. Are these new reactors able to be sabotaged or are they safe? Also, is there a solution for what to do with the massive amount of nuclear waste emitted?
Honestly, we should just have a thread discussing nuclear. I've always been skeptical of it, it just seems like a disaster waiting to happen. But I also can't say I've ever heard any kind of compelling argument for it, so maybe one of you fucks can convince me.
>>12717
Use reactor to produce hydrogen fuel
>>12718
Look in to LFTR (Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors). It uses Thorium which is way more abundant than uranium and it operates at atmospheric pressure but very high temperature. This has the advantage of not needing big heavy pressure vessels like traditional nuclear reactors, and the high temperature means you can produce carbon neutral fossil fuel substitutes or do water desalinization just from the waste heat. They also produce significantly less dangerous waste and some of the waste is actually useful in radiomedicine or space exploration.
(48.71 KB 775x235 graphene.jpg)
>>12717
I've been generally opposed to Li-Ion batteries, but as of late I've learned that graphene is soon to be an actual thing.
This is huge because graphene batteries don't suffer the same degradation as Li-Ion: they continue to hold charge.
The Musk retard pushing batteries roused much suspicion, so I figured hydrogen would be a more realistic future, but with batteries that don't degrade and (I presume) that don't require rare-earth metals, it seems they'll be good.

The question then of course returns to that of how to generate the actual power.
Solar panels relying on Li-Ion have generally been my problem with them, but graphene serves as a great replacer for that.
With central planning I assume a desert can be covered with this superior solar and that can serve for gridding.
But Thorium reactors are pretty good too as anon says

(Also fusion may still be a ways out, but it's (slowly) happening; look up ITER reactor)
>>12720
> carbon neutral fossil fuel substitutes
This is a good idea as it would mean existing machinery can continue to function. The downside is that a large surplus of carbon free electricity is needed. LFTR is one option of course but so far LFTR reactors have been experimental so more development needs to be done to ready the technology for large scale use.

>>12721
I have my doubts regarding fusion. But hopefully fission can carry us to a point where renewable sources and energy storage tech becomes more developed.
>>12722
The production of those fossil fuel substitutes are actually runs off of the waste heat from LFTR (or other high temp nuclear processes) so it doesn't significantly cut in to the electricity budget of the reactor. And of course LFTR has been experimental, but the only big problems left to solve are material science/chemistry problems which are comparatively easy. If the amount of effort that most liberals wanted to spend on bringing renewables to full grid levels went in to LFTR I think the world's energy production could be carbon neutral (or even carbon neutral) in far less time.
>>12723
*(or even carbon negative)
>>12723
Technically, the main problem to solve with magnetic confinement fusion is also material science. How to create magnetic materials that will stay magnetic after getting bombarded by neutrons and transmuting into another element (pro tip you can't). But you're correct, finding a way to pump high temperature molten salt is far easier than dealing with neutron bombardment and I see thorium reactors as a viable way to go. Sadly thorium is not getting much attention. China started doing some experimental work on thorium reactors a few years back but they are still building uranium reactors. In other countries there is no research work being done on thorium reactors much less actual application of the technology..

>>12724
Carbon negative will probably be necessary.
>>12725
The only issue with using this process to make the fuel cycle carbon negative is that that would require storing huge amounts of methanol. To go truly carbon negative would require using some electricity to power different carbon capture processes.

The big challenge facing LFTR is that graphite (required for neutron moderation) tends to become porous under neutron flux. Even if a solid material that works as a neutron moderator while maintaining structural stability isn't found, the moderators can be replaced less often than current nuclear fuel rods are replaced while producing less irradiated waste.
>>12726
We can pump the captured carbon into depleted oil/gas wells. Then if shit hits the fan in the far future we can dig it up an burn it again.

I didn't realize dealing with neutron radiation was a challenge with LFTR as well. Unlike fusion though, it seems the material needs to simply absorb the neutrons?
>>12727
Not so much absorb the neutrons as slow them from fast spectrum to thermal spectrum. Absorbing the neutrons would kill the reaction. The challenge is that the graphite becomes porous and fails to contain the fuel. This is important because ThF4 and UF4 have to be in close enough proximity for moderated neutrons from fission to be absorbed by the thorium to continue the breeding cycle without the two streams mixing.
Individual virtue is no substitute for communal action, don't be led astray by this lifestylist heretic.
>>12729
I have my doubts about the permaculture but it is unfair to classify it as lifestylist. Permaculture is a major change in the food production system not back yard gardening for boomer home owners.
>>12730
>lessening your individual reliance
>self production
>the more individuals or communes with their own permaculture setup
Don't get me wrong, the example of Cuba will prove to be a shining beacon in our hellish future world. But The Cuban transformation did not come about because of spontaneous voluntarist initiative from the bottom up, it was a society-wide initiative that came top down from specialists and scientists, to protect the Cuban AES from a system shock. And though they doid transform food production, note well that the societal structure (fortuitously) remained in place. It's fine if you want to do this for your own benefit, gardening brings spiritual peace, but the work of transforming society will not be done in the backyard.
>>12715
>Yes, it does mean more people will have to do agricultural labor
Which is not a problem. What else are people going to do? Automation will reduce the number of industrial jobs, leaving only the "service sector", which shouldn't really exist in socialism, academia and agriculture. Farming and growing things are very rewarding endeavours. Meaningful too, because feeding people is very important.
>>12731
Blame this on me being a shitty writer and arguerererer. I fully agree with you otherwise.
(20.83 KB 352x300 feelrades.jpg)
>>12733
comradely feels
>>12707
I was reading an article one anon posted a few weeks ago on a related subject, and one point the author made is that modern 'just-in-time' production chains only appear efficient in capitalist terms due to externalizing or obscuring the costs of transportation. Rather than sitting in warehouses, everything is in constant motion in trucks or ships, so it appears 'efficient' even though they take up massive quantities of energy to keep mobile/fresh. And of course no one considers the massive costs of maintaining transportation infrastructure, mostly with public money for roads and rail networks.

A truly 'efficient and sustainable' system of industrial production and agriculture would rely on smaller-scale factories and farms using a mix of traditional permaculture and modern technology, and utilizing only local supply chains to minimize real energy costs while ensuring a timely and sufficient supply of goods.
>>12735
A big reason why shipping is "more efficient" is that there's a huge difference in labor costs in different areas. Shorter and more local supply chains are more resilient to crisis and deliver the end results faster.
>>12735
One important aspect of Permaculture is the idea of the Food Forest, which is essentially a self sufficient ecosystem made up entirely out of edible and medicinal plants. While obviously this is not something that works for large scale production, communal food forests could be another way to both lessen the labor of agriculture and provide a decentralized source of food to communities.

I'm not saying this should be done right now, but permaculture provides many tools that a socialist society can use to solve these problems. Whether you take it all the way to a Food Forest, or simply use basic permaculture principles within more standard agriculture depends on the needs and the circumstance. I happen to think that the more decentralized food production is, the better, so something akin to food forests appeal to me as a way to accomplish that.
Is it still possible to grow & harvest certain foods like tubers all year round within the permaculture system?
>>12738
Probably not, I imagine it looks more like the old three field system, where you have to plant certain crops in a certain order to seed nutrients.
A large, centralized, underground (likely automated) hydroponics farm is far more effective than organic farming or
Permaculture. High, fast yields with no pesticides. Thorium reactors, and later Fusion, could power it all.
>>12740
>underground
lmao the sun shines for free why the hell does it have to be underground
if anything we should be underground rather than the plants
(149.13 KB 600x600 Juglans nigra.jpg)
>>12737
That's a nice garden you have there, it would be a shame if something were to happen to it.

t. Walnut Tree
>>12707 How are the labour input requirements for permaculture, compared to the agriculture we use to today, can it be mechanised if it were applied at large scale ?
>>12743 >can it be mechanised if it were applied at large scale Modern agriculture is not sustainable and is hugely destructive to the environment. It likely can not be mechanized, nor would you want it to be mechanized necessarily. The strength of permaculture is both sustainability, and decentralization of food production. Considering climate crisis, this is very important, because it means a highly centralized food source will not be able to be wiped out by extreme weather conditions. It also provides a means by which to successfully regreen our planet and improve critical insect populations. So pros 1. Indefinitely sustainable 2. Decentralized 3. Low cost, low labor. 4. Can potentiall regreen desertified areas 5. Can provide habitable places for insect life and other life cons: 1. More distributed labor, since communities and individuals would generally be getting a large portion of their food locally 2. Not necessarily able to be mechanized/centralized on a large scale, although that depends.
>>12709 >The power of permaculture is not unsustainable mass production, but rather sustainable self production and decentralization of food production. It transforms food production from a highly centralized process that requires massive logistics lines, chemical fertilizers, and fossil fuels into a highly compact and sustainable system of local food production. >Permaculture has had success worldwide at both reversing desertification, and providing food to poor communities. You didn't get anyone to respond to this post because this board is mostly filled with white limp wristed power tripping MLs that hate the idea of proles using land for themselves and not being cucks to the party. The de-desertivcation alone makes permaculture worthwhile.
>>12744 Isn't low labor but also not mechanized a contradiction? Regardless even if the growing and harvesting cannot be mechanized, the processing of the food can be. We don't need donkey driven millstones.
>>12744 Looking at just the images in this thread, I don't see any cereal crops. How are those grown in a permaculture paradigm? Maize is pretty easy to grow and harvest due to it's large seed size. What about wheat or rice? Rice in particular is a pain requiring flooded fields, delicate cultivation before planting. The Chinese have some pretty nice ancient wisdom with regards to rice cultivation, they raise fish in the flooded paddy so the fish shit fertilizes the soil and also controls mosquito population. When harvest time comes, you have rice and fish to eat. Can such an arrangement be considered sustainable? It's still a monoculture of rice but given that it's worked in preindustrial eras I see no reason to dismiss it, unless climate change makes rice cultivation nonviable. Or is the permaculture future one of potatoes and corn every day?
>>12746 >Regardless even if the growing and harvesting cannot be mechanized, the processing of the food can be. We don't need donkey driven millstones. Yes, that's a given. I'm not some anprim tard or anything. >Isn't low labor but also not mechanized a contradiction? When I say low labor, I mean in comparison to more traditional modern agriculture. The end goal of a permaculture setup should be a system that is able to self-sustain most things that would otherwise require constant maintenance. Nitrogen fixing plants used in place of fertilizer, water capture systems, using plants like clover as a " living mulch " Of course it depends on how far you want to go with it, but in general a permaculture setup should be as self-sufficient as possible. In a well designed permacultural setup you should have no need to import any resources beyond what you need to get it set up initially.
>>12747 >Maize is pretty easy to grow and harvest due to it's large seed size. Maize/corn can also be planted alongside other plants. You can grow beans, corn, squash, and sunflowers or bee balm in the same patch. They all fit a niche, actively assist eachother in growth, and all of them are edible. Provides a far denser food production than monocropping. >What about wheat or rice? Rice in particular is a pain requiring flooded fields, delicate cultivation before planting. The Chinese have some pretty nice ancient wisdom with regards to rice cultivation, they raise fish in the flooded paddy so the fish shit fertilizes the soil and also controls mosquito population. When harvest time comes, you have rice and fish to eat. I believe One Straw Revolution goes a bit into this, it may be a good book for you to check out. Otherwise I know little about rice.
Automatic robotic permaculture Communities set up intelligent designs so as to simplify the care/extraction while being effective,aesthetical... thats right i believe tech can self sustain plant life
>>12737 Being able to just pick your foods would be so much less alienating than relying on sterile supermarkets. >>12741 This, underground hydro might be great for strategic and illegal resources like weed, but hanging LED panels under solar is just silly. Unless you get some hyperefficient solar to convert the useless frequencies of the spectrum, but it is still wasteful and fragile.
>>12746 The thing about permaculture labor is that lot of it is pretty close to leisure. Taking a stroll through the forest and filling a basket with berries is enjoyable to most people, driving a big machine across a field over and over is not
>>12744 >>12745 >>12746 >>12748 >>12751 >>12752 I see a big problem with permaculture if it means that you need lots of manual labour for harvesting, that will create a under-class of low-wage harvest-workers, that are going to be transported from field to field to harvest the different foot plants. While i emphasize with idyllic small local farming where people are self-sufficient and independent, that' not how it's going to turn out. >>12750 >Automatic robotic permaculture >Communities set up intelligent designs so as to simplify the care/extraction while being effective,aesthetical... >thats right i believe tech can self sustain plant life This is interesting, any sources for further reading ?
>>12753 >I see a big problem with permaculture if it means that you need lots of manual labour for harvesting, that will create a under-class of low-wage harvest-workers, that are going to be transported from field to field to harvest the different foot plants. So make this job a civic duty that people share.
>>12753 >wage You mean labour creditsl >>12754 The wealth of nations comes from the effective division of labour.
>>12754 I think that would just happen naturally even, in America people pay money to go pick their own apples. People enjoy harvesting food, picking fruit blurs the line between labor and leisure, especially in a forest with many different types of trees, shrubs, ground plants, animals, etc.. Making labor leisure-like should be a core goal of any modern leftist movement
(57.81 KB 580x679 1435950448205.jpg)
>>12755 >if we don't have specialists harvesting food, we won't have prosperity >if we don't have specialists cooking food, we won't have prosperity >if we don't have specialists chewing food, we won't have prosperity >if we don't have specialists wiping asses, we won't have prosperity >if we don't have specialists cleaning toilets, we won't have prosperity
>>12755 >Allright the revolution has succeeded and we have socialism! Let's make sure everyone is working as efficiently as possible so we can accumulate maximum wealth!
>>12754 >So make this job a civic duty that people share. Oh great I can see the moist struggle sessions already to get all those snobbish people to touch dirt with their hands. >>12756 >I think that would just happen naturally even, in America people pay money to go pick their own apples. People enjoy harvesting food, picking fruit blurs the line between labor and leisure, especially in a forest with many different types of trees, shrubs, ground plants, animals, etc.. Making labor leisure-like should be a core goal of any modern leftist movement. Yeah this is delusional Americans import Mexicans to pick their fruit. ---- I'm not saying this is a lost cause, but the proposals so far are crap
>>12759 >americans import Mexicans to pick fruit because its grown in a giant boring ugly monoculture and the efficiency of picking the fruit matters What if you werent alienated from the production of your food? If your community is buildings surrounded by permaculture forest, you would take pride in that. People now often takes bags to pick up litter on a hike, it's not a stretch to imagine people going about their business taking time to stop to prune an unwanted branch, take a stray chicken back to the coop, etc. Efficiency doesnt matter once an industry becomes something people do for themselves. We failed to pick all the carrots and many of them have begun to rot in the ground? Doesnt matter, it improves the soil. To view this as a loss is capitalist mindset. All the commune needs to produce is food, clothing, and shelter. All coming from plants and animals in the permaculture. Nobody in the commune NEEDS to do anything other than maintain the permaculture. Of course many will want to pursue occupations but this will be because they find it rewarding, not because they need to be a cog in the big industrial communist machine. The future of socialism is agrarian communes where each individual need only do an hour 2 of "work" per day that blurs the lines between labor and leisure, and scattered industrial guilds that individuals who decide they want more from life than agrarian leisure
>>12760 This seems divorced from reality ever more people are moving into cities. They have to commute a long way to go harvesting food plants. Unless you know a way to reverse this process I don't see how what you are describing would happen.
>>12761 In pre industrial societies most people are sustenance farmers. This is the natural way a human survives by doing human things. People are moving to cities because that's where jobs are, and people are in an unnatural situation where they cant afford land and must do specialized labor to survive. Most people working retail or food service in a city would gladly leave to join an agrarian commune
>>12762 >the natural way Uh oh human nature alert I wouldn't mind cities to be built less dense and covered in food gardens but this going back to the country shit is straight up reactionary masturbation fantasy.
>>12762 >>12760 these. Someone in a similar thread would say that we could have Luxury Permaculture Suburbatopia living with consoomerism and 2 cars for every home. But what that anon and some itt don’t think about is how other aspects of life are affected by these proposed changes to production. Permaculture is a key aspect to any endgame of socializing/communizing production.
>>12763 And you want to, what? Have a worker owned economy where people produce for the sake of consuming? And bring progress by making new products? For what purpose, it doesnt make us happier or healthier. Everything we need to be maximally happy and healthy can be produced by as few as a couple dozen people collectively tending their land. We've advanced our societies and technology, sent probes into the stars to find nothing and have nearly destroyed ourselves in the process. Why shouldnt we just abandon it and be happy? And I'm not an anprim, theres no reason you wouldn't have universities doing science, medicine etc
>>12762 I don't buy the human nature argument that seems like a hand wave, before people were subsistence farmers they were hunter gatherers, and you could if you wanted make an argument that therefore people should all become nomadic also by referring to human nature. You could pick some other aspect of how humans behave and then justify something else. You have not explained what causes the drive for people to move to cities and what you would have to happen for it to be reversed to make your vision happen. >>12764 >Permaculture is a key aspect to any endgame of socializing/communizing production. Can you explain why this is the case, and why you think there is such a thing as an end game ---- I can see the benefits of permaculture from an agricultural point of view but I don't see how you are going to make large parts of the population go back to being farmers. If you were advocating for some robot stuff and putting permaculture pads everywhere I could see it.
>>12765 >And you want to, what? Have a worker owned economy where people produce for the sake of consuming? And bring progress by making new products? For what purpose, it doesnt make us happier or healthier. Everything we need to be maximally happy and healthy can be produced by as few as a couple dozen people collectively tending their land. This is what the hippies tried to do, and it didn't take. >We've advanced our societies and technology, sent probes into the stars to find nothing and have nearly destroyed ourselves in the process. Why shouldnt we just abandon it and be happy? This is a reactionary take, blaming technology for the downsides of class society.
>>12766 > If you were advocating for some robot stuff and putting permaculture pads everywhere I could see it. The point though is that permaculture design can be very effective and low labor without the need for tech and machines. Not all problems can be solved with perpetually more and more tech and robotics. I'm not any kind of an anprim, but there can be practical reasons to use low tech solutions.
How do I learn the basics of sustainable agriculture bros.. where do I even start?
>The point though is that permaculture design can be very effective and low labor without the need for tech and machines. that's false, and you know it. >Not all problems can be solved with perpetually more and more tech and robotics. I'm not any kind of an anprim, but there can be practical reasons to use low tech solutions. I don't you should mix permaculture with tech-phobia
>>12769 Gaia's Garden and One Straw Revolution >>12770 Recognizing that low tech solutions can be both more sustainable and effective is not tech-phobia. If permaculture and technology can be blended in a way that is sustainable, obviously we should do that. But we shouldn't look to solve all problems with tech when we don't have to.
>>12771 >Recognizing that low tech solutions can be both more sustainable and effective is not tech-phobia. If permaculture and technology can be blended in a way that is sustainable, obviously we should do that. But we shouldn't look to solve all problems with tech when we don't have to. You are just repeating this falsehood, it's incredibly dishonest to attempt to use repetition rather than actual arguments. The use of technology for reducing labour requirements is not in question, socialism is going to attempt to advance the means of production and render the benefits available to all, we are certainly not going to force people to do manual farming, that would be hardcore reactionary emiseration. Obviously if you want to live this way that can be accommodated. I see perma-culture as production technique that scores much higher in the sustainability category and land-use efficiency than monocrop farming, not as an alternative life-style. To me it looks like you are arguing for gentrifying people back into past.
>>12772 >You are just repeating this falsehood, it's incredibly dishonest to attempt to use repetition rather than actual arguments. How is it a falsehood? It's not even an absolute fucking statement. What is wrong with looking at low tech solutions to problems, exactly? >The use of technology for reducing labour requirements is not in question I never called it into question you're the one taking every word I've said and intentionally misinterpreting it. I'm not saying we SHOULDN'T use technology to solve problems, I'm saying we DON'T ALWAYS NEED A HIGH TECH SOLUTION. >we are certainly not going to force people to do manual farming, that would be hardcore reactionary emiseration. But you can certainly provide people the knowledge and resources to decentralize food production. You don't need to force anything, simply provide the knowledge and resources. For example, a state sponsored permaculture drive to provide teaching, learning resources, seeds, and other basic resources. >I see perma-culture as production technique that scores much higher in the sustainability category and land-use efficiency than monocrop farming, not as an alternative life-style. Permaculture design is compatible with socialism in every way. It is the most realistic way to deal with the climate crisis and all the horrors that come with it. >To me it looks like you are arguing for gentrifying people back into past. Progress doesn't have to mean perpetually more, sometimes progress can mean just a simplification. I don't want to go back to subsistence farming, nor do I see the industrial agriculture of modern day sustainable even under socialism. I want to totally rethink how we approach agriculture and food, and permaculture is the design that checks literally every single box. Will some people have to do more agricultural maintenance labor? Yes, but a huge bulk of modern jobs under capitalism are already fucking worthless. It will be a net gain to leisure time, as well as safeguarding food sources against climate induced scarcity, and a means by which to repair our critically damaged planet and its ecosystems.
>>12772 >socialism is going to attempt to advance the means of production and render the benefits available to al In other words, progress for the sake of wealth accumulation but distributed equally. Lol at calling sustainable agriculture and the decentralization of food production reactionary when your position is based on the accumulation of wealth
>>12774 What these anons mean when they say "improve the means of production" is they want to reduce the labour time required to produce all of the necessities and luxuries in life so that there is more free time. At least, I hope they mean that. This "productivity" view and the "sustainability" view of the permaculture gang are not opposed. Both want to reduce the labour input required for (in this case) food production. The conflict is that permaculture gang is describing a desirable end goal under full communism while the other anons are trying to figure out a transition form existing industrial agriculture to something sustainable. >>12773 > I don't want to go back to subsistence farming, nor do I see the industrial agriculture of modern day sustainable even under socialism. To me the order of things needs to be: 1. produce enough to feed 7 billion people for an interim period (say 100 years) 2. halt the destruction of arable land 3. transition to a sustainable model which could be permaculture Maybe you believe steps 2 and 3 are the same, that could be correct but it needs to be experimentally tried on a large scale and verified. But I think step 2 is complex and will involve both technological solutions such as carbon capture as well as changing agricultural practices. Either way, to me the challenge is political, as with all things, not technological/methodological. To ignore step 1 is to indirectly ask how many Africans need to die for us to achieve a sustainable future, because realistically climate change will hit them the hardest.
>>12775 They're all difficult questions that can't really be answered until the time comes. My personal idea as a ML, would be for the state to sponsor permaculture though education, distribution of educational materials, and a standardized package of seeds(Varying slightly dependent on climate) How successful would that be? How realistic is that? I'm not sure, but it seems to have mostly worked in Cuba. I do think it's possible to transition both smoothly and relatively quickly, if all the cards lined up.
I suppose I do have one more thing to add. The USA actually exports a pretty massive amount of food to the rest of the world. So any attempt to change the agricultural systems of america could have huge impacts on the entire rest of the world. That's one issue I'll admit I don't know the answer to.
>>12775 We already produce enough food to feed 10 Billion (source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10440046.2012.695331), so step 1 is set. Thus step 2 is actually step 1 and in fact is even more time sensitive since the calculations in the article above are based on current agricultural processes which are more sensitive to climate change.
(114.55 KB [email protected])
>>12779 Full report courtesy of scihub This post brought to you by PIRATE GANG Can we really say there is enough for 10 billion when that relied on intensive industrial farming methods and the climate conditions of the 20th century? The report does say that organic farming methods, diverse crops, can work better in harsh climates compared to intensive agriculture. That's good news. The report also mentions 1.5 billion people are subsistence farmers and producing half of the worlds food. >(think they are citing this paper but I'm not sure: Altieri, M. A. 2002 Agroecology: the science for natural resource management for poor farmers living in marginal environments.) These subsistence farmers are already, to some degree, practicing sustainable agriculture. We won't need to convince them to change their ways. I guess the real fight is liquidating the capitalists and implementing a better food production system for the other 5.5 billion of us.
Also, 10 billion people can't survive on nothing but fucking grains and carbs.
If a permaculture system were implemented, would computers and stuff still be around or would too much of the workforce need to be diverted to agriculture to maintain the division of labor needed to produce goods like that?
>>12782 Absolutely. Albeit, I'm not sure how sustainable modern gaming rigs are. I imagine the "personal computer" will be a very different thing from what it is today. Permaculture doesn't require altogether much work beyond simple maintenance. You shouldn't need fertilizers or pesticides, you shouldn't need to do as much watering. Yes, it would be more people doing agricultural work, but I can't imagine most people doing more than a couple hours of maintenance a day. Of course, people doing full time agricultural work would still exist, but for the most part it would be spread out and self sufficient enough to not be a considerable division of labor. But that's just my uneducated answer.
>>12752 Its pretty enjoyable to drive a tractor for half a day. Picking berries will hurt your back after half a day.
>>12758 Whats the point of forcing inefficiency? Or is socialism a excuse for doing useless shit all day for you?
>>12785 It's not inefficiency, you illiterate twat. Not only that, but we literally can't fucking keep doing industrial agriculture, it just slowly kills the land. Read Gaia's Garden and One Straw Revolution. >Its pretty enjoyable to drive a tractor for half a day. Picking berries will hurt your back after half a day. Multiple people in this thread have already said that nobody is going to be doing HOURS of agricultural labor a day unless full time agricultural labor is their job. READ MOTHERFUCKER, READ. THE ENTIRE POINT OF PERMACULTURE IS TO REDUCE THE LABOR AND RESOURCES REQUIRED AT LITERALLY EVERY STEP.
>>12786 If you are not as efficient as possible, you are inefficient. There might be some issues with large scale agriculture, but these dont require a complete reversal of all the output gain that were made in the last 500 years, just to get some aesthetically pleasing fruitgarden. Killing the land is alarmist bullshit.
>>12787 You literally can not have the output of industrial agriculture without stripping the topsoil, denuding the land, using external fertilizers and pesticides, etc. >just to get some aesthetically pleasing fruitgarden. READ A BOOK.
>>12784 >Picking berries will hurt your back after half a day I can't speak about anything else, but blueberry picking has been mechanized with great success.
>>12780 Thanks for the posting the scihub version. And I agree with your point that we reach that figure using methods that fucks the land, but at the very least it provides a base from which to transition to more sustainable and resilient methods (like permaculture). Now, I'm not on the exact same side as the other anon where I think all food production will be permaculture based. Food production, like (in my opinion) most of a post capitalist society, will have to be a combination of different approaches. Although I do see permaculture being a pretty big part of it and most people's fresh food being sourced from permaculture.
>>12707 Permaculture is a meme. You can’t feed seven billion people without mechanization of agriculture. >muh sustainability >mechanization needs fossil fuels just use electric powered tractors
>>12791 >Permaculture is a meme. Stunning critique. >You can’t feed seven billion people without mechanization of agriculture. I'm not against sustainable mechanization, but perhaps we should consider that 7 billion ( now going on 8 billion ) people is a little bit over carrying capacity.
>>12792 >but perhaps we should consider that 7 billion ( now going on 8 billion ) people is a little bit over carrying capacity. Only if your a primitivist
>>12793 Four generations of one child policy and all of a sudden there's plenty of land, even with climate change and environmental degradation.
>>12794 >Four generations of one child policy and all of a sudden there's plenty of land, even with climate change and environmental degradation. But their is a lack of people. With constant advances in technology population growth could continue for centuries. Natalism will win.
>>12793 I'm not so sure about that. The planet currently produces enough food for 10b people, but that's with most of it being produced with modern unsustainable methods and a lot of that food going to animal feed and biofuels. While I don't doubt that permaculture and other methods of regenerative agriculture may expand that figure, that will likely be through de-desertification which is a slow process.
>>12794 I don't see it happening because the negative short term effects will be put on those who implement it, mostly too few wirkers for retireds, while the positives will not be connected and after the death of those who took the hit.
>>12796 >but that's with most of it being produced with modern unsustainable methods Those "unsustainable methods" can be made sustainable by just using electric tractors 90% of the time >>12797 What benefits of a one child policy are their? A third of people in modern societies have no children, so just to keep the birthrate at a neutral 2.0 level you need a lot of people having two or more children. Besides most people can be housed in cities and if their is land collectivization their is no benefit for their being “more land per person” because no one owns land. When you shrink the population you shrink the labor pool, meaning that standards of living declines as well as the amount of scientific research produced by a society declines.
>>12798 >Those "unsustainable methods" can be made sustainable by just using electric tractors 90% of the time Monocultures aren't just unsustainable because of their dependence on fossil fuels in equipment, but also because they drain resources from the ground itself which requires artificial replenishment.
>>12798 There is a point where productivity/person decreases. I don't want to live in an urban cage on grass a vegan diet just so the pop cap is somewhat higher. Reproduction being a right is liberalism.
>>12800 I think that in a post capitalist world, upon reaching a certain level of development, there will be no need for artificial caps on reproduction. Less developed nations have high growth rates during the process of industrialization because having a lot of kids is A. a holdover from when you needed to in order to ensure enough of them make it to adulthood and B. has an economic incentive because now you have more hands to work the land/earn an income. Furthermore, for a big part of the proletariat, the family is cast as the only legitimate source of support a person has. This is reinforced by emphasizing familial ties as somehow more important than other types of social connections. As a result a reason (if unconscious) that some people have kids is to make sure there's somebody to take care of them when they get old. In a socialist society I would imagine that the concept of the "family" (especially the nuclear family) being removed from its pedestal to make room for community as a legitimate and important support structure, thus removing that motive.
>>12800 >Reproduction being a right is liberalism. I thoroughly disagree with this. But anybody who makes the argument " future technology will fix it " is a utopian tard and they should be immediately laughed it. >Climate change isn't a problem, we'll just use carbon capture technology! >We'll just build fusion reactors to solve all our energy problems! >Overpopulation will never be a problem, we can just farm more food and automate everything! We should look for solutions to problems that actually exist, not fantasy horseshit. Does that mean in some cases more people will have to do labor or that in some cases some degree of technological austerity may be required? I think absolutely. The current ways simply do not work in the long term, and a change in the means of production does not itself make these practices sustainable. In some circumstances, we must find alternatives. We should use technology if we have it, but futurism is 100% pure cope and does nothing for us.
(618.15 KB permaculture.pdf)
>>12802 permaculture culture seems to have a lots of benefits for sustainability and health but as production technique needs to be improved, at least from the limited information that is available, labour inputs are too high and yields are too low. So far the most reliable method of reducing labour inputs is increasing the use of machinery, attitudes like "technological austerity" would pretty much kill the prospects for this, because less food for more work is not a viable proposition, for anybody living outside the ivory tower. As far as improving yields go i don't know nutrient production of this is very good, but improving the rest will probably require difficult research.
>>12799 >Monocultures aren't just unsustainable because of their dependence on fossil fuels in equipment, but also because they drain resources from the ground itself which requires artificial replenishment. A lot of highly automated agriculture use soybeans to rotate out corn and wheat. Most issues with modern agriculture are not integral to modern agriculture it’s self. >>12802 >Overpopulation will never be a problem, we can just farm more food and automate everything! This has been true for the past three hundred years. >>12802 >We should use technology if we have it, but futurism is 100% pure cope and does nothing for us. >year 1800 those silly futurists thinking that in the future we can build buildings out of steel the science behind a lot of futurist concepts is pretty sound, all that needs to happen is for it to be figured out
>>12804 The fact that overpopulation has not yet been a problem does not mean that it will never be a problem. Earth will continue to be a finite system, no matter how long it takes to overcrowd that finite system.
Is there a recommended introductory book for getting into permaculture?
>>12806 Bill Mollison "permaculture: a designer's manual" Basically an introductory text book with lots of great figures Pdf is too big to post here but it's easy to find on google
>>12805 >Earth will continue to be a finite system, no matter how long it takes to overcrowd that finite system. Then expand into space.
>>12808 >Another space cadet
(286.32 KB 503x522 hotpockets.png)
>>12805 >overpopulation has not yet been a problem wut
>>12738 >all year round This isn't possible anywhere the ground freezes but you can easily harvest enough that they will store over winter so effectively yes. Why would using a different system overcome physics?
>>12743 > labour input requirements The whole point of permaculture is that it is permanent agriculture. It requires slightly larger than average initial labour with intentional design and then produces without input. Theres no weeding, spraying, irrigating etc because you design an ecosystem with feedback loops such that waste from one system becomes fuel for another. You look outside, everywhere there is green this could be food, but it is not because capitalism.
>>12753 >I see a big problem with permaculture if it means that you need lots of manual labour for harvesting, that will create a under-class of low-wage harvest-workers, that are going to be transported from field to field to harvest the different foot plants. It sounds like you are imagining that food will be produced elsewhere and transported to you. This is not how it works. If you want food you go to your backyard and pick it yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QGy1q2p2W0 Earthworks and Big Machines >you know petrol machines and and and diesel driven machines and and large equipment how can that possibly be something that's indefinitely sustainable and bill turned around look it's about the energy that you put in to create a system and how long that energy is extended by the life of the system if we have to repair this earth quickly if we have to bring it back into balance and we use machinery the energy of manufacture of that machine and the maintenance of that machine over its lifetime extended by the systems that we install which in our case goes on indefinitely it's permanent so pulling a little bit of energy in significantly small amount of energy compared to the extension of time of your systems with all intention our systems go on indefinitely this is permanent these trees will live for hundreds some up to a thousand years and be productive but they will go on and self-replicate with very small amounts of hand tool and physical maintenance with low embodied energy input
>Focus in permaculture on learning from indigenous tribal cultures is based on the evidence that these cultures have existed in relative balance with their environment and survived for longer than any of our more recent experiments in civilisation.” David Holmgren. “Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBLKuYDh5S8 What is Permaculture? By Bill Mollison, David Holmgren 10-Year Timeline of the Greening the Desert Project https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W69kRsC_CgQ The Forested Garden: What is a Food Forest? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCJfSYZqZ0Y Two Years of Permaculture Application https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFFFt6G6YNU Food Forest Stages https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBW4o_Bq7Og Pattern Understanding https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIaxI_-0IOA Permaculture Patterning with Animal Systems https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgsf7EM_BNk Geoff Lawton's Zaytuna Farm Video Tour Part I, 2012 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdWGPhP2GeE Zaytuna Farm Video Tour Part II https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjsjNU_Vwqk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agroforestry Agroforestry is a land use management system in which trees or shrubs are grown around or among crops or pastureland. This intentional combination of agriculture and forestry has varied benefits, including increased biodiversity and reduced erosion.[1] Agroforestry practices have been successful in sub-Saharan Africa[2] and in parts of the United States.[3][4] Agroforestry shares principles with intercropping. Both may place two or more plant species (such as nitrogen-fixing plants) in proximity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silviculture Silviculture is the practice of controlling the growth, composition/structure, and quality of forests to meet values and needs, specifically timber production. The name comes from the Latin silvi- ("forest") and culture ("growing"). The study of forests and woods is termed silvology. Silviculture also focuses on making sure that the treatment(s) of forest stands are used to conserve and improve their productivity.[1] Generally, silviculture is the science and art of growing and cultivating forest crops, based on a knowledge of silvics (The study of the life-history and general characteristics of Forest trees and stands, with particular reference to local/regional factors).[2] In specific, silviculture is the practice of controlling the establishment and management of forest stands. The distinction between forestry and silviculture is that silviculture is applied at the stand-level, while forestry is a broader concept. Adaptive management is common in silviculture, while forestry can include natural/conserved land without stand-level management and treatments being applied. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture Permaculture is a set of design principles centered on whole systems thinking, simulating, or directly utilizing the patterns and resilient features observed in natural ecosystems. It uses these principles in a growing number of fields from regenerative agriculture, rewilding, and community resilience. The term permaculture was coined by David Holmgren, then a graduate student at the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education's Department of Environmental Design, and Bill Mollison, senior lecturer in Environmental Psychology at University of Tasmania, in 1978.[1] It originally meant "permanent agriculture",[2][3] but was expanded to stand also for "permanent culture", since social aspects were integral to a truly sustainable system as inspired by Masanobu Fukuoka's natural farming philosophy. It has many branches including ecological design, ecological engineering, regenerative design, environmental design, and construction. Permaculture also includes integrated water resources management that develops sustainable architecture, and regenerative and self-maintained habitat and agricultural systems modelled from natural ecosystems.[4][5] Mollison has said: "Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted and thoughtful observation rather than protracted and thoughtless labor; and of looking at plants and animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single product system."[6] The twelve principles of permaculture most commonly referred to were first described by David Holmgren in his book Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability (2002). They include Observe and Interact, Catch and Store Energy, Obtain a Yield, Apply Self Regulation and Accept Feedback, Use and Value Renewable Resources and Services, Produce No Waste, Design From Patterns to Details, Integrate Rather Than Segregate, Use Small and Slow Solutions, Use and Value Diversity, Use Edges and Value the Marginal, and Creatively Use and Respond to Change.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masanobu_Fukuoka Masanobu Fukuoka (Japanese: 福岡 正信, Hepburn: Fukuoka Masanobu, 2 February 1913 – 16 August 2008) was a Japanese farmer and philosopher celebrated for his natural farming and re-vegetation of desertified lands. He was a proponent of no-till, no-herbicide grain cultivation farming methods traditional to many indigenous cultures,[1] from which he created a particular method of farming, commonly referred to as "natural farming" or "do-nothing farming".[2][3][4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoff_Lawton Geoff Lawton (born 10 December 1954) is a British-born Australian permaculture consultant, designer, teacher and speaker.[1][2] Since 1995 he has specialised in permaculture education, design, implementation, system establishment, administration and community development.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Lancaster Brad Stewart Lancaster (born 1967) is an expert in the field of rainwater harvesting and water management. He is also a permaculture teacher, designer, consultant and co-founder of Desert Harvesters, a non-profit organization. Lancaster lives on an eighth of an acre in downtown Tucson, Arizona, where rainfall is less than 12 inches (300 mm) per annum. In such arid conditions, Lancaster consistently models that catching over 100,000 US gallons (380,000 l; 83,000 imp gal) of rainwater to feed food-bearing shade trees, abundant gardens, and a thriving landscape is a much more viable option than the municipal system of directing it into storm drains and sewer systems.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sepp_Holzer Josef "Sepp" Holzer (born July 24, 1942 in Ramingstein, State of Salzburg, Austria) is a farmer, an author, and an international consultant for natural agriculture. After an upbringing in a traditional Catholic rural family, he took over his parents' mountain farm business in 1962 and pioneered the use of ecological farming, or permaculture, techniques at high altitudes (1,100 to 1,500 meters (3,600 to 4,900 ft)[1] after being unsuccessful with regular farming methods. Holzer was called the "rebel farmer"[according to whom?] because he persisted, despite being fined and even threatened with prison[2] for practices such as not pruning his fruit trees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Mollison Bruce Charles "Bill" Mollison (4 May 1928 – 24 September 2016) was an Australian researcher, author, scientist, teacher and biologist. In 1981, he was awarded the Right Livelihood Award "for developing and promoting the theory and practice of permaculture". He has been called the founder[2][n 1] and "father"[3] of permaculture. Permaculture (a portmanteau of "permanent agriculture")[4] is an integrated system of ecological and environmental design which Mollison co-developed with David Holmgren, and which they together envisioned as a perennial and sustainable form of agriculture. In 1974, Mollison began his collaboration with Holmgren, and in 1978 they published their book Permaculture One, which introduced this design system to the general public. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Holmgren David Holmgren (born 1955) is an Australian environmental designer, ecological educator and writer. He is best known as one of the co-originators of the permaculture concept with Bill Mollison.
Based bookposter
(485.38 KB 950x4050 I4ZsZhw.jpg)
look at all the fuckin books Here's some plants for circulating the air
>>12826 Why would I grown anything except for chrysanthemum (anal) and lily (lesbians)?
>>12827 The more plants the more filtering happens, and variety is more interesting.
https://internationalistcommune.com/rojavas-economics-and-the-future-of-the-revolution/ <Economic philosophy of the revolution >Öcalan is overquoted, but I will do it one more time. He compares society to a field. If you grow a monoculture you will need fertilizer, pesticides, a fence, industrial equipment and so forth or the crops will die. In society this is the state. A monocultural, or nationalist, society cannot exist without a state because it is weak like the crops on an industrial plantation. If you plant different crops together however, according to the principles of permaculture and agroforestry, the field will become an ecosystem which regulates itself and is in no need of meddling, much like a healthy, diverse society has no need for authoritarian institutions. >Today humans try to regulate and “domesticate” ecosystems in various ways, just like they try to fix social problems with clever policies, sophisticated legislation, war or other external methods that disregard society, its origins, dynamics and complexity and reduce billions of people to passive subjects of the schemes of a disconnected class of “managers”. In both cases it is the same process of splitting the world into a passive, inanimate mass to be subjugated (nature, women, humankind, “the people”) and an active dominator (man, god, government). Emancipatory theory rejects this positivist, patriarchal and materialist ideology. But to break the power of the external regulator, the group in question must of course become active, self-organize and shape its own ecosystem in order to make the constructs of power redundant. >Economic autonomy is therefore crucial in achieving any substantial change of the status quo. The moral, ethical concept of solidarity must be developed and internalized before any group can satisfy its material needs in a truly egalitarian way.
Has anybody on the site actually done permaculture?
>>12830 No, you have to own land for that.
>>12832 Do you understand the difference between agriculture and reforestation you fucking mouthbreathing brainlet?
>>12833 You can do either of those guerilla style in the right context. Don't be a defeatist.
>>12830 Yep. My Dad was a working class lad (plant machinery operator) but went back to uni at 40 when he got laid off from a job. Studied biology and became a national parks worker. He was into permaculture since he was a younger man, and all my life as I was growing up, and made every backyard we ever rented bloom (to the point where landlords knocked money off the rent), and we ate out of the garden pretty permanently, which was really great for times when we were on the dole or Mum couldn't get shifts. We never got to full on food forest level, but we did get to the point of having a couple of citrus trees growing (and all layers below). We would trade with friends for avocados, lychees and eggs. I have also been involved with a permie community garden project (which yielded edible food quantities) for a while until I had to move, which produced a fair bit of food. Now I just have a back garden which is being scorched by this sun and heat of Aussie hell bushfire summer, but I intend to rebuild.
https://permaculturenews.org/2020/01/07/we-must-build-a-more-humane-economy-before-its-too-late/?mc_cid=b2e4e51629&mc_eid=14bc1848b2 <Australia’s bushfires are a wake-up call: we must build a more humane economy before it’s too late >Back in the 1800s, scholars in the field of economics cast an envious glance at their colleagues in science. >They envied physics, with its laws of gravity. They looked with green-eyes at those studying chemistry, with its elements and atoms. And they longingly admired their biologist chums with their categorisations and evolutionary adaptation. >Now more than a century on, as we begin the third decade of the third millennium, economics no longer seems to take heed of science, let alone defer to scientific realities. >It is (invariably mainstream) economists with their contentions and blind spots that drive so much policy making, not scientists with their evidence-based models and forecasts.
>>12810 7 billion people on earth, 10 billion people's worth of food produced per year. The only problem we have is with food distribution. That may soon change.
>>12837 That's not even true though, because most of that is grains that most people could never have a healthy diet on, obesity, diabetes, and disease would be absolutely rampant.
>>12838 While that is true, that land and resources that produce that grain could be re-allocated to produce other foods which, though they may likely yield less calories/acre-year, would still be enough to feed the population.
>>12753 Late response sorry. So I basically tossed a thought out their, I'll try to extend this in another post soon.
Alright lads, Permaculture Design Manual, Intro to Permaculture, Permaculture 1 and 2 just arrived in the mail. Let's do this shit. As the man said: Learn, Learn, Learn!
>>12841 Are you willing to dissect and scan your books for the education of all degenerates on this mongolian throat singing forum?
(91.82 KB 688x807 moneymaking.jpg)
>>12842 I would prefer not to, but (or because) they are already available on sites like libgen. I bough the hard copy because a) I like hard copy b) I bought direct from Tagari, which is the community publisher c) it will be useful when the power goes out and western industrial civilisation finally collapses
Anyone know where I can get some seeds for cheap (or free, preferably) to do some guerilla gardening and make food forests out of borg lawns?
I want to buy some land somewhere decently chilly and a decent bit above sea-level and become a self sustainable farmer. Then I can finally get out of this fucking mess.
Communists and industrial socialists disappoint me greatly when they struggle against nature. No amount of planetary expeditions will make any statist revolution worth it. The proletariat will fight beside you sure, but they will struggle against you as soon as their beautiful mountain side is devastated for the sake of building a new factory. Labor conditions are not all that should be considered for a revolution. Man is no greater than an ant. Im fucking drunk.
>>12844 seed packets are super easy to steal in my experience. Just make sure to not look sus and buy something small when leaving.
>>12845 >I want to buy some land somewhere decently chilly and a decent bit above sea-level and become a self sustainable farmer. Then I can finally get out of this fucking mess. desire for individual escape, is prominent theme among the down trodden in capitalism. Jut keep in mind that in capitalist development during the enclosures capitalists actively worked to sabotage subsistence farming, to drive workers into wage work. >>12846 these videos seem decent but their anti-technology stance is idealist nonsense. >>12847 >Communists and industrial socialists disappoint me greatly when they struggle against nature. The only reason you think this is because, there's other people struggling against nature for you, and you have fallen pray to a delusion, brought about by you getting the benefit from said struggle against nature, without you personally having to struggle. >No amount of planetary expeditions will make any statist revolution worth it. You can't know this in advance. >The proletariat will fight beside you sure, but they will struggle against you as soon as their beautiful mountain side is devastated for the sake of building a new factory. So the problem with industry is just optics ?
(33.79 KB 990x527 oss.jpg)
if any of you gets into this, make sure to try to licence stuff as creative commons https://www.opensourceseeds.org/en/licence
>>12850 mehhhh where is the AGPL of seeds
>>12851 AfferoGLP deals with SaaS (Software as a service) And for seeds this would be for Seeds as a service ? Like when you can't do seed saving ? I'm not sure how this translates to plants. can you maybe shed some light on this
>>12849 I mean literally fighting against the order of nature. Not suggesting people all go live off alone so they can struggle against it, I mean most socialist only care about production for the people. Yet, I just don't see humanity as being more important than other forms of life, therefore we shouldn't trample nature for the sake of retaining a surplus on goods used exclusively by humanity.
>>12853 You're a species traitor
>>12853 And not just optics, but when you tear up reserves or wildlands you also obliterate recreation. Think how we have super suburbs and mega cities to condense a working population. Life doesn't need to be like that. Not saying it's not possible to combine socialist living and environmentalism, but people like you seem to entirely regard conservation attempts as being too liberal.
>>12752 the definition of leisure is that it is not mandatory. i don't want to pick berries for 6 hours not because of how unpleasant it is, but because it takes up free time i want to use to do other stuff.
>>12760 >because its grown in a giant boring ugly monoculture and the efficiency of picking the fruit matters >i would otherwise love to pick strawberries all day but uugggghhhh they're all arranged in these BORING ROWS! it's fucking with my feng shui breh
>>12765 >Have a worker owned economy where people produce for the sake of consuming? And bring progress by making new products? For what purpose, it doesnt make us happier or healthier. People are maximally happy when they are free to do what they want. If this is not true, then people are idiots that deserve to by stripped of political power.
>>12849 >anti-technology maybe I missed that part but not everyone is like that >>12814
>>12762 The fuck? I work in a starbucks. My coworlers wouldn't gladly move to an agrarian commune because most of them are so overweight they sweat from bringing dishes back and forth from the back. Do I still feel they deserve higher wages? Certainly. Free healthcare? Certainly. Are they hard workers? Sure. Are they necessarily capable as farmers? Thats fucking funny. You're fucking delusional if you think the proletariat all wishes to live in a pre industrial society. They work long hours for shit pay and all they want to do when they get home is get high and watch big mouth.
(33.88 KB 950x285 ossi_header.png)
(1017.61 KB 1633x4537 hdglkf.j.jpg)
>>12851 https://osseeds.org/seeds/ >Today, only a handful of companies account for most of the world’s commercial breeding and seed sales. Increasingly, patenting and restrictive contracts are used to enhance the power and control of these companies over the seeds and the farmers that feed the world. >Patented and protected seeds cannot be saved, replanted, or shared by farmers and gardeners. And because there is no research exemption for patented material, plant breeders at universities and small seed companies cannot use patented seed to create the new crop varieties that should be the foundation of a just and sustainable agriculture. >Inspired by the free and open source software movement that has provided alternatives to proprietary software, OSSI was created to free the seed – to make sure that the genes in at least some seed can never be locked away from use by intellectual property rights.
>>12849 >The only reason you think this is because, there's other people struggling against nature for you, and you have fallen pray to a delusion, brought about by you getting the benefit from said struggle against nature, without you personally having to struggle. Is this some state of nature idealism? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature Nature provides, in abundance, private property is theft. Think of the amount of energy alone privatized in the Hoover damn, whos river is fed by snow melt from an entire mountain range, and what could be accomplished distributing it according to need rather than wasting it on the highest bidder. And this waste can be multiplied by every industry. Capitalism falsely teaches us to assume the state of nature is one of scarcity, when in fact artificial scarcity enforced by a monopoly on violence is necessary for its existence.
>>12853 >I mean literally fighting against the order of nature. What do you mean with this, ecocidal species do occur in nature. Also by the way >>12854 is correct, if you try to sacrifice humanity you'll become blob of hostile matter. The reason for trying to preserve nature is because it's the bootloader and the fallback habitat system for the human species. >>12862 >Nature provides Yeah not for the current size of the population, while i agree that property is a scarcity mechanism, it's also not really relevant for this context. You have to realise that this is about refuting the idea that humans ever lived or will live in harmony with nature. This is an idealist fantasy, that originates from the misconception the once lived as part of an "ecological organic whole without contradiction". >>12861 I think OSSI gave up on licensing, they now just offer a pledge: <In February of 2014, OSSI made the hard but considered decision to abandon efforts to develop a legally defensible license and to shift to a pledge. This moves OSSI’s discourse and action from the legal field to the terrain of norms and ethics. https://opensource.com/law/14/5/legal-issues-open-source-seed-initiative I don't know what this pledge means, but i would go with >>12850 https://www.opensourceseeds.org/en/licence
>>12863 Never said sacrificing humanity. The only people who think humans are more relevant than any other animal or creature are those who can't move passed religious ideas of humanity being endowed with something greater than other living creatures. ( i.e. "built in His image") all I mean to say is that disregarding other forms of life, ecosystems, or whole planets for that matter simply because we are capable does not make us greater beings in anyway. I'm also not saying we should entirely harmonize with nature like an anprim might say. We should acknowledge ourselves as being no greater than all other life before we make major industrial decisions.
>>12863 >>12864 In the same sense, if you have an ant or rat infestation, you're going to kill or at least halt the infestation. But killing vermin because you are capable is not any more right or wrong than a pack of wolves killing hikers that enter their territory. Nothing is right or wrong in either situation, it simply occured. A decision to, say, cut down the redwoods for resources could be argued by saying that it would be a shame to have such an ancient and beautiful place destroyed. I think decisions such as these should not be made with the sole focus being on the current resource needs of humanity.
>>12865 However, if they are, so be it and continue to carry on.
>>12863 > current size of the population ah state of nature AND a Malthusian >>12863 >live in harmony with nature. This is an idealist fantasy This is true, because nature/civilization is an idealist fantasy. Anthropomorphizing the wild, objectifying nature as something separate from humans, an animal living in nature is peak lib. You still have to apply labor to land to acquire the energy naturally stored, but imagining yourself in competition with a big other is not required for this. This is like hippies that don't want to eat chemicals when their bodies are made of chemicals. Nature, "virgin land" etc was used to justify colonial imperialism the world over, yet this land was used, under systems not recognized by liberal order. Is this to say that there was no slavery in america before the white came and all these systems were perfect? Of course not. Being critical of nature as a concept does not require romantic idealism.
>>12863 https://youtu.be/gQGWx7VdLDc?t=34m33s > I assure you it is it occurs only within the capitalist University is that the separation between the humanity that is to say that human being is some sort of special being over and above nature takes place within capitalist thinking right and Marxism reorients our understanding of human back with an understanding of nature right but no nature that is predetermined the whole point of human being is that it is being that is plastic that must realize its nature in history >yes so how does it benefit capitalism to understand humans that way >as a beginning I can answer this question so and this was a theory that at first I was like what the fuck are you talking about and then I was like holy fucking shit and it's gonna happen to you thumb right get your elf yourself get ready to funk all right so I'm gonna make a statement and you're gonna be like what the fuck and then I'm gonna explain it too you're gonna be like holy fuck >the concept of nature is white supremacist >so who's when when white people as imperialists and as settler colonial escs want to get into a particular territory they have ways of describing land and it is virgin it is natural it is untouched and what they mean is white people aren't there there is no quote-unquote civilization it's not industrialized but there is nowhere virtually nowhere on earth that human beings do not live like with the exception of Antarctica and some like random remote mountains [Laughter] >so so with those like random exceptions everywhere on earth has human beings living in it it's not nature it is there it's always muddy there is always some sort of you know this sort of it's not quite you know populated in the way that somebody who lives in the city might imagine it but it is also not nature and so there is a narrative which is constructed which says that this is nature and so it is not being used by the people who live there in a productive way and it means we can get in there and we can take it over well
>>12858 >People are maximally happy when they are free to do what they want. Actually studies show happiness is mostly tied to your community and you having a role in it. But anyway no one is gonna force you to maintain the permaculture. But it's going to exist around whereever you do whatever you do, because there is a subset of the population that would love to turn the land into a productive ecosystem for humans and wildlife, and once the land is collectively owned there is no one to stop them from planting fruit trees and berry bushes
(129.71 KB 1024x768 3-twilight-meadow-Bob-Ross.jpg)
bump
>>12795 Lack of people for what? Last I checked there isn't a metaphysical need for a certain number of people to exist. >With constant advances in technology population growth could continue for centuries. And if it doesn't? There clearly needs to be regulation basing allowed reproductive rate on the carrying capacity of the economy. There is no downside to having this set up, just in case. >>12804 300 years is an unspeakably infinitesimal amount of time in the long run. human population has been stuck at the maximum allowed by food supply for 100,000 years, and now that we finally have the capability to ensure that we never return to that state of affairs, you're advocating abandoning that hope. fuck off.
>>12871 >human population has been stuck at the maximum allowed by food supply this is not the case currently sorry Malthus you're out of date
>>12872 >Let's just fuck and breed until the entire world is india This population is not sustainable under industrial agriculture. We either need to switch to a sustainable system ( like permaculture ) and bring more people into the agricultural labor force, or we will continue to strip our environments of life, pollute the soil and water, strip the topsoil, and drain aquifers dry. Or we need less population.
>>12760 Picking fruit from your grandma's dacha sucks ass t. Russian
(83.24 KB 800x800 5d2w3e4rfztu.jpeg)
>>12868 >human being is that it is being that is plastic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyhrYis509A chortle
>>12873 I think your statements are not motivated by actual data or research, can you back any of this up.
>>12874 Yeah, having a fruit tree you can walk up to and pick an apple to eat right away is cool and all but actually spending the whole day gathering that shit into buckets is bullshit.
>>12876 idk dude what the guy is saying is pretty basic. I can't be bothered getting citations for all of them but if you just google the individual problems the guy raises with 'industrial agriculture' you'll find plenty of hits. Here's one on top soil erosion: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/ The problems the guy raised are very well understood. The only real solution that has been put forward is permaculture. Even organic farming has its issues, for example it uses way too much water to be sustainable. >>12877 >>12874 The labour input would actually be far less in an urban food forest. People would have to work far less to get healthy food. Once as these systems are set up the labour required is minimal and quite leisurely.
bumpu
Pic 1 of the OP reminds me of Haitian bean farms
>>12880 Context?
>>12881 Just a comment. I have a Haitian friend who has 3 chunks of land that he cultivates.
>>12882 Fun fact: Pinto beans can yield up to 1500 pounds per acre. Beans are high in protein and calories, and should be integrated into every permaculture
https://qz.com/1805109/aerofarms-supplies-singapore-airliness-salad-greens/ >You may have heard of aeroponics as the method used by NASA to grow vegetables in outer space. Instead of sprouting into the dirt, plant roots are exposed in the air and grow upward. Vegetation is cultivated with mists of water and controlled amounts of light and air. An aeroponic farm is 300% more efficient than a traditional farm in terms of crop yield, though critics decry the significant amounts of electricity used to power the computers, lights, high-pressure valves, and sprinklers around the clock.
For any of this to function we need collectivization and planned organization.
>>12885 Aeroponics is useful for space (so colonizing Mars or some shit), but on earth hydroponics in tandem with aquaculture. The latter acts as a provision of natural nitrogen (through fish feces) and the plants in turn clean the water. Thus its a solid source of fish and crops with little waste and high efficiency.
>>12886 I mean that wouldn't hurt, especially in the beginning when everyone is trying to get a permaculture started. but the point of permaculture is that it scales both up and down, and requires very little labor once it gets started. So it allows for food production to be decentralized. No need to use energy to ship food long distances, it can be produced in your community
>>12707 permaculture is in a socialist context, objectively preferable to agriculture however I advocate only for GMO urban permaculture where instead of parks you have collectivized permacultures. Only because I hate tree-larpers.
plant a tree
>>12890 always a good idea.
>>12890 >plant a fruit tree FTFY
I'm buying some land, but I wont be able to start building the permaculture until probably early June. Does anyone know if its worth it to plant fruit trees in the very late spring? Would I be better off waiting until fall? what perreniels does it make sense for me to plant in late spring/early summer?
>>12893 Bumping for this user's question
>>12894 Upon reflection I should probably post this question somewhere other than a 500 user communist forum
>>12893 Depends on how much access to water you have lad Plenty of water, you'll be fine Not much may be an issue since the tree needs time to work its roots down to the watertable
>>12895 But yes, asking on dedicated forums would be wise
>plant something >it dies/gets sick/rots Every time
>>12893 if ur not planning on watering and stuff and it's okay with cold (really this all depends on where you are ig please tell us ur climate), then id start planting in fall just to better the chances of it surviving. Id also recommend growing as much from seed as possible, because where the seed sprouts and grows up matters a lot for its tolerance to your environmental conditions. Esp matters with microclimates an stuff. But it shouldnt be a big deal and if u want faster results go with putting in saplings also remember to plant with succession and guilds in mind. Whats synergizes with what and what will these plants look like in 5 years, 10 years, 30 years or fully mature?
>>12899 I'm US southeast, zone 7b. It's less than an acre of land, pretty much unlimited water access, and also will be where I live so watering wont be an issue. I'm going to mulch very heavily with woodchips as well so if I miss a day of watering it shouldn't dry out. So it looks like I'm gonna put the fruit trees in as soon as I can which should be june. Planning to plant a lot of comfrey with the trees as well. Also planning to plant a lot of garlic pretty much everywhere both to harvest and let self propagate to keep deer away. Starting from seed for fruit trees is probably not something I'm going to do for most trees, limited space is probably my biggest issue so I'll be doing mostly dwarf/ semi dwarf root stock trees. Other perreniels I'm going to put in are walking onions, asparagus, berries, grapes, hazelnut
Yo, I'm in florida and gonna start planting soon. I already have everything I want planned out for the most part, but does anybody have any ideas for other things I could grow here? It's central florida btw, not down in the tropics.
>>12895 Hey w're dialectical and thus more helpful
>>12904 Slightly off-topic, but a key element of fighting climate change does have to be carbon sequestration. That carbon has only 3 places it can be - in the earth's crust as fossil fuels, in the atmosphere as CO2, and in biomass. Reforestation is a necessary project, and to tie this post back to the thread, growing food forests with permaculture is a way to do that in part.
(21.56 KB 680x356 398.jpg)
(388.93 KB 1280x720 maxresdefault (2).jpg)
WHOS PLANTING CROPS IN THEIR LAWN LETS GOOOO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng-VskDFPpM
(156.79 KB 1280x720 maxyjpg.jpg)
>>12907 WHOS PLANTING CROPS IN OTHER PEOPLES LAWNS
>>12908 Plant crops on public ground so the people can eat! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvtqKMxZ95s
>>12909 I fockin' knew you were gonna post dat motherfucking video from dat motherfucker. I love ya comrade, go fuck yourself. Bye.
>>12910 What is the reference here?
>>12707 Hydroponics-aquaculture hybrid structures would probably be most optimal for food production
>>12911 The Plant Ecology of Concrete, Garbage and Urine - Botanizing A Toilet https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=35qF2hEefXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35qF2hEefXg
>>12911 It's in the post that post was replying to. Crime Pays But Botany Doesn't is an excellent youtube channel about botany, tangential to the topic of permaculture. That specific video is his guide to growing in public space without permission, i.e. illegally. It applies to either botany in general or food plants specifically. A staple task of radical organizations (esp dual power) should be guerilla gardening.
>>12707 I bought a book on permaculture last year, and wanted to plant a garden this year when spring started, but I can't because I still have some of a Student loan to pay off. Don't you love capitalism?
>>12915 Sorry of this comes off as self-helpy, but maybe you can start really really small?
>>12916 Seconded, you don't need a plot of land to grow food necessarily. You can just start with growing herbs in pots since they can grown and harvested all year round. You won't be feeding yourself with just them, but you can make a start and gain a little experience if you're a newcomer.
>>12917 Would making a greenhouse be effective in growing things like veggies or be better to have them growing outside because was talking with my dad and he is thinking of building a green house to have home grown veggies.
>>12907 >Before: a burnt out / recovering form cold lawn and some leafless trees after a winter or in mid autumn. >After: same shit just in summer when everything is nice and green. Also some new plants I guess.
>>12918 Yes, a greenhouse would be a wise investment if you live in a non-tropical climate or you want to grow warm-climate foods throughout the year. Ideally you can grow these vegetables from seed in your greenhouse (in pots and trays) during this time of year to then be transplanted outside at the start of summer, when the weather heats up. This is because most vegetables can't begin growing in cold soil and will either rot in place or be eaten by crows.
https://permacultureguidebook.org/complete-guidebook/ Here's a really good freely distributed book, by the way
>>12917 I recommend starting with mint. It's almost impossible to kill.
>>12922 Can confirm. Accidentally sprayed my patch with ll-purpose weed and pest killer (it was years ago, don't judge me). The mint revived itself after a heavy rain.
Any recommendations for some easy crops to plant now in Scandinavia? The weather has been pretty mild and no frost is on the horizon. I've thought about carrots, potatos and maybe onions.
>>12924 I think you can do amaranth(which can be harvested as a grain), quinoa, jerusalem artichoke, barley, breadroot, nettles, rhubarb, Wu Wei Zi, asparagus, garlic, serviceberries. I don't actually know if any of these can be planted now or if they'll grow where you are, but I THINK they'll be hardy where you are. Just kinda go over them.
bump
(369.36 KB 720x480 usda hardiness.png)
>>12916 >>12917 >>12915 I'm about to start companion planting in a pot with: >Tomato >tomato cage for support >pole beans, supported by cage >mint >basil >garlic All of these will fit in a big enough pot. The tomato and beans will grow to fill the upper space. The herbs will stay low and improve the tomato's flavor and help keep pests away (esp garlic). This i a relatively simple combination that gives you good nutrients and some protein. It's also not that needy for space. I don't think it's exactly ideal, but I'm doing this for my boomer parents because they want tomatoes in a pot. There are other combinations you can come up with. Look into companion planting. This post has a bunch of information on combinations you can try. >>12902 The key aspects are to make them compatible with each other and use the space to its full potential. If possible you can also try to balance the food production (protein, vitamins, etc) but that's harder with less space and less necessary if you can trade or buy food as well. >>12924 IDK about Scandinavian standards, but the US has hardiness zones based on the climate, so look into how cold it gets where you are so you can see what will survive.
It makes a lot of sense. You can get halfway there just by replacing your city's trees with fruit trees and harvesting them.
Fuck permaculture, hydroponics gangg
>>12928 You don't even have to do that. Find a climber like beans, grapes, or cucumbers and plant them next to trees so they'll climb and provide food. If you find a sunny space where you could plant shit, go out and get a fast grower like radishes and plant them right now. In a month they will be ready to harvest. In the meantime do some research and figure out the best thing to grow there (based on the conditions and the local needs). Then plant that, using any waste from the fast growers as compost to help build the soil. >>12929 Permaculture <minimal physical labor <lots of design labor in setup <requires and encourages systemic knowledge <will continue to function fine if you completely neglect it Hydroponics <regular maintenance, and you have to build shit <basic machine design to make shit water <generally uses monocultures <fails to take advantage of natural plant growth
>>12930 You forgot to mention hydroponics is very compact, able to do the work of an entire farm within a single building of relatively low height. >basic machine design to make shit water What the fuck is this supposed to mean. Not to mention that's why aquaculture is combined with it, doubling efficiency >monocultures Due to restrictions in space and the lack of development. The same can be said for a lot of fruit farms, growing the same plant and nothing else. >fails to take advantage of natural plant growth In urban environments they are a lot safer considering the current fumes and dirtiness of the environment compared to rural areas.
>>12931 >You forgot to mention hydroponics is very compact, able to do the work of an entire farm within a single building of relatively low height. The same applies to food forests/gardens except they're also polycultures that more directly and completely meet the needs of the people using them. >What the fuck is this supposed to mean. Yeah I phrased that awkwardly. I meant it's using simplistic designs to water your plants, which you can just do with a hose and rain anyway. This point is more of a joke, but it's pretty silly how hydroponics is hyped as high tech when it's basically automatic sprinklers. >Due to restrictions in space and the lack of development. The same can be said for a lot of fruit farms, growing the same plant and nothing else. We're not comparing to industrial farms. We're comparing to permaculture, which can take fuller advantage of small space with a wider variety of crops. See >>12737 >In urban environments they are a lot safer considering the current fumes and dirtiness of the environment compared to rural areas. Plants help filter the air, soil, and water and recapture pollutants. See >>12826 You don't only have food plants in a proper permaculture food garden/forest. You're creating a holistic ecosystem ideally, which includes functions like maintaining the quality of the environment. Whereas hydroponics simply ignores the pollution, permaculture can help ameliorate the problem.
>>12759 >Yeah this is delusional Americans import Mexicans to pick their fruit. no, our leaders import them here. the average citizen doesn't want them here.
(22.43 KB 313x235 546rftz.jpeg)
>>12933 Consider Burgers might dunk on immigrants to keep them in the position as fruit pickers... But I'm not going to get baited to derail this thread into bickering about immigration, instead I'm going to point out to you a possible solution to the problems i see with your permaculture ideas: It is not convenient enough for it to get picked up by any significant amount of people. We now live in neo-liberal hell and that means people are too alienated to pursue this unless it's a maximum convenience low effort quick reward scheme. So consider commodifying your perma-culture stuff as seed paper or seed bricks that contains a layer of pre-optimized soil basically in a cardboard box, you can just put on the ground. It has to be cheap, easy and versatile enough so it's compatible with balcony gardens as well.
>>12930 Wouldn't said climber plant eventually suffercate and starve out the tree though? Thus you loose your climbing plant and a tree?
>>12935 Depends on the climber. Some are more aggressive growers and some are perfectly safe. The only universal issue with climbers on trees is that it can be harder to see damage or disease. The kind that produce beans or peas are usually weaker than the tree trunk and die off in the winter (even if the roots stay alive). If you have really vigorous climbers it may even be easier to train the vines on string hung from the tree. The string can biodegrade, and if the vine reaches the branches it can likely support itself enough. That way you avoid the chance of damaging the tree. Worst case scenario if you kill a tree you could replace it with a food-bearing tree, since most trees planted in residential areas are decorative. But you can also avoid planting on trees you definitely want to keep. The bigger and more established the tree, the harder it is to kill. You probably shouldn't grow climbers on trees that have been recently planted. >>12934 >We now live in neo-liberal hell and that means people are too alienated to pursue this unless it's a maximum convenience low effort quick reward scheme. So start a gardening co-op that lets people pay to have a food garden planted, or if they don't have the money, contract them to give you a cut of the produce, that you can then sell at fresh market at a larger scale. >So consider commodifying your perma-culture stuff as seed paper or seed bricks that contains a layer of pre-optimized soil basically in a cardboard box, you can just put on the ground. That wouldn't work so well because the whole point is to design it bespoke for the available space.
>>12936 >So start a gardening co-op that lets people pay to have a food garden planted, or if they don't have the money, contract them to give you a cut of the produce, that you can then sell at fresh market at a larger scale. So perma-culture as a service ? Either too expensive, or an unpalatable economic relation of renting out gardens, too much like feudal relations, the permaculture service-worker literally has to give you a part of the produce they produce because you own land. I get a serious crypto feudalism vibe from the perma-culture crowd already... Perma-culture as commodity is better, you can probably make a box with dirt and seeds so cheap that it works for low income proles too >That wouldn't work so well because the whole point is to design it bespoke for the available space. Try compensating for this, make a number of easy patterns that make it simple to get seed-bricks that have a good enough configuration for the space it's being used. Or "Hard-mode" make image recognition software that can detect the conditions and automatically create a bespoke composition for the seed-bricks.
>>12937 >So perma-culture as a service ? As opposed to a commodity, as proposed here >>12934 and not permaculture as a whole, just the initial setup and any expansions. The whole point is that once it's set up you have bare minimum labor inputs. >Either too expensive, or an unpalatable economic relation of renting out gardens, too much like feudal relations, the permaculture service-worker literally has to give you a part of the produce they produce because you own land. You could negotiate a contract that way or you could add the "clients" to the co-op network and allow them to exchange their surplus (that they don't eat) at a centralized farmers' market for easier distribution. They could get paid the full value of the crops minus the logistical expenses of transporting them to market. You could even have the vendor(s) rotate so that each farmer gets a chance to act as vendor and get paid for that role. There's no need for a hierarchy here except what you're reading into it. Any debt incurred by planting could be paid off out of the surplus if that's how you want to do it. The loans don't have to be interest-bearing, and if you end up losing money this way maybe you could get a tax write-off for the company. Don't come in here and suggest using capitalism to our advantage and then when someone fleshes out that thought start criticizing the methods for being capitalistic. >I get a serious crypto feudalism vibe from the perma-culture crowd already... This is just shit sprinkling. If you have a criticism, make it. Don't just cast aspersions when you are the one coming into the thread telling people to commodify the practice. >Perma-culture as commodity is better, you can probably make a box with dirt and seeds so cheap that it works for low income proles too Maybe you should try to understand what permaculture is, because then you'd see that (like commodification usually is), this plan misses the actual point. >Try compensating for this, make a number of easy patterns that make it simple to get seed-bricks that have a good enough configuration for the space it's being used. Or "Hard-mode" make image recognition software that can detect the conditions and automatically create a bespoke composition for the seed-bricks. There is some utility for predetermined sets of companion plants, but permaculture is also about how and where you plant. If you really want to make it accessible to poor people, the bigger obstacle than pricing is space for planting. You'd be better off trying to sell food gardens to a community as a whole so they could pool their space and money. To do that you would need communities to be organized, though. In place of that, maybe selling the idea to municipalities would be a decent half-measure. The people most able to practice permaculture are of course suburbanites, given the space and disposable income, so they might be the most viable early adopters.
>>12939 oh now i get it you want this to be a lifestyle, ok now i see our disagreement, I see permaculture as a potential production method, that might reduce food dependency, improve food quality and reduce cost for proles. Hence the focus of simplified patterns and application, of a mass-producible good that can be applied without complicated stuff like contracts for using land.
>>12940 >oh now i get it you want this to be a lifestyle Consumption of industrial agriculture is a lifestyle and changing or reducing that would be a change in lifestyle, correct. >Hence the focus of simplified patterns and application, of a mass-producible good that can be applied without complicated stuff like contracts for using land. The nature of permaculture as primarily low-labor maintenance is pretty much diametrically opposed to this capitalist mindset of reducing everything to a product you consume. It's about designing an ecosystem that you have a mutual relationship with. Planting some pre-packaged food products can help, but it's not permaculture. It's interesting how you'd suggest commodifying the process but then balk at the suggestion of introducing permaculture cooperatively and in a way that would strengthen community organizing instead of just being a one-and-done transaction that furthers capitalist alienation. Really makes me think.
(11.02 KB 300x168 534wer6.jpeg)
I think you misunderstand the purpose here, the reason to look at this as just another production method is to be able get an objective view on whether it's worth doing. Also get off you high horse, what i suggest is way more accessible, and it does not preclude people forming communities, it might even be more in line with socialism because it doesn't depend on bourgeois legal contracts, and probably is less vulnerable to subversion that way. And you can get off you high horse, you proposed this to be a hobby for yuppies, which is life-stylism. If you don't do mass-production then you can't realistically have broad adoption of this, You'll get a few coops doing a niche gardening service for wealthy people that are part of the permaculture club. If you do it as a service it's going to be expensive because it's difficult to automate and that excludes proles from being the benefactor of this. I'm not opposed to having this done by a cooperative, you could potentially have a coop producing the seed-bricks. Consider who captures the value add, it it's not the workers it's not really interesting project.
>>12942 Your attitude is still capitalist, maybe subconsciously or something. This isn't just about permaculture, but the general ethos of building support networks and organizing people vs selling them shit. >the reason to look at this as just another production method is to be able get an objective view on whether it's worth doing. Given that it's a less labor intensive alternative and makes use of space that's largely being wasted, yes it is. Technology isn't just about building machines. It's also about finding better methods of doing things. Porky likes to treat technology as if it's just machines because machines are easy to commodify (but you also have intellectual property for methods). You eliminate almost all of the transportation labor (since most food is eaten very close in time and space to where it's harvested) and most of the labor involved in farming (effectively re-creating the field every harvest). That alone would make it worth it as an alternative sector. Then you also have to consider the ecological impact of large scale agriculture, which is immense and severely damaging. The problem with framing it in terms of "just another production method" is that you're failing to question your assumptions about what criteria matter for production methods. And within the capitalist framework, concerns like ecology and the nature of technology get ignored. It's probably not enough to cover all food needs, and certainly isn't initially. But it can significantly improve the way food is produced while also organizing and empowering workers along the way. >Also get off you high horse, what i suggest is way more accessible, Having a community-operated garden that you can just walk up and grab food from is much more accessible than having proles buy seed bricks individually. "Accessibility" is a neoliberal buzzword at this point. Having a commodity on demand is inferior to building the infrastructure for a more robust and permanent system that can meet your needs without you having to buy anything. It's the same song and dance with "accessible" health insurance. >and it does not preclude people forming communities, No, but it reinforces the capitalist mode of production rather than undermining it, while also doing nothing to build communities. "it doesn't preclude it" isn't good enough. It does nothing to encourage it either, which in this context (comparison to permaculture) is a downside. >it might even be more in line with socialism Selling a commodity is not more in line with socialism than organizing people to meet their own needs independent of capitalist production. >because it doesn't depend on bourgeois legal contracts, There doesn't need to be any on-paper contracting to organize a community permaculture project, and you have this completely backward. Contracts far predate the bourgeoisie and are an important tool in codifying a relationship so that the parties involved can negotiate acceptable terms and avoid exploitation. When you don't have a contract the terms are vague and it's difficult to judge whether they've been upheld and someone is getting a raw deal. It's also easier to exercise power to influence the outcome because it's harder for the aggrieved to even articulate the offense. >and probably is less vulnerable to subversion that way. Have you never done any contract based work? If you don't have a contract it's much easier to exploit vulnerable people, because there's no set terms to adhere to. Contract work is rife with abuse because of a lack of official contracts. Spend two minutes looking for work as some kind of freelancer and you'll find people trying to trick you into accepting a job without a contract so they can stiff you. >And you can get off you high horse, you proposed this to be a hobby for yuppies, which is life-stylism. Where did I do that? It's a simple matter of fact that it's materially easier for wealthier people, as is almost anything. That doesn't mean it's "for them." If anything, your proposed commodity would be more likely to cater to people with disposable income than a community-managed project. >If you don't do mass-production then you can't realistically have broad adoption of this, What are you basing this on? It sounds like you can only imagine a trend taking off in the form of a commodity. The activity of planning and planting doesn't require special equipment or resources, only some knowledge of how to optimize agriculture. See the point in the first paragraph about technology. >You'll get a few coops doing a niche gardening service for wealthy people that are part of the permaculture club. This would certainly be easier to implement in capitalism, which is why it would be beneficial to build a model around organizing poor communities to do this for themselves. >If you do it as a service it's going to be expensive because it's difficult to automate and that excludes proles from being the benefactor of this. You could also teach how to do it (as people do with capital P Permaculture) for free and provide assistance in the form of delivering the necessary materials and advising on the practice. In the long term, however, it would be better to set up sustained networks of production as: <a way to help the poor communities get money (by helping them sell their surplus produce) <a way of organizing the workers along socialist lines (collectively managing production) <a form of dual power, reducing dependency on capitalist food production This is a synergistic set of benefits that a commodity won't match, ever. Part of the problem with capitalism is that commodity production gives you commodity fetishism, i.e. turning the planning of production into an exercise in optimizing for "the market," which is the opposite of what a socialist should be trying to do. >I'm not opposed to having this done by a cooperative, you could potentially have a coop producing the seed-bricks. Why are you fixated on commodifying the product? Organizing people is vastly preferable to reducing them to a consumer. If you create a business based on selling seed bricks, your incentive is to make seed bricks that have to be replaced as often as possible. That's the reason planned obsolescence exists. Selling seed bricks as a commodity is directly antagonistic to the goal of fostering independence from capitalism. If you organize cooperatively where you coordinate with the growers, this issue is bypassed because there's no longer a conflict between the buyer and seller. Their success and your success are related. You foster interdependence based on collaboration instead of competition. I'm not even explaining permaculture at this point. This is the difference between capitalism and socialism. >Consider who captures the value add, it it's not the workers it's not really interesting project. It would be the workers. The community grows the food. They keep what they use. The rest they can send to be sold at a fresh market, and they get back whatever revenue that generates. They could rotate and have a different volunteer sell every week. They could organize it through a co-op network and deduct any expenses (gas, fees, etc) before getting the income. Whatever they decide. The part about paying off a loan to finance the initial setup phase isn't even uncommon for co-ops. Lots of them have an initial buy-in of some kind, either actually paying money or working long enough to pay off the cost of entry. This is not ideal, but it's often necessary to make the numbers work. The best thing would be to have existing members of the community voluntarily contribute a portion of the value to an """investment""" fund that would be used to waive entry costs for poor communities, since it would be in everybody's interests to grow the organization. Bonus points if you can exploit the tax system to give people a write-off for it, to encourage wealthier people to actually help poor people get a leg up for once. The capitalists will sell us the rope we hang them with and so on.
>>12943 nice one anon, the other anon has poop for brains
>>12943 >>12944 saddest samefage
>>12943 Well the seed bricks can be mass-produced, and hence will drastically reduce the amount of labour power you need. For some reason you insist on ways that would use far more time & work. That is what makes the difference whether proles can have it, or not. I get that you want to have some sort of culture based around this, but for most people it's just food production, including most socialists, my way is easier. Your defence of services and contracts is pure liberalism. Consider the seed-brick coop production plant can effortlessly be converted from commodity production to a cybernetic socialist system. You also seem to have a distorted view, the service sector isn't somehow less capitalist than commodity production. My motivation here derives from trying to imagine how you convince people to do this, and i cannot picture large amounts of people getting really interested in how plants work, i don't see many people doing anything more complicated than putting seed-bricks into balcony-plant-pots and watering it. It's also rather quick in terms of setting this up which would make it optimal for guerrilla gardening. You're schemes requires setting up a network of small gardening service coops, and it's never going to happen, there are thousands of similar schemes that have been tried and they never scale, and remain niche stuff for hobby enthusiasts. You have to overcome your aversion to systematic and mechanistic thinking because it's preventing you from considering the upsides of my proposal.
>>12946 >seed bricks This is all retarded and has nothing to do with permaculture. You're trying to take something built around designing systems for your climate and environment in a way that mimics natural processes, and you're trying to mechanize it in a strict, prepackaged way. There are plenty of food crops that can be fairly widely distributed as a polyculture, but it means absolutely nothing if there is no further knowledge or infrastructure to go with it. It's pure capitalist thinking. What >>12943 says is far more realistic and feasible, socialism is already about living socially as a community, using permaculture design to build community food systems in a mutual aid form that minimizes labor time is the definition of what we should expect from socialism.
>>12947 >There are plenty of food crops that can be fairly widely distributed as a polyculture, but it means absolutely nothing if there is no further knowledge or infrastructure to go with it. Is not the wide spread and use of this polyculture a neccesary precondition to developing a mass culture eg. mass knowledge and infrastructure around it comrade?
>>12946 >Well the seed bricks can be mass-produced, and hence will drastically reduce the amount of labour power you need. for what? Having a couple flowers which die after a year because the soil is shit? >For some reason you insist on ways that would use far more time & work. That is what makes the difference whether proles can have it, or not. Permaculture requires the least amount of labor input compared to all agricultural techniques. >I get that you want to have some sort of culture based around this, but for most people it's just food production, including most socialists, my way is easier. All culture sits atop the economic system, food production is a fucking major part of the economic system. Of course there's going to be a different culture. The point is to convince others to be cultural hippys but create an alternative economic system that is not only sustainable but is without exploitation and alienation. >my way is easier. The absolute arrogance >Your defence of services and contracts is pure liberalism. You're actually a dumbass, anon has laid out quite clearly why written contracts are useful. If you want to rid the world of contracts and services you need a world where economies are located entirely in the community, something which your seed brick start up would have to use. Urban farming is also building towards a world where contracts would no longer be necessary. >i cannot picture large amounts of people getting really interested in how plants work With the Corona virus there has been a huge surge in people reading up on how to grow their own food. Every place near me has sold out of seedlings and seeds. Online plant dealerships have sold out of fruit trees. Crises will propel people to build the alternative economic system. It's laughable that you throw around marxist jargon and yet you're arguing that social change comes from making good arguments and not societal forces. >It's also rather quick in terms of setting this up which would make it optimal for guerrilla gardening. Seed bombs already exist and they're not the most effective tool for guerilla gardening. Useful yes, but they're a minor component in food foresting suburbia. >You're schemes requires setting up a network of small gardening service coops, and it's never going to happen Except in Rojava, Cuba and with the Zapatistas... >You have to overcome your aversion to systematic and mechanistic thinking >You have to overcome thinking logically >you have to be a dumbass like me so any proposal, no matter how dumb, appears like a good idea >it's preventing you from considering the upsides of my proposal. The upsides are incredibly minor and the work and equity that would have to be invested into your project is huge.
>>12949 >for what? Having a couple flowers which die after a year because the soil is shit? This underestimates the state of the art in agricultural sciences to the point that the quantity is almost a quality
>>12950 Pls link me a source. There is no way you could have a sustainable sytem contained within a brick. Even if it is nutrient packed those nutrients will be soon depleted and the soil structure will soon degrade
>>12943 State of the art agricultural sciences i.e " Just pour some chemicals on that shit " You can't just create a soilbase out of nothing. Healthy soil is complex, it contains all sorts of fungus and other microbes that are essential. You can't just dump chemicals in it and expect to have a sustainable or healthy system. It takes time, biomass, and enough patience to not sabotage it all by dumping a bunch of shit in it that will kill half the fungus and microbes necessary for your soil to not be filled with harmful fungus and disease that will kill your plants and necessitate dumping even more fucking poison and chemicals on it to try to combat it. You can't just rush healthy soil, you will fuck yourself in the long run.
>>12707 All these vegetables and so little talk about the other half of ecosystems; animals
>>12953 having pet ducks and chickens is probably the best part about permaculture
>>12947 >This is all retarded and has nothing to do with permaculture. You have to understand I don't care about permaculture as a life-style, or as a social project. The only thing i see in this is a assembly of matter that will generate food-stuff. A production method that can be applied by a socialist society. >You're trying to take something built around designing systems for your climate and environment in a way that mimics natural processes, and you're trying to mechanize it in a strict, prepackaged way. Yes, thank you for your elegant way of formulating this, anyway it's a more realistic approach, because it reduces labour inputs in production and it's easier to deploy for people, they don't need to understand all the complex plant knowledge just what type of seed brick they can use for their environment, this means less people get excluded.
>>12955 >The only thing i see in this is a assembly of matter that will generate food-stuff. Your bricks would do fuck all for food production. >A production method that can be applied by a socialist society. That would be permaculture. Decentralized, worker owned, non exploitative, moneyless, etc. > it's a more realistic approach The lack of sustainability alone shows that this is not the case >it reduces labour inputs in production No it wouldn't. This asinine system would need constant attention. The bricks would need replacing, that would require transport of bricks, the bricks would need to be made in a factory which would require workers, the components of the bricks would also need to be made and shipped, accountants and managers would be required, etc. etc. etc. You're better off just sticking with industrial agriculture because you're effectively shipping out a brick of farmland to everyone to grow their own food. >they don't need to understand all the complex plant knowledge No they wouldn't. Think about how in real life you have people who study specific fields of knowledge? Well that still applies here. Permaculturalists exist everywhere and they've been studying what works most effectively in their areas for decades. They could very easily draw up plans to food forest suburbia and all that would be required is a relatively small number of people to put the plan into action and manage it for a couple years until the system is self sustaining. Fucking Cuba proves that everyone can become urban farmers if crises forces it. The lack of microbes in these fucking bricks alone undermines the whole plan. The amount of hot air you're pumping is ridiculous.
>>12952 There's actually a lot to be said about the flaws in how modern western science approaches problems like this (although what we do have is very good and shouldn't be discarded!). There's a hyperfocus on individual components and refinement and often a total inability to understand a complex system as a whole. I've heard it said that western culture is "alcoholic" in that the approach to knowledge is an outgrowth of the process of alcohol distillation. Producing alcohol is a matter of fermenting organic material and then refining the alcohol. Directly from this process we got the practice of alchemy, and directly from that we got chemistry and the scientific method. Thus science (especially experimental science) is focused on variable isolation, and the more isolated you can make it the better. There are very real strengths and advantages to isolating variables (we shouldn't dispense with it), but there are also major limitations. Look at the field of ethology (outgrowth of biology). It emerged when biologists recognized that you can't understand an organism by isolating it in a laboratory. It sounds absurd to us now, but biologists really used to believe that you could isolate an animal from its environment and lose nothing from its behavior, that animals were pure automatons who would behave in a fixed way regardless of their surroundings. You have a similar problem with climate science. Not that the current science is wrong, but it tends to struggle to put together the picture as a whole from all the many separate parts. The models are built by research on every individual component and then integrated into a partial whole patchwork style. It might be possible to develop a more all-encompassing model if science were more able to explore these foundational assumptions. The problem is there are centuries of scientific development according to the "alcohol" model, but outside of traditional pseudosciences pretty much zero development elsewhere. This makes it very difficult to imagine what an alternative would look like, much less one with the level of development and sophistication of modern science.
>>12949 you don't explain why you believe this would die off after a year, most of the top soil on earth is about 10cm thick Permaculture the way you explain it require more labour inputs, this has been empirically tested in field studies with subsistence farmers in 3rd world countries. Food-production in industrialised societies use 3% or less of overall labour-power, What you are proposing would use more than that. You are correct that seed-brick production requires some amount of set-up, but compared to what you are proposing which requires owning land, it's minimal. >>12956 Well seed-brick production would include using a bio-reactor to grow microorganism to enrich soil composition of seed bricks among other things like adding bio-charcoal. The point here is to have good quality soil included with the seed-brick. This would reduce the enormous amounts of effort for soil-conditioning that traditional permaculture set up requires. You do admit that you need to have local experts for this work, you don't understand that you are demanding too much dedication from society, it's just a method for food production, you are confusing means with goals.
>>12953 I have neighbors with chickens and can get eggs from them sometimes. They are the best eggs you can eat. I've heard that it's better to have ducks than chickens though because chickens are more likely to fuck up your crops. There's a shit load of songbirds though, so they are probably eating some pests and definitely fertilizing all over the place. >>12948 >Is not the wide spread and use of this polyculture a neccesary precondition to developing a mass culture eg. mass knowledge and infrastructure around it comrade? No, and if anything you would see the most effective development if the two emerged together. That way, the systems would adapt to the real needs of the situation and support help support each other. You are using a "stages of development" mentality, which is a reductive abstraction. >>12958 >most of the top soil on earth is about 10cm thick And it took a very long time to form. It's not the thickness that matters. It's the way it's connected to everything else. You need time for the plant and fungal rhizomes to spread out and form a network. Soil is not like a substance. It's more like a culture. >this has been empirically tested in field studies with subsistence farmers in 3rd world countries. Source? >Food-production in industrialised societies use 3% or less of overall labour-power, This is flat out wrong. Maybe for the farming part, but you also have to account for transporting the food (and resources required for farming), constructing the machinery, and storing/selling the inventory of food at market. With permaculture many more people would be involved as farmers but most of the middle processes would be eliminated because the food is so much closer to its destination. >You are correct that seed-brick production requires some amount of set-up, Not only would it fail to build a sustainable ecosystem (unless thoroughly designed to do so), the economic incentive for someone selling seed bricks is to keep selling new ones, therefore to not build sustainable agriculture. >but compared to what you are proposing which requires owning land, it's minimal. Permaculture only requires access to land, which almost everybody has to some degree. For instance, New Yorkers could colonize Central Park by planting food crops surreptitiously until it becomes a widespread practice and the populace doesn't want to get rid of it after poor people come to depend on it. >Well seed-brick production would include using a bio-reactor to grow microorganism to enrich soil composition of seed bricks among other things like adding bio-charcoal. The point here is to have good quality soil included with the seed-brick. This would reduce the enormous amounts of effort for soil-conditioning that traditional permaculture set up requires. Most of the soil conditioning in permaculture is just letting nature do its thing. You have plants that drop leaves that create mulch that turns into soil. You have worms that process that stuff. You dump some waste into compost that you can add to the soil. This is not particularly labor intensive if you compare it to what we do with the already-existing waste products. Instead of raking up leaves and trashing them, you use them to build soil. Instead of taking food scraps to the dump, you compost it. I think part of the problem is you're not recognizing the way that human life activities are already incorporated into the current economy but could be reincorporated into permaculture in a more efficient way. That's a major part of the whole concept - making use of things by integrating them into a sustainable ecosystem. >You do admit that you need to have local experts for this work, That's how farming works now, lol. >you don't understand that you are demanding too much dedication from society, It doesn't take much dedication for the average person to stroll through a food garden, pick some fruit off a plant, and eat it.
(26.03 KB 431x627 angry-scientist.png)
>>12957 Science may have started in the west, but it is now universal, the scientific method is used by everybody, please avoid arguing for pseudo-science. Please avoid contributing to the considerable intellectual sabotage that already exists. The rise of modernity and with that a scientific world view was facilitated by coffee consumption. Also science does not ow it's objective framework from apeing distillation of alcohol. Alchemy was aimed at changing the properties of elements which would require nuclear reactions, chemical reactions only involves electrons. These 2 disciplines are not related, the closest thing to an alchemist would be a high energy particle physicist. The scientific method is not reducible to isolating variables, neither does it lack the ability to make models that can take complex system interaction in to account. Your entire argument is based on attacking a strawman.
>>12959 >source <Decreased efficiency in terms of low yields and high labour input were challenges that bothSouth African and Zimbabwean participants faced. >>12803 pdf
>>12959 >No, and if anything you would see the most effective development if the two emerged together. That way, the systems would adapt to the real needs of the situation and support help support each other. You are using a "stages of development" mentality, which is a reductive abstraction. development stages are historically factual, despite your denial
>>12960 >please avoid arguing for pseudo-science I'm categorically not. I'm criticizing one of the axioms of modern scientific practice, which limits its potential. >Alchemy was aimed at changing the properties of elements which would require nuclear reactions, chemical reactions only involves electrons. These 2 disciplines are not related You sound like you need to read history/philosophy of science. Scientific disciplines are not divine wisdom bestowed by Richard Dawkins. They are a complex series of disciplines that have emerged developmentally. Chemistry built on foundations developed by alchemy (which is more accurately proto-science than pseudoscience) including early attempts to model chemical elements (which itself was built on platonism). >The scientific method is not reducible to isolating variables No, that's one element that's often taken as axiomatic. >neither does it lack the ability to make models that can take complex system interaction in to account. No, it's just less conducive to that. It's going around the world to cross the street in some cases. >Your entire argument is based on attacking a strawman. No, but your argument is based on defending a strawman. Furthermore, you're dishonestly branding any critic of your orthopraxy as "pseudoscientific." Pseudoscience and alternative medicine are serious problems, but they're the enemy at the gates whereas scientism is the enemy within.
(26.03 KB 431x627 angry-scientist.png)
>>12963 >Alchemy I don't know what to say to you, alchemists were ignorant about matter and hence failed to grasp that what they tried to do would have required nuclear reactions, hence they can't be put into proximity of chemistry, other wise you would be basing your categorisations on ignorance. >isolating variables this step is not optional, it would break experimental science. Before you are strawmaning me with 19 century attempts for studying animal behaviour, please consider that this has been refuted, environmental factors are not ignored any-more. <neither does it lack the ability to make models that can take complex system interaction in to account. >No, it's just less conducive to that. It's going around the world to cross the street in some cases. That's the point, there are no shortcuts. Don't you get it, this is intentional.
>>12958 >most of the top soil on earth is about 10cm thick and that topsoil is constantly being replenished by natural processes. From leaf litter, to microbes to fungi. A brick would have neither the complicated soil structure or the naturally occurring inputs that helps sustain it. Go get a bag of potting mix, add whatever chemicals you like to it and grow food in it, come back and tell us how long that soil will last because I assure you it wont last more than a few meager 'harvests'. >Permaculture the way you explain it require more labour inputs, this has been empirically tested in field studies with subsistence farmers in 3rd world countries. If you just compare traditional agriculture to permaculture then yes, permaculture requires more labor input. There is however a fuckton you fail to consider. Firstly the labour input of a well designed and established permaculture farm is hardly labour at all, it involves very basic maintenance. Secondly Permaculture enables the dissolution of many industries which also require labour inputs, this includes, pesticide and fertilizer producers, truck drivers, cargo ship crew, shelf stackers, tractor engineers, etc. etc. etc. >compared to what you are proposing it's minimal. no it isn't. It's very fucking significant. You're proposing creating a whole new industry that would be perpetually maintained. That's not minimal. >requires owning land no it doesn't. Public parks, verges, perpetually empty lots, alleys, etc. etc. you've mentioned guerilla gardening before, why have you forgotten it now? >Well seed-brick production would include using a bio-reactor to grow microorganism to enrich soil composition of seed bricks among other things like adding bio-charcoal. How about we use natural processes that would mean we wouldn't have to do all the work? Y'know, like permaculture? You see how you're having to add more and more complexity to this plan to make it barely workable? The natural processes exist, we don't have to do the work. > This would reduce the enormous amounts of effort for soil-conditioning that traditional permaculture set up requires. You're kidding right? Add compost, mulch, wood chips, whatever and let fungi and other organisms do the work for you. Past the very initial setup very little effort is required. >You do admit that you need to have local experts for this work Yes, like with every other technology in the world it requires experts. The difference is that you wouldn't need a team containing an engineer, a soil scientist, a micro-biologist and an organic chemist to make the 'bio-reactor to grow microorganism to enrich soil composition' ALONE. I'm asking very fucking little compared to what you're proposing. Besides, Cuba's primary agricultural technique is permaculture, its very clearly not much to ask if faced with a crises (as we all will be) they did it. >it's just a method for food production, you are confusing means with goals. >ending exploitation is nothing >sustainability is nothing How is a decentralized, worker owned, non exploitative, moneyless system of agriculture not a component for a post-capitalist society? ANY society that wishes to have a socialist/communist agricultural economic sector would have to implement permaculture. I keep losing brain cells reading your replies, please stop.
>>12961 permaculture in developing nations =/= permaculture in imperialist nations
>>12961 I read through that study and refuted the argument once in another thread that is gone now. But if I remember right, the issue with zimbabwe was a few things. 1. Lack of educational materials 2. many of the farmers in the study were brand new to permaculture( I think, double check that one ) 3. lots of issues with drought compared to other places like south africa
I live in a hot desert. What can i realistically grow here for food?
>>12968 I think first you need a very big pile of rocks to catch moisture at night
>>12968 Not really looked at what grows best in desert climates. If you were to do some major mulch and wood chip landscaping though with swales galore and rocks piled on top you may have a good chance of growing Mediterranean food stuffs.
I kinda want more information about this place
This thread in a nutshell >Natural plants are good
>>12968 Maybe start by growing things in pots or raised beds with added soil. If possible you should try to introduce pioneer species native to your region to help build soil in the location naturally. Those (probably) won't be food plants, but they will help create the conditions for food plants later by turning the ground into soil. Read more on that here: https://deepgreenpermaculture.com/permaculture/permaculture-design-principles/8-accelerating-succession-and-evolution/
>>12964 No seriously, read philosophy and history of science. Maybe read some computational science too and learn about how you can optimize different aspects of your process like precision vs timeliness. >I don't know what to say to you, alchemists were ignorant about matter and hence failed to grasp that what they tried to do would have required nuclear reactions, hence they can't be put into proximity of chemistry, other wise you would be basing your categorisations on ignorance. The categorization is based on the history of how the scientific discipline developed. Understanding how elements actually worked is not received wisdom. It came as a result of many experiments. >isolating variables >this step is not optional, it would break experimental science. You absolutely can do experimental science without isolating variables. It just changes the nature of the information you gather. Indeed, it's difficult to impossible to do experimental science on complex systems if you're required to isolate variables. Many natural systems have numerous feedback loops and redundancies built in that would offset the effects of a single variable. >Before you are strawmaning me with 19 century attempts for studying animal behaviour, That's an illustration of where your logic leads - directly from science history - and it was alive into the 20th century lol. >please consider that this has been refuted, environmental factors are not ignored any-more. It took a lot of struggle within the politics of science institutions to change this. Not based on the weight of evidence, but based on institutional inertia. And in the broader sense this is still an ongoing struggle. Many fields of science are plagued by a fixation on individual parts rather than understanding things as a larger system. >neither does it lack the ability to make models that can take complex system interaction in to account. <No, it's just less conducive to that. It's going around the world to cross the street in some cases. >That's the point, there are no shortcuts. Autism. You can gather useful information by isolating variables, and that doesn't mean there's no utility to a less "controlled" examination. You seem to confuse the inductive reasoning of science with deductive reasoning. Science relies on induction, so it can never be logically valid or sound. It can at best approximate the kind of truth you achieve through deductive reasoning. Some approaches will more closely approximate sound results. Other approaches will more readily yield results. >Don't you get it, this is intentional. Only partially intentional. Ideology shapes everything, especially when you think it doesn't. For example, you think that it's necessary to isolate variables even though you are of course aware that observational science can yield important information. Observational science alone can produce a great deal of knowledge, but adding experimental science is an improvement. So too is employing flexibility in experimental methods instead of only practicing one type of experiment. You just have to be aware of the limitations of the methods you use. I'm aware of the limitations of both, but you are denying the limitations of the sole method you approve.
>>12973 >N-no! you can't grow enough food ecologically and efficiently! <Haha Plants grow fast
>>12707 this thread deserves to survive. Bump for effort thread
https://store.experimentalfarmnetwork.org/ This is a really nice place to get a variety of seeds.
Some animal came and shit in my food garden. At first I was annoyed but then I realized it's just fertilizer.
(33.89 KB 498x383 squirrelpitt.jpg)
>>12980 >Iplant lettuce <rabbit eats my lettuce >I eat the rabbit It's the circle of life...
>>12981 >plant berries >birds/rabbits eat berries >shit the seeds out somewhere else >new plants grow there >the animals eat the more convenient plants and leave mine alone
>>12982 based ecologist
(201.19 KB 549x455 retarded laughter.png)
>>12981 >It's the circle of life <instantly hear Lion King theme
>>12984 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLFvthzy294 >Circle Of Life- The Lion King (lyrics)
>>12984 Why did you post this? Now the furries will come out of their containment thread!
(137.75 KB 540x496 3sisters.jpg)
(55.21 KB 550x667 3sisters diagram.jpg)
I've got a space where I'm going to plant the 3 sisters (corn, bean, squash) starting tomorrow. I just need to buy seeds. I already have compost and topsoil I can use to set them up. It'll be a little late in the season, but hopefully they'll do alright. Going to plant some amaranth as well to help attract bees. Probably some other plants too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61ryiTNYneQ >What Happens When You Use Ash in the Garden?
>>12991 We add ash to the compost all the time
>>12721 Graphmeme is a meme and not going anywhere for a very, very long time. We're scratching the surface of it but actually exploiting the kinds of properties we want out of it is not even remotely feasible yet. >>12717 A significant number of changes are more than capable of handling a lot of the issues. Socializing transit and consumption of many cultural practices would radically reduce the resources without significantly altering the amount people take in, just the way they take it in. >Chernobyl nearly sterilized europe Please tell me you're being hyperbolic. "sterilizing europe" is utterly beyond anything that is remotely possible even if you had every nuclear plant have a meltdown simultaneously. Nuclear plants can. not. have. a. nuclear. explosion.
>>12717 >You're not fundamentally changing the problem. Yes you are, since the main issue of combustion-powered vehicles is the use of a physical fuel (not pure energy) and the fact that the fuel produces greenhouse gases that negatively impat the immediate environment and global carbon cycles. This is not to mention PUBLIC FUCKING TRANSPORT SYSTEMS making personal transport less necessary. >Chernobyl nearly sterilized europe Right just like it did the wolves there and all the other freely living animals? Chernobyl is full of wildlife there, all unaffected by the radiation. >is there a solution for what to do with the massive amount of nuclear waste emitted Nulear waste is not that massive and can be utilized for other purposes. Not to mention Americium being so small that its waste is nigh inconsequential. >>12718 >disaster Other forms of energy have caused more deaths, Nuclear energy is statistically safer compared to almost anything else in use today. The accidents of the past are all on Generation 1 and Generation 2 reactors, which have had their problems observed and fixed.
Anyone have the permaculture Pdf/links to the site the book comes from.? Trying to get started here
>>12996 I ain't clicking that shit nigga Upload them here comrade
(457.45 KB 1624x1057 palemoon_2020-05-12_04-56-30.png)
>>12997 motherfucker it's libgen links. My upload speed is absolute dogshit
(38.88 KB 478x478 lenin and shrooms.jpeg)
>>12996 >>12998 >shrooms will save the world Since you recommend reading this book can you give me a summary specifically does it say that chemically modifying people's brains will fix capitalism ?
>>13001 Lol. He talks about a lot of things. How certain mushrooms can be symbiotic with bees and protect them from pests, how mushroom mycelium is symbiotic with the roots of most plants and helps protect them from disease and harmful fungi. Basically mushrooms are very, very cool and useful for a whole lot of purposes, but we don't really think about them or incorporate them into our systems because we see them as this harmful, alien thing.
Ok so how do you stop permaculture becoming illegalized and stamped out by the capitalist state?
>>13003 >how do you stop x thing becoming illegal and stamped out by the state >why don't porkies just ban revolution This isn't constructive discussion
(89.42 KB 474x631 lenin mushroom.jpg)
>>13001 Mushrooms are just the fruiting bodies of fungus (like flowers on plants). Fungus is mostly mycelium, a network of root-like structures in the soil. The mycelium is largely responsible for the health of the soil and the things growing in it, and is a highly sophisticated system that can respond "intelligently" to changes in the environment. This can be used to our advantage by getting it to do things like produce antibodies and filter things.
>>13003 Same way you do anything. You work your arse off and organise to build a mass movement that can scare porky when they manifest in the streets. It doesn't always work*, but if you don't fight you've already lost, and often it has worked. *(The biggest example of this is the Iraq war protests, but here's a dark counter-thought for you: imagine what the US and UK approach to that war would have been WITHOUT the mass demonstrations. Iraq was a huge human catastrophe, but without could easily have turned into a super-Vietnam, "bomb them back to the stone age", mass napalm drops on schools Baghdad, etc.)
>>13005 lol, Paul Stamets is bae but he can't give a Ted Talk to save his life. This talk was in the recommended column, and it's even more relevant to permaculture. About 4 minutes in he starts talking about working on a permaculture farm, even. The talk touches on Cartesian idealism vs Darwinian materialism too, and puts into perspective how divorced from reality traditional agriculture is. https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_pollan_a_plant_s_eye_view
(83.88 KB 960x720 wild mustard.jpg)
Does anyone have luck growing vegetables in straight compost no dig style like charles dowding or any number of people on youtube? I tried this on my raised beds and it seems ok for transplanting (although I think there was a potassium deficiency I fixed with wood ash) but my germination rates for direct sowing are absolutely abysmal. This is my first time gardening so I was expecting to make mistakes, in the future I'm going to mix compost with my native clay soil and also some 10 10 10 all purpose fertilizer (I know this isn't really permaculture but frankly fertilizer, unlike pesticides, is only harmful because of the industry behind its production, also using chemical fertilizers generally increases earthworm populations). Probably will throw some perlite in there too. I just wonder why this works so well for some people but not for others.
(11.95 KB 284x178 soil.jpeg)
>>13009 Does that mean we should return to wild mustard in a Permaculture setup & harvest the entire plant?
What do you think about this Water Vortex system? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY3p2e1-kN4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation_water_vortex_power_plant I can see some advantages over other power sources like Solar or Nuclear 1. Doesn't need any exotic materials like Graphite or Lithium that need to be mined or synthesized 2. Doesn't need external batteries 3. Extremely simplistic as it has very few moving parts meaning it's easily maintainable, I mean like compare this to the complexity of an nuclear power plant holy fuck 4. Can be active all day & night unlike solar 5. Unlike a Hydroelectric dam theres no need to divert huge channels of water & fucking up the flow of the water A big problem with any centralised power power grid such as a solar plant in a desert or a nuclear plant is that you actually have to transport the electricity over power lines for it be used which sucks as a part of the electricity transported will be lost as heat. To fix this problem you would have to bring in power lines made out of superconductive materials which would add onto the existing infrastructure maintenance. Also speaking of Mushrooms & Chernobyl... https://www.nature.com/news/2007/070521/full/news070521-5.html >Since the 1986 meltdown, at the Chernobyl Atomic Energy Station, the numbers of 'black fungi', rich in melanin, have risen steeply. Casadevall speculated that the fungi could be feeding on the radiation that contaminates the ruin of the nuclear reactor. Dadachova, Casadevall and their colleagues tested how three different species of fungus respond to gamma radiation from rhenium-188 and tungsten-188. They found that all three, Cladosporium sphaerospermum, Cryptococcus neoformans and Wangiella dermatitidis, grow faster in the radiation's presence.
>>12968 What about Date Palms? Those take years to bear fruit though..
>>13012 wild varieties of plants tend to be much hardier so they require much less care. However their yield will be less and less palatable. Stick with selectively bred varieties in your veggie patches and stuff like wild mustard in your orchards, perennial beds, etc.
>>13013 Seems like a good idea if you have nearby flowing water. Can't say for sure as I know little about engineering
(12.29 KB 228x183 34twfa.jpeg)
>>13013 small water power stations are nice but they are a niche solution for places that have rivers, not really a substitute for solar or nuclear. can we use the nuclear powered mushrooms for something ?
>>13012 No. Permaculture isn't about "natural" farming. It's about designing agriculture as an ecosystem to make it more efficient. A GMO plant would be fine by permaculture unless there's something wrong with it. There are some wild plants that are worth growing, but those usually co-evolved heavily with humans or are "feral" i.e. domesticated species that re-entered the wild. >>13013 >What do you think about this Water Vortex system? Like another anon said, niche solution but cool. >Casadevall speculated that the fungi could be feeding on the radiation that contaminates the ruin of the nuclear reactor. Now we just need to teach them to eat plastic. >>13017 >can we use the nuclear powered mushrooms for something ? Getting rid of waste maybe. >>13014 The best time to plant a tree is 7 years ago. The second best time is today.
>>13013 >Could the melanin in human skin cells likewise turn radiation into food? Casadevall speculates that it might, Don't tell twitter or they'll think black people are radiation proof.
Can anything be done with myakka soil? I've tried planting stuff in it and nothing grows but weeds unless you surround it all with ready-dirt and that kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it
>>13020 Rule of thumb with poor soil is you want to build better soil. >I've tried planting stuff in it and nothing grows but weeds A weed is just a plant that you don't want. The plants you're seeing are what's called "pioneer" plants - they can grow in harsh, shitty conditions. In growing and dying they will help create new soil. That is the natural process. Over time more complex and massive plants grow as the soil accumulates. See pic. You can speed up the process (called succession) in various ways. >unless you surround it all with ready-dirt and that kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it No, this is one of the ways to speed up succession. You can bring in some soil, some compost, some mulch, i.e. the stuff to make soil. The point isn't to pull yourself up by your bootstraps but to use the resources available to you to build a sustainable system - one that eventually can keep going without you having to intervene much if at all. There's no ban on using technology or advanced resources. You just need to be aware of any technical drawbacks a particular method might have, like some fertilizers being low quality or something like that.
>>13021 >>516894 fucking webp
(3.82 MB 4032x1960 20200521_164058.jpg)
(4.44 MB 4032x1960 20200521_164110.jpg)
What's wrong with my tomatoes? Is it bacterial canker? It's on the zucchinis too
>>13023 Try tapping the leaves with a piece of paper under it to see if any bugs fall off. Have you been adding a lot of fertilizer?
>>13023 It could be nitrogen burn if there's an excess of nitrogen, typically due to unripened manure or excess fertilizer. Fortunately, nitrogen can be easily washed out with water. If you suspect it is nitrogen burn, just run some water through the soil for a bit and they'll likely be okay
>>13025 I'm growing in 100% compost (which was a mistake, next time I'll mix with dirt) that I bought a truckload of, i dont know anything about it really it could have manure and be not quite finished. But these are transplants I bought from a walmart, plants I started from seed and planted out dont have this, although they are a lot smaller and younger so maybe it doesnt show up until later
>>13026 hmm... did you plant them in the like, pot/soil they came in? It was probably like miracle gro soil or something I bet. Try just running some water through them if that's the case.
>>13026 What part of world are you in anon? Here in Ottawa Ontario, I have to buy tomato plants from greenhouse, the season isn't long/warm enough to start from seed outside...
>>13028 Southeast US. Nice long season, but lots of things cant handle the heat of the summer
>>13027 I'm on day 4 of pretty much constant rain, if a good rinse is what it needs I should see improvement soon. The discoloration around the edges is only on the older lower leaves, which I read is typical of bacterial canker
(118.64 KB 1280x720 fuckthesethings.jpg)
>>13021 >You just need to be aware of any technical drawbacks a particular method might have The main drawback is that it's expensive. I know all bout buying 1 bag and stealing 10 when they're outside and no one is looking but still. I should be more specific, the weeds that grow are actively harmful so i'd want to get rid of them. Spurs i think they're called. Stick to everything. The worst hurt but there's less annoying varieties. I don't want to just spread agent orange or whatever everywhere either cause I don't know if it'll give the dog cancer or something. Really getting rid of the bad stuff is more important than growing something there.
>>13031 You could probably get a truckload of woodchips dumped on your property for free, spread that nice and thick and all the plants should die and you'll be building really nice soil underneath, itll be pretty ugly though and kind of a lot of work
>>13032 Unless you're doing a massive plot it's all very little work actually, depending on what your soil is and what your plans are. Some things I recommend >1. Don't step on your soil, keep designated footpaths or steps and use them. >2. don't use pine, pine is antimicrobial and will fuck with your soil microbiome >3. Wood chips, manure, and used coffee grounds are all great for encouraging mushroom growth, which will suppress disease >4. If you have access to lots of non-pine wood and have either black soil or clay, look into doing Hugelkultures >5. Combat weeds and grass by introducing heavy ground cover crops(Cowpeas, clover, sweet potato) and planting aggressively reseeding plants with actual use value. Give the weeds competition in the form of aggressive plants that you can actually use.
I overcompensated for some failed initial plantings and now I seem to have started way too many eggplants and peppers Anybody have any ideas for what to do with spares
>>13034 Spare produce: donate/trade Spare plant matter: mulch/compost
>>13034 If you cant find people who want your peppers you could always dry/smoke them and grind them up into a nice seasoning
(344.01 KB 1500x1159 gardening.jpg)
>>13032 In addition to wood chips you can put down a layer of paper or cardboard (not chemically treated) to kill grass and weeds prior to everything else. You can put holes for the roots of things you plant, but the paper will biodegrade on its own. This allows you to kill off the existing plants without damaging the soil. Rule of thumb, if you have weeds growing that means you could be growing something there instead. Groundcover plants like strawberries or squash can be good to crowd out weeds and keep them from getting sun. You want to maximize your use of the space you have, both for production and for the health of the ecosystem. More biomass and biodiversity is better.
Joe Rogan Experience #1478 - Joel Salatin Over a million views, and they're talking about alternative agriculture including permaculture. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-7O3fOXXKo Seems like the corona crisis is inspiring people to consider different ways of doing things. Anecdotally I have friends and neighbors who are taking up gardening as well.
How would distribution work? Would proles be expected to harvest their food for themselves? Would there be some time of free farmer's market or home delivery of produce? What about the distribution of labor? Is this sustainable on a purely volunteer basis or would communities have to form organizations to manage maintenance and harvesting? Maybe the government takes this role? I'm a proponent of permaculture myself, but I never see a conversation that revolves around how exactly we are supposed to shape our communities to support it in the first place. As long as people are accustomed to the big box grocery store way of life, we have problems to overcome.
>>13039 This is largely up to the people implementing permaculture and the specific answer would depend on a lot of factors, like how densely people live. If you designed permaculture cities/towns from the ground up you could have it so every housing unit has a yard/garden producing for the inhabitants' needs and they don't have to do much more than go pick the food immediately before preparing it. More pragmatically we have to use some kind of transitional phase where we build the organizations. First step is to get started small with just you or you and a few others. Figure out what your capacity is with your resources, and build out from there. Connect to any existing permaculture organization in your area. Some people are going to be hesistant so try to get them in incrementally by suggesting easy-to-grow and easy-to-harvest food plants like radishes or sunflowers or already-popular garden plants like tomatoes.
>>13038 >He is a self-described "Christian libertarian environmentalist capitalist lunatic farmer" ...I mean, fuck it, even reactionaries can be good at things I guess. ...But still kinda ick
>>13041 I agree, and it raises the issue of how this topic develops at a macro level. That podcast episode has over a million views just on youtube.
>>13012 Not really, its more of an example of a plant that allows for a large variety of evolutionary paths
Just got some free tomato plants from my neighbor. Gonna give the extras to my friends who are gardening too. This is what sustainability looks like - getting more out than you put in.
Thank you to the anons in this thread. I have since set up my own garden. The books and charts will be a great help to me.
>>13032 getting free woodchips is dead easy. There's two websites I use, chip drop and mulchnet, got a truck of wood chips dropped off for free within a couple weeks.
>>13047 based
bump
>>605026 >GARDENING FAGS >There's this detailed critique of their gardening: >https://twitter.com/GrillBorgar/status/1271071002005471232 care to tell us what are good/bad takes in there?
>>13053 As for bad takes there's the predictable "le gommunism means no food, lol commmie agriculture = famines" in the replies, but the failure of the upper middle class anarcho-hippies that make up the majority of the CHAZ speaks for itself. The plants are dying as we speak.
>>13054 I mean, agriculture is not something you can just improvise especially in a city.
>>13055 This. All the CHAZ idiots are so obviously sheltered upper middle class kids who have never worked a day in their life, let alone worked in agriculture. They probably think you just plop some seeds down, wait awhile, and food just magics itself into existence, like in a video game. They literally cannot comprehend the effort that actual sustainable, productive agriculture requires.
>>13056 >>13055 There was a tour of the place streamed on periscope and the guy in charge of the garden is a professional farmer. You're talking out of your ass. >>13053 >First off, they laid down brown gardening paper and just put potting soil ontop, the ground is still living turf and since it's a park its likely compacted. >This means that roots will have a very hard time penetrating the turf layer, and they will likely have a garden full of weeds within a week as the weeds push through their paper and soil. This is a commonly used method (one I have used myself) to kill the turf and weeds below the garden without disturbing the soil structure. The cardboard will decompose and the plant roots will be able to penetrate below. Soil compaction is a potential issue but with the right plants you can de-compact soil. IDK exactly what is planted in the garden but a bigger issue is potential pesticides/herbicides or chemical runoff that exists in the soil. Soil compaction is a potential issue, but the typical method being employed here is to focus on building the soil thicker and allowing the microbes, roots, fungi, and animals build better soil the way they do naturally. >Don't be lazy, either kill the turf with paper and plant in it or do a proper lasagna garden with multiple soil layers IDK what he thinks they are doing with the cardboard. It would be better if they put down more soil I agree, but they are clearly working with what resources they have available. >they planted marigolds, how sweet, but you cant live off those. lets see what else they planted Marigolds are good companion plants. They attract pollinators, repel certain pests like nematodes, attract pest predators, possibly attract pests away from more valuable crops, and you can in fact eat them. >lmao, a couple scrawny romain lettuce plants and potted herbs and vegis from a gardening store. They didn't grown any of this from seed, meaning if these plants die they are fucked and cant plant more. Also garden store plants are GMO so they can't seed save either. It's not necessarily true that these plants are GMO. I have purchased heirloom plants exactly like this. And if the plants die they can just get more where they got these. And since the man running the garden is a farmer, he probably was already growing these (from seed) to transplant into a garden (as you often do), so these are all just assumptions on the part of the twitter critic. >Also the calore-calorie ratio is horrible here! let me explain. they spend around 100-200 calories to plant all that lettuce, they get 5 calories back per plant. so thats a return of -95 calories. This garden is making them hungrier and giving them almost nothing. consider butternut squash from seed, after all is said and done you can plant 5-6 plants for 100-200 calories and get 63 cal per lb from each squash with the plant, with each plant producing 5-25 lbs of squash. so an average return of 630 cal for 100-200 cal spent. Lettuce is not the only thing they planted. The man listed off some of the plants. I don't recall all of them, but since I watched it after reading this thread it was very noticeable when he mentioned that they are growing squash. Also, calories are not the only concern. Nutrition matters too if you don't want to be malnourished, and lettuce is highly nutritious. >tldr they are using meme plants that spend more calories than they produce, and this garden is completely unsustainable and unable to last longer than a season, and cannot feed even one person. This is based on a lot of wrong assumptions. For one thing anything that wasn't transplanted but planted from seed is still invisible because it takes any plant several days to germinate and produce a seedling. What's more, if this person is a farmer they would be well aware of that but are ignoring it for the sake of making a viral tweet thread to roast the commies epic style. All of this is based on a handful of pictures and an obvious political agenda.
>>13057 I wasn't referring specifically to them, but to the fact that you can't become a farmer overnight.
>>13057 Good take down. I wish I were there to help. Imagine helping out CHOP and learning how to grow shit. Unalienated work, to the max.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExJ1-nQeZ68 >Growing and using wheat at home
>>13055 You totally can just improvise, some of your crops will fail and some will succeed, but the first year of gardening for everyone is a learning experience. If you never try because youd just be improvising you'll never get to the point where you know what you're doing
How do I get rid of aphids? Flaxseed oil barely works and that shit clogs the sprayer, permetrine doesn't kill the eggs so they keep coming back. I read that I could try boiling garlic and then spray the water on the plants but I'm not sure if it really works. How's nettle decoction?
>>13062 This. Also plants are, uh, living things that want to grow and will do their best to survive. A lot of times they can grow more than you want them to. >>13063 I'm working on growing garlic to make a spray but I hear good things about attracting ladybugs. There are plants you can use to do that and if you really need to you can buy ladybugs outright.
>>13064 >I'm working on growing garlic to make a spray but I hear good things about attracting ladybugs. There are plants you can use to do that and if you really need to you can buy ladybugs outright. I don't have a garden but a balcony, so it's kinda hard to attract ladybugs.
>>13065 For a few plants on a balcony I would probably just go through and squish the aphids with my fingers
>>13066 That's what I'm doing. I tried again with flaxseed oil yesterday and they came back again today, it's driving me insane. Removing them from the leaves of my peppers is relatively easy, but it's kinda hard to remove them from the flowers.
>>13067 Neem oil is a natural product that people use as an insecticide, its effective against aphids. Make sure you get a product that has the whole pressed oil, it will have azadirachtin listed as the active ingredient. Some of the cheaper sprays I believe have some sort of extract that doesnt contain the azadirachtin and it wont really work since this is what kills the bugs. The issue is this is a broad spectrum insecticide, it doesnt really matter wether it's a natural product or a synthetic chemical, broad spectrum insecticides will kill beneficial insects and be generally bad for the ecosystem. But since you are on a balcony this doesnt really matter.
>>13068 Uh, I've heard about neem oil when I was searching for a product that could get rid of the leaf miners that almost killed my dad's kumquat. I might try it, is it safe to use on peppers? I don't want to contaminate the fruits.
What do you guys think about Guerilla gardening? No I am not asking about how to grow weeds in the woods. But instead you could plant countless plots in the forests and hills that are permacultured with complementary plants, perhaps for SHTF-GTHF (Shit hits the fan, Guerillas hit the forest) they could be a useful food supply. (Yes I know Guerilla gardening isn't for actual Guerillas)
>>13070 In my limited experience guerilla gardening is a bit of a high energy, low reward project. Often your work is undone by local government or dies due to lack of care. Doing it in the bush sounds like a pretty dope idea tho, haven't thought of that.
Can someone explain to me how permaculture can be used to grow crops like wheat, barley, canola, etc?
>>13072 These crops are better suited for modern industrial agriculture. Well sort of, for example amending with compost rather than fertilizers requiring heavy mining and chemical industry would work just as well and be better for the environment, and eliminate jobs with high rates of death and injury. Monocultures will probably always be neccesary for some crops, but poly culture food forest type models of food production can have natural ecosystems which eliminate the need for pesticides, among other things. We should strive to create an agricultural system that exists in harmony with our natural ecosystems, but this must be secondary to the needs of humanity
>>13072 Imagine a world where canola just died.
>>12909 Based, thank you
>>13001 >falling for capitalist spore schemes retard
>>12913 >>12914 This guy is living my dream lifestyle
Yo. OP You're speaking my language. Consider this a bump but also - The hostility you received from that guy earlier in the thread is very similar to some of the push back I find myself getting from fellow leftists when bringing up Neoplatonist ideas in Anarchism. Im just some self taught shmuck of a chaos magician but the more I study the more I'm convinced Occult ideas and methodology will not only be useful but of paramount importance if we are to have a chance against the shambling eldritch horror of capitalism. But people have this visceral knee jerk reaction to these ideas. How do I avoid showing my power level? Are there any useful resources for me? Hell, know any orgs?
>>13073 > for example amending with compost rather than fertilizers requiring heavy mining and chemical industry would work just as well and be better for the environment Is compost really that effective and easily mass produced as fertilizers?
>>13079 yes lol Think about what compost is. It's dead organic matter, made out of all the stuff that the once-living thing needed to grow. In nature compost forms naturally when leaves and whole plants drop dead and start decaying (animals too). It releases slowly and steadily over time while it rots, returning nutrients to the soil at a steady pace. Fertilizer OTOH is basically like vitamin pills. It's the thing you want to supplement stripped down to its essence and given all at once. You have to produce it in big factories to replace nutrients lost by tilling and other soil-damaging practices. If you just compost, you are simply recycling the dead plant matter that you get from farming already, complete with all the matter the new plants will need to grow.
>>653224 With permaculture you usually spend a while observing the location to plan where to put things.
what is your opinon on no-dig gardens? Last year I cleared a tiny patch of land of weeds and grasses and overturned the soil just underneath it. I never got around to actually plant stuff, but I did so this year after cleaning and overturning the soil again as it had become quite overgrown. Later I learned about the no-dig method. Did I fuck up the soil structure already or could I make it a no-dig garden from now on?
>>13082 It's never to late to stop digging. If you inoculate the soil with some fungi it will help rebuild it some.
>>13079 we "mass produce" gigantic amounts of compost by being alive and consuming, and also as a side product of a lot of our production. there's a practically infinite supply to tap into if we can meet certain socially and politically challenging but technically pretty simple conditions. human waste and waste from farm animal production are currently essentially used to poison the earth and are considered too dangerous and unclean to process.
>>13082 If you have a dense clay soil you'll get better results the first year by tilling just the top inch or 2 of soil and mixing in the same amount of compost as if you did no dig. No dig will improve your soil over time, and after the first year of tilling you should have good soil and switch do doing no dig in that plot I've also had trouble getting good germination doing no dig and planting directly in the compost so start things in trays if you can
>>12709 That looks incredibly labour intensive. Like, more labour intensive than even rice production. A society in which everyone requires that much labour to feed themself is going to look more like England in the 1200s than anything today. Materialism.
>>13086 It takes a lot of labor initially, but after the first year or 2 it requires very little input. Also consider the saved labor in the mining and chemical industries by using far less fertilizers and pesticides, as well as less need for machinery and fuel
>>13086 If you think that looks like a lot of labor compared to traditional farming, you must not be aware of the supply chain involved, not just the resources like >>13087 says. Traditional farms not only have you tending and harvesting but also replanting every season and shipping the food all over the place. Putting the food closer to the table dramatically decreases costs in terms of labor, resources, and logistics.
>>13087 >>13088 OK but 1) all the industries you just described as being involved in industrial agriculture are the exact opposite of labour intensive - they're all incredibly mechanised and automated - their labour is insanely productive. To the point that we've had multiple economic crises about how productive those exact industries are. 2) I'm pretty dubious of the claim that it requires 'very little input' after setting up. It looks like you have to do all of the harvesting by hand, unless you're telling me there's some amazing agtech that can do it for you. Christ, do you people even understand the meaning of the term 'labour intensive'?
>>13089 yeah pre-mechanisation like 60% of everyone worked in agriculture or related industries, now it's something like 1.5%. >It looks like you have to do all of the harvesting by hand, unless you're telling me there's some amazing agtech that can do it for you. Christ, do you people even understand the meaning of the term 'labour intensive'? Legitimately, people don't understand that the work they do for themselves is still work. It's recreational for some people, and more power to them, but 'permaculture' is really just another word for 'subsistence farmg'.
Farmer; the thread
>>13089 >>13090 >Christ, do you people even understand the meaning of the term 'labour intensive'? >the work they do for themselves is still work If picking your food is labor, so is picking it up at the store. How labor intensive do you think it is to grab some tomatoes off a vine or dig up a few potatoes for dinner? Also less labor intensive is not automatically better. If the quality of the product is reduced by industrialization and distance between production and consumption, then you are choosing a tradeoff. Many plants have even been selectively bred for shelf life, sacrificing nutritional content and flavor. >To the point that we've had multiple economic crises about how productive those exact industries are. This should tell you that there are diminishing returns to mechanization and make you think about whether it would be more beneficial to improve the quality of the food rather than the volume of production alone.
>>13090 Permaculture isn't some reactionary idea of going back to old method of food production. It's about decentralizing certain aspects of food production to reduce distribution chains while improving the quality of food. Modern industrial agriculture will still be neccesary, huge fields of grains and feed corn and hay will be cultivated by agro machinery, and industrial breeding and hatching facilities will operate because modern hybrid chickens are far superior to heirloom breeds. Perhaps 1 in 50 suburbanites manage a 1 acre permaculture that supplies fruits, vegetables, chicken and eggs. Much less is fuel is used in food distribution, and less farmland is used overall. It would be better for people and the environment
>>13093 >Perhaps 1 in 50 suburbanites manage a 1 acre permaculture While suburbs are the most fertile area for permaculture with their stupid lawns and shit, it's most useful in cities. Urban areas are shit in general and need more public/open spaces and green spaces. In an ideal situation any given neighborhood would have a community garden/park combo where people can jointly manage what goes on there with a few specialists who devote enough time to the work to see it as a job.
(81.21 KB 729x291 predatory planthro (2).jpg)
Given that this thread has nothing to do with LEFTIST POLITICS and EVERYTHING to do with personal HOBBY, this thread should go to >>>/hobby/ Especially since it is slow and prone to sinking.
>>13096 >changing the way society produces food has nothing to do with political economy >making food production more independent and less beholdened to big agriculture has nothing to do with political economy are you just shitposting to bump the thread or what
>>13097 >changing the way society produces food has nothing to do with political economy This thread is almost entirely made up of "how can YOU change your own food production" The rest is literal >making food production more independent and less beholdened to big agriculture has nothing to do with political economy That's like a secondary or tertiary reason for a lot of people posting here. Most people just want tips on how to grow extra food and get around their systemic limitations. This is not direct political action, I certainly don't see a lot of Green-party activism in this thread. >just shitposting NO >bump the thread Well yes but also no. It still should go in hobby, people post here a few times a month and the thread keeps sinking.
>>13098 >Most people just want tips on how to grow extra food and get around their systemic limitations. This is not direct political action Constructing an alternative support system even just for yourself is very much direct political action. It would ideally be done at a communal level, but even alone it is robbing power from porky.
>>13099 >Constructing an alternative support system even just for yourself is very much direct political action. It is first and foremost a personal action and one for your own economic benefit, the political ramifications are miniscule unless done in massive scale.
>>13096 That's all well and good but why did you post your vore porn ITT?
>>13101 Why did you recognize it? it's cropped and isn't actually vore m8
>>13098 How you produce your food is the matter of political importance for everyone. Do I get to go to the grocery store and pick it off a rack, or do I pick it from the neighborhood's food forest myself? It's political because it relates to topics as diverse as geopolitics and imperialism (United Fruit Company), socialism (division of labor), and ecology If the thread doesn't meet your quality standards, raise it to those standards please, help us anon, you're apparently the political expert and this thread isn't up to your standards, fix the thread for us all. Are you even a communist?
>>13102 Lmao I don't recognise it, it's just obvious from the image
Reminder that environmentalism is neoliberal codeword for "fuck you, we got ours". Notice how they push environmentalism onto third world countries to stifle their development while ignoring their own past emissions.
>>13105 What do you propose instead of environmentalism then? Just everyone shit up the place as much as possible til we all die?
>>13104 it's actually a foot fetish pic >of a plant? yeah
>>13106 That, or countries voluntarily giving up their sovereignty (unlikely to happen)
>>13107 now I kinda wanna see it >>13108 Cool, guess we may as well not even try to save the human race then.
>>13103 >How you produce your food is the matter of political importance for everyone. How does that quote go about historical materialism? Something like Marx cleared away an overgrowth of ideology and laid bare the simple fact that people have to eat and this drives society?
>>13100 Good thing most permies are involved in collective action. There's a permie group in my area that regularly permifies each others backyards. The coming climate crises will drive this kind of thing en mass
(190.33 KB 1280x960 predatory planthro.jpg)
>>13107 >>13109 Here sauce is ZP92
>>13119 Lol, I'm kinda disappoint, I was expecting like leafy plant/root feet Still respect from one cropped-porn poster to another
Why is this thread in hobby now?
>>13226 See >>13096 >>13098 It's more of a hobby than a political discussion. 90% of the posts here are just questions, answers and arguments about planting methods and plants and other content.
>>13188 GIVE SOME FUCKING SAUCE
>>13859 REPOST REQUEST AND IMAGE IN FURRY THREAD!
So I've got a pretty small backyard with a garden and I grow a bunch of different plants indoors, specifically weed which has a lot of leftover leaves, branches, stems and roots. Because of this I want to try indoor composting, what methods would you people recommend? I'm leaning towards vermicomposting and bokashi seems interesting, but I don't know much about it.
>>15202 And I know this isn't fully permaculture related but I want to get into it more, plus I didn't see other threads to post this in. Oh also I wanna do indoor composting because I have long winters, outdoor composting is only practical for like 7 months
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhoV-vBAyFI >This project is much more than just the biophysical aspects of regenerating a wasteland into a water-rich food forest. There is a powerful dimension of poverty alleviation and social justice that is at the root of Narsanna’s motivation. >When I came here, and I'm talking to the people, they were very hopeless on their lands. By seeing these lands. But most of them are landless. So I approached the government. At the same time, I approached the community. What is a possible way to get the land? That land belongs to the government, but that land should be enjoyed by the people. They are all untouchable community. They are a totally neglected community in the village. I got land for each family today. >When I came to this village, sixty percent of the people were landless. Now today, almost every household has some piece of land. They said it was hopeless. Then I thought, I think we'll make it hopeful. >There are some who call Narsanna the Gandhi of permaculture, as he works tirelessly not only to regenerate wastelands into paradisiacal food forests. But has succeeded in obtaining land for many of the landless poor of the untouchable caste, who are at the very bottom of India’s social ladder. Some say that permaculture is a revolution disguised as organic gardening.
How do I best turn a piece of regular lawn into a space usable for gardening while still maintaining the soil composition and such?
>>15491 Cover it in mulch and/or compost and plant on top. Maybe cover it with cardboard or newspaper first before the winter to kill the grass. This guy has some instructional videos showing you how to do this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdvnNStmB1Q
>>15546 thanks I always thought the way to do it was just tearing off or digging up the top layer of grass, but I guess even that messes with the soil
>>15555 There's debate over best practices but generally it's best not to disrupt the soil more than necessary.
A bit of a long shot but does anyone have a spanish pdf of this ,i only found a Portuguese one ,or anything related to permaculture in Cuba would be greatly appreciated
>>12792 >but perhaps we should consider that 7 billion ( now going on 8 billion ) people is a little bit over carrying capacity Lmao no it's not you Malthusian fucktard, the earth can sustain many times our current population.
(90.64 KB 670x395 2259496-868545515.jpg)
>CAIRO: The start of the second phase of Egypt’s New Administrative Capital is underway, its chairman has said. >Maj. Gen. Ahmed Zaki Abdeen, chairman of the New Administrative Capital Company also said there are also plans to implement new proposals in an area of ​​47,000 feddans (48,778 acres). >Abdeen said the focus is now on attracting international brands in fields such as electronics, computing and electronic services. Different sectors in the capital will be divided into smaller “cities.” >He said the capital is communicating with major international companies like Microsoft and Amazon for the project. >Abdeen said there will be fewer residential neighborhoods in this phase compared with the first phase. The third phase of the new capital will be built on an area of ​​90,000 feddans (93,405 acres). >He said that the new presidential district, government district and headquarters of the House of Representatives will be completed by the end of the year, and that the presidential neighborhood will be ready to receive the Egyptian leader. >Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi has said he will exercise his duties from the new headquarters after June 2021. The government also plans to move to the government district at the same time. https://www.arabnews.com/node/1730476/middle-east
https://www.misfitsmarket.com/ is a useful service that you guys might want to use or take part in (sell extra veggies or something).
>>16590 >the earth can sustain many times our current population. show proof
(16.49 KB 300x300 DxD Breast Chimera.jpg)
>>13096 >>13188 >>13119 Got made into a banner candidate lol >>>/gulag/7919
>>19299 Do a google search, it's not that hard; first result https://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html >inb4 'muh planet support only a few billion' That is shit published by either rich fucks/their cronies like Business Insider, who are paid to say what fits their agenda of depopulation, because they hate the poor and uncontrolled workers who don't listen to them like unconditional robots.
>>19301 lol that article doesn't support what you're saying at all, maybe you should actually read it
(111.98 KB 744x559 dig.jpg)
(126.63 KB 640x487 Bamboo-keyboard.jpg)
I don’t know is that a good idea to post this on that board, but I will try... For some time I thought about the rightness to renounce certain forms of consumption as part of the fight against capitalism. I am able to understand that there are things that cannot be done without buying as new products, generating profit for private entrepreneurs, and they are needed in today's world. However, in my opinion, a consistent socialist should not feed this monster more than necessary. There is no NEED to buy an iPhone, coffee at Starbucks or a burger at McDonalds. It is worth mentioning some tips on how to survive in this mess. Every socialist should, in some sense be an ascetic. I've been getting more interested in gardening, and I was very disappointed to learn that most of the garden hoses have lead in them or other toxic chemicals that leach into the water, making it unsafe to drink. While searching for a perfectly safe garden hose, (which are nearly impossible to find), I discovered a non-profit website that has a lot of warnings on toxic chemicals in common consumer products. Do inform yourself so you can better protect yourself from hidden sources of pollution. https://www.ecocenter.org/healthy-stuff/ - You don't need a top-of-the-line smartphone if you have a laptop. A regular cell phone should be enough, today they have an internet browser installed to check basic things. And running applications from android or Ios is possible through PC emulators. Android applications can be downloaded without a Google account here: -You don't need new clothes. Today's second hand shops have good quality textiles. It is worth mentioning that today's clothes are made of low quality fabrics and fibers that tend to be easily damaged. And the dyes used in them are often harmful to the skin and are poorly primed, which causes the color to wash quickly. It is worth mentioning here that it is good not to wear clothes with visible manufacturer logos. Why should you be an ad as a socialist? It is worth decontaminating them after buying clothes. They can be boiled in a suitable powder or treated with an ozone generator (highly recommended during a pandemic). - Do you furnish the house? Take a look around the local flea market for old furniture. Often, such furniture is made of pure wood (not woodlike materials), and their presence and condition proves their strength. Be careful only on furniture that may have a bark beetle. Removing it with special chemistry is an additional expense. - Food. Look for small food stores, these are usually run by the family, or if you live in the countryside you can get along with local farmers running small farms. It is worth having your own garden. The best idea if you live in a city is to grow your own perennial herbs in pots. - You don't need a car. Today's public transport will take you anywhere you want, cheaper than if you bought fuel every time. However, this issue is very subjective and depends on many other factors. - Many electronics today are worth buying as used, often these antiques work for a very long time. For example, I'm currently using a 20-year-old microwave. The only devices that are not worth investing in are old computers and all Smart electronics due to their collection of quite sensitive data. Many people think that to get rid of the virus from a used computer, it is enough to replace the hard disk. This is a mistake - there are also viruses in the bios. - Use open source software. Many of them are doing great as an alternative to commercial software. - Cook dishes instead of ordering takeout. Use a Toaster Oven instead of a Microwave. - It is worth thinking about the production of cleaning products, it is not difficult. However, if you can't, then you should think about using ordinary bar soap for a bath or shower. And if you need something to clean your windows, a vinegar and water mixture is all you need. For washing the bathroom - baking soda. For washing clothes - a laundry ball, often as effective as powder and less wasteful Do you have any other recommendations, comrades? Link https://apps.evozi.com/apk-downloader/
>>19302 It does though. >the human population will stabilize between 9 billion and 10 billion. And the article is only assuming current methods of agriculture and ignoring both Permaculture and hydroponic aquaculture. See >>12885 >>12887 https://www.agritecture.com/blog/2019/1/6/how-hydroponics-can-help-feed-the-world-while-saving-water
>>19308 >the human population will stabilize between 9 billion and 10 billion. >the earth can sustain many times our current population. MATH NIGGA MATH 10 BILLION AINT MANY TIMES
>>19309 Like I said, 10 billion by CONVENTIONAL methods. Hydroponics and Permaculture is so fucking productive and effective that it can feed a lot more people than traditional farming methods.
“Dear Joseph Vissarionovich! The Soviet system has transformed the small undertaking which I started on a mean garden plot 60 years ago for breeding new fruit varieties and creating new plant organisms into a vast Union-wide centre of industrial fruit breeding and scientific plant breeding, with thousands of hectares of orchards, magnificent laboratories and facilities and dozens of highly skilled researchers. And myself, a lone experimenter, unrecognised and ridiculed by the official savants and bureaucrats of the tsarist Department of Agriculture, the Soviet system and the Party which you lead have made me the director and organiser of experiments with hundreds of thousands of plants. The Communist Party and the working class have given me everything I need – everything an experimenter can desire for his work. The dream of my whole life is coming true: the valuable new fruit-plant varieties which I have bred have gone from the experimental plots, not into the possession of a few kulak money-bags, but into the far-flung orchards of the collective and state farms, displacing old inferior varieties of low yield. The Soviet Government has conferred upon me the highest reward a citizen of our country can receive, by naming the town of Kozlov the town of Michurinsk, awarding me the Order of Lenin and publishing my works on an impressive scale. For all this, as a token of my gratitude, devotion and love, all of my 60 years’ work is dedicated to you, the beloved leader of the working masses who are building a new world, a world of joyous labour. Dear Joseph Vassarionovich! I am 80 years of age, but the creative energy surging among the millions of workers and peasants of the Soviet Union fills me too, old man that I am, with eagerness to live and work under your leadership for the good of the socialist development of our proletarian state. https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Мичурин,_Иван_Владимирович https://humus.livejournal.com/4744494.html
(2.73 MB 2760x1177 Z Hero Lysenko.jpg)
(12.25 KB 302x167 z lysenko Darwin 2.jpg)
(73.41 KB 565x300 z Lysenko Darwin 1.jpg)
>>19323 This was the father of Soviet agriculture and biological study. One of the people who were inspired by his work was Lysenko. As part of anti-sovietism the man who was researching then unknown sciences is often scorned today, including by leftists. The reality is somewhat different. Like Vavilov, his contributions are forgotten and dismissed and the fact that he was a respected man by many contemporaries is ignored. https://inbredscience.wordpress.com/essays/in-defense-of-lysenko/ http://www.rusproject.org/pages/analysis/analysis_10/nauka_lisenko_miron.pdf http://www.lalkar.org/article/295/lysenkosgreat-contribution-to-the-understandingof-heredity https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neretin/misc/biology/Zhivot.pdf The claim that some of Lysenko's ideas were disproven or false is meaningless. Darwin's work is also not perfect and has errors, as did famed biologists and naturalists like Lamarck and Cuvier. It is also interesting to note that in The Lysenko Controversy as a Global Phenomenon, Volume 1: Genetics and Agriculture in the Soviet Union and Beyond, Lysenko correctly identified Wheatrust's impact on the 1932 famine. (Pg 112, Tauger) Lysenko's biggest flaw would be his ideological obsession (something that much of /leftypol/ who dismiss Lysenko are ironically also afflicted with). Stalin removed all mention of “bourgeois biology” from one of Lysenko's reports, The State of Biology in the Soviet Union, and in the margin next to the statement that “any science is based on class” Stalin wrote, “Ha-ha-ha!! And what about mathematics? Or Darwinism?” (Rossianov, 1993). One of Lysenko's most outspoken critics was the East German geneticist Hans Stubbe (1902–1989), Director of the Institute of Crop Plant Research in Gatersleben, who demonstrated that Lysenko's experiments on graft hybridization were not reproducible and concluded that he was a fraud, vehemently fighting the influence of Lysenkoism in the German Democratic Republic (Hagemann, 2002). https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.1038/embor.2009.198 However Graft Hybridization is STILL being researched and debated to this day, and the fact that Rabbage (Radish + Cabbage hybrid) and other such hybrids were made, implies that they weren't totally off. >Inb4 he opposed Mendel So did many other scientists, Mendel's ideas of hereditary traits was a heavily debated topic of the time. Lysenkoism was a product of this. Lysenko was discovering things and had to analyze what was discovered by other scientists at that moment. Moreover Lysenko was not anti-Darwin, but was critical of some Darwin's views because they were Malthusian rubbish. Having read Origin of Species, this can be stated to be true to an extent, and Malthus is certainly an ideologue. Leone, Charles A. (1952). "Genetics: Lysenko versus Mendel". Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science. points out some issues > Lysenko claims to have changed a spring wheat to a winter wheat in two, three, or four years of autumn planting. He asserted that Triticum durum, the macaroni wheat, was transformed into several varieties of Triticum vulgare, the bread wheat. Plant breeders and cytologists generally regard: this transformation as genetically impossible. The conversion of the tetraploid species with 28 chromosomes to a hexaploid species with 42 chromosomes in itself would not be impossible. The difficulty arises from the fact that the 28-chromosome wheat (T. durum) has only genomes A and B while the 42-chromosome wheat (T. vulgare) has genomes A, B, and D. Genome D cannot in any way be derived from genomes A and B. Lysenko may have planted a mixed lot of seed which contained the seed of the 42-chromosome wheat, and selected for these over the period of the experiment. American plant breeders are well aware of the ease with which such seed contamination may occur, even to the extent of wheat-barley, and wheat-rye mixtures. Lysenko's rejection of this criticism of his work was based on hisrandom inspection of the seed to see that it all looked alike >In his book, Soviet Biology, Lysenko. (1948, p. 36) claims that "altered sections of the body of parent organisms always possess an altered heredity." He states that an altered twig or bud of a fruit tree, or the eye (bud) of a potato tuber, if cut away and grown separately (i.e. vegetatively propagated) as an independent plant will possess a changed heredity. Asseyava (1928, pp. 1-26), a countrywoman of Lysenko, investigated many such somatic mutations in potatoes and found in all cases that "the characters of the mutant are not transmitted through seed and its offspring are similar to the progeny of the original variety While his idea of Vernalization being hereditary wasn't correct, he essentially discovered that fact itself and moreover Lysenko nor Mendel didn't know about a phenomenon called Epigenics nor did they actually know the details about genes and DNA and how it functioned. Part of the reason he opposed Mendel was the theory of one Thomas Morgan, which held that genes were a real thing you could find, and that the key to understanding biology was to discover the real gene and isolate it in a lab. Morgan's work is where we discover the chromosome, which is accepted in modern genetics. A key thing to understand is that Darwin did not have a theory of genetics in his work, and the earliest research in genetics arguably began as an attack on Darwin and natural selection. In order for the theory of natural selection to work, it was literally impossible to have a static "gene" model for heredity without the possibility of mutation - which would mean, on some level, the "Lamarckian" theory of acquired inheritance had to be true, which is the centerpiece of attacks on Lysenko's theory. At no point was Lysenko saying "heredity is all bunk", it was commonly accepted by everyone that traits pass to offspring in a fairly regular way. It was more an attack on the genetics theories which, up to that point, had failed to make any meaningful progress in understanding biology or understanding what biological entities actually do. Even the aforementioned Morgan acknowledged that genetics was only really useful for understanding hereditary traits, and that the practical application would be genetic counseling (aka eugenics, still a prevailing belief in his lifetime). Lysenko made a lot of colorful claims and exaggerations to be sure. Here's a good PDF of how Lysenkoism influenced Japanese study of genetics and biology, which is quite critical of Lysenko but acknowledges the debate rather than just saying "DURRR LYSENKO DOESN'T BELIEVE IN THE SCIENCE": https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.856.2064&rep=rep1&type=pdf Today Genes are considered a theoretical construct in studies of heredity, not a "thing" you see in a microscope. If you're dealing with life at a chemical level, you're dealing with DNA, RNA. The abstract "gene" is used to look at hereditary traits, but you don't just splice in another "gene", because there's no bit of DNA you can isolate and say "this is a gene". If you're going to talk about something like "genetic engineering", what you're really talking about is working with DNA, or some sort of selective breeding process. It's pretty important to remember this if you're going to make claims about biology, biologists and the potential of genetic engineering or gene manipulation. I see the future in understanding what DNA is doing directly, and understanding the body mechanically in a better way than we do now. TL;DR: Lysenko actually did discover new information regarding crop developments; he correctly determined that certain crops can develop traits of resillience in a few generations if exposed to the right conditions. We now know this to be 100% true, so discrediting him completely is pretty reductive. He is just like any other communist figure ever to have existed; a lot of what you'll read on him is bourgeois propaganda, and while he obviously was in the wrong for many things you need to assess him more critically than just believing every lie about him.

Delete
Report

no cookies?